Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="Owle, post: 1426176, member: 22004"]There is this article on the issue:  "It has been reported that once the new quarters went into circulation, a public debate ensued over the classical Greek pose of Miss Liberty with her right breast exposed.  Was this Art or Smut?  The followers of Anthony Comstock and the Society for the Suppression of Vice began a campaign against this "immoral" coin.  They wanted the coin withdrawn from circulation because it was a corruption to society.  Comstock carried enormous political clout, and began exerting it upon the Treasury Secretary William G. McAdoo. "Comstock may have thought he won in his fight when a new design was released in the latter half of 1917, but the reality of the matter was that Hermon MacNeil had petitioned McAdoo in January of 1917, even before the release of the first issue, to modify the design.  Most of the design modifications were to expand the life of the coin in circulation, but MacNeil also wanted to add a chain-mail vest to Liberty thus covering the exposed breast (as suggested by some authors from studies of MacNeil's sketches), and to reconfigure the stars on the reverse of the coin to add balance.  By the time MacNeil's proposal reached Congress to modify the quarter, so did the political hammer of the Society for the Suppression of Vice.  Modifications were approved under the false presumption that the coins would not stack due to the relief.  This law was enacted on July 9, 1917, but what was not written into the Congressional Record or the law, was that Miss Liberty's exposed breast was to be covered."<a href="http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art44412.asp" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art44412.asp" rel="nofollow">http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art44412.asp</a> Would Comstock ever have a field day in 2012![/QUOTE]

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches