A Chronology of 

Middle Missouri Plains 

Village Sites

By Craig M. Johnson

with contributions by

Stanley A. Ahler, Herbert Haas, and Georges Bonani

Smithsonian Institution

Scholarly Press

Smithsonian Institution

Scholarly Press

The Winton M. Blount 

Postal History Symposia

Select Papers, 2006–2009

Thomas Lera

Editor

s m i t h s o n i a n c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o h i s t o ry a n d t e c h n o l o g y • n u m b e r 5 5
Series Publications of the Smithsonian Institution

Emphasis upon publication as a means of “diffusing knowledge” was 

expressed by the first Secretary of the Smithsonian. In his formal plan 

for the Institution, Joseph Henry outlined a program that included 

the following statement: “It is proposed to publish a series of reports, 

giving an account of the new discoveries in science, and of the changes 

made from year to year in all branches of knowledge.” This theme of 

basic research has been adhered to through the years by thousands of 

titles issued in series publications under the Smithsonian imprint, commencing with Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge in 1848 and 

continuing with the following active series: 

Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology

Smithsonian Contributions to Botany

Smithsonian Contributions to History and Technology

Smithsonian Contributions to the Marine Sciences

Smithsonian Contributions to Museum Conservation

Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology

Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology

In these series, the Institution publishes small papers and full-scale 

monographs that report on the research and collections of its various 

museums and bureaus. The Smithsonian Contributions Series are 

distributed via mailing lists to libraries, universities, and similar institutions throughout the world. 

Manuscripts submitted for series publication are received by the 

Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press from authors with direct affiliation with the various Smithsonian museums or bureaus and are subject 

to peer review and review for compliance with manuscript preparation 

guidelines. General requirements for manuscript preparation are on the 

inside back cover of printed volumes. For detailed submissions requirements and to review our manuscript preparation and style guides for 

authors, visit the Submissions page at www.scholarlypress.si.edu.
smithsonian contributions to history and technology • number 55

washington d.c.

2010

The Winton M. Blount 

Postal History Symposia

Select Papers, 2006–2009

Thomas Lera

Editor
Cover images are objects from the Smithsonian National Postal Museum Collection. From left to right: 

envelope with ten-cent black Washington stamp (Scott 2) mailed from Doakesville, Ark, 1850 (NPM 

2003.2019.7); Leather satchel for letter carriers, ca. 1920–1950 (NPM 1992.2002.70) Parcel Airlift Issue 

(Scott 1341) used for parcels being mailed to servicemen in Vietnam 1968 (NPM 1980.2493.571). 

Published by Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press

P.O. Box 37012

MRC 957

Washington, D.C. 20013-7012

www.scholarlypress.si.edu

Text and images in this publication may be protected by copyright and other restrictions or owned by individuals 

and entities other than, and in addition to, the Smithsonian Institution. Fair use of copyrighted material includes 

the use of protected materials for personal, educational, or noncommercial purposes. Users must cite author and 

source of content, must not alter or modify content, and must comply with all other terms or restrictions that may 

be applicable. Users are responsible for securing permission from a rights holder for any other use.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Winton M. Blount Postal History Symposia.

The Winton M. Blount Postal History Symposia : select papers, 2006-2009 / Thomas Lera, editor.

 p. cm. — (Smithsonian contributions to history and technology ; no. 55)

Includes bibliographical references.

1. Postal service—History—Congresses. 2. Postage stamps—History—Congresses. I. Lera, Thomas M. II. Title. 

HE6041.W56 2010

383’.49--dc22

2010016338

ISSN (print): 1948-5999

ISSN (online): 1948-6006 

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for 

Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials Z39.48–1992.
Contents

LETTER FROM THE DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL 

POSTAL MUSEUM v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS vii

INTRODUCTION 1

The Political Economy of Postal Reform in the Victorian Age 3

Richard R. John

FIRST SYMPOSIUM—WHAT IS POSTAL HISTORY? 

(NOVEMBER 3–4, 2006) 

Introduction 13

 Thomas Lera

“Little Colored Bits of Paper” Collected in the Progressive Era 15

 Sheila A. Brennan

WWI Philatelic Censuses of East Africa 23

 John Kevin Doyle

Explorations in the Official Register: Statistical Analysis 

 of Postmaster Compensation Data from 19th Century 

 New Hampshire 29

 Terence Hines and Thomas Velk

SECOND SYMPOSIUM—FURTHER, FARTHER, FASTER: 

TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY AND THE MAIL 

(OCTOBER 20–21, 2007) 

Introduction 37

 Thomas Lera

Zeppelin Posts at the 1933 Chicago World’s Fair: Integrating 

 Collector and Historian Methodologies 39

 Cheryl R. Ganz
THIRD SYMPOSIUM—WHEN THE MAIL GOES TO WAR

(SEPTEMBER 26–27, 2008) 

Introduction 47

 Thomas Lera

“Food Will Win the War”: Motor Trucks and the Farm-To-Table 

 Postal Delivery Program, 1917–1918 49

 Robert G. Cullen

Philatelic Propaganda: A Case Study—Border Changes in 

 Eastern Europe, 1938–1941 59

 Robin Gates Elliott

Picking Up the Pieces: The Aftermath of Hiroshima 71

 Janet Klug

Postal Censorship and Military Intelligence during World War II 81

 Ann Elizabeth Pfau

FOURTH SYMPOSIUM—POSTAL REFORM 

(OCTOBER 30–NOVEMBER 1, 2009)

Introduction 91

 Thomas Lera

The 1895 Provisional and Bisect Postage Due Stamps: 

 A Result of the Transfer of Stamp Production to the BEP? 93

 Harry K. Charles, Jr.

Sunday Mail Controversy, Postal Reform, and Mail 

 Transportation 105

 Diane DeBlois and Robert Dalton Harris

“Why Is a Raven Like a Writing Desk?” Post Office Reform, 

 Collectible Commodities, and Victorian Culture 121

 Catherine J. Golden

America’s First Carrier Service: The U.S. City Despatch Post 131

 Larry Lyons

The U.S. 1847 Issue: Stamps That Changed the System 141

 Harvey Mirsky

From the Pulpit to the Post: Anti-Clericalism and 

 Communication in Orizaba, 1857–1867 147

 Rachel A. Moore

Cheap Postage: A Tool for Social Reform 155

 David L. Straight

ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS 165
July 1, 2010 

It is my great pleasure to introduce the Selected Proceedings of the Postal History Symposia. The first of these symposia 

was named after Winton M. Blount, the first Postmaster General of the United States Postal Service. Through his generous 

endowment to the Smithsonian National Postal Museum (NPM), the Center for Postal Studies and the Chair-in-Research 

was created in his name in 2006. 

The success of the Postal History Symposia was due in large part to the support and assistance of our partners: the 

American Philatelic Society (APS), American Philatelic Research Library (APRL), NPM Council of Philatelists and the 

NPM Museum Advisory Council.

I would like to thank all of the philatelists, scholars, and industry leaders who presented at the first four symposia. 

Their research and presentations created an environment in which everyone enjoyed participating in each panel.

Special thanks are due to the symposium co-chairs Thomas Lera (NPM), David Straight (APS), and Virginia Horn 

(APRL). Without their efforts, the symposia would not have been the great success they were.

If you enjoy these papers, as much as I hope you will, please consider participating in, or at least attending, the future 

postal history symposia. Check our website for the dates and location of future symposia.

Allan Kane

Director, Smithsonian National Postal Museum

Letter from the Director

The symposium would not be a success without the help and encouragement from many people. At the top of the 

list is Allen Kane, Director of the National Postal Museum (NPM), who provided support and persuaded industry 

leaders to be plenary keynote speakers. Next I would like to thank the NPM Council of Philatelists and the NPM 

Museum Advisory Council for their assistance, and all of the staff at NPM who helped at the symposium over the past 

years. 

The symposia could not have happened without the help and co-sponsorship of Ken Martin, executive director, David 

Straight, vice-president, and the staff of the American Philatelic Society and Gini Horn and the staff at the American Philatelic Research Library. 

I would also like to thank the scholars who completed peer reviews. Their knowledge of philately and postal operations along with their suggestions and comments greatly improved the papers.

Finally, I thank Ginger Strader, scholarly publications manager, and Deborah Stultz, publications specialist, both of the 

Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press, whose guidance, support, and review is much appreciated.

Acknowledgments

I

n November 2005, in the quiet corner of the hotel bar at ChicagoPex, the 

annual World Series of Philately stamp show in Chicago, David L. Straight, 

then an American Philatelic Society (APS) director, and Cheryl R. Ganz, curator 

at the Smithsonian National Postal Museum (NPM), discussed the state of postal 

scholarship in America. They agreed that academic scholars rarely connected with 

philatelic scholars. On a paper napkin, they outlined the idea for a postal history 

symposium that would bring together researchers from all disciplines.

Postal history is the study of postal systems, how they operate and/or the collecting of covers and associated material illustrating historical episodes of postal systems. 

The term is attributed to Robson Lowe who made the first organized study of the 

subject in the 1930s and described philatelists as “students of science”, but postal 

historians as “students of humanity”.

Postal history includes the study of postal rates, postal policy, postal administration, political effects on postal systems, postal surveillance and the consequences of 

politics, business, and culture on postal systems; basically anything to do with the 

function of the collection, transportation, and delivery of mail. 

The first symposium “What is Postal History?” took place in November 2006. 

In the opening plenary panel, Michael Laurence representing the philatelic perspective said, “In the philatelic vocabulary, postal history describes envelopes or folded 

letter sheets that have passed through the mails.”

Richard R. John, a professor at the University of Illinois in Chicago, followed 

with, “For historians, postal history is the empirically grounded investigation in 

space and time of a vital, yet often neglected, communications medium. Topics inviting exploration include postal policy, postal administration, postal surveillance, political movements in which postal systems become entangled, and the consequences 

of postal systems for politics, business, and culture.”

John Willis, historian at the Canadian Postal Museum, gave the museum perspective and stated, “Museum curators take a broad territory of research and interpret it for the benefit of the public via exhibitions. Objects in a postal collection 

become supporting documents of the postal past. Letters, envelopes, stamps, and 

writing implements are devices that help establish a rapport between a particular 

theme of history and the public.”

Maynard H. Benjamin, president and CEO, Envelope Manufacturers Association, the last speaker of the panel, ended with the business perspective, stating, 

Introduction
2 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

“Businesses see their postal history as a celebration of past 

achievements and a springboard for future innovations. Postal 

history includes the evolution of technologies and manufacturing processes for sorting and moving the mail.”

These four perspectives sparked conversations to find 

common ground, share resources, and inspire new research.

This first symposium was named in honor of Winton M. 

Blount who, in 1969, became postmaster general in President 

Richard M. Nixon’s cabinet and put an end to the patronage 

appointment of postmaster vacancies (Figure 1). In 1971, he 

presided over the shift of the U.S. Post Office from a cabinet 

department to the United States Postal Service, a nonprofit, 

government-owned corporation, and became its first chairman. Later, he endowed the Smithsonian National Postal Museum with The Winton M. Blount Center for Postal Studies 

and the Winton M. Blount Research Chair.

For the past four years, the location of the symposium 

has alternated between the NPM in Washington, D. C., and 

the American Philatelic Center in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania. 

The four symposiums were:

• “What is Postal History?” in Washington D. C. on 

November 3–4, 2006

• “Further, Farther, Faster: Transportation Technology and the Mail” in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania on 

October 21–22, 2007

• “When the Mail Goes to War” in Washington, 

D. C. on September 27–28, 2008

• “Post Office Reform” in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania 

on October 30–November 1, 2009

There have been more than sixty papers presented, many 

of which have gone on to be published in various academic 

and philatelic journals. The papers presented here have not 

been previously published. The theme of the symposium 

follows a collaborative, interdisciplinary approach which is 

discussed by various panels. Details on the symposiums and 

panels can be found on the NPM web site under Research / 

Symposiums http://www.postalmuseum.si.edu/symposiums/

index.html. 

Thomas Lera, NPM Winton M. Blount Research Chair

David L. Straight, APS Vice-President 

Virginia L. Horn, American Philatelic Research Library 

Director of Library Services

Figure 1. Winton M. Blount, United States Postmaster General 

from 1969–1972. Courtesy of the National Postal Museum Library, 

Smithsonian Institution Libraries.
The Political Economy of Postal Reform 

in the Victorian Age

Richard R. John

The mid-nineteenth century postal reform movements in Great Britain and 

the United States were superficially similar, yet substantively different. 

The similarities were obvious. In both countries, postal reformers called 

for a radical reduction in postal rates, an innovation that they termed “cheap 

postage.” In both countries, cheap postage was dependent on the enactment of 

legislation, since, at this time, both postal systems were owned and operated by 

the central government. In both countries cheap postage became law: in Great 

Britain, postal rates were restructured in 1840; in the United States, in 1845 and 

1851. And in both countries, cheap postage led to a huge increase in the number 

of letters sent through the mail at a time when letter-writing was the primary medium for the circulation of long-distance information by the general population. 

The differences between the campaigns for cheap postage in Great Britain 

and the United States were subtler, yet considerable. In Great Britain, the rationale for cheap postage was market-based, in keeping with the tenets of an 

emerging tradition in political economy that political economists called liberal, 

and that would later be dubbed laissez-faire. By limiting the taxes that the central government imposed on letter postage, reformers contended, lawmakers 

hoped to more closely match the cost of mailing a letter with the price that the 

government charged for its delivery. In the United States, in contrast, the rationale for cheap postage was civic, or what the founders of the American republic 

might have called republican. By expanding the mandate of the central government to embrace the low-cost circulation not only of newspapers and magazines, but also of letters, lawmakers empowered individuals to circulate at low 

cost information on personal matters as well as public affairs and market trends. 

This mandate was in no sense market-based since it entailed the legal suppression of rival non-governmental mail carriers, and the extension to a new class of 

postal items—that is, letters—based on the presumption that, if necessary, the 

cost of their circulation would be paid for out of the treasury. This presumption 

was codified with the enactment of the Post Office Act of 1851, which obliged 

the Post Office Department to maintain the existing level of service even if this 

obligation forced it to draw on the treasury for support.1

The origins, character, and legacy of the campaigns for cheap postage in 

Great Britain and the United States raise a number of questions that are worthy 

of careful historical scrutiny. Who supported these campaigns? What was their 
4 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

rationale? What were their consequences for public and 

private life? These are large questions, and ones that this 

essay cannot possibly answer in a definitive way. Yet they 

are worth posing, since their answers provide a context for 

understanding later innovations in communications that 

ranged from the rise of commercial broadcasting to the 

commercialization of the internet.

The most tireless promoter of cheap postage in Great 

Britain was the educational reformer Rowland Hill (Figure 1). Beginning in the mid-1830s, Hill lobbied energetically to convince his countrymen of the benefits of a 

radical decrease in the basic letter rate. The British government at this time regarded its postal system as a branch of 

the treasury and postage as a tax. The British post office 

was expected to generate a large annual surplus—which, 

invariably, it did—which the treasury used to cover the 

costs of running the government. In fact, the British post 

office would not run its first annual deficit until 1955.2 By 

linking the actual cost of mail delivery to the price a postal 

patron paid to send a letter, Hill reasoned, the treasury 

could simultaneously lower postal rates and increase the 

total revenue it obtained. 

Cheap postage had the further benefit of curtailing the 

special privileges that the British government lavished on 

the well-to-do. High letter postage was not only inept fiscal policy, but also a regressive tax that fell most heavily 

on the middle class and the poor. Rich aristocrats had little trouble obtaining free passes, known as “franks,” that 

permitted them to mail letters at no cost to themselves. 

Franks were harder to obtain by the middle class and unknown to the poor. Cheap postage would, as it were, level 

the playing field by providing the many with facilities that 

had formerly been a perquisite of the few. 

The principal features of Hill’s reform—mandatory 

prepayment, the rollout of the now-ubiquitous postage stamp, and the reduction in the basic letter rate to a 

penny—might seem prosaic enough. Yet in the years following their introduction in 1840, many well-informed 

contemporaries hailed them as a triumph of civilization, 

an assessment that would be seconded by influential historians for over one hundred years. 

The campaign for cheap letter postage in Great Britain coincided with a parallel campaign to reduce the taxes 

that the government charged on newspapers. Taxed newspapers paid fees that permitted them to be circulated in 

the mail; the rest of the newspaper press, in contrast, had 

to rely on other, non-postal means of conveyance. These 

fees often took the form of non-adhesive labels called 

“stamps”—a confusing term, in retrospect, since these labels were very different from the adhesive stamps that Hill 

advocated, and that the British post office began to issue 

in 1840. The proprietors of the unstamped newspapers 

resented their exclusion from the mail and lobbied Parliament to change the law. The “war of the unstamped,” as 

the resulting political contest has come to be known, is 

typically studied in isolation from the campaign for cheap 

postage. As a consequence, many questions remain. Did 

the war of the unstamped antedate the campaign for cheap 

postage and, thus, serve as a precedent for reformers like 

Hill? Or was it the other way around? Or were the two 

movements fundamentally distinct? Whatever the answers 

to these questions turn out to be, it remains suggestive 

that the two reform movements shared a common grievance—that is, that the cost of circulating information was 

too high—as well as a common remedy—that the price of 

mailing a posted item should bear a discernible relationship to the cost of its circulation. 

Figure 1. Postal reformer Rowland Hill.
n u m b e r 5 5 • 5

Further questions are raised if the war of the unstamped is located in a transatlantic context. The campaign for cheap postage is typically understood as having 

originated in Great Britain and only later spread to the 

United States. In the war of the unstamped, however, 

British reformers looked to the United States, and with 

good reason. The U.S. Post Office Department admitted 

newspapers into the mail on a non-preferential basis beginning in 1792. Henceforth, postal administrators were 

proscribed from discriminating between one newspaper 

and another. The British post office, in contrast, would 

not begin to put its newspaper press on an analogous footing until 1836.3

Hill’s priorities shaped the ways in which the campaign for cheap postage would come to be remembered. 

For many decades after 1840, historians echoed Hill’s 

contention that the consequences of cheap postage were 

far-reaching. The “social and economic results” of this innovation, exulted the British cultural historian Llewellyn 

Woodward in 1938, were “beyond calculation.”4

 The hostility of British aristocrats toward cheap postage, Woodward elaborated, owed much to the studied indifference 

toward material considerations of a haughty elite. Aristocrats, Woodward recounted, arrogantly regarded it as 

“beneath their dignity to understand anything about a 

penny.”5

Woodward was by no means alone in his admiration 

for cheap postage. French historian Marc Bloch regarded 

as highly consequential the comparable innovations that 

had occurred at roughly the same time in France. “When 

I ask for timbres [that is, adhesive postage stamps] at my 

post-office window,” Bloch observed in 1940, “I am able 

to use that term only because of recent technical changes, 

such as the organization of the postal service itself, and the 

substitution of a little gummed piece for the stamping of a 

postmark. These have revolutionized human communications.”6

 The British political historian David Thompson 

found particularly notable the consequences of cheap postage for political reform. Cheap postage, Thompson observed in a history of nineteenth-century England that he 

published in 1950, had given the Anti-Corn-Law League a 

“new means” of “disseminating its propaganda,” an innovation that hastened a dramatic reduction in 1846 in the 

import duty on wheat, or what the English called corn.7

Woodward, Bloch, and Thompson reflected the consensus of the generation of historians who came of age in 

the years preceding the Second World War. More recent 

historians have been more circumspect. To be sure, in his 

justly celebrated Age of Revolution, 1789–1848 (1962) 

E. J. Hobsbawm did hail Hill’s “brilliant invention” of a 

“standardized charge for postal matter.”8 Yet Hobsbawm 

attributed no particular consequences to Hill’s innovation, 

an omission that, in more recent years, has become the 

norm. Monographs on specialized topics in British postal 

history abound.9 Even so, the campaign for cheap postage 

has failed to take its place alongside free trade and Catholic emancipation in the annals of Victorian reform. More 

broadly, the postal system itself no longer commends itself 

to historians as an agent of change. The institution, for example, goes unmentioned in several well-regarded recent 

overviews of nineteenth-century British history. From the 

standpoint of the generalist, the British post office is, at 

best, a bit player on the historical stage.10

Postal reformers in the United States shared Hill’s 

conviction that cheap postage mattered. In fact, if anything, they were even more inclined to wax rhapsodic in 

pondering its consequences for public and private life. The 

moral effects of cheap postage were a preoccupation of 

Joshua Leavitt, an evangelical Protestant minister-turnednewspaper editor who combined a faith in postal reform 

with a hatred of slavery (Figure 2). The British Parliament 

had lowered postal rates and freed the slaves: why could 

not the U.S. Congress follow its lead? 

The relationship between cheap postage and abolition 

was for Leavitt far from incidental. Of what consequence 

was it to “nine tenths of our population,” Leavitt editorialized in 1844, “that time and space are half killed, while 

the absurd United States mail nuisance continues? Time is 

annihilated, you say? Why a common man cannot carry 

on a moderate correspondence with his friends, scattered 

as they usually are, without consuming his whole time 

to earn the money to pay for it.” Cheap postage, Leavitt 

elaborated, had ironically become a rallying cry for certain 

publications, such as the New York City-based Journal of 

Commerce, for whom abolitionism remained anathema. 

Yet by championing cheap postage, the Journal was endorsing a political reform that, by empowering ordinary 

people to circulate information over long distances, was 

“dealing blows unwittingly at slavery”: “Give us the British system of postage and slavery is dead.”11

The candor with which Leavitt linked cheap postage 

and abolition was unusual. Yet his faith in the emancipatory potential of cheap postage was not. The campaign 

united thousands of Americans in a common cause. Newspapers in New York City, Boston, Philadelphia, and many 

other commercial centers ran frequent editorials on the 

topic, and postal patrons flooded Congress with petitions 

demanding a host of postal reforms—including, above all, 

a reduction in the basic letter rate.12 This well-organized 

protest preceded, and almost certainly hastened, the 
6 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

enactment of two laws—the Post Office Act of 1845 and 

the Post Office Act of 1851—which instituted a host of 

reforms that include, in addition to a steep reduction in 

the basic letter rate, the rollout of the first postage stamps.

Under other circumstances, the campaign for cheap 

postage in the United States might have taken its place 

in the historical imagination alongside the better-known 

reform movements of the period: temperance, abolition, 

women’s rights. Yet it did not. The only general history of 

the United States to treat the campaign for cheap postage 

in detail is John Bach McMaster’s History of the People of 

the United States, and it was published over a century ago 

in 1910. McMaster heaped praise on the movement, yet 

he failed to link it to any larger theme—such as, for example, evangelical reform or abolition—that might have 

increased the likelihood that it would become incorporated into general accounts of the American past.13

McMaster’s treatment of postal reform was the exception that proved the rule. None of his contemporaries 

treated the campaign for cheap postage in any detail. Henry 

Adams, for example, ignored it entirely in his Education, 

which Adams had completed by 1907, even though it can 

be credibly argued to have been no less important an innovation than the three events of the mid-1840s that Adams 

credited with throwing into an “ash heap” the political 

universe of his youth: namely, the commercialization of 

the telegraph, the spanning of the Appalachian mountains 

by the railroad, and the first regularly scheduled transAtlantic steamship.14

Adams’s priorities became the conventional wisdom. 

For historians of the United States, not only the campaign 

for cheap postage—but also the history of the mail—were 

long topics that they felt safe to ignore. Had Cornell history professor J. B. Bretz published his long-promised 

history of the U.S. Post Office Department in the early 

republic, a project that originated in Bretz’s 1906 Ph. D. 

history dissertation at the University of Chicago, it is conceivable that the situation might have been different. Yet 

Bretz sat on his manuscript for his entire academic career. 

Bretz’s dissertation has disappeared, making it impossible 

to know how he might have treated the campaign for 

cheap postage, or even if he would have taken his story 

up to the 1840s. In all likelihood, he would not: the two 

essays that he cobbled out of his dissertation focused on 

the period before the adoption of the federal Constitution 

in 1788 and the War of 1812.15 Yet this much is known: 

Bretz never published his magnum opus, and the opportunity passed. Not until the 1990s would any topics in the 

history of the American postal system begin to attract sustained attention, and it would not be until the very recent 

past that the institution would figure in a more than incidental way in synthetic overviews of the American past.16

Modern historical writing on the American postal 

system began with the publication in 1972 of Wayne E. 

Fuller’s American Mail—a thoughtful topical survey of 

American postal history from the colonial era onward. 

Fuller’s overview included a cursory discussion of the 

campaign for cheap postage, which he analyzed through a 

neo-progressive lens as a victory of the “people” over the 

“interests.” While Fuller’s account has much to commend 

it, he was, in the end, less concerned with the campaign 

for cheap postage than with its implications for postal 

finance.17 More recently, Fuller’s Morality and the Mail

expanded our understanding of several related nineteenthcentury reform movements, including Sabbatarianism and 

Figure 2. Joshua Leavitt. Photograph by unidentified photographer. From Portraits of American Abolitionists. Courtesy of the 

Massachusetts Historical Society, Photo 81.404.
n u m b e r 5 5 • 7

anti-pornography, without putting either the campaign for 

cheap postage or its consequences on center stage.18 Most 

recent of all, David M. Henkin traced the consequences 

of postal reform, though not the cheap postage campaign 

itself, in his engaging Postal Age.

19 Even so, much remains 

to be done. Specialists in nineteenth-century U.S. history 

have long been aware of the prodigious paper trail that 

the campaign for cheap postage generated, yet, as the wellknown nineteenth-century historian Eric Foner recently 

observed, no one has yet fit it into a broader historical 

context.20 The significance of cheap postage is underplayed even by Joshua Leavitt’s biographer, Hugh Davis. 

From Davis’s point of view, Leavitt’s campaign for cheap 

postage was overshadowed by, and largely unrelated to, 

his crusade against slavery.21 Even Fuller and Henkin are 

ultimately less interested in tracing the origins, character, 

and legacy of the campaign for cheap postage than in mining the documents that the movement generated to generalize about postal policy and cultural trends.

Here lies a conundrum. In both Great Britain and the 

United States, contemporaries hailed the campaign for 

cheap postage as an epochal reform. Yet almost never have 

historians explored the origins, character, or legacies of 

these campaigns in any detail. As a consequence, they have 

been largely ignored. The early modern historian Elizabeth 

L. Eisenstein tackled a related challenge in her justly acclaimed Printing Press as an Agent of Change. Frustrated 

by the hype that had enveloped the invention of printing, 

Eisenstein traced the influence of this communications medium on three pivotal events in western civilization: the 

Renaissance, the Protestant Reformation, and the Scientific 

Revolution. No historian has undertaken an analogous investigation of the campaign for cheap postage in Great Britain and the United States. Might it not be time for someone 

to write a history of cheap postage as an “agent of change”?

Of the many dimensions of the campaign for cheap 

postage that would seem to be worthy of exploration, 

three would seem to hold special promise. These are its 

rationale; the process by which it was enacted; and its 

consequences for public and private life. Of these three 

themes, the consequences of cheap postage is the most ambitious and the hardest to pin down. Historians since the 

1990s have become cognizant of the political, economic, 

and cultural consequences of the Post Office Act of 1792, 

while, in 2000, historian of technology Daniel E. Headrick posited that two postal “revolutions” transformed the 

West, one in the 1790s and one in the 1840s.22 The first of 

these postal revolutions is no longer obscure; the second, 

however, remains—at least in the United States—largely 

unknown.23 In both Great Britain and the United States, 

cheap postage hastened a huge increase in letter writing. 

How might this increase have shaped the identity of letter 

writers? What implications might it have had for other 

dimensions of public and private life?

It would be anachronistic to compare cheap postage 

with the communications innovations of the recent past, 

an age in which letter-writing is enjoying an unexpected 

revival, due first to email, and, more recently, to social 

network applications such as Facebook and Twitter. Yet 

there should be no hesitation about comparing the midnineteenth century “communications revolution” with 

what came before—and, in particular, in asking how cheap 

postage shaped an informational environment in which 

letter-writing previously had been expensive, and, in Great 

Britain, the circulation of newspapers limited by onerous 

taxes designed, at least in part, to prevent ordinary people 

from gaining access to information on public affairs.24

While the consequences of cheap postage are hard to 

isolate, the process by which it was enacted is better suited 

to historical inquiry. Here it might make sense to begin 

with the reformers themselves. Hill and Leavitt were but 

two members of a small but determined cadre of postal reformers. In Great Britain, their counterparts included the 

reformist MP Robert Wallace and the career civil servant 

Henry Cole; in the United States, the anarchist Lysander 

Spooner and the anti-monopolist Barnabas Bates. 

While much remains to be learned about these reformers, a few tentative generalizations can be ventured. Cheap 

postage enthusiasts in Great Britain often had close ties to 

the government; their counterparts in the United States, 

in contrast, did not. In large part for this reason, British 

postal reformers had less trouble enlisting lawmakers to 

generate the data necessary for an informed debate on the 

merits of the proposed reform. Postal administrators in the 

United States generated mountains of postal data, yet few 

lawmakers used this data to make the case for cheap postage, and no legislative hearings probed its implications. The 

most incisive public debate over cheap postage in Great 

Britain took place in Parliament; the best-informed public 

debate in the United States took place in the press—and, 

in particular, in the publications of postal reformers like 

Leavitt, Spooner, and Bates. This contrast helps to account 

for some of the differences not only in the evolution of the 

cheap postage campaigns in the two countries, but also in 

the ways they have come to be remembered. 

In his celebrated 1837 brief for cheap postage, Post Office Reform: Its Importance and Practicality, Hill drew on 

data generated by Parliament. Leavitt, Spooner, and Bates, 

in contrast, had no comparable body of data to conjure 

with. Postal data was abundant. Yet contemporaries used 
8 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

it mostly to speculate about the likely implications of cheap 

postage for public finance. The potential benefits of letterrate reductions for postal users were downplayed not only 

by legislators, but also by almost every postal administrator who considered the issue. The principal exception was 

John M. Niles, a one-time Hartford, Connecticut, postmaster who served briefly as postmaster general in 1840 

and 1841. Niles championed cheap postage in his 1840 

annual report, to which he appended a prescient report on 

American postal finance by post office special agent George 

Plitt. The Plitt report had been originally commissioned by 

Niles’s predecessor, Amos Kendall—a capable administrator who had briefly flirted with postal reform in the 1830s. 

Yet Kendall eventually changed his mind, and the Plitt report played, at best, a marginal role in the congressional 

debate over cheap postage in the years to come.25

Hill was, of course, an outsider when he published 

Post Office Reform in 1837. Soon thereafter, however, he 

obtained an appointment in the treasury and following a 

brief hiatus, he obtained a high-level position in the British post office that he retained for almost twenty years. 

No American postal reformer ever obtained a comparable government position. In fact, high-ranking American 

postal administrators were, almost without exception, 

hostile to postal reform. The campaign for cheap postage 

was ridiculed in the 1840s by John Tyler’s postmaster general Charles Wickliffe, James K. Polk’s postmaster general, 

Cave Johnson, and the veteran postal administrators Selah 

Hobbie and John Stuart Skinner.26 Even Amos Kendall 

challenged the rationale for cheap postage, reversing a position that he had taken as postmaster general in 1836.27

The hostility of U.S. postal administrators toward postal 

reform was epitomized by the publication, in 1844, of 

an anonymous pamphlet ridiculing cheap postage.28 This 

pamphlet had the imprimatur of the Tyler administration: 

it was reprinted, for example, in its official administration 

newspaper, the Madisonian.29 Although no one in the Post 

Office Department claimed credit for this document, Bates 

was probably right to assume that it had been written by 

a postal administrator.30 The hostility of American postal 

administrators toward postal reform goes far toward explaining why cheap postage remained obscure. Had Bates 

lived longer—he died suddenly in 1853 at the age of sixtyeight—or had Leavitt and Spooner enjoyed closer ties to 

the levers of power, it is conceivable that a triumphalist 

narrative would have emerged—with, conceivably, a hero 

like Hill. Yet they did not, and it did not.

It is beyond the scope of this essay to provide a detailed 

analysis of the process by which postal reform was enacted 

in Great Britain and the United States. Yet this much seems 

plain. In both countries, the railroad and the steamboat 

created a new communications channel that made some 

kind of legislation inevitable. In both countries the campaign for cheap postage had considerable popular support; 

and in both it culminated in the enactment of legislation 

that mandated a major reduction in the basic letter rate. 

Even so, the similarities between postal reform in 

Great Britain and the United States are easily exaggerated. Postal reform in Great Britain and the United States 

emerged in different political economies that shaped their 

legacies in ways both large and small. The campaign for 

cheap postage in Great Britain drew at least part of its inspiration from the campaign to expand popular access to 

newspapers, a reform that, in the United States, had been 

accomplished almost fifty years earlier with the enactment 

of the Post Office Act of 1792. 

Equally notable was the contrasting relationship in 

the two countries between postal reform and postal finance. In Great Britain, postal reformers campaigned for 

cheap postage secure in the knowledge that even a radical 

reduction in the basic letter rate was not likely to throw 

the post office on the support of the treasury. The British post office generated a substantial surplus, it is worth 

underscoring, not only before Rowland Hill’s reforms, but 

also for over a century after they were enacted. True, as 

the historian of British taxation Martin J. Daunton has 

astutely observed, Hill was overly optimistic in his estimation of the revenue increase that cheap postage would 

bring.31 Yet a surplus remained. In the United States, in 

contrast, the Post Office Acts of 1845 and 1851 preceded 

a long period in which the Post Office Department generated a large annual deficit that obliged legislators to 

borrow from the treasury to cover the shortfall, a pattern 

that would remain the norm until the establishment of 

the U. S. Postal Service in 1970. Explanations differed as 

to the cause of this deficit. Some blamed the reduction of 

letter-postage; others the continuation of a perquisite for 

lawmakers known as the “franking” privilege. Either way, 

one conclusion was incontestable: Congress paid far more 

to facilitate the circulation of information in the United 

States than Parliament did in Great Britain.

The precarious financial position of the U.S. Post Office Department highlights yet another contrast between 

the campaign for cheap postage in Great Britain and the 

United States, and that was its spatial logic. In Great 

Britain, postal reformers presumed that cheap postage 

would benefit regions on the periphery of the country’s 

political and commercial center of London. Not surprisingly, a number of prominent reformers—including Hill 

and Wallace—hailed from the hinterland. Hill was from 
n u m b e r 5 5 • 9

Birmingham; Wallace from Scotland. In the United States, 

in contrast, postal reformers presumed that cheap postage 

would disproportionately benefit the country’s principal 

commercial centers—including, in particular, New York 

City, Philadelphia, and Boston. Not surprisingly, the campaign for cheap postage in the United States had far more 

support in the thickly settled North and East than in the 

thinly settled South and West. In fact, legislators from the 

South and West feared, entirely plausibly, that if revenue 

failed to match costs, they might find themselves obliged 

to curtail the massive newspaper and stagecoach subsidies 

that their constituents currently enjoyed. 

Just as the process of postal reform in Great Britain 

and the United States differed, so too did its rationale. 

Postal reform in Great Britain had much in common with 

the abolition of the Corn Laws and the ancillary economic 

innovations that ushered in a political economy that contemporaries termed liberal. Hill himself was very much as 

part of this tradition. Like a small yet influential cohort of 

self-proclaimed radicals whose ranks included the utilitarian political theorist Jeremy Bentham, Hill endorsed the 

then-novel moral philosophy that posited that the purpose 

of government was to promote the greatest good of the 

greatest number. Hill traveled in some of the same reformist circles as Bentham, and, like Bentham, was determined 

to simplify government and make it more economical. Hill 

did not regard cheap postage as a subsidy for the poor, for 

a region, or even for a specific kind of mail.32 Rather, he 

favored it as economically sound. Like popular education, 

competitive capitalism, and representative democracy, it 

would limit the power of the few to take unfair advantage 

of the many. In fact, Hill went so far as to endorse the abolition of the postal monopoly, a position that was hard to 

reconcile with the endorsement of internal cross-subsidies 

of any kind.33

In the United States, in contrast, the rationale for 

postal reform was more expansive. Here cheap postage was championed not as an economic innovation 

that would match cost to price, but, rather, as a public 

good—or what a later generation would call an entitlement. Congress had facilitated the low-cost circulation of 

information on public affairs in 1792 when it admitted 

newspapers into the mail at low cost, and it had permitted Postmaster General John McLean to surreptitiously 

expand this mandate in 1825 to embrace information on 

market trends.34 Now, or so the champions of cheap postage contended, Congress had an obligation to extend this 

mandate to information on personal matters such as the 

health of a distant relative. Postal reform in the United 

States, in short, was intended to promote the well-being of 

the citizenry, rather than to limit the role of government 

in personal affairs. In Great Britain, cheap postage was 

backed by legislators who endorsed the abolition of the 

Corn Laws; in the United States, by legislators who approved of large expenditures for public works and favored 

the reestablishment of a national bank.

The contrasting rationales for postal reform in Great 

Britain and the United States help explain why the NobelPrize winning economist R. W. Coase has hailed cheap 

postage in Great Britain as a forerunner of what is today 

called “market liberalism.” Coase’s parents had both been 

post office telegraphers in Great Britain, a circumstance 

that spurred Coase’s interest in communications history 

and that, eventually, led him to characterize cheap postage as a prototype for communications deregulations, including the auctioning off of the electromagnetic spectrum 

to the highest bidder.35 No social scientist in the United 

States has reached a comparable conclusion. This was not 

because cheap postage lacked a rationale, but, rather, because its rationale was emphatically civic—and, as such, 

harder to characterize as a prelude to deregulation. Joshua 

Leavitt supported the postal monopoly; Rowland Hill did 

not. In one sense this made Leavitt more old-fashioned as 

an heir to the civic ideals of the founders of the republic 

and the evangelical aspirations of the Protestant Reformation. In another sense, it underscored the degree to which, 

in the United States, though not in Great Britain, lawmakers regarded cheap postage as an innovation that fully 

justified whatever augmentation in the organizational 

capabilities of the federal government it might require or 

whatever cost it might incur. 

From such a perspective, cheap postage had more in 

common with certain political projects to facilitate intercommunication, such as the construction of the Erie Canal, 

than it did with the market-oriented reforms such as the 

refusal of the Jackson administration to recharter the Second Bank of the United States. Then, as now, American 

postal policy drew its inspiration not only, or even primarily, from the supposedly inexorable logic of economic incentives, but also from the moral power of civic ideals. The 

campaign for cheap postage in the United States was but 

one of several reform movements that reformers hailed as 

a welcome augmentation in the role of the central government in public and private life. In this regard, it resembled 

Reconstruction and Prohibition more than free trade or 

the constitutional guarantee of a free press. Its success has 

obscured not only its legacy for later communications innovations, but also its distinctiveness—and, in particular, 

the subtle yet profound ways that it differed from the campaign for cheap postage in Great Britain.
1 0 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

NOTES

For suggestions and advice, I am grateful to Diane DeBlois, 

Robert Dalton Harris, Nancy R. John, Tom Lera, Jonathan 

Silberstein-Loeb, and two anonymous referees.

1. Wayne E. Fuller, American Mail: Enlarger of the Common Life (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972), chap. 5.

2. Martin J. Daunton, Royal Mail: The Post Office since 

1840 (London: Athlone Press, 1985), p. 339.

3. John Crawfurd, The Newspaper Stamp, and the Newspaper Postage Compared (London: J. Reed, 1836), pp. 3–4, 8; A. 

D. Smith, The Development of Rates of Postage: An Historical 

and Analytical Study (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1917), 

p. 122.

4. E. L. Woodward, The Age of Reform, 1815–1870 (London: Oxford University Press, 1938), p. 47.

5. Woodward, Age of Reform, p. 47.

6. Cited in Asa Briggs, Victorian Things (1988; Phoenix 

Mill, U. K.: Sutton, 2003), p. 290.

7. David Thompson, England in the Nineteenth Century, 

1815–1914 (1950: New York: Penguin, 1985), p. 81.

8. E. J. Hobsbawm, The Age of Revolution, 1789–1848 

(New York: New American Library, 1962), p. 205.

9. Howard Robinson, The British Post Office: A History

(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1948); Briggs, “Stamps—

Used and Unused,” in Briggs, Victorian Things, chap. 9; C. R. 

Perry, The Victorian Post Office: The Growth of a Bureaucracy

(Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1992); “’Send the Letters, Uncle 

John’: Trollope, Penny-Postage Reform, and the Domestication of Empire,” in Eileen Cleere, Avuncularism: Capitalism, 

Patriarchy, and Nineteenth-Century English Culture (Stanford: 

Stanford University Press, 2004), chap. 5; Catherine J. Golden, 

Posting It: The Victorian Revolution in Letter-Writing (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2009).

10. Kenneth O. Morgan, ed., The Oxford History of Britain

(New York: Oxford University Press, 2001); Simon Schama, A 

History of Britain, vol 3: The Fate of Empire, 1776–2000 (New 

York: Hyperion, 2002).

11. “The Postage,” Morning Chronicle (Boston), December 

16, 1844.

12. These generalizations are based on a survey of over 40 

newspapers for the 1843–1847 period, as well as a personal inspection of the voluminous files of cheap postage petitions in the 

National Archives.

13. John Bach McMaster, History of the People of the United 

States, from the Revolution to the Civil War, vol. 7: 1841–1850 

(New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1910), pp. 106–120, 124–134.

14. Henry Adams, The Education of Henry Adams, ed. Ernest Samuels (1906; Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1974), p. 5.

15. Julian P. Bretz, “Some Aspects of Postal Extension into 

the West,” American Historical Association Annual Report, 5 

(1909): 143–150; Bretz, “Early Land Communication with the 

Lower Mississippi Valley,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 

13 (June 1926): 3–29.

16. Pauline Maier, et al., Inventing America: A History 

of the United States (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2006), 

vol. 1, chaps. 8, 10; Daniel Walker Howe, What Hath God 

Wrought? The Transformation of America, 1815–1848 (New 

York: Oxford University Press, 2007), chap. 6. Much of the recent interest in the history of the American postal system has 

been spurred by a recognition that the Post Office Act of 1792 

was a landmark in the history of communications in the United 

States. The first historian to highlight the significance of the 

Post Office Act of 1792 was Bretz; his conclusions were echoed 

by Fuller, and elaborated on by myself in a monograph that I 

published on the early American postal system in 1995: Richard R. John, Spreading the News: The American Postal System 

from Franklin to Morse (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University 

Press, 1995), chap. 1. Since 1995, the significance of the Post 

Office Act of 1792 has been widely recognized by specialists not 

only in history, but also in historical sociology, media studies, 

political science, and law. 

17. Fuller, American Mail, chap. 5.

18. Fuller, Morality and the Mail in Nineteenth-Century 

America (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2003).

19. David M. Henkin, The Postal Age: The Emergence of 

Modern Communications in Nineteenth-Century America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006).

20. Personal conversation, fall 2009.

21. Hugh Davis, Joshua Leavitt: Evangelical Abolitionist

(Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1990).

22. Daniel R. Headrick, When Information Came of Age: 

Technologies of Knowledge in the Age of Reason and Revelation, 1700–1850 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000).

23. One notable exception to this generalization is David A. 

Gerber, Authors of their Lives: The Personal Correspondence of 

British Immigrants to North America in the Nineteenth Century

(New York: New York University Press, 2006). To a greater degree than any other historian of whom I am aware, Gerber has 

explored the consequences of cheap postage for letter writing, 

with an emphasis on its implications for personal identity and 

social relationships.

24. Joel H. Wiener, The War of the Unstamped: The Movement to Repeal the British Newspaper Tax, 1830–1836 (Ithaca: 

Cornell University Press, 1969).

25. George Plitt, Report, 26th Cong., 2nd sess., 1841, Sen. 

Doc. 156 (serial 378); John M. Niles, Report of the Postmaster General (1840), pp. 479–484. The Plitt report had originally 

been commissioned by Niles’s predecessor, Amos Kendall. Amos 

Kendall, Report of the Postmaster General (1839), p. 617.

26. Journal of Commerce (New York), 5 January 1844; 

New York Express, 3 June 1844.

27. Amos Kendall, Report of the Postmaster General

(1836), 509; Kendall, “Postage,” Kendall’s Expositor, 3 (13 June 

1843): 193–195.
n u m b e r 5 5 • 1 1

28. “Franklin,” An Examination of the Probable Effect of 

the Reduction of Postage: As Proposed to be Made by the Bill 

Introduced into the Senate of the United States by the Hon. Mr. 

Merrick, of Maryland (n. p., 1844). This pamphlet can be found 

in the records of the Post Office Department at the National Archives in Washington, D. C.

29. “Reduction of Postage,” Madisonian, Feb. 3, 1844.

30. Barnabas Bates, A Brief Statement of the Exertions of 

the Friends of Cheap Postage in the City of New York (New 

York: New York Cheap Postage Association, 1848), p. xi. The 

hostility of U.S. postal administrators toward cheap postage was 

so intense, Bates related, that Postmaster General Wickliffe lobbied for the dismissal from a “paltry office” of an officeholder 

who had “interested himself in this good cause” (p. xi). The 

officeholder very possibly was Bates himself. 

31. Daunton, Royal Mail, pp. 37–38.

32. Daunton, Royal Mail, p. 54; Ronald H. Coase, “Rowland Hill and the Penny Post,” Economica, 6 (November 1939): 

423–435. 

33. Daunton, Royal Mail, pp. 54–55.

34. John, Spreading the News, chap. 2.

35. Ronald H. Coase, “Ronald H. Coase,” in Lives of the 

Laureates: Eighteen Nobel Economists, ed. William Breit and 

Barry T. Hirsch (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2004); personal conversation with R. H. Coase, Chicago, Ill., 2007.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, Henry. The Education of Henry Adams, ed. Ernest Samuels. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1974.

Bates, Barnabas. A Brief Statement of the Exertions of the 

Friends of Cheap Postage in the City of New York. New 

York: New York Cheap Postage Association, 1848.

Bretz, Julian P. “Early Land Communication with the Lower 

Mississippi Valley.” Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 

13:3–29.

———. “Some Aspects of Postal Extension into the West.” 

American Historical Association Annual Report, 5:143–

150.

Briggs, Asa. Victorian Things. Phoenix Mill, U. K.: Sutton, 2003.

Cleere, Eileen. Avuncularism: Capitalism, Patriarchy, and 

Nineteenth-Century English Culture. Palo Alto, Ca.: Stanford University Press, 2004.

Coase, Ronald H. “Ronald H. Coase.” In Lives of the Laureates: 

Eighteen Nobel Economists, ed. William Breit and Barry T. 

Hirsch. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2004.

———. “Rowland Hill and the Penny Post.” Economica, 6:423–

435.

Crawfurd, John. The Newspaper Stamp, and the Newspaper 

Postage Compared. London: J. Reed, 1836.

Daunton, Martin J. Royal Mail: The Post Office since 1840. 

London: Athlone Press, 1985.

Davis, Hugh. Joshua Leavitt: Evangelical Abolitionist. Baton 

Rouge, La.: Louisiana State University Press, 1990.

“Editorial.” Journal of Commerce. 5 January 1844.

“Editorial.” New York Express. 3 June 1844.

Fuller, Wayne E. American Mail: Enlarger of the Common Life. 

Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972.

———. Morality and the Mail in Nineteenth-Century America. 

Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 2003.

Gerber, David A. Authors of their Lives: The Personal Correspondence of British Immigrants to North America in the 

Nineteenth Century. New York: New York University 

Press, 2000.

Golden, Catherine J. Posting It: The Victorian Revolution in 

Letter-Writing. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 

2009.

Headrick, Daniel R. When Information Came of Age: Technologies of Knowledge in the Age of Reason and Revelation, 

1700–1850. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Henkin, David M. The Postal Age: The Emergence of Modern 

Communications in Nineteenth-Century America. Chicago: 

University of Chicago Press, 2006.

Hobsbawm, E. J. The Age of Revolution, 1789–1848. New 

York: New American Library, 1962.

Howe, Daniel Walker. What Hath God Wrought? The Transformation of America, 1815–1848. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. 

John, Richard R. Spreading the News: The American Postal System from Franklin to Morse. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard 

University Press, 1995. 

Kendall, Amos. Report of the Postmaster General. Washington, 

D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1836.

Maier, Pauline, Merrit Roe Smith, Alexander Keyssar, and Daniel J. Kevles. Inventing America: A History of the United 

States, Vol. 1. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2006.

McMaster, John Bach. History of the People of the United 

States, from the Revolution to the Civil War. Volume 7, 

1841–1850. New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1910.

Morgan, Kenneth O., ed. The Oxford History of Britain. New 

York: Oxford University Press, 2001.

National Archives Post Office Department, Washington, D.C. 

“Franklin.” An Examination of the Probable Effect of the 

Reduction of Postage: As Proposed to be Made by the Bill 

Introduced into the Senate of the United States by the Hon. 

Mr. Merrick, of Maryland. 1844.

Niles, John. M. Report of the Postmaster General. Washington 

D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1840.

Perry, C. R. The Victorian Post Office: The Growth of a Bureaucracy. Woodbridge, U. K.: Boydell Press, 1992.

Plitt, George. U.S. Congress. Senate. 26th Cong., 2nd Sess., 

1841. S. Doc. 156.

“Reduction of Postage.” Madisonian. 3 February 1844.

Robinson, Howard. The British Post Office: A History. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1948.
1 2 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

Schama, Simon. A History of Britain. Volume 3: The Fate of 

Empire, 1776–2000. New York: Hyperion, 2002.

Smith, A. D. The Development of Rates of Postage: An Historical 

and Analytical Study. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1917.

“The Postage,” Boston Morning Chronicle. 16 December 1844.

Thompson, David. England in the Nineteenth Century, 1815–

1914. New York: Penguin, 1985.

Wiener, Joel H. The War of the Unstamped: The Movement to 

Repeal the British Newspaper Tax, 1830–1836. Ithaca, 

N. Y.: Cornell University Press, 1969.

Woodward, E. L. The Age of Reform, 1815–1870. London: Oxford University Press, 1938.
On November 3–4, 2006, the Smithsonian National Postal Museum and 

the American Philatelic Society hosted the first symposium in Washington, D.C., with the theme “What Is Postal History?” A seemingly simple question, but when examined by experts from different fields, postal history 

was found to have divergent meanings. Postal history is the starting point for a 

philatelic collection, a research project, a museum exhibit, or a future business 

innovation. Postal history embraces the artifacts, envelopes, stamps, posters, 

badges, pillar boxes, maps, postal operations records, technology, equipment, 

and all manner of other philatelic and postal materials.

Over the two days, there were twenty-seven papers, three of which are 

presented in this book. Sheila A. Brennan, George Mason University, discusses 

“Consumers, Recreation and the Post” in her paper on “Little Colored Bits of 

Paper Collected in the Progressive Era.” John Kevin Boyle, Benedictine University, discusses “The Mails in Times of War” in his paper “WWI Philatelic Censuses of East Africa.” Terence Hines, Pace University, and Thomas Velk, McGill 

University, discuss “The Gold Mine of The Official Register Data” in their paper 

“Explorations in The Official Register: Statistical Analysis of Postmaster Compensation Data from 19th Century New Hampshire.”

Introduction to the First Symposium

“Little Colored Bits of Paper” 

Collected in the Progressive Era

Sheila A. Brennan

Three months ago he did not know

His lesson in geography;

Though he could spell and read quite well,

And cipher, too, he could not tell

The least thing in topography.

But what a change! How passing strange!

This stamp-collecting passion

Has roused his zeal, for woe or weal,

And lists of names he now can reel

Off in amazing fashion. 

. . . And now he longs for more Hong Kongs, 

A Rampour, a Mauritius, 

Greece, Borneo, Fernando Po,—

And how much else no one can know;

But be, kind fates, propitious.1

The merits of stamp collecting are applauded in this poem from 1885, as 

the practice of philately spread throughout the United States at a time 

when collecting objects of all kinds flourished. Although collecting art 

and antiques was an elite activity, collecting stamps was common, accessible, and 

inexpensive. Government-issued “little colored bits of paper” captured the interest of thousands of people including children, middle-class women, and elite businessmen.2

 Beginning in the 1870s American stamp collecting enthusiasts began 

to act in public ways typical of the progressive era by incorporating scientific 

language into their pursuit; organizing formal associations; publishing journals; 

and developing a relationship with the federal government. Stamp collectors redefined the meanings of federally-issued stamps by not using them for postage 

and collecting them inside their homes or by selling them on the open market. 

While the postal service promotes philately today, it was not until the World’s 

Columbian Exposition in 1892–1893 that the U.S. Post Office Department acknowledged and capitalized on the growing world of philatelists when it issued 

the first set of American commemorative stamps. Printing limited-issue collectible 
1 6 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

stamps generated greater interest in the postal service and 

for collecting the Department’s most popular product.3

Nineteenth-century philatelic societies functioned in 

a world almost completely removed from the producers 

of American stamps, the U.S. Post Office Department 

(USPOD), until the World’s Columbian Exposition at Chicago in 1892–93. Prior to the 1890s, the USPOD maintained limited contact with stamp collectors. Postmasters 

General were busy with balancing the duties of the Department with business interests of the press and big business and with morality crusades. Official USPOD records 

from this time reveal little contact with collectors.4

Conversely, philatelic journals did not discuss the 

USPOD much in their pages. Philatelic societies and journals functioned independently from the federal government. Publishing news releases regarding new issues of 

stamps was the only role the USPOD played in print until 

the Columbian Exposition. American stamp collectors 

were more interested in stamps than the federal agency 

that produced them.

Retailer John Wanamaker forever changed that relationship during his tenure as postmaster general (1889–

1893) by recognizing that collectors were consumers of 

stamps and that the government should harness their buying power and tap into their well-formed organizations. 

His administration is remembered mostly for the rural free 

delivery plan, but Wanamaker also increased the visibility of the USPOD in the philatelic world. Known more 

as the creator of the modern department store than as a 

Washington bureaucrat, Wanamaker brought his business 

acumen and understanding of customer relations to the 

Department. Additionally, Wanamaker was heavily influenced by the spectacle of the era’s great world fairs, making it possible for him to see great potential in promoting 

the USPOD through a carefully designed exhibit at the 

Columbian Exposition.5

From the early planning stages of the world’s fair, 

Wanamaker envisioned heightening the postal service’s 

visibility by staging an exhibit and issuing the first series 

of commemorative American stamps. Immediately after 

securing funding from Congress, the USPOD contacted 

philatelists who soon heard from renowned dealer C.H. 

Mekeel that the USPOD would exhibit a complete set 

of U.S. stamps with the help of the American Philatelic 

Association (APA). However, the government’s display 

highlighted more than stamps by exhibiting the USPOD’s 

contributions in transportation and communication.6

 The 

exhibit promoted good will with its patrons—the American people—and emphasized that the department existed for public service. Constantly seeking to balance its 

budget, the department looked to the public for continued 

financial support and the longevity of its agency.

Soon after the announcement of the exposition, the 

USPOD sought assistance from philatelists to create an exhibit of American and international stamps. Interestingly 

in 1891, the APA created a committee to develop its own 

exhibit at the world’s fair. Unable to obtain space in a private building, committee members contacted the Third Assistant Postmaster General, A. D. Hazen, asking for help. 

Hazen obliged their request and offered gallery space in 

the government building overlooking the USPOD exhibit. 

Hazen envisioned that collectors from across the country 

would contribute stamps through the management of the 

APA. Capitalizing on its national network of state philatelic societies, the APA asked for stamp and monetary donations “to make this exhibit as complete as possible.” 

Encouraging wide participation among its members, the 

APA emphasized the great “impetus this exhibition will 

give stamp collecting!”7

Identifying themselves as stamp experts and enthusiasts, philatelists reflected many of the main devices of the 

progressive spirit sweeping across America. Though not 

seeking to solve social ills, these middle-class and elite collectors brought respectability to their leisure activity by 

mimicking new professional organizations. They accomplished this through constructing the study of stamps as 

a scientific pursuit, establishing their own professional associations, and publishing journals. 

In the late nineteenth century many Americans searched 

for order when government and big business expanded, 

and national institutions consumed local organizations. 

Robert Wiebe’s influential work, The Search for Order, 

details the breakdown of local autonomy in small “island 

communities” beginning in the 1870s as hierarchical needs 

of industrial life took hold in the United States With the 

increased presence of money, workers of all classes produced less inside their homes and began to rely more on 

stores for consumer goods from necessities to fine goods. 

Doctors, lawyers, social workers, economists, and psychologists became professional experts who informed the 

expanding government and the public how to solve social 

problems in an increasingly urban and industrial America. 

Professionalization emphasized scientific methods for fixing problems, and those professionals formed associations 

in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.8

Philatelists also participated in a professionalization 

process that began by promoting scientific aspects of their 

hobby. In a popular 1886 book, The Study of Philately, 

Arthur Palethorpe proclaimed that “philately now ranks 

as a science” as he attempted to distinguish the practice 
n u m b e r 5 5 • 1 7

as something different from a mere childhood folly. The

American Journal of Philately resumed publication in 

1888 and its editors wrote about how their readers enjoyed debating “in the field of our sciences,” while the 

subtitle of the Northwestern Philatelist noted it was “a 

monthly magazine devoted to the sciences of philately.” 

Other publications reinforced a connection with a scientific method by writing articles about how to properly 

classify a stamp collection.9 This science-laden language 

offered philatelists an opportunity to become experts in 

the small bits of paper they collected, traded, or bought.

Stamp collectors organized societies to promote philately as a respectable activity. Following the British lead, 

the American Philatelic Association (APA) formed in 1886 

to promote stamp collecting in the United States. The 

founders encouraged local groups to form wherever “six 

philatelists can be brought together.” As a national society, the APA connected smaller groups meeting across the 

country in the pursuit of philatelic knowledge.10

Stamp collecting societies were early examples of 

American middle-class and elite hobby clubs. Many individuals collected various objects inside their homes, but 

others wanted to connect with like-minded collectors and 

founded clubs in the late nineteenth century. For instance, 

the Grolier Club, formed in 1884 in New York City, comprised wealthy male book collectors who also dabbled in 

poster collecting. Coin collectors started the American 

Numismatic Association in 1891 and the Collectors Club 

promoted philately among the elite and middle class beginning in 1896. Many others collected without clubs at 

this time such as women and children who collected trade 

cards in scrapbooks kept inside the home, as Ellen Gruber 

Garvey demonstrates.11

Those interested in stamp collecting who did not want 

to join a club could connect to the emerging philatelic 

community by participating in the flourishing print culture that emerged in the late nineteenth century. The first 

serial, Stamp Collector’s Record, was issued in Albany, 

New York, by S. A. Taylor in December 1864, and the 

numbers grew exponentially from there so that between 

1864 and 1906 over 900 stamp papers were published in 

the United States alone. Even though many journals were 

short-lived, they demonstrate that stamp collecting indeed 

was a national pastime.12

So prolific were philatelic publications that by 1892 

they became the subject of separate articles in the Pennsylvania Philatelist. Harry Franklin Kantner declared that 

the “philatelic writer” was “one of the most potent factors 

in the Philatelic field” fighting for the progression of the 

hobby. The following year Kantner noted his excitement 

when reading his first small stamp journal but regretted 

that there were too many publications available and that 

“the ‘stamp fever’ became the ‘publishing fever’.” His article actively discouraged “all ambitious young men” from 

starting new papers.13

While philatelic associations openly encouraged all 

to collect stamps, Kantner’s comments suggest that lines 

were beginning to be drawn within the philatelic community. Applying a hierarchical framework to stamp papers 

and journalists is reminiscent of the post-Civil War tendency to distinguish between high and lowbrow activities. 

Quite aware of philatelists’ place within the greater context of American culture, Kantner commented that it was 

“not only a progressive age in general affairs but also in 

philatelic matters.”14

Federal promotion of stamp collecting at the Chicago 

world’s fair thrilled this growing philatelic community because they believed the fair brought recognition for their 

pursuit and their associations. Furthermore, philately extended beyond stamp and postal exhibits to the physical 

presence of stamp collectors who gathered in Chicago for 

their convention. Just as the American Historical Association held their annual meeting in Chicago, so did the 

American Philatelic Association. In anticipation of their 

meeting, the editor of American Philatelist grew excited 

because “the eyes of the entire civilized world” “turned towards Chicago” for the Exposition where their associates 

met.15 Believing in the power of this mass cultural gathering, private collectors and the federal government together 

promoted philately in very public ways for the first time. 

To further this relationship, Postmaster General Wanamaker proposed designing and issuing special stamps to 

appeal to collectors in and outside of the U.S. Wanamaker 

recognized the stamp collecting “mania” and wanted the 

USPOD to capitalize on philatelists’ desire to acquire new 

stamps and perhaps attract new collectors amazed by a 

beautifully-designed set of sixteen stamps depicting the 

story of Columbus and his journey. Estimating that millions of collectors, from the “school boy and girl to the 

monarch and the millionaire,” kept stamps in collections 

“never (to) be drawn upon to pay postage,” Wanamaker 

saw great potential for profit. The Columbians’ limited 

issue, combined with a larger size and beautiful design, 

would attract international dealers and collectors (Figure 1). He also envisioned these stamps stimulating correspondence, private and commercial, because affixing a 

Columbian stamp brought more attention to what was 

inside that piece of mail. Not just for collecting, Columbians held value and represented pre-paid postage but did 

not replace the contemporary issue of stamps from that 
1 8 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

year. “Though not designed primarily for that object,” the 

profit-making potential of these commemoratives was “of 

highest importance to the public service,” Wanamaker emphasized. He estimated that these stamps would bring in 

revenues to the federal government of 2.5 million dollars.16

Releasing the Columbians turned a spotlight towards 

collectors in the popular press. Writing one month after 

their issue, the New York Times featured an article on philately claiming that the new stamps gave “extra temporary 

impetus to the regular trade in stamps which has grown to 

proportions entirely amazing to persons not informed of 

its extent and diffusion.” This journalist also recognized 

the profit-making potential of the Columbians that proved 

“a lucky speculation on the part of the Government.” 

They brought “clean profit,” because the stamps would 

“be locked up in albums and never put upon letters for the 

Government to carry.” E.S. Martin wrote in his Harper’s 

Weekly column how the success of the Columbian stamps 

“called attention to the very lively status of the stampcollecting mania.” So lively, that he noticed the presence 

of stamps in many homes was as prevalent as soap.17

Despite such praises, some criticism surrounded the 

release of the Columbians. Senator Edwin Oliver Wolcott 

(R-CO), for example, called for a joint congressional resolution to discontinue the Columbian stamps, exclaiming 

that he did not want a “cruel and unusual stamp” unloaded on collectors. Wolcott criticized fellow Republican Wanamaker for acting in a mercantilistic manner by 

profiting from philatelists.18 Correct about Wanamaker’s 

retailing instinct, Wolcott’s assumptions were slightly 

flawed because Wanamaker would not profit personally—

only the government reaped those monetary benefits. If 

fiscally successful, the USPOD would require less in appropriations from Congress. 

In response to these criticisms, Wanamaker shot back 

a letter defending his actions. Asserting his domain over 

postage regulations, he found the special stamps in line 

with other financial investments contributed by the federal 

government for mounting the Columbian Exposition. This 

included “the issue of five million silver souvenir coins,” 

the Treasury Department’s production of a collectible 

related to the fair. He emphasized the Post Office’s ability to educate “the people with the story of Columbus.” 

Wanamaker recognized that through stamps, the USPOD 

“more than any other branch of the Government, comes 

into familiar contact with all of the people.” Citing the 

popularity of the stamps, Wanamaker referred to a prominent officer in the American Philatelic Society who commended the issuing of the stamp. Moreover, he received 

letters from private citizens “warmly approving the new 

stamps.” The Senate was unsuccessful in removing the 

commemoratives from circulation. 

Wanamaker’s successor, Wilson S. Bissel however, 

found that the previous administration optimistically predicted stamp sales. According to Bissel, the rate of purchase for the commemoratives fell by mid-1893, and he 

renegotiated the original order for three billion Columbian stamps down to two because he felt the collectors’ 

purchasing power was not as great as Wanamaker predicted.19 Prior to his departure, Wanamaker defended 

himself and the Department, referencing a public-private 

relationship between the Post Office and the American 

people that justified the grand issuing of the Columbians. 

After the public success of the USPOD’s first commemoratives, the government continued to experiment 

with special-issue stamps celebrating other occasions. 

World’s fairs and historic anniversaries appeared on these 

stamps, such as the Trans-Mississippi and International 

Exposition (1898), Pan-American Exposition (1901), 

and the anniversaries of the Louisiana Purchase Exposition (1904) and of Jamestown Exposition (1907). After 

projected revenues from the Columbians fell short of 

Wanamaker’s 2.5 million dollar estimate, postal officials 

commissioned more conservative numbers of commemoratives and shortened the period of availability from a year 

to a few months. Though not attracting nearly as much 

publicity, these stamps were successful and collected.20

Some philatelists felt uncomfortable with the new role 

the government played in the stamp market. Outrage and 

Figure 1. Landing of Columbus, 2-cent, 1892–1893, Courtesy Smithsonian National Postal Museum. (TMS Object No. 

1980.2493.1609).
n u m b e r 5 5 • 1 9

protest came from the editors of the American Journal of 

Philately (AJP) in 1898, who tried stopping the issue of the 

Trans-Mississippi Exposition commemorative stamp and 

encouraged other collectors to join them in a letter-writing 

campaign complaining to the USPOD. Proclaiming that the 

Columbians “should not be considered a precedent for future 

issues,” the editors lamented that philatelists would endure 

“a sad blow to (their) hobby if the government of the United 

States should lend itself to so reprehensible a scheme.” Even 

“The Busy World” columnist at Harper’s Weekly agreed 

with the AJP but saw the USPOD’s role as “going outside 

its legitimate business in advertising even an enterprise of 

national moment.” In contrast, the Virginian Philatelist endorsed the new stamp and revealed that they received only 

one negative response from a collector. The editor knew 

that despite the protest of others, “the stamps will be issued 

nevertheless.”21 Philatelists experienced some growing pains 

as the USPOD—which prior to Chicago played a minimal 

role in stamp collecting—now actively influenced the stamp 

market by issuing special commemorative stamps.

Into the twentieth century, stamp collecting grew in 

popularity, as did support from the USPOD. The postal 

service officially supported collecting when it created the 

United States Philatelic Agency in 1921 to serve American and international collectors exclusively. Currently, 

the U.S. Postal Service takes an active role in encouraging 

philately and works to accommodate philatelists even as 

stamp collecting is on the wane. 

The Columbian Exposition forever linked the postal 

service with stamp collectors after years of traveling on 

separate paths. The USPOD recognized the public presence of philatelists and spoke to them through promoting 

philately and issuing a decorative series of commemorative stamps. Philatelists participated in the world’s fair and 

perpetuated a dialog that they had begun decades earlier 

through buying, trading, and collecting stamps. Because 

philatelists professionalized by forming associations and 

publishing journals, Postmaster General Wanamaker recognized their presence and understood that the government needed those private organizations to promote good 

will and help to maintain the fiscal health of the US Post 

Office Department. 

Notes

1. Mary L. B. Branch, “The Little Stamp Collector,” St. 

Nicholas; an Illustrated Magazine for Young Folks (August 

1885): 12. This poem was reprinted in The Washington Post, 

November 11, 1888, 10.

2. “Postage Stamp Collectors: Enthusiasts Who Spend Much 

Money and Time on Their Hobby,” New York Times, September 7, 1890: 17. While evidence suggests that nineteenth-century 

Americans collected many things, little secondary research tells us 

those stories. To read more about the history of American collecting see: Douglas and Elizabeth Rigby, Lock, Stock, and Barrel: 

The Story of Collecting (Philadelphia: Lippencott, 1949).Thomas 

J. Schlereth, ed., Material Culture Studies in America (Nashville, 

TN: American Association for State and Local History, 1982). 

Roy Rosenzweig and Warren Leon, ed., History Museums in the 

United States: A Critical Assessment (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1989). Werner Muensterberger, Collecting : An Unruly 

Passion: Psychological Perspectives (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton 

University Press, 1994). Russell W. Belk, Collecting in a Consumer Society, Collecting Cultures Series (London; New York: 

Routledge, 1995). Susan M Pearce, On Collecting: An Investigation into Collecting in the European Tradition (London: Routledge, 1995). Leah Dilworth, ed., Acts of Possession: Collecting in 

America (New Brunswick, N. J.: Rutgers University Press, 2003).

3. Scholarship on stamp collecting is thin, despite its popularity as a hobby in the United States and internationally. Stamp 

collecting falls between institutional histories of the postal service 

and material culture studies. A few historians, such as Wayne 

Fuller and Richard John, recognize the prominent role played by 

the American postal system in nineteenth-century public policy 

and communications. Unfortunately, they neglect the explosion 

of stamp collecting that occurred after the first federally-issued 

U. S. stamp appeared in 1847. For sources on stamp collecting 

see: Mauritz Hallgren, All About Stamps: Their History and the 

Art of Collecting Them (New York and London: Alfred A. Knopf, 

1940). Rigby, Lock, Stock, and Barrel: The Story of Collecting. 

John Bryant, “Stamp and Coin Collecting,” in Handbook of 

American Popular Culture, Vol. 3, ed. M. Thomas Inge (Westport, 

Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1981); Kenneth Ames and K. Martinez, 

ed., Material Culture of Gender/Gender of Material Culture (Ann 

Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1992). Steven M. Gelber, 

“Free Market Metaphor: The Historical Dynamics of Stamp Collecting,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 34, no. 4 

(October1992). Neil Harris, “American Poster Collecting: A Fitful 

History,” American Art 12, no. 1 (Spring 1998). Steven M. Gelber, 

Hobbies: Leisure and the Culture of Work in America (New York: 

Columbia University Press, 1999). 

4. Overall, the USPOD records are very spotty in the late 

nineteenth century. Archivists from the National Archives told 

me that federal records often are missing significant amounts of 

paperwork because there were no requirements to keep files indefinitely. Historians at the U.S. Postal Service concur that few 

stamp-related records exist from that era. Often records were 

legally destroyed. 

5. Robert Stockwell Hatcher, “United States Postal Notes,” 

American Philatelist, Vol. 6, no. 11(November 10, 1892): 185. 

John Wanamaker began and operated one of the first department 

stores in the US, Wanamaker’s in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He 

forever transformed the retail business and was referred to as 
2 0 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

the “greatest merchant in America.” As postmaster general he 

spearheaded postal reform, such as the RFD experiment, which 

some progressive reformers supported because of its capacity 

to unify the nation. William Leach argues that Wanamaker’s 

goal was to increase the public’s access to goods, subsidized 

by the government. Since he was a department store merchant, 

he favored other large-scale retailers, like Sears, Roebuck, and 

Company’s mail order business. See: William Leach, Land of 

Desire: Merchants, Power, and the Rise of a New American Culture (New York: Pantheon Books, 1993), 32–35, 182–184. For 

Wanamaker’s fascination with world fairs, see: Herbert Adams 

Gibbons, John Wanamaker (Port Washington, N.Y.,: Kennikat 

Press, 1971), 153–180.

6. Mekeel was interviewed in “Postage-Stamp Collectors,” 

New York Times September 7, 1890, 17. The government’s exhibit included stamped paper, models of postal coaches and mail 

equipment, photographs, maps, and examples from the Dead 

Letter Office. USPOD also operated a working post office where 

Columbians could be purchased at the Fair. United States Post 

Office Department, Annual Report of the Postmaster-General 

of the United States for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1892

(Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1892): 74. 

Congress appropriated $40,000 for the postal station and an 

additional $23,000 for transporting the mail to and from the 

fairgrounds over the course of the Exposition. 

7. American Philatelic Association, Catalogue of the American Philatelic Association’s Loan Exhibit of Postage Stamps to 

the United States Post Office Department at the World’s Columbian Exposition Chicago, 1893: 3. Albert R. Rogers, “American 

Philatelic Association’s Exhibit of Postage Stamps at the World’s 

Columbian Exposition, Chicago, 1893,” American Philatelist, 

Vol. 7, no. 3 (March 10, 1893): 33–35. Memo, “Inventory of 

Articles turned over to Mr. Tyler,” Albert H. Hall, “Letter to 

Hon. Wilson S. Bissell,” in RG 28, Records of the Post Office 

Department, Office of the Third Assistant Postmaster General 

(Stamps and Stamped Envelopes) Correspondence, 1847–1907

(Washington, D. C.: March 2, 1894).There is a slight disconnect 

between Mekeel’s and the APA’s version of who asked whom to 

participate in the exhibition. I represented both here, but tend 

to believe APA’s version since it was their committee. Mekeel 

may have been discussing what he heard through his network, 

because APA hadn’t formed a committee to deal with the exhibition in 1890.

8. For background information on the post-Civil War and 

progressive eras see: Robert H. Wiebe, The Search for Order, 

1877–1920, 1st ed. (New York: Hill and Wang, 1967). Steven J. 

Diner, A Very Different Age: Americans of the Progressive Era, 

1st ed. (New York: Hill and Wang, 1998), William Leach, Land 

of Desire: Merchants, Power, and the Rise of a New American 

Culture (New York: Pantheon Books, 1993), Alan Trachtenberg 

and Eric Foner, The Incorporation of America : Culture and 

Society in the Gilded Age (New York: Hill and Wang, 1982). 

Arthur Stanley Link and Richard L. McCormick, Progressivism

(Arlington Heights, Ill.: Harlan Davidson Inc., 1983). 

9. Arthur J. Palethorpe, The Study of Philately (Bury S. Edmund’s, England: Nunn, Christie & Co., 1886): 6. American 

Journal of Philately, Second Series, Vol. 1, (1888), opening page. 

The Northwestern Philatelist: A Monthly Magazine Devoted to 

the Science of Philately (Elk Point, South Dakota: J.C. Richard, 

R.J. Ellis, 1899–1900). American Philatelic Association, Catalogue of the American Philatelic Association’s Loan Exhibit of 

Postage Stamps to the United States Post Office Department at 

the World’s Columbian Exposition Chicago, 1893 (Birmingham, 

CT: D.H. Bacon and Company, 1893), 10; James Rees, “Clerk 

in the Philadelphia Post Office,” Foot-prints of a Letter-Carrier, 

(Philadelphia,1866).

10. Hallgren, All About Stamps, 185–186. The first permanent organization in the world was the London Philatelic Group 

in 1869, now known as the Royal Philatelic Society. Letter from 

Theo. F. Cuno, S. B. Bradt, W. G. Whilden, Jr. to The Philatelists 

of the United States, June 25, 1886 published in Official Circular 

Number 1, American Philatelic Association, (November 1886): 

opening page.

11. Neil Harris, “American Poster Collecting,” 13–15. Ellen 

Gruber Garvey, “Dreaming in Commerce: Advertising Trade 

Card Scrapbooks,” in Acts of Possession: Collecting in America, 

ed., Leah Dilworth (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University 

Press, 2003), 66–85.

12. Edward Denny Bacon, Catalogue of the Crawford Library of Philatelic Literature at the British Library, Rev. ed. 

(Fishkill, N. Y.: Printer’s Stone in association with the British 

Library, 1991). For example of such journals see: Evergreen 

State Philatelist (Hartland, Wash.: R. W. French, 1894–1900), 

California Philatelist (San Francisco, Ca.: E. F. Gambs, 1883–

1899), Southern Philatelist (Charleston, S. C.: Southern Stamp 

and Publishing, 1889–1896), Virginia Philatelist (Richmond, 

Va.: Virginia Philatelic Publishing, 1897–1905), Ohio Philatelist (Westerville, Ohio: H. W. Keller, 1888–1889), St. Louis 

Philatelist (St. Louis, Mo.: E. F. Gambs, 1876–1882), Michigan 

Philatelist (Detroit: Union Stamp Company, 1877–1879), Pennsylvania Philatelist, (Reading, Pa.: C. W. Kissinger, 1891–1898), 

Eastern Philatelist (Fitchburg, Mass.: Eastern Philatelic Publishing, 1887–1899), Western Philatelist: A Monthly Journal for 

Stamp Collectors (Chicago: Western Philatelic Publishing Company, 1887–1888) Lone Star State Philatelist (Abilene, Tex.: 

Bradley,1894–1899). American Journal of Philately, Second 

Series (New York: Scott and Company, 1888–1906), Mekeel’s 

Weekly Stamp News (Portland, Maine: Severn-Wylie-Jewett Co, 

1891–1996). Mekeel’s is still an active publication, but with a 

different publisher.

13. Harry Franklin Kantner, “The Philatelic Writer,” The 

Pennsylvania Philatelist, Vol. 2, no.1 (June 1892): 3. H. Franklin 

Kantner, “The Philatelic Publisher’s Soliloquy,” The Pennsylvania Philatelist, Vol. 2, no. 1 (June 1892): 3. H. Franklin Kantner, 

“Philatelic Journalism,” The Pennsylvania Philatelist, Vol. 3, no. 

3 (February 1893): 49–52. His use of “young men” indicates 

that a majority of the publications were headed by men in the 

late nineteenth century. Few female writers appeared in the jour-
n u m b e r 5 5 • 2 1

nals I reviewed, but some like Eva Earl mentioned earlier in the 

paper encouraged women to collect and participate in philatelic 

societies.

14. Kantner, “Philatelic Journalism,” 52. For a discussion of 

nineteenth-century cultural hierarchies see: Lawrence W. Levine, 

Highbrow/Lowbrow : The Emergence of Cultural Hierarchy in 

America (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1988).

15. “Postage Stamps at the World’s Fair,” American Journal 

of Philately Vol. 6, (July 31, 1893): 373–374. “Editorial Comment,” American Philatelist, Vol. 7, no. 5 (May 10, 1893): 73.

16. United States Post Office Department, Annual Report 

for 1892, 77. A. D. Hazen, Third Assistant Postmaster General 

under Wanamaker echoed those sentiments, 110–111. Marshall 

Cushing, The Story of Our Post Office, Boston: A. M. Thayer, 

1893.

17. “Costly Bits of Paper: Extraordinary Prices Paid for Postage Stamps,” New York Times, February 5, 1893: 20. E. S. Martin, “This Busy World,” Harper’s Weekly (April 14, 1894): 346. 

18. “The New Stamps Ridiculed,” New York Times, January 22, 1893, 1. Senator Wolcott’s interest may have influenced 

his appointment in the 54th Congress to the Committee on Post 

Office and Post Roads. In one speech, Wolcott referred to a physician’s letter suggesting that any unused stamps might have a 

second life as “chest protectors” due to their unusually large 

size. “Good as Chest Protectors,” New York Times, January 

23, 1893, 4. This stamp series featured rectangular and longer 

stamps than previous issues that mostly featured portraits on 

nearly-square-shaped stamps. The engravings from which the 

commemoratives were printed from historical painting depicting 

scenes of Columbus landing in the “new world,” his sailing fleet, 

Columbus in Europe presenting “natives” to the Spanish, and 

other scenes relating to his life and conquests.

19. Letter from John Wanamaker to Honorable Philetus 

Sawyer, (February 13, 1893) “Of Interest to Postmasters in 

Relation to Columbian Postage Stamps—Answer to the Senate 

Resolution,” reprinted in American Journal of Philately, Second 

Series, Vol. 6 (March 31, 1893): 189–193. United States Post Office Department, Annual Report of the Postmaster-General of the 

United States for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1892. (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1893), XXX, 473.

20. United States Post Office Department, Annual Report of 

the Postmaster-General of the United States for the Fiscal Year 

Ending June 30, 1901 (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1901), United States Post Office Department, Annual 

Report of the Postmaster-General of the United States for the 

Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1904 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1904), Kenneth A. Wood, Post Dates: A 

Chronology of Intriguing Events in the Mails and Philately (Albany, Or.: Van Dahl Publications, 1985).

21. American Journal of Philately, Vol. 9 (January 1898): 

opening page; and other AJP related to the protest included: 

“Omaha Exposition Stamps—Protest of San Francisco Collectors” (March 1898): 132; “Omaha Stamps at the S. S. S. S.” 

(May 1898): 209; reprinted memo from John A. Merritt, Third 

Assistant Postmaster General (September 1898): 374–375. “This 

Busy World,” Harper’s Weekly (January 22, 1898): 79. The Virginian Philatelist, Vol. 1, no. 7 (March 1898): 127.

Bibliography

American Philatelic Association. Catalogue of the American 

Philatelic Association’s Loan Exhibit of Postage Stamps to 

the United States Post Office Department at the World’s 

Columbian Exposition Chicago, 1893, pp. 3, 10. Birmingham, Conn.: D. H. Bacon & Company, Printers, 1893.

Ames, Kenneth, and K. Martinez, ed. Material Culture of 

Gender/Gender of Material Cutlure. Ann Arbor, Mich: University of Michigan Press, 1992.

Annual Report of the Postmaster General of the United States 

for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1892. Washington, 

D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1892.

Annual Report of the Postmaster General of the United States 

for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1901. Washington, 

D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1901.

Annual Report of the Postmaster General of the United States 

for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1904. Washington, 

D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1904.

Bacon, Edward Denny. Catalogue of the Crawford Library of 

Philatelic Literature at the British Library. Rev. ed. Fishkill, 

N. Y.: Printer’s Stone, 1991.

Belk, Russell W. Collecting in a Consumer Society. The Collecting Culture Series. New York: Routledge, 1995.

Branch, Mary L. B. “The Little Stamp Collector.” St. Nicholas: 

an Illustrated Magazine for Young Folks, (August 1885):12

Bryant, John. “Stamp and Coin Collecting.” In Handbook of 

American Popular Culture. Volume 3, ed. M. Thomas Inge. 

Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1981.

“Costly Bits of Paper: Extraordinary Prices Paid for Postage 

Stamps.” New York Times, 5 February 1893, 20. 

Cushing, Marshall. The Story of Our Post Office. Boston: A. M. 

Thayer, 1893.

Dilworth, Leah, ed. Acts of Possession: Collecting in America. 

New Brunswick, N. J.: Rutgers University Press, 2003.

Diner, Steven J. A Very Different Age: Americans of the Progressive Era. New York: Hill and Wang, 1998. 

“Editorial Comment.” American Philatelist, 7(5):73.

Garvey, Ellen Gruber. “Dreaming in Commerce: Advertising 

Trade Card Scrapbooks.” In Acts of Possession: Collecting 

in America, ed. Leah Dillworth. New Brunswick, N. J.: Rutgers University Press, 2003.

Gelber, Steven M. “Free Market Metaphor: The Historical Dynamics of Stamp Collecting.” Comparative Studies in Society and History, 34(4):742–769.

———. Hobbies: Leisure and the Culture of Work in America.

New York: Columbia University Press, 1999.

Gibbons, Herbert Adams. John Wanamaker. Port Washington, 

N. Y.: Kennikat Press, 1971.
2 2 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

“Good as Chest Protectors.” New York Times, 23 January 

1893, 4. 

Hall, Albert H. “Letter to Hon. Wilson S. Bissell.” Records of 

the Post Office Department, Office of the Third Assistant 

Post Master General (Stamps and Stamped Envelopes) Correspondence, 1847–1907. RG 28. Washington, D. C.: National Archives, 1894.

Hallgren, Mauritz. All About Stamps: Their History and the Art 

of Collecting Them. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1940.

Harris, Neil. “American Poster Collecting: A Fitful History.” 

American Art, 12(1):10–39.

Hatcher, Robert Stockwell. “United States Postal Notes.” American Philatelist, 6(11):185.

“Inventory of Articles turned over to Mr. Tyler.” Records of 

the Post Office Department, Office of the Third Assistant 

Post Master General (Stamps and Stamped Envelopes) Correspondence, 1847–1907. RG 28. Washington, D. C.: National Archives, 1894.

Kantner, Harry Franklin. “Philatelic Journalism.” The Pennsylvania Philatelist, 3(3):49–52.

———. “The Philatelic Publisher’s Soliloquy.” The Pennsylvania Philatelist, 2(1):3.

———. “The Philatelic Writer.” The Pennsylvania Philatelist, 

2(1):3.

Leach, William. Land of Desire: Merchants, Power, and the Rise 

of a New American Culture, pp. 32–35; 182–184. New 

York: Pantheon Books, 1993.

“Letter from Theo. F. Cuno, S. B. Bradt, W. G. Whilden Jr. to 

The Philatelist of the United States.” Official Circular Number 1. American Philatelic Association, 1886. 

Levine, Lawrence W. Highbrow/Lowbrow: The Emergence of 

Cultural Hierarchy in America. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard 

University Press, 1988.

Link, Arthur Stanley, and Richard L. McCormick. Progressivism. Arlington Heights, Ill.: Harlan Davidson Inc., 1983. 

Martin, E. S. “This Busy World.” Harper’s Weekly, 14 April 

1894, 346.

Muensterberger, Werner. Collecting: An Unruly Passion: Psychological Perspectives. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1994.

“The New Stamps Ridiculed.” New York Times, 22 January 

1893, 1. 

The Northwestern Philatelist: A Monthly Magazine Devoted to 

the Science of Philately. Elk Point: S. D.: J. C. Richard and 

R. J. Ellis, 1899.

“Opening Page.” American Journal of Philately, Second Series, 

1(1888).

Palethorpe, Arthur J. The Study of Philately. Bury St Edmunds, 

U. K.: Nunn, Christie & Co., 1886. 

Pearce, Susan M. On Collecting: An Investigation into Collecting in the European Tradition. London: Routledge, 1995.

“Postage Stamp Collectors: Enthusiasts Who Spend Much 

Money and Time on Their Hobby.” New York Times, 7 

September 1890, 17.

“Postage Stamps at the World’s Fair.” American Journal of Philately, 6:373–374.

Rees, James. “Clerk in the Philadelphia Post Office.” In Foot-prints 

of a Letter-Carrier. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1866.

Rigby, Douglas, and Elizabeth Rigby. Lock, Stock, and Barrel: 

The Story of Collecting. Philadelphia: Lippencott, 1949. 

Rogers, Albert R. “American Philatelic Association’s Exhibit of 

Postage Stamps at the World’s Columbian Exhibition, Chicago, 1893.” American Philatelist, 7(3):33–35.

Rosenzweig, Roy, and Warren Leon, ed. History Museums in the 

United States: A Critical Assessment. Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 1989. 

Schlereth, Thomas J., ed. Material Culture Studies in America.

Nashville, Tenn.: American Association for State and Local 

History, 1982.

Trachtenberg, Alan, and Eric Foner. The Incorporation of America: Culture and Society in the Gilded Age. New York: Hill 

and Wang, 1982.

Wanamaker, John. “Of Interest to Postmasters in Relation to 

Columbian Postage Stamps—Answer to the Senate Resolution.” American Journal of Philately, 6:189–193.

Wiebe, Robert H. The Search for Order, 1877–1920. New York: 

Hill and Wang, 1967.

Wood, Kenneth A. Post Dates: A Chronology of Intriguing 

Events in the Mails and Philately. Albany, Or.: Van Dahl 

Publications, 1985.
WWI Philatelic Censuses of East Africa

John Kevin Doyle

World War I in German East Africa

The Germans were late to the “scramble for Africa”—they were among 

the last of the European countries to acquire colonies in Africa. The most 

important German colony was German East Africa (GEA), and it was the 

colony most nearly self-sufficient. When World War I started in Europe, it began 

immediately in German East Africa. Within a few months, GEA was invaded 

by the Allied troops (British, South African, Nigerian, Nyassaland, Indian, etc.) 

from the north, Belgian from the west, and Portuguese from the south. The 

largest force was the Allied force, which ultimately chased the Germans around 

GEA until after the end of WWI—the Germans surrendered in East Africa only 

after their surrender in Europe.

From a postal history perspective, the Germans began printing all stamps 

on paper which was watermarked lozenges in 1905, including stamps for the 

colonies. In late 1905, GEA changed currency from the Pesa/Rupie to Heller/

Rupie. All low value stamps were reissued in the new currency (and therefore 

on the new watermarked paper). The Rupie value stamps, used primarily for 

internal post office operation (on parcel cards, money orders, etc.), did not need 

replenishment.

By early 1915, GEA officials requested replenishment of the 1 Rupie stamp, 

along with other war supplies—ammunition, artillery, medals, ‘15’ and ‘16’ 

year dates for cancellers, etc. The Germans prepared a blockade breaker, the 

captured Dacre Hill, outfitted as the “Danish” vessel Nordamerika. The Nordamerika left Wilhelmshaven on January 9, 1916 en route to GEA, with the war 

supplies and its own pontoon wharf. It successfully avoided the Allied warships 

in the Atlantic, rounded the Cape, and avoided the Allied blockade off the GEA 

coast. The Nordamerika entered Sudi Bay, just south of Lindi, on March 16, 

1916 (see Figure 1). Sudi Bay was the most southerly harbor in GEA for oceangoing vessels.

Capt. Conrad Sörensen rechristened the ship Marie (his wife’s name) in celebration of the successful voyage. By March 27, 1916, the ship was unloaded, 

and the cargo (made up in sixty-six pound parcels in Berlin) was on its way via 

porters. The British discovered the vessel about this time and began shelling her. 

The Marie escaped on April 22 and was interned in Batavia harbor in Indonesia 
2 4 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

on May 13. Sörensen and three crew members escaped. 

They were captured when attempting to board a U.S. ship 

in a Japanese harbor. They were interned in the U.S. and 

repatriated after the war.

Therefore, the 1 Rupie watermarked stamp first arrived in GEA in early 1916, and the use of this stamp, 

as told by the cancels on surviving copies, gives us information about postal traffic in GEA in 1916. The first 

known uses of the 1 Rupie watermarked stamp are in 

June 1916 in Dodoma and Mpapua, both towns along 

the Mittellandbahn (central railroad)—see Figures 1 and 

2. The Allies captured Dodoma on July 29 and Mpapua 

on August 12, 1916. Table 1 shows the towns from which 

genuinely used 1 Rupie watermarked stamps have been 

found with the date they were captured by Allied forces, 

the number of stamps known, and the period of use of the 

cancel. Note that the Allied forces, driving from the north, 

Figure 1. German East Africa in 1914.1 Used by permission of the author and Jürgen Fricke.

Figure 2. GEA 1 Rupie watermarked, used in DODOMA 19 June 

1916. Used by permission of the author and Jürgen Fricke.
n u m b e r 5 5 • 2 5

captured Dodoma (the center of the Central Railway–

Mittellandbahn) first, then advanced eastward to Dar-esSalaam and finally westward to Tabora.

World War I in Kionga

Kionga was a small triangle of land between German 

East Africa and Mozambique (Portuguese East Africa) 

south of the Rovuma River and north of the Minengani 

River (see Figure 3). Various diplomatic agreements between the French, British, Germans, and Portuguese in 

June and December 1886 disagreed on the possession of 

this area. The Germans acknowledged that the area had 

been relinquished to “Portuguese influence” but claimed 

continued “special interest” in the area. The Portuguese 

occupied the area in 1887. Five years later, the Germans 

seized the area back from Portugal.

Table 1. GEA Towns and Central Railway, Capture Date, Number of GEA 1 Rupie Watermarked Stamps, and Period of Use.1

Number of 1 Rupie 

Town or Railway Date of Allied Capture Watermarked Stamps Period of Use

Dodoma 29 July 1916 11 14–30 June 1916

Mpapua 12 August 1916 1 16 June 1916

Kilossa 22 August 1916 3 4–25 July 1916

Morogoro 26 August 1916 8 29 June–10 July 1916

Daressalam 4 Sept. 1916 8 26 June–20 August 1916

Tabora 19 Sept. 1916 2 30 August–1 Sept. 1916

Mittellandbahn 19 Sept. 1916 9 19 June–27 July 1916

Lindi 17 October 1916 2 26 June–7 July 1916

Figure 3. The Kionga Triangle.2 Used by permission of the author, Alfred F. Kugel, and Robert E. Lamb.
2 6 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

After many more years of “discussions,” the British 

pressured Germany and Portugal to divide the area, giving 

the northern half to Germany and the southern to Portugal. This was the position when WWI began in August 

1914. Portugal was neutral until March 1916 (and in fact 

permitted mail from GEA through Mozambique to Portugal and then to Germany for some months). Portugal entered the war on March 9, 1916 and occupied the Kionga 

triangle on April 10. Seven weeks later, on May 29, Portugal issued a set of four stamps overprinted ‘KIONGA’ for 

use in its new territory. (See Figure 4)

The underlying stamps depict King Carlos and are 

from the 1898 issue of Lourenço Marques (a province of 

Portuguese East Africa). King Carlos was assassinated in 

1908, and the Portuguese monarchy was overthrown in 

1910. These Lourenço Marques stamps were locally overprinted “republica” and issued in 1916. These obsolete 

stamps were further overprinted “kionga” and issued on 

May 29, 1916.

In 1913, the currency changed from 1,000 Reis = 1 

Milreis, to 100 Centavos = 1 Escudo. Kionga stamps are 

also surcharged with new values in Centavos:

• 1⁄2C.—printed matter rate

• 1C.—domestic postal card rate

• 21⁄2C—domestic letter rate

• 5C.—foreign letter rate.

The order of the two overprints and the surcharges is 

not clear. We presume “republica” first, new value surcharges second, and “kionga” last, but we have no direct 

confirmation of this.

There was great interest in “War Stamps” in World 

War I—stamps issued by the combatants for use in occupied territories. The Kionga stamps were very popular 

and are quite available even today, both mint and used. 

There are fifty covers and cards known from Kionga in 

World War I. Of these, at least thirty went through the 

mails (they bear appropriate civilian and/or military censor marks, transit cancels, and/or receiving cancels).

The destinations of these covers are shown in Table 2. 

Of the two covers to Brazil, both went to Rio de Janeiro 

via Lisbon (see Figure 5). One was censored in Mozambique, and the other in Lisbon. Finally, one bears a Rio 

receiving cancel, the other does not. The one cover to 

Denmark (Copenhagen) went via Palma (a border town in 

northeast PEA) and Lisbon and was censored in Dieppe, 

France.

The one cover to France (Paris) went via Biera (a town 

on the PEA coast) was censored both in Biera and Paris 

and bears a Paris receiving cancel. The three covers to 

Nyassa are all to Mocimboa da Praia. Two are via Palma, 

and one is reported as via Tipo, but no censoring or receiving cancels are reported. There are six covers to Portugal 

(five to Lisbon, one to Coimbra). Three are fieldpost cards, 

with two censored in Lisbon (August 1918) and one not 

censored (September 1918). The other three are commercial covers, one censored in Lourenço Marques, one probably in Lisbon, and one at an unknown location. Two of 

these bear Lisbon receiving cancels.

There are two covers to South West Africa in the census, both to Keetmanshoop. The January 1917 cover was 

censored in Lourenço Marques; the June 1918 cover was 

censored in Beira. Both were also censored in Capetown. 

The January 1917 cover travelled via Lourenço Marques; 

the June 1918 cover travelled via Palma, Moçambique, 

Figure 4. 5C. Kionga stamp.2 From the collection of Alfred F. 

Kugel. Used by permission.

Table 2. Destinations of Kionga Covers

Brazil 2 Nyassa 3 Switzerland 7

Denmark 1 Portugal 6 United Kingdom 7

France 1 South West Africa 2 United States 1
n u m b e r 5 5 • 2 7

and Beira. Finally, both covers bear Keetmanshoop receiving cancels.

There are seven covers in the census to Switzerland, all 

to philatelic addressees (but all of which actually travelled 

through the mails). Four covers went to Moudon, and three to 

Basel. Two of the Moudon covers were sent in April 1917—

these were both censored in Lourenço Marques, and one was 

also censored in Capetown. Two other covers to Moudon 

were sent in October 1917—these were both censored in 

Lyon, France. All four covers to Moudon bear Moudon receiving cancels. One cover to Basel in January 1918 was censored by the French in London, with Palma, Moçambique, 

and London transit cancels. Another cover to Basel, sent on 

February 12, 1918, was censored in Capetown, with a Lourenço Marques transit cancel. Another cover to Basel, sent 

only two days later on February 14, 1918, was also censored 

in Capetown, but with Palma and London transit cancels. All 

three covers to Basel bear Basel receiving cancels.

There are seven covers recorded to the United Kingdom (five to London, one to Nottingham, and one to 

Oxford). A June 1916 cover to London was censored in 

Lourenço Marques and bears a London receiving cancel. 

Two covers to London in October and November 1916 

were censored in Moçambique with Lisbon transit and 

London receiving cancels. A February 1917 cover to Nottingham was censored in Lourenço Marques and Moçambique (only the front has survived). A February 1917 

cover to London was censored in Lisbon (?) and London 

and bears a London receiving cancel. A June 1917 cover to 

Oxford was censored in Beira and has Beira and Liverpool 

transit cancels. Finally, an August 1917 cover to London 

was censored in Lourenço Marques.

There is one cover recorded to the United States (New 

York). It was sent April 1917, was censored in Lourenço 

Marques, bears a New York receiving cancel, and no other 

censor or transit cancels.

Conclusions

For the GEA 1 Rupie watermarked stamps, we see that 

use began in two towns in the middle of the Mittellandbahn, thence to Morogoro, Daressalam (both farther east 

on the Mittellandbahn) and Lindi in the far south, then 

Figure 5. MAI 16, 1917 Kionga cover to Brazil.2 Used by permission of the author, Alfred F. 

Kugel, and Robert E. Lamb.
2 8 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

Kilossa, then Tabora on the Mittellandbahn. Almost all the 

uses were in towns along the Mittellandbahn. Almost all 

the uses occurred in less than a month (from June 14 to 

July 10)—see Figure 2. Given the great importance of the 

railroad to efficient communications, we suggest that this 

probably models most of the mid-1916 communication 

within GEA. Covers are known which were carried by runners in the interior of GEA and others which were carried 

on dhows along the coast, but we suggest most communication was along the Mittellandbahn as long as possible.

For the covers from Kionga, the routing and censorship was generally predictable—e.g., Kionga to Brazil 

through Portugal—which makes sense. The local covers 

(to Nyassa, also in PEA) were not censored. Finally, there 

are detail differences (in censoring, routes, transit and receiving cancels) even for covers sent on the same day, and 

certainly for those sent at different times.

A significant amount of information about war-time 

postal operations is derivable from philatelic censuses.

Notes

1. John Kevin Doyle and Jürgen Fricke, “The Queen of German Colonial Philately”, The Congress Book 2001, Chicago 

(2001): 53–72.

2. John Kevin Doyle, Alfred F. Kugel, and Robert E. Lamb, 

“The Portuguese in Kionga”, The Congress Book, Columbus 

(2003): 149–176.

Bibliography

Doyle, John Kevin, Alfred F. Kugel, and Robert E. Lamb. “The 

Portuguese in Kionga.” 2003 Congress Book, #69. Columbus, Oh.: American Philatelic Congress, 2003. 

Doyle, John Kevin, and Jürgen Fricke. “The Queen of German 

Colonial Philately.” 2001 Congress Book, #67. Chicago: 

American Philatelic Congress, 2001.
Explorations in the Official Register:

Statistical Analysis of Postmaster 

Compensation Data from 19th Century 

New Hampshire

Terence Hines and Thomas Velk

Introduction

A continuing problem for economists interested in wealth, income and economic activity in nineteenth century America is a distinct lack of good economic data, especially for the early part of the century. There seems to be 

no data set that could provide these variables and that is anywhere near complete 

both geographically and temporally. Thus economists have been forced to reply 

on measures that are, to say the least, quite removed from the actual economic 

variables of interest. Worse, the data sets economic historians have used are comparatively crude, happenstance, non-random and irregular “precursor” materials. 

Probate records, farm books (Mr. Jefferson’s is a classic example), village tax records, newspaper reports of prices, merchant inventories, export and import data 

related to excise tax collections, letters and tax records have all been used. Early 

American governments often taxed personal as well as fixed wealth. Tax documents can be found that detail taxes paid by households subject to such levies.

For the earliest years, capitalizations of the great trading companies, from 

the West India Company to the Hudson’s Bay Company, as well as other sources, 

have been used to make indirect, wealth based estimates of income. Excellent examples of this can be found in Coclanis’ edited volume.1

 Data sources used include 

capital investment in the West India Company, wine imports into New York, expenditures on Indians in South Carolina, and average wealth at death of certain 

persons in New York, Massachusetts, South Carolina, and Jamaica. This last data 

source focused on estates in which there were significant holdings of wine, especially Madeira. Wines, especially expensive ones such as Madeira, attracted the attention of the tax authorities and thus careful records were kept (or fudged—who 

knows?) by individuals charged with reporting to the probate courts.

Abramovitz and David point out that “Such measures are neither comprehensive nor unbiased.”2

 For example, Jones used probate records to estimate per 

capita wealth in early America and came up with a figure of seventy-six pounds.3
3 0 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

Her nearly forty years of research yielded data on only 

a very few counties in a few states in colonial America. 

Hughes and Cain use the seventy-six-pound figure and 

then note that “dividing this figure by various capital output ratios produces a result that is a measure of output 

(income) per head. . . . Historic capital output ratios fall 

somewhere between the boundaries 3/1 and 5/1.”4 Thus, 

the estimated income per head could be anywhere from 

fifteen to twenty-five pounds, a rather wide range. According to Abramovitz and David, income estimates for the 

period before 1870, “are surrounded by particularly wide 

margins of uncertainty.”5 In this essay, the authors refer to 

highly aggregated data on the national level. Detailed data 

at the local level has heretofore simply been unavailable. 

Most income estimates made by historians who study the 

eighteenth and nineteenth centuries are built up from such 

indirect data.

It appears that virtually all of the standard information used by economic historians to estimate income and 

economic activity in the nineteenth century is either highly 

aggregated or, when microeconomic, irregular in time and 

incomplete in geographic extent. This state of affairs has 

led to at least one highly creative attempt to obtain more 

comprehensive data. Komlos used the heights and weights 

of West Point cadets as surrogates for economic variables.6

The use of such data suggests that scholars in this field are 

willing to use variables that have at best an extremely distant and at worst an ultimately unknowable relationship 

to the actual variable(s) of interest.

Economic historians agree that “measurement and 

analysis of economic growth . . . call for a very large volume of data.” Unfortunately, “before 1840 no regular or 

reasonably complete census of economic activities was carried out in the United States.”7

 Even after 1840 data that 

closely mirrors economic activity at the local level and is 

available at regular chronological intervals throughout the 

remainder of the nineteenth century has not been know to 

economic historians.

In the next section we describe a data set, previously 

unknown to economic historians, that contains data that 

we argue provides a measure of economic activity in every 

town in the United States every two years from 1816 to 

1911 and which is much more accurate than anything previously known. 

The Official Register

For most of the nineteenth century and the first decade of the twentieth, the federal government published 

biannually a listing of the salaries of every government 

employee. While the exact title of this publication changed 

from time to time,8 it is generally referred to as the Official Register, abbreviated hereinafter as OR. The OR is of 

special interest to economists and economic historians as 

it reports the salaries of the postmaster of each post office 

in the United States and its territories. Postmaster salaries 

were, during the period the OR was published, a function 

of the amount of business each post office did. The formulae for deriving total postal income at a given post office 

from the salary data in the OR are available in the appropriate United States Statutes at Large. Happily, they have 

been summarized in a Congressional report.9 By “postal 

income” we mean income generated from the operation of 

the post office. It is our hypothesis that local postal income 

can be used as a measure of economic activity at the local 

level. By examining changes in local postal income over 

time and space, local, regional and national trends in economic activity can be charted at a level of detail previously 

impossible. We will test this claim in the next section.

It is important to emphasize the scope and detail of 

the OR data set. It gives the salaries of the postmaster of 

each town in every state and territory of the United States 

every two years from 1816 to 1911. To the extent that 

local postal income reflects local economic activity, this 

data set gives an unprecedented opportunity to examine 

patterns of such activity across space and time in the nineteenth century in a manner never previously possible.

The OR data was first discovered and used by postal 

historians, generally philatelists who are interested in 

postal rates, the transportation of the mails, the postmarks 

and other postal markings used on envelopes (termed 

“covers” in philatelic jargon), and postal procedures. This 

is a major portion of modern organized philately and has 

its own considerable technical literature.

Postal historians have been interested in the OR data 

as it gives an idea of how rare covers from various post 

offices are. Generally, one would expect that post offices doing less business would generate fewer covers and 

covers from such offices would be rarer than those from 

offices doing more business. Stach has found that the correlations between postmaster compensation and number 

of known covers from post offices in the Nebraska and 

South Dakota Territories are, respectively, r = + .94 and 

r = + .88.10

By far the most sophisticated research using OR data 

has been done by Harris, who first realized the importance 

of this data for historical and economic analysis.11 Harris’ research has been mostly aimed at using OR data to 

show the effects of local economic activity on post office 
n u m b e r 5 5 • 3 1

receipts. DeBlois and Harris analyzed the postal receipts 

of small post offices in Rensselaer County, N.Y., and 

found examples of the exquisite sensitivity of the OR data 

to local events.12 For example, for the period 1827 to 1833 

the receipts of the Sand Lake post office grew at more than 

the national average. When other post offices were opened 

in the vicinity of Sand Lake, that office’s receipts dropped. 

The receipts of the Sand Lake post office showed a sharp 

drop between 1851 and 1853, a drop not seen to any great 

extend in the other regional offices. DeBlois and Harris 

note that on December 25, 1852, a glass factory in Sand 

Lake was destroyed by fire. They argue that since the factory was the major industry in the town, this loss can explain the greater decline in revenues from this office.

The original printed volumes of the Official Register 

are extremely rare. Even the largest institutional libraries 

do not have anything approaching a complete set. Such a 

set does exist in the collection of the Library of Congress. 

However, efforts are now under way to digitize the OR

data through the 1871 volume.13

OR Data and Economic Variables

This section provides a preliminary analysis, using the 

data from New Hampshire post offices, of the relationships 

between postmaster compensation data and economic and 

demographic variables. New Hampshire was chosen because one of us (TH) has copies of the New Hampshire 

date from all the ORs and because New Hampshire is the 

only state for which census data is available on-line. This 

data can be found at the web site of the New Hampshire 

Historical Society, www.nhhistory.org.

The specific date reported in the OR varied over the 

almost one hundred years of this title’s publication. For 

the entire period, 1816 through 1911, compensation for 

each postmaster is reported. For the years 1841 through 

1869, in addition, the “net proceeds” at each office are 

reported. Adding the compensation to the proceeds results 

in the total postal income for the post office that year.14

While it was always the case that as postal income 

increased, postmaster compensation increased, this relation was not a simple one but an incremental one. That 

is, as income increased, postmasters received a decreasing 

percentage of incremental income. Further, the exact formula for compensation varied over the years as Congress 

altered the way postmaster compensation was computed. 

The details of these changes in compensation rates are beyond the scope of this paper but can be found in Joint 

Commission on Postal Salaries.15 As an example, under 

the Act of June 22, 1854, postmasters received sixty percent of the first $100 of income, fifty percent of the next 

$300, forty percent of the next $2,000 and fifteen percent 

on all income over $2,400. 

The incremental nature of the compensation formulae 

presents a problem for some statistical analyses. This is because the formulae result in distributions of compensation 

values that have smaller variances than the distributions of 

actual income values. In other words, the distributions of 

compensations are compacted relative to the distributions 

of actual incomes. Especially for correlational analyses, the 

restricted range of the compensation data may cause one 

to miss effects that would be found were the total postal 

income data, with its greater variance, to be used. This, of 

course, isn’t a problem for those years when both compensation and net proceeds are provided as one may simply 

add the two (but see below). However, for years where 

only compensation is provided, it is necessary to calculate 

the income based on the compensation schedules provided 

in the Joint Commission on Postal Salaries publication.16

Happily, for most years this is rather straightforward. 

Preliminary Analyses

Before undertaking an analysis of the compensation 

data, it is important to establish that the basic data of 

postal income is economically relevant. One way to approach this question is to examine postal income data at 

the national level and see if it is correlated with important 

economic variables. The 1911 Annual Report of the Postmaster General gives the audited postal revenues for each 

fiscal year from 1837 through 1911.17 These figures were 

correlated with the nominal Gross Domestic Product of 

the corresponding years taken from the on-line economic 

history database at www.eh.net. The resulting Pearson 

product-moment correlation is r = + .976 (p < .001). This 

very high correlation shows that, at least at the national 

level, postal revenues do correlate impressively with GDP 

and thus suggests that postal revenues do reflect economic 

activity. For even earlier years, the 1831 Annual Report 

of the Postmaster General reported total postal receipts 

for 1789 through 1830.18 Correlating these numbers with 

nominal GDP (starting with 1790–nGDP is not available 

for 1789) resulted in another high correlation: r = + .84 

(p < .001). These high correlations gave us some confidence that postal data have some relationship to economic 

factors and spurred further analyses.

As noted above, for some years the OR reported 

only the postmasters’ compensation. Using the formulae 
3 2 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

published in the statutes relating compensation to total 

postal income, it should be possible to derive total postal 

income from the compensation data. For example, in 1859 

the Concord NH postmaster received $1,783 (rounded to 

the nearest dollar) in compensation. But for the year 1859 

the OR reports not only the compensation but also the 

net income. Adding the two together produces total postal 

income of $5,424.19 If compensation were based only on 

postal income, a calculation of the 1859 Concord post office income using the compensation rates in effect at the 

time should result in a figure of approximately $5425. 

This calculation actually yields a figure of $7,553, a difference of $2,129, or thirty-nine percent (Table 1).

This calculated figure is higher than the actual income 

because postmaster compensation included monies for 

things other than postal income such as box rents, extra 

pay for delivery of late mails, delivery of newspapers, and 

the like. One would expect that the discrepancy between 

the actual reported income and estimated income would be 

in the positive direction. Further, the discrepancy should be 

larger for larger post offices where the postmaster would 

have greater opportunities for earning additional compensation not directly related to the amount of money his office received. To test this hypothesis and to get an idea 

of how generally reflective of true total postal income the 

reported compensation figures were, a total of twenty-five 

New Hampshire post offices varying in size were selected 

from the 1859 OR. For each office, the compensation 

due based on the reported compensation plus net income 

figure was calculated. The difference was then expressed 

as a percentage with positive percentages indicating the 

reported compensation was greater than the calculated 

compensation. The average difference was twelve percent 

with a standard deviation of twenty-two. Of the twentyfive offices, nineteen had positive differences and six had 

negative differences. 

Positive differences are fairly easy to explain. Postmaster compensation included monies for things other 

than postage paid at the office. Depending on the specific 

compensation rules in effect, these included extra compensation for such things as receipt of newspapers, post office 

box rents, onward routing of letters, receipts of mails after 

a certain time at night. These extra sources of compensation a postmaster earned would be more likely to occur at 

the larger post offices. This supposition is supported by 

the significant correlation of reported compensation with 

the percentage difference between reported and calculated 

compensation and is significant with r = + .40 (p < .047).

The negative differences may have been due to fines 

for various infractions, but additional research will be 

needed to investigate the rules for such fines and the characteristics of post offices with negative differences.

Two other variables had some effect on compensation. Postmasters received extra compensation (usually ten 

percent) of the first compensation increment if they had to 

open their office at late hours to receive or dispatch the 

mail. Postmasters at “distributing offices” which received 

and then sorted mail bound for other offices also received 

extra compensation. There were no distributing offices in 

New Hampshire after 1842. In earlier years only Hanover 

(until 1837 or 1838), Portsmouth (until 1837 or 1838) 

and Walpole (until at least 1831) were distributing offices 

in the state. 

Population Effects

In the previous section the general validity of calculating estimated post office income from the published postmaster compensation data was established. This being the 

case, it is appropriate to investigate further the factors that 

correlate with the estimated income variable. An obvious 

candidate is population. A simple prediction is that as the 

population of a town or city increases, so will the amount 

of business its post office does, resulting in a higher postal 

income for that town. There are two ways to examine the 

relationship between population and estimated income. 

The first is to examine the relationship for each census 

year for which data is available. Here this means the decennial census years of 1820 to 1910. The year 1880 is 

not included in the percent analysis as the law in effect 

TABLE 1. Calculation of estimated income for Concord, NH 

1859.

Actual Compensation Net Sum

$1783 $3641 $5424

Calculation:

 Income Compensation 

Range Amount Percent Compensation Remainder

$1783

$0–$100 $100 60% $60 $1723

$100–$400 $300 50% $150 $1573

$400–$2400 $2000 40% $800 $773

$2400+ $5153 15% $773 $0

Sum $7553 $1783
n u m b e r 5 5 • 3 3

in 1880 relating to postmaster compensation is extremely 

unclear as to how compensation was calculated. Thus, 

it has not yet been possible to calculate estimated postal 

incomes for 1880. For the other years, however, the correlations between estimated income and population are 

consistently high and positive, as shown in Table 2. All 

correlations reported in this paper are Pearson ProductMoment correlations.

It was not feasible to calculate the estimated income 

for all the several hundred post offices in New Hampshire 

every census year. To simplify matters, a quasi-random 

sample of nineteen post offices was chosen from the list 

of New Hampshire post offices operating in 1850. This 

resulted in the year 1820 having fewer than nineteen offices in the sample, as seven offices that were operating in 

1850 had not yet opened in 1820. By 1910, one office, 

Middleton, had closed, thus reducing the 1910 sample to 

eighteen offices. In order to assure that the obtained correlations would not be artifactually small due to range restriction effects, all the largest post offices were included in 

the sample as well as a range of other sizes from medium 

to small (Table 2).

Correlations were also calculated between population and the uncorrected “raw” compensation data. Since 

comparisons were being made within a given year when 

the compensation formula was the same across all postmasters, it was not felt necessary to calculate estimated 

postal income. These correlations were consistently high 

and positive. As would be expected based on the argument 

above that the compensation figures truncate the actual 

distributions of income, these correlations were generally 

somewhat smaller than those reported in Table 2. The correction for 1880 was r = + .90 (p < .001).

It is also possible to examine the correlations between 

population and estimated postal income by examining this 

relationship at individual post offices over the period 1820 

(or 1830 in the case of offices not open in 1820) to 1910. 

Table 3 shows these correlations for the nineteen post offices in the sample.

The pattern of correlations in Table 3 is clearly far 

from consistently positive. Of the nineteen, seven are 

significantly positive, two are significantly negative and 

one almost so. The others are not significant. This hardly 

seems to be the pattern expected based on the results of 

the analyses of the correlations between population and 

estimated income seen in Table 2.

What characteristics of the different towns could account for this pattern of correlations? Inspection of the 

data suggested that in cases where the population of a 

town increased over the period in question, the correlation 

between population and estimated income was positive. 

But if the population of a town declined, the correction 

was negative. To test this, the percentage change in population (also shown in Table 3) of each town for the period 

in question was correlated with the correlation between 

estimated income and population. This resulted in a highly 

significant correlation of r = + .89 (p < .001).

TABLE 2. Population versus Postmaster Compensation for Census Years 1820 To 1910.

Census Year Correlation Significance N

1820 0.88 0.001 12

1830 0.85 0.001 19

1840 0.91 0.001 19

1850 0.96 0.001 19

1860 0.97 0.001 19

1870 0.97 0.001 19

1880 not calculated—see text.

1890 0.92 0.001 19

1900 0.96 0.001 19

1910 0.97 0.001 18

TABLE 3. Correlations between Population and Estimated Income for Individual Post Offices.

Change in

Post Office Correlation Significance Population (%) Period

Bethlehem 0.91 0.002 78 1830–1910

Brookline –0.77 0.026 –20 1830–1910

Center Harbor –0.73 0.026 –1 1820–1910

Concord 0.90 0.001 657 1820–1910

Dover 0.87 0.002 361 1820–1910

Goshen –0.60 0.120 –57 1830–1910

Hanover –0.44 0.240 –7 1820–1910

Keene 0.94 0.001 431 1820–1910

Kingston 0.23 0.555 20 1820–1910

Lebanon 0.97 0.001 234 1820–1910

Middleton –0.09 0.840 –47 1830–1900

Portsmouth 0.48 0.191 54 1820–1910

Randolph 0.34 0.414 –4 1830–1910

Sanbornton –0.64 0.064 –74 1820–1910

Springfield –0.48 0.234 –65 1830–1910

Strafford 0.74 0.023 152 1820–1910

Walpole 0.80 0.010 32 1820–1910

Whitefield 0.82 0.012 139 1830–1910

Windham –0.41 0.276 –34 1820–1910
3 4 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

This correlation indicated that when a town’s population increased, so did estimated postal income. The correlation further shows that even when a town’s population 

decreased, income increased. What could account for this 

seemingly odd result? It appears that over the course of 

the nineteenth and into the twentieth centuries, there was 

a dramatic and pervasive increase in the use of the postal 

service. Certainly over this period, postal rates decreased, 

both in nominal and real terms. For example, in 1820, 

when postal rates were determined by the distance even 

a domestic letter would travel, it cost 18.5 cents to send 

a letter between 150 and 400 miles. That corresponds to 

$3.07 in 2005 dollars. In 1920, sending the same letter cost 

two cents ($.41 in 2005 dollars). Early in the nineteenth 

century, because of the high cost of postage, the mails 

had been primarily used for business correspondence. As 

the century progressed postage rates decreased considerably while literacy rates increased. Both these factors led 

to more correspondence. In addition, the country grew 

in size and, especially in northern New England, young 

people moved west where much better land was available. 

This great westward migration also led to greater correspondence as family members staying in the east corresponded with relatives who had moved west. The finding 

that local postal incomes increased whether population of 

a town increased or decreased strongly supports the argument made by Henkin that the post office emerged as a, 

if not the, major source of personal communication in the 

nineteenth century.20

In economic terms the data in Table 3 suggest that 

even when population shrinks in a town, if per capita income grows sufficiently and if per capita usage of capital 

grows as well, postal revenue may well expand, demonstrating not only economic growth but development as 

well. This further suggests that postal efficiency closely 

parallels a general trend of increasing efficiency of capital. 

A question for further analysis is whether there is a difference between “public” capital efficiency (the post office) 

and private capital efficiency in allied communication and 

transportation systems such as railroads and telegraph 

companies. It should be realized, of course, that both these 

systems did receive government support in the nineteenth 

century.

The correlations between population and estimated 

postal income may be modified by a factor not mentioned 

previously. And this factor may actually add to the usefulness of the Official Register data for economic analyses. 

The published census data reports the total population for 

a given political entity such as Hanover, New Hampshire. 

But the town of Hanover has had, at different times, three 

different post offices—Hanover itself (1792 to date), 

Hanover Center (1828–1918) and Etna (1882 to date). 

The Official Register reports data for each post office individually, permitting a more fine grained analysis than the 

census data both in place and in time, since the Official 

Register data is available every two years and the census 

data only every ten years.

Recession of 1837

The Official Register data may be useful for examining 

more directly economic variables. The National Bureau of 

Economic Research (NBER) supplies a list of generally accepted dates for the economic ups and downs of the national business cycle. One well-known data phase was the 

recession of 1837. Does evidence of this recession appear 

in OR data? To examine this question with regard to New 

Hampshire, the estimated postal incomes for the six largest towns in New Hampshire (Concord, Dover, Hanover, 

Keene, Nashua, and Portsmouth) for the years 1835 to 

1845 were submitted to a one-way analysis of variance. 

The mean income data is shown in Table 4. Examination 

of the data shows that while there was an increase from 

1837 to 1839, from 1839 to 1845 there was a consistent 

decrease. However, the variance among the six different 

towns was so great that this trend did not even approach 

significance (F (3, 23) = .383) (Table 4).

New Hampshire was then, admittedly, a small state 

removed from the main centers of economic activity in 

the nation. It is perhaps thus not surprising that the recession of 1837 had no noticeable effect on postal income 

even in its largest cities and towns. Examination of Official Register data from other larger states and with more 

sophisticated analytical tools may well reveal the effects 

of recessions and recoveries. To the extent that this is the 

case, it may be possible to examine the time course of recessions and recoveries in different parts of the country. A 

recession is not like an explosion that happens suddenly. 

Rather, the business cycle is a dynamic process that affects 

TABLE 4. Mean Estimated Income, 1835 to 1845.

1835 1837 1839 1841 1843 1845

8234 7363 8294 7736 7146 6323
n u m b e r 5 5 • 3 5

different geographic and demographic areas differently in 

both time and intensity. It is our hope that careful analysis 

of regional and nationwide OR data will reveal these temporal and spatial changes in the business cycle at a level of 

detail heretofore unavailable.

Conclusions

Our analysis of the OR data from the State of New 

Hampshire has shown that these data hold considerable 

promise as a source of previously unavailable insights into 

economic and demographic variables during the nineteen 

century. We have specifically examined population effects 

and the effects of one recession on postal income. The OR

data can be used to examine a number of other interesting 

historical trends. For example, how does the use of the 

postal service change with the advent of improved transportation and other communication systems such as railroads, telegraph lines, and road construction? Does the 

integration of the frontier and the re-integration of the 

South following the Civil War manifest in the OR data?

It should be mentioned here that similar data are available from Canada. In Canada, from at least Confederation 

until 1948, local postmaster compensation was based on 

the income accruing to each individual post office.21 This 

compensation data is found in the annual report of the 

postmaster general printed each year in the Sessional Papers of Parliament. The reports of the postmaster general 

also give very valuable statistical data not found in any 

US official document. For every post office issuing money 

orders, the annual report gives the total value of money 

orders issued and cashed by that office. Further, for at least 

some years (neither of us have yet been able to examine a 

complete run of the postmaster general reports), data on 

the number and value of money orders issued in one province destined for another province is given, as well as the 

number and value of money orders issued in the second 

province that were paid in the first province. The postmaster general reports also give, for at least some years, 

information on the number and value of money orders issued to and received from other countries.

Returning to the compensation data, given that in 

Canada postmaster compensation was based on postal 

business, it might be suspected that a similar practice was 

followed in Great Britain. This is not the case. In Britain, at least during the nineteenth century, postmaster salary was based on the individual’s grade and not on the 

amount of business done by the office.

STATISTICAL APPENDIX

The Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient

The Pearson product moment correlation coefficient is 

one of a family of correlational techniques and probably 

the one most commonly used in research. A correlation is 

a number between negative one and positive one that indicates the strength of the relationship between two variables. 

A positive correlation indicates that when the value of one 

variable increases (or decreases), the value of the other variable changes in the same direction. A negative correlation 

indicates that a change in one variable is associated with a 

change in the opposite direction of the other variable. In the 

text, the value of the Pearson correlation coefficient is indicated by the symbol lower case r, as in “r = 0.66.”

NOTES

1. P. A. Coclanis, ed., The Atlantic Economy During the 

Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries: Organization, Operation, Practice and Personnel (Columbia, S. C.: University of 

South Carolina, 2005).

2. M. Abromovitz, and P. A. David, “American macroeconomic growth in the era of knowledge-based progress: The longrun perspective.” In Cambridge Economic History of the United 

States, Vol. III, ed. S. L. Engerman and R. E. Gallman (Cambridge, U. K.: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 6.

3. A. H. Jones, Wealth of a Nation to Be: The American 

Colonies on the Eve of the Revolution (New York: Columbia 

University Press, 1980).

4. J. Hughes and L. P. Cain, American Economic History

(Boston: Addison Wesley, 2007), 50–51.

5. Abramovitz and David, “American macroeconomic 

growth,” 66.

6. J. Komlos, “The height and weight of West Point cadets: 

Dietary change in antebellum America,” Journal of Economic 

History, 47:897–927, 1987.

7. L. E. Davis, American Economic Growth: An Economist’s History of the United States (New York: Harper and Row, 

1972), 16.

8. R. D. Harris, “The Official Register. Part 1,” Post Script, 

2:12–20, 1977; A. Hecht, “Official Register of the United 

States,” American Philatelist, 74(12):891–894, 930–931, 1961.

9. Joint Commission of Postal Services, “Memorandum 

concerning compensation of postmasters and method of determining same, etc.” In Postal Salaries: Final Report of the Joint 

Commission on Postal Salaries (66th Congress, 3rd Session, Senate Document No. 422, Vol. 1, 1921), 102–118.

10. K. Stach, “A statistical analysis of Nebraska Territorial postal history,” La Posta, 33(6):15–19, 2003; K. Stach, “A 
3 6 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

statistical analysis of South Dakota Territorial postal history,” 

Unpublished manuscript.

11. Harris, “The Official Register.”

12. D. DeBlois and R. D. Harris, “Using the Official Registers: Local Sources of Postal Revenue.” Presented at the First Annual Winton M. Blount Postal History Symposium, Washington, 

D. C., Smithsonian National Postal Museum, 4 November 2006.

13. M. C. O. O’Reilly, “Providing Access to the Official 

Register Data.” Presented at the First Annual Winton M. Blount 

Postal History Symposium, Washington, D. C., Smithsonian National Postal Museum, 4 November 2006.

