Monthly Archives: June 2022

This post was originally published on this site

Chattel slavery in all states wasnt abolished until the end of 1865. The Emancipation Proclamation, signed into law by President Lincoln on Jan. 1, 1863, called for an end to legal slavery in secessionist Confederate states only, impacting about 3.5 million of the 4 million enslaved people in the country at that time. As the war drew to a close and Union soldiers retook territory, enslaved people living in those areas were liberated.

Lincolns decision to free only those enslaved individuals in bondage in Confederate states was a strategic, militaristic method, as he notably did not free those enslaved in Union states. Further, the proclamation was unenforceable. Still, Union troops fighting in the war brought news of emancipation along with the military might to enforce it. Many enslaved people were motivated enough by the news to risk fleeing and seek safety in Union states or by joining the U.S. Army and Navy to help fight.

Following the Emancipation Proclamation, any enslaved person who escaped over Union lines or to oncoming federal troops during the war was free in perpetuity.

Maj. Gen. Grangers orders on June 19, 1865, released enslaved people in Texas from bondage. But it was another six months before the last two statesDelaware and Kentuckyfreed enslaved people, and only then when the 13th Amendment was ratified on Dec. 18, 1865.

The 13th Amendment officially ended slavery and involuntary servitude at the federal level, except as a punishment for a crime. That loophole has been capitalized upon since the amendment passed. Kentucky officiallyadopted the 13th Amendmentin 1976.

This story was written by Stacker and has been re-published pursuant to aCC BY-NC 4.0 License.

Read more here:

The History And Significance Of Juneteenth - CT News Junkie

The 1973 Roe v. Wade case that legalized abortion in the U.S. painted an inaccurate picture of abortion at the time the 14th Amendment was adopted, according to Justice Samuel Alitos draft opinion overturning Roe.

More than half of Alitos 98-page draft opinion, in the pending Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization case, explores the history of U.S. abortion law in order to establish that the right to abortion is not deeply rooted in this nations history and tradition as it would have to be in order to be protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. He wrote that until the latter part of the 20th century, such a right was entirely unknown in American law.

In his discussion of the history of abortion law, Alito cited Joseph Dellapenna, Villanova Law professor emeritus and author of Dispelling the Myths of Abortion History who filed an amicus brief in the case.

Dellapenna told the Register that Roe gave an argument about the history of abortion in order to come up with a conclusion that there is an unenumerated right to choose abortion that is protected by the Constitution. Justice Harry Blackmun devoted between a third and a half of his Roe opinion rooting the idea that there is a constitutional right to choose to abort in his version of the history.

In the Roe decision, Blackmun wrote, it is undisputed that, at common law, abortion performed before quickening the first recognizable movement of the fetusin utero, appearing usually from the 16th to the 18th week of pregnancy was not an indictable offense. He also concluded that at common law, at the time of the adoption of our Constitution, and throughout the major portion of the 19th century, abortion was viewed with less disfavor than under most American statutes currently in effect.

In contrast, Alito wrote that under common law, abortion was criminal in at least some stages of pregnancy and was regarded as unlawful and could have very serious consequences at all stages, and that American law followed the common law until a wave of statutory restrictions in the 1800s expanded criminal liability for abortions. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, three-quarters of the States had made abortion a crime at any stage of pregnancy, and the remaining States would soon follow.

Dellapenna said there are many examples of the common law restricting abortion throughout pregnancy. He noted that Blackmuns source for his claims was Cyril Means, a professor at New York Law School who was also the general counsel for the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL). As is apparent from his connection to NARAL, Means was hardly an unbiased historian. During the court proceeding for Roe, the legal team for the anonymous Jane Roe plaintiff circulated an internal memo admitting that Means conclusions sometimes strain credulity and fudge the history, but are useful because they preserve the guise of impartial scholarship while advancing the proper ideological goals.

Dellapenna said when Roe was handed down in January 1973, he was curious about this history that Justice Blackmun so heavily relied on, but it became apparent to him that whatever the historical truth was he wasn't interested in telling it. He said that after questions arose about Means historical account in Roe, he set out to recover the history of abortion in the common law world and found abortion cases in the colonies going back to the 1640s in Maryland and later dates in other colonies.

