The Greatest Political Button of All Time

iStock.com/liveslow
iStock.com/liveslow

In the U.S. Presidential election of 1928, New York Governor Alfred E. Smith was the Democratic candidate. Born in a tenement on the Lower East Side of Manhattan in 1873, Al Smith was a self-made man. He dropped out of parochial school when he was 14 so he could earn money to help support the family. He worked at the Fulton Fish Market, among other places, until he moved into local politics under the Tammany Hall machine in his early twenties. Smith's immigrant heritage—his grandparents were first generation Irish, Italian, German and Anglo-Irish—and his working class urban upbringing appealed to a whole new demographic of voters who identified with him. Many workers in big cities went to the polls for the first time to cast their vote for Al Smith.

That wasn't yet a big enough group to secure him the necessary votes. He lost to Republican Herbert Hoover in a landslide, winning only Massachusetts and Rhode Island in the Northeast, none of the Midwestern or Western states, and splitting the traditionally Democratic Southern states (Smith got Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina). Hoover won almost 60 percent of the popular vote and 444 electoral votes to Smith's paltry 87. Even his home state of New York, which had elected him governor four times between 1918 and 1926, went to Hoover.

Hoover benefited from the country's booming pre-crash economy and from profound anti-Catholic bigotry. Smith was the first Roman Catholic major party candidate and his opponents made no bones about depicting him as beholden to the Pope in Rome, an enemy of religious freedom who would make it illegal for Protestants to read or own a Bible (because Catholics only listened to the Church authorities, you see, while Protestants followed the Bible) and who would annul all their marriages, making their children bastards. The virulently anti-Catholic Ku Klux Klan actively campaigned against him. Even the newly built Holland Tunnel became a target; pictures of it were sent out all over the country describing it as a secret tunnel between Rome and New York that Smith had built so His Holiness could travel in comfort to his new domain after his minion was elected.

Many of the Protestants (particularly Methodists, Southern Baptists and German Lutherans) who so feared the nefarious influence of Smith's Catholicism were also in favor of Prohibition. Al Smith was not. He had been opposed to the Eighteenth Amendment as an unwarranted violation of personal and states' rights from the beginning. As governor in 1920 he sought to counteract Prohibition via the Walker-Gillette Act which legalized weak beers in New York restaurants, hotels and grocery stores. The next governor, Nathan L. Miller, abolished Walker-Gillette, vigorously enforced the Volstead Act and added even more draconian penalties with the Mullan-Gage Act. Smith was back in office the next year. He replaced Mullan-Gage with the Culliver law which basically took New York law enforcement out of the business of policing liquor consumption and production.

Smith as a Wet (anti-Prohibition) candidate was subject to charges of drunkenness from the Dry factions. That narrative dovetailed neatly into the hatred directed at his Catholicism. Urban Catholics and Irish immigrants were seen as having degenerate inclinations with their love of a tipple and their general intemperance. Anti-Saloon League spokesman, politician and Methodist bishop James Cannon, Jr., described Smith's supporters as the "kind of dirty people that you find today on the sidewalks of New York."

Smith, although his record was staunchly anti-Prohibition, didn't want to bring focus to that during the presidential campaign. He knew the white, rural, Protestant South and Midwest were deep Dry and he didn't want to rub his Wetness in their face. His supporters, on the other hand, had no problem advocating for Smith as an anti-Prohibition candidate.

Which brings us to the title of this article. While rambling through the catalog of Heritage Auction's June 2013 Americana & Political Signature Auction, I came across a rare political button from Alfred E. Smith's 1928 presidential campaign which is quite simply the greatest political button ever made. It read: "Vote for Al Smith and Make Your Wet Dreams Come True."

That is real. Can you even believe it? In 1928! And yes, the expression "wet dream" meant what it means now in 1928. Dr. William Acton described nocturnal emissions as "wet-dreams" in the 1851 second edition of his A Practical Treatise on Diseases of the Urinary and Generative Organs in Both Sexes (you can read the third edition here, and you probably should because it's a classic creepy Victorian text in the history of sexuality). The pre-sale estimate for the button was $5000 to $10,000. It sold on June 22, 2013, for $8962.50, including buyer's premium.