14. Harris, “The Official Register.”

15. Joint Commission of Postal Services, “Memorandum 

concerning compensation.”

16. Joint Commission of Postal Services, “Memorandum 

concerning compensation.”

17. Annual Report of the Postmaster General (Washington, 

D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1911), 387.

18. Annual Report of the Postmaster General (Washington, 

D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1831).

19. Harris, “The Official Register.”

20. D. M. Henkin, The Postal Age: The Emergence of Modern Communications in Nineteenth-Century America (Chicago: 

University of Chicago Press, 2006.)

21. C. Amyot and J. Willis, Country Post: Rural Postal Service in Canada, 1880 to 1945 (Gatineau, Qc., Canada: Canadian 

Museum of Civilization, 2003).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abramovitz, M. and P. A. David. “American Macroeconomic 

Growth in the Era of Knowledge-Based Progress: The LongRun Perspective.” In Cambridge Economic History of the 

United States, Vol. III, ed. S. L. Engerman and R. E. Gallman, 

pp.–92. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 

2000.

Amyot, C. and J. Willis. Country Post. Rural Postal Service in 

Canada, 1880 to 1945. Gatineau, Qc., Canada: Canadian 

Museum of Civilization, 2003.

Annual Report of the Postmaster General. Washington D. C.: 

Government Printing Office, 1831.

Annual Report of the Postmaster General. Washington D. C.: 

Government Printing Office, 1911.

Coclanis, P. A., ed. The Atlantic Economy During the Seventeenth 

and Eighteenth Centuries: Organization, Operation, Practice 

and Personnel. Columbia, S. C.: University of South Carolina, 2005.

Davis, L. E. American Economic Growth: An Economist’s History of the United States. New York: Harper and Row, 

1972.

DeBlois, D. and R. D. Harris. Using the Official Registers: Local 

Sources of Postal Revenue. Presented at the First Annual 

Winton M. Blount Postal History Symposium. Washington, 

DC: Smithsonian National Postal Museum, Nov. 4, 2006.

Harris, R. D. The Official Register. Part 1. Post Script, # 2:12–

20, 1977.

Henkin, D. M. The Postal Age. The Emergence of Modern Communications in Nineteenth-Century America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006.

Hecht, A. Official Register of the United States. American Philatelist, 74(12):891–894, 930–931, 1961.

Hughes, J. and L. P. Cain. American Economic History. Boston: 

Addison, Wesley, 2007.

Joint Commission of Postal Services. “Memorandum Concerning Compensation of Postmasters and Method of Determining Same, etc.” In Postal Salaries: Final Report of the Joint 

Commission on Postal Salaries. 66th Congress, 3rd Session, 

Senate Document 422, Vol. 1, pp. 102–118, 1921.

Jones, A. H.. Wealth of a Nation to Be: The American Colonies 

on the Eve of the Revolution. New York: Columbia University Press, 1980.

Komlos, J. “The Height and Weight of West Point Cadets: Dietary Change in Antebellum America.” Journal of Economic History, 47:897–927, 1987.

O’Reilly, M. C. O. Providing Access to the Official Register 

Data. Presented at the First Annual Winton M. Blount Symposium on Postal History. Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian 

Institution National Postal Museum, Nov. 4, 2006.

Stach, K. A Statistical Analysis of Nebraska Territorial Postal 

History. La Posta, 33(6):15–19, 2003.

Stach, K. (undated). A Statistical Analysis of South Dakota Territorial Postal History. Unpublished manuscript.
Introduction to the Second Symposium

The second annual postal history symposium, sponsored by the Smithsonian National Postal Museum, the American Philatelic Society, and the American Philatelic Research Library, was held in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania, at the American Philatelic Center on October 21–22, 2007. The theme 

was “Further, Farther, Faster: Transportation Technology and the Mail,” the 

exploration of how, through the application of new technologies for transporting the mail, the post office and the transportation industry have encouraged, 

supported, and benefited from each other’s growth and development. 

The symposium featured scholars of a variety of postal and transportation technologies who presented nine papers, which explored the postaltransportation nexus in three moderated panels—Land, Sea, and Air. Cheryl R. 

Ganz, Philatelic Curator at the Smithsonian National Postal Museum, discusses 

“Air Transportation” in her paper “Zeppelin Posts at the 1933 Chicago World’s 

Fair: Integrating Collector and Historian Methodologies.”

Zeppelin Posts at the 1933 Chicago 

World’s Fair: Integrating Collector 

and Historian Methodologies

Cheryl R. Ganz

Introduction

P

hilatelists study postage stamps from concept through design and production to use. Stamp collectors also study mail as postal history, especially 

markings, rates, transportation, and routes. In recent years, they have eagerly sought the untapped wealth hidden in philatelic-related ephemera and in this 

way have added richness and depth to the body of philatelic knowledge. I have 

no doubt that philatelists are the most prolific authors of any hobby, and many 

philatelic libraries around the world are a testament to their voluminous output. 

Archives are expanding ephemera holdings to meet the needs of scholars 

and to distinguish holdings. Online auctions, which collectors, libraries, and 

authors regularly peruse, have made many hitherto obscure items accessible. 

Wanting to fill gaps in a narrative, scholars sometimes purchase original ephemera that offer information different from that offered by books and manuscripts. 

The bonus is often images without reproduction restrictions and the high costs 

for use in publications.

As a professional historian, museum curator, and a zeppelin collector of 

posts and ephemera, I have striven to bring the very distinctive approaches of 

each discipline together in my life, my hobby, and my career. By sharing my 

experience, I hope that other historians will realize the untapped potential of 

philately and ephemera. Further, I hope that other collectors will rethink their 

approaches to collecting, exhibiting, researching, writing, and judging/critiquing 

to expand their perspectives, ask new questions, and, as chef Emeril Lagasse 

says, “Kick it up a notch.” 

This essay discusses my holistic approach to collecting and includes an example from my own research that integrates the story of zeppelin mail, ephemera, 

the 1933 Chicago World’s Fair, and the diplomacy that stabilized a potentially 

volatile situation. The article illustrates ways in which philately and ephemera 

souvenirs from one day at the fair, when put in context, can touch people’s lives 

and inspire collectors, seasoned and novice alike.

As a collector of philately and related ephemera and artifacts, I relish each 

detail and thrill to each newly discovered fact. A descriptive approach identifies 
4 0 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

each object collected and, often through exhibiting and 

writing, relates objects to each other, all celebrated because they exist and because I have collected them for 

some reason.

As a historian, however, I place objects, details, and 

facts into a larger framework, asking how each relates to 

the historical process. In other words, I put the research 

in context and interpret it.1 I must answer what historians 

call the “So what?” question, and I must develop a thesis 

that presents a fresh perspective. Further, as a curator, I 

must seek strong stories that touch visitors’ lives and make 

the onsite and online experience engaging and rewarding.

By reading the current literature in both fields—

collecting and history—I am able to apply ideas from 

other philatelists, paper collectors, and historians to my 

own work, even if their topics do not relate specifically 

to my own focus, that being zeppelins, aerophilately, and 

the juxtaposition of art and industry during the Great Depression. For example, in his book The Postal Age, David 

Henkin examines mail users rather than the state postal 

system or the envelopes themselves.2

 As a result, he makes 

new discoveries about how mail changed lives and how 

lifestyles changed mail handling in the nineteenth century.

Henkin inspired me to examine the mail in my collection that the LZ127 Graf Zeppelin had flown from Germany to Brazil to the United States and back to Germany 

on the 1933 Chicago flight.3 I was stunned to discover that 

forty of sixty covers in my United States dispatches had 

names of Germanic origin for either the American sender 

or American addressee. Of course, German language immigrants comprised the largest ethnic group in Chicago, 

almost thirteen percent of the city’s population in 1930. 

Even Ernst J. Kruetgen, the city’s postmaster, was of German heritage. So while other collectors also serviced mail, 

the Graf Zeppelin’s visit was a source of especial pride for 

the German American community. This evidence proved 

significant when I studied the German American community’s reaction to the zeppelin visit.4

Case Study: Fifty-Cent Graf Zeppelin

A Century of Progress Stamp

Germans had been celebrating the progress of zeppelins since Count Ferdinand von Zeppelin flew his first design, the LZ1, on July 2, 1900. The zeppelin had become 

a symbol not only of German nationalism, but also of 

the nation’s economic resurgence. Zeppelin fever, reflecting the pride and awe of the Germans for these masterpieces of airship technology, ran rampant. German airship 

technology first linked to nationalism in 1908 when a 

spontaneous public outpouring of funds followed the destruction of Zeppelin’s fourth dirigible, the LZ4. After 

World War I, the Zeppelin Company and many aviation 

supporters promoted airships as the vehicles of the future 

for long distance travel and transport, connecting the airship routes to local airline routes. Air-minded Americans 

also caught zeppelin fever, a contagious enthusiasm sweeping the country as airships floated overhead.5

Approaching Chicago at daybreak on October 26, 

1933, Commander Hugo Eckener ordered the Graf Zeppelin, a 775-foot long German airship, to fly west beyond 

the city and then to circle clockwise, although a northerly 

route from Indiana with an approach to Chicago from the 

east over Lake Michigan would have been more expeditious. After circling above the city for about an hour, the 

Graf Zeppelin flew north to suburban Glenview for a brief 

exchange of passengers and mail.

Adolph Hitler, leader of the National Socialist party, 

had become Chancellor of Germany earlier that year. The 

German government had required the Zeppelin Company 

to paint the National Socialists’ swastika banner, which 

was one of the two official German flags, on the port 

side of the upper and lower tail fins (Figure 1).6 Rather 

than display the two red billboards featuring twenty-foot 

swastikas, Eckener preferred to show Chicagoans the 

starboard side of the craft, which featured the traditional 

tri-color German flag.7

Willy von Meister, the United States special representative of Luftschiffbau Zeppelin G.m.b.H., the Zeppelin 

Company, was in the control car with Eckener during 

the approach to Chicago. He asked why Eckener had not 

taken the shorter circle. “And let my friends in Chicago 

see the swastikas?” asked Eckener, who had a doctorate in 

psychology and was sensitive to the German community’s 

reaction.

As a result of the arrival time, the choice of the flight 

path, and the press’s selections of which photographs to 

publish to represent this flight, the local population saw 

more images of the Graf Zeppelin with the swastika than 

without it. In flying a route that brought the airship over 

Lake Michigan, parallel to and east of Chicago at daybreak, the Graf Zeppelin became a silhouette against the 

sunrise. Photographers either could take photographs of 

the shadow side of the airship over the lake or, as it made 

its circle over the fairgrounds and central business district, 

the sunlit side with the photogenic elements of the city in 

the background. In order to photograph the Graf Zeppelin with the fairgrounds in the same image, one newspaper 

photographer shot his images from an airplane. He was 
n u m b e r 5 5 • 4 1

able to capture the sunlit side of the Graf Zeppelin over 

the Chicago World’s Fair, and consequently his photograph showcased the swastika. The Chicago Daily News

and the New York Times published these images, reaching 

yet a larger audience than the eyewitnesses.8

Germany’s Graf Zeppelin became the fair’s most 

powerful and divisive emblem of national identity. As a 

symbol of Germany and its technological progress, the 

Graf Zeppelin captured the public’s imagination and ultimately became an international symbol of goodwill and 

cooperation. On the other hand, the swastika broadcast 

anti-Semitism and Hitler’s National Socialist policies. The 

swastika clearly inspired racial pride and patriotic obedience in Nazi followers, but it antagonized or embarrassed 

many German Americans.

On August 1, 1933, the Zeppelin Company had responded to an official invitation from Rufus Dawes, president of A Century of Progress. Hugo Eckener had accepted 

the invitation, saying that the LZ127 would visit Chicago 

as an extension of the final trip of the 1933 season to Brazil 

if the United States Post Office Department would issue a 

zeppelin postage stamp. Eckener had requested the stamp 

because he needed to secure adequate financing before 

committing to the special flight. He had proposed sharing profits from the sale of the zeppelin postage stamp. 

The plan was not unique. Philatelists in Germany, Europe, 

and the United States had already financed several special 

flights of the Graf Zeppelin by purchasing special postage 

stamps and by sending mail for flights to the Arctic, South 

America, and around the world.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s lack of support for 

the stamp threatened to bury the idea and create diplomatic problems with Germany. The Bureau of Engraving 

and Printing, which designed and printed postage stamps 

for the Post Office Department, had prepared three designs of the stamp to be presented to Roosevelt for his final 

approval. The president immediately protested, “This zeppelin is just toddling back and forth across the ocean. I 

don’t see why a stamp should be issued again for it,” and 

he rejected the issue.9

 Negotiations followed, and Secretary of State Cordell Hull advised that the breach of diplomacy resulting from the rejection of the stamp issue would 

be a disaster.10 The argument swayed Roosevelt, and the 

new zeppelin stamp was available at the New York City 

post office just ten days after approval. 

As printed, the fifty-cent green stamp depicted the 

Graf Zeppelin without the swastika, the Federal Building 

at the Chicago fair, and one of the zeppelin hangars in 

Friedrichshafen, Germany.11 The United States Post Office 

Department would receive fifteen percent or 7.5 cents of 

the fifty-cent rate. The remaining 42.5 cents would be paid 

to the German Postal Administration to help offset the 

Figure 1. The LZ127 Graf Zeppelin in the Akron airship hangar, mooring site before and after 

its flight to Chicago. Both German flags, the swastika on port side (left) and the traditional tri-color 

on starboard side (right), are nearly visible from this perspective of the lower tail fin. Bill Schneider, 

photographer. From the collection of Cheryl R. Ganz.
4 2 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

expenses of the Zeppelin Company for operating the Graf 

Zeppelin at a cost of about $300 an hour.12 The Zeppelin Company expected to realize $10,000 from the United 

States stamp sales, but it actually realized several times 

that amount. Over 100,000 American stamps on souvenir envelopes were flown in addition to mail carried from 

Germany, Brazil, and over sixty other countries.13

Meister informed fair president Rufus Dawes that the 

Graf Zeppelin, operating under the auspices of the German government, would fly the flags of the German government, including the swastika. He then posed the issue 

of possible protests by Jewish citizens in response to Nazi 

harassment of German Jews and laws that stripped them 

of German citizenship. Dawes wanted to be prepared for a 

possible demonstration against either the swastika emblem 

or the arrival of the pro-Nazi German ambassador and 

former chancellor, Hans Luther. The Post Office Department made special arrangements to examine all mail and 

parcels intended for delivery to the zeppelin. Postmaster 

General Farley also requested that local authorities cooperate to assure proper protection for passengers and the 

crew.14

Because of a bomb threat, Eckener altered his flight 

plans slightly. He decided to fly to Chicago and make a 

short landing in a closed field. The day before the Graf 

Zeppelin’s arrival in Chicago, the press announced that 

the great airship would arrive at about nine o’clock the 

next morning. In fact, the Graf Zeppelin arrived three 

and a half hours earlier. Because of the misinformation 

provided to the press and the sheriff’s order to close the 

airport to those without passes, only a few hundred spectators were on hand at the landing field besides the landing 

crew, press, and welcoming officials (Figure 2).15

Following a busy day of touring the fairgrounds and 

luncheon and dinner events, Eckener attended the Zeppelin 

Day evening event at Chicago’s Medinah Temple (Figures 

3 and 4). Thousands of enthusiastic German Americans 

filled the hall, many wearing the Zeppelin Tag lapel pin 

Figure 2. Following a bomb threat, Commander Hugo Eckener ordered an earlier arrival than reported in the press. 

The clock inside the control car indicates it was shortly after seven am. That clock, however, was set for Eastern Standard Time, thus it was actually just after six am in Chicago. From the collection of Cheryl R. Ganz.
n u m b e r 5 5 • 4 3

sold at the door for fifty cents. The program included patriotic German music with speeches by the mayor, representatives of the German community, Eckener, and Luther. 

Postmaster Kruetgen, president of the German Group of 

the World’s Fair, had refused to attend what he saw as a 

Nazi reception.16

News of the gathering had, of course, reached the 

general public. Theodore Light, a twenty-year-old stamp 

collector, went with a friend to Medinah Temple that evening, hoping to get Eckener’s autograph on some letters he 

had mailed himself via the Graf Zeppelin using the special 

zeppelin stamp (Figure 5). Upon arriving home from work 

he found that his mail delivery included envelopes transported by airship from Miami and Akron to Chicago. 

Meanwhile at Medinah Temple, limousines dropped off 

local politicians and members of the diplomatic corps. Delighted to discover that the public was permitted to enter, 

Light and his friend joined the crowd. Once inside, however, they “found ushers all in storm trooper uniforms and 

across the stage was the biggest flag I have ever seen and 

it was the swastika.” The astonished young men looked 

at one another, thinking that this was the wrong place for 

Figure 3. The program for the Zeppelin Day evening reception listed patriotic music and speakers, including German Ambassador Hans Luther and 

Commander Eckener. The image of the Graf Zeppelin lacked either flag symbol on the tail fins. From the collection of Cheryl R. Ganz.

Figure 4. The postcard sold at the Zeppelin Day 

evening reception illustrated the Graf Zeppelin with 

swastikas on the port side tail fins, the Travel and 

Transport building at the 1933 Chicago World’s 

Fair, and a portrait of Commander Hugo Eckener. 

From the collection of Cheryl R. Ganz.
4 4 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

Jewish men to be at that moment, and said, “Let’s forget 

about autographs and get out of here.”17

The swastika experiences at the exposition forced German Americans, Chicago’s largest ethnic group, to face 

difficult choices of national allegiance even before the outbreak of the Second World War, to reassess their identity, 

and to act on their convictions. The German Group of the 

World’s Fair had tied its nationalism to the proud display of 

German accomplishments, both cultural and technological. 

It had fought the display of the swastika at all fair events 

because it represented a political party and anti-Semitism. 

When the Graf Zeppelin arrived with swastikas on 

its fins, there was no way to prevent the Consul General 

in Chicago and the German ambassador from displacing 

the German Group of the World’s Fair as the welcoming leadership of the community. German Americans in 

Chicago were forced to make choices, not only of their 

political alliance but also of their identity as Germans or 

Americans. By the time the fair closed in November, Chicago’s German societies had divided over Nazi policy and 

the Jewish question. They had been able to distinguish 

the differences between the symbols of the Graf Zeppelin

and the swastika. German Jews in America and German 

Christians in America would, however, find themselves no 

longer unified as ‘German Americans.’18

Conclusion

By placing the fifty-cent Graf Zeppelin stamp in the 

context of its philatelic story as well as its social and cultural story, the significance of this issue is enhanced and 

has a stronger appeal to larger audiences without diminishing the philatelic study aspects. While many collectors 

research and study the subject depicted on a stamp, the 

production of a stamp, or the uses of a stamp, fewer collectors ask, “Why was this particular stamp or series issued 

at this time (beyond fulfilling a rate need) and what impact 

did it have on senders, recipients, and society?” Further, 

while the postage stamp was a product of the federal government, the study of ephemera can reveal information 

about the organizations, corporations, or individuals who 

produced these paper objects intended for brief use before 

being discarded. 

Figure 5. Stamp collector Ted Light prepared this envelope for the first day of issue of the zeppelin stamp in New 

York. The New York post office forwarded it by sea post to Germany, from where the Graf Zeppelin then flew it to 

Chicago via Brazil. The presence of National Socialists at the German American reception for Eckener prevented Light 

from obtaining an autograph. From the collection of Cheryl R. Ganz.
n u m b e r 5 5 • 4 5

Examining cause and effect can inspire collectors and 

researchers to ask new questions and, as a result, can offer 

new insights. As for me, thinking outside the traditional 

philatelic and collector box has allowed me to understand 

not only how the United States government and post office helped subsidize this 1933 flight but also the role of 

the Graf Zeppelin and the fifty-cent stamp as symbols of 

progress and goodwill during tough political times and 

economic strife.

Notes

1. For an understanding of ways to study a subject internally, externally, or in context, see John M. Staudenmaier, 

Technology’s Storytellers: Reweaving the Human Fabric (Cambridge: Society for the History of Technology and MIT Press, 

1985).

2. David M. Henkin, The Postal Age: The Emergence of 

Modern Communications in Nineteenth-Century America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007).

3. This special triangular flight to Chicago was an extension 

of the ninth and final 1933 transatlantic crossing of the Graf 

Zeppelin. After flying from Germany to Brazil, the Graf Zeppelin made stops in Miami, Akron, Chicago, and Akron before 

returning to Friedrichshafen, Germany by way of Seville, Spain. 

Although the Graf Zeppelin was the 127th design of the Zeppelin Company, it was their 117th airship constructed.

4. For an expanded study of this story, see: Cheryl R. Ganz, 

The 1933 Chicago World’s Fair: A Century of Progress (Champaign, Ill: University of Illinois Press, 2008).

5. Peter Fritsche, A Nation of Fliers: German Aviation and 

the Popular Imagination (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 

1992); Henry Cord Meyer, Airshipmen, Businessmen and Politics, 1890–1940 (Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 

1991); and Guillaume de Syon, Zeppelin! Germany and the Airship, 1900–1939 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 

2002). For “airmindedness” see Joseph J. Corn, The Winged 

Gospel: America’s Romance with Aviation (Baltimore: Johns 

Hopkins University Press, 1983, 2001), 12.

6. “Hoheitszeichen der Luftschiffe,” Reichsgesetzblatt 77(8 

July 1933):457, Graf Zeppelin files, Dieter Leder collection, 

Meersburg, Germany.

7. Chicago Tribune, 26 Oct. 1933, 4; and LZA 016/385-6 

Fahrtberichte LZ127 [logbook], 1933, Archiv der Luftschiffbau 

Zeppelin G.m.b.H., Friedrichshafen. Wilhelm von Meister, interview with author, Peapack, N. J., July 1976. Chicago Daily 

News, 26 Oct. 1933, 4–5; and “Mid-Week Pictorial,” New York 

Times, 4 November 1933, 7.

8. Chicago Daily News, 26 Oct. 1933, 4–5; and “Mid-Week 

Pictorial,” New York Times, 4 November 1933, 7.

9. Meister interview.

10. Memorandum of conversation between Secretary Hull 

and the German Chargé, Herr Rudolf Leitner, 14 September 

1933. Acting Postmaster General to Cordell Hull, 18 September 

1933, National Archives, College Park, Maryland.

11. The artists at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing 

used a 1929 photograph of the Graf Zeppelin from its landing 

at Mines Field in Los Angeles on the World Flight. At that time 

the zeppelin carried no government flag on its fins. Stamp Design 

File, National Postal Museum Library, Smithsonian Institution 

Libraries, Washington D. C.; Graf Zeppelin postage stamp files, 

Bureau of Engraving and Printing, Washington, D. C.

12. Chicago Daily News, 26 Oct. 1933, 1. On 26 March 1931 

the Reichspost and Luftschiffbau Zeppelin agreed to the Zeppelin 

Company’s share of the postal revenue: 5/6 of the total fees paid 

for mail carried by the airship. John Duggan, “Income from Carrying the Zeppelin Mail,” Zeppelin 12(February 1997):12. For arrangements of the United States fees for this flight, see E. R. White 

to F. W. von Meister, Stamp Design File, National Postal Museum 

Library, Smithsonian Institution Libraries, Washington, D. C.

13. For further information on Graf Zeppelin postal flights, 

see John Duggan and Jim Graue, Commercial Zeppelin Flights to 

South America (Valleyford, Wash.: J. L. Diversified, 1995); Michel 

Zeppelin Specialized Catalogue (Germany: 2003); and Sieger Zeppelinpost Spezial-Katalog, 22nd edition (Germany: 2001).

14. James Farley, Postmaster General, to Cordell Hull, Secretary of State, 23 October 1933, National Archives, College 

Park, Maryland.

15. For further information about the security issues, see 

Hugo Eckener, Im Zeppelin Über Länder und Meere: Erlebnisse 

und Erinnerungen (Flensburg, Germany: Verlagshaus Christian 

Wolff, 1949); Ganz, The 1933 Chicago World’s Fair; and J. Gordon Vaeth, Graf Zeppelin: The Adventures of an Aerial Globetrotter (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1958), 161–162.

16. Invitation and Zeppelin Tag Fest Programm, Cheryl R. 

Ganz collection, Chicago, Ill.: (Chicago) Sentinel, 9 November 

1933, 13.

17. Theodore Light, interview with author, tape recording, 

Morton Grove, Ill., 25 October 1993.

18. The swastika clearly inspired racial pride and patriotic 

obedience in Nazi followers, but it antagonized or embarrassed 

many German Americans, who, in 1933, formed one of the largest ethnic groups in Chicago. For further information on the German American reaction to the Graf Zeppelin visit to Chicago, see 

Ganz, The 1933 Chicago World’s Fair. For more information 

on German Americans, see John A. Hawgood, The Tragedy of 

German-America: The Germans in the United States of America 

during the Nineteenth Century – and After (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1940); Melvin G. Holli, “German American Ethnic 

and Cultural Identity from 1890 Onward,” in Ethnic Chicago: A 

Multicultural Portrait, ed. Melvin G. Holli and Peter d’A. Jones 

(Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1995); 

and Leslie V. Tischauser, The Burden of Ethnicity: The German 

Question in Chicago, 1914–1941 (New York: Garland, 1990).
4 6 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

Bibliography

Acting Postmaster General to Cordell Hull. Memorandum of 

conversation between Secretary Hull and German Chargé 

Herr Rudolf Leitner. College Park, Md.: National Archives, 

18 September 1933.

Corn, Joseph J. Corn. The Winged Gospel: America’s Romance 

with Aviation. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University 

Press, 2001.

de Syon, Guillaume. Zeppelin! Germany and the Airship, 1900–

1939. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002.

Duggan, John. “Income from Carrying the Zeppelin Mail.” Zeppelin, 12:12, 1997.

Duggan, John, and Jim Graue. Commercial Zeppelin Flights to 

South America. Valleyford, Wash.: J. L. Diversified, 1995.

Eckener, Hugo. Im Zeppelin Über Länder und Meere: Erlebnisse 

und Erinnerungen. Flensburg, Germany: Verlagshaus Christian Wolff, 1949.

Fritsche, Peter. A Nation of Fliers: German Aviation and the 

Popular Imagination. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1992.

Ganz, Cheryl R. The 1933 Chicago World’s Fair: A Century of 

Progress. Champaign, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 2008.

Graf Zeppelin Visits City. Chicago Daily News. 26 October 1933.

Hawgood, John A. The Tragedy of German-America: The 

Germans in the United States of America during the Nineteenth Century—and After. New York: G. P. Putnam’s 

Sons, 1940.

Henkin, David M. The Postal Age: The Emergence of Modern 

Communications in Nineteenth-Century America. Chicago: 

University of Chicago Press, 2007.

“Hoheitszeichen der Luftschiffe.” Reichsgesetzblatt 77:457. Graf 

Zeppelin Files. Dieter Leder Collection, 1933.

Holli, Melvin G. “German American Ethnic and Cultural Identity 

from 1890 Onward.” In Ethnic Chicago: A Multicultural 

Portrait, ed. Melvin G. Holli and Peter d’A. Jones. Grand 

Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1995.

Light, Theodore. 1993. Interview with author. Tape recording. 

Morton Grove, Ill. 25 October 1993.

LZA 016/385-6 Fahrtberichte LZ127 [logbook]. Friedrichshafen, 

Germany: Archiv der Luftschiffbau Zeppelin G.m.b.H., 

1933.

Meyer, Henry Cord. Airshipmen, Businessmen and Politics, 1890–

1940. Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1991.

“Mid-Week Pictorial.” New York Times. 4 November 1933, 7.

Michel Zeppelin Specialized Catalogue 2003. Unterschleißheim, 

Germany: Schwaneberger Verlag GmbH, 2003.

Mullin, Earl. “Fair President Says Thank You to Police Today: 

Eckener and His Crew to Be Welcomed.” Chicago Tribune, 

26 October 1933, 4.

Sieger Zeppelinpost Spezial-Katalog, 22nd Ed. Lorch, Württemberg, Germany: Sieger-Verlag, 2001.

Staudenmaeir, John M. Technology’s Storytellers: Reweaving the 

Human Fabric. Cambridge, Mass.: Society for the History 

of Technology and MIT Press, 1985.

Tischhauser, Leslie V. The Burden of Ethnicity: The German 

Question in Chicago, 1914–1941. New York: Garland, 1990.

Vaeth, J. Gordon. Graf Zeppelin: The Adventures of an Aerial 

Globetrotter. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1958. 

von Meister, Wilhelm. 1976. Interview with author. Peapack, 

N. J., July, 1976.
Introduction to the Third Symposium

The 2008 Winton M. Blount Postal History Symposium, jointly sponsored 

by the Smithsonian National Postal Museum, the American Philatelic 

Society, and the American Philatelic Research Library, was held in Washington, D.C. on September 26–27, 2008. It was the third annual national conference for academic scholars, philatelists, and industry experts on the discussion 

of research into the history of postal organizations and systems.

The theme was “When the Mail Goes to War,” broadly interpreted to include everything related to defense and the postal system in all countries and 

eras. Postal topics are usually framed in peaceful terms: mail “binds the nation 

together” by enabling commerce and encouraging technological development, 

while stamps are “works of art in miniature” or “little paper ambassadors” of 

national cultures and achievements. Often overlooked is the fact that when a 

nation goes to war, its stamps and postal system are always an integral part of 

the mobilization as well as the relief effort.

There were twenty papers presented, four of which are included here. Robert Cullen discusses “Winning on the Home Front” in his paper “Food Will 

Win the War: Motor Trucks and the Farm-To-Table Postal Delivery Program 

1917–1918.” Ann Phau, New York State Museum, discusses “Examining Censorship Due to War” in her paper “Postal Censorship and Military Intelligence 

during World War II.” Janet Klug, past president of the American Philatelic 

Society, discusses “Analyzing Logistics and Systems in Adversity” in her paper 

“Picking Up the Pieces: The Aftermath of Hiroshima.” Robin Gates Elliott, 

National Postal Museum, discusses “Interpreting Propaganda and the Post” in 

her paper “Philatelic Propaganda: A Case Study—Border Changes in Eastern 

Europe, 1938–1941.”

“Food Will Win the War”: Motor Trucks 

and the Farm-To-Table Postal Delivery 

Program, 1917–1918

Robert G. Cullen

I

t was a Wednesday night in March 1918. The United States was at war in 

Europe and, while many of the nation’s soldiers were overseas fighting in 

that conflict, the Motor Truck Club of America gathered in New York City 

for its largest-ever annual dinner meeting. James I. Blakslee, the Fourth Assistant 

Postmaster General, addressed that group. While doing so, he made a surprise 

announcement about a town 180 miles away called Lancaster, Pennsylvania. 

The U.S. Post Office Department, Blakslee informed the 200 Motor Truck Club 

members in attendance, had just put that town in southeastern Pennsylvania on 

the map of suburban New York.1

Blakslee’s news about Lancaster was not the result of some Houdini-worthy 

magic nor did it stem from a farfetched redistricting of state lines. As Blakslee 

further explained in his remarks that night, a motor truck carrying about 2,900 

pounds of farm produce had left Lancaster at 4:14 that morning. That vehicle 

made its way to New York City’s post office building at 23rd Street and Eighth 

Avenue at 4:17 that afternoon.2 Blakslee could not stress enough the significance 

of that 12-hour trek from the heart of Pennsylvania Dutch Country to America’s 

largest city. That mail-delivery experiment, he told his audience, was, “a convincing illustration of improved efficiency which the Post Office Department is 

endeavoring to establish in the farm-to-table food movement.”3

That farm-to-table movement was an ambitious postal initiative that took 

place during President Woodrow Wilson’s administration, seeking to transport 

produce directly from rural areas to cities. The program entailed picking up 

farm-fresh products—butter, eggs, poultry, vegetables, to name a few—and taking them as directly and quickly as possible to urban destinations. It was conceived and launched in peacetime, but it took on additional significance during 

America’s eighteen-month involvement during what we know today as World 

War I. In the course of that bloody conflict, the experimental motor truck routes 

set up as part of that program were seen by many as important to the nationwide food conservation campaign.4

The origins of the farm-to-table postal delivery initiative took shape about 

two decades earlier. Rural Free Delivery, which started out on a trial basis in 

1896 and became permanent in 1902, proved to be a widespread and welcome 
5 0 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

service that brought mail directly to rural residents. During President William Howard Taft’s time in the White 

House, Rural Free Delivery was enlarged to include Parcel 

Post Service. That service, officially launched in the waning 

days of the Taft Administration in early 1913, allowed the 

shipment of packages that could not be delivered through 

regular mail within rural communities. The service turned 

out to be highly popular; in its first six months alone, approximately 300 million parcels were handled.

Albert S. Burleson, postmaster general for the fledgling Wilson Administration, sought to capitalize even further on Rural Free Delivery’s dramatic success. One way 

to accomplish that was an experiment, implemented in 

1914, encouraging farmers to export more of their goods 

via the mail to consumers in the city. This experiment focused on a perceived gap in the existing Rural Free Delivery system: while farm families extensively used the parcel 

post service to request and receive such items as newspapers, magazines, and mail-order merchandise, there was 

unmet marketing possibility in the goods that could just as 

easily flow from the country to the city.5

 As a department 

spokesman explained, “The Postmaster General has the 

firm conviction that this plan is the one thing necessary 

to enable the people of this country to enjoy the potential 

benefits of the parcel post.”6

The program’s first year was on the whole promising, with 26 large cities selected for experimental delivery 

routes. Basically, postmasters in rural areas compiled lists 

of farmers and others wishing to sell their products to city 

residents by way of parcel post. Those postmasters would 

then forward the lists to their urban counterparts, who in 

turn shared the information through such means as letter carriers going door to door and posted advertisements 

(Figure 1). Ultimately, the urban consumer could place orders with his or her local post office and then await the 

arrival of farm-fresh products at home.7

The Post Office Department, by serving as the conduit between producers and buyers, hoped to profit from 

Figure 1. Individuals in a city post office checking out the list of goods available through the farm-to-table 

program, which sought to match rural produce with urban demand. Courtesy of the National Postal Museum 

Library, Smithsonian Institution Libraries.
n u m b e r 5 5 • 5 1

business that most likely otherwise would have gone to 

such middlemen as general stores, express companies, 

and railroads. A lot of emphasis, though, was placed on 

how the farmers themselves could benefit from this maildelivery undertaking. “Every possible thing has been done 

to give the farmer an equal chance to compete with the 

corner grocery store on equal terms,” reported an April 

1915 article entitled “Butter from the Post Office” in The 

Independent. “Special fast auto service is used in many 

cities to effect immediate delivery of perishable goods.”8

An example of this transportation service could be seen in 

Cleveland, Ohio, where in the fall of 1914 the postmaster 

obtained five new automobiles to facilitate deliveries from 

farms in the region.9

By 1916, the groundwork was laid for the program’s 

enlargement. A joint congressional resolution that summer authorized new routes, and postal officials began 

planning accordingly. Meanwhile, however, the United 

States found itself being drawn more deeply into the war 

in Europe. The nation formally entered that brutal conflict 

on April 6, 1917, when Congress declared war on Germany.10 President Wilson, in a subsequent address to the 

American people, appealed to the nation’s farmers for help 

with food conservation efforts. He asserted, “Without 

abundant food, alike for the armies and the peoples now 

at war, the whole great enterprise upon which we have 

embarked will break down and fail . . . Upon the farmers 

of this country, therefore, in large measure, rests the fate 

of the war and the fate of the nations.”11

With those words, Wilson voiced the need to produce 

and preserve ample food for the duration of the war. The 

conservation of food became one of the most crucial goals 

on the homefront and, in terms of wartime mobilization 

efforts, among the most far-reaching. U.S. Food Administrator (and future president) Herbert Hoover firmly and 

consistently exhorted his fellow Americans not to waste 

food so that enough of it could be shipped overseas to feed 

American troops and others. 

Under Hoover’s leadership, the Food Administration used every means, medium, and method possible 

to promote its message to the public and make sure that 

everyone did what they could to ensure the availability 

of adequate rations abroad. “Meatless Mondays” and 

“Wheatless Wednesdays” became a regular part of each 

person’s calendar. “Food Will Win the War” was a familiar rallying cry, and posters and signs carrying that mantra 

and others blanketed the nation. A host of likeminded slogans, which regularly showed up in newspapers, included: 

“Don’t let your horse be more patriotic than you are—eat 

a dish of oatmeal!;” “Wheatless days in America make 

sleepless nights in Germany;” “U-boats and wastefulness 

are twin enemies;” “Serve beans by all means;” and “The 

Battle Cry of Feed ’Em.”

As Wilson underscored, however, a special burden was 

placed on farmers when it came to this entire campaign. 

They were under pressure, stronger than ever before, to 

not only produce enough food but also make sure that as 

much of it as possible went to market without rotting or 

simply going unused.12 The Post Office Department, having already received authorization for more farm-to-table 

routes, stood ready to help accomplish those aims. Fourth 

Assistant Postmaster General Blakslee, who both dreamed 

and talked big anyway when it came to motorized transportation’s potential role in mail delivery, pushed for motor 

trucks rather than automobiles on those new routes. 

A total of eight motor truck routes came into existence after postal officials wrestled extensively with logistics and unsuccessfully sought to secure additional funds 

for the endeavor. The routes, located mostly in the Middle Atlantic region, took effect between December 1917 

and June 1918. They were specifically situated between 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Atlantic City, New Jersey; 

Baltimore, Maryland, and Solomons Island, Maryland; 

Washington, D. C., and Leonardtown, Maryland; Washington, and Baltimore; Baltimore and Lancaster; Philadelphia and Washington; Savannah, Georgia, and Statesboro, 

Georgia; and Columbus, Ohio, and Zanesville, Ohio.

The Post Office Department, which kept thorough 

records of all expenses for this part of the farm-to-table 

program, announced that the net profit for these routes in 

their first few months of operation was substantial.13 In addition, Blakslee stressed how at least some of these routes 

provided essential transportation services that could not 

be easily duplicated. “There is no rail or water transportation possible between Baltimore and Solomon’s Island nor 

between Washington and Leonardtown,” he offered as an 

example of this, “and there are over 1,000 similar localities east of the Mississippi River.”14

Overall, though, the most salient feature of these 

motor trucks was how they could pick up and deliver 

larger-than-before quantities of farm goods for city residents. The Lancaster-New York City test run during this 

time further confirmed that advantage. That shipment was 

taken, within 45 minutes after reaching the New York 

City post office, to the customer—a produce dealer named 

Harry Atlas. His order, incidentally, included 400 newly 

hatched chicks, 18,000 fresh eggs, 200 pounds of honey, 

500 pounds of butter, and 500 pounds of smoked sausage.

This experimental trip was the longest postal run of 

its kind up to that time. The trip was also noteworthy due 
5 2 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

to the truck’s comparatively few stops in transit while delivering the produce to New York City from a rural area 

over 100 miles away (Figure 2).15 That night at the dinner 

meeting of the Motor Truck Club of America, New York’s 

Secretary of State Francis Hugo called the test run, “an 

epoch in the history of the United States and the world.”16

Epoch or not, that test run and other aspects of the motor 

truck farm-to-table routes did receive positive public notice. This was because the whole enterprise fit in well with 

the food-conservation ethos that dominated the war.

The service, to be sure, was far from perfect. It could 

be expensive, first of all. Other periodic drawbacks included trucks breaking down and food getting spoiled in 

transit. Farmers nonetheless embraced the service, and not 

just because of how much produce the motor trucks could 

carry. Many farmhands who normally might take produce 

elsewhere were serving in the military or performing other 

wartime duties, and the Post Office Department’s program 

helped mitigate that manpower shortage.17

Blakslee emphasized those linkages with the larger 

war effort. As he noted in an April 1918 New Times article, “Government profit in any branch of the postal service 

is a good thing, but at the present time that takes second 

place when compared to the necessity for food production 

on the biggest possible scale. And do not forget that we 

have less men than ever to produce the food.”18 Throughout the U.S. involvement in World War I, the Farm-toTable postal delivery service was widely praised in the 

press. Hoover hailed the service as an important means of 

saving food.19

Blakslee, trying to seize this momentum, promoted a 

nationwide network of profitable motor truck routes. He 

reasoned that the surplus he felt would surely result from 

those routes could be used to improve the roads on which 

the vehicles traveled. Virginia’s Senator Claude Swanson, 

in fact, introduced a bill authorizing the Postmaster General to establish such routes and to use half the gross revenues from those routes for road improvements. That bill 

died in a Senate committee, but in July 1918 Congress did 

appropriate a smaller amount for a few more experimental routes. Just a few months later, however, the armistice 

with Germany was signed. The Treaty of Versailles in June 

of the following year would officially end the state of war, 

but the armistice halted the actual fighting.20

In the post-armistice atmosphere, Blakslee and others 

in the department found it tougher to extend—let alone 

maintain—the farm-to-table postal delivery program and 

in particular its motor truck routes. The once solid public 

Figure 2. The Autocar screen-side truck used for the historic postal test run between Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and 

New York City on March 20, 1918. This vehicle transported about 2900 pounds of farm produce in what was the 

longest mail-delivery trip of its kind up to that time. Courtesy of the National Postal Museum Library, Smithsonian 

Institution Libraries.
n u m b e r 5 5 • 5 3

support for that program faded away and use of those services fell off markedly. Blakslee worked hard to salvage 

the initiative, but it increasingly became a lost cause. Congress ultimately eliminated the program in 1920, and subsequent attempts to bring it back later that decade and the 

next went nowhere.21

The reasons for the initiative’s rapid demise are diverse 

and deep-seated. One likely cause is that the high-pitch 

wartime fervor bolstering the initiative quickly evaporated 

once the guns in Europe fell silent. Many farmers, for example, had embraced the program out of economic necessity and also because their president exhorted them to 

help save the world; with the exigencies of war now past, 

those same farmers and their prospective consumers were 

far less inclined to tolerate any inconveniences that came 

with the motor truck service.22

There was also competition from the private sector 

that blossomed more fully in the war’s aftermath. A number of entities moving into the delivery business offered 

to get the job done more cheaply. A case in point was the 

Maryland-based Farmers’ Cooperative Association Harford County, which operated a lucrative franchise transporting farm goods to Baltimore. Then there were the 

self-service grocery markets, which first sprang up at this 

time and gave many consumers yet more food-shopping 

alternatives.23

Another factor was unquestionably the tense relations between the Post Office Department and Congress. 

It would be an understatement to say that Blakslee never 

quite endeared himself with the lawmakers on Capitol 

Hill. He could come across as hostile, self-righteous, and 

even naïve. Back in 1916, several senators demanded 

Blakslee’s ouster after he charged members of the Senate 

Post Office Committee with inordinately favoring the railroads when it came to rural mail service. That uproar died 

down, and Blakslee kept his job, only after the committee chairman accepted his letter of apology.24 Despite that 

close call, Blakslee continued his often confrontational approach with Congress. He did not do himself or the motor 

truck routes any favors during the war, for instance, when 

he once characterized a proposed congressional appropriation for that service as “ridiculously small.”25 By 1920, 

with the war over and the Wilson Administration’s days 

numbered, Congress had even less reason than before to 

indulge Blakslee and keep his farm-to-table cause alive.

Individually, any of these factors would have been 

enough to seriously hobble the farm-to-table postal delivery program in the wake of the armistice; collectively, 

they sealed that initiative’s fate. The initiative is worth 

remembering, though. First of all, it embodied both the 

spirit and the substance of food conservation efforts during World War I. It also underscored how the Post Office 

Department’s commitment to mobilization efforts went 

well beyond just plastering “Food Will Win the War” announcements in post offices.26

The initiative can also be seen in an even larger sense 

as a case study of postal operations in periods of national 

urgency, as well as a cautionary tale about how a wartime 

enterprise does not always survive the peace that follows. 

In addition, the initiative exemplifies how any major war’s 

impact can last long after its battles have ceased. A key 

result of World War I was the dynamic growth of American highways and surface transportation in the decades 

ever since. When the United States entered that conflict, 

the railroads constituted the preeminent form of transportation. The trains were soon overwhelmed, however, by 

the demands of moving vital supplies throughout a nation 

getting mobilized for war. Consequently, more and more 

trucks were produced and deployed to fill that logistical 

vacuum and guarantee that crucial shipments reached 

their destinations. 

Trucks came into their own during World War I, and 

their increased numbers, coupled with the equally dramatic growth in automobiles, made it imperative that 

highways be better able to accommodate heavier traffic. 

The war therefore laid the groundwork for major longrange projects that would create the stronger, wider, and 

smoother roads we still use today. The Post Office Department, through such endeavors as the wartime farmto-table program, very much reflected this transportation 

trend. Interestingly, it did so under a postmaster general 

usually deemed to be among the worst in American history. Burleson’s tenure was without a doubt stormy, for 

reasons ranging from the harsh treatment of the rank-andfile employees to his heavy-handed enforcement of the Espionage Act.27

One of the more progressive postal achievements during this time, however, was arguably that expanded use of 

motorized transportation. That chapter of postal history 

is critical to understanding how the agency went from 

possessing a handful of horseless carriages to becoming 

custodian of the world’s largest vehicular fleet.28 Blakslee, 

for all of his own professional and personal shortcomings, was the catalyst in that transformation. He readily 

grasped the possibilities of motorized vehicles—especially 

those trucks he pressed into service for the farm-to-table 

program—and the highways upon which they traveled. “I 

may be considered visionary and a dreamer when I assert 

that the use of the highways is the only present, practicable solution of inadequate or inefficient transportation,” 
5 4 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

he wrote in February 1919, “and I do not mean the use 

of the highway in the form in which it is now or has been 

used.”29

In some respects, Blakslee may have been too farsighted 

at the expense of shorter-term practical considerations. He 

unquestionably overreached, for example, when trying to 

sustain those motor truck routes after the outbreak of peace 

dried up demand for them. He was also more quixotic 

than pragmatic in attempting to sell his dream of a nationwide web of those routes to a skeptical Congress. Overall, 

though, Blakslee foresaw more than many of his contemporaries the potential of roads and surface transportation. 

“Motor truck postal service will ultimately be one of the 

biggest things in the history of the Post Office Department,” 

he proclaimed a few weeks after that one truck’s historic 

run between Lancaster and New York City.30

Blakslee, while a fierce champion of deploying automotive means for postal ends, was hardly its originator. 

The Post Office Department, for example, experimented 

with automobiles for mail collection within cities as far 

back as 1899. Moreover, Frank H. Hitchcock—as first 

assistant postmaster general under President Theodore 

Roosevelt and then Taft’s postmaster general—deserves 

credit for pioneering everything from the first actual contracts for mail collection by automobile to usage of motor 

trucks in postal operations.31 Blakslee, however, played 

the critical role in building on those seminal developments 

with his larger-scale, longer-haul approach. More than 

anyone else, he fulfilled the promise behind those earlier 

innovations and also the establishment of the Post Office 

Department’s Motor Vehicle Service in 1915.

All of this happened because Blakslee, while low in 

political savvy, had an unmatched single-mindedness 

about the role of trucks in the postal universe. Blakslee, 

through his stubborn and outspoken advocacy of motor 

trucks in mail delivery and the vigorous use of those vehicles in his farm-to-table program, helped foster a momentum in transportation technology that could not be 

erased or even reduced. In that respect, he went the extra 

mile in ensuring that the Post Office Department mirrored 

the nation as a whole in optimizing an increasingly prominent and popular means of transport. “Few people realize 

as yet the great possibilities of motor trucking,” intoned a 

New York Times article in January 1918 while World War 

I was still very much under way.32 That article highlighted 

the Post Office Department as one entity “fully awake to 

the possibilities of the motor truck.”33

Consequently, any assessment of Blakslee’s transportation endeavors cannot be limited to the comparatively 

short-lived farm-to-table experiment. A broader, more 

reliable appraisal involves the extent to which the use of 

trucks steadily became an integral part of that agency’s 

lifeblood and everyday culture during his tenure and immediately thereafter. One measure of this can be seen in 

the basic inventory of those vehicles: as of 1915, the Post 

Office Department owned only 32 trucks; by 1918, that 

number mushroomed to 560; and in 1924—about four 

years after Blakslee stepped down as fourth assistant postmaster general and two years before he died—the postal 

fleet included 5,290 trucks.34 While a combination of 

circumstances and factors led to that explosive growth 

in mail trucks, a strong case can be made that the highranking Blakslee was the right person at the right time 

during that process in terms of both his words and actions.

An even more telling and compelling measure of Blakslee’s influence can be seen in how trucks were subsequently 

and similarly put to practical use in long-distance and bulk 

mail delivery. Those applications would range from the 

creation of an extensive star route system with motorized 

truck service starting in the 1920s to the widespread adoption of the tractor-trailer during the 1950s to haul mail 

between large postal facilities. Blakslee and his farm-totable efforts also set the stage for the Highway Post Office 

Service and its big road-based vehicles that transported 

mail between 1941 and 1974 to far-flung communities 

no longer served by railroads.35 By the mid-twentieth century, trucks had taken an honored place alongside their 

airborne counterparts in the carriage of mail. According 

to the 1951 postmaster general’s annual report, “Of relatively recent years the truck and the airplane have entered 

the field which formerly belonged almost entirely to the 

railroad and the boat.”36

That general use of mail trucks was a technological 

breakthrough that would have inevitably taken place with 

or without Blakslee pressing for it. He was the pivotal 

force, however, in accelerating the evolution and expansion of that transportation mode as a mail-delivery option 

and helping to guarantee that the Post Office Department 

exploited its possibilities early on and fully. This, in the 

final analysis, helps define not only his legacy but also the 

enduring lessons of both the farm-to-table experiment and 

the war in which that program’s motor trucks thrived.

NOTES

1. “Postal Truck Brings Produce 180 Miles,” The New York 

Times, 21 March 1918.

2. “Postal Truck Brings Produce,” NYT; “Farm-to-Table 

Parcel Post,” The New York Times, 14 April 1918.
n u m b e r 5 5 • 5 5

3. “Postal Truck Brings Produce,” NYT.

4. Fuller, RFD, 17–56; The United States Postal Service 

(USPS), The United States Postal Service: An American History, 

1775–2006 (Washington, D.C.: USPS, 2007), 22, 24; James 

H. Bruns, Mail on the Move (Polo, IL: Transportation Trails, 

1992), 106.

5. Bruns, Mail on the Move, 107, 111, 112; USPS, The 

United States Postal Service, 26; “Parcel Post Ready by January 

Next,” The New York Times, 26 August 1912; Fuller, RFD, 234; 

Ho, From Farm to Table, 1; “Food by Parcel Post,” The Washington Post, 23 March 1914.

6. “Food by Parcel Post,” WP.

7. Lee, From Farm to Table, 1, 2; “Farm-to-Table Plan 

Appeals to Nation,” The New York Times, 30 August 1914; 

“Wider Use of Parcel Post in U.S. Now Seen,” Christian Science 

Monitor, 5 October 1914.

8. Quoted in Ho, From Farm to Table, 2.

9. “Autos Widen Parcel Post,” The New York Times, 8 November 1914.

10. FHWA, America’s Highways, 1776–1976, 90, 99; 

U.S. Post Office Department, Annual Report of the Postmaster 

General for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1917 (Washington, 

D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1917), 51, 52; Statutes 

at Large, 1915–1917, Volume 39, Part 1, 424; “Farm-to-Table 

Parcel Post,” The New York Times, 14 April 1918; Dan McNichol, The Roads That Built America: The Incredible Story of 

the U.S. Interstate System (New York, NY: Sterling Publishing 

Company, 2006), 39.

11. Woodrow Wilson, Address to the Nation, 16 April 

1917 (accessed 18 September 2008), available from http://www

.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/print.php?pid=65399.

12. David Burner, Herbert Hoover: A Public Life (New 

York, NY: Albert A. Knopf, 1979) 96–113; George H. Nash, The 

Life of Herbert Hoover: Master of Emergencies, 1917–1918, 

Volume 3 (New York, N. Y.: W. W. Norton & Company, 1996), 

34–37, 40–44, 156–161; Herbert Clark Hoover: A Biographical 

Sketch (accessed 13 May 2008), available from http://hoover.archives.gov/education/hooverbio.html; Ho, From Farm to Table, 

4,5; “Farmers Respond to War Food Call,” Christian Science 

Monitor, 18 May 1918.

13. FHWA, America’s Highways, 1776–1976, 99, 100; U.S. 

Post Office Department, Annual Report of the Postmaster General for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1917), 51, 52; U.S. Post 

Office Department, Annual Report of the Postmaster General for 

the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1918 (Washington, D. C.: U. S. 

Government Printing Office, 1919), 52–55; “Food from Farm 

to City by Postal Truck Plan,” The New York Times, 23 September 1917; “Never Such Need for Motor Trucks,” The New 

York Times, 6 January 1918; “J. I. Blakslee Praises Auto Trucks 

in Service of the P. O. Department; Stimulate the Production of 

Food,” The Washington Post, 7 April 1918; “Farm-to-Table Parcel Post,” The New York Times, 14 April 1918; “Motor Mail is 

Making Money,” The Gettysburg Times, 17 April 1918; “Motor 

Trucks Pay for Parcel Post,” The New York Times, 30 June 

1918; “Record Year in the Mail Department,” Christian Science 

Monitor, 6 December 1918. 

14. “Motor Trucks Pay for Parcel Post,” The New York 

Times, 30 June 1918. See also “J. I. Blakslee Praises Auto 

Trucks in Service of the P.O. Department; Stimulate the Production of Food,” The Washington Post, 7 April 1918; and 

James I. Blakslee to W. G. Howard, 7 April 1919, Box 2, Entry 

185, RG 28, National Archives and Records Administration 

(NARA).

15. Fuller, RFD, 242; Bruns, Motorized Mail, 169; “Postal 

Truck Brings Produce 180 Miles,” The New York Times, 21 

March 1918; “J. I. Blakslee Praises Auto Trucks in Service of 

the P. O. Department; Stimulate the Production of Food,” The 

Washington Post, 7 April 1918; “Farm-to-Table Parcel Post,” 

The New York Times, 14 April 1918.

16. Quoted in Fuller, RFD, 242.

17. FHWA, America’s Highways, 1776–1976, 100; Fuller, 

RFD 243; Ho, From Farm to Table, 5.

18. “Farm-to-Table Post,” The New York Times, 14 April 

1918. See also “J. I. Blakslee Praises Auto Trucks in Service of 

the P. O. Department; Stimulate the Production of Food,” The 

Washington Post, 7 April 1918.

19. FHWA, America’s Highways, 1776–1976, 100.

20. Fuller, RFD, 241, 242; FHWA, America’s Highways, 

1776–1976, 100; U.S. Post Office Department, Annual Report 

of the Postmaster General for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 

1918), 54, 55; U.S. Post Office Department, Annual Report of 

the Postmaster General for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1919

(Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1919), 74; 

“J. I. Blakslee Praises Auto Trucks in Service of the P.O. Department; Stimulate the Production of Food,” The Washington Post, 

7 April 1918;”Farm-to-Table Post,” The New York Times, 14 

April 1918; “Motor Trucks Pay for Parcel Post,” The New York 

Times, 30 June 1918; “Mail Carrying Motor Trucks Prove Success,” The Daily Tribune (Logansport, Indiana), 5 November 

1918; Alistair Cooke, Alistair Cooke’s America (New York, NY: 

Albert A. Knopf, 1973), 303; Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. (ed.), 

The Almanac of American History (Greenwich, CT: Brompton 

Books Corporation, 1993), 436, 437.

21. Fuller, RFD, 243–246; Ho, From Farm to Table, 5; 

“Post Office Aid for Farmers,” Christian Science Monitor, 13 

February 1919; “Farmers’ Unrest a Grave Danger, Officials 

Find,” The New York Times, 31 January 1920; “Rural Delivery 

Waste Charged,” Christian Science Monitor, 19 February 1920; 

“Farmers Want Better Parcel Post System in Entire Country,” 

Cedar Rapids Evening Gazette, 19 February 1920; E.H. Jacob 

to Albert S. Burleson, 1 January 1919, Box 2, Entry 185, RG 28, 

NARA; A.S. Guffey to James I. Blakslee, 11 April 1919, Box 1, 

Entry 185, RG 28, NARA; James I. Blakslee to A.S. Guffey, 14 

April 1919, Box 1, Entry 185, RG 28, NARA; James I. Blakslee 

to U.S. Representative M. Clyde Kelly, 19 January 1920, Box 1, 

Entry 185, RG 28, NARA.

22. Fuller, RFD, 243–246; FHWA, America’s Highways, 

1776–1976, 100; Ho, From Farm to Table, 5.
5 6 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

23. FHWA, America’s Highways, 1776–1976, 98, 100; Ho, 

From Farm to Table, 5; “War’s Effect on Automobile Trade,” 

The New York Times, 17 November 1918.

24. Fuller, RFD, 246; Ho, From Farm to Table, 5; Bruns, 

Motorized Mail, 60; “Rouses Senator’s Ire,” The Washington 

Post, 28 May 1916; “Blakslee Apologizes to Senators,” The New 

York Times, 6 September 1916; Albert S. Burleson to U.S. Senator John H. Bankhead, 24 May 1916, Box 1, Entry 185, RG 28, 

NARA; typewritten statement (undated) from James I. Blakslee 

defending himself against congressional criticisms, Box 1, Entry 

185, RG 28, NARA.

25. “Farm-to-Table Parcel Post,” The New York Times, 14 

April 1918.

26. Nash, The Life of Herbert Hoover: Master of Emergencies, 1917–1918, 157.

27. FHWA, America’s Highways, 1776–1976, 90–93, 98; 

I. B. Holley, Jr., The Highway Revolution, 1895–1925: How the 

United States Got Out of the Mud (Durham, N. C.: Carolina Academic Press, 2008), 110, 111, 115, 117, 133; Dan McNichol, 

The Roads That Built America, 49–51; “29 Army Trucks End 

600-Mile Test Trip,” The New York Times, 29 December 1917; 

“Never Such Need for Motor Trucks,” The New York Times, 6 

January 1918; “War’s Effect on Automobile Trade,” The New 

York Times, 17 November 1918; Fuller, RFD, 163; Bruns, Motorized Mail, 55, 57–63, 71–74; Daniel P. Carpenter, The Forging 

of Bureaucratic Autonomy: Reputations, Networks, and Policy 

Innovation for Executive Agencies, 1862–1928 (Princeton, NJ: 

Princeton University Press, 2001), 170, 171; Ann Hagedorn, 

Savage Peace: Hope and Fear in America, 1919 (New York, NY: 

Simon & Schuster, 2007), 126, 127; “Rural Mail Service Policy 

Under Attack,” Christian Science Monitor, 18 August 1916; 

Deanna Boyd and Kendra Chen, The History and Experience of 

African Americans in America’s Postal Service (accessed 5 December 2008), available from http://www.postalmuseum.si.edu/

africanamericans/p5.html.

28. Bruns, Motorized Mail, 6; Mail by Motor (accessed 5 

December 2008), available from http://www.postalmuseum

.si.edu/exhibits/2b1c3_motor.html; “Fords for Postoffice,” The 

Washington Post, 3 January 1915.

29. James I. Blakslee to Albert G. Metz, 28 February 1919, 

Box 2, Entry 185, RG 28, NARA.

30. “Farm-to-Table Parcel Post,” The New York Times, 14 

April 1918.

31. USPS, The United States Postal Service, 74; Bruns, 

Motorized Mail, 78; “Motor Trucks for Mail,” The New York 

Times, 25 September 1910.

32. “Never Such Need for Motor Trucks,” The New York 

Times, 6 January 1918.

33. “Never Such Need,” NYT.

34. Bruns, Motorized Mail, 99, 102.

35. Bruns, Mail on the Move, 169, 173, 175–77; “The Post 

Office Rides the Highway,” The Indianapolis Star Magazine, 14 

September 1952. 

36. U.S. Post Office Department, Annual Report of the 

Postmaster General for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1951

(Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1951), 7.

Bibliography

“29 Army Trucks End 600-Mile Test Trip,” New York Times, 29 

December 1917.

“Autos Widen Parcel Post,” New York Times, 8 November 1914.

“Blakslee Apologizes to Senators,” New York Times, 6 September 1916.

Blakeslee, James I. Letter to A. S. Guffey, 14 April 1919. Box 1, 

Entry 185, RG 28. Washington, D. C.: National Archives 

and Records Administration. 

———. Letter to Albert G. Metz, 28 February 1919. Box 2, 

Entry 185, RG 28. Washington, D. C.: National Archives 

and Records Administration.

———. Letter to W. G. Howard, 7 April 1919. Box 2, Entry 185, 

RG 28. Washington, D. C.: National Archives and Records 

Administration.

———. Letter to U.S. Representative M. Clyde Kelly, 19 January 1920. Box 1, Entry 185, RG 28. Washington, D. C.: 

National Archives and Records Administration.

———. Statement to Congress. Undated. Box 1, Entry 185, RG 

28. Washington, D. C.: National Archives and Records Administration.

Boyd, Deanna, and Kendra Chen. “The History and Experience 

of African Americans in America’s Postal Service.” Smithsonian National Postal Museum. http://www.postalmuseum

.si.edu/africanamericans/p5.html. 

Bruns, James H. Mail on the Move. Polo, Ill.: Transportation 

Trails, 1992.

———. Motorized Mail. Iola, Wis.: Krause Publications, 1997.

Burleson, Albert S. Letter to U.S. Senator John H. Bankhead, 24 

May 1916. Box 1, Entry 185, RG 28. Washington, D. C.: 

National Archives and Records Administration.

Burner, David. Herbert Hoover: A Public Life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1979.

Carpenter, Daniel P. The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy: 

Reputations, Networks, and Policy Innovation for Executive Agencies, 1862–1928. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 2001.

Cooke, Alistair. Alistair Cooke’s America. New York: Alfred A. 

Knopf, 1973.

“Farm-to-Table Parcel Post,” New York Times, 14 April 1918.

“Farm-to-Table Plan Appeals to Nation,” New York Times, 30 

August 1914.

“Farmers’ Unrest a Grave Danger, Officials Find,” New York 

Times, 31 January 1920.

