Getting Congressional approval in 1955 wasn’t the political miracle it would be today.  The economy was in better shape than now. Post-war America was generally more confident in its power to solve problems. Also, the project was launched by a popular, Republican president with strong bipartisan support.

Having grown up with the interstate system, it’s hard for a baby-boomer to sense just how extraordinary the idea was. A Post article of 1955, “The Case of the Obsolete Highways,” captures some of the astonishment Americans must have felt at the scope and farsightedness of the project.

During the past several weeks, millions of Americans have been jolted into recognizing the fact that, though we are several years into the Atomic Age, this country has never even caught up with the Automobile Age. The most official jolt, was delivered in the form of a White House message to the 84th Congress on the twenty-seventh of January, in which President Eisenhower asked for legislation energizing a special twenty-five-billion dollar, ten-year, highway-construction program. And, unless the new Congress is completely unrealistic, he’ll probably get it.

Now, everybody loves a highway program. Like the Girl Scouts, better schools and Christmas, the better-roads program is a continuing institution that has no enemies. So, if you are in favor of progress, you will probably favor this 25-billion-dollar investment

But wait a minute—twenty-five billion is $25,000,000,000! This astronomical outlay is almost 10 per cent of our national debt and represents about one third of our annual Federal Government income. In order to invest twenty-five billion in roads, every man, woman and child in the United States would have to contribute $150—in addition, that is, to the present, normal tax levies.

A president making such a proposal today would be asking for impeachment.

These "trunk-line highways" represent little more than one percent of our total highway mileage—but they carry 20 percent of our out-of-city-traffic.

This same twenty-five billion would pay our national bills for four months. Or, to phrase it for those who like superlatives —this projected twenty-five-billion outlay is the biggest, single-issue expense—aside from World War II—the American people have ever been asked to underwrite. The fact that the costs will be spread over a ten-year period does not detract a cipher from the total; actually, Americans are going to be asked to dig deep to pay for bills that have, in part, been accruing for a quarter of a century.

Is this project a Utopian dream-of-the-future or is the program necessary to America’s continued prosperity and, perhaps, to its very survival?

Does America really face a highway transportation crisis?… The basic reason for our highway traffic troubles can be found in three facts.

(1) In 1954 there were 58,000,000 motor vehicles registered in this country.

(2) Between 1941 and 1953 we added 39,000 miles of public roads to bring the national total to 3,348,000 miles.

(3) During that same period —1941 to 1953 —we almost doubled the vehicle-miles of travel on these roads and highways. Squeeze two cars or trucks onto a road area designed for one—and remember that many of these roads and highways were unsatisfactory even by 1941 standards— and you have a traffic problem that spells out wholesale slaughter on the highways, terrific economic waste, and possible disaster in the event of a national emergency.

It is estimated that in 1965 we will have 80,000,000 registered vehicles on our highways and that they will travel 814,000,000,000 vehicle-miles during that year.  This means that if we continue building highways at our current rate— we will have three vehicles on the same highway area that carried one vehicle during the stop-and-start year of 1941. If this comes to pass, 1965 may well be the year when we all get out and walk.

If this sounds appalling, just think of 1975—for 1955 is the year when we must start planning for our 1975 traffic. Two decades from now there will be an estimated 92,000,000 vehicles on our highways, and during that year you and your children will drive an estimated trillion vehicle-miles — or die trying.

In fact, the traffic estimate was a little low for 1965; 90,000,000 vehicles were using America’s highways. By 1975, the estimate was even farther off: there were 130 thousand vehicles instead of 92 thousand.

What sort of highways will we get if the Federal Government carries through with the ten-year, $25,000,000,000 program of refurbishing this 40,000-mile national network? A preview of these 1965 roads has already been afforded us by the best of the East’s toll turnpikes and the West Coast’s new freeways.

This new interstate road system crisscrossing the nation and weaving the urban centers together will be designed for the traffic pattern to be expected in each section: the roads will be multilane—eight, six, four and occasionally two lanes—limited-access highways with a median strip separating the traffic streams. There will be few lights or traffic signals, no sharp curves, no steep grades and, except in those urban feeder roads which will be made a part of the interstate program, there will be no intersections.

When completed, the interstate system would bring new efficiency to travel and reduce transportation costs for businesses. It would also provide an efficient road system for civil defense. But one of the biggest selling points for the Federal highway program was safety, as was noted in a 1956 Post article, “Coast To Coast Without A Stoplight in 1956.”

The fifteen year campaign to get our traffic moving is under way; with a little luck and lots of co-operation from everyone, we’ll be riding from border to border without a stop light or a traffic snarl by 1972. The Automotive Safety Foundation estimates that, during its first ten years of operation, the improved Interstate System will save 35,000 lives. Will you or your children be among that army of the repreived? If so, you can count the time and the money the new highways will save as just another dividend.

When A Big Government Solution Worked The Saturday Evening Post

Swimming Hole by Norman Rockwell

Swimming Hole
Norman Rockwell
August 11, 1945
© SEPS 1945

This is a charming story-in-a-picture of a salesman making a long drive on a hot August day. No air conditioning in the car, of course. He spots a swimming hole, pulls over and goes for it. He carefully lays his glasses on a newspaper and his lit cigar on his shoe, to be picked up when he emerges (Rockwell was all about details). And then shows us a face of pure bliss. “George Zimmer, my model,” reported Norman Rockwell, “was an awful good sport. He stripped and I poured several buckets of water over his head to get the effect.” And you thought modeling was easy!