Alito cited some of the cases listed in Dellapennas book in his opinion and also quoted famed 18th-century English jurist William Blackstone who explained that abortion of a quick child was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter and at least a very heinous misdemeanor. Alito wrote that English cases dating all the way back to the 13th century corroborate the treatises statements that abortion was a crime and noted that manuals for justices of the peace printed in colonies in the 18th century typically restated the common law rule on abortion.

Alito concluded that although common law authorities differed on the severity of punishment for abortions committed at different points in pregnancy, none endorsed the practice. Moreover, we are aware of no common law case or authority, and the parties have not pointed to any, that remotely suggests a positive right to procure an abortion at any stage of pregnancy.

Dellapenna also said the claim that abortion was only criminal in the common law after quickening was a false narrative, as statutes from the early 1800s call abortion a crime of a woman quick with child a term that was not the same as quickening. It's a late confusion or worse to equatequick with child with quickening, he said. Quick simply means alive. Dellapenna cited Henry de Bracton, an English jurist writing in the 13th century who was the first legal text writer on abortion and used formed and animated, noting that we get the word quick from animated...It means alive.

Dellapenna said the early abortion statutes do not say quickening, they say quick with child, meaning a live child. She could have a live child before quickening.

He referenced a common law case from the 1200s where the mother was attacked by two men who beat her with sticks until she aborted and nearly died and the baby was delivered. The baby was, according to the report of the case, of one month gestation. That couldn't possibly have quickened. ...The men involved were convicted of homicide and the homicide was the homicide of the child, so there's pretty clear, unambiguous evidence that quick child does not mean quickening, or movement by the child.

Justin Dyer, professor of political science and director of the Kinder Institute on Constitutional Democracy at the University of Missouri and author of Slavery, Abortion and the Politics of Constitutional Meaning, told the Register that his understanding of quickening was that to the extent that that it actually did mean something like felt fetal movement and mattered for abortion prosecutions, it was based on evidence for the presence of life and then that some act was the cause of death, it was not as the way that it's been commonly framed some kind of marker in pregnancy, at which point anything before that made abortion licit or actually protected as a liberty or a common law right of some sort.

Justice Alito wrote in a footnote in his opinion that the exact meaning of quickening is subject to some debate but that it suffices for present purposes to show that abortion was criminal by at least the 16th or 18th week of pregnancy and that during the relevant period i.e. the period surrounding the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment the quickening distinction was abandoned as States criminalized abortion at all stages of pregnancy.

Dellapenna also contended that contrary to any notion that women were widely successful in quietly obtaining abortions pre-quickening, until sometime in the late 1700s, there was no safe way to do an abortion. Abortion was tantamount to suicide if it were voluntary. There was evidence through history in Europe and elsewhere around the world of infanticide and relatively little evidence of abortion until the late 1700s, he said.

He said that while pro-abortion rights historians will point to records of herbal methods to back claims about abortion being common, that didnt mean these methods were effective or safe. What he found was that these methods were either utterly ineffective like parsley or garlic or all too effective, working not by attacking the fetus or the embryo, but by debilitating the mother. In other words, killing her or nearly killing her so she loses the baby.

A recent Washington Post article looking at Alitos historical account noted that of the plant extracts believed to induce abortion savin, which comes from juniper bushes, was particularly effective and also plentiful in the United States. But it came with high risk; too much could be lethal to the woman. The article also noted the prevalence of infanticide, quoting British historian Kate Lister who found numerous British trial records for women accused of killing their newborns; between 1700 and 1800, there were 134 of these cases in a single London court.

Distorting History

Another element at play in the Supreme Courts examination of abortion history since Roe was the willingness on the part of some historians to back Roes historical narrative.

Dellapenna pointed out that in the 1989 Supreme Court case Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, there was an amicus brief signed by 281 historians attesting that as the Court demonstrated inRoe v. Wade,abortion was not illegal at common law and, Through the nineteenth century, American common law decisions uniformly reaffirmed that women committed no offense in seeking abortions. They also contended that concern over unborn life became a central issue in American culture only in the late twentieth century.

The briefs lead author, Sylvia Law, a law professor at New York University, wrote in an article afterwards that one of the briefs objectives was to support a political mobilization of pro-choice voices. She acknowledged a tension between truth-telling and advocacy, admitting to most serious deficiencies as truth-tellers on the part of the historians involved in the brief. An example of this that she gave was the failure of the briefs authors to grapple with the fact that most 19th-century feminists supported laws restricting access to abortion. She said the silence is distorting and added that there are also other distortions of the truth which are not simply a function of page limits or inability to agree, but rather flow from the advocacy form.