“Farmers Respond to War Food Call,” Christian Science Monitor, 18 May 1918.
n u m b e r 5 5 • 5 7

“Farmers Want Better Parcel Post System in Entire Country,” 

Cedar Rapids Evening Gazette, 19 February 1920.

Federal Highway Administration. America’s Highways, 1776–

1976. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1977.

“Food by Parcel Post,” Washington Post, 23 March 1914.

“Food from Farm to City by Postal Truck Plan,” New York 

Times, 23 September 1917.

“Fords for Postoffice,” Washington Post, 3 January 1915.

Fuller, Wayne E. RFD: The Changing Face of Rural America.

Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1964.

Guffey, A. S. Letter to James I. Blakslee. 11 April 1919. Box 1, 

Entry 185, RG 28. Washington, D. C.: National Archives 

and Records Administration.

Hagedorn, Ann. Savage Peace: Hope and Fear in America, 1919. 

New York: Simon & Schuster, 2007.

“Herbert Clark Hoover: A Biographical Sketch.” Herbert 

Hoover Presidential Library and Museum. http://hoover

.archives.gov/education/hooverbio.html.

Ho, Szu-Han. “From Farm to Table: Mailman As Middleman.” 

thenorthroom. http://www.thenorthroom.org/FTT.pdf. 

Holley, I. B. Jr. The Highway Revolution, 1895–1925: How the 

United States Got Out of the Mud. Durham. N. C.: Carolina Academic Press, 2008.

“J. I. Blakslee Praises Auto Trucks in Service of the P. O. Department; Stimulate the Production of Food,” Washington Post, 

7 April 1918.

Jacob, E. H. Letter to Albert S. Burleson, 1 January 1919. Box 

2, Entry 185, RG 28. Washington, D. C.: National Archives 

and Records Administration.

“Mail by Motor.” Smithsonian National Postal Museum. http://

www.postalmuseum.si.edu/exhibits/2b1c3_motor.html. 

“Mail Carrying Motor Trucks Prove Success,” The Daily Tribune (Logansport, Ind.), 5 November 1918.

McNichol, Dan. The Roads That Built America: The Incredible 

Story of the U.S. Interstate System. New York: Sterling Publishing Co., 2006.

“Motor Mail Is Making Money,” The Gettysburg Times, 17 

April 1918. 

“Motor Trucks for Mail,” New York Times, 14 April 1918.

“Motor Trucks Pay for Parcel Post,” New York Times, 30 June 

1918.

Nash, George H. The Life of Herbert Hoover: Master of Emergencies, 1917–1918. Vol. 3. New York: W. W. Norton & 

Company, 1996.

“Never Such Need for Motor Trucks,” New York Times, 6 January 1918.

“Parcel Post Ready by January Next,” New York Times. 26 August 1912.

“Post Office Aid for Farmers,” Christian Science Monitor, 19 

February 1920.

“The Post Office Rides the Highway,” Indianapolis Star. Magazine. 14 September 1952.

“Postal Truck Brings Produce 180 Miles,” New York Times, 21 

March 1918.

“Record Year in the Mail Department,” Christian Science Monitor, 6 December 1918.

“Rouses Senator’s Ire,” Washington Post, 28 May 1916.

“Rural Delivery Waste Charged,” Christian Science Monitor, 19 

February 1920.

“Rural Mail Service Policy Under Attack,” Christian Science 

Monitor, 18 August 1916.

Schlesinger, Arthur M. Jr., ed. The Almanac of American History. Greenwich, Conn.: Brompton Books, 1993.

The United States Postal Service. The United States Postal Service: An American History, 1775–2006. Washington, D. C.: 

USPS, 2007.

The United States Statutes at Large, December 1915 to March 

1917.Volume 39, Part 1.Washington D. C.: Government 

Printing Office, 1917.

U.S. Post Office Department. Annual Report of the Postmaster 

General for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1917. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1917.

———. Annual Report of the Postmaster General for the Fiscal 

Year Ended June 30, 1918. Washington, D. C.: Government 

Printing Office, 1919.

———. Annual Report of the Postmaster General for the Fiscal 

Year Ended June 30, 1919. Washington, D. C.: Government 

Printing Office, 1919.

———. Annual Report of the Postmaster General for the Fiscal 

Year Ended June 30, 1951. Washington, D. C.: Government 

Printing Office, 1951.

“War’s Effect on Automobile Trade,” New York Times, 17 November 1918.

“Wider Use of Parcel Post in U.S. Now Seen,” Christian Science 

Monitor, 5 October 1914. 

Wilson, Woodrow. “Address to the Nation. 16 April 1917.” The 

American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.

edu/ws/print.php?pid=65399.

Philatelic Propaganda: A Case Study—Border 

Changes in Eastern Europe, 1938–1941

Robin Gates Elliott

The purpose of postage stamps, first introduced in Great Britain in 1840, 

is to pay to send an item, usually a letter or package, through the mail. 

Since then, governments have realized that postage stamps could serve 

additional functions. This awareness, in turn, has influenced stamp design since 

the early twentieth century, when philately became a well-established hobby. 

Once governments realized that collectors were prepared to spend considerable 

sums of money on stamps which would never be used as postage—and therefore 

constituted pure profit—stamp design began to evolve beyond the simple monochromatic portraits of reigning monarchs, founding fathers, allegorical figures, 

and coats of arms typical of the nineteenth century. The purpose, of course, was 

to appeal to collectors and, by so doing, generate income. During the inter-war 

period many governments developed another additional use for postage stamps: 

the dissemination of propaganda.

Propaganda is material produced and circulated to influence public opinion, 

to persuade people to think, and sometimes to act, in a certain way. It has taken 

various forms over time, such as posters and pamphlets, and has been utilized by 

governments over time to promote attitudes, values, and behaviors which they 

wish their citizens (and, in some cases, foreign governments and foreign nationals) to adopt. Government propaganda, therefore, is nothing new; but the use of 

postage stamps to disseminate it is a twentieth-century phenomenon. A postage 

stamp lends itself to propaganda surprisingly well for something so small and 

seemingly innocuous, for several reasons. First, the issuing government has complete control over stamp design; it can use postage stamps to send any kind of 

message it wants. Furthermore, that message will be widely disseminated, since 

stamps are produced in large quantities, are inexpensive, and pass through many 

hands (including those of collectors) as they travel domestically and abroad.1

Stamp design consists of three component parts: format, textual message, 

and iconic content. The format is the size and shape of the stamp, traditionally a small square or rectangle, which sets the parameters for the textual message and iconic content. The textual message consists of linguistic or numerical 

elements—numbers, letters, names, or acronyms—that identify the country of 

origin and the amount of postage paid. Iconic content consists of graphic pictorial representations (icons) such as pictures and designs (drawings, engravings, 

photographs, or other graphics). Iconic content is of paramount importance 
6 0 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

in a stamp design that is to carry a propaganda message. 

The old saying that one picture is worth a thousand words 

is particularly true for postage stamps, since they are so 

small; whatever message is to be conveyed has to fit into 

a miniscule format. Pictures also can have an immediate 

emotional impact invaluable for effective propaganda. A 

brief textual message, such as a slogan, can be used to reinforce the message conveyed by the stamp’s iconic content.2

The first countries to appreciate and utilize the propaganda potential of postage stamps were the major 

European dictatorships of the 1930s: Hitler’s Germany, 

Mussolini’s Italy, and Stalin’s Soviet Union. Philatelic literature has noted the propaganda function of the stamp 

designs of these three countries; the stamps of Nazi Germany, along with its cancellations and postal cards, have 

been studied in depth. In addition, David Scott has studied 

the history of stamp design in several western European 

countries, including stamps issued during the 1930s and 

World War II.3

 The literature has had little, if anything, to 

say about stamp design and its propaganda function in the 

countries of eastern Europe during this period. Yet by the 

1930s, most of the countries of eastern Europe were dictatorships, and their governments felt the same need to influence public opinion (if not to the same degree) as those 

of Germany, Italy, and the Soviet Union. The purpose here 

is to study the stamp designs of a small subset of eastern European stamps: stamps issued by countries that had 

annexed territory between 1938 (the Munich crisis) and 

1941 (the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union) and which 

celebrate (and seek to justify) their territorial acquisitions.

From the Munich crisis in the fall of 1938 to V-E 

Day in May, 1945, the borders of all of the countries in 

eastern Europe underwent changes. Countries gained territory from or lost territory to their neighbors. Several 

countries entirely disappeared—occupied, partitioned, or 

dismembered—and two new ones (Croatia and Slovakia) 

emerged. These changes had their roots in the peace settlements following World War I, which redrew the map of 

central and eastern Europe. The old empires—German, 

Austro-Hungarian, Russian, and Ottoman—had collapsed 

and were replaced by successor states, and the previously 

existing states in the area either gained or lost territory. 

Given the multitude of competing territorial claims based 

on historic, cultural, ethnic, economic, and strategic arguments, no settlement could satisfy everyone, and resentment of the results was widespread.4

Starting with Munich and continuing into World 

War II, countries occupied neighboring territory that they 

regarded as rightfully theirs at every opportunity. Five 

countries—Poland, Hungary, the Soviet Union, Bulgaria, 

and Romania—issued stamps honoring and justifying 

their territorial acquisitions. Hungary and Bulgaria each 

issued two sets, one for each of two separate territorial 

acquisitions.5 These stamps are impressive miniature propaganda posters, and the purpose here is to explain their 

iconic content (to deconstruct the iconography) in order to 

show how they functioned as propaganda and to suggest 

the messages that they might have sent. The meaning and 

significance of the iconic content of these stamps would 

have been obvious and instantly recognizable to the citizens of the issuing countries, and probably to their foreign 

contemporaries. Over half a century later, however, they 

constitute terra incognita for populations far removed in 

time, space, and culture.

The iconic content of the seven stamps or sets of 

stamps issued by five different countries, each with its own 

unique history and culture, is surprisingly similar. A limited number of icons are used by all five countries to convey similar ideas. Such similarities suggest the existence 

of a visual vocabulary common to the region and to the 

period, as well as shared ideas and emotions. They also 

provide an analytical framework.

For these stamps or sets of stamps to function as 

propaganda posters, two types of icons must be present 

in the stamp design. First, an icon representing the occupying power (the country issuing the stamp) is necessary, something above and beyond simply the country’s 

name on the stamp. A limited number of icons are used 

to serve this purpose. A picture of the head of state appears most frequently. Other icons include pictures of the 

army or individual soldiers (annexation, after all, usually 

involved a military operation), appropriate religious and 

allegorical figures, and the state flag. The second required 

icon is one representing the occupied territory. Another 

limited number of icons serve this purpose. They include 

pictures of ethnic co-nationals resident in the territory 

being occupied (since the justification for annexation was 

frequently based on ethnic claims), identifiable as such by 

their national costumes and broad smiles; a map of the occupied territory; or pictures of culturally significant landmarks located in the occupied territory. These two types of 

icons—occupying power and occupied territory—visually 

establish the fact of occupation/territorial acquisition.

The stamp designs also include optional iconic content that reinforces the message established by the required icons. One type is a depiction of the old border 

between the occupying power and the occupied territory 

which, due to annexation, has now been rendered null and 

void. A second type of iconic content justifies annexation 

by citing historical precedent through the portrayal of a 
n u m b e r 5 5 • 6 1

historical figure or landmark dating from the period when 

the annexed territory belonged to the occupying power: 

“It was ours then, it is ours now.” A third type is some 

reference to an alliance with the Axis, which made the “return” of the “lost” territories possible.

Poland is not usually regarded as an occupying power 

in connection with World War II; rather, it is remembered 

as the war’s first victim. There was, however, the issue of 

Teschen. Located in Austrian Silesia (known as Eastern 

Silesia to some philatelists), it was claimed by both Poland 

and Czechoslovakia following World War I. As with so 

many of the disputed territories of this period, the issues 

were complex. Ethnically, it was predominantly Polish, 

but economic and strategic considerations made it attractive to Czechoslovakia. The territory contained coal 

mines, and the only rail line that connected the western 

provinces of the new state of Czechoslovakia with its 

eastern half ran through Teschen. The territory was split, 

north to south, by the River Olza. The victorious Entente 

Powers (who were redrawing the map of Europe) followed 

the line of the river and partitioned the territory. Poland 

received the city of Teschen, and Czechoslovakia received 

the suburbs, which contained the coal mines and the railroad line.

Twenty years later, when Hitler decided to detach the 

Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia, he wanted to make the 

annexation look like part of a multi-national movement 

undertaken to rectify the injustices (in his opinion) perpetrated by the peace treaties concluded at the end of World 

War I. Therefore, he suggested that other countries which 

had lost territory to Czechoslovakia press their claims. 

Poland, which had remained bitter over the partition of 

Teschen throughout the inter-war period and, as a result, 

had never established cordial relations with Czechoslovakia, did so with alacrity. The government reclaimed Czech 

Teschen and issued a stamp celebrating the “return” of the 

territory.6

 (Figure 1)

The icon representing Poland, the occupying power, 

is a personification of the Motherland (the woman in the 

white robe). Lest there be any doubt as to her identity, she 

is standing in front of a map of Poland (the Polish Corridor is visible in the upper left-hand corner of the stamp). 

The three figures in the foreground are icons representing the annexed territory: the left-hand figure is carrying 

a pick-ax, a reference to coal mining. They are stepping 

over a border post, the low striped wall in the lower foreground. Border posts stood upright and were painted with 

stripes of red and white, but this border post has been 

knocked down, rendered null and void by the Polish occupation of the territory.

The textual message on the stamp, “The Return of 

Trans-­Olza to the Motherland,” plus the date, tie everything together. “Return” implies that the territory had 

once been Polish. It is identified as Trans-­Olza, the territory across the River Olza, not as Teschen (let alone 

Czech Teschen). Polish is a language of synonyms. The 

inscription on the stamp could have read “the return . . . 

to Poland,” or “to the homeland,” or “to the Fatherland.” 

These various linguistic options suggest that the reference 

to Poland as “the Motherland” was deliberate.

And there she stands, the Lady in White. Here the 

icon representing the occupying power is a benign one, 

that of a mother welcoming her children home, not of an 

invading army or its soldiers. She holds a sword, but it is 

pointed down, not raised, and she is wrapping her robe 

around her children as they return home and walk into 

her embrace. This Polish stamp is a masterpiece. Just one 

stamp contains both required icons, one of the optional 

icons (the border), and a textual message that reinforces 

the message conveyed by the iconic content.

Hungary had also lost territory to Czechoslovakia. In 

fact, Hungary had lost territory to all of its neighbors following World War I. The Hungarian state was over a thousand years old (it had celebrated its millennium in 1896). 

As a result of the Treaty of Trianon, the peace treaty between the Entente Powers and Hungary, it had lost twothirds of its territory and over one-half of its population. 

Figure 1. A stamp celebrating the “return” of the Teschen territory to Poland. From the collection of Robin Gates Elliott.
6 2 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

Those population losses, furthermore, included more than 

three million ethnic Hungarians who, due to Hungary’s 

new borders, suddenly became ethnic minorities in foreign 

countries. The Hungarians were inconsolable. In Hungary 

flags flew at half-mast the day the Treaty of Trianon was 

signed. The country’s motto became “No, No, Never!”—

never would Hungarians become reconciled to these 

losses. In Liberty Square, a park in Budapest behind the 

Parliament building, four statues were erected in memory 

of the lost territories: the territories to the north (lost to 

Czechoslovakia), the south (to Yugoslavia), the east (to 

Romania), and the west (to Austria).

These territorial losses were one of the reasons, if not 

the main reason, for Hungary’s alliance with the Axis in 

the 1930s and during World War II. Hitler and Hungary, 

after all, shared a common goal: to destroy the peace 

settlements that had ended World War I by regaining the 

territorial losses. So when Hitler set his sights on Czechoslovakia in 1938, Hungary also participated with alacrity. 

Precisely how much territory Hungary would regain from 

Czechoslovakia was determined by German and Italian 

diplomats in Vienna; the resulting agreement is known as 

the First Vienna Award. Hungary received a strip of southeastern Czechoslovakia (territory from the eastern provinces, Slovakia, and Sub-Carpathian Ruthenia) which had 

a predominantly Hungarian population.7

 To celebrate the 

return of the territory Hungary issued a set of five semipostal stamps,8

 which had the additional purpose of raising money to assist the ethnic brethren who had allegedly 

suffered financially under foreign rule. The inscription on 

all five stamps reads “Hungarians Help Hungarians.”9

The first stamp in the series is of the Budapest statue 

memorializing the lost northern territory (the Hungarian word for north, Eszak, is inscribed on the base of the 

statue) plus the date of the Treaty of Trianon, 1920 (upper 

right-hand corner). The third depicts Admiral Horthy, 

Hungary’s head of state, entering southern Slovakia on a 

white horse (significant in Hungarian folklore) at the head 

of the army, complete with flowers strewn in his path by 

the grateful Hungarian population. He is crossing into 

the occupied territory on a bridge over the River Danube 

at Komaron, where the river formed the (old) border between Hungary and Czechoslovakia. The iconic content 

is a reproduction of a photograph of his triumphal entry. 

The stamp design of the fifth stamp in the series contains 

icons representing both the occupying power and the occupied territory. (Figure 2) Hungarian soldiers are being 

welcomed by Hungarian girls in national costume. The 

date of the First Vienna Award, 1938, is in the upper righthand corner, signifying the (partial) return of what had 

been lost in 1920, and stands in contrast to the date on the 

first stamp in the series.

The designs of the remaining two stamps in the series are icons of culturally significant landmarks in the occupied territory: the medieval Cathedral of St. Elizabeth 

of Hungary in Kassa (Slovakia) and the fort at Munkacs 

(Sub-Carpathian Ruthenia), built during the reign of King 

Bela IV in the thirteenth century. Both date from the time 

when the territory was Hungarian, and, as such, can be 

read as a justification of the occupation by historical 

precedent. The selection of these two historic landmarks 

as icons to represent the occupied territory has an additional significance—and a certain irony—since they had 

appeared on stamps issued by Czechoslovakia, the fort in 

1936 and the cathedral in June of 1938, just a few months 

before the Hungarian occupation.10

World War II began with the German invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939. The green light for the invasion was the Nazi-Soviet Pact, concluded in late August. 

Essentially, Stalin agreed to let Hitler do whatever he 

wanted militarily as long as the Soviet Union could annex 

territory on its western border, territory that either had 

been part of the old Russian empire or that the Bolsheviks 

had tried, but failed, to conquer in the aftermath of World 

War I. As a result, the Red Army invaded eastern Poland 

Figure 2. The design of the fifth stamp in the “Hungarians Help 

Hungarians” series contains icons representing both the occupying power and the occupied territory. From the collection of Robin 

Gates Elliott.
n u m b e r 5 5 • 6 3

on September 17, 1939, and occupied the eastern half 

of the interwar Polish state. The territory was ethnically 

mixed and contained substantial numbers of Belorussians 

in the north and Ukrainians in the south.11

A set of five stamps present the Party line justifying 

the invasion, utilizing both iconic content and textual messages.12 All five stamps portray the enthusiastic welcome of 

the Red Army (icon representing the occupying power) by 

the local inhabitants (icons representing the occupied territory), identified on two of the stamps as Ukrainians and 

Belorussians by the details of the women’s clothing, specifically the embroidery. The first stamp in the series (Figure 

3) shows a Red Army soldier holding a young boy who, in 

turn, is holding aloft a bouquet of flowers, presumably to 

give to the soldier. Adults stand in the background, and the 

embroidery on a woman’s blouse suggests that the scene 

takes place in the Western Ukraine. (Figure 3) Additional 

stamps in the series portray villagers welcoming a tank 

crew (a soldier stands in front of his tank and shakes hands 

with villagers, while a little girl brings him a bouquet of 

flowers) and a soldier distributing newspapers (presumably 

announcing the “liberation”) to eager villagers enthusiastically reaching for them. The final stamp shows villagers 

welcoming an approaching tank column (someone in the 

crowd is even waving a Soviet flag); the embroidery on the 

blouse of a woman in the foreground suggests that the scene 

is taking place in Western Belorussia. Everyone is all smiles.

The textual message on all five stamps reads “The liberation of the fraternal peoples of Western Ukraine and 

Western Belorussia,” along with the date, which explains 

and reinforces the iconic content of happiness, enthusiasm, and celebration created with smiles, flowers, and the 

Soviet flag. The message is that the fraternal Red Army has 

come to liberate the “fraternal peoples of Western Ukraine 

and Western Belorussia” from Polish rule. There is no 

mention of Poland, let alone the fact that it has been invaded. The territory will be annexed to the Soviet Socialist 

Republics of Ukraine and Belorussia, and the inhabitants 

will at long last join their ethnic brethren and, by definition, live happily ever after.

In June 1940 the Soviet Union occupied the Romanian 

province of Bessarabia. Bessarabia had been part of the 

old Russian empire since the nineteenth century but had 

been annexed by Romania following World War I. Now 

the Soviet Union, in accordance with the Nazi-Soviet Pact, 

wanted it back. No stamps were issued to mark the Soviet occupation of Bessarabia, but the Soviet move inspired 

other countries that had lost territory to Romania following the war, Hungary and Bulgaria, to press their claims.13

Hungary demanded the return of Transylvania, the 

lost territory to the east. Of all of the territorial losses that 

Hungary had sustained following World War I, the loss 

of Transylvania was the most traumatic to the Hungarian 

national psyche. Transylvania had been an integral part of 

the Hungarian state since the eleventh century, held considerable historical significance for Hungarians, and constituted about half of the territory of Historic Hungary. 

The fact that the Hungarian population of Transylvania 

was now being governed by Romanians simply added 

insult to injury. Precisely how much territory Hungary 

would gain was, once again, determined by German and 

Italian diplomats in Vienna; hence the decision was known 

as the Second Vienna Award. Hungary received northern 

Transylvania, an area with significant concentrations of 

non-­Romanian ethnic minorities. They may not have all 

been Hungarian—they included Germans (known as the 

Saxons) and numerous Szeklars (a Bulgarian-Turkic tribe 

which had migrated to Transylvania in the eleventh century and, over time, had adopted the Hungarian language 

and customs)—but they were certainly not Romanians.14

To celebrate the return of northern Transylvania and its 

citizens, Hungary issued a set of three stamps, semi-postals 

to benefit the Pro-Transylvania Movement.15 The first 

stamp in the series portrays Hungarian soldiers past (in the 

background, on a horse) and present (foreground) with the 

date of the return of the territory in the upper left-hand corner. (Figure 4) The mounted soldier in the background, with 

helmet and sword, is a reference to a Hungarian legend. 

Szeklars had settled in north-eastern Transylvania, a border 

Figure 3. The first stamp in a series of five that present the communist party line justifying the invasion of Poland by the Soviet Union. 

It shows a Red Army soldier holding a young boy who, in turn, is 

holding aloft a bouquet of flowers, presumably to give to the soldier. 

From the collection of Robin Gates Elliott.
6 4 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

region, as early as the thirteenth century and were entrusted 

with guarding the border. If ever they were threatened, so 

the legend went, Hungarian warriors from centuries past 

would arise from their graves and gallop to their rescue. 

The soldier in the background is doing precisely that. The 

stars in the middle of the stamp represent the Milky Way 

which, according to the same legend, was the “Road of the 

Armies,” the path of the galloping warriors. The legendary 

figure serves two purposes. First, it is one of the optional 

elements, justification for annexation by citing historical 

precedent (Transylvania had been part of Historic Hungary 

for centuries). Second, it represents the theme of aid, appropriate for a stamp designed to raise funds.16

The design of the second stamp is reminiscent of the 

Pieta. (Figure 5) Hungary, the occupying power, is represented by the Virgin Mary, the Patroness of Hungary (lest 

there be any doubt, Patrona Hungariae is inscribed on her 

halo). The man, a Szeklar from north-eastern Transylvania, represents the occupied territory; his crown of thorns 

symbolizes the sufferings endured (according to Budapest) 

by ethnic minorities at the hands of the Romanians.17

Szeklars are also portrayed on the third stamp in the series. A Szeklar mother is holding her child aloft, facing 

west (towards Budapest), and offering him to the Fatherland. The sun is rising in the background, suggestive of 

the bright future that awaits the population now that it 

is once again part of Hungary. The iconic content of the 

second and third stamps in the series is highly emotional, 

more so than that of the Hungarian stamps issued to mark 

the return of territory from Czechoslovakia in 1938. The 

designs suggest the importance of Transylvania in the 

Hungarian national psyche—and the contempt in which 

Hungarians held the Romanians in general and those governing Transylvania in particular.

Bulgaria, not to be outdone, also demanded Romanian territory. Like Hungary, Bulgaria had been on the 

losing side in World War I, and, like Hungary, it had lost 

territory following the war. As a result of the Treaty of 

Neuilly, concluded between the Entente Powers and Bulgaria, Bulgaria had lost about ten percent of its territory 

to Romania, Greece, and Yugoslavia. When the terms of 

the treaty were publicized in Bulgaria, a national day of 

mourning was declared. By World War II, Bulgaria was 

allied with the Axis. With Axis support, it demanded the 

return from Romania of Southern Dobrudja, a highly developed and productive agricultural region bordering the 

Black Sea, in which Bulgarians were the predominant ethnic group.18 This was accomplished in 1940 by the Treaty 

of Craiova, and Bulgaria issued a series of four stamps 

celebrating the territory’s return.

All four stamps include pictures of Bulgaria’s head of 

state, Tsar Boris, and the inscription “Dobrudja–1940.” 

Figure 4. The first stamp in a series of three stamps that celebrate 

the return of northern Transylvania to Hungary portrays Hungarian soldiers past (in the background, on a horse) and present (foreground) with the date of the return of the territory in the upper 

left-hand corner. From the collection of Robin Gates Elliott.

Figure 5. The design of the second stamp in the Transylvania 

series is reminiscent of the Pieta. From the collection of Robin Gates 

Elliott.
n u m b e r 5 5 • 6 5

Maps of Southern Dobrudja, the annexed territory, are on 

two of the stamps. An ethnic Bulgarian couple, residents of 

Southern Dobrudja (identifiable as such by their national 

costumes), are portrayed on a third. The woman holds a 

sheaf of wheat, a reference to the agricultural character 

and importance of the region. The reference to agriculture 

is repeated in the fourth stamp (Figure 6), which shows 

the Bulgarian flag (an additional icon of the occupying 

power) being carried through a wheat field; the wheat is 

so tall that the soldiers carrying the flag are barely visible. 

On this stamp, Tsar Boris is portrayed wearing a German 

helmet, possibly a reference to the alliance with the Axis 

which made the recovery of Southern Dobrudja possible.19

By 1941 Hitler was planning to invade the Soviet 

Union, the Nazi-Soviet Pact notwithstanding. In preparation, he invaded Greece and Yugoslavia in April to ensure 

that the entire Balkan Peninsula was firmly under Axis control. The philatelic paper trail generated by the dismemberment of Yugoslavia and the fate of its various component 

parts from 1941 to 1945 is a long and complicated one. 

Suffice it to say that Bulgaria, as an Axis ally, received coveted territory from both Yugoslavia (most of Macedonia 

plus some of Serbia) and Greece (territory in Western 

Thrace, which included access to the Aegean Sea).20 It publicized these acquisitions with a series of five stamps.21

Tsar Boris plus a map of the territory obtained from 

Yugoslavia are on one of the stamps. (Figure 7) The iconic 

content of the remaining four stamps depicts the territories acquired. Two signify the occupation of Macedonia. 

A Macedonian woman (identified as such by her national 

costume) plus the date of the occupation are on one, 

and the city of Ohrid, a culturally significant landmark 

in Macedonia dating from the ninth century (shown on 

the map of the territorial acquisitions from Yugoslavia), is 

on the second. Macedonia had been part of the medieval 

Bulgarian state, and modern Bulgaria’s attempts to regain 

it had been a cause of Balkan instability since the Balkan 

Wars of 1912 and 1913. The city of Ohrid had been a 

center of learning in medieval Bulgaria and the seat of the 

Patriarch of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. As a culturally significant landmark, the portrayal of Ohrid serves 

as a justification for annexation by citing historical precedent. The third stamp celebrates Bulgaria’s acquisition of 

territory from Greece. For economic and strategic reasons 

modern Bulgaria had constantly sought an outlet on the 

Aegean Sea—and had been constantly frustrated in its attempts. Western Thrace, however, bordered the Aegean, 

thus fulfilling another of Bulgaria’s territorial goals. Appropriately, the iconic content of the stamp of Western 

Thrace is a view of the Aegean Sea from the Thracian 

coastline, with the Island of Samos (another Bulgarian 

Figure 6. In 1940, Bulgaria issued a series of four stamps celebrating the return of Dobrudja. The fourth stamp references agriculture 

by showing the Bulgarian flag being carried through a wheat field; 

the wheat is so tall that the soldiers carrying the flag are barely visible. On this stamp, Tsar Boris is portrayed wearing a German helmet, possibly a reference to the alliance with the Axis which made 

the recovery of Southern Dobrudja possible. From the collection of 

Robin Gates Elliott.

Figure 7. Bulgaria, as an Axis ally, received coveted territory from 

both Yugoslavia and Greece. It publicized these acquisitions with a 

series of five stamps. Tsar Boris plus a map of the territory obtained 

from Yugoslavia are on this stamp. From the collection of Robin 

Gates Elliott.
6 6 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

acquisition from Greece) in the distance and a rising sun 

blazing in the sky. The final stamp in the series is a view of 

the Poganovski Monastery.

Romania participated in Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet 

Union in June of 1941 and sent troops into Bessarabia 

to reclaim the territory that Stalin had annexed the previous year.22 On the first anniversary of its reconquest of 

Bessarabia, Romania issued a series of three semi-postal 

stamps.23 All three portray General Antonescu, Romania’s 

de facto head of state. Two of the three also portray the 

King of Romania, King Michael; King Michael’s father, 

King Carol II, had been forced to abdicate in 1940 due to 

national outrage over the country’s territorial losses. Due 

to Michael’s youth, General Antonescu served as regent.

The first stamp in the series depicts the Romanian 

army crossing the Pruth River to retake Bessarabia; the 

Pruth was the western border of Bessarabia. The bridge 

is in the foreground, and the soldiers are viewed from the 

back as they march from Romania into Bessarabia. In 

addition to two icons representing the occupying power 

(General Antonescu plus the army), the iconic content 

includes one of the optional elements, the crossing of a 

border. Both King Michael and General Antonescu appear on the second stamp, along with a portrait of Stephen of Moldavia, a famous fifteenth-century Romanian 

ruler during whose reign Bessarabia was part of Moldavia 

(justification of occupation by citing historical precedent). 

The third stamp (Figure 8) is a map of Bessarabia; at the 

bottom of the stamp, beneath the map, are soldiers. Four 

portraits complete the stamp’s iconic content. In addition 

to those of King Michael and General Antonescu, homage 

is paid to Hitler and Mussolini: a tip of the hat to the Axis, 

since Romania’s alliance with the Axis made the return of 

Bessarabia possible.

The purpose here has been to explain the iconic content and textual messages of the stamps or sets of stamps 

issued by several eastern European countries to celebrate 

their territorial acquisitions obtained during the period 

from the Munich crisis in the fall of 1938 to Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941. The stamps have 

been described as propaganda posters, and the analysis 

of their iconic content and textual messages has shown 

how they functioned as such. In conclusion, the issue 

that remains to be addressed is the purpose of these miniature propaganda posters: specifically, what messages 

the five governments were seeking to convey with these 

stamps, and how they wished to influence public opinion. 

Philatelic literature, once again, is virtually silent on this 

topic, and a search for relevant government documents or 

memoir material is beyond the scope of this study. Any 

conclusions, therefore, are purely speculative. Yet speculation is possible through seeking connections between the 

stamp designs and the historical background and circumstances that produced them.

First, all of these stamps convey a positive message: 

wrongs have been righted, integral parts of the homeland 

have been restored, and ethnic brethren have been rescued 

from foreign domination and returned safely home. Everyone is happy: soldiers are greeted with flowers, the ethnic 

brethren are smiling, flags are flying, and the sun is shining. Even the suffering Szeklar in the arms of the Madonna 

is at least still alive. The happiness portrayed stands in 

sharp contrast to the national mood caused by the loss of 

the territories. Hungary endured a year of political turmoil 

in 1919 due to its territorial losses, and the Treaty of Trianon the following year, which confirmed the losses, was 

an occasion for national mourning and defiance. Bulgaria 

marked the Treaty of Neuilly with a day of mourning. As 

a result of Romanian territorial losses in 1940, the king, 

Carol II, was forced to abdicate in favor of his young son, 

Michael. It also stands in contrast to the actual conditions that existed in eastern Europe when the stamps were 

Figure 8. On the first anniversary of its reconquest of Bessarabia, Romania issued a series of three stamps. The third stamp is a 

map of Bessarabia; at the bottom of the stamp, beneath the map, are 

soldiers. Four portraits complete the stamp’s iconic content: King 

Michael, General Antonescu, Hitler, and Mussolini—a tip of the hat 

to the Axis, since Romania’s alliance with the Axis made the return 

of Bessarabia possible. From the collection of Robin Gates Elliott.
n u m b e r 5 5 • 6 7

issued: dictatorial regimes, political repression, economic 

hardship, and war.

Second, the various national governments (those same 

dictatorial regimes practicing political repression) are taking credit for these joyous events, the territorial acquisitions, by issuing stamps proclaiming and celebrating them. 

The iconic content of several of the stamps makes this connection obvious with portraits of the heads of state: Admiral Horthy of Hungary, King Boris of Bulgaria, and King 

Michael and General Antonescu of Romania. All of the 

other icons representing the occupying power also make 

the connection, if not as directly. None of the governments 

were parliamentary democracies, and none of the rulers 

portrayed on the stamps were governing with the consent 

of the governed, hence the importance of influencing public opinion in their favor (especially in the worst of times) 

through propaganda. Put very simply, the stamps do precisely that by associating the rulers and governments with 

something positive and popular (the returned territories) 

and giving them credit for it.

To skeptics at home and abroad, the stamps send a 

third message: the territorial acquisitions are justified, for 

all of the reasons listed above. They have saved the minorities of Transylvania from the Romanians, liberated 

Belorussians and Ukrainians from the Poles, and given 

Bulgaria its long-sought outlet to the Aegean Sea. Justification abroad through philately was probably most important—and most calculated—in the Soviet Union. The 

Soviet government made a point of selling its stamps to 

collectors overseas, and it is questionable whether the set 

of stamps celebrating and justifying its acquisition of eastern Poland even circulated domestically.24

A fourth message is support for the Axis. All of the 

territorial acquisitions discussed here were made possible 

by some type of agreement or alliance with either Nazi 

Germany or the Axis. The willingness to acknowledge the 

connection philatelically varied according to the country’s 

degree of subservience.25 Romania issued the clearest message of support (see Figure 8).26 It is a reflection of Romanian foreign policy during the inter-war period.27 Romania 

feared Soviet aggression, at least in part because it had annexed Bessarabia, and it had depended upon its relations 

with the Entente countries, particularly France, to guarantee its security. That guarantee evaporated with the fall of 

France to Nazi Germany in the summer of 1940. Eastern 

Europe had suddenly become a very dangerous neighborhood, with no effective Entente power to counter either 

Germany or the Soviet Union. Romania concluded an alliance with the Axis, which enabled it to retake Bessarabia when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union. Bulgaria and 

Hungary also concluded alliances with the Axis. Bulgaria 

alludes to the Axis connection (see Figure 7); Hungary 

does not. The iconic content of the stamps issued by Poland and the Soviet Union contain no reference to their 

relations with Nazi Germany.

The stamps analyzed here are similar in their iconic 

content. The messages that these miniature propaganda 

posters are designed to send are also similar. Whether the 

iconic content employed and the messages sent are unique 

to these specific countries or are part of a visual vocabulary and a pattern common to all of Europe during the 

1930s and World War II (and beyond, both in space and 

time) would be a subsequent topic to explore—but one 

beyond the scope of this study.

Notes

1. Jack Child, Miniature Messages: the Semiotics and Politics of Latin American Postage Stamps, pp. 1–5, 15; Daniel A. 

Piazza, “Perforated Propaganda,” (Lecture given at the Smithsonian National Postal Museum, Sept. 18, 2009); Donald M. Reid, 

“The Symbolism of Postage Stamps: a Source for the Historian,” 

Journal of Contemporary History, vol. XIX, no. 2 (April 1984), 

p. 223; Carlos Stoetzer, Postage Stamps as Propaganda, pp. 1–3.

2. The description of the component parts of stamp design 

is based on David Scott, European Stamp Design: a Semiotic

Approach to Designing Messages, in which he applies concepts 

from The Second Trichotomy of Signs by Charles Sanders Peirce 

to stamp design, and on Child, who applies Scott’s resulting concepts of stamp design to his study of Latin American stamps.

3. Alf Harper, Philately of the Third Reich: Postage and propaganda (Raleigh, N.C.: Album, 1998); Albert L. Moore, Postal 

Propaganda of the Third Reich (Atglen, Pa.: Schiffer Military 

History, 2003); Montgomery Mulford, “Postage Stamps as Propaganda,” Mechanix Illustrated, Oct. 1938, pp. 86, 135; Piazza; 

Scott; Stoetzer.

4. Richard and Ben Crampton, Atlas of Eastern Europe in 

the Twentieth Century, p. 37; Dennis P. Hupchick and Harold E. 

Cox, The Palgrave Concise Historical Atlas of Eastern Europe, 

maps 42, 44; Hugh Seton-Watson, Eastern Europe Between The 

Wars: 1918–1941, pp. 269–270.

5. In the United States the standard reference book for postage stamps is the Scott Standard Postage Stamp Catalogue, a 

multi-volume work issued annually. The Scott numbers for the 

stamps to be analyzed here are: Poland, Scott 334; Hungary, 

Scott B98–102 and B123–125; Russia, Scott 767–771; Bulgaria, 

Scott 360–363 and 392–396; and Romania, Scott B195–197.

6. Crampton and Crampton, pp. 41, 57, 67, 99, 101, 111; 

Hupchick and Cox, map 48; Margaret MacMillan, Paris 1919: 

Six Months that Changed the World, pp. 225, 238–240; Scott 

2004 Standard Postage Stamp Catalogue, vol. 5, p. 272; SetonWatson, pp. 364–365.
6 8 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

7. Crampton and Crampton, pp. 41, 77; Hupchick and 

Cox, maps 44, 48, 49; MacMillan, pp. 235–236, 238, 269–270; 

Kati Marton, The Great Escape: Nine Jews Who Fled Hitler and 

Changed the World, p. 39.

8. A semipostal stamp is a postage stamp that sells for more 

than the cost of postage. The difference between the postage rate 

and the price of the stamp is contributed to a charity. Therefore a 

semi-postal postage stamp has two functions: paying for postage 

and raising funds for a charitable cause.

9. Scott 2004 Standard Postage Stamp Catalogue, vol. 3, 

p. 698; Kent B. Stiles, “Of Topical Interest,” Scott’s Monthly 

Journal, vol. XX, no. 1 (March 1939), pp. 18–19, 24, 26; 

Frederick Wall, “The Designs of the Month,” Gibbons Stamp 

Monthly, vol. XII, no. 6 (March 1939), pp. 105–107; Marian 

Carne Zinsmeister, Hungarian Stamps and their Background, 

1871–1940, pp. 22–23.

10. The Czechoslovak stamps mentioned are Scott numbers 

64 and 86.

11. Crampton and Crampton, pp. 111, 135; Hupchick and 

Cox, map 49.

12. Scott 2004 Standard Postage Stamp Catalogue, vol. 5, 

p. 520; Frederick Wall, “The Designs of the Month,” Gibbons 

Stamp Monthly, vol. XIII, no. 11 (August 1940), p. 149.

13. Hupchick and Cox, map 45; Jacques Posell, “The War 

Issues of Romania,” in Sixteenth American Philatelic Congress 

Book, pp. 157, 159; Seton-Watson, pp. 213–214, 400.

14. Crampton and Crampton, pp. 41, 77, 121; Hupchick 

and Cox, maps 44, 46, 49; Paul Lendvai, The Hungarians: A 

Thousand Years of Victory in Defeat, p. 25; MacMillan, pp. 

260–261; Seton-Watson, pp. 270–271, 297–303, 343–344.

15. Stanley Gibbons Simplified Catalogue: Stamps of the 

World, 1997 ed., vol. I (London: Stanley Gibbons Ltd., 1996), 

p. 967; Lendvai, pp. 24–25; Scott 2004 Standard Postage Stamp 

Catalogue, vol. 3, p. 699; Frederick Wall, “The Designs of the 

Month,” Gibbons Stamp Monthly, vol. XIV, no. 8 (April 1941), 

p. 57; Zinsmeister, pp. 25–26.

16. It appears on subsequent Hungarian semi-postal stamps 

issued to raise money for the Horthy National Aviation Fund 

(Hungary, Scott B141, B170). Scott 2004 Standard Postage 

Stamp Catalogue, vol. 3, pp. 699, 700.

17. In 1955 this stamp won third prize in an international 

contest for the best stamp portraying the Virgin Mary, sponsored 

by the St. Gabriel International Society for Collectors of Christian Motives [sic] on Postage Stamps. “Saar Stamp wins Gabriel 

Contest,” Linn’s Weekly Stamp News, vol. XXXIII, no. 6 (April 

18, 1955), p. 10.

18. Crampton and Crampton, pp. 21, 41, 49, 121, 135; 

Hupchick and Cox, map 49; MacMillan, pp. 121, 123, 136–

137, 140–142; Seton-Watson, pp. 270–271, 390.

19. Scott 2004 Standard Postage Stamp Catalogue, vol. 1, 

p. 962; Frederick Wall, “The Designs of the Month,” Gibbons 

Stamp Monthly, vol. XIV, no. 6 (Feb. 1941), p. 47.

20. Crampton and Crampton, pp. 21, 41, 49, 133, 135; Hupchick and Cox, maps 47, 49; MacMillan, pp. 121, 123–124, 136–

137, 142; Seton-Watson, pp. 271, 311, 313–316, 352, 355, 364.

21. R. J. Crampton, A Concise History of Bulgaria, pp. 12, 

16; Michel Europa-Katalog Ost, 1995/96, p. 145; Scott 2004 

Standard Postage Stamp Catalogue, vol. 1, pp. 962–963.

22. Hupchick and Cox, map 49; Posell, p. 159.

23. Paul Robert Magocsi, Historical Atlas of Central Europe, pp. 29–30; Posell; Scott 2004 Standard Postage Stamp 

Catalogue, vol. 5, p. 491; Seton-Watson, pp. 213–214.

24. Stoetzer, pp. 9–10.

25. On the varying degrees of subservience to Hitler and the 

Axis, see Seton-Watson, p. 197.

26. This was not the only Romanian stamp that reflected 

the country’s pro-Axis, anti-Soviet foreign policy orientation. In 

August 1941 Romania issued a set of four semi-postal stamps to 

raise money for its Anti-Bolshevism crusade; one of them portrays a Romanian and a German soldier, side by side (Romania, Scott B 170–173). A second set of semi-postal stamps issued 

in 1943 marks the second anniversary of Romania’s entry into 

World War II (Romania, Scott B207–209). Posell, pp. 157, 159; 

Scott 2004 Standard Postage Stamp Catalogue, vol. 5, pp. 491, 

492; Stoetzer, p. 19.

27. MacMillan, p. 128; Posell; Seton-Watson, pp. 198, 213–

216, 363, 385–386, 390–391, 400–401.

Bibliography

Child, Jack. Miniature Messages: The Semiotics and Politics of 

Latin American Postage Stamps. Durham, N. C.: Duke University Press, 2008.

Crampton, R. J. A Concise History of Bulgaria. Cambridge, 

U. K.: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

Crampton, Richard, and Ben Crampton. Atlas of Eastern Europe in the Twentieth Century. New York: Routledge, 1997.

Harper, Alf. Philately of the Third Reich: Postage and Propaganda. Raleigh, N. C.: Album, 1998.

Hupchick, Dennis P., and Harold E. Cox. The Palgrave Concise 

Historical Atlas of Eastern Europe. New York: Palgrave, 2001.

Lendvai, Paul. The Hungarians: A Thousand Years of Victory in 

Defeat. Trans. Ann Major. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 2003.

MacMillan, Margaret. Paris 1919: Six Months that Changed the 

World. New York: Random House, 2002.

Magocsi, Paul Robert. Historical Atlas of Central Europe, revised and expanded ed. Seattle: University of Washington 

Press, 2002.

Marton, Kati. The Great Escape: Nine Jews Who Fled Hitler and 

Change the World. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2006.

Michel Europa-Katalog Ost, 1995/96. Munich: Schwaneberger 

Verlag GmbH, 1995.

Moore, Albert L. Postal Propaganda of the Third Reich. Atglen, 

Pa.: Schiffer Military History, 2003.

Mulford, Montgomery. “Postage Stamps as Propaganda.” 

Mechanix Illustrated, Oct. 1938, pp. 86, 135.

Piazza, Daniel A. “Perforated Propaganda.” Lecture given at the 

Smithsonian National Postal Museum, September 18, 2009.
n u m b e r 5 5 • 6 9

Posell, Jacques. “The War Issues of Romania.” Sixteenth American Philatelic Congress, ed. W. R. McCoy. New York: W. R. 

McCoy, 1950.

Reid, Donald M. “The Symbolism of Postage Stamps: A Source 

for the Historian.” Journal of Contemporary History, 

19(2):223.

“Saar Stamp Wins Gabriel Contest.” Linn’s Weekly Stamp 

News, 33(6):10.

Scott, David. European Stamp Design: a Semiotic Approach to 

Designing Messages. London: Academy Editions, 1995.

Scott 2004 Standard Postage Stamp Catalogue, vols. 1–6. Sidney, OH: Scott Publishing Company, 2003.

Seton-Watson, Hugh. Eastern Europe between the Wars: 1918–

1941. Boulder: Westview Press, 1986. [reprint of 1945 ed.]

Stanley Gibbons Simplified Catalogue: Stamps of the World.

Vol. 1. 1997 ed. London: Stanly Gibbons, Ltd., 1996.

Stiles, Kent B. “Of Topical Interest.” Scott’s Monthly Journal, 

vol. XX, no. 1 (March 1939), pp. 18–19, 24, 26.

Stoetzer, Carlos. Postage Stamps as Propaganda. Washington, 

D. C.: Public Affairs Press, 1953.

Wall, Frederick. “The Designs of the Month.” Gibbons Stamp 

Monthly, vol. XII, no. 6 (March 1939), pp. 105–107.

—–—. “The Designs of the Month.” Gibbons Stamp Monthly, 

vol. XIII, no. 11 (August 1940), pp. 149–150.

—–—. “The Designs of the Month.” Gibbons Stamp Monthly, 

vol. XIV, no. 6 (February 1941), p. 47.

—–—. “The Designs of the Month.” Gibbons Stamp Monthly, 

vol. XIV, no. 8 (April 1941), p. 57.

Zinsmeister, Marian Carne. Hungarian Stamps and their Background, 1871–1940. Albany, Or.: The Western Stamp Collector, 1948.

Introduction

On May 7, 1945, Nazi Germany signed an unconditional surrender, and 

the Allied Powers declared victory in Europe. Two months later leaders 

from the Allied Powers met at Potsdam, where on July 26, they issued 

a joint declaration setting out their requirements for Japan’s unconditional surrender or Japan would face the alternative, “a prompt and utter destruction.”1

Japan did not surrender and what happened next changed the world forever. On August 6, 1945, the United States dropped a single atomic bomb on 

the Japanese city of Hiroshima, killing an estimated 80,000 to 140,000 people,2 

and destroying most of the city. Three days later another atomic weapon was 

dropped on Nagasaki with similar devastating effect.3

On the morning of August 15 (local Japan time), Japan’s Emperor Hirohito made a radio broadcast that announced he had “ordered our Government to communicate to the Governments of the United States, Great Britain, 

China and the Soviet Union that our empire accepts the provisions of their joint 

declaration.”4

On September 2, 1945, 200 Allied vessels assembled in Tokyo Bay to witness Japan’s signing of the instrument of surrender on board the U.S. battleship 

U.S.S. Missouri.

Occupation Begins

U.S. forces began the occupation of Japan immediately. The British Commonwealth, however, was delayed by internal affairs. One of the delays was 

deciding which of the Commonwealth countries would command the Commonwealth troops in Japan. Four nations within the Commonwealth would 

comprise the British Commonwealth Occupation Force, known by the acronym 

BCOF. The nations were Great Britain, Australia, India, and New Zealand. A 

total of 45,000 Commonwealth military served during the six years of BCOF 

occupation. During the peak of BCOF occupation in December 1946, 37,021 

Commonwealth military personnel were serving in Japan, of which 11,918 were 

Australian (Figure 1).5

Picking Up the Pieces: The Aftermath 

of Hiroshima

Janet Klug
7 2 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

Australia, whose war efforts against the Japanese had 

indeed been formidable, presented a winning case for Australian leadership in Japan, and BCOF came under the 

command of Royal Australian Army Lieutenant General 

John Northcott, who was recalled after four months to 

become governor of New South Wales. Northcott was 

replaced by Royal Australian Army Lieutenant General 

Horace “Red Robbie” Robertson, who remained BCOF 

commander through the end of 1951.

The internal BCOF negotiations delayed BCOF deployment. Months passed, and the Australian-dominated 

BCOF did not arrive in Japan until February 1946. It was 

the dead of winter, and most of the forces had been awaiting deployment in tropical holding areas in Northern Australia, Borneo, Malaya, and India.6

The Black Market

BCOF forces arrived in Japan ill equipped for the cold 

weather. To make matters worse, BCOF was assigned the 

Hiroshima prefecture, where conditions were bleak. The 

military squarely addressed the occupation force needs 

with shiploads of supplies necessary for basic survival. 

Food, warm clothes and blankets, tents and shelters, 

water, vehicles . . . all of these things were required by the 

military. Coincidently, these necessities of life were also 

needed by the local Japanese survivors of the Hiroshima 

attack (Figure 2).

This created a perfect formula for trouble. Add a sudden influx of abundant military supplies, plus extreme 

local need, plus ingenious, underpaid soldiers, and all of 

that equals a thriving black market where “acquisitioned” 

military goods were sold to locals. Although both BCOF 

Figure 1. Envelope posted aboard the Australian light cruiser HMAS Hobart on September 2, 

1945, the day the instrument of surrender was signed aboard USS Missouri. From the collection 

of Janet Klug.

Figure 2. Hiroshima in 1946. From the collection of Janet Klug.
n u m b e r 5 5 • 7 3

and U.S. administrations attempted to control currency 

exchanges through the use of military scrip, the Australian 

BCOF contingent found a loophole (Figure 3).

It is at this point that postage stamps became an instrument to facilitate the black market.

It’s All About Postage Stamps

There were nineteen Australian military post offices in Japan.7

 The bases served the Australian military’s 

mailing needs by selling then-current Australian regular 

issue postage stamps. The face values of the stamps that 

were stocked by the military post offices were those most 

needed for both concessionary and non-concessionary 

rates and fees available to the military, that is, half penny, 

one penny, threepence, sixpence, one shilling, two shilling 

and five shilling values.

Australian military serving in Japan could send letters home to Australia by surface mail for free. This concessionary rate remained in effect for the duration of the 

occupation. Stamps were needed for airmail, registration, 

parcels, and non-concessionary overseas mail.8 

Those members of the military who were engaged in 

black market activities discovered they could convert their 

illegal black market windfalls into currency by legally purchasing postage stamps from the base post office using 

military scrip, then sending the stamps home to friends or 

family in Australia. Once the stamps arrived in Australia, 

the recipients could take them to their local post office and 

“cash them in” for face value, less 5%. This long-standing 

Australia Post policy accommodated individuals and corporations that had acquired unneeded surplus postage. 

Thus, Australian postage stamps became a key ingredient 

in maintaining the thriving black market.

By September 1946, BCOF command reviewed ways 

to eliminate the black market. Command’s idea was to 

overprint all of the postage stamps sold by the Australian military post offices, making the stamps invalid for 

use outside Japan so they would have no exchange value 

within Australia.

In October 1, 1946, four proof sheets of overprints 

consisting of three lines of serif type and one proof sheet 

of san-serif type in three lines were made under military 

supervision at the Hiroshima Printing Company.9

Serif Type Overprints

Two BCOF officers and the managing director of the 

Hiroshima Printing Company co-signed and dated the 

four serif-type proof sheets. Two of the four sheets were 

printed entirely in gray-black type. One of the sheets was 

printed in red type. The final sheet was printed with the 

left “pane” in a color called “gold” but actually brownish 

and the right “pane” in red (Figure 4).

Figure 3. a) One-shilling value British Military Authority payment certificate scrip note. Allied Occupation scrip notes produced by the U.S. 

government were also circulated by occupation personnel. b) Scrip tokens created by the Australian Canteen Services (ACS) were used by Australian BCOF troops to purchase refreshments in ACS canteens. From the collection of Janet Klug.

a) b)
7 4 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

Trial printings of sheets of halfpenny, one penny and 

threepence stamps were thus overprinted with this type, 

using the same color formulations of gray-black, red and 

“gold” (Figure 5). Once seen on the stamps, it became apparent that the thin, spidery type was not suitable for the 

dark brown one penny and threepence stamps but could be 

used in black for the orange halfpenny stamp. The red and 

gold colors were not appropriate for any of the stamps.

Sans Serif Overprints

In a similar fashion, the Hiroshima Printing Company 

made one sheet of heavy, black sans serif overprints. This, 

too, was co-signed by two military officers and the printing 

company’s manager. The proof sheet indicates this was adopted for the one penny and threepence stamps (Figure 6).

Here Today—Gone Tomorrow

An initial quantity of halfpenny, one penny and threepence stamps were overprinted and released without 

fanfare and without government authorization on October 12, 1946; only to be withdrawn two days later until 

the proper authorizations were acquired.10

That took seven months. On May 8, 1947, a set of 

seven stamps overprinted “B.C.O.F./ JAPAN/ 1946” was 

finally released.

Stamp Collectors Take Notice

Contemporary reports in Australia’s philatelic press 

confirm that stamp collectors quickly became aware of the 

BCOF overprints released in October 1946.

In its December 1946 issue Australian Stamp Monthly 

reported, “We mildly suggested in an editorial note in the 

Figure 4. Proof of serif overprint in gray-black on plain paper. 

Thin numeral “4” at top left. From the collection of Janet Klug.

Figure 6. Proof of sans serif overprint in black on plain paper. 

From the collection of Janet Klug.

Figure 5. Unadopted essay of serif overprint in red on half-penny 

stamp. From the collection of Janet Klug.
n u m b e r 5 5 • 7 5

September, 1946, edition of the ‘A.S.M.’ that ‘overprinted 

stamps would serve to remind Japan that it was an occupied country.’

“We confess, however that we had not expected such 

suggestions to bear fruit. Consequently we were profoundly surprised to learn at the beginning of November 

that Australian stamps had actually been overprinted.

“Information gathered from various sources—we 

acknowledge particularly our indebtedness to Mr. A.M. 

Leitch and Mr. H.D. McNess—indicate that a major 

reason prompting the issue was that large quantities of 

Australian stamps were being bought in Japan with black 

market money and sent to Australia.

“Australian postal regulations provide that unused 

stamps may be repurchased at a discount and this was apparently being done on a fairly large scale.”11

Australian Stamp Monthly reported in early 1947, 

“We have been attempting to obtain reliable information 

concerning the issue of Australian stamps overprinted 

“B.C.O.F./JAPAN.1946” and to which we first made reference in our December, 1946, edition.

“Early in the previous month, just after we first gained 

knowledge of the stamps so overprinted, we wrote to the 

Postmaster-General’s Department asking for full information of the issue. We also stressed the obvious danger of 

permitting but a few of the stamps (which had been prereleased) to be in philatelic circulation, and pointed out 

that it was most desirable that, in these circumstances, 

they should be placed on sale again.

“Actually, we think the Postmaster-General’s Department to be blameless in the matter of issuing the stamps, 

but as Australian postal paper is involved the P.M.G.’s Department should, logically, make the proper explanations.

“Blackmarketing is still rife in occupied Japan. Indeed, the matter is so serious to warrant discussion by the 

Australian Cabinet, to whom a report on black market 

operations in the B.C.O.F. area was recently presented.

“The overprinting of Australian stamps was one of 

the means by which it was hoped to hamper black market 

operations, and, possibly, some Government explanation 

might now be forthcoming.”12

Money in Stamps

Australian Stamp Monthly later reported, “Under the 

state of uncertainty that has existed, it is not surprising 

that many collectors have taken a chance and bought the 

stamps while the few available are on the market. We note 

that £7/10/- was paid for a mint block of the 3-pence at 

auction in Melbourne on February 27 (1948), while other 

reports indicate that high prices are being paid for the 

scarcer 1⁄2-penny and 1-penny stamps.”

In the meantime, the entire set of seven stamps was 

being prepared for issue in May. The stamp collecting 

community in Australia and throughout the world wanted 

these stamps for their collections. The demand from collectors became acute. Collectors were offering occupation 

personnel more money for the overprinted stamps than 

they were making in the black market from exchanging 

unoverprinted stamps for cash.

Australian Stamp Monthly: “There is general local 

agreement that the stamps are very hard to secure in 

Japan, and if they are available persons are not allowed to 

purchase more than 10-shillings worth each day. Further, 

if a person does purchase this quantity each day a military 

order requires him to explain the reason therefore.”

Australian government officials initiated an investigation about the stamps. (British) Royal Army Colonel 

E. Percy Dickson, acting Brigadier General Staff, and himself a philatelist, was requested to give evidence. In a letter dated April 29, 1948, Dickson writes, “I was on my 

way home [to Britain] when the original issue was made 

in October 1946 but I told some truths about prices these 

damned things were fetching. I advised unrestricted sale 

through the GPO in Australia and Australia House in 

London. I said the London Market would require about 

50,000 sets, a figure that I think you gave me at one time. 

It remains to be seen if anyone takes any notice of the 

recommendation.”13

No one did.

The 5-shilling stamp, the highest face value in the set, 

had the lowest printing quantity—32,50814 (Figure 7).

BCOF overprinted stamps were withdrawn on February 12, 1949, ending a 20-month period of validity. The 

stamps intended purpose of eliminating the black market 

failed. The black market adjusted quickly and remained a 

threat to the occupation until the living conditions of the 

Japanese people improved significantly, and BCOF troops 

were withdrawn.

Stamp Varieties

There are three basic types of overprints—two types 

of serif overprints and the sans-serif overprints.

The halfpenny, sixpence and one shilling values in the 

set were serif printing overprints. The one penny and threepence stamps were sans-serif overprints. The two high values, two and five shillings, respectively, were slightly larger 
7 6 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

and the sheets were formatted differently. Thus the serif 

printing was spaced more widely apart but is otherwise 

similar to the other serif printings.

The serif printings have many varieties. Some of the 

more noticeable varieties, such as the wrong font “6” in 

“1946,” are listed in some catalogs. The Australian Commonwealth Specialists’ Catalogue, King George VI does 

the most extensive job of listing varieties of BCOF overprints. The serif BCOF overprints (including the high values) offer stamp collectors much challenge and resulting 

exultation when they have found something unusual.

The sans serif stamps have fewer varieties. The scarcest is a doubled overprint on the threepence stamp, of 

which only one sheet of 160 impressions was made by 

error (Figure 8).

Postal Usage of the Stamps

A large percentage of mail weighing four ounces or 

less sent by Australian BCOF military personnel to Australian addresses required no postage stamps, provided it 

was sent surface mail and inscribed “Free.”

Airmail was preferred by many of the Australian military, at a concessionary rate of threepence per half ounce. 

This was the most common usage of BCOF stamps, mainly 

paid by a solo use of one threepence stamp (Figure 9).

Registered mail was used frequently, especially for 

sending cash equivalents such as uncancelled stamps and 

postal orders, as well as legally or illegally obtained currency. The basic registration rate that included no compensation for loss was threepence. Higher rates applied 

for articles requiring compensation for loss. Often another 

threepence stamp was used to pay for registration on airmail letters to Australia, but a sixpence stamp also covered 

basic registration and airmail.

Parcels to Australia were charged concessionary rates 

based upon weight. Australian military had to pay nonconcessionary standard postage on mail sent outside Australia and for other special services.

Non-Australian use of Australian

Military Post Offices in Japan

British, Indian, and New Zealand forces used stamps 

from their respective countries of origin. However, when 

transiting through an Australian base, letters sent from 

non-Australian BCOF forces were readily accepted by the 

Australian military post offices and received corresponding cancels from the Australian field post office (FPO), 

unit postal station (AUPS), base post office (ABPO), Army 

post office (APO), or Royal Australian Air Force post 

office (RAAFPO).

Figure 8. Doubled overprint of the three-pence value. Only one 

sheet of 160 was printed in error with a doubled overprint. From the 

collection of Janet Klug.

Figure 7. The highest value (five-shilling) stamp had the lowest 

printing quantity. From the collection of Janet Klug.
n u m b e r 5 5 • 7 7

The End of BCOF Occupation

By 1950, most of BCOF had withdrawn from Japan. 

BCOF occupation formally ended on April 28, 1952, although BCOF air bases at Iwakuni and Kure continued to 

serve in “policing” activities in Korea and Malaya. Those 

former-BCOF who remained were nearly all Australians.

BCOF’s duties and responsibilities during the occupation were to dispose of Japan’s stocks of war material, 

including chemical agents and ordnance; repatriate returning Japanese soldiers; assist in the reconstruction of Hiroshima; honorably represent the British Commonwealth; 

safeguard all Allied installments within the BCOF area; 

and promote the democratic way of life.

To these ends, BCOF cleared BCOF area of stockpiled 

Japanese war material, including 100,000 tons of explosives and 500 tons of poison gas; repatriated 700,000 Japanese military personnel and civilians; patrolled BCOF area 

by land and sea to suppress smuggling and illegal immigration; built housing for dependants of Commonwealth 

military personnel eligible to bring their families to Japan 

(illustrating the “democratic way of life”); and provided 

humanitarian relief.15

Collecting the BCOF Stamps, 

Postmarks, and Envelopes

Neither the stamps nor envelopes bearing stamps 

properly used from one of the Australian military base 

post offices in Japan are “common,” but the lower face 

value denominations of halfpenny, one penny, threepence 

and sixpence are easy to find and inexpensive to purchase 

for collectors desiring representational examples for their 

collection. The higher denominations of one shilling, two 

shillings and five shillings are more difficult to find, especially properly used on an envelope or parcel.