8 Great Gifts for People Who Work From Home

World Market/Amazon
World Market/Amazon

A growing share of Americans work from home, and while that might seem blissful to some, it's not always easy to live, eat, and work in the same space. So, if you have co-workers and friends who are living the WFH lifestyle, here are some products that will make their life away from their cubicle a little easier.

1. Folding Book Stand; $7

Hatisan / Amazon

Useful for anyone who works with books or documents, this thick wire frame is strong enough for heavier textbooks or tablets. Best of all, it folds down flat, so they can slip it into their backpack or laptop case and take it out at the library or wherever they need it. The stand does double-duty in the kitchen as a cookbook holder, too.

Buy It: Amazon

2. Duraflame Electric Fireplace; $179

Duraflame / Amazon

Nothing says cozy like a fireplace, but not everyone is so blessed—or has the energy to keep a fire going during the work day. This Duraflame electric fireplace can help keep a workspace warm by providing up to 1000 square feet of comfortable heat, and has adjustable brightness and speed settings. They can even operate it without heat if they just crave the ambiance of an old-school gentleman's study (leather-top desk and shelves full of arcane books cost extra).

Buy It: Amazon

3. World Explorer Coffee Sampler; $32

UncommonGoods

Making sure they've got enough coffee to match their workload is a must, and if they're willing to experiment with their java a bit, the World Explorer’s Coffee Sampler allows them to make up to 32 cups using beans from all over the world. Inside the box are four bags with four different flavor profiles, like balanced, a light-medium roast with fruity notes; bold, a medium-dark roast with notes of cocoa; classic, which has notes of nuts; and fruity, coming in with notes of floral.

Buy it: UncommonGoods

4. Lavender and Lemon Beeswax Candle; $20

Amazon

People who work at home all day, especially in a smaller space, often struggle to "turn off" at the end of the day. One way to unwind and signal that work is done is to light a candle. Burning beeswax candles helps clean the air, and essential oils are a better health bet than artificial fragrances. Lavender is especially relaxing. (Just use caution around essential-oil-scented products and pets.)

Buy It: Amazon

5. HÄNS Swipe-Clean; $15

HÄNS / Amazon

If they're carting their laptop and phone from the coffee shop to meetings to the co-working space, the gadgets are going to get gross—fast. HÄNS Swipe is a dual-sided device that cleans on one side and polishes on the other, and it's a great solution for keeping germs at bay. It's also nicely portable, since there's nothing to spill. Plus, it's refillable, and the polishing cloth is washable and re-wrappable, making it a much more sustainable solution than individually wrapped wipes.

Buy It: Amazon

6. Laptop Side Table; $100

World Market

Sometimes they don't want to be stuck at a desk all day long. This industrial-chic side table can act as a laptop table, too, with room for a computer, coffee, notes, and more. It also works as a TV table—not that they would ever watch TV during work hours.

Buy It: World Market

7. Moleskine Classic Notebook; $17

Moleskin / Amazon

Plenty of people who work from home (well, plenty of people in general) find paper journals and planners essential, whether they're used for bullet journaling, time-blocking, or just writing good old-fashioned to-do lists. However they organize their lives, there's a journal out there that's perfect, but for starters it's hard to top a good Moleskin. These are available dotted (the bullet journal fave), plain, ruled, or squared, and in a variety of colors. (They can find other supply ideas for bullet journaling here.)

Buy It: Amazon

8. Nexstand Laptop Stand; $39

Nexstand / Amazon

For the person who works from home and is on the taller side, this portable laptop stand is a back-saver. It folds down flat so it can be tossed into the bag and taken to the coffee shop or co-working spot, where it often generates an admiring comment or three. It works best alongside a portable external keyboard and mouse.

Buy It: Amazon

Sign Up Today: Get exclusive deals, product news, reviews, and more with the Mental Floss Smart Shopping newsletter!