James Mohr, now a professor of history at the University of Oregon, who signed on to that brief, acknowledged afterwards that the brief was a political document. The brief seemed to contradict his own past work.

While he acknowledged in his book Abortion in America that abortions were illegal after fetal movement, the brief stated that the Court demonstrated inRoe v. Wade,abortion was not illegal at common law. And while the brief asserted that 19th-century laws restricting access to abortion were not based on a belief that the fetus is a human being, Mohr wrote that in the 19th century, physicians felt very strongly indeed on the issue of protecting human life. And once they had decided that the human life was present to some extent in a newly fertilized ovum, however limited that extent might be, they became fierce opponents of any attack upon it.

In 1990, Mohr told Notre Dame law professor Gerard Bradley that where inconsistencies exist he stood by the book rather than the brief, and he confessed that he was uncomfortable with the way his work was cited for some of the briefs claims.

In his draft Dobbs opinion, Alito pointed out issues he took with the amicus brief filed by the American Historical Association and their weak response to the fact by 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, three-quarters of the States, 28 out of 37, had enacted statutes making abortion a crime even if it was performed before quickening. The historians argued that Horatio Storer, a physician and proponent of strengthening anti-abortion laws, was motivated with his allies at the American Medical Association by the belief that abortions were endangering what he saw as the ideal America: a society of white Protestants in which women adhered strictly to their proper duties marriage and childbearing.

In response, Alito wrote, recall that at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, over three quarters of the States had adopted statutes criminalizing abortion (usually at all stages of pregnancy), and that from the early 20th century until the day Roe was handed down, every single State had such a law on its books. Are we to believe that the hundreds of lawmakers whose votes were needed to enact these laws were motivated by hostility to Catholics and women? There is ample evidence that the passage of these laws was instead spurred by a sincere belief that abortion kills a human being. Many judicial decisions from the late 19th and early 20th centuries made that point.

Visit link:

Correcting Roes Flawed Revision of Abortion History - National Catholic Register

Country

United States of AmericaUS Virgin IslandsUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsCanadaMexico, United Mexican StatesBahamas, Commonwealth of theCuba, Republic ofDominican RepublicHaiti, Republic ofJamaicaAfghanistanAlbania, People's Socialist Republic ofAlgeria, People's Democratic Republic ofAmerican SamoaAndorra, Principality ofAngola, Republic ofAnguillaAntarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S)Antigua and BarbudaArgentina, Argentine RepublicArmeniaArubaAustralia, Commonwealth ofAustria, Republic ofAzerbaijan, Republic ofBahrain, Kingdom ofBangladesh, People's Republic ofBarbadosBelarusBelgium, Kingdom ofBelizeBenin, People's Republic ofBermudaBhutan, Kingdom ofBolivia, Republic ofBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswana, Republic ofBouvet Island (Bouvetoya)Brazil, Federative Republic ofBritish Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)British Virgin IslandsBrunei DarussalamBulgaria, People's Republic ofBurkina FasoBurundi, Republic ofCambodia, Kingdom ofCameroon, United Republic ofCape Verde, Republic ofCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChad, Republic ofChile, Republic ofChina, People's Republic ofChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombia, Republic ofComoros, Union of theCongo, Democratic Republic ofCongo, People's Republic ofCook IslandsCosta Rica, Republic ofCote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of theCyprus, Republic ofCzech RepublicDenmark, Kingdom ofDjibouti, Republic ofDominica, Commonwealth ofEcuador, Republic ofEgypt, Arab Republic ofEl Salvador, Republic ofEquatorial Guinea, Republic ofEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFaeroe IslandsFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Fiji, Republic of the Fiji IslandsFinland, Republic ofFrance, French RepublicFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabon, Gabonese RepublicGambia, Republic of theGeorgiaGermanyGhana, Republic ofGibraltarGreece, Hellenic RepublicGreenlandGrenadaGuadaloupeGuamGuatemala, Republic ofGuinea, RevolutionaryPeople's Rep'c ofGuinea-Bissau, Republic ofGuyana, Republic ofHeard and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)Honduras, Republic ofHong Kong, Special Administrative Region of ChinaHrvatska (Croatia)Hungary, Hungarian People's RepublicIceland, Republic ofIndia, Republic ofIndonesia, Republic ofIran, Islamic Republic ofIraq, Republic ofIrelandIsrael, State ofItaly, Italian RepublicJapanJordan, Hashemite Kingdom ofKazakhstan, Republic ofKenya, Republic ofKiribati, Republic ofKorea, Democratic People's Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwait, State ofKyrgyz RepublicLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanon, Lebanese RepublicLesotho, Kingdom ofLiberia, Republic ofLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtenstein, Principality ofLithuaniaLuxembourg, Grand Duchy ofMacao, Special Administrative Region of ChinaMacedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascar, Republic ofMalawi, Republic ofMalaysiaMaldives, Republic ofMali, Republic ofMalta, Republic ofMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritania, Islamic Republic ofMauritiusMayotteMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonaco, Principality ofMongolia, Mongolian People's RepublicMontserratMorocco, Kingdom ofMozambique, People's Republic ofMyanmarNamibiaNauru, Republic ofNepal, Kingdom ofNetherlands AntillesNetherlands, Kingdom of theNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaragua, Republic ofNiger, Republic of theNigeria, Federal Republic ofNiue, Republic ofNorfolk IslandNorthern Mariana IslandsNorway, Kingdom ofOman, Sultanate ofPakistan, Islamic Republic ofPalauPalestinian Territory, OccupiedPanama, Republic ofPapua New GuineaParaguay, Republic ofPeru, Republic ofPhilippines, Republic of thePitcairn IslandPoland, Polish People's RepublicPortugal, Portuguese RepublicPuerto RicoQatar, State ofReunionRomania, Socialist Republic ofRussian FederationRwanda, Rwandese RepublicSamoa, Independent State ofSan Marino, Republic ofSao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic ofSaudi Arabia, Kingdom ofSenegal, Republic ofSerbia and MontenegroSeychelles, Republic ofSierra Leone, Republic ofSingapore, Republic ofSlovakia (Slovak Republic)SloveniaSolomon IslandsSomalia, Somali RepublicSouth Africa, Republic ofSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSpain, Spanish StateSri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic ofSt. HelenaSt. Kitts and NevisSt. LuciaSt. Pierre and MiquelonSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudan, Democratic Republic of theSuriname, Republic ofSvalbard & Jan Mayen IslandsSwaziland, Kingdom ofSweden, Kingdom ofSwitzerland, Swiss ConfederationSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwan, Province of ChinaTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailand, Kingdom ofTimor-Leste, Democratic Republic ofTogo, Togolese RepublicTokelau (Tokelau Islands)Tonga, Kingdom ofTrinidad and Tobago, Republic ofTunisia, Republic ofTurkey, Republic ofTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUganda, Republic ofUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom of Great Britain & N. IrelandUruguay, Eastern Republic ofUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam, Socialist Republic ofWallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenZambia, Republic ofZimbabwe

Go here to read the rest:

We forget queer history, and that needs to change (FlipSide) - Charleston Gazette-Mail

Ritch K. Eich, Thousand Oaks, California| Kitsap Sun

Regarding Josh Farley's superb article on Puget Sound Naval Shipyard's iconic hammerhead crane, "Navy to pursue demolition of iconic crane":

In the late 17th century Erik Menved was the first Danish king to establish a naval port, base and shipyard (and drydock) in Copenhagen. Unlike the U.S., the Danes often preserve their history and its important landmarks. Today, when you visit Copenhagen, you see the drydock at Christianshavn built in 1734 and, most important, you see the famous crane ("Mastekranen") sitting prominently on the former Holmen Naval Base and the former Royal Danish Naval Academy.

Please find a way to reduce the weight, then move to another location and re-assemble the unique crane at Naval Shipyard Puget Sound.

I love the Navy but it is hardly known for its wisdom or flexibility when it comes to preserving historical artifacts.

Ritch K. Eich, Captain, USN (Ret.), Thousand Oaks, California

More:

Treasuring the pieces of our shared history - Kitsap Sun

BUFFALO, N.Y. While Cari Casteel was watching Super Bowl ads about a decade ago, she didnt expect to find the inspiration for her PhD thesis.

An Old Spice commercial played and the man your man could smell like catchphrase caught Casteels attention. Her mind wandered, and she started to think about what men usually smell like compared to what women usually smell like, and how personal care products help to construct those scents and connect with ideas about gender.