A few of the Australian military post offices in Japan 

saw little use or were used for an abbreviated period of 

time. These are very difficult to find and collect, but only a 

Figure 9. The most common use of BCOF stamps was to pay postage for airmail service from Japan to Australia. 

From the collection of Janet Klug.
7 8 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

limited number of collectors are actually seeking this material, so while much of this material is scarce or rare, the 

demand is not great.

Afterword

In the course of their duty, some of the Australian 

BCOF personnel were exposed to residual radiation from 

the atomic bomb. One Australian soldier describes his experience: “We Aussies, our captain told us, had been given 

pride of place in BCOF by being stationed in the Hiroshima prefecture, historic target of the world’s first atomic 

bomb and the launching site of a new age for mankind . . . 

“Most of this dead inferno was fairly level and covered by brown talc-like dust several feet thick in places. 

The troops found it was a good soft surface on which to 

play football!

“And so time passed. Four months after reaching 

Hiroshima, I got sick. I began to pass blood in the urine 

and it burnt. . . . I was taken to 20th Field Ambulance and 

then sent by truck and barge to the island of Eta Jima in 

Hiroshima Bay.

“I was admitted [to the 130th Australian General 

Hospital] and put to bed and subjected to two days of 

tests. No organisms were found.

“On the third day I was prepared for theatre. There 

was to be a bladder inspection with something known 

to doctors as a cystoscope and the rest of the army as a 

hockey stick. A little blond nurse was fitting a white cap 

on my head.

‘That’s funny,’ she said.

‘What’s funny?’

‘Your hair—it’s all coming out in handfuls.’

So it was. We laughed.”16

The writer became a crusader for Australian BCOF 

veterans who had been exposed to radiation in Hiroshima, after having been denied a disability pension for 

radiation-related illnesses he claimed were a result of his 

BCOF service.17

Notes

1. Proclamation Defining Terms for Japanese Surrender, 

Potsdam, July 26, 1945.

2. Data recorded by the Radiation Effects Research Foundation, Hiroshima, Japan.

3. Estimated number of deaths associated with the Nagasaki 

atomic attack is 60,000 to 80,000, according to the Radiation 

Effects Research Foundation.

4. Hirohito, Accepting Potsdam Declaration Radio Broadcast, as recorded by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, August 14, 1945.

5. Australian Department of Defence, The Forgotten Force, 

“Chapter 7: BCOF: Time for Reappraisal,” quotes statistics 

from Defence Committee assessment conducted April 22, 1948. 

By the end of 1947 the entire Indian contingent was gone as were 

most of the British and New Zealand forces.

6. Peter Bates, “The Long Wait.” Japan and the British 

Commonwealth Occupation Force 1946–52 (London: Brassey’s, 

1993), pp. 44–51.

7. P. Collas, The Postal History of Australian Forces in 

Japan and Korea, 1945–1957 (Melbourne: Royal Philatelic Society of Victoria, 1994).

8. “Pre-Decimal Postal Rates, Forces Mail and Miscellaneous 

Services,” Australia Commonwealth Specialists’ Catalogue.

9. Marginal notes on proof sheets dated October 1, 1946 

and attested by officers and manager on October 8, 1946. The 

proof sheets were photographed in black and white in the 1970s 

before being broken up and sold to collectors.

10. Yoshimi Ito, B.C.O.F. Overprints and British Commonwealth and Indian Military Postal Services in Japan and Korea, 

Japan Philatelist Club, undated. Quotes letter dated August 17, 

1950 from F. R. Sinclair, Secretary of the Department of the 

Army, Commonwealth of Australia.

11. Australian Stamp Monthly ̧ December 1946.

12. Australian Stamp Monthly, February 1947.

13. Letter sent from Kure, Japan by Col. E. Percy Dickson 

to Maj. A. Walker, London, April 28, 1948.

14. The Australian Commonwealth Specialists’ Catalogue, 

King George VI, Brusden White, 2006.

15. Australian War Memorial, As You Were, 1948, Canberra, ACT: Halstead Press, 1948, Chapter 9; Occupation and 

The Forgotten Force, The Australian Military Contribution to 

the Occupation of Japan, 1946–1952, Australian Department of 

Defense, 2005.

16. J. G. Collins, The War of the Veterans, self-published, 

March 2001.

17. Muller, Brumfield, and Kennedy, “Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Repatriation Commission Tribunal and J. G. 

Collins,” VeRBosity, Vol. 16, No. 1, March 21, 2000.

Bibliography

Australian Department of Defense. “BCOF: Time for Reappraisal.” In The Forgotten Force: The Australian Military 

Contribution to the Occupation of Japan, 1945–1952. St. 

Leonards, N. S. W.: Allen & Unwin, 1998.

Australian War Memorial. “Occupation.” In As You Were, 

1948. Canberra, A. C. T.: Halstead Press, 1948.

Bates, Peter. “The Long Wait.” In Japan and the British Commonwealth Occupation Force 1946–52. London: Brassey’s, 

1993.
n u m b e r 5 5 • 7 9

“B.C.O.F. Japan.” Australian Stamp Monthly. July 1946.

Collas, P. The Postal History of Australian Forces in Japan and 

Korea, 1945–1957. Melbourne: Royal Philatelic Society of 

Victoria, 1994.

Collins, J. G. The War of the Veterans. Toowoomba, Qld.: 

Toowoomba Education Centre, 2001.

Dickson, E. Percy, Col. Letter to Maj. A. Walker, April 28, 1948. 

Personal Collection of Janet Klug.

“Frequently Asked Questions.” Radiation Effects Research 

Foundation. http://www.rerf.or.jp/general/qa_e/qa1.html.

Hirohito. Accepting Potsdam Declaration Radio Broadcast. 

U. S. Federal Communications Commission: recorded, 14 

August 1945.

Ito, Yoshimi. B.C.O.F. Overprints and British Commonwealth 

and Indian Military Postal Services in Japan and Korea. 

Tokyo: Japan Philatelist Club, 1979.

Kellow, Geoffrey, ed. “King Georg VI, Brusden White.” The Australian Commonwealth Specialists’ Catalogue. Section 7, pp. 

7/1–7/10. 2006.

Kellow, Geoffrey and Richard Breckon, eds. “Pre-Decimal Postal 

Rates, Forces Mail and Miscellaneous Services.” The Australian Commonwealth Specialists’ Catalogue. pp. AA31–

AA33, 1992.

Kennedy, Robert. “Administrative Appeals Tribunal: Re Repatriation Commission and J. G. Collins.” VeRBosity, 16(1): 

9–11. 2000.

United State Department of State. Proclamation Defining Terms 

for Japanese Surrender. Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 

XIII, No. 318. Potsdam: Germany. July 29, 1945.

I

n January 1943, Capt. Carney, a U.S. Army Air Corps officer stationed in 

North Africa, wrote a letter to a Miss Thomas in Tacoma, Washington. A 

passage from this letter caught the attention of military intelligence personnel assigned to postal censorship duties. It read:

The Waacs [members of the U.S. Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps] are 

here in force now. Had hoped . . . that our American girls would be 

spared that. After all, we want something decent to return to. Any 

country loses something more by placing their women in military servitude than by a military defeat. How can our leaders be so foolish 

as to destroy the very things we are supposedly at war to win? What 

man would want any woman after she had given herself to months of 

such an ordeal. I would rather go down the line and choose a common 

prostitute, at least, a person who gave herself for a reason and not just 

because some blabber-mouth fool glamorized it for her. We dont need 

our girls in the army. We do need them at home . . . as we left them so 

at least we can know there is something fine and honorable someplace 

awaiting our return.1

In the winter and spring of 1943, letters like this alerted Army officials to what 

would, by the summer, become a public relations nightmare—a wave of hostile 

rumors that hobbled WAAC recruitment and retention efforts. While WAAC 

administrators suspected that enemy operatives were responsible for the slander, 

intelligence officers correctly diagnosed the problem as homegrown.2 Censorship revealed allegations of Waac impropriety (typically sexual in nature) to 

be common in male soldiers’ letters home. Some men blamed Army life for the 

perceived problem; others accused the Army of actively recruiting former prostitutes for military service. Like Capt. Carney, they asserted that female soldiers 

were not only unnecessary but also detrimental to the nation’s war effort. Many 

warned women away from the corps; some even threatened to divorce wives or 

to disown sisters who volunteered for service.3

In this case, forewarned was not forearmed. The force of the slander caught 

military officials off guard. But, in conjunction with attitude surveys, postal censorship provided the Army with a window into the anger and fear that gave rise 

to hostile rumors about purportedly promiscuous servicewomen.

Postal Censorship and Military Intelligence 

during World War II

Ann Elizabeth Pfau
8 2 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

Although the primary purpose of postal censorship was 

to prevent strategic information from falling into enemy 

hands, censoring soldiers’ letters was also a method of intelligence gathering (Figure 1). Reviewing soldiers’ letters 

provided military officials with information about military morale and behavior. Censorship reports documented 

widespread attitudes, common complaints, and incidents 

of misconduct. These documents are, perhaps, even more 

valuable to historians than they were to the U. S. Army, 

for they provide scholars with access to thoughts and actions that are otherwise un- or underreported.

Documenting Wartime Attitudes

In overseas theaters of operations, censorship responsibilities assigned to intelligence personnel included: training unit officers to censor the outgoing correspondence of 

enlisted men and women under their command; reviewing 

a percentage of already censored correspondence; censoring previously uncensored correspondence; inspecting 

packages and travelers’ personal effects; reporting and analyzing censorship violations; and issuing monthly or bimonthly reports on troop morale4

 (Figure 2). Of particular 

interest to historians are morale reports and the comment 

sheets used to record censorship violations.

Censorship morale reports preserve soldiers’ thoughts 

on such topics as Army food, mail service, military leaders, furlough and rotation policies, entertainment facilities, race relations, servicewomen, popular rumors, and 

enemy propaganda. The staff of the Office of the Theater 

Censor transcribed passages from soldiers’ letters, identifying the correspondent not by name but by rank, military unit, and Army Post Office (APO). Comments and 

complaints reproduced in these reports were intended 

to reflect the soldiers’ collective state of mind; they represent a range of opinion with an emphasis on the most 

commonly voiced ones. Censors classified comments as 

either favorable or unfavorable and noted changes in the 

volume of correspondence on a particular topic. Though 

crude, this method of analysis allowed military officials—

and now allows scholars—to track shifts in soldiers’ attitudes and concerns over the course of the war. Perhaps 

not surprising, censorship reports from the Pacific reveal 

that between November 1944 and war’s end, servicemen’s 

opinion of the Waacs who arrived in the theater in late 

summer 1944 steadily improved as the men became better acquainted with female soldiers. By contrast, soldiers’ 

attitudes about “home affairs”—a broad category that included “political and economic situations, postwar plans, 

social and personal problems”—was harder to chart. 

Anger about strikes in defense factories, on the one hand, 

Figure 1. Cover of letter condemned and held by U.S. Army postal censors. Courtesy National Archives, 

College Park, Md.
n u m b e r 5 5 • 8 3

and interest in the provisions of the GI Bill of Rights, on 

the other, produced fluctuations in soldiers’ interest in and 

attitudes toward news from the home front.6

Evidence of Misconduct

Censorship reports record not only popular opinion 

but also common violations of military law. Under the category “the enemy,” for example, European theater morale 

reports examined “fraternization,” or friendly relations 

between American servicemen and German civilians (typically young women) during combat and in the months between VE-Day and the Japanese surrender. Although some 

soldiers disapproved of such relationships, morale reports 

reveal that many other men were eager to explore new 

sexual opportunities. Despite the threat of imprisonment 

and steep fines, some even bragged about their conquests 

in letters home. One sergeant wrote, probably to a fellow 

soldier:

You should see my girl over here too, she sure is a 

honey. She is only 21 and she said she is sure she 

will like the U.S. when we are married and I take 

her back with me. As tho, after seeing these Nazis 

kill our boys off, I would be crazy enough to take 

her back with me even if I were not married. All 

the boys have German girls now and they sure 

are good. They will make good wives for the German boys after we leave them. They will be a lot 

smarter too.

The same morale report that reproduced the above passage also provides evidence of the mistreatment of German prisoners of war and of the looting and damaging of 

German homes by American soldiers. Both behaviors were 

violations of the Army’s rules of land warfare.7

Pacific theater comment sheets and other censorship 

documents reveal that desecration of enemy dead was disturbingly widespread. In a letter to his mother, one young 

infantry lieutenant bragged:

Figure 2. Cover illustration from the U.S. Army’s “Censorship Guide” for the Pacific Theater of Operations. Courtesy National Archives, College Park, Md.
8 4 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

Say, next fight I get into I’ll get enough gold teeth 

to make you a necklace. I had about 10 but lost 

them. The Japs have some good dental work. You 

see them lying around and just kick their teeth 

out. Some fellows have dozens. I think I’ll get 

some and keep them and if I ever get married I’ll 

have my old lady a ring made out of them.”8

Another officer described the “souvenirs” collected by 

Marines on Guadalcanal, “A couple had Jap skulls they 

had boiled out. Others had small socks of gold tooth 

fillings. Bottles of pickled ears were reported and Jap 

occupation money was commoner than Aussie stuff.”9

Among items discovered by censors in soldiers’ parcels 

was a polished skull with shells for eyes designed for use 

as an ashtray.10 Such desecrations were so frequent that 

the “Censorship Guide” for the Pacific theater of operations included instructions for dealing with packages that 

contained skulls and similar trophies (Figure 3). Furthermore, in monthly operating reports, “Skulls”—later 

“Atrocities”—was one of thirteen categories of common 

violations enumerated. In January 1944, for example, 

censors found more mentions of such atrocities than of 

the results of enemy action.11

Figure 3. The U.S. Army’s “Censorship Guide” for the Pacific Theater of Operations 

outlined the proper response to references to and photographs of atrocities in soldiers’ letters home. It also advised censors to be on the lookout for body parts, such as gold teeth 

and polished skulls, in parcels. Courtesy National Archives, College Park, Md.
n u m b e r 5 5 • 8 5

Puzzles and Codes

The most common violation of censorship regulations 

was “intentional revealing of geographic location” (Figure 4). In June 1944, Pacific theater censors reported more 

than a thousand cases. At that time, no other category of 

censorship violation topped one hundred.12 Rules preventing soldiers from disclosing their location were the most 

resented of all censorship regulations. Enforcing these restrictions was the postal censor’s most difficult task, for 

many service personnel believed the prohibition to be 

both unfair and unnecessary.13 Indeed even before heading overseas, many soldiers made preparations to flout this 

restriction by, for example, developing simple codes that 

would allow loved ones to follow troop movements (Figure 5). The word “apple” might represent Oro Bay in New 

Guinea, “banana” Port Moresby and so on. One problem 

with this strategy was that code keys were easy to misplace. For example, the wife of an Army Air Corps warrant officer lost the key to a code representing the months 

of the year and the numbers 1–30, presumably anticipating the date when her husband would complete his tour 

of duty and return home on furlough. Censors discovered 

this scheme when the serviceman tried to send a copy of 

the key back to his wife with the information that “boomerang,” or the month of July, would be significant.14

Censors were trained to identify simple codes—such 

as spelling out the name of a place with the first letter 

of each sentence in a paragraph. Though a more complex code might escape the censor’s notice, it might also 

fail to communicate the sender’s message to the intended 

recipient. For example, one infantry officer’s effort to 

communicate through code seems to have produced domestic anxiety. In response to his wife’s reply, the officer 

assured her that the “Zelma” mentioned in a previous letter “wasn’t anyone. Just a name I used.” He urged his 

wife to “get that letter out again and remember what we 

said we would do before I left. Study it close dear for it 

took a good many hours to write it.” Another serviceman attempted to communicate his location through fictitious poker earnings and losses; this effort also backfired. 

The censor did not catch the coded message but neither 

did the soldier’s wife, who worried about her husband’s 

gambling. His follow-up letter attempted to clear up the 

Figure 4. This postcard was likely condemned by postal censors because it revealed the physical location of the soldier 

who sent it from Sydney, Australia to his family in the United States. Courtesy National Archives, College Park, Md.
8 6 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

misunderstanding by explaining that the numbers represented longitude and latitude; it also alerted censors to this 

violation of Army regulations.15

Service personnel were generally aware of the prohibition against disclosing their unit’s geographical location and recognized the importance of preventing the 

enemy from learning about American troop movements. 

Many simply did not believe that security required them 

to keep friends and family in the dark. Indeed, a common complaint was that this restriction was nonsensical; 

American journalists and the Japanese military had already located the soldier’s unit. Perhaps responding to this 

Figure 5. U.S. Army postal censors caught this soldier trying to establish a code that would let his 

loved ones know where he was stationed. Courtesy National Archives, College Park, Md.
n u m b e r 5 5 • 8 7

seeming irrationality, some soldiers regarded outsmarting the censor as something of a game. “I wish I could 

tell you where I am and just exactly what I am doing,” 

one sergeant wrote, “but Censorship Regulations require 

strict abstinence from such remarks.” As the censor noted, 

this sergeant then proceeded to do just what he knew he 

should not, which was to hint at where he was stationed.16

Another soldier sent this “puzzel” to his mother: “[Y]ou 

know where Blanche lives. Well, take the first letter out 

of that and then . . . take the last letter out of where you 

live, and then take the third letter out of where Aunt used 

to live, then take the last six letters out of the place where 

we lived before we moved over by the park.” The answer 

was Melbourne, Australia. Caught by the censor, this letter was returned to the sender for revision.17

Censorship and the Sanctity of Mail

Even more than they resented restrictions on what 

they might write to their friends and loved ones, soldiers 

complained bitterly when censorship became an invasion 

of privacy. Although trained to respect the “sanctity of 

mail,” many unit censors (unit officers assigned to censor 

the correspondence of enlisted personnel under their command) violated this precept.18 Indeed some officers treated 

with derision personal concerns expressed in letters home. 

For example, in a gossipy letter to his wife, one Army Air 

Corps lieutenant wrote:

All of us dirty dogs get a kick out of censoring 

mail over here. We saw the one that broke the 

camels back today, though. Some guy wrote to 

his wife and just gave her hell because she was 

running around with some guy and wanting a divorce. Then he writes a letter to his girl friend and 

tells her how much he loves her. The only trouble 

was the damn fool put both letters in one envelope and addressed it to his wife. That ought to 

go over like a lead balloon.

In this case, one soldier’s complicated love life and seeming hypocrisy was a source of amusement for the officers 

of the 90th Bombardment Group. Indeed, military intelligence caught another lieutenant recounting a slightly different version of this story in a letter of the same date.19

Although the hypocritical enlisted man might have 

merited scorn, in most cases, the object of a unit censor’s 

ridicule was an earnest soldier seeking to maintain strained 

marital bonds by writing frequent love letters to his wife. 

For example, one lieutenant complained about an enlisted 

man named Nelson who wrote “at least one & sometimes 

2 or 3 letters per day to his wife”:

He goes on and on about my dearest beloved—

How I would love to hold you in my arms and 

smell the sweet fragrance of your hair—Oh my 

loved one—how I miss you and so on for 30 

pages. I would like to see Mrs. Nelson. I should 

think she would get awful tired of the same thing 

day in and day out. When we censor mail in the 

morning the guys always try to stack the deck so 

I’ll get Nelson’s letters to censor. Nelson always 

puts the following at the top of his letters No date 

or anything but:

‘City of Love

Date of Wishes

9900 Hugs and

10,000 Kisses . . .’20

Another officer explained, “Most of our laughs come from 

censoring the mail.” “However,” he acknowledged, “we 

have to be very careful that the boys don’t see us, as they 

wouldn’t like the idea of our reading the mail and laughing about it.”21

Censorship documents reveal that enlisted personnel 

were attuned to the problem of censors’ failure to observe the “sanctity of mail”: they overheard laughter; they 

recognized mocking references to personal affairs; they 

learned of comments improperly inserted by unit officers 

in enlisted men’s letters; and they protested this intrusion. 

“Our most cherished thing we have is our mail,” one corporal wrote. “With our own unit censors we cannot be too 

personal or write the things we wish to, but when peering 

into ones mails and gossiping about it is done, nobody can 

stand for that. At the [port of embarkation], we were told 

that we could write as we wished and nothing would be 

mentioned to anybody. This has definitely been breached.” 

Sharing this corporal’s distress, the non-commissioned officers of the 1059th Quartermaster Company produced 

a report on the problem, which they presented to their 

commanding officer. Although that officer dismissed the 

complaint, military intelligence officials took it seriously, 

for misconduct by unit censors might undermine morale 

and encourage evasions of censorship.22

Responding to real and perceived breaches of privacy, 

some soldiers censored not only strategic information but 

also private emotions. “If one or two of my letters have 

been cold and uninteresting,” one sergeant wrote to a girl 

friend, “you can blame it on the censors. More than once 

I have heard cracks made about letters being written by 

the enlisted men that I didn’t like. I feel that regardless of 
8 8 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

whom a GI writes to, that letter should not be ‘cracked’ 

about. That’s my reason for the cold letter I mailed to you. 

I do hope you accept my reason.” His seeming lack of 

ardor appears to have strained the relationship.23 Other 

soldiers responded by curtailing their correspondence: 

“Darling, please forgive me for not writing for so long,” 

one enlisted man wrote to explain his recent reticence, 

“but you see the officer who does the censoring in our battery talks quite a bit about what we write in our letters. I 

have seen him take a letter out and read the whole letter, 

out loud, to the other officers.”24

Relationships between officers and enlisted men, the 

strains of war on marriage, the treatment of enemy soldiers and civilians, attitudes about censorship and mail 

service—all of these topics and more are illuminated by 

postal censorship documents. Indeed comment sheets and 

morale reports provide scholars with access to something 

lacking in most wartime correspondence—uncensored accounts of servicemen and -women’s thoughts and experiences. These documents preserve what soldiers wanted to 

write and were prevented from communicating. They help 

us fill a gap in the historical record produced by military 

regulations and censors’ excisions.

Notes

1. Information Slip TFNY 1243, File: MID 322.12 W.A.A.C. 

6–23–43 (6–11–43), Box 579, Army Intelligence Decimal Files, 

Entry 47B, Army Staff, RG 319, National Archives, College 

Park, Md. (hereafter NACP).

2. Mattie E. Treadwell, The Women’s Army Corps (Washington, D. C.: Department of the Army, 1954), 201; Oveta Culp 

Hobby to Office of the Director of Administration, ASF (18 May 

1943); J. M. Roamer to A. C. of S. G2 (22 May 1943); L. R. 

Forney to J. M. Roamer (3 June 1943; all in File: MID 322.12 

W.A.A.C. thru 6–10–43, Box 579, Army Intelligence Decimal 

Files, Entry 47B, Army Staff, RG 319, NACP.

3. For more on the WAAC slander campaign, see Ann Pfau, 

Miss Yourlovin: GIs, Gender, and Domesticity during World 

War II (Columbia University Press, 2008), chap. 2, http://www

.gutenberg-e.org/pfau/chapter2.html; Treadwell, Women’s Army 

Corps, chap. 11; Leisa Meyer, Creating GI Jane: Sexuality and 

Power in the Women’s Army Corps during World War II (New 

York: Columbia University Press, 1996), chap. 2.

4. Leo Taub, “History of Military Censorship in the European Theater of Operations, World War II, 1941–1945,” Records of the Assistant Chief of Staff G-2, Histories, ETO, RG 

498; “Censorship Guide, SWPA,” Box 26, Entry 556, Theater 

Censor, USAFFE, RG 496; “History of Military Censorship in 

the SWPA,” Box 40, Entry 558, Theater Censor, USAFFE, RG 

496; all in NACP.

5. These documents have been preserved in Army administrative files at the National Archives in College Park, Maryland.

6. E. R. Thorpe, “The Censorship Survey of Morale, June 

1943 to August 1945” (n.d.); “Censorship Survey of Morale,” 

(November 1944–August 1945); both in Box T-1429, Theater 

Censor, G-2, SWPA, RG 496, NACP.

7. “Censorship Report on General Morale of Troops for 

Period 16–30 June 1945,” File: 212 Morale, Box 41, Historical 

Division Administrative Files, 1942–June 1946, ETO, RG 498, 

NACP.

8. Comment Sheet TC-2155, File Comment Sheets, A–D, 

1944, Box 21 (formerly T-1420), Summary of Censorship Violations, Theater Censor, G2, USAFFE, RG 496.

9. Comment Sheet 313, File: Comment Sheets, 1943, H–P, 

Box T-1419, Theater Censor, USAFFE, RG 496.

10. See Files 716 and 718, Box T-1410, General Records, 

1944–1945, Theater Censor, G2, USAFFE, RG 496.

11. “Censorship Guide, SWPA,” Box 26, Entry 556, Theater Censor, USAFFE; Office of the Base Censor, APO 923 to 

Theater Censor, Re: “Report for the month of January 1944” 

(7 February 1944), File: 319.1, Box T-1432, Theater Censor, 

AFPAC; both in RG 496, NACP.

12. “Statistical Report by Section, June 1944,” File: 319.1, 

Box T-1432, Theater Censor, AFPAC, RG 496, NACP.

13. Supplement, “History of Military Censorship in the 

SWPA,” Box 40, Entry 558, Theater Censor, USAFFE, RG 496; 

Research Unit, G-1, “Attitudes of a Cross Section of Enlisted 

Men in the South Pacific Area on Mail Service and Censorship,” 

File: SPA-3, Box 1024, Research Division, Attitude Reports of 

Overseas Personnel 1942–1953, Entry 94, Office of the Secretary 

of Defense, RG 330; both in NACP.

14. Comment Sheet 44–100, File: Comment Sheets, 1944, 

R–Z, Box T-1420, Summaries of Censorship Violations (“Comment Sheets”), 1942–1944, Theater Censor, USAFFE, RG 496, 

NACP.

15. Comment Sheet TC-206, File: Comment Sheets TC-1 to 

TC-250, 1942, Box T-1418, Summaries of Censorship Violations 

(“Comment Sheets”), 1942–1944; Comment Sheet 44–278, File: 

733, Box 1411, General Records, 1944–1945; both in Theater 

Censor, USAFFE, RG 496, NACP.

16. Comment Sheet TC-60, File: Comment Sheets TC-1 to 

TC-250 1942, Box T-1418, Summaries of Censorship Violations 

(“Comment Sheets”), 1942–1944, Theater Censor, USAFFE, RG 

496, NACP.

17. Comment Sheet 692, File: Comment Sheets TC-651 to 

TC-840, 1942, Box T-1418, Summaries of Censorship Violation 

(“Comment Sheets”), 1942–1944, Theater Censor, USAFFE, RG 

496, NACP.

18. Research Unit, G-1, “Attitudes of a Cross Section of Enlisted Men in the South Pacific Area on Mail Service and Censorship,” File: SPA-3, Box 1024, Research Division, Attitude Reports 

of Overseas Personnel 1942–1953, Entry 94, Office of the Secretary of Defense, RG 330; “Censorship Guide, SWPA,” Box 26, 

Entry 556, Theater Censor, USAFFE, RG 496; both in NACP.
n u m b e r 5 5 • 8 9

19. Comment Sheets 45–91 and 45–89, File: 744, Box 

T-1412, General Records, 1944–1945, Theater Censor, USAFFE, 

RG 496, NACP.

20. Comment Sheet 375, File: Comment Sheets, 1944, R–Z, 

Box T-1420, Summaries of Censorship Violations (“Comment 

Sheets”), 1942–1944, Theater Censor, USAFFE, RG 496, NACP.

21. Comment Sheet 46, File: Comment Sheets 1943 HP, Box 

Box T-1419, Summaries of Censorship Violation (“Comment 

Sheets”), 1942–1944, Theater Censor, USAFFE, RG 496, NACP.

22. Comment Sheet 45, File: Comment Sheets 1943 H–P, 

Box T-1419, Summaries of Censorship Violation (“Comment 

Sheets”), 1942–1944, Theater Censor, USAFFE, RG 496, NACP.

23. Information Sheet 3173, File: Consolidated Morale Reports, X Army, Box G-1489, Censor Weekly Reports 1945, G2, 

AFPAC, RG 496, NACP.

24. Information Sheet 1360, File: XXIV Corps, 1 May–13 

August 1945, Box G-1489, Censor Weekly Reports 1945, G2, 

AFPAC, RG 496, NACP.

Bibliography

Meyer, Leisa. Creating GI Jane: Sexuality and Power in the 

Women’s Army Corps during World War II. New York: Columbia University Press, 1996.

National Archives and Records Administration, Archival Collections: RG 319, Records of the Army Staff; RG 330, Records 

of the Office of the Secretary of Defense; RG 496, Records 

of the Southwest Pacific Area and U.S. Army Forces, Pacific; 

RG 498, Records of the European Theater of Operations, 

U.S. Army. College Park, Md.

Pfau, Ann. Miss Yourlovin: GIs, Gender, and Domesticity during 

World War II. New York: Columbia University Press, 2008.

Treadwell, Mattie E. The Women’s Army Corps. Washington, 

D. C.: Department of the Army, 1954.

The fourth annual postal history symposium, sponsored by the Smithsonian National Postal Museum, the American Philatelic Society, and 

the American Philatelic Research Library, was held in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania, at the American Philatelic Center on October 30 and November 1, 

2009. The theme was “Post Office Reform,” bringing together collectors of classic stamps with scholars, academicians, and public historians to examine these 

highly collectable cultural objects through the lens of the post office reforms 

that gave rise to them. The introduction of postage stamps in 1840 represented 

a complete overhaul in the organization and operating principles of the British 

Post Office. The subsequent rapid introduction of stamps to nearly every country in the world before the end of the nineteenth century is tangible evidence of 

the worldwide adoption of similar post office reforms. 

The keynote address, “The Political Economy of Postal Reform in the Victorian Age,” was delivered by Richard John, Ph.D., professor of history and 

adjunct professor of communication at the University of Illinois, Chicago, and 

can be read starting on page 3. There were twelve papers, seven of which are 

included here. 

The first panel was on “Early Reform,” and Larry Lyons presented his paper 

“America’s First Carrier Service the U.S. City Despatch Post Government Carrier 

Service in New York August 16, 1842–November 28, 1846.” Harvey Mirsky also 

discusses in his paper “The U.S. 1847 Issue: Stamps That Changed the System.” 

The second panel highlighted “Post Office Reformers,” and three papers were 

presented. Diane DeBlois and Richard Dalton Harris, presented “The Sunday Mail 

Controversy Paves the Way of Postal Reform.” David L. Straight, Washington University (St. Louis), presented his paper “Cheap Postage, A Tool for Social Reform.” 

Rachel A. Moore, Clemson University, presented “From the Pulpit to the Post: 

Anti-clericalism and Communication in Orizaba, 1857–1867.” 

The third panel was on “Reform Icons and Collectibles,” and Catherine J. 

Golden, Skidmore College, presented her paper “Why Is a Raven Like a Writing 

Desk?—Post Office Reform, Collectible Commodities, and Victorian Culture.”

The fourth panel continued the discussion on “Postal Reform.” Harry K. 

Charles, Jr., The Johns Hopkins University, presented “The 1895 Provisional 

and Bisect Postage Due Stamps: A Result of the Transfer of the Stamp Production to BEP.”

Introduction to the Fourth Symposium

Introduction

There was a marked increase in the use of provisional and bisected postage 

due stamps on mail beginning in 1895. As is well documented in the case 

of the Jefferson, Iowa bisects,1 the bisects were created due to a shortage 

of one-cent postage-due stamps. In other instances, both the one-cent and twocent stamps seemed to be in short supply. Could these shortages have resulted 

from the 1893–94 transfer of postage stamp production from the American 

Bank Note Company (ABNCo) to the Bureau of Engraving and Printing?

In an article by Noll,2 the controversy surrounding the awarding of the 

stamp production contract to the BEP rather than a Bank Note Company was 

well described. In his article Noll states, “And instead of accepting the offer 

of the established bank note printers, the Post Office Department accepted a 

bid from a printing establishment with almost no experience in postage stamp 

production and none of the rare but requisite gumming machines: the United 

States Bureau of Engraving and Printing . . .” This leads one to the belief that 

the BEP might have had trouble getting into full production (nominally three billion stamps were needed annually at the time), thus leading to stamp shortages. 

Even if the BEP could have generated sufficient supplies in Washington, DC, it 

did not mean that they were delivered efficiently and when needed to postmasters throughout the country.

Prior to the awarding of the stamp production contract to the BEP, the 

ABNCo was responsible for maintaining the requisite inventory necessary to fill 

the demands for stamps presented by the stamp agent of the Post Office Department. This stamp agent and his staff took care of filling orders from the various 

post offices, but keeping stamps available was the responsibility of the ABNCo. 

Thus, the BEP not only had to learn how to make stamps, but also how to build 

and maintain sufficient inventory to meet the Post Office demand. It should also 

be mentioned that the U.S. postal stamp agent (USPSA) and his staff originally 

resided at the ABNCo in New York. When the BEP took over the stamp printing, he was moved to Washington and his staff reduced. Thus, it is reasonable 

The 1895 Provisional and Bisect Postage

Due Stamps: A Result of the Transfer of 

Stamp Production to the BEP?

Harry K. Charles, Jr.
9 4 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

to believe that the distribution of the newly printed BEP 

stamps might not have been as efficient as it was at the 

banknote company, especially in the beginning years.

The following sections trace the early postage due 

stamp production at the BEP, determine the remaining 

inventories of ABNCo dues, project the demand for postage due stamps in the 1894–1895 period, and examine the 

postmasters’ response to shortages—the use of provisional 

and bisected postage due stamps.

BEP Produces Postage Due Stamps

The BEP began creating a new design for postage due 

stamps soon after its contract began on July 1, 1894. A 

die proof for the new two-cent postage-due stamp (Scott 

No. J32)3

 is shown in Figure 1. The two-cent value was 

engraved first because the two-cent banknote dues were 

in short supply as will be shown below. The BEP assigned 

the two-cent die, the number 50. The die was used to lay 

Figure 1. An approved large die proof (J32P1) of the first two-cent bureau postage due 

stamp, dated August 11, 1894. This proof is signed by Kerr Craige, the Third Assistant 

Postmaster General. From the collection of Harry K. Charles, Jr.
n u m b e r 5 5 • 9 5

down Plate No. 34. A plate proof (on card) of Scott No. 

J32P4 is shown in Figure 2 illustrating the marginal markings and the plate number. It should be mentioned that 

while the card proof in Figure 2 appears claret in color, 

it fluoresces under long wavelength ultraviolet light, thus 

placing it amongst the vermilion shades (e.g. Scott No. 

J30), that also fluoresce under UV light.4 A plate proof 

in deep claret was approved on July 14, 1894. The BEP 

sent the two-cent to press immediately, and it was issued 

on July 20, 1894. Note the die proof shown in Figure 1 

was approved on August 11, 1894, by Third Assistant 

Postmaster General Kerr Craige. The approval date was 

almost a month after the plate proof was approved and 

three weeks after the stamps were issued.

The one-cent die was the next postage-due design prepared. It was assigned die number 56, and it was used to 

lay down Plate No. 57. A plate proof from Plate No. 57 

was pulled and approved on August 11, 1894. The color 

of this plate proof sheet was deep carmine.

The ten-cent bureau due was issued on September 24, 

1894. The plate for the ten-cent due was prepared from 

die number 55. A large die proof for the ten-cent value 

was approved on August 30, 1894, by Wesley R. Davis, 

the United States postage stamp agent. Kerr Craige also 

approved another copy of the ten-cent die proof on August 

30th. Although the dies and plates for the three-cent, fivecent, thirty-cent, and fifty-cent values were prepared at 

about the same time, they were not issued until April 27, 

1895, when supplies of these other values in postmasters’ 

hands ran low. Die numbers and large die approval dates 

for the first bureau dues are given in Table 1. Many issues 

plagued the early production of the new bureau postage 

dues including the three-cent cracked die which necessitated the creation of a new die prior to plate production5

(See Table 1). Bureaucratic delays and other administrative 

Figure 2. A plate proof on card (J32P4) of the two-cent small numeral postage due illustrating the original plate number (no. 34) and 

the marginal marking. From the collection of Harry K. Charles, Jr.

Table 1. Die Numbers and Approval, Hardening, and Issue Dates for the First Postage Dues Produced by the BEP

Die Die Die Plate Plate

Scott No. Value No. Approval Hardening No. Certification Issue Date

J31 1¢ 56 8/11/1894a 8/10/1894b 57 8/11/1894 8/14/1894

J32 2¢ 50 8/11/1894a 7/13/1894b 34 7/14/1894 7/20/1894

J32 3¢ 54 c 8/18/1894d

3¢ 64 8/23/1894a 8/28/1894 70 f 4/27/1895

J34 5¢ 57 8/30/1894a,e 8/29/1894b 71 f 4/27/1895

J35 10¢ 55 8/30/1894a,e 8/29/1894b 72 f 9/24/1894

J36 30¢ 53 8/23/1894a 8/30/1894 73 f 4/27/1895

J37 50¢ 61 9/1/1894a,e 9/4/1894 74 10/4/1894 4/27/1895

a Approved by 3rd Assistant Postmaster General, Kerr Craige

b Apparently hardened before official approval.

c Die Approval Information Unavailable. d Die Cracked upon hardening. It was put in a clamp and used to make a transfer roll. The transfer roll had the raised crack line removed and then was used to lay down a 

new die—die 64. The complete story of the die crack is given by McIntire.

e Approved by Wesley R. Davis (U.S.P.S.A.). f The exact dates are unavailable to this author, but they are likely to be within a few days of die hardening.
9 6 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

problems allowed stamps to go into production prior to 

their approval by the third assistant postmaster general 

and/or the U.S. postage stamp agent (See approval dates 

in Table 1 and the approval date on the signed proof in 

Figure 1).

Inventory and Demand Projections

In an article by Dickey,6 a letter from the chief of the 

Bureau of Engraving and Printing, Claude M. Johnson, 

was quoted in which Johnson provided a forecast by denomination for the number of postage due stamps needed 

to be supplied by the BEP for fiscal year 1895 (beginning July 1, 1894). This forecast is shown in Column 2 

of Table 2. For comparison, the actual shipment of postage due stamps by the ABNCo in fiscal year 1893 (July 

1, 1892, to June 30, 1893) is given in Column 3 of Table 

2.7

 This was the last full year’s worth of data available to 

Johnson when he made his prediction in early 1894. It can 

be seen that the forecast by Johnson is essentially the 1893 

fiscal year data with two notable exceptions, the estimates 

for the thirty-cent and fifty-cent postage-dues. These estimates were approximately six times higher for the thirtycent dues and thirteen times higher for the fifty-cent dues. 

This was extremely optimistic since the thirty-cent and 

fifty-cent dues had averaged only about 6,800 and 2,100 

respectively in the previous six years.8

Table 2 also contains the ABNCo large numeral 

postage-due shipment data for fiscal year 1894 (July 1, 

1893, to June 30, 1894). It can be seen that although 

Johnson’s forecast for total number of postage-due stamps 

is slightly greater than the actual totals in both FY 1893 

and FY 1894, his estimate was over one-half million under 

the actual shipment of two-cent postage-dues in FY 1894. 

The ten-cent value estimate was almost 90,000 below the 

FY 1894 shipments, while the three-cent was slightly over 

40,000 below the actual data for FY 1894.

Near the end of its contract, the ABNCo supplied the 

remaining stock of large numeral dues to the BEP so that it 

would have a supply of postage dues to begin the 1895 fiscal 

year (Table 3). The quantity supplied was 2,796,543 postage due stamps. This quantity, broken down by denomination, is shown in Column 2. The shipments of large-numeral 

postage-due stamps by the BEP to postmasters in fiscal year 

1895 is given in Column 3. Column 4 indicates the difference or the remaining large-numeral postage-dues in the 

hands of the BEP. The BEP indicated that these remainders 

were scrapped in early calendar year 1895 to avoid “elaborate” daily inventory reports.

By comparing the data in Tables 2 and 3, it is quite 

clear that the ABNCo dues were insufficient to meet the 

demand. In fact, the 50,164 two-cent postage-dues represented only 0.76 percent of the estimated needed supply. This percentage equates to about 2.8 days, assuming a 

linear usage rate throughout the year. The one-cent supply 

was about fifteen percent of the estimated needed supply 

or fifty-five days worth, and the ten-cent large-numeral 

dues on hand could satisfy the demand for about sixtyseven days. Even the five-cent supply was only good for 

306 days or about ten months. Only the thirty cent and 

fifty cent dues were in sufficient numbers to last multiple 

Table 2. BEP Forecast of Postage Due Stamp Requirements for 

fiscal year 1895 and Shipment Records of Large Numeral Postage Dues for fiscal years 1893 and 1894

Johnson’s ABNCo ABNCo

Forecast Shipment Shipment

for Fiscal in Fiscal in Fiscal

Value Year 1895 Year 1893 Year 1894

1¢ 9,000,000 8,967,456 8,441,900

2¢ 6,600,000 6,598,500 7,131,700

3¢ 200,000 198,955 242,900

5¢ 800,000 808,510 603,780

10¢ 1,520,000 1,525,550 1,608,470

30¢ 40,000 6,650 6,290

50¢ 40,000 2,350 3,106

Total 18,200,000 18,101,950 18,038,146

Table 3. ABNCo Large Numeral Postage Dues Transferred to 

the BEP and Subsequently Distributed by the BEP during Fiscal 

Year 1895

Value ABNCo Shipmenta

 BEP Distributionb Difference

1¢ 1,350,369 1,350,369 0

2¢ 50,164 50,164 0

3¢ 294,783 190,300 104,483

5¢ 670,148 604,320 65,823

10¢ 277,794 277,780 14

30¢ 96,502 23,430 73,072

50¢ 56,783 15,030 41,753

Total 2,796,543 2,511,393 285,150c

a Post Office Bill Book, June 30, 1879–March 30, 1895 b John N. Luff, The Postage Stamps of the United States 1902 Edition, Scott Stamp 

and Coin Company Limited, pp 245–352.

c Excess scraped.
n u m b e r 5 5 • 9 7

years (14.5 years and 24.2 years respectively, based on actual usage in Fiscal Year 1893. See Table 2).

If the distribution of the new one-cent and two-cent 

bureau dues were delayed by even a few days, there would 

have certainly been shortages of both values, especially 

the two-cent dues. Shortages of the one-cent and two-cent 

values were more likely to have occurred in the western 

states and in the rural areas of the east, but occasionally 

even large cities were without these values of postage dues. 

Also, it is believed that both the five-cent and ten-cent values experienced localized shortages.

Postmasters’ Solution

With any shortage of a particular denomination stamp, 

the postmaster or postal clerk would simply make up the 

required value using other denomination stamps. For example, a two-cent shortage could be made up with two 

ones, a five-cent shortage with one two- and one three-cent 

stamp, and so forth. In the 1895 period, however, a shortage of one-cent postage-due stamps would be problematic 

(no half-cent postage dues existed), unless the postmaster 

could substitute a regular issue one-cent stamp in its place. 

Although common practice later on, postmasters of the 

1890s were reluctant to just use a regular-issue stamp unless it was suitably marked “Postage Due” or “Due 1” or 

some other variant of “due” to indicate its intended function. Examples of this approach will be described below in 

the section on provisionals.

Another and perhaps more common approach was 

to bisect a higher value stamp to achieve the desired 

value. For example, a two-cent postage-due stamp could 

be bisected to make two one-cent stamps. Since these bisected stamps (vertical, horizontal, or diagonals) were still 

postage-dues, most postmasters did not feel the need to 

add a “due” marking to the bisected stamp. The notable 

exception to this was the Jefferson, Iowa, bisects of October 1895, where each half of a vertically bisected two-cent 

postage due stamp was overprinted with “Due 1 cent.” 

Clinton, Iowa, also used diagonal bisects hand stamped 

with “Due 1” in early 1896. These and other bisects will 

be described below in the section on bisects.

It should be noted that both provisional use of regularissue stamps as postage-dues and postage-due bisects have 

been used to address more than a shortage of one-cent 

stamps. Provisionals have been used for local two-cent 

postage-due shortages and ten-cent bisects have addressed 

a shortage of five-cent postage-due stamps. Much later in 

the 1920s and 1930s when half-cent postage rates were 

in effect, both provisional due markings on half-cent 

regular-issue stamps and bisected one-cent postage-due 

stamps exist. A detailed discussion of these usages is beyond the scope of this article. Similarly, some postmasters 

printed (stamped) “Due __ cents” diagonally on regular 

issue stamps. The blank was filled in with a manuscript 

number—thus, any value postage-due stamp shortage 

could be addressed.

Detroit Provisionals

As mentioned above, provisionals (or locals) typically 

resulted when a postmaster had a shortage of a commonly 

used stamp. In such instances, the postmaster would overprint the required value (and intended function) on another 

stamp, and use these overprinted stamps until his replacement stamps (stamps in shortage) arrived. The most famous provisionals of the 1895 era were those created by 

the postmaster of Detroit. In the early summer of 1895, 

the Detroit postmaster found himself short of both onecent and two-cent postage-due stamps. Thus, he stamped 

in black “DUE 1” on Scott No. 246, one-cent ultramarine 

regular-issue stamps and “DUE 2” on Scott No. 250, twocent carmine regular-issue stamps, both issued in 1894.

A cover illustrating a pair of “Due 1” overprints used 

to address a two-cent deficiency is shown in Figure 3. It 

has a Detroit circular date stamp (CDS) with the date June 

23, 1895. A similar cover with the two-cent carmine “Due 

2” is illustrated in Figure 4. Again, this cover has a Detroit CDS, dated June 23, 1895, at 11:30 am. June 23, 

1895, is supposed to be the first day of provisional use according to an accompanying note dated 1947 by Fred R. 

Schmalzreidt, a noted Detroit philatelic dealer of the time 

who claimed they were used from June 23 to June 26, 

1895. Brower9 states that they were used from June 21 

to June 27, 1895. Brower’s dates were taken from Luff’s 

book published in 1902. If the note from Schmalzreidt is 

correct, then both of these covers were postmarked on the 

first day of provisional use in Detroit. Both covers have 

identical envelopes with crossed out return addresses. The 

cover with the pair of one-cent dues is addressed to Hubel 

and Company Electricians, City, while the cover with the 

two-cent due is addressed to Ernst Stolze, Buhl Block, 

City. Figure 5 illustrates another Detroit provisional pair 

used to pay two-cents postage due. The stamps are Scott 

No. 264 and were issued in April 1895. They are blue 

in color rather than the ultramarine of the stamps (Scott 

No. 246) on the cover shown in Figure 3. This cover was 

addressed to Geo. N. Rice, 186 East High Dr., City, and 
9 8 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

was dated on June 26, 1895. Special thanks are given to 

Dr. Clark Yarbrough for allowing the author to scan and 

illustrate this cover.

A fourth Detroit provisional usage is also known. 

It is an oversize envelope containing four two-cent carmine “DUE 2” stamps to pay the eight-cent postage-due 

assessment. Unlike the “2¢ due” above this “DUE 2” was 

overprinted on Scott No. 267, two-cent carmine regular 

issue of 1895. The “Due 8¢” cover in question was also 

mailed with two-cents postage paid by a Scott No. 267. 

Thus, this oversize cover has five Scott No 267 stamps, 

four with the “DUE 2” overprint and one plain. The plain 

Figure 3. Detroit Provisional. “Due 1” overprinted on a pair of regular one-cent ultramarine 

stamps (Scott No. 246). The pair satisfied the need for a two-cent postage due stamp. Cover is 

dated June 23, 1895. From the collection of Harry K. Charles, Jr.

Figure 4. Detroit Provisional. “Due 2” overprinted on a regular issue two-cent carmine stamp 

(Scott No. 250). The stamp satisfied the need for a two-cent postage due. Cover is dated June 

23, 1895. From the collection of Harry K. Charles, Jr.
n u m b e r 5 5 • 9 9

Scott No. 267 is tied with an 1895 Gainesville TX duplex 

cancel, while the “postage dues” are not tied. “Due 8¢” 

is written in blue crayon on the envelope. This cover is illustrated in Figure 6. The image of this cover was kindly 

provided by the auction house HR Harmer Nutmeg. It appeared in the Nutmeg Mail auction 184 of June 9, 2009 

(Lot No. 3172).10 Additional details of this and other provisional usages are given in Table 4.

J23 Bisects

As described above, bisects or bisected stamps typically resulted when a postmaster had a shortage of a particular stamp value and the value was small enough that 

he could not make the needed value up from lower value 

stamps. The classic case is, of course, a shortage in onecent stamps which comprise the lowest value in the stamp 

Figure 5. Detroit Provisional. “Due 1” overprinted on a pair of regular one-cent blue stamps 

(Scott No., 264). Cover is dated June 26, 1895. From the collection of Clarke Yarbrough. Reprinted with permission.

Figure 6. Detroit Provisional. “DUE 2” overprinted on four two-cent carmine regular issue 

stamps (Scott No. 267). The legal size envelope was also mailed in 1895 with the same two-cent 

carmine stamp. The four “Due 2” stamps made up the eight-cent-due penalty. Image supplied 

courtesy of HR Harmer Nutmeg.
1 0 0 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

series. A shortage of one-cent postage-due stamps is apparently exactly what happened in Thompson, New York, 

in October 1895; Jefferson, Iowa, in October 1895; and 

Clinton, Iowa, in early 1896.

The Thompson, New York, one-cent postage-due 

shortage led to covers with J23 bisects, and the Iowa 

shortages led to covers with J39 bisects. There are four 

known J23 bisect covers from Thompson, New York, 

fourteen covers11,12 with the J39 bisect from Jefferson, 

Iowa, and three covers containing a J39 bisect from Clinton, Iowa.

The four Thompson, New York, J23 bisects are all addressed to Mr. H.W. Tilford, Thompson Mills, Wash. Co., 

N. Y., and bear the date Oct. 3, 1895. The J23 bisects are 

right side diagonals on two covers and one vertical (left 

half) and one horizontal (bottom half) bisect on the other 

two covers. The diagonal bisects are cut from the upper 

left to the lower right, probably indicating that the postmaster or clerk who did the bisecting was right-handed 

(the left hand was used to hold the stamp and the straight 

edge while the right hand wielded the knife or razor). The 

author has not seen a J23 bisect cut from the upper right 

to the lower left. Since the known J23 bisects include two 

diagonals (right sides), the lower part of a horizontal bisect, and the left side of a vertical bisect, thus, it is conceivable that at least four more covers exist with J23 bisects 

from Thompson, NY. Table 5 lists these and other bisect 

postage-due uses during the 1895 period.

J39 Bisect

The bisect covers of Jefferson, Iowa (Scott No. J39), 

are a legend and a source of philatelic controversy. J39 

Table 4. Postage Due Provisionals of the 1895 Period

Number

Stamp (Value) Town/City State Known Date Provisional Type

— (1-cent) Winside NE 2 July 20, 1895 “Due 1” surcharged on 1¢ regular issue newspaper 

August 6, 1895 wrappers

246 (1-cent) Detroit MI 1 June 23, 1895 “Due 1” hand stamped on 1¢ ultramarine regular issue

 stamp. Pair on cover to make up 2¢ deficiency

250 (2-cent) Detroit MI 1 June 23, 1895 “Due 2” hand stamped on 2¢ carmine regular issue stamp. 

 Single on cover

267 (2-cent) Detroit MI 1 1895 “DUE 2” hand stamped on 2¢ carmine regular issue 

 stamp. Four overprints for “Due 8¢”

264 (1-cent) Detroit MI 1 June 26, 1895 “Due 1” hand stamped on 1¢ blue regular issue stamp. 

 Pair on cover to make up 2¢ deficiency

Table 5. Postage Due Bisects of the 1895 Period

Number

Stamp (Value) Town/City State Known Date Bisect Type

J23 (2-cent) Thompson NY 4 Oct. 2, 1898 Diagonal (2), Vertical and Horizontal

J39 (2-cent) Jefferson IA 14 Oct. 11–13, 1895 Vertical, “Due I cent” overprint

J39 (2-cent) Clinton IA 3 Feb. 14, 1896 Diagonal, “Due 1” Hand stamp

J39 (2-cent) Riverside MA 1 unknowna Unknown

— (2¢ and 10¢) Brooklyn NY 1 Dec 1895 2¢ and 10¢ each bisected to make 6¢ Postage Due

— (2-cent) North Branch NJ 1 June 1895 Diagonal

— (2-cent) Warwick RI 8 August 7, 1897 Vertical

Sept 11, 1897

a Assumed to be during the 1895 Period
n u m b e r 5 5 • 1 0 1

bisected postage-due stamps were created by Postmaster 

Fred R. McCarthy of Jefferson, Iowa. He told the story of 

the bisects in an affidavit dated February 12, 1898. McCarty’s two-page affidavit is currently mounted on two 

large album pages in the Miller Collection (owned by the 

New York Public Library) with a Scott No. W301 wrapper (Pauley No. 1 See below) mounted on the bottom of 

the second page. A full-color copy of the McCarthy affidavit is shown in Trepel’s excellent publication documenting 

the Miller Collection.

There are several key points in the McCarthy affidavit:

1. His supply of one-cent postage-dues was exhausted 

and his previously requisitioned one-cent postagedues were in transit.

2. He had a local printer print “Due 1 cent” in black on 

a few vertically bisected two-cent postage-due stamps.

3. He had 30 of these vertically bisected two-cent 

postage-due stamps overprinted, and he used, according to his recollection, somewhere between eighteen 

and twenty.

4. Once the replacement one-cent stamps arrived from 

Washington, no additional bisects were used.

Both Trepel and the Scott Catalogue (in a footnote following the J39 listing) agree that a total of twenty bisects 

were used. There is some controversy over the sequence of 

printing and bisecting between Trepel and Scott and the 

McCarthy affidavit. Both Trepel and the Scott Catalogue 

say the stamps were overprinted first and then bisected 

(which seems more logical for ease of handling and printing) while McCarthy’s statement implies that they were bisected first and then overprinted (“. . . had a local printer 

print ‘Postage Due 1 cent’ on a few half two-cent postage 

due stamps . . .”). A more detailed discussion of this and 

other factors surrounding the J39 bisect has been given by 

Charles and Swed.

A typical example of the J39 bisect is shown in Figure 7. This cover is one of the thirteen examples known 

to Pauley and reported by him in his excellent series of 

articles on the J39 bisect. Pauley’s articles spanned almost 

eighteen years from January 1973 to November 1990, during which time he tried to discover and report details of all 

the known J39 bisects on cover. In fact, the cover shown in 

Figure 7, addressed to George Herring, is No. 5 in Pauley’s 

arbitrary numbering scheme. This cover is franked with 

a copy of Scott No. 265, one-cent blue Franklin, which 

was machine cancelled (Oct 11, 1895 at 2 pm in Chicago). 

At the left side of the cover the words “POSTAGE DUE” 

were stamped in purple ink followed by a manuscript 

“1¢” in red ink. The word “FORWARDED” was stamped 

in purple ink followed by a manuscript “to Jefferson” in 

red ink. Also, a line in red ink is drawn through Waucoma. 

The left half bisect is tied by a Jefferson, Iowa circular date 

stamp (CDS) dated Oct 13, 1895 at 11 am.

The cover is back stamped with a partially legible 

Waucoma, Iowa CDS dated OCT 12, 1895 in purple ink. 

A purple star in a circle appears next to the Waucoma 

CDS. Also, the cover is back stamped with a small portion 

Figure 7. J39 bisect cover by the postmaster of Jefferson. This cover is Pauley No. 5.11 From 

the collection of Harry K. Charles, Jr.
1 0 2 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

of the Jefferson, Iowa CDS and a circular bars cork cancel 

in black ink. Further details of this cover and the other 

twelve covers reported by Pauley are given in notes 11 and 

12, as well as in the other articles by Pauley.

There is a fourteenth cover which was unknown to 

Pauley, at least through November 1990, the date of his 

last article. This cover is shown in Figure 8. As can be 

seen from Figure 8, the cover is very similar to the one in 

Figure 7 except it is addressed to J. M. Alexander, rather 

than George Herring. Only Pauley covers Nos. 1, 2, and 

13 were distinctly different. Cover No. 1 is on a wrapper 

in the Miller Collection; cover No. 2 is addressed to a 

different town and resides in the Pauley Collection; and 

cover No. 13 is again a wrapper addressed to Benjamin 

Jacques, the same addressee as on Pauley No. 1. It is believed that all the Jefferson, Iowa, bisect covers except 

Pauley’s No. 1, No. 2, and No. 13 were prepared by E. B. 

Stillman and sent to himself, his family, and co-workers, 

employees, or friends. Apparently, Stillman recognized 

the importance of the locally prepared bisect and prepared covers which would require McCarthy to use one 

of his newly created “rarities.” In fact, it is likely that 

the newspaper print shop run by Stillman’s sons did the 

printing. The back stamps on cover “No. 14” (maintaining Pauley’s numbering scheme) are almost identical to 

the markings on the back of the cover shown in Figure 7 

(Pauley No. 5). The back stamps on the cover in Figure 7 

are described in the text above.

There are five Stillmans, four Herrings, two Jacques, 

and, now, two Alexanders among the Jefferson, Iowa, covers. There are also eight left-side bisects and only six rights. 

As can be easily seen in Figures 7 and 8 , the commonly 

referred to “Due 1 cent” was actually “Due I cent” apparently due to the typesetter’s error in selecting an upper 

case “I” instead of a “1” in the type face used.13 The black 

surcharge is approximately 2.5 mm high by 17 mm long.

A Clinton, Iowa, bisect is shown in Figure 9, again 

through the courtesy of Dr. Clarke Yarbrough. The diagonal bisect is hand-stamped “Due 1” in black ink and was 

cancelled on February 14, 1896, Valentine’s Day.

Summary

United States stamp production was unexpectedly 

transferred from the American Bank Note Company to 

the Bureau of Engraving and Printing in 1894. The BEP 

had little experience with stamp production and lacked 

critical machinery necessary to produce postage stamps. 

Up to 1894, it was strictly focused on producing currency. 

Although the BEP mounted Herculean efforts, there were 

many start-up problems including maintaining inventory, 

lack of distribution infrastructure, and general issues associated with the learning curve of a new business. Such 

problems led to spot stamp shortages especially in small 

towns and rural areas. In certain instances, postmasters 

Figure 8. J39 bisect cover by the postmaster of Jefferson. This cover is now cover No. 14 in 

Pauley’s arbitrary numbering scheme. From the collection of Harry K. Charles, Jr.
n u m b e r 5 5 • 1 0 3

responded to these shortages by creating bisects and provisionals. The postage-due bisects and provisionals of the 

1895 period were created in direct response to the lack of 

certain postage-due values. Being few in number,14 these 

postage-due varieties represent some of the scarcest and 

least-known United States stamp usages and are worthy 

of further study.

Notes

1. R. Trepel with K. Lawrence, Rarity Revealed: The Benjamin K. Miller Collection. Published by the Smithsonian and the 

New York Public Library, 2006, p.162.

2. Frank Noll, “Postage and Progressivism: Political Ideology and the Start of Postage Stamp Production at the Bureau of 

Engraving in Printing 1893–1894” Winton M. Blount Symposium on Postal History, November 3–4, 2006, pp 1–26. http://

www.postalmuseum.si.edu/symposium2006/papers.html PDF.

3. Scott Numbers can be found in the Scott Specialized Catalogue by the Scott Publishing Company, PO Box 828, Sidney, 

Ohio 45365-0828.

4. Plate No. 34 was only used to make Scott No. J30 

stamps according to Durland. J30 is the vermilion shade and it 

fluoresces under long wavelength UV light. The plate proof in 

Figure 2 fluoresces although it is clearly claret in color. Much 

controversy still remains over the colors of the first issue Bureau 

dues, but the current thinking is that most values of the early 

Bureau dues were printed using both fluorescent and nonfluorescent inks.

5. Walter A. McIntire, “United States Postage Due Stamps, 

The Broken 3¢ Die-Series of 1894,” The Bureau Specialist, Volume XXXVI, No. 4 April 1965, pp 124–126.

6. Budd Dickey, “The Beginning of Postage Stamp Production by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing,” The United 

States Specialist, Vol. 55, No. 11, November 1984, pp 487–493.

7. John N. Luff, The Postage Stamps of the United States, 

Scott Stamp and Coin Company, New York, New York, 1902, 

pp 245–252.

8. Warren R. Bower, “Puzzles in (the) 1894 ABN Transfer of 

its Postage Dues to (the) BEP” The United States Specialist, Vol. 

56 No. 4, April 1985, pp 153–156.

9. Warren R. Bower, “The 1895 Bisected J23 Dues of Thomson, New York,” The United States Specialist, Vol. 54, No. 2, 

February 1983, pp 88–89.

Figure 9. J39 Clinton, Iowa, diagonal postage due bisect. “Due 1” is hand stamped in black 

ink. This is one of the three known examples. From the collection of Clarke Yarbrough. Reprinted with permission.
1 0 4 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

10. Nutmeg Stamp Sales, “Comprehensive Mail Auction 184, 

United States, British Commonwealth and Worldwide Selected 

Stamps, Postal History and Premium Graded Stamps”, Tuesday, 

June 9, 2009 Bethel, Connecticut, Lot No. 3172 page 34.

11. Harry K. Charles, Jr. and Robert C. Swed “Thirteen and 

Counting: Reflections on the Scott J39 Bisect Covers of 1895,” 

The United States Specialist, Volume 80, No. 9, September 2009, 

pp 410–419.

12. James A. Pauley, Jr., “The J39 Bisect-Example Number 

13,” The United States Specialist, Volume 61, No. 11, November 

1990, pp 617–622.

13. A recent private communication with William Sihler 

(September 14, 2009) suggests that the “I” in the “Due I cent” 

overprint was indeed a “1” from a non-lining set of numerals 

in the Oldstyle No. 7 (Monotype) or a closely related typeface 

which was in use during the 1890s.

14. It is estimated that less than fifty covers containing bisects and provisionals as described in this study exist. This study 

lists a total of thirty-eight uses with the bisect stamped covers 

totaling thirty-one.