This article contains affiliate links to products selected by our editors. Mental Floss may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.

Why Does the Supreme Court Have Nine Justices?

Front row, left to right: Stephen G. Breyer, Clarence Thomas, (Chief Justice) John G. Roberts, Jr., Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Samuel A. Alito. Back row: Neil M. Gorsuch, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett M. Kavanaugh.
Front row, left to right: Stephen G. Breyer, Clarence Thomas, (Chief Justice) John G. Roberts, Jr., Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Samuel A. Alito. Back row: Neil M. Gorsuch, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett M. Kavanaugh.
Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States // Public Domain

Some facets of the U.S. government—like presidential terms and post offices—were written into the original Constitution after (often lengthy) deliberations by the Founding Fathers. The number of Supreme Court justices was not one of those things.

The document did establish a Supreme Court, and it stated that the president should appoint its judges; it also mentioned that a “Chief Justice shall preside” if the president gets impeached. Since it was left up to Congress to work out the rest of the details, they passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, which outlined an entire court system and declared that the Supreme Court should comprise one chief justice and five associate justices. As History.com explains, they landed on six because the justices would have to preside over federal circuit courts, one of which was located in each state. Traveling wasn’t quick or easy in the horse-and-carriage days, so Congress wanted to minimize each justice’s jurisdiction. They split the courts into three regions, and assigned two justices to each region.

According to Maeva Marcus, director of the Institute for Constitutional History at George Washington University Law School, the even number of justices was a non-issue. “They never even thought about it, because all the judges were Federalists and they didn’t foresee great disagreement,” she told History.com. “Plus, you didn’t always have all six justices appearing at the Supreme Court for health and travel reasons.”

Over the next 80 years, the number of Supreme Court justices would fluctuate for two reasons: the addition of federal circuit courts, and presidents’ partisan motives. John Adams and his Federalist Congress reduced the number to five with the Judiciary Act of 1801, which they hoped would prevent Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson from getting to fill a seat after he took office that year. By the following year, Jefferson’s Congress had passed another judicial act that returned the number of justices to six, and they upped it to seven after forming another circuit court in 1807.

The nation grew significantly during the early 19th century, and Congress finally added two new circuit courts—and with them, two new Supreme Court seats—during Andrew Jackson’s presidential tenure in 1837. Republican Abraham Lincoln then briefly increased the number of justices to 10 in order to add another abolitionist vote, but Congress shrunk it to seven in 1866 to keep Andrew Johnson from filling seats with Democrats. As soon as Republican Ulysses S. Grant succeeded Johnson, Congress set the number back to nine, where it’s remained ever since.

Sketched portraits of the U.S. Supreme Court justices through 1897.Popular and Applied Graphic Art Print Filing Series, Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division // No Known Restrictions on Publication

In 1911, Congress did away with circuit courts altogether, so the number of Supreme Court justices stopped being contingent upon their expansion (though each justice does still oversee a region to help with occasional tasks). As for presidents shifting the number to serve their own goals, it’s now looked down upon as “packing the court.” When Franklin D. Roosevelt tried to increase it to 15 in the 1930s to push his New Deal through the Supreme Court, the Senate opposed the bill by a whopping 70 to 20 votes.

In short, the depth of the Supreme Court’s bench changed a lot in America’s early years not only because the country was expanding, but also because the federal government was still testing out its system of checks and balances. And though presidents do still appoint justices based on their own political party, we’ve gotten used to the idea that the Supreme Court is, at least ideologically, supposed to be unbiased. If Congress and the president kept up the habit of adding and subtracting justices at will, it would tarnish this ideal.

“If Congress increases the size of the Supreme Court for transparently partisan political reasons, it would cement the idea the justices are little more than politicians in robes, and that the court is little more than an additional—and very powerful—arm through which partisan political power can be exercised,” Steve Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law, wrote for NBC News. “Indeed, that Congress has not revisited the size of the court in 150 years is a powerful testament to just how ingrained the norm of nine has become—and how concerned different political constituencies have been at different times about preserving the court’s power.”

[h/t History.com]