Naturally, as someone who majored in history, she wanted to investigate deeper.

And thats exactly what Casteel, PhD, a clinical assistant professor who joined the Department of History in the College of Arts and Sciences in 2018, has been doing.

Deodorant is, for many of us, an oft overlooked part of the way we present ourselves to the world, says Casteel, who chose to stick pun intended with the topic of deodorant because of its ubiquity and untold history.

Commercial deodorant was developed in the United States in the late 18oos, she says. Antiperspirants, which reduce sweat, followed in the early 1900s, Casteel says, noting that early versions were so strong and acidic that they would burn through clothing and cause dermatitis, which is irritation of the skin.

Despite this, many women still preferred having destroyed clothes over body odor, Casteel says. To them, she says, the acidic burn signified that the product was working. Manufacturers solved the problem by buffering the active ingredient, which is acidic, in order to make it safer.

The advancement helped pave the way for widespread use. Recent studies suggest up to 90% of Americans use deodorant or antiperspirant every day, a number that is only second in personal hygiene habits to teeth brushing.

Purchasing and consuming deodorant became more about projecting an image and a lifestyle than simply quelling body odor, Casteel wrote in an explanation of her dissertation research on the topic.

She is also interested in the association between gender and how deodorants smell, and notes that personal care products help to both construct and reinforce existing ideas about gender.

We see womens fragrances are flowers and baby powder and mens spice and musk. Even the names are hyper-gendered: powder fresh, relaxing lavender for women. And the mens are more gendered in name: swagger, mountain peak, wilderness, night panther, Casteel says.

Mostly, I am interested in this because I am interested in the ways that we, as a society, categorize and sort each other and also how we sort ourselves, she adds. We do not need different deodorants for men and women, but we have them because deodorant is, to many, more than a commodity we consume, but part of the way we identify. Wearing a deodorant fragrance is part of an olfactory identity. Like the way that we use clothing to tell the world who we are, deodorant does that too just not visually.

Finding information about deodorant history isnt easy, Casteel says.

Oftentimes, she has to be creative, scouring old advertisements, marketing publications, trade journals and business ledgers, which are records that keep track of transactions.

Reading through these sources is a slow process because of the amount of content they contain, she says. It is also important to sift through what is and isnt relevant, as well as rereading to make sure everything was read carefully, she adds.

Casteel revisits certain sources to reanalyze and cross-reference the facts she has.

One of her favorite topics is the changes in the application of deodorant. With some of the earliest versions, deodorant was applied with cotton swabs or a persons fingers.

To eliminate having to touch the deodorant directly, roll-ons, sticks and sprays were produced. But around the 1970s, the use of aerosol deodorants decreased because of the increasing consciousness about protecting the Earth.

While building this body of research, Casteel decided to write a book that highlights the story of deodorant. The book, which is in its early stages, will detail the history as well as how applications have changed throughout time.

Coincidentally, when Casteel was working on her dissertation, she lived two blocks away from the building where commercial deodorant was invented in Philadelphia. And now she loves doing research involving this same hygiene item.

See the article here:

An 'olfactory identity': UB researcher studies the history of deodorant - University at Buffalo

The Chamber of Commerce published a booklet of essays submitted by local people for a city improvement contest in 1946 called What I Dont Like About Amsterdam.

Few of us today actually remember 1946, but many who grew up in Amsterdam after World War II would probably regard that postwar year of 1946 as part of the good old days.

The carpet mills, other Amsterdam factories and businesses were still thriving.Downtown was busy.People enjoyed bowling, softball and other amateur sports.The war had ended.

Nonetheless Charles H. Schenck, Chamber Executive Secretary, said the essays submitted in the contest cited multiple complaints.

A lack of recreational facilities was mentioned in 230 essays.The poor condition of streets was cited in 177 entries.There were 139 ash and garbage collection complaints.Seventy nine people wrote Amsterdam had too many bars and deplored the sale of alcohol to minors.Some essays called for more hotel accommodations, transportation and theatrical facilities.

A numbering system enabled the Chamber judges to anonymously award cash prizes to individuals whose essays were deemed the best among the 850 entries.The judges were also anonymous.

We are quick to criticize those who make an honest effort to do something, wrote the first prize winner, who was awarded $40.

Forty dollars in 1946 would translate into over $500 today because of inflation, making it a rather substantial prize.