Bibliography

Bower, Warrant R. “The 1895 Bisected J23 Dues of Thomson, 

New York.” The United States Specialist, 54(2):88–89. February 1983.

———. “Puzzles in 1894 ABN Transfer of its Postage Dues to 

BEP.” The United States Specialist, 56(4):153–156. April, 

1985.

Charles, Harry K. Jr., and Robert C. Swed. “Thirteen and 

Counting: Reflections on the Scott J39 Bisect Covers of 

1895.” The United States Specialist, 80(9):410–419. September 2009.

“Comprehensive Mail Auction 184: United States British Commonwealth and Worldwide Selected Stamps, Postal History 

and Premium Graded Stamps.” Lot No. 3172, p 34. Bethel, 

Conn: Nutmeg Stamp Sales, June 9, 2009.

Dickey, Budd. “The Beginning of Postage Stamp Production by 

the Bureau of Engraving and Printing.” The United States 

Specialist, 55(11):487–493. November 1984.

Luff, John N. The Postage Stamps of the United States. New 

York: Scott Stamp and Coin Company, 1902.

McIntire, Walter A. “United States Postage Due Stamps: The 

Broken 3¢ Die-Series of 1894.” The Bureau Specialist, 

36(4):124–126. April 1965.

Noll, Frank. “Postage and Progressivism: Political Ideology and 

the Start of the Postage Stamp Production at the Bureau of 

Engraving and Printing 1893–1894.” Paper presented at the 

Winton M. Blount Symposium on Postal History, November 3–4, 2006. http://www.postalmuseum.si.edu/symposium

2006/abstracts.html#Noll.

Pauley, James A. Jr. “The J39 Bisect-Example Number 13.” The 

United States Specialist, 61(11):617–622. November 1990.

Scott 2010 Specialized Catalogue of United States Stamps. 88th 

ed. Sidney, Oh.: Scott Publishing Co., 2009.

Trepel, Scott R. Rarity Revealed: The Benjamin K. Miller Collection. Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian National Postal 

Museum, 2006.
Introduction

The Sunday Mail controversies of 1810–1817 and 1828–1831 were the 

first broad-based initiatives of the American public to influence federal 

policy for what was perceived as moral good.1 The forms of protest 

used—hundreds of petitions and scores of memorials to Congress—introduced 

tools of advocacy that proponents of postal reform would use to good advantage in the 1840s. In these political terms, the Sunday Mail conflict presaged the 

1845 postal reform. 

But the rejection by Congress of the anti-Sabbatarian protest in favor of Sunday Mails reveals confidence in some ‘first principles’ of the United States postal 

system—the primacy of a ‘line of posts’ that should not be interrupted, and the 

aim of transporting the mail along with passengers wherever possible. The Postal 

Reform Act of 1845 confirmed that celerity, certainty, and security were the fundamental aims of the Post Office Department and signaled a change from stage coach 

to railroad—both for personal mobility and for the transportation of the mail.

Johnson’s Reports on Sunday Mails

The postal service was the one arm of the federal government with intimate 

connections to all Americans—so it had enormous political potential.2

Consider Richard Mentor Johnson of Kentucky’s extraordinarily active 

campaign for the vice presidency. He first angled for Andrew Jackson’s ticket 

in the 1832 election but withdrew when it was clear Martin Van Buren was 

the favorite. For the 1836 election, Van Buren was the clear Democratic choice 

for president, but several others were jockeying for the second position. The 

Democratic national convention was held in Baltimore, May 20–22 1835, 

and Johnson followers had at least three campaign bandanas to wave in his 

favor—each reprinting one of his Sunday Mail reports.3 One Boston and two 

Baltimore publishers exactly reproduced the texts on silk—Henry Bowen for 

Jared Austin, Boston: Johnson’s Report on Sunday Mails. In Congress, March 4, 

1830; James Lovegrove, Baltimore: Report of the committee of the Senate of 

the United States to whom was referred the several memorials on the subject 

Sunday Mail Controversy, Postal Reform, 

and Mail Transportation

Diane DeBlois and Robert Dalton Harris
1 0 6 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

of the transportation of the mails on the Sabbath, or the 

First Day of the Week: Made January 20, 1829; William 

Wooddy, Baltimore: Report of the Committee of the Senate of the United States, With which the Senate concurred, 

January 20, 1829. American political bandanas had been 

introduced during Andrew Jackson’s 1824 campaign, and 

versions of Johnson’s reports printed on muslin appeared 

during the 1832 campaign.4

Johnson had defended the transportation and distribution of mail on Sunday as chairman of the Senate Committee on Post Office and Post Roads in 1829 and then as 

chairman of the House Committee on the Post Office and 

Post Roads in 1830. For his political campaigning these 

reports were also reprinted on paper,5 even in a handy 

pocket-size 1834 edition to reach a broader readership.6

The two reports were also reprinted as part of an 1833 

campaign biography.7

Ely Moore, the ‘friend of labor,’8 publicly endorsed 

Johnson in 1833, claiming that, in protecting the mails 

from being stopped on Sundays, “He has proved himself 

the friend of pure religion, by guarding it against a contaminating alliance with politics.” He predicted that the 

Johnson reports would continue to be read and admired, 

“when the edicts of kings and emperors, and the creeds of 

councils, shall have been swept from the memory of man.”9

Clearly, a great deal of political capital was invested 

in Sunday Mails. But what did this controversy have to do 

with the postal reform of 1845? 

Johnson had two strong arguments FOR Sunday 

Mails: the separation of church and state; and expediency. 

To religionists he said, in effect, you do not want the federal government telling you when or how to observe the 

Sabbath.10 Look to the state governments for any protection of religious observance (where also resides, although 

he did not say, the power of incorporation for transportation contractors).

For Johnson, transporting the mails, “should be regarded simply as a question of expediency,” and government should leave decisions over the post office to, “the 

legal discretions of the postmaster general.” Underlying 

this argument was a postal understanding that mail transportation was a matter of design optimized by fixed schedules and smooth flow.

Mails on Stage Coaches

and Postal Reform

The structure of the postal network that Johnson’s 

reports protected owed much to Abraham Bradley’s long 

tenure as first assistant postmaster general (1793–1829) 

but was formalized under his replacement, Selah R. Hobbie (1829–1851, 1853, 1854).

The four-horse post coach—big enough for passengers and mail and newspapers—had been the vehicle of 

choice for mail on the major post routes (Figure 1). The 

Figure 1. A ‘Troy’ stage coach, illustration from a version of Johnson’s 1830 report printed on silk by 

William Wooddy of Baltimore, presumably for the 1835 Democratic Convention. From the collection of the 

authors.
n u m b e r 5 5 • 1 0 7

advent of railroads signaled changes in the design of the 

system (Figure 2) which were reflected in portions of the 

Reform Law of March 3, 1845 that are often overlooked. 

The introduction of the Star Route system of contract lettings,11 and the statutory provision for railroads as mail’s 

ultimate vehicle, were part of postal reform.

Section 18: And be it further enacted, That it shall 

be the duty of the Postmaster General in all future 

lettings of contracts for the transportation of the 

mail, to let the same, in every case, to the lowest 

bidder, tendering sufficient guaranties for faithful 

performance, without other reference to the mode 

of such transportation than may be necessary to 

provide for the due celerity, certainty, and security 

of such transportation; nor shall any new contractor hereafter be required to purchase out, or take 

at a valuation, the stock of vehicles of any previous contractor for the same route.

This relieved the post office from securing the capitalization of private stage contractors and freed up the 

possibility of dropping stage coach contracts where they 

weren’t needed. 

Section 19: And be it further enacted, That to insure, as far as may be practicable, an equal and 

just rate of compensation, according to the service 

performed, among the several railroad companies 

in the United States, for the transportation of the 

mail, it shall be the duty of the Postmaster General 

to arrange and divide the railroad routes, including those in which the service is partly by railroad 

and partly by steamboats, into three classes according to the size of the mails, the speed with 

which they are conveyed, and the importance of 

the service; and it shall be lawful for him to contract for conveying the mail with any such railroad company, either with or without advertising 

for such contract.

On a stage coach, mail was equated with baggage; on 

a railway train or steamboat it became freight. Mail traveling as freight increased the margin between price and cost, 

which permitted reduction of postage rates.

In 1845, the postmaster general pointed out that the 

star route contract provisions had already saved the department $250,000. “The most expensive as well as the 

Figure 2. Tabulation by mode of scheduled transportation facilities used by the Post Office 1837 to 1844. Comparison of mail transportation by miles and cost for horse, coach and railroad/steamboat, prepared by Selah R. Hobbie, First Assistant Postmaster General, 

from the 1844 annual report. From the collection of the authors.
1 0 8 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

most important branch of business under control of [the 

post office] department is the transportation of the mails.” 

And he stressed the paramount importance of maintaining 

connections between routes.12 However, a contract should 

go, not to the lowest bid in dollars and cents, but to the 

lowest bid that gave a mode of conveyance adequate for 

the mails in respect to the certainty, security, and celerity 

of their transportation—without regard for passenger accommodation. The cheapest was often not robust enough 

to embrace changes in the flow of mail.

These arguments had first been made by Abraham 

Bradley in 1831 in defense of more expensive stage coach 

contracts where necessary. The amount of money critics 

claimed was squandered was the same quarter of a million 

dollars saved in 1845. 

An offer to carry in stages, on the same terms, 

is always considered as a better bid than one to 

carry in sulkies or on horseback; on the ground 

that such vehicles are a public convenience and 

deserve encouragement; also, that on great mail 

routes, in case of a double or triple mail, they 

can carry the whole of it on, and in the hope that 

passengers will increase; and in the end, by joining the two objects, it can be conveyed at less expense. And in many cases it has been judged good 

policy to accept a stage bid, if one-third higher 

than the demand for a horse-mail. This preference 

ought not to be extended to routes where the mail 

is small, for the establishment of stages is not a 

constitutional or legitimate object of the General 

Government.13

Lines of Post and Sunday Mail

Controversy 1810–1817

Celerity, certainty, and security (abbreviated within 

the Post Office Department to three asterisks, or stars, 

hence Star Routes) were by the postal reform law an explicit guarantee of uninterrupted ‘lines’ of posts.

The colonial line of posts ran on Sundays—the explanatory paragraph on Herman Moll’s New and Exact 

Map of the Dominions of the King of Great Britain on 

the Continent of North America of 1715 has the Western 

Post setting out from Philadelphia on a Friday and arriving in New York on Sunday night, to continue eastward 

on Monday morning to meet the Boston post at Saybrook 

on Thursday (the Boston post having begun at the northern end of the line of posts which extended, at that time, 

to Charleston in the south from Piscataway, Maine, in the 

north).

Moreover, the line of posts of the new republic ran on 

Sundays. The Abraham Bradley map of 1796 (Figure 3) 

shows the line of mails across a full weekly schedule, with 

Sunday as day one. This line connected all the major centers, and such laws that existed with penalties for travel 

on Sundays were local and scattershot and did not affect 

the cities.14

In 1802, the Post Office Department reported on 

its 1799 experiment with capitalizing a government line 

of stages between Philadelphia and Baltimore—revealing a new appreciation of the expense involved and a 

wish to continue to rely on private enterprise.15 Where 

a stage line was in place, it made sense to give it a mail 

contract—if only to discourage carriage of letters out of 

the mails. Giving a mail contract to a start-up stage line 

helped promote the country’s expansion, though such a 

line had to count on passenger fares not mail contract 

fees for profit.16 In 1800, Distributing Post Offices were 

introduced.17 Lines of posts, which had been established 

between the principal centers of population, were modified to provide for lines of posts among the distribution 

post offices (which were not necessarily centers of population, see Figure 4)—and the postal system became a 

network. Inasmuch as the principal mails traveled with 

the celerity of four-horse stage coaches, upon regular 

schedules and safeguarded by accompanying passengers, 

the arrival of the mail was a dramatic event on any day 

of the week.

The postmaster at the Distributing Office of Washington, Pennsylvania, was in 1808 excommunicated by his 

Presbyterian synod for receiving and dispatching the mail 

on a Sunday and, as a courtesy to his patrons which was 

strongly recommended by the postmaster general, opening 

his office on that day. In response to the furor over this 

particular and other comparable situations, a new postal 

law of 1810 required the receiving of mail AND the opening of the post office on every day of the week that the 

mail arrived. 

. . . every postmaster shall keep an office, in which 

one or more persons shall attend on every day on 

which a mail, or bag, or other packet or parcel of 

letters, shall arrive, by land or water, as well as on 

other days, at such hours as the postmaster general shall direct for performing the duties thereof; 

and it shall be the duty of the postmaster, at all 

reasonable hours, on every day of the week, to 

deliver, on demand, any letter, paper, or packet, 
n u m b e r 5 5 • 1 0 9

to the person entitled to or authorized to receive 

the same.18

The Post Office Department had been mindful—from 

the beginning—that handling the mails on a Sunday might 

be a hardship and had mitigated the law with a regulation 

that the post office be kept open for just an hour after the 

mail arrived and was sorted on a Sunday and that such an 

hour could be after the local religious services.19

Policy was to avoid mails arriving in places on a Sunday “except where the omission to transport on that day 

would break chains of communications.”20

Figure 3. Portion of the key to Abraham Bradley, A Map of the United States. Exhibiting Post Roads and Distances, 

1796, showing the summer routing across seven days of the week for mail between the northernmost point in Maine 

and Boston. Courtesy Smithsonian National Postal Museum (Accession 0.293996.1).
1 1 0 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

Still, Congress was bombarded with memorials asking that the new law be changed to prevent the mails from 

traveling and from being distributed on Sundays. But 

the Senate, in 1815, cited the mitigating instructions and 

voted to keep things as they were.21 Congressional arguments centered on the need to keep major communication 

lines unbroken—during war but also for the continuity 

and expansion of the postal system.22

For an appreciation of the expanded system, a retrospective of the post office establishment as of 1811 

displays, at six different times, the development of the 

measures of the department since its beginnings in 1792 

(Figure 5). Not only are the numbers of post offices and 

the lengths of post roads shown but also a differentiation in terms of modes according to the miles of weekly 

transportation.23

In the beginning, the miles of weekly transportation 

of the mails carried in sulkies and on horseback were ten 

percent less than that carried on stages but, by 1811, had 

grown to exceed stage mail by about thirty percent. This 

signifies the penetration of mail into the hinterland—

ahead of roads and passenger traffic suitable for coaching. 

The total transportation of the mails divided by the length 

of the post roads at each interval indicates a systematic 

frequency of about 1.4 mails a week—a constant of the 

system—an integration of modes and frequency which 

Figure 4. In 1804, Washington, Pa. was a Distributing Post Office on a stage route west from Philadelphia (DPO) through 

Chambersburg (DPO), Bedford, Greensburg, and Pittsburgh (DPO 1820) en route to Morgantown, Va. (DPO). Another 

state route west from Baltimore (DPO) passed through Hagerstown, Md. (DPO) and Cumberland, Md. (DPO 1817). Mail 

from Washington, Pa. was batched to other Distributing Post Offices, particularly at Marietta on the Ohio River. Portion 

of Bradley map of 1796. Courtesy Smithsonian National Postal Museum (Accession 0.293996.1).
n u m b e r 5 5 • 1 1 1

persisted throughout Bradley’s tenure in managing the 

mail transportation contracts.

Postal Route Reorganization and 

Sunday Mail Controversy 1828–1831

In 1825, Abraham Bradley was asked to reorganize 

postal transportation because of duplication of facilities 

and parallel routes.24 The result was reallocation and an 

extension of stage routes, with a fresh spate of their dramatic presence in remote places. Opposition to travel on 

Sundays had intensified in western New York after the Erie 

Canal insinuated a potent arm of secular commercialism.25

An opposition Pioneer Line of stages was formed in 1828 

to operate between Albany and Niagara Falls through 

Buffalo six days a week and to observe Sunday rest. The 

“Old Line”—which had the mail contract—not only operated seven days a week, it also ran at night, employed 

experienced drivers, gave their horses the best care, and 

maintained a faster service.26 Apparently to remain solvent 

this “Pioneer Line” of stages broke their own protocols,27

failing completely by 1831: a line of stages had to run continually to serve a commercial market.28 Stopping on Sunday, for capitalist ventures like transportation lines, meant 

‘idle money.’

Yet a second wave of anti-Sunday Mail protest flooded 

Congress with memorials.29 Most argued from religious 

conviction, but many men who signed even these petitions 

were involved in business.

An 1829 petition circulated to all members of Congress by a group of New Yorkers, which included a former mayor and John Jay’s son (Figure 6), argued from a 

commercial rather than a religious viewpoint—and proposed that closing the postal system for a day would “save 

no inconsiderable part of the expenses of the Post-­Office 

Department”.30

On the contrary, the 1829 annual report (Bradley’s 

last, before Hobbie)31 showed that running post coaches 

six days a week instead of seven would not save any 

money. In his experience, if a failure of a day’s mail occurred, and its bulk was added to the next day’s mail, the 

total was enough to fill a mail coach so that passengers 

were excluded. Indeed, if Sunday mails were stopped, 

Figure 5. Over ten years, the postal system grew 12-fold in number of offices, and 7-fold in miles of post road and mail transportation. 

Table from the Postal Guide of 1811. From the collection of the authors.
1 1 2 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

Figure 6. Printed circular petition January 1, 1829, signed by ten men and mailed to members of Congress. John D. 

Keese was a merchant; Thomas Stokes was a trustee of Columbian College; Peter Augustus Jay, son of John Jay, 

was president of New York Hospital; Arthur Tappan was a silk importer who helped found the New York Journal 

of Commerce; Richard Varick was formerly mayor of New York; Elijah Pierson was a merchant turned religious 

reformer; Peter Hawes was secretary of the Washington Fire Insurance Company; Jonas Platt was formerly a judge of 

the Supreme Court. From the collection of the authors.
n u m b e r 5 5 • 1 1 3

while purely passenger stage lines continued, and private 

expresses could be used, the Department could lose between 50,000 and 100,000 dollars annually.

Outlined also were all the specific delays that would 

occur if the transportation of the mail were interrupted on 

Sundays, and the possible consequences of that—primarily the possibility of private expresses delivering sensitive 

market information ahead of the mails so that there could 

be an uneven speculative advantage. 

Although he did not use the terms, Bradley showed that 

a regular interruption of the mails would cause a systematic breakdown, and expediency would be compromised.

An 1832 compilation represents the post office immediately after a fifty percent increase in mail transportation, 

inaugurated not only upon a manifold of new post roads 

but also in terms of facilities (mode and frequency) on post 

roads already in operation. This report was made in anticipation of lettings in New England and New York for the 

next year which would, altogether, practically double the 

postal establishment in miles of mail transportation since 

Hobbie took over from Bradley. (The implication is that 

Hobbie completed the system reforms begun by Bradley; 

certainly he was, by 1832, in command of more ways to 

measure the system.32)

With respect to Bradley’s compilation in 1811, not 

only is there a new mode of transportation—steamboats—

but also a geographic distribution state by state. In the 

southern section the stage and horse mails serve equally, 

while in the northeastern section the stage mails range between three and ten times the horse mails. This inequality 

is paralleled by an average weekly frequency in the southern section of 1.4 mails per week to 2.6 mails per week in 

the northeastern section. The picture in the south in 1832 

looks very much like the system as a whole in 1811. Systematic progress in terms of frequency and mode favored 

the northeast.

Moreover, in respect to the steamboats, a high proportion serve in the south and southeast although New York 

has the largest steamboat service over all, even considering 

that such contracts were made in conjunction with stage 

mails because of seasonal navigation.

The rapid expansion of the system was expensive in the 

short term but eventually demonstrated that postal revenues are an elastic function of transportation expenditures.

Postal Reform and Beyond

The above picture of the system in 1832 (Figure 7) 

was the climax of a postal design serviced by stage coaches 

as the principal vehicle. Railroads immediately thereafter 

dominated contract negotiations. They were larger corporations whose refuge was within the states and whose 

local capital and clientele resisted blandishments to serve 

postal schedules. Nonetheless, they had been brought to 

serve postal design (Figure 8). Postal reform regularized 

railroad contract protocol.

What did the system look like in the period after postal 

reform? In 1860, in addition to the statistics by state, the 

modes are now designated: “not specified”—which are the 

Star Routes; “in coach;” “in steamboat;” and “by railroad.”33 Beginning in 1852, not only are statistics given 

for the length of postal routes but also their allocation to 

the various modes of transportation, by state—modal frequencies that provide a nuanced view of postal design. 

In 1860 the south and west show a ‘primitive’ organization of the posts, represented by a frequency of 

about 1.5 mails per week, dominated by the Star Routes 

which serve most of their post route miles. In New York 

and New England, the average weekly transportation 

frequency is 6.1, almost double the modal frequency of 

coaching system-wide.

Railroads now constitute the majority of transportation dollars and miles of transportation by mode, averaging almost ten trips per week, but operate only the trunk 

lines on not a very high proportion of miles of routes 

served. In some cases, as in Ohio and Illinois where there 

are practically no miles of transportation by rail or steamboat, the coach miles are high with respect to the unspecified modes. In Massachusetts, however, the majority of the 

post route miles are by railroad. 

Fifteen years after postal reform, thirty years after 

Johnson’s report, and after sixty years of networking, 

the postal system is still fitted to the exigent means of 

transportation.

Conclusion

What happened to Johnson at that 1835 Democratic 

convention in Baltimore? Well, he was nominated to the 

Jacksonian ticket of Martin Van Buren. He faced competition from three other candidates in the 1836 election and 

did not receive a majority of the electoral college votes—

so that he was our nation’s first, and only, vice president to 

have been elected by the senate. He was also the first vicepresidential candidate to use broad-based and inventive 

canvassing—elevating ‘pamphleteering’ to a new level. He 

was wise to capitalize on the national exposure of his role 

in defending Sunday Mails.
1 1 4 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

Figure 7. Geographic distribution of postal transportation facilities in 1832. Assistant Postmaster General Hobbie’s statistics for the 1832 annual report. From the collection of the authors.
n u m b e r 5 5 • 1 1 5

Sunday post office hours, of course, did disappear, beginning in 1910.34 The Distributing Post Office system disappeared, beginning in 1859 (replaced, during the Civil War, 

by Railway Post Office distribution). But the ‘expediency’ 

argument—that a postal system needed to grow according 

to its own internal laws of transportation arrangements—

held, and accommodated many postal reforms. 

Notes

1. See Richard R. John, “The Invasion of the Sacred”, a 

chapter in Spreading the News: The American Postal System 

from Franklin to Morse, Harvard University Press 1995; and 

Wayne E. Fuller, Morality and the Mail in Nineteenth-Century 

America, University of Illinois Press 2003, chapters 1, 2, 3.

2. When President Andrew Jackson elevated the position of 

postmaster general to a cabinet post after his 1828 election, political clout increased—see Dorothy Ganfield Fowler, The Cabinet Politician, Columbia University 1943.

3. Few contemporaries believed Johnson actually wrote 

his reports. Since they show such a nuanced appreciation of the 

postal system, Johnson’s friend Amos Kendall was suspected, although Leland Winfield Meyer’s biography The Life and Times 

of Col. Richard Mentor Johnson of Kentucky (Columbia University 1932) gamely claimed Johnson was clever enough to have 

been the sole author. William Stickney’s 1872 Autobiography 

of Amos Kendall (New York 1872), however, had revealed that 

Kendall believed the writing “doubtless attributable” to the Baptist preacher and postal clerk Obadiah Brown with whom Johnson boarded in Washington.

4. We have recorded six different versions of Johnson’s Sunday Mails report printed on either muslin or silk—to be used as 

neckscarves, handkerchiefs, or attached to walking sticks, buggy 

whips, etc. Given the address changes of Henry Bowen (see the 

compilation in Patricia Fenn and Alfred P. Malpa, Rewards of 

Merit, Ephemera Society 1994), the printer of the four versions 

of the 1830 report, it is likely that two different layouts on muslin were produced in 1830 at the very beginning of Johnson’s 

campaign to run in the election of 1832, and then a second muslin version with the same typesetting as one of the above but 

Figure 8. 1860 Postal transportation facilities—the national system before the rupture of war. Chart from 1860 annual report. From the 

collection of the authors.
1 1 6 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

with a different heading and a note that it would be “sold by 

David Kimball” was produced for the 1836 election campaign. 

It is our belief that all three silk versions, one by Bowen with the 

cut of a mail coach, and two by Baltimore printers (one with the 

same cut), were produced specifically for the 1835 convention 

in Baltimore.

5. Joel H. Silbey in The American Party Battle: Election 

Campaign Pamphlets 1826–1876 (Harvard 1999) explained: 

“Pamphlets were a major part of a panoply of campaign documents, from single-page broadsheets and handbills to elaborately 

compiled textbooks and campaign biographies, that the parties 

put out each year, and were at the center of the parties’ mobilizing efforts.” Page xii.

6. Sunday Mails. Mr. Johnson’s Report on the Transportation of the Mail on Sunday. Stereotype Edition. Boston: published 

by J. Q. Adams, Investigator Office. 1834. 12 pages 3.25 × 5.5 

inches, sewn. The Investigator was a weekly periodical edited by 

Abner Kneeland dedicated to the “development and promotion 

of universal mental liberty.” Representative and former President 

John Quincy Adams was occasionally plagued with the mistaken 

identification with the Boston printer.

7. William Emmons, Authentic Biography of Col. Richard M. Johnson, N. Y. 1833

8. “In 1833 he was elected the first president of the newly 

formed federation of craft unions of the city of New York, the 

General Trades’ Union . . . , and he edited a paper, the National 

Trades’ Union, which became its official organ.” Dictionary of 

American Biography.

9. Ely Moore “Tribute to Col. Richard M. Johnson. Author 

of the Sunday Mail Reports adopted by Congress in 1829 and 

1830”, from a speech at Masonic Hall, New York, March 13, 

1833, published in Emmons biography. 

10. The editor of the Evangelical Magazine and Gospel 

Advocate, Utica, January 2, 1830 (who continued support for 

Johnson’s view throughout the year), reported that Johnson’s 

report had the backing of the Baptists in Kentucky specifically 

because “an association of civil and ecclesiastical power or an 

union of Church and State, [is] one of the greatest calamities 

which could befall our country . . .” Another popular weekly 

from New York City, The Cabinet of Instruction, Literature and 

Amusement, wished to remain neutral on the topic, but clearly 

leaned towards Johnson’s views, giving in its March 27, 1830, 

issue front page coverage to a synopsis of the report. Editor H. 

R. Piercy saw Sunday Mails as “the preservation of what may 

justly be esteemed one of the withes composing the bond of our 

national union; and a guarantee for the quickest possible conveyance of messages and information, often important to religion 

and the church, as well as to secular concerns.”

11. “Report of the Postmaster General December 1, 1845” 

Doc. 2, pp 850–893. Appendix 6. In responding to questions 

about route 1025: “The lowest class of routes, the horseback 

routes, are advertised without any designation of the mode of 

conveyance, and the bids are usually made in the same way. 

There are specific bids in four-horse coaches, and in two-horse 

coaches; also in one-horse vehicles. But the novel species of bids, 

peculiar to the present lettings and the new law, are those which 

specify no mode of service, but seem to imply more than horse 

bids, by engaging to convey the mail with certainty, celerity, and 

security. They are designated on the books in a particular way, 

and are hence called, for brevity’s sake, star bids.” The concept 

of Star Routes has been erroneously attributed to an earlier period, as in Hugh V. Feldman U.S. Contract Mail Routes by Water 

(Star Routes 1824–1875), understandable because the National 

Archives gave an anachronistic retroactive classification to the 

ledgers: “Registers for Star Route Contracts 1814–1960” (Vol. 

021 of 326, Entry 125.)

12. The PMG was responsible for adjusting “the degree and 

mode of service—to regulate the connections between routes, 

so as to effect a speedy intercommunication between the several parts of the country—to secure contracts for the faithful 

and punctual performance of the service—to settle questions 

which constantly arise, involving public and private interests to 

the amount of some millions of dollars each year—to meet the 

urgent demands of the public for mail accommodations, which 

the growth of the country and its rapidly increasing population 

require.” The PMG report for 1846 reiterated the savings already incurred using the new protocols for the next round of 

four-year contract lettings. Cave Johnson emphasized the freeing 

up of competition now that contractors no longer had to purchase their predecessor’s equipment. Report of the Postmaster 

General, December 7, 1846, Doc. 1, pp 679–704.

13. Abraham Bradley was first assistant postmaster general 

from 1793 until ousted by Jackson after the 1828 election. His 

letter defending the apparent excesses of the contracts entered 

into by Postmaster General William T. Barry (but critical of other 

aspects, such as failure to implement service that was contracted 

for on certain routes) was published in the Independent Chronicle and Boston Patriot, 31 August 1831, page 2.

14. See William Addison Blakely, American State Papers 

Bearing on Sunday Legislation, D. C. 1911.

15. Report of the Committee of The Senate of the United 

States, appointed March 12, 1802, on the subject of Transporting the Mail of the United States. March 30, 1802. 35 pp. This 

report outlines the cost of the government stage line between 

Philadelphia and Baltimore that started in 1799 and projects the 

cost of extending such. Stage lines were particularly lacking in 

the southern states.

16. See Oliver W. Holmes, “Shall stagecoaches Carry the 

Mail?” Originally published 1963, reprinted in A Tribute to 

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Washington D. C. 1972. Holmes quotes 

Charles Pinckney’s 1786 remarks on establishing a line of stages 

in the South: “the intention of Congress in having the mails 

transported by stage carriages, was not only to render their conveyance more certain and secure, but by encouraging the establishment of stages to make the intercourse between the different 

parts of the Union less difficult and expensive than formerly.” 

Holmes adds: “Here was the first mention of a new and powerful motive impelling Congress to the support of the mail stages, 
n u m b e r 5 5 • 1 1 7

a motive that in later periods was to operate in the subsidizing 

through the post office of other modes of transportation notably 

the merchant marine and commercial air lines.” p. 14.

17. John, page 74. See, also, Daniel Y. Meschter “The Postmasters General of the United States IIIa. Joseph Habersham 

and the Mail Distributing System,” La Posta, January 2004, pp 

31–38. Washington Pa. was one of the original thirty-one distributing offices. The PMG report for 1859, in explaining why the 

distribution offices were being disbanded, reviewed their history: 

“Offices of this description were formerly a very valuable, and, 

in fact, indispensable element in the postal system of the country, 

owing to its vast extent, and the rapidity with which population 

spread into new districts, causing cities, towns, and villages to 

struggle for existence with the forest and prairie, and rendering 

it impossible to keep pace with the names and locations of the 

numberless new offices demanded by the habits of a people accustomed to the constant interchange of thought and intelligence. 

Some offices therefore, had to be designated as the receptacles of 

correspondence from a section of contiguous country, and for remailing and sending it in packages to others of similar functions, 

more or less distant, thence to be distributed to its destination. In 

this manner these offices situated in the east and west, the north 

and south, mutually acted upon each other, and performed useful service. This was when the mails were carried in stages and 

other vehicles, and when pauses were necessarily made for the 

refreshment of passengers and the change of animals, allowing at 

the same time of ‘distribution’ at the post office.”

18. “An Act, Regulating the Post-­Office Establishment” section 9, passed April 30, 1810. 

19. The Post Office Law, with Instructions and Forms, published for The Regulation of the Post-­Office. “At post offices 

where the mail arrives on Sunday, the office is to be kept open 

for the delivery of letters, &c. for one hour after the arrival and 

assorting of the mail; but in case that would interfere with the 

hours of public worship, then the office is to be kept open for 

one hour after the usual time of dissolving the meetings for that 

purpose.”

20. Report Of the Select Committee, to which was referred 

sundry petitions, remonstrating against the practice of transporting and opening the mails on the Sabbath, and praying a discontinuance thereof. March 1, 1817. Rep. 3, 9 pp. “. . . in forming 

arrangements, and fixing times for the arrivals and departures of 

the mails on the lesser and cross routes, care is taken to avoid the 

transport of the mail on the Sabbath, except where the omission 

to transport on that day would break chains of communications, 

producing great delays to public and private intercourse; and it is 

the mutual desire of the contractor and the department to avoid 

running the mail on the Sabbath.”

21. Report of the Committee to whom was referred the petitions of Numerous citizens of the states of New Hampshire, 

Massachusetts, Connecticut, North Carolina, and Ohio, praying the Congress to prohibit the transportation and opening of 

the mail on the Sabbath. January 27, 1815. Washington City: 

printed by Roger C. Weightman, 1815. 4pp. The Committee on 

Post Offices and Post Roads noted the practice of carrying mails 

daily on the great roads while trying to avoid Sunday on the 

lesser routes. Postmasters, however, were only required to open 

their offices and distribute the mail received, not to accept money 

or perform other functions. Letter datelined New York 20 April 

1817: “I owe you an apology for writing on Sunday, which is the 

reason I cannot pay the postage.” J. Warren Brackett to William 

Meredith in Philadelphia [authors’ collection].

22. Report of the committee on the Post-Office and PostRoads, to whom was referred the memorial of the “American 

Bible Society.” January 25, 1817. In denying a request for a free 

frank: “It has hitherto been (except during the late war,) and 

the committee believe will continue to be, the policy of the government to apply all the revenue accruing from postages to the 

extension of post-routes . . .” p. 2.

23. Table of Post Offices in the United States, with the distances from Washington City, and the names of the postmasters.

(Washington 1811) page 69. Two earlier compilations of similar 

material are included in American State Papers, No. 10 at page 

28 includes the data to 1803, and No. 21 at page 40 to 1807.

24. American State Papers, Class VII. Post Office Department. (Washington 1834), No. 56, pp 120–136, Postmaster General McLean January 14, 1825: “A complete revision of all the 

mail routes in the Union is believed to be indispensable; and, 

though a work of great labor, will be accomplished, it is hoped, 

before the next session of Congress.”

25. See the chapter “Yorker Benevolence” in Whitney R. 

Cross The Burned-Over District: The Social and Intellectual 

History of Enthusiastic Religion in Western New York, 1800–

1850, Cornell 1950.

26. Their fastest run between Buffalo and Albany was reported September 10, 1828—45 hours and 14 minutes including 

stops. See a full description of these stage line wars, Richard F. 

Palmer, The “Old Line Mail”: Stagecoach Days in Upstate New 

York, 1977.

27. A letter to the editor of the Evangelical Magazine and 

Gospel Advocate, Utica, Saturday, April 10, 1830, page 119, reported the shocking discovery that the Pioneer “Pious Line” was 

operating in Albany and Greenbush on successive Sundays. The 

editor in the September 25th issue, page 309, noted the discontinuance of the Pioneer line of boats and the selling out to the 

Old Line of the Western route for lack of profitability.

28. Henry O’Reilly, Sketches of Rochester; with incidental 

notices of Western New-York, Rochester 1838, admits that the 

backers of the Pioneer Line were financially ruined by the enterprise but believed that, in moral terms, it had positively affected 

religious observance and had led directly to the outpouring of 

memorials to Congress against Sunday Mails. He refers to Lyman 

Beecher’s Review of Senator Johnson’s Report on Sabbath Mails 

having been republished in Rochester and “sent gratuitously 

to all parts of the land.” Pages 303–304. Isaac Kramnick and 

Robert Laurence Moore, The Godless Constitution, New York, 

1996, page 135 claim 100,000 copies were distributed by the 

organization formed in Rochester by Beecher and Josiah Bissel 
1 1 8 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

of the Pioneer Line, the General Union for the Promotion of the 

Christian Sabbath. Our suspicion is that these numbers refer to 

a republication in O’Reilly’s newspaper which he could freely 

distribute.

29. For a digest of geographic distribution of these memorials, a sampling of their content, and a list of selected signatories 

with their occupations, see An Account of Memorials Presented 

to Congress During its Last Session, by Numerous Friends of 

Their Country and its Institutions; praying that the mails may not 

be transported, nor post-offices kept open, on the Sabbath, New 

York May, 1829. Authors’ copy includes on the wraps announcement of its availability at the bookstores of Jonathan Leavitt, 182 

Broadway, and John P. Haven, 142 Nassau Street. 32 pp.

30. Printed circular datelined New-­York January 1st, 1829. 

Signed by ten men, mailed “free” to Hon. Jonathan Harvey, Representative from New Hampshire.

31. Reprinted in Niles’ Weekly Register. Third series. No. 

25-Vol. XL, Baltimore, Feb. 14, 1829, page 405.

32. From the Annual Report of the Postmaster General, 

compiled in American State Papers. Class VII. Post Office Department. (Washington 1834), No. 121, page 351.

33. Report of the Postmaster General, December 1, 1860. 

Table A, pages 489–490.

34. Robert Dalton Harris “Sunday Post Offices”, P.S. A 

Quarterly Journal of Postal History, No. 1, February 1977.

Bibliography

American Council of Learned Societies. Concise Dictionary of 

American Biography. New York: Scribner, 1997.

An Account of Memorials Presented to Congress During its Last 

Session, by Numerous Friends of Their Country and its Institutions; Praying that the Mails May Not be Transported, 

nor Post-Offices Kept Open, on the Sabbath. New York: 

May 1829.

Blakely, William Addison. American State Papers Bearing on 

Sunday Legislation. Washington. D. C.: Religious Liberty 

Association, 1911.

Bradley, Abraham. “Letter.” Independent Chronicle and Boston 

Patriot, 31 August 1831, p. 2.

Cross, Whitney R. The Burned-Over District: The Social and Intellectual History of Enthusiastic Religion in Western New 

York, 1800–1850. Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell University, 1950.

Emmons, William B. Authentic Biography of Colonel Richard M. Johnson, of Kentucky. New York: H. Mason, 1833.

Feldman, Hugh V. U.S. Contract Mail Routes by Water (Star 

Routes 1824–1875): A History of the U.S. Post Office Department’s Contracts Made with Independent Contractors 

for the Carriage of the Mails by Water within the United 

States of America from the Inception of Such Contracts in 

1824 to 1875. Chicago: Collectors Club of Chicago, 2008.

Fenn, Patricia, and Alfred P. Malpa. Rewards of Merit: Tokens of 

a Child’s Progress and a Teacher’s Esteem As an Enduring 

Aspect of American Religious and Secular Education. Schoharie, N. Y.: Ephemera Society of America, 1994.

Fowler, Dorothy Ganfield. The Cabinet Politician: The Postmasters General, 1829–1909. New York: Columbia University 

Press, 1943.

Fuller, Wayne E. Morality and the Mail in Nineteenth Century 

America. Champaign, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 2003.

Harris, Robert Dalton. “Sunday Post Offices.” P. S. A Quarterly 

Journal of Postal History, 1(February 1977). 

Holmes, Oliver W. Shall Stagecoaches Carry the Mail? Washington, 1972.

John, Richard R. “The Invasion of the Sacred.” In Spreading 

the News: The American Postal System from Franklin to 

Morse. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995.

Kendall, Amos. Autobiography of Amos Kendall, ed. William 

Stickney. Boston: Lee and Shepard, 1872.

Kramnick, Isaac, and R. Laurence Moore. The Godless Constitution: The Case against Religious Correctness. New York: 

W. W. Norton. 1996.

McLean, John. American State Papers, Class VII. Post Office 

Department. No. 56. Washington D. C.: 1834.

Meschter, Daniel Y. “The Postmasters General of the United 

States Illa. Joseph Habersham and the Mail Distributing 

System.” La Posta, January 2004:31–38. 

Meyer, Leland Winfield. The Life and Times of Colonel Richard 

Mentor Johnson of Kentucky. New York: Columbia University, 1932.

O’Reilly, Henry. Sketches of Rochester: With Incidental Notices of 

Western New-York. Rochester, N. Y.: William Alling, 1838.

Palmer, Richard F. The “Old Line Mail”: Stagecoach Days in 

Upstate New York. Lakemont, N. Y.: North Country Books, 

1977.

“Registers for Star Route Contracts 1814–1960.” Volume 021 

of 326, Entry 125. College Park, Md.: National Archives 

and Records Administration. 

Silbey, Joel H. The American Party Battle: Election Campaign 

Pamphlets 1826–1876. Cambridge: Harvard University 

Press, 1999.

Sunday Mails. Mr. Johnson’s Report on the Transportation of the 

Mail on Sunday. Stereotype Edition. Boston: J.Q. Adams, 

Investigator Office. 1834.

U.S. Congress. An Act, Regulating the Post-Office Establishment. 11th Congress, 2nd Session. Enacted 30 April 1810.

U.S. Congress. House. Report of the Select Committee to which 

was Referred Sundry Petitions Remonstrating against the 

Practice of Transporting and Opening the Mails on the 

Sabbath, and Praying a Discontinuance Thereof. Report 3. 

1 March 1817.

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Post Offices and Post 

Roads. Report of the Committee on the Post-Office and 

Post-Roads to whom Was Referred the Memorial of the 

American Bible Society.25 January 1817.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Report of the Committee of The Senate of 

the United States, appointed March 12, 1802, on the sub-
n u m b e r 5 5 • 1 1 9

ject of Transporting the Mail of the United States. 30 March 

1802.

———. Report of The Committee to whom Was Referred the 

Petitions of Numerous Citizens of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, North Carolina, and 

Ohio, Praying the Congress to Prohibit the Transportation 

and Opening of the Mail on the Sabbath. January 27, 1815. 

Washington D. C.: Roger C. Weightman, 1815.

United States Post Office Department. The Post Office Law, 

with Instructions and Forms, Published for the Regulation 

of the Post-Office. Washington D. C.: General Post-­Office, 

1817.

———. Report of the Postmaster General, December 1, 1845. 

Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1845.

———. Report of the Postmaster General, December 1, 1846. 

Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1846.

———. Table of Post Offices in the United States, with the Distances from Washington City, and the Names of the Postmasters. Washington D. C.: Post-Master General, 1811.

Although we know Lewis Carroll as the creator of Alice’s Adventures in 

Wonderland (1865), Carroll (née Charles Lutwidge Dodgson) immersed 

himself in the world of letter writing and postal ephemera. An avid letter writer,1

 Carroll is also author of a letter-writing manual, Eight or Nine Wise 

Words About Letter-Writing (1890), and inventor of a postage stamp case marketed with it. His fascination with letter-writing culture allowed his Mad Hatter 

in Alice in Wonderland to stump an already befuddled Alice with the riddle, 

“‘Why is a raven like a writing-desk?’”2 Although ravens were denizens of the 

Tower of London long before the creation of the Penny Black, we can trace the 

upsurge of writing desks, letter-writing manuals, illustrated envelopes, ink wells, 

pens, and a whole variety of postal products to the historical moment in Victorian Britain when the Penny Post and the prepaid, adhesive postage stamp 

were born (1839–1840). On January 10, 1840, affordable mail extended across 

England; a letter weighing up to one-half ounce could travel anywhere in the UK 

for only a penny. With this revolutionary change in communications came postal 

products, a new field of industry. Cheap postage and the introduction of postage stamps led to new jobs, hobbies—timbromania, now called philately—and 

innovative postal practices as well as a proliferation of telling material objects. 

Writing desks, pictorial envelopes, and valentines—the focus of this essay—grew 

in variety and popularity; when viewed as cultural objects, these collectible commodities help us to reconstruct aspects of the Victorian British way of life. 

The Rise of the Penny Post

We can trace the increase in postal ephemera to the years witnessing the rise 

of the Penny Post, 1837–1840. Prior to postal reform, letter writing, the only 

way to communicate with a distant audience, was a luxury mostly afforded 

by the rich. Two landmarks frame postal reform in nineteenth-century Britain. 

In 1837, Rowland Hill published multiple editions of a landmark postal reform pamphlet called Post Office Reform: Its Importance and Practicability, 

arguing why the British needed postal reform.3 That same year, Queen Victoria 

“Why Is a Raven Like a Writing Desk?” 

Post Office Reform, Collectible 

Commodities, and Victorian Culture

Catherine J. Golden
1 2 2 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

came to the throne. One of the first things she did as queen 

was to appoint a Select Committee on Postage, chaired 

by postal reformer Robert Wallace, MP, and charged to 

look into the condition of the post with a view towards 

postal rate reduction. Victoria, on August 17, 1839, gave 

royal assent to the Postage Duties Bill and, in 1840, ushered in Uniform Penny Postage. Instrumental to this legislation were widely publicized, arguably exaggerated tales 

about economic hardship and depravities resulting from 

high postage, which appeared in Hill’s pamphlet as well 

as The Post Circular, a newspaper which today we would 

call a postal reform “propaganda sheet.”4 The Victorians 

also rallied for and welcomed Uniform Penny Postage as 

a means to improve economics, morality, science, employment, and education. Visions of young women saved from 

becoming fallen women, sober and literate soldiers, contented mill workers no longer interested in striking, and 

home control—these imagined situations became aligned 

with affordable postage and moved the early Victorians, 

still shaken by the example of the French Revolution, to 

support a reform that had widespread social, political, and 

economic implications. 

Although we now humorously refer to posted letters 

as “snail mail,” when the postage stamp first appeared, 

it was as revolutionary as e-mail, text messages, tweets, 

and blogs are to us today. By 1860, Victorians of all social classes rushed to their post offices to make the last 

daily posting, as George Elgar Hicks captures in his monumental narrative painting of St. Martin’s-le-Grand, London entitled The General Post Office, One Minute to Six

(1860). The Penny Post transformed the mail from an expensive tax for revenue to a civic service for “the peer to 

the peasant.”5

 The abolition of franks—postmarks granting free carriage of mail—for Members of Parliament and 

the Queen chipped away at England’s rigid class system. 

In turn, the Penny Post led to an unprecedented boom in 

letter writing and became a vehicle for education, kinship, 

friendship, and commerce (Figure 1).

Prepayment came via two inventions attributed to 

Rowland Hill: a postage stamp called the Penny Black, 

Figure 1. Penny Black, posted May 6, 1840. From the collection of James Grimwood-Taylor, M.A., 

F.R.P.S.L. 
n u m b e r 5 5 • 1 2 3

and prepaid postal stationery (Mulready letter sheets and 

envelopes), which Hill believed would be more popular 

for personal letters than stamps—although the Victorian 

public proved him wrong. As Douglas Muir aptly notes, 

“Derision was the common response to the Mulready design. It was caricatured in words and imitative drawings.”6

Some Victorians objected to the allegorical-pictorialhistorical design of Britannia overseeing a glorious postal 

outreach extending to all four corners of the globe while 

others, for example, opposed it for practical reasons—the 

design left little space for an address. Moreover, as soon 

as the Mulready design appeared, caricaturists lampooned 

it. The Victorian public, which refused to purchase the 

officially commissioned design, bought in droves caricature envelopes ridiculing the Irish (a dig at the Irish-born

academy-trained artist and designer William Mulready) as 

well as the monarchy, the Opium Wars, social practices, 

and major politicians of the day.7

 The Penny Black, in 

contrast, won instant success. Demand for stamps far exceeded the number of available postage stamps when they 

first appeared in May 1840.8 The stamp and the scheme 

of prepaid, affordable, uniform postage quickly became a 

model for other nations; the United States, for example, 

issued its first postage stamps in 1847, featuring George 

Washington on the ten-cent stamp and Benjamin Franklin 

on the five-cent stamp.9

In Hill’s heyday, Punch, the Victorian Londoner’s 

New Yorker, dubbed the hallowed postal reformer “Sir 

Rowland Le Grand,” and Queen Victoria knighted him 

in 1860.10 Today Rowland Hill is no longer a household 

name, even in Britain. On a January 2008 visit to the National Portrait Gallery in London, I sadly discovered that 

Hill’s portrait has been relegated to storage.11 Nonetheless, Hill’s legacy resonates today. The system he designed 

brought the Victorians postal blessings—it facilitated 

family ties, promoted business, and spread information 

to an ever-widening postal “network” that anticipates 

computer-mediated communication—but it also became 

a tool for blackmail, unsolicited mass mailings, and junk 

mail, problems that remain with us today.12

Victorian Commodity Culture

The Victorians manufactured and imported a range of 

materials for consumption, including fiction, food, drink, 

clothing, and—of importance to this essay—postal ephemera. In fact, modern day consumerism has its roots in the 

Victorian age of production and consumption. Britain was 

the undisputed leader of the Industrial Revolution, which 

led to an increase in speed of work and production, granting opportunities for leisure, choice, shopping, and collecting a host of Victorian things, such as postage stamps. 

The Great Exhibition of 1851, the first ever world’s fair, 

held at the Crystal Palace in London, showcased technological, economic, and military achievements and, in turn, 

created a greater demand for consumer products. Once 

connected with sin and indulgence, consumerism became a form of self-expression—identity intertwined with 

books readers chose for their libraries, foods people ate, 

fashions they wore, and, post-1840, goods they bought 

for daily life, including correspondence. Traveling inkwells, decorative stamp boxes, steel-nibbed pens, colorful stationery, envelopes with innovative gummed flaps, 

an envelope-folding machine, envelope cases, and writing 

desks of various styles appear in the Official Descriptive 

and Illustrated Catalogue of the Great Exhibition of 1851 

among exhibitions of art and architecture, handicrafts, 

geological displays, steel-making equipment, and then innovative appliances. Did the Victorians anticipate that in 

passing Uniform Penny Postage, they would foster a new 

field of industry? (Figure 2)

Over two decades ago, Asa Briggs established the importance of commodities as “emissaries”13 of nineteenthcentury culture in a now seminal work entitled Victorian 

Things. Setting a precedent for critical inquiry of household goods, song lyrics, museum artifacts, and postage stamps, Briggs calls attention to things Victorians 

“designed, named, made, advertised, bought and sold, 

listed, counted, collected, gave to others, threw away or 

bequeathed.”14 Writing desks, pictorial envelopes, and 

valentines quintessentially are, to recall Briggs’s terms, 

“emissaries” of culture and civilization, transmitting information about aesthetics, gender, social class, and Empire. 

These collectible commodities tell us what the Victorians 

treasured and commemorated and carry opinions on current events, customs, humor, prejudices, and preferences. 

Writing Desks from the Inside Out

Lewis Carroll’s writing-desk riddle, which appears in 

one of literature’s most famous tea party scenes, directs 

our attention to the growing popularity of an item demanded by and created for women and men of the middle 

and upper classes. Carroll’s own postal products piggybacked on the popularity of his enduring Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. Different from other manuals on the 

market, Eight or Nine Wise Words About Letter-Writing

seems, in the words of Carroll’s biographer Morton 
1 2 4 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

Cohen, “practical, sensible, and tongue-in-cheek.”15 Carroll advises the writer to reread a letter before answering 

it; to affix the stamp and address the envelope before writing the letter to avoid the “wildly-scrawled signature—the 

hastily-fastened envelope, which comes open in the post—

the address, a mere hieroglyphic”; to write legibly; to 

avoid extensive apologies for not writing sooner; to use a 

second sheet of paper rather than to “cross”—“Remember 

the old proverb ‘Cross-writing makes cross reading’”; and 

so on. Carroll even suggests where to store the postage 

stamp case: “this is meant to haunt your envelope-case, or 

wherever you keep your writing-materials.”16 “Curiouser 

and curiouser,” why didn’t Carroll designate “writing 

desk” as the logical depository for his postage stamp case 

given his riddle and the writing desk’s popularity among 

the Victorians? 

Beginning in the 1830s, writing desks came within 

economic reach of members of an increasingly literate middle class. Moreover, the grand display of writing products at the Great Exhibition of 1851 increased 

middle-class demand for affordable desks. The Victorians 

found their writing desks indispensable for storing writing 

materials; valuables, including money and jewelry; vital 

documents, such as passports and wills; and private correspondence, such as billets-doux. The writing desk—also 

called a writing box, lap desk, writing slope, dispatch box 

or case, portable or traveling writing desk, or simply a box 

or a desk—likely grew out of the medieval lectern17 and 

paved the way for subsequent innovations in writing that 

have replaced it: the brief case, the laptop, the Palm Pilot, 

the BlackBerry, and the iPhone. 

There were four types of writing desks—the most 

basic being a box with a sloping lid, hinged at either top 

or bottom.18 The desk has a writing slope; a place for stationery, blotting paper, envelopes, sealing wax, and small 

writing manuals; a pen rest for quill pens or steel nib pens 

(as the century progressed); a stamp compartment (used 

for wafers before the invention of stamps); one or two 

ink bottles (one likely for pounce, a chalky substance to 

blot ink, commonly used before the invention of blotting 

paper); and a key lock. Elaborate desks contain multiple 

storage compartments,19 and some fancy boxes are combination desks—writing desk/work boxes and writing desk/

dressing cases.

Writing desks—which we might aptly call Victorian 

laptops—tell us about privacy, security, and portability at 

Figure 2. Postal ephemera. From the collection of Catherine J. Golden. 
n u m b e r 5 5 • 1 2 5

a time when heating was inefficient, houses were not routinely electrified, and people made long visits to friends and 

family lasting weeks and months. Desks typically fit into 

one’s luggage, making them popular for travel. The portability and size of the writing desk facilitated comfortable 

writing conditions and confidentiality since a writer could 

move it to be close to a good light source and a warm fire 

or into a private study to write undisturbed (Figure 3).

We can determine the gender and social class of a 

desk’s owner by looking at its size, raw materials, and degree of decoration. A man’s writing desk is large enough 

to be useful (typical dimensions are fourteen inches by ten 

inches by six inches). Manufacturers and designers made 

gentlemen’s desks of mahogany, walnut, ash, or rosewood, 

with superior veneers of good grain, color, and patina, 

leather-lined slopes, and brass bindings on the corners 

and edges. In contrast, affordable commercial desks are 

more commonly of oak or pine. The Victorian gentleman 

favored clean lines, quality materials, simple but tasteful 

decoration, and, in writing desks that were not industrial, 

understated elegance. In contrast, ladies’ desks appear 

smaller and daintier than gentlemen’s desks (e.g. ten inches 

by eight inches by three inches) and carry knowledge of the 

growing Victorian fancy goods trade. Slopes have silk or 

velvet linings; lids contain mosaic and marquetry inlays, 

engraving, embossing, painting, and piercing. Expensive 

desks feature elaborate designs of fruits, flowers, birds, 

hearts, and topographical views and are exquisitely ornamented with pearls, gold, silver, precious gems, seashells, 

tortoiseshell, and china. The lady’s desk still had to be useful for teaching, household accounts, correspondence, and, 

in some cases, novel writing: Jane Austen’s father gave her 

a writing desk filled with stationery to encourage her talent;20 the Brontë sisters composed their memorable novels 

on writing slopes on display in the Brontë Parsonage Museum in the Yorkshire town of Haworth (Figure 4). 

Some desks contain hidden chambers, called secret 

drawers. These were places to safeguard bank notes, 

billets-doux, and jewels that a wife might not wish her 

husband to know about—William Thackeray’s infamous 

Becky Sharp in Vanity Fair (1848) uses her writing desk 

for that very purpose. While the outside of a desk teaches 

us about aesthetics, gender, and social class, the inside, including the key lock and hidden drawers, reveals how the 

writing desk functioned as a transportable, private space 

to safeguard among other things the clandestine life of its 

Victorian owner. 

Popular Pictorial Envelopes

With the rise of the postage stamp came a surge in 

envelope production. Victorians, who rushed in record 

numbers to attend the Great Exhibition of 1851, marveled 

Figure 3. Victorian writing desk and laptop. From the collection of Catherine J. Golden. 
1 2 6 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

over Edwin Hill’s and Warren De La Rue’s envelopefolding machine, invented in 1845 by Edwin Hill, Rowland Hill’s brother; fans of this “cutting-edge” Victorian 

technological wonder include Queen Victoria. With the 

rise of envelope production came an increase in pictorial 

envelopes. Briggs suggests in Victorian Things that “the 

failure of the Mulready envelopes may have given an impetus to the popularity of other envelopes bearing views 

of places and sketches of people and things.”21 The “failure” of the Mulready gave rise to Mulready caricatures, 

which, as satires of Victorian politics and culture, in turn, 

sparked the popularity of a whole range of pictorial envelopes that record pressing social and political reforms 

as well as activities from daily Victorian life. Today a 

Victorian time traveler might be surprised to find people 

standing on street corners, holding protest signs and conducting rallies; this same Victorian, over 150 years ago, 

might have expressed his or her views by purchasing and 

posting pictorial envelopes. Popular pictorial envelopes, a 

ready means of advertising or what we would now refer 

to as “propaganda,” advocated, for example, affordable 

transatlantic postage, peace, abolition, brotherhood, vegetarianism, and temperance. 

One mid-century temperance envelope shows scenes 

of inebriation in the home, pub, and street and includes the 

caption in capital letters: “INTOXICATING DRINKS—

ARE THE BANE & CURSE OF SOCIETY.” Still others 

preach the positive side of abstinence by flanking the Goddess of Temperance with flag-bearing delegates from Europe, Asia, Africa, and America, all paying her homage.22

Pictorial envelopes also promoted Overseas Penny Postage, a movement aligned with peace and brotherhood and 

spearheaded by Elihu Burritt, United States consular agent 

in Birmingham. One such 1849 envelope designed, engraved, and produced by J. Valentine of Dundee includes 

Mercury in a winged cap positioned above an overseas 

vessel and contains the words “Ocean Postage.” Clasped 

hands of individuals of different races join with a dove 

holding an olive branch and transportation symbols: a 

railway train, a canal boat, and mail packets. Scrolls unfurling along the top and bottom of the design display 

boldly in capital letters, “BRITAIN! FROM THEE THE 

WORLD EXPECTS AN OCEAN PENNY POSTAGE—

TO MAKE HER CHILDREN ONE FRATERNITY.”23

(Figure 5)

While such didactic pictorial envelopes sermonize, 

others simply entertain. Scenic or tourist envelopes showcase picturesque Victorian locales—the rural landscape, 

Oxford, Windsor Castle, and Stirling Castle, for instance. 

Beginning in 1840, Richard and James Doyle created 

Figure 4. Victorian gentleman’s mahogany writing desk and woman’s papier-mâché writing desk. From the collection of Catherine J. Golden. 
n u m b e r 5 5 • 1 2 7

Fores’s Comic Envelopes, offering a comical view of daily 

Victorian activities—musical soirées, dancing, hunting, 

horse racing, shooting, courting, and Christmas celebrations.24 Envelope designs also marked important celebrations, such as the marriage of Victoria and Albert (1840), 

the Great Exhibition of 1851, and much later, in 1890, 

the jubilee of uniform inland penny postage. Looking at 

pictorial envelopes today, we glean what picturesque sites 

fascinated the Victorians, the causes they supported, the 

social activities in which they participated, the milestones 

they celebrated, and what they found humorous. 

The Iconography of 

Victorian Valentines

Legend has it that valentines as we know them today 

date to the fifteenth century in England—Charles, the 

duke of Orleans, allegedly sent a valentine to his wife in 

1415 while held prisoner in the Tower of London—but 

valentines greatly increased after the coming of Uniform 

Penny Postage. In 1841, just one year after postal reform, 

Victorians sent more than 400,000 valentines throughout 

England; by 1871, three times that number passed through 

the London post alone.25 Today we typically purchase a 

ready-made valentine in a store, but in the Victorian era, 

stationer’s shops sold an array of materials for creating 

original valentines: colored and gilt papers and cards; 

paper cupids and hearts; bows and ribbons; printed verses 

and mottoes; appliqués of lace, feather, shell, and gold 

and silver foil. The many types of valentines offer insight 

into Victorian conceptions of humor, love, and national 

identity. 

Very popular were mechanical valentines that open to 

reveal a hidden message or can be manipulated: a man 

nods his head, a woman beckons with her hand, and in 

bawdy valentines, a female figure shows her ankle or 

petticoat. Novelty valentines sometimes took the form of 

telegrams from “Loveland” or notes from the “Bank of 

True Love.” Some cards offer gentle humor, for example, 

urging a bachelor to marry; others are insulting. Dean & 

Son of Ludgate Hill, London, produced a pair of valentines circa 1860 that deride a dandy and a lady of fashion. 

The valentine poem for the dandy, inscribed “À Monsieur 

Chandelle,” reads: 

In your dandified hat, 

From your boot to your glove, 

I think I’ve quite pat, 

Drawn your portrait above; 

Pray don’t take offence,

Nor to anger incline, 

Figure 5. Ocean Penny Postage envelope, 1849. © Royal Mail Group Ltd 2009, courtesy of The British 

Postal Museum & Archive. 
1 2 8 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

In dress show more sense,

You queer Valentine.26

The picture accompanying this verse shows a dandy 

sporting a red cravat, yellow gloves, a yellow checked 

vest, a black felt jacket and pants, stylish black leather 

boots, and an exceedingly tall top hat. The dandy puffs 

on a cigar, carries a walking stick, swells his chest, and 

wears an expression of self-satisfaction that augments his 

“dandified” air. 

My survey of over two hundred period valentines in 

two major collections in Bath, UK27 reveals that romantic valentines teach us about Victorian aesthetics and the 

new moral attitude of love that burgeoned in the 1830s, 

accompanying the coronation of Victoria and marking 

an end to the rakish ways of Victoria’s “wicked” uncles, 

George IV and William IV. From romantic valentines, 

we discern stories of ardent passion, shy or secret love, 

warm affection, imagined happiness, and feared rejection. 

Flowers, churches, angels, birds and nests, cupids, flaming torches, bows, butterflies, hearts and darts, arrows, 

musical instruments, and wedding rings are all common 

Victorian icons of romantic love. Romantic valentines feature clichéd messages, such as “Constant and True,” “Be 

for ever mine,” “Thine forever,” and “Ever Affectionate,” 

aligning romantic love with constancy and lasting affection as well as monogamy.

The two most ever-present icons on romantic valentines are flowers and churches or church spires.28 The Victorians were well-versed in what they called the “language 

of flowers,” the sentiments and values that different types 

of flowers represent. Today, we still associate roses with 

love, but we might not link a foxglove with insincerity 

or realize that the color of a flower, such as a rose, could 

change its meaning. To the Victorians, a red rose meant 

“passionate love,” but a yellow rose signified “jealousy.”29

Placing specific flowers on a romantic missive offered a 

way to express love without words. Thomas Hardy in 

Far from the Madding Crowd (1874), for example, includes three flowers on the larky valentine that Bathsheba 

Everdene wantonly posts to Farmer Boldwood—red rose, 

blue violet, and carnation—which mean, respectively, 

“love,” “faithfulness,” and “Alas! for my poor heart” (for 

a red carnation).30 No wonder Boldwood is entranced, 

even though Bathsheba intends the valentine as a practical joke. Other flowers that commonly appear on period 

valentines include lilies of the valley for “return of happiness,” bluebells meaning “constancy,” forget-me-nots for 

“true love,” daisies meaning “innocence,” and white lilies 

for “purity and sweetness.”31 (Figure 6)

The church and its steeple signified fidelity in love and 

honorable intentions as well as marriage plans. This was 

an age when engagements often lasted for years. A couple 

could not marry until a man was financially secure, so a 

fiancé, by sending a card with a church spire, could assure his betrothed of his unfailing love. For those not yet 

engaged, the church icon offered a way for a suitor to 

inform his sweetheart of his honorable intentions. Popular nautical-themed valentines, which pair fidelity in love 

with duty, tell us that the Victorian soldier or sailor, occupied in Empire building, promised to remain faithful 

to his true love as he dutifully served his country. In one 

such undated period valentine called “Love and Duty,”32

the heart on the side of the valentine is presumably the 

soldier’s heart, and the church spire (in the background) 

stands as an assurance that marriage will reward a virtuous heart. 

Figure. 6. “Love & Duty.” Undated Victorian valentine from 

the Frank Staff Collection. Reproduced by kind permission of Bath 

Postal Museum, UK. 
n u m b e r 5 5 • 1 2 9

A Final Note: Why is a Raven

Like a Writing Desk?

These three popular postal products—writing desks, 

pictorial envelopes, and valentines—provide a window 

on the habits of Victorian consumers post-1840. Real and 

fictional Victorian letter writers used writing desks for 

correspondence and safekeeping as well as to store pictorial envelopes, valentines, and other writing materials, 

including quill pens—conceivably even those made from 

a raven’s feathers. To return to Carroll’s riddle: “Why 

is a raven like a writing-desk?” When Alice demands to 

know the answer, the Mad Hatter tells Alice, “‘I haven’t 

the slightest idea.’”33 In a preface to an 1896 edition of 

Alice in Wonderland, Carroll—who was hounded for the 

answer to his riddle for over thirty years—declares:

Enquiries have been so often addressed to me, 

as to whether any answer to the Hatter’s Riddle 

can be imagined, that I may as well put on record 

here what seems to me to be a fairly appropriate 

answer, viz: “Because it can produce a few notes, 

tho they are very flat; and it is nevar put with the 

wrong end in front!” This, however, is merely an 

afterthought; the Riddle, as originally invented, 

had no answer at all.34

Carroll could “nevar” resist a play on words, much as 

Carroll enthusiasts are “nevar” satisfied with Carroll’s 

answers. Fans have come up with other clever responses, 

including: “Edgar Allan Poe wrote on both,” and “Both 

have quills dipped in ink.”35 How “curious” that Carroll’s 

riddle has outlasted the Victorian writing desk. 

Notes

1. Carroll kept an accurate register of all the letters he wrote 

and received throughout his lifetime.

2. Lewis Carroll, The Annotated Alice: Alice’s Adventures in 

Wonderland & Through the Looking Glass (New York: Norton, 

2000).

3. The first “private” version printed by William Clowes 

and Sons came out in January 1837. A second edition for the 

general public published by Charles Knight appeared on February 22, 1837; two more editions followed, one later in 1837 

and a fourth in 1838. Hill, who analyzed the costly, unwieldy 

British postal system from the vantage point of an enlightened 

outsider, went on to become Secretary to the Postmaster General of the Post Office in 1846, and, by 1854, Secretary of the 

Post Office.

4. The Post Circular had a run of 16 issues (March 14, 

1838, until November 20, 1839).

5. This appears in an article in The Post Circular 11 

(Wednesday, April 17, 1839), 54. 

6. Douglas Muir, Postal Reform and the Penny Black: A 

New Appreciation (London: National Postal Museum, 1990), 

176.

7. Printers of caricature envelopes include J. W. Southgate, 

Ackermann & Co., and Messrs. Fores of Picadilly. For a full discussion of the reception of the Mulready envelope, I recommend 

my book Posting it: The Victorian Revolution in Letter Writing, particularly two sections in the second chapter, “A Tale of 

Ridicule” and “Mulready Caricatures: A National Lampoon,” 

95–101.

8. Asa Briggs, Victorian Things (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989), 331.

9. Zurich issued the 6 Rappen and 4 Rappen on March 1, 

1843; Geneva released the Double Geneva on October 1, 1843. 

The Canton of Basel issued the Basel Dove on July 1, 1845. Brazil produced the Bull’s Eye stamp on August 1, 1843, and on 

July 1, 1847, the United States issued five- and ten-cent stamps 

featuring, respectively, Benjamin Franklin on a red-brown stamp 

and George Washington on a black stamp.

10. “Sir Rowland Le Grand” is a John Tenniel cartoon appearing in Punch on the occasion of Hill’s retirement as Secretary 

of the Post Office in 1864.

11. In a November 20, 2009, correspondence with Corinne 

Harrison, print cataloguer at the National Portrait Gallery, I 

learned that the Hill portrait (NPG 838) remains in storage; the 

portrait and the gallery’s holding of photographs and prints of 

Hill can be viewed privately by appointment. 

12. For more on this subject, I recommend the concluding 

chapter of my book entitled Posting It: The Victorian Revolution 

in Letter Writing (University Press of Florida, 2009). 

13. Briggs, p. 11.

14. Briggs, p. 12.

15. Morton N. Cohen, Lewis Carroll: A Biography (New 

York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1995), 493.

16. Lewis Carroll, Eight or Nine Wise Words About LetterWriting (Oxford: Emberlin, 1890), pp. 2–3, 16–17, and 37.

17. References to writing desks appear in Shakespeare’s A 

Comedy of Errors in order to safeguard a purse of ducats. See 

Harris, Portable Writing Desks, pp. 10–11 for a complete history. 

Some Victorians like Carroll hyphenate the word “writing-desk.” 

18. The top of the box serves as a writing slope if the box is 

hinged at the top, but the open lid acts as the writing surface if 

the box is hinged at the bottom.

19. For descriptions and pictures of a range of Victorian writing desks, see Harris, Portable Writing Desks, especially 22–23. 

20. I include this reference to Jane Austen even though she 

precedes the Victorian age because her work made great contributions to it. See Carol Shields, Jane Austen (New York: Penguin, 2001), 45.

21. Briggs, p. 343.
1 3 0 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

22. Evans in The Mulready Envelope (217–221) is thorough 

in his discussion of temperance envelope designs but does not 

provide dates for them

23. An illustration of this pictorial envelope and further 

commentary about it appears both in Evans, The Mulready Envelope, 190, and Lowe, The British Postage Stamp, 94.

24. Debra N. Mancoff, Love’s Messenger: Tokens of Affection in the Victorian Age (Chicago: Art Institute of Chicago, 

1997), 46. 

25. Evans provides commentary about and reproduces two 

examples from the series of “Ackermann’s Comic Envelopes” in 

The Mulready Envelope, 176–181.

26. Valentine Cards collection, #268, Bath Central Library, 

Bath, UK.

27. The two collections I examined are the Valentine Cards 

collection, Special Collections, at the Bath Central Library and 

the Frank Staff Collection of the Bath Postal Museum, Bath, UK. 

28. Item #253, Valentine Cards collection, Special Collections, Bath Central Library, Bath, UK.

29. Kate Greenaway, Language of the Flowers (New York: 

Avenel Books, n.d.), 36–37.

30. Greenaway, pp. 11, 36, 42. 

31. Greenaway, pp. 10, 18, 15, 27.

32. Carroll, The Annotated Alice, 72.

33. Valentine 1993-08-29 forms part of the Frank Staff Collection, Bath Postal Museum, Bath, UK.

34. This quote comes from “Why is a raven like a writing 

desk?” accessed December 11, 2009. http://www.straightdope.com/

columns/read/1173/why-is-a-raven-like-a-writing-desk.

35. The following website offers the Poe response and answers 

from famous people, such as Aldous Huxley: http://www.straight

dope.com/columns/read/1173/why-is-a-raven-like-a-writing-desk. 

The website corrects the spelling of “nevar” to “never,” following 

the lead of an editor who thought he caught a typo in Carroll’s 

writing after the first printing; I have written the term as “nevar” 

here as Martin Gardner does in The Annotated Alice, 72. Clearly, 

Carroll wanted to spell the word “raven” backwards, and this 

“correction,” as Gardner notes, “destroyed the ingenuity of his 

answer.” Martin Gardner lists the answer about inky quills in his 

annotations to The Annotated Alice, 72. At the Fourth Annual 

Postal History Symposium in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania, Oct. 30–

Nov. 1, 2009, one audience member suggested another possible 

answer: both ravens and desks hide valuable things.

Bibliography

Adams, Cecil. “Why is a raven like a writing desk?” The Straight 

Dope, April 18, 1997. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/

read/1173/why-is-a-raven-like-a-writing-desk. Accessed December 11, 2009.

Briggs, Asa. Victorian Things. 1988. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989.

Carroll, Lewis. The Annotated Alice: The Definitive Edition. Ed. 

Martin Gardner. Illus. John Tenniel. New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 2000. 

Cohen, Morton N. Lewis Carroll: A Biography. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1995. 

Evans, E. B. The Mulready Envelope and its Caricatures. London: Stanley Gibbons, 1891.

Frank Staff Collection. Valentines. Bath Postal Museum, Bath, UK.

Fryer, Gavin, and Clive Akerman, eds. Fwd. Asa Briggs. The 

Reform of the Post Office in the Victorian Era and its Impact on Economic and Social Activity: Documentary History 1837 to 1864 Based on Sir Rowland Hill’s Journal and 

Ancillary Papers. 2 vols. London: Royal Philatelic Society, 

2000.

Golden, Catherine J. Posting It: The Victorian Revolution in 

Letter Writing. Gainesville, Fla.: University Press of Florida, 

2009.

Greenaway, Kate. Language of the Flowers. New York: Avenel 

Books, n.d.

Hardy, Thomas. Far From the Madding Crowd. 1874. New 

York: Bantam, 1974.

Harris, David. Victorian Writing Desks. Buckinghamshire, UK: 

Shire, 2001.

Henkin, David. The Postal Age: The Emergence of Modern 

Communications in Nineteenth-Century America. Chicago: 

University of Chicago Press, 2006.

Lewins, William. Her Majesty’s Mails: A History of the Post 

Office and an Industrial Account of Its Present Condition. 

1864. 2nd ed. London: Sampson Low, Son, and Marston, 

1865.

Lowe, Robson. The British Postage Stamp of the Nineteenth 

Century. London: National Postal Museum, 1968.

Mancoff, Debra N. Love’s Messenger: Tokens of Affection in 

the Victorian Age. Chicago: Art Institute of Chicago, 1997.

Muir, Douglas. Postal Reform and the Penny Black: A New Appreciation. London: National Postal Museum, 1990. 

Post Circular. Or Weekly Advocate for a Cheap, Swift, and Sure 

Postage. Ed. Henry Cole. Nos. 1–16. Wednesday, March, 

14, 1838–Wednesday, November 20, 1839.

Shields, Carol. Jane Austen. New York: Penguin, 2001.

Thackeray, William Makepeace. Vanity Fair: A Novel Without a 

Hero. Ed. John Sutherland. Illus. W. M. Thackeray. Oxford: 

Oxford University Press, 1983.

Valentine Cards. Special Collections. Bath Central Library, Bath, 

England.
The origin of organized carrier service using carrier adhesives is the basis 

of the 1842 U.S. postal reforms. The Greig’s City Despatch Post local 

stamps were the first adhesive stamps printed in North America. The 

Post Office Department purchased this company for use as the first carrier service and adopted this first stamp. The postal reforms established in the United 

States by the U.S. City Despatch Post, America’s first carrier service, can be summarized as follows:

1. The first use of a stamp for government purposes.

2. The established rate of three cents per stamp or $2.50 per hundred.

3. The first government handstamp. The creation of the “U.S.” in an octagon 

to cancel stamps and prevent their reuse.

4. The first government datestamp to show the date and time of delivery.

5. The first adhesive design for use by the United States City Despatch Post, the 

Scott Specialized Catalogue listed 6LB3 stamp.

6. The creation of various color adhesives on unsurfaced paper colored 

through.

7. The first adhesive stamp printed on glazed surface colored paper for use by 

the government.

8. The first double impression errors.

9. The Postal Act of March 1845, effective July 1, 1845, putting the independent mail companies out of business for intercity mail.

10. The first use of adhesive stamps by the government for pre-payment of postage on intercity mail.

11. The first government overprinted stamp due to a change in the fee for carrier 

service.

This is a unique story about how the government started a carrier service 

in New York City with the issuance of carrier adhesives and handstamp devices 

and was forced to close down due to competition from the local posts. For once, 

free enterprise triumphed over the government. This was a first attempt at U.S. 

postal organization using carrier adhesives.

By an order of the postmaster general on August 1, 1842, a carrier service was established in New York known as the “United States City Despatch 

Post.” In order to get started with carrier service, the Post Office Department felt 

America’s First Carrier Service: 

The U.S. City Despatch Post

Larry Lyons
1 3 2 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

it was best to purchase Grieg’s City Despatch Post, a local 

post in New York City which had been operating successfully since February 1, 1842. The purchase also eliminated 

the competition from that particular local post. August 15, 

1842, was the last day of the operation of Grieg’s City Despatch Post, and on August 16, 1842, the service continued 

its operation but now was an official service of the post 

office with the name changed to “United States City Despatch Post.” There was not time to print new stamps so the 

City Despatch Post adhesives created by Grieg (40L1) were 

now used as official carrier stamps (6LB1). These are two 

Scott Specialized Catalogue listings. One is a local stamp 

with an “L” prefix, and the other is a carrier stamp with 

an “LB” prefix. The 40L1 and 6LB1 are the same face picture stamps. The handstamps used were different and only 

used stamps can be differentiated. All unused stamps fall 

into the local stamp, 40L1, category. The stamps were sold 

individually at three cents each or $2.50 per hundred. This 

was the same rate Grieg had charged. The outer limit of operations of the U.S. City Despatch Post was Twenty-Second 

Street. The areas from Fourth Street to Twenty-Second 

Street was known at that time as Uptown New York City. 

Central New York City was from Fourth Street south to 

Fulton Street and Downtown New York City was south of 

Fulton Street to the lower tip of Manhattan.

The Greig’s City Despatch Local Post adhesive was to 

become America’s first and most versatile stamp producing plate. It was now also the first plate used to make carrier stamps in the United States. The plate was made by 

Rawdon, Wright and Hatch. When Greig was operating 

as a local post he used a “FREE” handstamp in a fancy 

octagon (Figure 1). The “FREE” actually meant that the 

stamp was purchased and therefore the letter was prepaid. 

When Greig’s became the U.S. City Despatch Post, the cancel used was a “U.S.” in a fancy octagon shown in Figure 

1. The U.S. City Despatch stamps were prepurchased and 

the “U.S.” octagon cancel was to prevent their reuse. This 

was an innovative action by the carrier department based 

on the same action used by Greig cancelling his local post 

adhesives. The carrier service also had a circular datestamp 

which reads “U.S. City Despatch Post,” with the “U.S.” 

at the bottom. When Greig operated as a local post his 

datestamp read “City Despatch Post” with “N. Y.” at the 

bottom. These handstamps can be seen in Figure 2.

Both the Greig’s Local Post datestamp and the U.S. 

City Despatch Post handstamp were double lined circles 

with the middle reserved for a date and a clock time. Since 

this was the first government handstamp, the datestamp 

was an innovative action by the carrier department, as was 

the clock time, and it was based on the same action and design used by Greig when he ran his local post. Since Greig 

was running the U.S. City Despatch, he made good use 

of the handstamp design he developed earlier. Sometime 

in 1843 the U.S. City Despatch replaced its double lined 

circular datestamp with a single line datestamp which still 

included the clock time. See Figure 2. 

Figure 1. The handstamps that identify covers used while Grieg 

operated his local post (left) and those of the U.S. City Despatch 

Post, the first government carrier service (right). From the 2010 Scott 

Specialized Catalogue. 

Figure 2. The datestamps that identify covers used while Grieg operated his local post (left) and those of the U.S. City Despatch Post (right). 

From the American Stampless Cover Catalogue, Volume II, 1987.
n u m b e r 5 5 • 1 3 3

The Second U.S. Carrier Adhesive

On September 1, 1842, the U.S. City Despatch Post 

came out with its first new adhesive design, which was 

black-on-light-blue unsurfaced paper (6LB3). See Figure 

3. This was the first carrier adhesive printed by a United 

States post office. In Great Britain stamp production was 

in use since 1840. The use of prepaid adhesives was now 

proven as a great improvement over collect mail and manuscript notations. This was the beginnings of a postal reform equivalent to the invention of the wheel. The first 

new adhesive design reads “United States City Despatch 

Post” at the top, as opposed to the Greig’s stamp which 

reads “City Despatch Post” at the top. The side ornaments were also changed but the general appearance with 

Washington in the middle and “THREE CENTS” at the 

bottom stayed the same. The original plates and printing 

size was not used. The new plate was also made by Rawdon, Wright and Hatch. The original Greig’s local post 

stamps were printed in a forty-two stamp format of sixby-seven subjects, and the new U.S. City Despatch Post 

stamps were printed in sheets of one hundred subjects. Cal 

Hahn, a noted historian, plated the U.S. City Despatch 

Post stamps. He noted twenty-five positions on the left 

and twenty-five on the right which were repeated to make 

one hundred stamps. His plating analysis can be found in 

the Lyons Identifier in Volume III on pages 1055–1066.1

Scott Trepel did pioneer work on the City Despatch Post 

adhesives; that plating analysis can be found in the study 

that he published.2

The United States City Despatch Post was initially 

very successful. By November 1842 they noted carrying 

762 letters a day. They had 112 stations with collection 

boxes. Pick up was three times a day.3 They employed 

eight letter carriers. The stamps were sold individually at 

three cents each or $2.50 per hundred.

The Unsurfaced Paper Colored 

through Adhesives

The major stamp in this category is the black-onlight-blue adhesive (6LB3) which saw major usage. This 

adhesive was issued September 1, 1842, and is typically 

found on 1842 covers from September to the end of the 

year. According to Siegel Auction Galleries lot descriptions, the earliest recorded cover with the 6LB3 adhesive 

is September 2, 1842, the second day of its usage. There 

is a cover dated August 31, 1842, which is datestamped 

September 3, 1842, the third day of usage for this adhesive. Lot 201 in the Middendorf sale is a cover which is 

reported to be the earliest use of 6LB3. That cover is dated 

Figure 3. The first new adhesive design for the U.S. City Despatch (6LB3) is shown at the left, and the 

Grieg’s stamp (40L1) is shown at the right. From the collection of Larry Lyons.
1 3 4 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

September 1. There is a cover dated December 31, 1842, 

which is the latest usage in 1842. Sporadic late usages can 

be found as the purchased stamps were used. I note a January 31, 1843, cover, an April 2, 1844, cover and a February 14, 1846, cover, all with the early 6LB3 adhesives. 

The last three covers are not typical of when the majority 

of the 6LB3 adhesives were used.

Figure 4 shows an unsurfaced paper colored through 

adhesive which has been described as black-on-wheat. This 

stamp is cancelled with the U.S. in an octagon, the handstamp used by the U.S. City Despatch Post. This color is 

not listed in the Scott Specialized Catalogue, and it should 

be listed. The use of various colored papers was probably 

part of the experimentation process. These would have 

been color trials. Nothing went to waste, and all seem to 

have been used for postal duty.

There is also a black-on-rosy-buff (6LB2) adhesive 

listed in the Scott Specialized Catalogue in the unsurfaced 

paper colored through section. There is a note to the effect that “some authorities consider 6LB2 to be an essay.” 

Only about eight to ten unused copies are recorded.

There is also an unsurfaced black-on-green adhesive 

(6LB4). There are only two recorded examples. Again 

there is a note in the Scott Specialized Catalogue to the 

effect that some authorities believe this color to be “a 

color changeling.” It is a very valuable stamp with a Scott 

Specialized Catalogue price of $11,500.00. No covers are 

recorded with this color adhesive. The Philatelic Foundation has certified the black-green unsurfaced paper adhesive (6LB4) as a genuine color and not a color changeling. 

The Philatelic Foundation is a not-for-profit foundation 

established in 1945 with a basis in education for philatelists. One function it performs is the certification of stamps 

and covers for genuineness. There is also a recorded applegreen adhesive which has been certified by the Philatelic 

Foundation and should be listed in the Scott Specialized 

Catalogue. Only one example of the apple-green color has 

been recorded. It has been suggested that the black-ongreen adhesive was a trial color impression. This writer 

believes it was an issued color used for a very, short time. 

The one known example has been certified by the Philatelic Foundation as a genuinely used stamp.

The Glazed Surface Paper Adhesives

The black-on-green glazed surface paper adhesive 

(6LB5d) printed in the fall of 1842 is the first glazed paper 

stamp issued by the government in the United States (Figure 5). Glazed paper adhesive labels were introduced more 

than four years earlier by the Eastern Express companies. 

Figure 4. The U.S. City Despatch adhesive in wheat. This is an 

unsurfaced paper colored through adhesive which is not yet listed in 

the Scott Specialized Catalogue. From the collection of Larry Lyons.

Figure 5. The 6LB5d adhesive is a black-on-green stamp on glazed 

surface colored paper. It is the first glazed paper stamp issued by the 

government in the United States. It was issued in the fall of 1842. 

From the collection of Larry Lyons.
n u m b e r 5 5 • 1 3 5

The glazed paper adhesives were durable and took cancels well. Glazed paper was used by the carrier departments in Philadelphia and New York through 1852. This 

paper was more costly and was not used for the regular 

issue United States stamps which required large quantity 

printings. It was a logical step for the government carrier service to pursue the use of glazed paper for stamp 

use. According to research done by Bob Meyersburg, the 

earliest recorded date of the 6LB5d stamp, which is blackon-blue glazed, is November 26, 1842. The express companies were the pioneers in the use of glazed surface paper 

probably preceding the first government glazed paper adhesive by about three years. This color was in typical use 

for a full year to November 1843. There are four recorded 

examples of multiples of the black-on-green (6LB5d) adhesive with five stamps being used to pay the U.S. intercity postage to Philadelphia. There is also one cover with 

only four 6LB5d adhesives to Philadelphia because one 

adhesive is missing.

There are early examples of the black-on-green glazed 

adhesives, and there are late examples of black-on-green 

glazed adhesives. These colors have been lumped together 

under one generic color name. This author has extensively 

studied the colors of the adhesives, and they are not the 

same. The early examples are much greener and were 

probably printed in November 1842. These were in use 

until the black–on-light-blue glazed adhesives and the 

black-on-blue-green glazed adhesives were issued in January 1843. An example of the early black-on-green glazed 

paper adhesive can be seen in Figure 6. It is on a folded letter dated February 14, 1843, to 30 Wall Street. The early 

black-on-green glazed paper adhesives are very scarce. The 

later black-on-green glazed adhesives are basically variations in color shades of the black-on-blue-green adhesives 

issued and reissued from 1843 to 1846. The color variations resulted from the non-mixing of the large containers 

of colored glaze.

Figure 6. An early black-on-green glazed paper adhesive on a folded local letter dated February 14, 1843 to 30 Wall Street. The U.S. City 

Despatch Post datestamp is the double circle type. This is a true green glazed paper adhesive. Stamps issued later are not as green. From the 

collection of Larry Lyons.
1 3 6 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

Double impressions exist for the black-on-blue-green 

adhesives and are designated 6LB5a. Double impression 

examples of the black-on-blue adhesives are designated 

6LB5c, and double impressions of the black-on-green adhesives are given the designation 6LB5e. 

At the beginning of 1843 the U.S. City Despatch Post 

issued a black-on-blue-green adhesive on surface colored 

paper (6LB5). It is at this time that they also changed 

to a single circle datestamp. The double circle datestamp 

had been in use for less than a year. The recording of the 

time in the datestamp was evidently no longer important, 

and it would typically not be recorded in the new datestamp. It is quite likely that delivery was made at either 

nine am or one pm, and it was deemed unimportant to 

note the time. Over the next four years through 1844, 

1845 and into the fall of 1846 the black-on-blue-green 

adhesive would be the “workhorse” with various shades 

of reprinting. 

The black-on-blue adhesive (6LB5b) does not appear 

until the fall of 1844 and is a very striking color. There are 

only two examples of covers with multiple black-on- blue 

adhesives (6LB5b). One cover has four adhesives and is 

addressed to Athens, New York, and the other has three 

adhesives and is addressed to Ridgefield, Connecticut. 

This black-on-blue color adhesive continued to be used 

until the U.S. Despatch Post closed in November 1846. 

The black-on-blue-green adhesive (6LB5) is also recorded 

on cover with the New York Provisional 9X1d. 

Double impression errors on glazed surface paper 

adhesives occurred in three different colors, Black/blue 

green, black/blue, and black/green. A double transfer is a 

condition of a transfer on a plate that shows evidence of 

a duplication of all or a portion of the design. Occasionally it is necessary to remove the original transfer from 

a plate and enter the relief a second time. When the finished re-transfer shows indications of the original transfer, 

because of incomplete erasure, the result is known as a 

double transfer.

Last but not least there is a black-on- pink adhesive 

(6LB6). This stamp is on a cover dated April 7. The U.S. 

City Despatch circular datestamp on this cover is a double 

line circle which leads to the conclusion that the year date 

is about 1843. There is only one recorded example of the 

pink adhesive. It is shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7. A black-on-pink unglazed surface colored adhesive 6LB6, on a cover front dated April 7, (1843). This 

is the only recorded example. The datestamp is the double circle which was not in use after 1843. From the collection of Larry Lyons.
n u m b e r 5 5 • 1 3 7

Intercity Covers

The independent mail companies began handling intercity mail in 1839, started using adhesives in early 1844, 

and were put out of the intercity mail business by an Act 

of March 1845 which became effective July 1, 1845. This 

was a major postal reform intended to put an eventual end 

to private local posts as well. First the government would 

make it illegal for an independent mail company to carry 

mail intercity by declaring that all postal mail routes could 

only be traveled with mail by the government post office. 

The independent mail companies were therefore terminated by a government act. This was postal reform by decree. This reform did not apply on the west coast because 

there the government was not organized to deliver the 

mail and would not be organized in the west for twenty 

more years (until 1865). Express companies continued to 

operate because they were only allowed to carry packages 

and money and not letters by themselves.

There are eight recorded intercity covers with United 

States City Despatch Post adhesives. These covers mark the 

beginning of prepayment of intercity postage by adhesive 

stamps in the western hemisphere. This was pioneer activity 

in postal reform and set the stage for the first U.S. government regular issue stamps, which would come into use exactly two years later on July 1, 1847. The covers are recorded 

between the dates of May 25, 1843, and June 13, 1845. A 

listing of these eight recorded covers can be found in Table 1.

Five of the covers have five U.S. City Despatch adhesives, black-on-green (6LB5d). One cover has four blackon-green (6LB5d) adhesives with one missing. One cover 

has four black-on-blue adhesives (6LB5b) and one cover 

has three black-on-blue adhesives (6LB5b). The five covers 

with five adhesives are to Philadelphia. The rate was 121⁄2 

cents for the eighty-to-150 mile zone. At the wholesale 

rate of 21⁄2 cents per stamp, the five adhesives would be 

correct for the 121⁄2 cents U.S. postage rate. This fee was 

the intercity rate and included the carrier rate to the post 

office. The only cover with four carrier adhesives (other 

than the one to Philadelphia with one stamp missing) is 

to Athens, New York. The four carrier adhesives at the 

wholesale rate of 21⁄2 cents per stamp accounted for the 

ten cent rate for the thirty-to-eighty mile zone. This writer 

believes the post office accepted the carrier stamps at the 

wholesale rate. The one cover with three carrier adhesives 

is to Ridgefield, Connecticut. The balance of the postage 

on this cover was presumably paid in cash. There is a manuscript notation “10” which has never been explained. 

This cover can be seen in the Middendorf sale catalogue.4

The intercity carrier covers just described are among the 

most prized of all carrier covers.

The First Government

Overprinted Stamp

On July 1, 1845, the price of the U.S. City Despatch 

Post carrier service rose to four cents retail and 31⁄2 cents 

wholesale. This was necessary because the post office 

“drop letter” fee was increased on the same day to two 

cents from one cent. Congress raised the drop letter fee out 

of fear that the new postage structure which established 

the five-cent and ten-cent postage rates would cause a severe decline in postal revenues. The five-cent and ten-cent 

rates laid the foundation for the first general issue adhesive 

stamps to be issued in this country in 1847 in the denominations of five cents and ten cents. Because the intercity 

rate was lowered, Congress hoped to offset some of the 

anticipated losses by raising the drop letter fee. A “drop 

letter” is a piece of mail that is brought to the post office 

for pickup by the addressee. Drop letters are not transmitted to another post office.

“The consequences of this legislation for the U.S. City 

Despatch Post were immediate and dire. Prior to July 1, 

1845, a drop letter could be taken by the carrier to or 

from the post office for three cents, which included two 

cents for the carrier department and one cent for the post 

office (drop postage). Beginning July 1, an extra cent was 

Table 1. The Eight Recorded Intercity Covers of the U.S. City 

Despatch Post

Adhesives Date Destination Note

1. 6LB5d (5) May 25, 1843 To Philadelphia Strip of 3 + 

 pair

2. 6LB5d (5) May 30, 1843 To Philadelphia Two pairs + 

 single

3. 6LB5d (5) June 16, 1843 To Philadelphia Strip of 4 + 

 single

4. 6LB5d (5) July 5, 1843 To Philadelphia Strip of 5

5. 6LB5d (4) August 23, 1843 To Philadelphia 4 singles + 

 1 missing

6. 6LB5d (5) Nov. 1, 1843 To Pleasant 5 singles 

 Valley, N.Y.

7. 6LB5b (4) Oct. 18, ca. 1844 To Athens, N.Y. Strip of 3 + 

 single

8. 6LB5b (3) June 13, ca. 1845 To Ridgefield, 3 singles

 Conn.
1 3 8 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

required for the drop postage, making the total amount 

equal to four cents. Although other classes of mail were 

unaffected by the drop-rate increase (including carrier 

letters that by-passed the main post office), the U.S. City 

Despatch found itself at a severe disadvantage competing 

with local posts, who generally charged two cents for a 

city letter. In the post-July 1 period, not only did Boyd 

flourish, but many smaller local posts entered the scene, 

hoping to capture a share of the market for intra-city letter delivery.”5

A new overprinted stamp (6LB7) came into use. The 

“THREE” in cents at the bottom of the stamp has a red 

line through it because the retail cost of the stamp was 

now four cents. The overprinted “2” was the cost of the 

“drop letter” rate. Covers without U.S. stamps that were 

dropped at the post office after this drop letter rate change 

have a large circular date stamp with a large “2” and “cts” 

at the bottom. The cover shown in Figure 8 has both the 

U.S. City Despatch Post handstamp and the New York 

City circular datestamp indicating the two-cents drop 

letter rate. It is the only recorded cover with both handstamps and the 6LB7 adhesive.

There are only three recorded covers with the red “2” 

surcharge on the U.S. City Despatch Post adhesive which 

is listed in the 2009 Scott Specialized Catalogue as 6LB7 

with a value for a cover shown in italic as $70,000.00. The 

three recorded covers are dated January 9, 1846, February 

14, 1846, and March 2, 1846. The stamp on the March 2, 

1846, cover was originally affixed on the back of the cover 

and was torn in half upon the opening of the letter. 

Previous research has indicated that the overprint was 

created in late 1845 or early 1846. The dates of the three 

recorded covers indicate early 1846. There was a fourth 

cover with an overprinted stamp dated October 29 (1845 

or 1846) but the Philatelic Foundation determined the 

stamp did not originate on this cover and the adhesive was 

subsequently removed. The rarity of the overprinted U.S. 

City Despatch Post covers suggests that it was in use for a 

limited time. 

There is also a decline in surviving 1846 U .S. City 

Despatch Post letters that reinforces the belief that the New 

York City carrier service was in trouble due to competition from the New York City local posts. If you ever wondered why certain New York City local posts first appear 

in the 1845-to-1849 time period, this is the reason. These 

included Dupuy & Schenck, Messenkopes, G. A. Mills, 

Bouton’s Broadway Post Office, Gordon’s, Hanford’s, New 

York City Express Post, Union Post, Bouton’s Manhattan 

Express, and Franklin City Despatch. Boyd’s was already 

in existence, and it issued new adhesives in this time period 

which were used extensively and far in excess of Boyd’s 

previously issued adhesives, which are much rarer.

Figure 8. The only recorded U.S. City Despatch Post cover with both the U.S. City Despatch 

handstamp and the New York City circular datestamp indicating the two-cent drop letter rate. The 

adhesive has the price struck out. This is the 6LB7 adhesive. There are three recorded covers with 

this adhesive. From the collection of Larry Lyons.
n u m b e r 5 5 • 1 3 9

The End of the U.S. City Despatch Post

The U.S. City Despatch Post had functioned well until 

mid-1845. The postmaster general discontinued the U.S. 

City Despatch Post on November 28, 1846. The government could not compete with the better service and lower 

prices offered by the local posts operating in New York 

City. The failure to expand collection and provide proper 

service could not be tolerated by the public. The government service itself was succeeded by a private post. This 

private post was “Mead’s Post Office City Despatch.” 

Abraham Mead had been a letter carrier for the U.S. City 

Despatch Post. An example of the Mead’s adhesive and 

handstamp is shown in Figure 9.

After November 1846, outstanding U.S. City Despatch 

Post stamps were redeemable at the New York Post Office or 

remained valid for use locally on letters which were delivered 

by Mead’s Private Local Post. Government carrier service in 

New York had been forced to stop its operations and would 

not appear again in New York City until February 1849. The 

U.S. mail adhesive, 6LB9, was issued at that time.

Summary of Postal Reforms

The U.S. City Despatch Post originated from the 

purchase of Greig’s City Despatch Post and used Greig’s 

stamps with a different cancel. The U.S. City Despatch 

Post issued the second U.S. carrier adhesive (6LB3) in a 

slightly new design on unsurfaced colored paper on September 1, 1842. In 1843 the U.S. City Despatch Post 

began using glazed surface paper adhesives. This would 

be the first government use of a glazed paper adhesive. 

The Postal Act of March 1845, effective July 1, 1845, put 

the independent mail companies out of the intercity mail 

business. In early 1846 the U.S. City Despatch Post issued 

the first government overprinted stamp. This was necessitated by the increase in the post office “drop rate” from 

one cent to two cents. The U.S. City Despatch was unable 

to compete with the local posts due to the rise in the drop 

rate and the poor service it offered and was forced to stop 

its operations. The first attempt at the use of United States 

carrier adhesives was forced to end. It was put out of business by free enterprise. 

Figure 9. Mead’s Post Office City Despatch replaced the U.S. City Despatch Post when it was discontinued in late November 1846. The outstanding U.S. City Despatch stamps were valid for use through 

Mead’s. The Mead’s datestamp was similar to the U.S. City Despatch datestamp but with “P. O.” at the 

bottom. The Mead’s stamp has “TWO CENTS” at the bottom. Siegel Auction Galleries, Nov. 15–16, 

2006, Lot 1227.
1 4 0 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

Notes

1. The Identifier for Carriers, Locals, Fakes, Forgeries and 

Bogus Posts of the United States, Larry Lyons, 1998.

2. The City Despatch Post 1842–1852 Issues: A Study of 

America’s First and Most Versatile Stamp-Producing Plate, 

Scott R. Trepel, Siegel Auction Galleries, Inc. 2003.

3. USA1, Robson Lowe, March 15, 1972, Lot 1011.

4. Richard C. Frajola, Inc. Sale No. 4. (Middendorf), May 

1990, Lot 215.

5. Siegel Auctions Galleries, Golden sale, November 15–17, 

1999, Lot 315.

Bibliography

Lyons, Larry. The Identifier for Carriers, Locals, Fakes, Forgeries 

& Bogus Posts of the United States: A Study of the Identification of the Local Stamp Adhesive from the Forgeries and 

Bogus Posts. Westport, Ct.: Self published, 1998

Trepel, Scott R. The City Despatch Post 1842–1852 Issues: 

A Study of America’s First and Most Versatile StampProducing Plate. New York: Robert A. Siegel Auction Galleries, 2003.
Introduction—The Problem Was Deficits

By the 1840s, the U.S. Postal Service was incurring annual deficits of such 

magnitude they threatened the very viability of the system itself.1

There were several causes behind these deficits:

1. a complex system of postage rates that was not only expensive to administer, 

but which actually discouraged use of the mails by average citizens;

2. abuse of the “free franking” privilege by congressmen, local postmasters, and 

various other government employees;2

3. serious competition from independent posts that could deliver mail faster 

and more cheaply than the Postal Service; and

4. the practice of accepting letters whose postage was to be paid by the recipient. Often, these letters were carried hundreds, and even thousands of miles 

by the Postal Service, and then were simply refused by the addressee and returned to Washington as “undeliverable.” Indeed, in his first annual “Report 

to the President” (1845) Cave Johnson (Postmaster General, 1845–1848) 

noted the “immense number” of letters sent collect but not paid for by the 

addressee (which he estimated at 300,000 pieces quarterly).3

Still discussing “dead letters,” Johnson noted that, “the department receives 

no compensation for their transmission, and is at the additional expense of forwarding them through the mails to the dead letter office.” He went on to note 

that, “the service is performed in the transmission, and should be paid for at the 

time, and by the person seeking the aid of the department.”4

These were real problems and, clearly, reform was needed—desperately 

needed. Reform came, beginning with the Postal Act of 1845. This Act of Congress dramatically lowered postage rates and established a consistent, weightbased system that was easy to understand and administer (five cents per half 

ounce for letters traveling up to 300 miles, and ten cents per half ounce for 

letters traveling beyond 300 miles—that was it). The Act also restricted the free 

franking privilege and it outlawed “private express companies,” which effectively eliminated competition from independent, inter-city mail companies.

The U.S. 1847 Issue: 

Stamps That Changed the System

Harvey Mirsky
1 4 2 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

Prepayment Was the Real Need

One key aspect of reform, however, was still missing. 

As PMG Johnson had noted in that same 1845 report: 

“Prepayment of postage upon all matter passing through 

the mails . . . is of so much importance that it cannot be 

too strongly recommended to the favorable consideration 

of Congress.”5 But any start at addressing this need for prepayment had to wait until 1847, when Congress authorized 

the printing and distribution of adhesive postage stamps in 

the basic denominations of five cents and ten cents.

It should be noted that the concept of using adhesive 

postage stamps for the pre-payment of domestic letter 

postage was not a new idea. As early as June 1840, Daniel 

Webster introduced a resolution in Congress stating that, 

“it is expedient to inquire into the utility of so altering the 

present regulations of the Post Office Department as to 

connect the use of stamps, or stamped covers, with a large 

reduction of the rates of postage.”6

Senator Webster was, of course, taking his cue from the 

British who had just recently done exactly that—lowered 

the rates of postage and introduced adhesive stamps to evidence the pre-payment thereof.

A few months later, when George Plitt, special agent 

of the Post Office Department, submitted his report summarizing his visit to England to study the recent postal 

reforms instituted there, he, too, suggested lowered rates 

of postage (indeed, he recommended five cents and ten 

cents per half ounce.—although he suggested they be used 

for distances of up to and over 500 miles). Mr. Plitt in 

his report specifically recommended the use of stamps in 

those two denominations, which would be “evidence of 

pre-payment of postage.”7

Congress, however, was not yet ready (or perhaps not 

even interested) in taking the big step of linking postage 

stamps and compulsory pre-payment of postage. Clearly, 

there was major concern about the postal deficit, but while 

everyone was concerned about it and agreed that something had to be done, not everyone agreed that compulsory pre-payment (by stamps or cash) was the solution.

Stamps as the Mechanism

Experience had shown that the concept of pre-paying 

postage with adhesive stamps was a viable one, at least 

in other contexts. Private companies, as well as the federally owned United States City Despatch Post in New York, 

used stamps as evidence of pre-payment. Indeed, there 

are even a few covers extant that show those New York 

carrier stamps accepted for the pre-payment of inter-city 

federal postage. And the Postmaster Provisionals, in use 

between 1845 and 1847, were specifically designed to pay 

inter-city postage. Underlying it all, of course, was the successful British experience using the Penny Black.

Congress knew all this and still there were some who 

doubted the British system would work in America (there 

was even some concern that the lower rates being instituted might result in an even greater deficit). Other congressmen, for political reasons, were simply unwilling to 

institute compulsory prepayment at all, whether by stamps 

or in cash.

In his ground-breaking work of 1887, philatelist John 

Tiffany specifically noted the problems involved. Discussing the Reform Act of 1845, he wrote that: “The bill 

which was introduced in Congress in pursuance of this 

recommendation [that is, reduced postage rates that were 

to be based only on weight and distance], provided, it is 

said, both for obligatory prepayment and the use of postage stamps. But there was great hesitation in adopting the 

English system in the United States; the conditions were 

considered to be so different; the distances were so great 

that a greater rate was necessary; the country was so new 

that the risk from counterfeiting was much greater; the 

custom was not to prepay letters, and custom is stronger 

than law. Such and like objections were raised and the law 

was passed without adopting prepayment by stamp.”8

It is also worth noting that when Representative 

Joseph Ingersoll, Whig congressman from Pennsylvania, 

introduced a resolution in February 1846 that, “the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads be instructed 

to inquire, and report on the expediency of introducing 

into the post office laws a provision for the prepayment of 

postage, and the charge of double postage when it is not 

paid,” that resolution went nowhere.9

However, Congress did authorize the first federal 

issue of postage stamps in 1847. The ostensible purpose 

of those stamps was not to force pre-payment, but rather 

to provide a new convenience for the public, especially for 

commercial firms. Stamps would provide an alternative to 

standing in line in order to prepay postage on letters in 

cash and would also allow deposit of those pre-paid letters 

at the post office even outside of normal business hours. 

Stamps would also be a safeguard against messengers who 

might carry a letter and its cash pre-payment to the post 

office, but who might then pocket the cash and send the 

letter unpaid.

These were the apparent purposes of adhesive postage 

stamps and, in fact, stamps were widely used for those purposes of convenience and safety. However, this paper takes 
n u m b e r 5 5 • 1 4 3

the position that the most important benefit of the new 

adhesives could only be determined after the fact. It was 

thought they might be a good way to pre-pay postage, but 

once they were put into service, the stamps demonstrated 

they were a great way to pre-pay postage. In fact, they 

showed there were no cultural, logistical, or operational 

obstacles to their use and acceptance. And that being the 

case, there really wasn’t any reason why stampless mail 

could not be eliminated entirely and replaced by a prepayment system using adhesive stamps—just as the senator, the special agent, and the postmaster general wanted.

This is exactly what did happen. In 1856 Congress 

made it mandatory to pre-pay postage on domestic letter mail and only by using stamps or stamped envelopes. 

What gave Congress the confidence to change the system? 

How did they know it would work?

The answer to this was simply a function of actual 

experience.

The use of adhesive postage stamps was totally inclusive geographically. The use of stamps was not confined 

to only one area, or to a particular group of states, or 

to a limited region of the country. They were used everywhere and on every type of correspondence. Even though 

distribution was limited to only about four percent of all 

post offices, stamps were seen on letters from big cities and 

small towns, and they came from every state in the Union, 

as well the District of Columbia, Indian Territory, Wisconsin (when it was still a territory, as well as when it became 

a state), Minnesota Territory, and even tiny New Mexico 

Territory. Covers are even known from towns that don’t 

exist anymore. In short, just a small number of adhesive 

stamp users (approx. two percent of all letters), demonstrated that adhesive stamps could be used by everyone—

regardless of where one lived, or what purpose the letters 

served (Figure 1).

These letters were carried to the post office by individuals, by office workers, by foreign mail forwarders, 

hotels, government carriers, and even privately-owned 

local mail services. For every way mail could get to the 

post office, there are examples of stamped letters carried 

that way. And once in the system, adhesive-stamped letters 

were transported to their destination post office by every 

available means then in use: they were carried by coach, 

by horseback, over inland waterways, by coastal vessels, 

and certainly on the railroads—the latest emerging form 

of transportation at that time.

Adhesive stamps could be placed anywhere on the 

cover, even the lower right corner, and they were still accepted as evidence of pre-payment of postage. They were 

recognized by every postmaster through whose hands they 

passed; there is not a single example of a bona fide use of 

the 1847 issue that was rejected by any postmaster in the 

country.

Stamps were used to pre-pay postage on folded letters, on lettersheets, and even on envelopes, whose use 

was also just beginning to grow because of postal reform. 

Any way you could “package” a letter, you could pay its 

postage with a stamp, and people did. Letters were sent 

to every domestic destination our postal system served, as 

well as to Canada, South America, Great Britain, Western Europe, and even the Far East—in short, to every 

part of the world where mid-nineteenth century mail was 

carried.

Sunday mail, holiday mail, mail that was mis-sent and 

re-directed, forwarded mail, mail sent in care of someone 

else, registered mail, even mail with a bi-sected ten-cent 

stamp to pay the five-cent rate—all these services and accommodations were provided to adhesive-stamped letters. In other words, during the four years of its currency, 

the actual usage pattern of the 1847 issue demonstrated 

adhesive-stamped mail could do everything, go everywhere, be accepted by citizens and postal clerks alike, 

and receive every service that stampless mail received. If 

that was so, couldn’t stampless mail be eliminated? And 

wouldn’t that do away with unpaid mail?

Conclusion—Did Stamps

Change the System?

The Intention

The above experience notwithstanding, there are those 

who argue that stamps cannot be credited with changing 

the system—that they were not the agent responsible for 

eliminating stampless mail, because that was not their 

intended purpose. Their point is that stamps were issued 

only as another way to facilitate pre-payment of postage 

for those who wanted it—not to cause the actual demise 

of stampless letters.

But the issue here is not what stamps were or were 

not meant to do; the issue here is what stamps actually

did! Denying that they caused the end of stampless mail 

because that wasn’t their intended purpose—and I’m not 

sure whether it was or not, but even if it wasn’t their intended purpose—saying that and, therefore, denying adhesives the credit for eliminating stampless mail, is akin 

to saying that Christopher Columbus cannot be credited 

with discovering America, because that is not what he set 

out to do—he set out to find a new route to India, so finding America doesn’t count.
1 4 4 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

The Result

It may have been true in 1845, and even in 1847, that 

the main postal issue for Congress was the deficit, and that 

even if it saw pre-payment as a partial solution, Congress 

was, nonetheless, ambivalent regarding the means to use. 

But once the new adhesives were in use, their acceptance 

and versatility could not be denied, and their future role 

became clear. By 1848, Cave Johnson, who wanted prepayment of postage above anything else, was able to state 

in his Report to the President that: “little inconvenience 

would be felt by the public since the adoption of adhesive 

FIGURE 1. Stamps that changed the system: both denominations of the 1847 issue used from the Philadelphia post office on the same day (August 26, 1847); the five-cent Franklin adhesive paid the half ounce, 

under-300 miles rate to New York City (A), and the ten-cent Washington stamp paid the over-300 miles 

rate to Hopkinsville, Kentucky (B). Note that while the seven-bar grid used to cancel the five-cent stamp 

was correct as prescribed by Postal Regulations (A), the use of the double-octagon “PAID” to cancel 

the ten-cent adhesive was not authorized—it was actually a Philadelphia handstamp meant for use on 

stampless mail prepaid in cash (B). From the collection of Harvey Mirsky.

(A)

(B)
n u m b e r 5 5 • 1 4 5

stamps as the evidence of pre-payment of postage.”10 His 

grammatical tense was wrong, but his thought was right.

Did Congress, based on the 1847 experience, now 

agree that stamps were the answer—that they were all that 

was needed to eliminate the stampless system and thereby 

end the bane of unpaid mail? Well, that’s the way they 

voted.

By 1850, in his “Report to the President,” Postmaster General N.K. Hall recommended a further lowering of 

rates by two cents for pre-paid domestic letters.11 This new 

rate was adopted effective July 1, 1851—three cents per 

half ounce for a pre-paid letter and five cents for a letter sent 

unpaid (both rates for letters traveling up to 3,000 miles).

This time there was much greater distribution of the 

stamps than had been the case in 1847, when only selected 

post offices received automatic distribution. The Act of 

1851 (Section 3), required, “it shall be the duty of the 

Postmaster General to provide and furnish to all deputy 

postmasters, and to all other persons applying and paying 

therefore, suitable postage stamps of the denomination of 

three cents, and as such other denominations as he may 

think expedient, to facilitate the prepayment of postage 

provided for in this act”12 all deputy postmasters— not 

just the four percent of postmasters who received the 1847 

stamps!

Indeed, in terms of my hypothesis, it is noteworthy 

that in the first month of availability, 10.5 million stamps 

of the 1851 issue were distributed; this compares to 5.5 

million stamps distributed for the full four years of the 

1847 issue.13 Clearly, by 1851 Congress and the Postal 

System had seen their way out of the dilemma of unpaid 

“collect” mail. Stamps would be the answer, and Congress 

wanted to be sure stamps were widely available.

The key factor for the public was, undoubtedly, the 

preferential rate for prepaid letter mail that was obviously designed to capitalize on the American core value 

of “thriftiness.” Pre-payment was made a “bargain,” and 

stamps were now readily available to facilitate that bargain. Would the two mesh? Would the plan work?

You bet it worked! It worked so well that by 1853, 

one reporter, who had conducted an extensive review of 

the New York Post Office, noted that: “the stamp system is now becoming generally used in the United States. 

Nearly four-fifths of the paid home letters which are 

posted at New York are paid by stamps.” Furthermore, he 

said, “hardly three-fourths of the paid home letters which 

are received at New York are franked in this easy, simple 

process.”14 Think about that: after little more than one 

year of the preferential rate for pre-paid letters, stamps 

were becoming “generally used,” with about 80% of paid 

domestic letters leaving New York, and almost 75% of 

paid letters coming into New York, being franked with 

adhesive postage stamps!

Prepayment had been established, and using stamps 

was obviously more desirable than cash from an administrative point of view. The public had also confirmed it—

preferring stamps to cash as a pre-payment method.

It was all there, the stage was set. Congress now had 

the confidence that stamps could do the job. First they 

made pre-payment of domestic letter mail postage mandatory in 1855. Six months later, the final step was taken 

when stamps and stamped envelopes became the only acceptable means of pre-payment for domestic letter mail.

The loop was closed and the final piece of the Great 

Postal Reform Movement had been put in place. Postage 

rates were significantly lower (and would go lower still); 

service was better (there were 25,565 post offices in operation by mid-1856, compared to 14,183 in 1845);15

communications were enhanced (there were an estimated 

239,642 miles of postal routes in 1856, compared to 

143,940 miles in 1845);16 the use of the mails by ordinary 

citizens had grown exponentially; and, at last, “collect” 

letters (and the lost revenue and extra costs they engendered), had been eliminated.

Using the 1847 stamps to eliminate unpaid mail was 

probably the intention for many all along, but whether 

it was or not, the fact is that’s exactly what stamps did. 

And that demonstration—that stamps had the ability to 

completely change the system—was, without question, the 

most important benefit of our first American issue.

NOTES

1. In 1845, for example, “net revenue, after deducting commissions of postmasters, contingent and incidental expenses, 

amounted to $2,942,217.” This compared to expenditures of 

$4,320,732 (or a net deficit of $1,378,515) – Report of the Postmaster General, December 1, 1845, Doc. 2, pp. 850–851

2. Similarly, the privileges given to newspapers, in the form 

of preferential postal rates, were another very significant contributor to post office deficits. Indeed, in his 1845 Report Of The 

Postmaster General (p.857), Cave Johnson noted that “It is confidently believed . . . that nine-tenths of the whole weight of the 

mails, and a greater inequality in bulk, is composed of printed 

matter, paying about one-ninth of the expense.” Nonetheless, 

because of various political and philosophical reasons, Congress 

was unwilling to consider reforming those rates.

3. Report of the Postmaster General, December 1, 1845, 

Doc. 2, p. 857. (In his 1848 Report, Johnson increased the estimate to 2,000,000 letters annually.)
1 4 6 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

4. Report of the Postmaster General, 1845, p. 859.

5. Report of the Postmaster General, 1845, p. 859.

6. Senate Resolutions, 26th Congress, 1st Session, June 10, 

1840

7. Report of George Plitt, Special Agent of the Post Office Department, February 3, 1841 (26th Congress, 2nd Session, 

Senate)

8. Tiffany, John K., The History of Postage Stamps of the 

United States, (C. H. Mekeel, 1887), p. 23

9. Journal of the House of Representatives of the United 

States, Volume 41, p. 405

10. Report of the Postmaster General, December 2, 1848, 

Doc. 1, p. 1253

11. Report of the Postmaster General, November 30, 1950, 

Doc. 1, p. 408

12. Chase, Carroll, The 3¢ Stamp of the United States 

1851–1857 Issue, (Quarterman Publications, Inc., 1942), p. 3

13. Hulme II, W. Wilson, “July 1, 1851 Usages of the 1851 

Issue,” The 1851 Issue of United States Stamps: a Sesquicentennial Perspective, (U.S. Philatelic Classics Society, Inc., New 

Orleans, 2006), p. 107

14. “Metropolitan Post Offices-New York,” The Illustrated Magazine of Art, (John Cassell), London, 1853, Vol. I, 

p. 268

15. Report of the Postmaster General, December 1, 1856, 

p. 764; Report of the Postmaster General, December 1, 1845, 

Doc. 2, p. 850

16. Report of the Postmaster General, 1856.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cassell, John. “Metropolitan Post Offices-New York.” The Illustrated Magazine of Art, 1(1853): 268.

Chase, Carroll. The 3¢ Stamp of the United States 1851–1857 

Issue. Lawrence, Mass.: Quarterman Publications, 1942.

Hulme, W. Wilson, II. “July 1 1851 Usages of the 1851 Issue.” In 

The 1851 Issue of United States Stamps: a Sesquicentennial 

Perspective, ed. Hubert C. Skinner and Charles J. Peterson. 

New Orleans, La.: U.S. Philatelic Classics Society, 2006.

Tiffany, John K. History of the Postage Stamps of the United 

States of America. St Louis, Mo.: C. H. Mekeel, 1887.

U.S. Congress. House. Journal of the House of Representatives 

of the United States, 29th Congress, 1st Session. Volume 41. 

February 1846.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Report of George Plitt, Special Agent of 

the Post Office Department, February 3, 1841. 26th Congress, 2nd Session, 1841.

———. Resolutions. 26th Congress, 1st session, 10 June 1845.

U.S. Post Office Department. Report of the Postmaster General, 

1 December 1845. Washington D. C.: Government Printing 

Office, 1845.

———. Report of the Postmaster General, 2 December 1848. 

Washington D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1848.

———. Report of the Postmaster General, 2 December 1856. 

Washington D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1856.

———. Report of the Postmaster General, 30 November 1950.

Washington D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1950.
I

n 1855, residents of Orizaba, a burgeoning town between Mexico’s main 

Atlantic port of Veracruz and the national capital, saw the urban geography of their town change. In the first half of the nineteenth century, the 

town had been home to so many churches and religious orders that is had been 

called “one giant convent.”1 Indeed, one can see the many churches that dotted 

­Orizaba’s landscape in the nineteenth century in Juan Moritz Rugendas’ depiction of the town. However, after the passage of laws that forced the Catholic 

Church in Mexico to sell off all property and allowed the government to seize 

church holdings,2 new uses were found for the forcibly vacated religious buildings. In Orizaba, what had been the oratory of the religious order of San Felipe 

Neri was now occupied by the town’s new post office. 

The superimposing of a secular means of diffusing information over a religious one reflects the unique evolution of individuals’ relationships with the 

postal service in Mexico. This paper will examine the ways in which the people 

of Orizaba and the larger state of Veracruz filled what one Orizaba newspaper 

called “the vacuum left by the exit of the religious communities”3 with newspaper reading, letter writing and, as a result, increasing demands for a more 

comprehensive postal system. These demands included requests for more frequent and personalized postal delivery as well as more reliable and politically 

impartial postal employees. By the end of the nineteenth century, demands for 

an improved postal system drowned out any demands that might have been 

made for better treatment of the clergy on the part of the national government.

In their reaction to the expulsion of the religious community of San Felipe 

Neri, there seemed to be little sign of the renowned parochial nature of the residents of Orizaba. When the friars were abruptly forced to abandon the location, 

there was no outcry from the local population.4

 The litigation the event did generate involved what looks to be an intra-office squabble: for at least eight years 

after the passage of the Lerdo Law, the new postmaster of Orizaba lodged grievances with the government about the self-serving ways of his predecessor, who 

had requisitioned a house for his father-in-law. Nowhere in the documentation 

did anyone take issue with the expulsion of the religious themselves.

However in that same year, residents of Orizaba and the nearby town of 

Córdoba petitioned the imperial government of French interloper Maximilian 

for more comprehensive and reliable mail service. The following year they 

From the Pulpit to the Post: Anti-Clericalism 

and Communication in Orizaba, 1857–1867

Rachel A. Moore
1 4 8 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

squabbled with one another over jurisdiction in censorship cases. Shortly after the execution of Maximilian, they 

continued to needle the federal government with complaints regarding the shabby appearance and vigilance of 

the police force. And through this all, no complaints surfaced in the same arenas regarding the treatment of the 

clergy or their Catholic followers.

In fact, Orizaba’s intellectual community was quick to 

disavow the town’s reputation as a mammoth monastery. 

In his Essay on the history of Orizaba (1867), Joaquín 

Arróniz refuted this reputation at length, writing,

He who believes that modern Orizaba had monastic and clerical origins is mistaken. Although 

the preponderance of religious sentiment in the 

town supports this viewpoint, its religiosity is 

often overemphasized.

The Spaniards who made Orizaba their principal residence were drawn to it neither by convent nor by cross. They were attracted by the 

opportunities this location offered merchants to 

conduct business with travelers. They also came 

in search of the healthy condition they had lost 

on the coast.

The Church, the true center of all the populations of America and Europe, came later, once 

the light of the true faith was known, to further 

strengthen the vitality of our fledgling city. In this 

we differ from the foundation of the rest of our 

nation’s cities since it can be said that they were 

born of the altar.5

Why this comparative complacency regarding anticlerical reform? I will argue here that the anticlerical reforms of the nineteenth century spurred on public debate 

regarding the obligations that the government assumed 

after depriving the public of church counsel. Correlations 

can be drawn between anticlerical initiatives and demands 

for improved distribution, regulation, and protection of 

private information circulating in the public sphere. That 

said, Mexicans in the nineteenth century acclimated to 

secular society at a pace that only apparently stood at 

odds with their “parochial reputation.” Their demands 

conformed to a holistic concept of church and state in 

which the duties of governing society were shared between 

the two institutions.6

While residents of Orizaba demanded that the clergy 

retain their traditional duties through the first third of the 

1800s, they rethought their appeals beginning in the midnineteenth century. Rather than seek to preserve the central public place of the clergy, orizabeños sought to foist 

some of the traditional duties of the clergy, namely the 

diffusion of information, on the government itself. What 

one 1870 orizabeño editorial called “the vacuum left by 

the exit of the religious communities”7 needed to be filled. 

If the government wanted to assume the mantle of arbiter 

of public life, they reasoned, then the government would 

also assume the obligations that came therewith. These 

obligations included keeping the public informed and protected, both traditional purviews of the clergy in Mexico. 

The process of resolving themselves to these changes and 

responding with altered expectations of the clergy and the 

government alike represented a declaration of faith in the 

public sphere. The public sphere, and with it public service, became sacred arenas and occupations.8

 Here I will 

examine the chief government institution to which individuals turned for information and security in an increasingly anticlerical age: the postal service.

Several scholars have explained the growing “mass 

participation” in the postal system in the United States 

during this period as a result of improvements in print 

technology, literacy and transportation. The area under 

study in this essay experienced improvements in both print 

technology and literacy in the nineteenth century. Anticlericalism is an important additional factor that must be 

considered in studying the development of the postal system in any country in which the church played a central 

role in information diffusion. Many patronizing the postal 

system in the United States did so in hopes of maintaining 

contact with far-flung relations and friends. By contrast, 

those patronizing the postal system in Mexico often experienced less mobility and craved news of the wider world 

in the form of newspapers and, to a lesser degree, personal 

letters. Before the liberal reforms of the mid-nineteenth 

century, many individuals turned to the Church as a source 

of information and answers. The closing of churches deprived them of this uniquely sanctioned information.

Orizaba and Córdoba are particularly interesting 

cities to study because residents simultaneously bore the 

consequences and enjoyed the fruits of nineteenth-century 

modernization. The anticlerical initiatives and demands 

for improved government services manifested in these 

towns fit squarely into two larger processes at work globally in the nineteenth century – secularization and centralization. In Mexico, the Bourbon dynasty spearheaded both 

processes in the late eighteenth century with reforms that 

minimized the influence of the clergy and the autonomy 

of the colonial government. Secularizing and centralizing 

initiatives persisted after Mexican independence. They experienced renewed popular approval after several stormy 

years under the passage of a federal constitution in 1824.
n u m b e r 5 5 • 1 4 9

The allegedly parochial orizabeños reacted to early 

anticlerical reforms in the expected manner. In 1827, nineteen of the thirty-five friars working at the Propaganda 

Fide College in Orizaba were forced to return to Spain 

when the Mexican government expelled all Spaniards 

from the country. According to Francisco Morales, “the 

city’s inhabitants threatened to guard the convent to prevent the government from expelling the Spanish friars.”9

 It 

would not be until 1834 that orizabeños followed through 

on that threat.

In 1834, the state government ordered that all religious houses with fewer than twenty-four residents be 

closed. “This,” wrote local chronicler José María Naredo, 

“amounted to abolishing them all since none of them had 

this many residents.”10 The anxieties of local residents 

mounted as they awaited the promulgation of the decree. 