The winning writer continued, Misguided leadership has done a lot to put nationalism above civic responsibility and has tended to build up group interest with selfish motives.We are all Americans and we should work together.

The second place essay was awarded $20 and called for Sunday evening services in the churches and an end to competition among local veterans groups. The writer suggested city employees only get 10 days in sick leave each year, that the city buy sidewalk snow plows and that the proposed athletic field near the Lynch School be designated a World War II memorial.

The Recorder announced the conclusion of the contest on March 26, The project to secure a self-portrait of Amsterdam by her own residents was started about one month ago when blanks were distributed through the public schools and mercantile establishments of the city.

In expression of approximately 100 words, men, women and children were invited to say what they think about the city and its weak points.

The third place finisher, who was awarded $10, suggested a waste disposal system so that sewage would no longer be dumped into the Mohawk River.The writer also called for beautification of the riverfront.

Here are more critiques from 1946:

I dont like the taste of city water. It has too much chlorine in it.They admit the water looks bad and tastes bad but say its harmless.It should bethe way its been drugged.

Amsterdam should have a curfew law for children up to 16 years, and it should be enforced, even if it means bringing parents into court.

The streets are a hodge-podge of houses, dinky little stores (often empty), gas stations, vacant lots (used as dumping grounds) and unoccupied buildings with broken windows.

The characters that clutter up the streets in front of some of the downtown cigar stores are no ad for the police department.

Amsterdam needs a sort of night club just for us kids, with special attractions by kids who can sing, dance, play an instrument or perform.

And a final complaint from over 75 years ago, Have another contest entitled What I do like about Amsterdam and limit the answers to one word. Mine would be Nothing!

Categories: Opinion

View original post here:

FOCUS ON HISTORY: The good old days? The Daily Gazette - The Daily Gazette

The price of gas in the US continues to inch toward the $5 mark, a figure that is proving incredibly costly for American families and which represents an almost $2 average increase on the cost of a gallon of gas a year ago. According to the International Energy Agency, total demand is estimated to rise by 1.3% by the end of 2022, while supply continues to dwindle largely due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the sanctions imposed on the Kremlin by the international community, many of which have targeted the vast energy resources available to Vladimir Putin.

As of Friday, 10 June, the national average cost of a gallon of gasoline in the US stood at $4.986, according to the AAA. A month ago customers were shelling out $4.373 and this time last year a gallon was being sold for $3.073. With little end in sight to the ongoing energy crisis, it seems to be only a matter of time before the historical record for a gallon in the US is beaten: in July 2008 the price of gas hit $4.14 per gallon, which when adjusted for inflation would be around $5.37 in todays dollars.

In grim news for motorists, JP Morgan has forecast the average price of gasoline could reach $6.20 per gallon by August this year, assuming that there is no swift resolution to the factors currently fueling the price rises.

Goldman Sachs have published similarly bleak predictions for the price of crude oil, the key component involved in the production of motor fuel and other products. The price per barrel is currently around $120 a barrel, but the investment bank believes that figure will hit $140 per barrel over the summer months.

The current high price of gas can be attributed to a combination of factors that have conspired to send fuel prices soaring. Firstly, as pandemic restrictions were removed in 2021, the American economy began to grow swiftly, bringing with it a spell of sustained high inflation.

Typically the cost of living increases slightly every year but after a tough 2020 the economy bounced back sharply in 2021 and prices rose accordingly.

The pandemic not only created a temporary lull in American society but also caused unimaginable disruption to the supply chains that provide for it. It became more difficult to transport the crude oil from which gasoline is made, and the price per gallon rose again.

But the biggest and most recent factor in the sky-high cost of gas is the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the economic sanctions that have been levied as a result. Russia has huge natural reserves of crude oil and was responsible for around 8% of the United States annual supply of oil.

However in response to the invasion a number of petroleum companies stopped buying Russian oil, and President Biden announced a complete ban on the importation of oil and natural gas from Russia in March. The US has opened diplomatic channels with Venezuela and has authorized Repsol to ship oil from the South American country to Europe to help those countries dependent on Russian reserves and in May, Washington permitted Chevron to negotiate its oil license with Venezuelas national producer, PDVSA, in another indication that needs may eventually force the Biden administration into an uneasy energy alliance with Nicols Maduro.

View original post here:

What is the highest price gasoline has reached in US history? - AS USA