The arrival of five empty carriages heightened suspicions 

that the religious community of Orizaba would soon be 

forced from their residences and the town. When authorities finally moved to expel the religious, they did so in the 

middle of the night. However, residents noticed this activity 

as well. According to Naredo, one resident left her house at 

two in the morning alerting the town that “They are taking 

the priest! They are taking the priest!” Naredo wrote that,

News spread like a bolt of electricity. Townspeople came out of their houses armed and ready 

to act and soon the bells of the Church were ringing, sounding the alarm. At dawn the group of 

armed people had grown and the church bells 

continued sounding until noon. Upon hearing 

the news, many combatants left their ranches and 

came into town, forming a large squad with those 

already there. . . . At midday the uproar was horrible and everything was in disarray, so much 

so that some people stepped forward to impose 

some order. These individuals, along with Fathers 

Llano and Mendoza, engineered a truce with 

the armed forces and they put down their arms. 

The whole thing had come to a close by six that 

night, and the ringing of the church bells, as well 

as the fireworks, announced the triumph of the 

townspeople.11

Even in a moment of victimization the clerical community of Orizaba demonstrated the strong sway they 

continued to hold over popular action to this point. After 

diffusing the situation with government authorities, the 

priests implored the irate population to return to their 

homes. “The obedient townspeople withdrew, forming 

groups and singing hymns to the Lord,” wrote Naredo.

However, as the nineteenth century progressed there 

were an increasing number of instances in which public 

sentiment overrode public deference to representatives 

of the church. In 1834, the priests of Orizaba had successfully prevented residents of the town from retaliating 

against government authorities for attempting to drive the 

clergy from their homes. Just four years later their entreaties were not as effective. The devaluation of currency by 

the Mexican government in 1837 incensed orizabeños. 

When they threatened to march on the textile factory at 

Cocolapam, located on the outskirts of Orizaba, priests 

attempted to dissuade them. Naredo wrote that, “The 

people listened to the arguments of the priests and seemed 

to calm down; and when it seemed like each and every 

one of them would return to their homes, a voice started 

to chant ‘To Cocolapam! To Cocolapam!’” When French 

workers at the factory fired warning shots at the menacing group, the demonstration escalated into open violence. 

Two Frenchmen were injured and the factory suffered 

an estimated 1,200 pesos worth of damage. Naredo described the event as a gross aberration for the people of 

Orizaba. “The moderation and docility of the people here 

is proverbial,” he wrote.12 However, in light of their subsequent demands of the government, this would not seem 

to be the case.

With the clerical community under attack, orizabeños

turned to other means of gathering information. Orizabeños conceived of themselves as active participants in the 

burgeoning print culture and legal system of nineteenthcentury Mexico. They were avid newspaper readers and 

frequent correspondents. Documents make reference to 

no less than six newspapers published or circulated within 

the city itself.13 Much of the population was keenly aware 

of the way in which information circulated. In addition, 

they had strongly held opinions regarding the quality and 

integrity of information to which they were entitled. In 

the aftermath of local and national anticlerical initiatives, 

residents of Orizaba became increasingly vocal in their demands for a more reliable and secure postal service. These 

demands grew as much from the unique intellectual environment of Orizaba as they did from the larger dialogues 

occurring in Mexico at the time regarding the transparency of government.

While Orizaba did not boast the same concentration 

of educational institutions as neighboring town of Xalapa, 

the tobacco barons responsible for many of the improvements to the town made certain that residents had access 

to secondary education. The Colegio Preparatorio de 

Orizaba opened thanks to their sponsorship in 1825.14 For 

their primary education, orizabeños had several options 
1 5 0 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

of varying scholarly rigor. The two most respected primary schools in the center of town educated their students 

in “reading, writing, Christian doctrine, math, drawing, 

manners, and morals.” In addition, several schools for 

girls offered classes in “reading, writing, counting, cooking, keeping house, and many other manual skills appropriate for the fairer sex.”15

Residents of the town of Orizaba itself were as engaged as circumstances permitted with the larger literary 

community of Mexico. Especially after the rapid growth 

of the periodical press in Mexico during the nineteenth 

century,16 orizabeños relied to a great degree on the postal 

system for contact with the larger intellectual community 

of the nation. They often found themselves frustrated with 

an understaffed and underfunded post office.

The postal regulations instituted by the Bourbons in 

1794 remained the foundation of Mexico’s postal code until 

1883.17 The Bourbon administrators created two principal 

postal administrations with this set of laws: that of Veracruz and that of Mexico. In 1821, Mexico’s newly independent government eliminated the first eleven provisions 

of the Bourbon regulations but left the larger organization of the postal system intact. Orizaba numbered among 

one of four principal post offices operating under the main 

post office in Veracruz. Campeche and Mérida also had 

principal post offices as did Xalapa, Orizaba’s mercantile 

rival to the north. However, where Campeche, Xalapa, and 

Mérida had three or even four full-time postal employees, 

Orizaba had only two. The budget of the Orizaba post office was less than half that of the Xalapa post office, despite 

their similar size and location.18 This disparity grew in large 

part from Xalapa’s prominent commercial role during the 

late colonial period as the site of Mexico’s only trade fair. In 

addition, Xalapa served as the major travel hub for those in 

transit from Veracruz to Mexico City.

While regular mail service was reinstituted in Mexico in May 1823, postal patrons continued to face delays 

and unreliable service throughout the first half of the 

nineteenth century. In 1838, mail arrived in Orizaba biweekly on Tuesdays and Thursdays. However, the town 

lacked direct mail communication with Veracruz. Those 

letters bound for the port, according to Segura, “had to 

pass through Nopalucan and Xalapa and, for this reason, 

are much delayed.” By 1854, sufficient progress had been 

made on the route between Orizaba and Veracruz that 

weekly mail service existed.19 Five years later, residents 

of Orizaba could both send and receive mail three days 

a week.20 The ability to both dispatch and receive correspondence on Sundays—the only day on which this was 

possible—alluded to the anticlerical bent of the national 

government at the time.

However, in the years of political instability ushered 

in by the beginning of the French intervention in 1862, 

the postal system suffered near financial ruin. According 

to postal employee Manuel Aburto from late April to November 1862, “the revenue of the post office was insufficient to cover our salaries and other costs, forcing us to 

leave nearly all employees unpaid.”21 When the post office failed to return sufficient revenue, the responsibility of 

covering expenses often fell to the postmasters themselves. 

In 1863, postal employees working in Orizaba appealed 

to the government for financial assistance in at least two 

separate instances. In October, the postmaster requested 

that the expenses of correos extraordinarios be transferred 

from the post office of origin to the central post office in 

Mexico City.22 A month later, the same official petitioned 

the government for assistance in paying rent owed from 

April to November 1862. “At that point in time,” wrote 

the official, “this office had no income at all.”23 The post 

office was in such financial straits that French officials reduced their staff to just two: the postmaster and a postal 

inspector.24

However, the indigence of postal workers in Orizaba 

does not necessarily indicate that individuals were not 

using the post office during this period. Rather than posting mail, orizabeños were eagerly anticipating it. After 

the installation of Maximilian of Austria as emperor of 

Mexico in 1864, the demands for postal service by both 

the new government and civilians increased markedly. 

Maximilian wanted to stay in closer contact with provincial outposts, and civilians sought to apprise each other of 

developments through letters and the growing number of 

newspapers in Mexico. As a result, the frequency of mail 

service between Mexico City, Orizaba, and Veracruz increased to six times a week.25 However, postal employees 

continued to be poorly paid and poorly monitored. In 

1864, the postmaster of Córdoba wrote to officials in 

Mexico City complaining that, “Being that mail is now 

being sent and received daily, both from above as well as 

from below, the duties of this office have quadrupled and 

I am stretched to my limit in dispatching with them. This 

makes it imperative that I have someone to help me.”26

He wrote again the next year appealing to authorities for 

more pay since “within a short while” mail service from 

Córdoba was set to include Coscomatepec, Huatusco, 

­Xalapa, and the tierra caliente.

27 Authorities relented at 

this point and granted the overworked civil servant a raise 

in salary to 400 pesos.
n u m b e r 5 5 • 1 5 1

Individuals living in both Córdoba and Orizaba also 

demanded more personalized service and convenience 

from the post office. They no longer wanted to report to the 

post office to retrieve their mail. Instead, they demanded 

that postal workers deliver it to their homes. In Córdoba, 

according to one complaint, “one local merchant went so 

far as to say that if there was not a mailman available 

to do this the postmaster himself should deliver the letters.”28 The postmaster of Córdoba responded to such a 

request with the explanation to authorities that, “As I am 

sure you will understand, this would be impossible. . . . 

If this was done the office would have to be closed for 

the entire time that I spent delivering the mail that arrived 

from above [the west] between eight and nine in the morning, and then the mail that arrived from Veracruz at one 

in the afternoon.”29 In 1865, the postmaster of Orizaba 

requested that an additional postman that catered exclusively to private homes be added to the staff. He described 

demands for “delivery of letters to private dwellings” as 

being “overwhelming.”30

By 1865, postal officials had raised salaries throughout central Mexico. The postmaster of Orizaba received 

a fifty percent raise—from 800 to 1,200 pesos annually. 

The postmaster of Córdoba received a twenty-five percent 

raise—from 400 to 500 pesos annually. Funds were also 

allocated for additional workers to be hired. The Orizaba 

post office was budgeted to hire on a second interventor

(postal inspector). Presumably with the greater volume of 

mail passing through the transit hub of Orizaba at this 

point, it was necessary to have additional sets of eyes 

scrutinizing correspondence and printed matter. The Córdoba post office received funds to hire a clerk and a house 

servant.31 These salaries and staff are similar to those 

outlined for the town of Xalapa, located to the north.32

Larger cities such as Puebla and Mexico City had considerably larger budgets and workforces. The postmaster 

of Puebla received 3,000 pesos annually and headed up a 

staff that included four postal inspectors and three mailmen.33 The Mexico City post office had a total budget of 

10,000 pesos. The salaries of its employees—including 

3,000 pesos for the postmaster—were publicized with 

large printed broadsides posted about the city.34

Postal workers in Veracruz petitioned for a budget 

and staff on par with that of the national capital, arguing 

that the demands upon them warranted it. According the 

postmaster, the eight employees of the Veracruz post office 

could barely keep up with the work accorded them. “This 

city is debilitating and hot,” he wrote in an appeal for additional employees, “and if but one of the employees were 

to fall sick, it would be physically impossible to complete 

the tasks with which we are charged.”35

However, even more reasonable salaries did not deter 

postal employees from expressing partisan bias in the 

workplace. Those who worked for the post office in the 

nineteenth century occupied ambiguous political terrain. 

They were expected in many cases to continue to do their 

jobs through partisan conflicts and foreign invasions. And, 

while they were an example of the type of civil servant 

encouraged by the Bourbon reforms in the late colonial 

period, they often were not accorded the privileges of an 

impartial government employee. This was because, unavoidably almost, they were not impartial.

Some civil servants were coerced into serving partisan 

aims and others eagerly seized upon the opportunity to 

abuse their positions for personal gain and political advancement. During his first term as president of Mexico 

(1861–1863), Benito Juarez’s government drafted postal 

employee Manuel Aburto into service to handle the correspondence of Juarez’s Army of the East. His wife later 

testified that Aburto was drafted in an “incident that was 

highly violent and it was impossible to resist.” When 

French troops overran Puebla in 1863, they took Aburto 

prisoner as a member of the Mexican army. Despite his 

protests that “he had the character of a civil servant,” the 

invading troops sent Aburto to France to be held. In her 

appeal to authorities for his salary, Aburto’s wife Vicenta 

argued that her husband served as an “employee of the 

Mexican Nation and not on a particular party.”36

Aburto represented the exception in the nineteenth 

century. Postmasters occasionally took advantage of their 

position as the gatekeepers of posted mail to rid deliveries 

of any offending correspondence or publications. Shortly 

after independence, both the secretary of the Orizaba post 

office and the head of the municipal council of Orizaba 

complained that mail passing through the town of Tehuacan was often not received in Mexico City or in Orizaba. 

The head of the municipal council wrote “these casualities, considering the circumstances, are suspicious.” He 

urged postal authorities to route mail through the town 

of Nopaluca, “as it had come before, because it is a faster 

and more secure route.”37 The exchange is briefly documented but alludes to the power local postal workers had 

over how—and whether—written and published correspondence circulated in and out of Orizaba. Authorities 

anxious to monitor the mails and control the spread of 

potentially seditious material established strict laws that 

required individuals to use only the national postal service. A set of laws passed in Orizaba in 1863 stated that 
1 5 2 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

mail conveyed outside the national postal system “not 

only considerably diminishes the income of the post office, 

but also allows one to avoid the vigilance that the authorities should have over (the postal service).” The penalties 

assessed for these offenses ranged from a fine of one peso 

per piece of mail conveyed illegally to two days of jail time 

for every peso left unpaid.38

The frequency with which postmasters were accused 

of tampering with the mails points to how central a place 

the postal system had assumed in communication in 

nineteenth-century Mexico. In the aftermath of anticlerical reforms, many individuals turned to the postal system 

rather than the pulpit to both gather and disseminate information. It was important to them not only to have rapid 

and reliable mail service but also to trust those who relayed posted letters and newspapers to their destinations. 

While these demands were initially brought on by being 

deprived of church counsel, they persisted even after the 

central government’s attitude toward the Catholic Church 

changed. The reforms of the nineteenth century had whetted an appetite for secular avenues of communication and 

participation in the public sphere that was there to remain.

NOTES

1. Manuel Paynó, in Fernando Tola de Habich, ed. Museo 

literario tres (Mexico: Premia, 1986), p. 152.

2. The Juarez Law, passed in 1855, severely limited the 

jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical court. The Lerdo Law, passed 

in 1856, forced the Catholic Church to sell off all real property. Later anti-clerical reforms allowed the government to seize 

Church real estate holdings.

3. Boletin del Hospicio de Orizaba, October 27, 1870.

4. Archivo General de la Nación (AGN), Correos Fomento 

Vol. 6 Exp. 10 fs. 39–46; In a very literal sense, anti-clerical initiatives sought to fracture the influence of the church on public 

life by unseating its priests from their homes and eliminating 

the church from the public landscape. Eulalia Ribera Carbó 

describes in detail how, in 1874, government authorities closed 

the Carmelite convent in downtown Orizaba and turned the one 

large block that the convent occupied into four by running two 

streets through it. Herencia colonial y modernidad burguesa en 

un espacio urbano: el caso de Orizaba en el siglo XIX (Mexico: 

Institution de Investigaciones Dr José María Luis Mora, 2002),

p. 113.

5. Joaquín Arróniz, Ensayo de una historia de Orizaba 

(Mexico: Editorial Citlaltepetl, 1959), 1: 117.

6. “Although it is generally assumed that modern Mexican 

nationalism is a secular product of nineteenth-century liberalism, 

it may be more appropriate to see it as forged by these contrary 

forces of Christian fulfillment and secular liberal commitments, 

and perched on the horns of its own dilemmas.” Brian Connaughton, Clerical Ideology in a Revolutionary Age (Boulder, 

CO: University Press of Colorado, 2003), p. 19.

7. Boletin del Hospicio de Orizaba, October 27, 1870.

8. “. . . con tales recomendaciones, los intereses de los 

municipios se veian como cosa sagrada”; “En los gobiernos 

democráticos en que la soberanía reside en el pueblo” Boletin 

del Hospicio de Orizaba, October 30, 1870. Also repeated, passage from October 27, 1870.

9. Francisco Morales, “Mexican Society and the Franciscan 

Order in a Period of Transition, 1749–1859,” The Americas 54: 

3 (January 1998), pp. 346–347.

10. José María Naredo, Estudio geografico, historico y estadistico del canton y de la ciudad de Orizaba (Orizaba: Imprenta 

del hospicio, 1898), p. 96.

11. Naredo, Estudio geografico, 98.

12. Naredo, Estudio geografico, pp. 104–105.

13. Those discussed here include El Eco de Orizaba, El 

Orizaveño, El voto de Orizaba, El Ferrocarril, El Correo de Sotavento (published in Veracruz), and El Siglo XIX (published in 

Mexico City).

14. Ribera Carbó, Herencia colonial, p. 59.

15. Segura “Apuntes estadisticos del distrito de Orizava,” 

p. 50.

16. Miguel Ángel Castro, ed. Tipos y caracteres: la prensa 

mexicana 1822–1855 (Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma 

de México, 2001).

17. Servicio Postal Mexicano, Quinta casa de correos: 

crónica del servicio postal en México (Mexico: Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transporte, Servicio Postal Mexicano, 1990), 

p. 92.

18. Enrique Cárdenas de la Peña, El Correo (Mexico: Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transportes, 1987), p. 110.

19. Segura, “Apuntes estadisticos del distrito de Orizava,” 

p. 58.

20. AGN Correos Fomento, Vol. 1, Exp. 64, F. 136.

21. AGN Correos Fomento Vol. 5, Exp. 71, F. 325.

22. AGN Correos Fomento Vol. 1 Exp. 135–136 Fol. 428–

433.

23. AGN Correos Fomento Vol. 1 Exp. 135–136 Fol. 376.

24. AGN Correos Fomento Vol. 1 Exp. 135–136 Fol. 9.

25. AGN Correos Fomento, Vol. 5, Exp. 73, F. 336.

26. AGN Correos Fomento, Vol. 6, Exp. 74, F. 394.

27. AGN Correos Fomento, Vol. 6, Exp. 72, F. 389–391.

28. AGN Correos Fomento, Vol. 8, Exp. 50, F. 300.

29. AGN Correos Fomento, Vol. 6, Exp. 71, F. 387.

30. AGN Correos Fomento, Vol. 8, Exp. 50, F. 300

31. AGN Correos Fomento Vol. 12 Exp. 21, F. 204

32. AGN Correos Fomento Vol. 1, Exp. 124, F. 385.

33. AGN Correos Fomento Vol. 12 Exp. 21, F. 204

34. AGN Correos Fomento Vol. 1, Exp. 113–114, F. 333–

338.

35. AGN Correos Fomento, Vol. 7, Exp. 21, F. 128.

36. AGN Correos Fomento Vol. 4, Exp. 35, F. 139.
n u m b e r 5 5 • 1 5 3

37. Archivo Historico de Orizaba, Sección Gobiemo, Box 25.

38. AGN Correos Fomento Vol. 1, Exp. 71, F. 171–173.

Bibliography

Archivo General de la Nación, Mexico. Correos Fomento, Vol. 1 

Exp. 124.

Archivo General de la Nación, Mexico. Correos Fomento, 

Vol. 1, Exp. 71.

Archivo General de la Nación, Mexico. Correos Fomento, 

Vol. 1, Exp. 113–114.

Archivo General de la Nación, Mexico. Correos Fomento, 

Vol. 1, Exp. 135–136.

Archivo General de la Nación, Mexico. Correos Fomento, 

Vol. 4, Exp. 35.

Archivo General de la Nación, Mexico. Correos Fomento, 

Vol. 5, Exp. 73.

Archivo General de la Nación, Mexico. Correos Fomento, 

Vol. 6, Exp. 71.

Archivo General de la Nación, Mexico. Correos Fomento, 

Vol. 6, Exp. 72.

Archivo General de la Nación, Mexico. Correos Fomento, 

Vol. 6, Exp. 74.

Archivo General de la Nación, Mexico. Correos Fomento, 

Vol. 6, Exp. 10.

Archivo General de la Nación, Mexico. Correos Fomento, 

Vol. 7, Exp. 21.

Archivo General de la Nación, Mexico. Correos Fomento, 

Vol. 8, Exp. 50.

Archivo General de la Nación, Mexico. Correos Fomento, 

Vol. 12, Exp. 21.

Archivo Historico de Orizaba, Sección Gobiemo, Box 25.

Arróniz, Joaquín. Ensayo de una Historia de Orizaba. Mexico 

D. F.: Editorial Citlaltepetl, 1959.

Boletin del Hospicio de Orizaba, 27 October 1870.

Boletin del Hospicio de Orizaba, 30 October 1870.

Carbó, Eulalia Ribera. Herencia Colonial y Modernidad Burguesa en un Espacio Urbano: El Caso de Orizaba en el Siglo 

XIX. México, D. F.: Instituto de Investigaciones Dr José 

María Luis Mora, 2002.

Cárdenas de la Peña, Enrique. El Correo. Mexico, D. F.: Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transportes, 1987.

Castro, Miguel Ángel, ed. Tipos y Caracteres: La Prensa Mexicana 1822–1855. Mexico, D. F.: Universidad Nacional 

Autónoma de México, 2001.

Connaughton, Brian. Clerical Ideology in a Revolutionary Age.

Boulder, Co.: University Press of Colorado, 2003.

Morales, Francisco. “Mexican Society and the Franciscan Order in 

a Period of Transition, 1749–1859.” The Americas, 54(3):96.

Naredo, José María. Estudio Geografico, Historico y Estadistico 

del Canton y de la Ciudad de Orizaba. Orizaba, Mex.: Imprenta del Hospicio, 1898.

Segura, Manuel D. “Apuntes Estadísticos del Distrito de Orizava, 

Formados el Año de 1839.” Boletín de la Sociedad Mexicana de Geografía y Estadística, 1854.

Servicio Postal Mexicano. Quinta Casa de Correos: Crónica del 

Servicio Postal en México. Mexico, D. F.: Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transporte, Servicio Postal Mexicano, 1990.

Tola de Habich, Fernando. ed. Museo Literario Tres. México, 

D.F.: Premià, 1990.

On June 10, 1840, Daniel Webster rose on the floor of the United States 

Senate to share the contents of a letter he had just received from Great 

Britain. As he showed the senators the world’s first postage stamp, the 

Penny Black, and the first stamped lettersheet, the Mulready, (Figure 1) seen in 

the United States, Webster offered resolutions that “rates of postage charged on 

letters transmitted by the mails of the United States ought to be reduced” and 

that an inquiry be made “into the utility of so altering the present regulations of 

the Post Office Department as to connect the use of stamps, or stamped covers, 

with a large reduction of the rates of postage.”1

Like many today and in his own time, Webster focused on the introduction 

of stamps and the reduction in postage rates without understanding them in 

their larger context as a complete overhaul of the business model for the post 

office. Perhaps because he stood to lose a valuable perquisite of public office, 

Webster made no mention of another important element in the British Post Office reforms—elimination of the much-abused franking privilege. The full suite 

of postal reforms enacted in Great Britain between 1839 and 1841 also included 

free home delivery of mail, registered mail, and money orders. In contrast to the 

British reforms, which were achieved in only a few years, the parallel reform of 

the U.S. Post Office spanned more than half a century. Twenty-three years passed 

between Daniel Webster’s resolutions and the 1863 elimination of distance as 

a factor in domestic postage rates. However, it would be another twenty years 

(1883) before American letter rates were lowered to two cents, thus matching the British one-penny rate. Yet, another decade (1893) passed before urban 

dwellers were required to erect a mailbox or cut a slit in their front doors.2 The 

franking privilege, severely curtailed with the introduction of official stamps in 

1873, continues today for members of Congress and the president. Although 

registered mail began in 1855 in the United States, it was not secure until 1867. 

Money orders introduced during the Civil War were not available at a majority 

of post offices until the early twentieth century.

American interest in British post office reforms did not begin with Daniel 

Webster. By 1839, it was a regular topic in the leading national news magazine, 

Niles’ Weekly Register.

3

 Postmaster General Amos Kendall dispatched George 

Plitt to London and the continent in June 1839 to observe first-hand the changes 

in British and European postal operations. When Plitt returned in August 1840, 

Cheap Postage: A Tool for Social Reform

David L. Straight
1 5 6 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

he recommended rating letters by weight rather than the 

number of sheets of paper, two postage zones (under and 

over 500 miles) because distances in the United States were 

much greater than in Britain, the introduction of postage 

stamps, prepayment of postage for letters and newspapers, 

abolition of the franking privilege, as well as guards for 

“mail of importance” and special agents to inspect post 

offices and instruct postmasters.4 Great Britain, in contrast, to this day charges a penalty of double postage for 

nonprepayment but has never made prepayment of postage compulsory.

The campaign to adopt the key elements of the British Uniform Penny Post—a low uniform rate per unit of 

weight, elimination of any distinctions for distance, and 

compulsory prepayment with stamps—became known as 

the “cheap postage” movement in the United States. Most 

reformers also advocated higher postage rates for newspapers and abolition of the franking privilege because they 

understood the extent to which American letters subsidized 

other classes of mail. At the same time, British reformers 

began a crusade for lower international postage rates; in 

the United States this international “cheap ocean postage” 

movement became entwined with domestic letter rate reform. However, following passage of the 1851 Post Office 

Act—which lowered rates but did not match the British 

one-penny rate, still contained a distance factor for mail 

to the West Coast, and did not require prepayment—the 

cheap postage movement withered. The willingness of the 

cheap postage reformers to accept a significant reduction in 

letter rates, without the other reforms, reflects the extent to 

which reforming the Post Office was not their primary goal.

In Great Britain, the Uniform Penny Post had been 

essentially an economic reform. Utilitarian thinkers, influenced by the writings of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, sought to reduce tax rates in a way that would 

produce the greatest economic benefits for the greatest 

number of members of society. Since the post office generated substantial revenue for the British treasury, the high 

postage rates in Great Britain certainly qualified as a form 

of taxation. Unlike Great Britain, the post office was not 

a revenue source for the United States treasury. The U.S. 

post office sought only to break even in its operations and 

was often allowed to operate at a deficit, due to the importance attached to the dissemination of published political 

information. The Post Office Department believed that it 

was providing letter service as cheaply as possible, given 

the tremendous volume of free and deeply discounted 

newspaper postage that was subsidized with the postage 

collected on letters. Consequently, the key economic argument in America was one of demonstrating that the post 

office could still meet its “break even” requirement by delivering a higher volume of mail at lower postage rates, 

rather than the British argument of releasing the nation’s 

economic potential through lower taxes.

The economic content of much of the American writing about cheap postage has led some scholars to assert 

Figure 1. The Penny Black and the Mulready as reproduced in Congressional Documents (26th Congress, 1st Session, Senate Document 547).
n u m b e r 5 5 • 1 5 7

that, “As in Great Britain, the American impulse to agitation came largely from merchants and bankers, who were 

interested in freeing trade and commerce from the galling 

restrictions of the older days.”5 Without question, merchants and bankers played important roles in the cheap 

postage movement. Because it reduced their business 

costs, they patronized independent mail companies, who 

challenged the postal monopoly. Secondly, merchants and 

bankers financed the work of the reformers. For instance, 

the silk merchant and ardent abolitionist Lewis Tappan 

served as treasurer of the New York Cheap Postage Association.6

 Their 1850 report listed 222 supporters each 

contributing between $5 and $25, for a total of $2,290. 

Banks, insurance companies, and merchants whose businesses would benefit from cheaper postage dominate the 

list. Of interest to philatelists, the firm Rawdon, Wright, 

Hatch & Edson, who engraved and printed the first U.S. 

postage stamps in 1847, contributed $10.7

However, focusing solely upon the merchants and 

bankers fails to place cheap postage within the context of 

the reform impulses that defined America prior to the Civil 

War. Ralph Waldo Emerson, in an 1840 letter, observed, 

“We are all a little wild here with numberless projects of 

social reform, not a reading man but has a draft of a new 

community in his waistcoat pocket.”8 Reform impulses 

ranging from millennialism and religious utopian communities to the reform of prisons, asylums, and poor houses 

filled the decades before the Civil War. There were powerful national movements for peace, suffrage, temperance, 

and abolition of slavery along with fads such as botanic 

medicine, mesmerism, and phrenology. As Alice Felt Tyler 

concluded, “The result was a period of social ferment, 

sometimes a little mad, a little confused about directions, 

but always full of optimism, of growth, of positive affirmation.”9

 Those who wrote the cheap postage pamphlets 

and articles, organized the public meetings, circulated the 

petitions, lobbied congressmen, and testified before congressional committees were not businessmen. They were 

writers and orators, many of whom devoted most of their 

lives to a variety of reform movements. Examining the careers of four reformers reveals their motivations for championing cheap postage as well as their reasons for leaving 

post office reform unfinished.

Among the first to take up the cause of cheap postage in America was Barnabas Bates. In March 1840, he 

published an article, “Post Office Reform—Cheap Postage,” which summarized the British reforms that should 

be adopted in America, addressed the newspaper problem, questioned the government postal monopoly, and 

suggested that private companies might do better.10 Born 

in London, Bates ran away from home and shipped out 

to Boston at the age of 13. While working as ship’s rigger, he became interested in religion; he was ordained a 

Baptist minister in 1808. Later, serving the Baptist church 

in Bristol, Rhode Island, he was appointed postmaster to 

supplement his church salary. In 1824, he moved to New 

York where he tried his hand at running a bookstore and 

publishing a religious newspaper. He was appointed post 

office special agent for New York and New England in 

1832, then assistant postmaster of New York the following year, holding that post until 1836.11 A veteran of the 

1826–1831 Sabbatarian campaign to close post offices and 

halt mail transportation on Sundays,12 Bates approached 

cheap postage with the same tactics—numerous petitions 

and memorials to Congress and a flood of pamphlets and 

broadsides in the mail. By 1843, he began organizing public meetings in New York and collecting signatures on petitions to Congress for a flat rate of postage regardless of 

distance and an end to the franking privilege. His writing 

and lectures encouraged others, particularly newspaper 

editors, to support cheap postage and increase the pressure on Congress.13

Joshua Leavitt, who devoted his life to a variety of 

reform causes, worked closely with Bates on the campaign 

for cheap postage. Born at Heath, Massachusetts, Leavitt 

graduated from Yale and read law. After a short stint as 

a lawyer, he returned to Yale to study theology and accepted a call to the Congregational Church in Stratford, 

Connecticut, where he also began writing tracts. Leavitt 

went to New York in 1828 to become secretary of the 

Seamen’s Friend Society and editor of Sailor’s Magazine.

He founded seamen’s missions in several cities, published 

an evangelical hymnal, and was chairman of the American 

Seventh Commandment Society, an early lecturer for the 

American Temperance Society, and a founding member 

of the New York Anti-Slavery Society.14 During an 1843 

trip to England to attend the World Anti-Slavery Convention, Leavitt observed the British Post Office firsthand. 

Recognizing cheap postage as a powerful tool for advancing other social reforms, he wrote in his Boston Morning Chronicle, “Give us the British system of postage and 

slavery is dead.”15 As an abolitionist, Leavitt would have 

been familiar with the 1835 mass mailing campaign that 

caused a constitutional crisis when a mob stormed the 

Charleston, South Carolina, post office, seized mail bags 

containing abolitionist pamphlets, and burned the mail 

to prevent its delivery. The Charleston postmaster was 

caught between upholding a state law that prohibited dissemination of seditious literature and his duty, under oath, 

to protect the mails. In the wake of the attack, Postmaster 
1 5 8 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

General Amos Kendall, by supporting local postmasters 

who refused to deliver or even accept abolitionist tracts 

and newspapers for mailing, set a precedent that limited 

freedom of the press by allowing individual postmasters to 

edit the content of the mails.16

Better known to philatelists because of their surviving 

stamps and covers are the reformers who directly challenged the postal monopoly by establishing independent 

mail companies that collected letters in one city and delivered them in another.17 James W. Hale established the 

first in December 1843, providing service between New 

York and Boston for 61⁄4¢ per letter rather than the 183⁄4¢ 

post office charge. The son of a Boston sail maker, Hale 

had apprenticed to a printer for two years before going to 

sea. He settled in New York in 1836, where he was employed at Hudson’s News Room, which he subsequently 

acquired and renamed Tontine Reading Room. Receiving, 

holding, and forwarding mail were common functions of 

coffee shops and reading rooms at that time. Hale was 

also an agent for the steamship John W. Richmond, arranging for transportation of parcels to Connecticut and 

Rhode Island. In June 1842, under the name Scarlet Wagons City Parcel Delivery, Hale began delivering packages 

within New York City. He also delivered letters within 

New York and parcels to Philadelphia and Buffalo.18 Late 

in life, Hale recalled his motivations for establishing an 

independent mail company, “having fully satisfied himself 

(and very few others) that he would violate no law then 

existing, determined to carry his ideas of cheap postage 

into practical effect, by doing it, instead of scolding in the 

newspapers about the old rates.”19 The Hale & Company 

network of independent mail offices grew rapidly in New 

England, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New 

Brunswick, Canada. Through cooperative arrangements 

with other firms, he was able to deliver mail as far west 

as Chicago. He claimed a daily mail volume of 50,000 to 

60,000 letters in 1845 with 1100 employees in 110 offices. 

(Figure 2) Some of the staff and offices may have been part 

of his cooperative arrangements.20

Lysander Spooner’s American Letter Mail Company, 

which began service between New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and Baltimore in January 1844, was the second 

independent mail company to test the government monopoly. Spooner, the son of a New England farmer, began 

his reform career by defying the law that required three 

years of study before practicing law. In 1836, after a few 

months as a New York bank clerk, he went west to seek 

his fortune in the Maumee Valley. When the Ohio land and 

canal speculation bubble burst, he returned to his father’s 

farm in poverty. Although again seeking an easy fortune, 

Spooner launched his mail company with a public attack 

on the post office.21 In a letter to the postmaster general, 

he called attention to the American Letter Mail Company 

and enclosed his pamphlet, The Unconstitutionality of the 

Laws of Congress Prohibiting Private Mails.22 Spooner informed him, “I shall be ready at any time to answer to any 

Figure 2. A folded letter carried from New York to Philadelphia by Hale & Company, June 27, 

1844 (Robert A. Siegel Auction 817, Lot 1108).
n u m b e r 5 5 • 1 5 9

suit.”23 (Figure 3) Spooner viewed the Constitution as having originated with the people and reserving all rights to 

them. Thus, he reasoned that the postal clause in Article 1, 

Section 8 gave Congress permission, but not the exclusive 

right, to establish post offices and post roads.

Following two changes of administration, Charles A. 

Wickliffe had become postmaster general in October 

1841. While he understood the popular pressure on Congress to reduce postage rates, he could not support Plitt’s 

report because he feared postal deficits. The initial reports 

from Great Britain, showing a precipitous decline in British postal revenues after adoption of the Uniform Penny 

Post, prevented him from supporting any reduction in U.S. 

postal rates. Instead, Wickliffe launched a vigorous campaign to combat the independent mail companies which 

encroached on postal revenues. Hale, as well as Spooner, 

was frequently arrested; “By means of detectives, spies, 

decoy letters, and other contrivances, the Postmaster General managed to bring nearly five hundred suits against 

the writer [Hale], who at that time was certainly the most 

arrested man in the world.”24

The courts were generally unfavorable to the post office defense of its monopoly. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, presiding over an 1844 case against Hale in 

Boston, turned to the U.S. attorney after all the evidence 

had been presented and ordered the case dismissed saying, “You will find that the law of 1795 reads that ‘no 

person shall establish a horse or foot post’ and when Mr. 

Hale brought his mails to Boston by steamboat and railroad, he certainly did not come on horseback or foot.”25

The following year at a trial in Philadelphia, Vice President George M. Dallas spent two days presenting the 

government case against Hale, which he concluded, “Not 

withstanding its illegality he [Hale] has done more for the 

people of this country than all the Postmasters General we 

have had since the confederation.”26 The most significant 

court ruling in favor of Spooner invalidated Wickliffe’s 

claim that owners of railroads and steamboats could be 

held liable even if they were unaware that someone had 

boarded their conveyance carrying mail.27 Spooner openly 

challenged Wickliffe by offering to admit the facts necessary to establish his guilt if all legal proceedings against 

him would be halted until the case could be heard by the 

Supreme Court.28

Overwhelmed by public pressure and Wickliffe’s inability to obtain significant convictions against the independent mail companies, especially in New York and 

New England,29 Congress passed the Post Office Act of 

1845 which reduced postage rates, rated letters by weight, 

and established two zones, under and over 300 miles, for 

letters. Hale ended his reform career by closing his independent mail company and encouraging his patrons to 

transfer their business to the post office.30 By the summer 

of 1844, Spooner had already exhausted his resources and 

been forced to sell his mail business.31 A few years later, 

a bitter and impoverished Spooner attacked Bates and 

the New York Cheap Postage Association for failing to 

recognize his contributions to postal reform. In his pamphlet, Who Caused the Reduction of Postage? Ought He 

Figure 3. Lysander Spooner inscribed this copy of The Unconstitutionality of the Laws of Congress Prohibiting Private Mails to David 

Henshaw, the Secretary of the Navy. The pamphlet was widely distributed to Congress and other government officials. Courtesy of the 

United States Postal Service.
1 6 0 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

to be Paid?, Spooner argued that his efforts alone led to 

the 1845 reduction in postage rates. He dismisses Hale, 

saying, “Their mails were only a new form of evasion, 

involving no principle, and based on no denial of the authority of Congress, and could therefore be of no practical 

importance.” 32 Spooner suggested that his service to the 

country should be rewarded with a voluntary subscription 

to support him. Always impoverished, Spooner spent his 

remaining years writing tracts and supporting a variety of 

reforms, particularly abolition.

Although lower letter rates drove the independent mail 

companies from the field, Bates and Leavitt viewed the 

1845 Act as a minor victory while they continued to press 

for low uniform postage rates. Bates declared, in 1847, he 

would not rest until Americans, “enjoy the privilege of as 

cheap postage as the subjects of Queen Victoria.”33 Leavitt 

organized the Boston Cheap Postage Association in 1847 

with himself as corresponding secretary, and Bates created 

a similar New York organization the following year. The 

two corresponding secretaries coordinated their efforts as 

they wrote, lectured, lobbied Congress, and corresponded 

widely. Bates’ April 30, 1848, petition to Congress for “a 

uniform rate of two cents” differs from his 1840 article, 

in that he no longer suggests that private companies might 

be better. His preamble reads, “The undersigned Citizens 

of the United States, respectfully represent that they have 

long felt a deep interest in promoting the usefulness and 

prosperity of the Post Office Department, desiring to see 

the U.S. Mails the safest, cheapest, and quickest mode of 

conveying the correspondence of the whole country and 

thereby defying all competition.”34 (Figure 4) Bates also 

used the mail itself to spread his postal reform messages. 

He encouraged business firms to prepay postage and use 

cheap postage slogans on their mail. For example, Phelps, 

Dodge & Company handstamped their folded letters, “To 

encourage the cheap postage system we prepay all letters.”35 Similarly, Derby & Company in Buffalo printed 

their envelopes, “All Postages pre-paid, except to those 

who do not reciprocate.”36 (Figure 5) Borrowing the idea 

from Elihu Burritt, an American who had gone to Britain 

in 1846 to promote peace, universal brotherhood, and 

cheap ocean postage, Bates copyrighted his own illustrated envelopes with the slogan, “We Ask of Congress 

Cheap Inland and Ocean Postage” in 1852.37 (Figure 6)

Leavitt returned to the idea of cheap postage as a 

reform tool in his tract, The Moral and Social Benefits 

of Cheap Postage.38 The benefits he espoused included 

advancing society through the interchange of thought, 

continually advancing one’s intellectual powers through 

writing, reducing divorce through the cultivation of affections, advancing education through the practice of writing one’s thoughts, and building the nation through the 

interconnectedness of the people. Following these general 

expressions, Leavitt discussed cheap postage as the ideal 

tool for social reform:

The usefulness of cheap postage, in aiding the various enterprises of benevolence and reform, should 

not be lost sight of, in this recital. Hundreds of 

thousands of our citizens are interested in behalf 

of some one or other of these objects; and will 

welcome anything as a boon to themselves which 

will make them more efficient. Cheap postage, by 

making these efforts direct and personal, carrying 

their message from an individual to an individual, 

will open a new surface to the influence of truth; 

will awaken to activity new and deeper issues of 

sensibility; and, by combining as well as arousing, 

by union as well as action, will reduplicate, to a 

thousand fold, the benevolent and moral energies 

thus produced.39

Through personal letters, “from an individual to an 

individual,” at a cheaper rate of postage, Leavitt saw the 

means for greater popular participation in reform movements as well as a means to circumvent postmasters who 

refused to accept or deliver abolitionist literature. Cheap 

postage enhanced the role of the post office in the service 

of reform. Leavitt credited British cheap postage with protecting that country from the revolutionary upheaval that 

swept Europe in 1848:

This has been its effect in England. While it quickens all the elements of political and social reform, 

it has made the government and social order of 

the country stable and secure, while all the rest of 

Europe has been tossed upon the billows of revolution and civil strife. Cheap postage disarmed 

Chartism . . . Cheap postage repealed the CornLaws . . . Cheap postage has just repealed the 

Navigation Laws. Cheap postage has repeatedly 

interposed the veto of the minority, and defeated 

favorite schemes for consolidating the power of 

the aristocracy.40

The 1851 rate reduction to three cents per half ounce 

for letters traveling less than 3,000 miles satisfied the 

cheap postage reformers. They had achieved their most 

important goal—affordable postage rates that revolutionized American letter writing.41 Bates died in 1853; Leavitt 
n u m b e r 5 5 • 1 6 1

Figure 4. Barnabas Bates’ April 30, 1848 cheap postage petition. Notable among the 58 signatories 

are Horace Greeley, the editor of the New York Tribune, who promoted and popularized the term 

“cheap postage,” and Duff Green, former U.S. consul to the Republic of Texas. Courtesy Smithsonian National Postal Museum (Accession 0.293996.4).
1 6 2 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

and Spooner now focused most of their reform energies 

on other causes, particularly the abolition of slavery. Although often advocated by the cheap postage reformers, 

a rate equal to one British penny, elimination of distance 

from letter rates, compulsory prepayment of postage, abolishing the franking privilege, higher newspaper postage, 

home delivery, registered mail, and money orders were all 

issues left for future postal reformers.

In terms of geography, education, and religion Bates, 

Leavitt, Hale, and Spooner resembled many of their contemporary antebellum social reformers. All four were 

born, or lived most of their lives, in New York or New 

Figure 6. A Bates cheap postage envelope. The train and steamship were symbols of modern 

postal transportation. (Robert A. Siegel Auction 970, Lot 10.)

Figure 5. A George H. Derby & Co. envelope, sent at the printed matter rate to the Cassville, 

New York postmaster, with an 1851 one-cent stamp (Robert A. Siegel Auction 970, Lot 14).
n u m b e r 5 5 • 1 6 3

England. They were literate and educated, with one attending college. Two had studied law and two were ordained 

clergy in evangelical denominations. Although Bates had 

a working knowledge of the post office, none of the cheap 

postage reformers were government insiders. Except for 

Hale, who showed an inclination towards business, they 

earned their livelihoods as writers, editors, and lecturers, 

often dependent upon merchants and bankers for financial 

support. Through letter writing, made possible by cheap 

postage, they sought a more just, more peaceful, more 

closely knit society. The cheap postage reformers actively 

supported other reform movements including protecting 

the Sabbath, legal reform, banking reform, temperance, 

and most often anti-slavery. As Leavitt had articulated, 

they understood the potential for cheap postage to transform society and advance other reform agendas. While the 

economic consequences of cheap postage were substantial, 

the motivations of these reformers are best understood 

within the context of social reform in antebellum America.

NOTES

1. 26th Congress, 1st Session, Senate Document 547 (Serial 

Set 360).

2. Clifford J. Alexander, “Household Mail Boxes Revolutionize the Letter Carrier Service,” presented at the 4th Annual 

Postal History Symposium, Bellefonte, Pennsylvania, October 

30–November 1, 2009.

3. See Arthur Hecht, “Index to Niles’ Registers,” The American Philatelist, 78 (November 1964) 105–110, 160.

4. “Report of George Plitt, Special Agent of the Post Office 

Department” contained in Report of the Postmaster General, 

December 5, 1840, 26th Congress, 2nd Session, House Document 2 (Serial Set 382), pp. 491–530.

5. Howard Robinson, “The British Postal Reforms of 1840 

and the American Postal System,” Twelfth American Philatelic 

Congress, Boston, November 15–17, 1946, p. 46.

6. An Address of the Directors of the New York Cheap Postage Association, to the People of the United States; together with 

the Names of Officers, Members, and Donors, and the Report of 

the Treasurer, (New York: Bryant, 1850), p. 13.

7. An Address of the Directors of the New York Cheap Postage Association, pp. 14–15.

8. Writing to Thomas Carlyle quoted in David S. Reynolds, Waking Giant: America in the Age of Jackson, (New York: 

HarperCollins, 2008) p. 157.

9. Freedom’s Ferment: Phases of American Social History 

to 1860, (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1944) p. 548.

10. Hunts Merchants Magazine 2 (March 1840) 253.

11. Van Dyk MacBride, “Barnabas Bates, The Rowland Hill 

of America,” The American Philatelist, 60 (May 1947) 627–636.

12. See Richard R. John, “The Invasion of the Sacred”, a 

chapter in Spreading the News: The American Postal System 

from Franklin to Morse, (Cambridge: Harvard, 1995); and 

Wayne E. Fuller, “Sabbath Mail and the Separation of Church 

and State,” a chapter in Morality and the Mail in NineteenthCentury America, (Urbana: University of Illinois, 2003).

13. MacBride, pp. 635–636,

14. Dictionary of American Biography, (New York: Scribner’s, 1933) vol. XI, pp. 84–85.

15. “The Postage,” Morning Chronicle (Boston), December 

16, 1844, p. 2, col. 1.

16. See Dorothy Ganfield Fowler, “First Debate on Postal 

Censorship: Incendiary Matter” a chapter in Unmailable: Congress and the Post Office, (Athens: University of Georgia, 1977); 

and John, “The Interdiction of Dissent,” in Spreading the News.

17. It is important to distinguish between the different private 

businesses that transported or delivered mail. Private carriers, or 

local posts, which collected and delivered mail to individual addresses within a city, were permitted under the Post Office Acts 

of 1825 and 1836. These continued until the introduction of free 

city delivery. The government did not, and still does not, claim a 

monopoly for the transportation and delivery of parcels or valuables such as gold and currency. The package express companies, 

which began with William Harnden’s service between New York 

and Boston in 1839, only ran afoul of the post office when they 

added letter service to their existing freight and package businesses. The focus here is upon the independent mail companies 

organized to test the postal monopoly by handling intercity letter mails. For a general discussion of the various companies, see 

American Stampless Cover Catalog, volume II (Phillips, 1987).

18. Michael S. Gutman, Hale & Co., Independent Mail 

Company, 1843–1845, (privately printed, 2005), pp. 1–10.

19. James W. Hale, “History of Cheap Postage,” American 

Odd Fellow (1871) reprinted in Mekeel’s Weekly Stamp News

35 (March 5, 1921) 148–149.

20. Gutman pp. 1, 9.

21. Charles Shively, “Biography and Introduction” in The 

Collected Works of Lysander Spooner, (Weston, Mass.: M & S 

Press, 1971), pp. 15–32.

22. New York: Tribune, 1844

23. Letter to Charles Wickliffe, January 11, 1844 quoted in 

Shively, p. 30.

24. Hale, p. 148.

25. “Letter from James W. Hale, November 26, 1887” published in the Youth’s Ledger (December 1887) reprinted in Gutman, p. 338.

26. Hale, pp. 148–149.

27. John D. Bowman and Gordon Stimmell, “American Letter Mail Company—Part III: Lysander Spooner, Proprietor,” The 

Penny Post, July 2007, p. 33.

28. Lysander Spooner, Who Caused the Reduction of Postage? Ought He be Paid? (Boston: Wright & Hasty’s: 1850) p. 28.

29. Kelly B. Olds, “The Challenge of the U.S. Postal Monopoly, 1839–1851,” Cato Journal 15 (1995) 14.
1 6 4 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

30. Hale’s notice reprinted in Gutman, p. 25.

31. Bowman, p. 34.

32. Spooner, p 52.

33. “Barnabas Bates, Esq. The Advocate of Cheap postage,” 

New York Atlas April 18, 1847, reprinted in The American Philatelist 60 (May1947) 626, 628.

34. Smithsonian National Postal Museum collection (Accession 0.293996.4).

35. The American Philatelist 60 (June 1947) 728.

36. Robert A. Siegel Auction Galleries, The David L. Jarrett 

Collection of Propaganda Covers, Sale 970, March 25, 2009, 

lot 14.

37. David L. Jarrett, “U.S. Propaganda Covers,” The 

Chronicle of the U.S. Classic Postal Issues, 60 (November 2008) 

308–312; and Siegel Sale 970, lot 10.

38. Johsua Leavitt, The Moral and Social Benefits of Cheap 

Postage. New York: Wood, 1849.

39. Leavitt, p. 8.

40. Leavitt, p. 10.

41. See David M. Henkin, The Postal Age: The Emergence 

of Modern Communications in Nineteenth-Century America, 

(Chicago: University of Chicago, 2006).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

An Address of the Directors of the New York Cheap Postage 

Association, to the People of the United States: Together 

with the Names of the officers, Members, and Donors, and 

the Report of the Treasurer. Pamphlet. New York: Wm. C. 

Bryant & Co., 1850.

Alexander, Clifford J. “Household Mail Boxes Revolutionize the 

Letter Carrier Service.” Paper presented at the 4th Annual 

Postal History Symposium, Bellefonte, Pa.: 30 October–

1 November, 2009.

Bates, Barnabas. “Post Office Reform—Cheap Postage.” Hunts 

Merchants Magazine, 2(March 1840):253–258.

Bowman, John D., and Gordon Stimmell. “American Letter 

Mail Company–Part III: Lysander Spooner, Proprietor.” The 

Penny Post, July 2007:30–34.

The David L. Jarrett Collection of Propaganda Covers. Sale 970, 

New York: Robert A Siegel Auction Galleries, 2009.

Dictionary of American Biography. Vol. 11. New York: Scribner’s, 1933.

Fowler, Dorothy Ganfield. Unmailable: Congress and the Post 

Office. Athens, Ga.: University of Georgia, 1977.

Fuller, Wayne E. Morality and the Mail in Nineteenth-Century 

America. Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 2003.

Gutman, Micheal S. Hale & Co., Independent Mail Company, 

1843–1845. Self-published, 2005.

Hale, James W. “History of Cheap Postage.” Mekeel’s Weekly 

Stamp News, 35(5 March 1921):148–149.

Hecht, Arthur. “Index to Niles’ Registers.” The American Philatelist, 78(November 1964):105–110, 160.

Henkin, David. M. The Postal Age: The Emergence of Modern 

Communications in Nineteenth-Century America. Chicago: 

University of Chicago, 2006.

Jarrett, David L. “U.S. Propaganda Covers.” The Chronicle of the 

U.S. Classic Postal Issues, 60(November 2008):308–322.

John, Richard R. Spreading the News: The American Postal System from Franklin to Morse. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard 

University Press, 1995.

Leavitt, Joshua. The Moral and Social Benefits of Cheap Postage. New York: Wood, 1849.

MacBride, Van Dyk. “Barnabas Bates: The Rowland Hill of 

America.” The American Philatelist, 60(May 1947):626–

640 and 60(June 1947):724–735.

Olds, Kelly B. “The Challenge of the U.S. Postal Monopoly, 

1839–1851.” Cato Journal, 15(1995):1–24.

Philips, David G., ed. American Stampless Cover Catalog: The 

Standard Reference Catalog of American Postal History. 

North Miami, Fla.: D. G. Phillips Pub. Co., 1985.

“The Postage.” Boston Morning Chronicle. 16 December 1844. 2.

“Report of George Plitt, Special Agent of the Post Office Department.” In Report of the Postmaster General, December 5, 

1840. 26th Congress, 2nd Session, House Document 2. Serial Set 382.

Reynolds, David S. Waking Giant: America in the Age of Jackson. New York: Harper Collins, 2008.

Robinson, Howard. “The British Postal Reforms of 1840 and 

the American Postal System.” American Philatelic Congress, 

Vol. 12. Boston, Mass.: 1946.

Shively, Charles. “Biography and Introduction.” In The Collected Works of Lysander Spooner. Weston, Mass.: M & S 

Press, 1971.

Tyler, Alice Felt. Freedom’s Ferment: Phases of American Social 

History to 1860. Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota, 1944.

Spooner, Lysander. The Unconstitutionality of the Laws of Congress Prohibiting Private Mails. Pamphlet. New York: Tribune, 1844.

———. Who Caused the Reduction of Postage? Ought He be 

Paid? Boston: Wright & Hasty’s Press, 1850.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Resolutions Submitted by Mr. Webster, 

relative to a reduction of the postage on Letters. Document 

547. 26th Congress, 1st Session. Serial Set 360.
Sheila A. Brennan (sbrennan@gmu.edu) recently earned her Ph.D. in history 

from George Mason University and wrote her dissertation on the history of 

stamp collecting in the United States from 1880s–1930s. She is the assistant 

director of the public project division at the Center for History and New Media. 

Prior to coming to the center in 2005, she worked as the director of education 

and public programs at the U.S. Navy Museum for seven years.

Harry K. Charles (Harry.Charles@jhuapl.edu) holds B.S. and Ph.D. degrees in 

electrical engineering from Drexel University and The Johns Hopkins University, 

respectively. He is an expert in microelectronics and electronic packaging and 

is the chief engineer of the Eisenhower Research Center at the Johns Hopkins 

University Applied Physics Laboratory. Dr. Charles is a fellow of the IEEE and 

a 25-year member of the American Philatelic Society. His stamp collecting interests include: U.S. Postage Due stamps, essays, and proofs; U.S. Postal Savings 

and War Savings stamps; and foreign America. 

Robert Cullen (bobc@aashto.org) is the information resource manager for the 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in Washington, D. C. Cullen received his B.A. in history from Saint Francis University in 

Loretto, Pennsylvania. He resides in Baltimore, Maryland, with his wife Mary 

and their sons Francis and Luke. 

Diane DeBlois, M.A. education, and Robert Dalton Harris, Ph.D. theoretical 

physics (agatherin@yahoo.com) are independent scholars and editors and have, 

for more than three decades, made communications history their vocation and 

passion. They work together as antiquarians (aGatherin’ Historical Paper) and 

editors (Postal History Journal).

John Kevin Doyle (kdoyle@ben.edu) is a professor of Business Administration 

at Benedictine University. He is the editor of VORLÄUFER, journal of the German Colonies Collectors Group, and president of the American Philatelic Congress. This article is drawn from his presentation at the 2007 Postal History 

Symposium.

About the Contributors
1 6 6 • smiths o nian c o nt r ib u ti o ns t o hist o ry and techn o l o g y

Cheryl R. Ganz (ganzc@si.edu) is chief curator of philately 

at the Smithsonian National Postal Museum, co-editor of 

The Zeppelin Collector, and past president of the American Air Mail Society. This article is drawn from her presentation at the 2007 Postal History Symposium and her book 

The 1933 Chicago World’s Fair: A Century of Progress.

Robin Gates Elliott holds a doctorate in history from 

Georgetown University. Her specialty is the history of 

Russia and Eastern Europe. She is a docent at the Smithsonian National Postal Museum.

Catherine J. Golden (CGolden@skidmore.edu) is professor of 

English at Skidmore College. She is the author of Posting It: 

The Victorian Revolution in Letter Writing (2009) and Images of the Woman Reader in Victorian British and American 

Fiction (2003) as well as editor or co-editor of five books, including Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s ‘The Yellow Wall-Paper’: 

A Sourcebook and Critical Edition (2004) and Book Illustrated: Text, Image, and Culture 1770–1930 (2000). 

Terence Hines, Ph.D. (thines@pace.edu) is a neuroscientist 

at Pace University, Pleasantville, New York, and NY Medical College, Valhalla, New York. His major philatelic interests are the postal history of his home town of Hanover, 

New Hampshire, modern U.S. special delivery postal history, the state revenue stamps of New England, Old Home 

Week seals, and the revenue stamps of the Dutch Indies 

and Indonesia.

Richard R. John (rrj2115@columbia.edu) teaches the history of communications at the Columbia School of Journalism at Columbia University. His publications include 

Network Nation (Belknap Press, 2010) and Spreading 

the News: The American Postal System from Franklin to 

Morse (Harvard University Press, 1995).

Janet Klug (Tongajan@aol.com) is a lifelong stamp collector who now specializes in military postal history. She 

has served as president of her local stamp club, officer of 

many specialist societies, and president of the American 

Philatelic Society. She is a member of the Smithsonian National Postal Museum’s Council of Philatelists and was 

recently appointed a member of the Citizens’ Stamp Advisory Committee of the U.S. Postal Service.

Thomas Lera (lerat@si.edu) is the Winton M. Blount 

Research Chair at the Smithsonian National Postal Museum, past president of National Philatelic Exhibitions 

(NAPEX), and member of the American Philatelic Society 

and the Royal Philatelic Society of London. 

Larry Lyons (lyonsentrp@aol.com) is the editor of The 

Carrier & Locals Society Journal and has been a student and collector in this field for over twenty years. He 

is an award-winning exhibitor and a frequent speaker on 

United States carriers and local posts. 

Harvey Mirsky (harveymirsky@aol.com) specializes in 

collecting the U.S. 1847 issue. His multi-frame exhibit has 

won several large gold medals internationally and is now 

exhibited in the F. I. P. Championship Class. Mr. Mirsky 

is a member of the Council of Philatelists at the National 

Postal Museum of the Smithsonian Institution and serves 

on the board of governors of the Collectors Club. He is 

also a Fellow of the Royal Philatelic Society London.

Rachel Moore (rchico@clemson.edu) is assistant professor of history at Clemson University. Her first book, Transient Loyalties: The Atlantic World and the Public Voice 

in Nineteenth-Century Veracruz (University of Arizona 

Press, 2011), examined the impact of communication and 

credibility on regional identities in Mexico. She is at work 

on her second book, currently titled Tampering with the 

Nation: Postal Workers, Corruption and Communication 

in Mexico, 1794 to 1883.

Ann Elizabeth Pfau (annepfau@yahoo.com) is an historian 

and writer living in Albany, New York. She is the author 

of Miss Yourlovin: GIs, Gender, and Domesticity during 

World War II (http://www.gutenberg-e.org/pfau) and is 

currently researching a second book on the lives and legends of Axis Sally and Tokyo Rose. 

David L. Straight (dls@mophil.org) has built a boyhood 

stamp collection into an adult fascination with collecting, 

researching, and writing about postal history, particularly 

the operation of the U.S. Post Office Department during 

the nineteenth century. He is a librarian at Washington 

University in St. Louis, vice-president of the American 

Philatelic Society, and a member of the Museum Advisory 

Council for the Smithsonian National Postal Museum. 

Thomas Velk (thomas.velk@mcgill.ca) is director, North 

American Studies Program, McGill University; a former 

visiting professor and consultant, Board of Governors 

of the Federal Reserve System; former visiting professor, 

Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress; former 

visiting professor, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New 

Hampshire; and a freelance journalist for various North 

American media outlets.
All manuscripts are reviewed for adherence to the SISP Manuscript Preparation and 

Style Guide for Authors (available on the “Submissions” page at www.scholarlypress.si.edu). Manuscripts not 

in compliance will be returned to the author. Manuscripts intended for publication in the Contributions Series are evaluated by a content review board and undergo substantive peer 

review. Accepted manuscripts are submitted for funding approval and scheduling to the Publications Oversight Board. 

Minimum manuscript length is thirty manuscript 

pages. If a manuscript is longer than average, an appropriate 

length will be determined during peer review and evaluation 

by the Content Review Board. Authors may be asked to edit 

manuscripts that are determined to be too long. 

Text must be prepared in a recent version of Microsoft 

Word; use a Times font in 12 point for regular text; be double 

spaced; and have 1" margins. Each chapter/section must be 

saved in a separate file.

Required elements are title page, abstract page, table 

of contents, main text, and reference section. See the SISP 

Manuscript Preparation and Style Guide for Authors for the 

order of all elements.

Headings should be styled so different levels of headings are 

distinct from each other and so the organization of the manuscript is clear. Insert one line space above and one line space 

below all headings.

Front matter should include title page, abstract page, 

and table of contents. All other sections are optional. Abstracts must not exceed 300 words. Table of contents should 

include A-, B-, and C-level headings.

Tables (numbered, with captions, stubs, rules) should be 

submitted in separate MS Word files; should include footnotes, if appropriate; should have rules only at top, bottom, 

and beneath column heads. Printouts of each table should 

accompany the manuscript to ensure correct layout of data. 

Tabulations within running text should not be numbered or 

formatted like formal tables, and should be included in the 

text of the manuscript. 

Figure captions should be provided in a separate MS 

Word file.

Figures (e.g., photographs, line art, maps) should be numbered sequentially (1, 2, 3, etc.) in the order called out; be 

placed throughout text, not at end of manuscript; have all 

components of composites lettered with lowercase letters and 

described in the caption; include a scale bar or scale description, if appropriate; include any legends in or on the figure 

rather than in a caption. 

Art must not be embedded in the main text.

Figures must be original and submitted as individual TIFF 

or EPS files. Resolution for art files must be at least 300 dpi 

for grayscale and color images and at least 1200 dpi for line 

art. Electronic images should measure no more than 100% 

and no less than 75% of final size when published. JPG files 

will not be accepted. Color images significantly increase 

costs so should be included only if required. Funding for 

color art is subject to approval by SISP and the Publications 

Oversight Board.

In-text references should be used rather than bibliographic notes and should follow the author-date system in the 

following format: “(author last name, year)” or “. . . author 

(year)”; “(author, year:page used within the text)” or “. . . 

author (year:page).” A full citation should be included in a 

“References” section.

Endnotes are to be used in lieu of footnotes and should 

be keyed manually into a separate MS Word file, in a section titled “Notes.” Notes should not contain bibliographic 

information. Manually type superscript numerals in text and 

use full-sized numerals at the beginning of each note in the 

“Notes” section. SISP will determine the best placement of the 

notes section, either at the end of each chapter or at the end 

of the main text.

References should be in alphabetical order, and in chronological order for same-author entries. Each reference should 

be cited at least once in main text. Complete bibliographic information must be included in all citations (e.g., author/editor, 

title, subtitle, edition, volume, issue, pages, figures). For books, 

place of publication and publisher are required. For journals, 

use the parentheses system for volume(number):pagination 

[e.g., “10(2):5–9”]. Do not use “et al.”; all authors/editors 

should be included in reference citations. In titles, capitalize 

first word, last word, first word after colon, and all other 

words except articles, conjunctions, and prepositions. Examples of the most common types of citations are provided in the 

SISP Manuscript Preparation and Author Style Guide. 

For questions regarding the guidelines, please email SISP at 

schol.press@si.edu. 

requirements for smithsonian series publication