Drink of Water by Frank X. Leyendecker

Drink of Water
Frank X. Leyendecker
August 22, 1914
© SEPS 1914

We love this cover from August of 1914 by artist Frank X. Leyendecker (brother of Post cover artist J.C.). Frank did sixteen Post covers, and this one is delightful. Delivering papers in August is hot, tiring work, and the kid deserves a cool drink. The fact that his drinking buddy happens to be a horse doesn’t concern him.

Watering Father by Richard Sargent

Watering Father
Richard Sargent
June 4, 1955
© SEPS 1955

We’d all like to see this scene three seconds later, but this is what we have to work with. While Mom is busy planting and watering flowers, Junior is thinking Dad’s pasty white skin needs a cool-down. Whether Dad agreed it was a good idea is a mystery left up to the viewer. Sargent was great with humorous scenes and a master at the pregnant pause, the “what-happens-next” moment.

Wet Swim Suit by Clarence F. Underwood

Wet Swim Suit
Clarence F. Underwood
August 24, 1912
© SEPS 1912

We know, you’re shocked. A pretty young lady in a swimsuit on the cover of the staid and venerable Saturday Evening Post. And in 1912 yet! Well, even young ladies in 1912 deserved a cool-down. At least we don’t have to wring out the heavy skirts of our swimsuits these days. Artist Clarence F. Underwood did over forty Post covers. Even though most of them were in the 19-teens, many showed active women: fishing, playing tennis, canoeing, even plowing a field. Of course, they looked surprisingly pretty doing all this.

Sitting on the Diving Board by Penrhyn Stanlaws

Sitting On the Diving Board
Penrhyn Stanlaws
August 19, 1933
© 1933 SEPS.

My, how bathing suits changed in a mere twenty-one years! In a swimsuit more suited for immersion, the pretty lady from 1933 is just dipping her toes in the water. Go figure. Curtis Publishing (curtispublishing.com) shows many gorgeous Stanlaws covers, usually of lovely young ladies holding a teacup or bouquet. He did a total of thirty-seven Post covers between 1913 and 1938. (Warning: if you look up his covers on the Curtis website, you’ll want to buy prints of them all.)

Cool Bear by Charles Livingston Bull

Cool Bear
Charles Livingston Bull
August 19, 1922
© SEPS 1922

Then there’s the total immersion therapy. This is from Country Gentleman magazine (a sister publication) in 1922 by great wildlife artist, Charles Livingston Bull. If that water looks good to you, a word of advice: Find another place to cool down.

Classic Covers: August Cool-Down The Saturday Evening Post

Once, the sidewalks of our cities were bobbing oceans of headgear: bowlers, boaters, bonnets, bretons, panamas, pork pies, and pill boxes. Then, mysteriously, hats were left in the back of coat closets, eventually making their way to attic trunks, then… oblivion.

But in the young century, hats were everywhere. Consider the below photograph from 1900. It shows New York’s Fifth Avenue on Easter Sunday morning, and not a single bare head.

Of course, this was the Easter Parade: the one day of the year set aside to display your best hat.

The parade had grown out of the custom of wealthy New Yorkers to stroll the sidewalks after church, there to mingle with their peers and display their family, clothing, and carriages. By 1883, the event had become an annual event where men and women would display their Easter best, particularly their crowning glory: tall, lustrous opera hats for men and elaborate, be-ribboned bonnets for women.

Naturally the event attracted crowds of citizens who weren’t among New York’s social elite. At first, they enjoyed simply watching the parade of fashion, but they soon were mingling with the fashionable set both in church and on Fifth Avenue. You can imagine the reaction of New York’s elite, as noted by a Post author in 1955:

“As early as the mid-1890s, the New York Time complained dismally about ‘visitors from the East Side, shop girls, clerks, and all sorts of “metropolitan outsiders” who had thrust themselves into the parade’ where they had no business. By 1897 so many ‘outsiders’ were invading the Avenue on Easter that churches began issuing admission tickets to their memberships. At St. Patrick’s, a group of eager females tried to beat some ticket holders out of their seats. They had got in via a ladder that some workmen had left near a window… After a brief but spirited fisticuffs, police came to the rescue of the ticket holders.”

Ah, those were the days — when New Yorkers fought crowds to get into church.

Inevitably, the parade of genteel fashion took on a more democratic character, and a carnival atmosphere with no definite purpose except celebrating Spring. As the Post article observes:

“Americans… are perplexed by the Fifth Avenue event because it has no apparent beginning, ending, organization or purpose. Swarms of people just show up from no place in particular, march — perhaps ‘trample’ is a better word — for two or three hours, then go home. The main promenade route is the eighteen short blocks on Fifth Avenue between 42nd Street and Central Park, centering at 50th Street, near St. Patrick’s.”

The 128th Official Easter Parade will be held this year on April 4th. It will look nothing like the photograph above. Fashion — hats, particularly, will be an important feature of the event. Many will be intended to amuse, looking something like parade floats for the head. But there will also be samples of New York’s millinery industry, which still clings to life.

In 1963, Muriel Fischer reported on the millinery market, which at the time was a strong, durable industry.

“Some 40 firms have been in the business for better than 25 years. (Yet few newcomers have entered the field in the past five years.) At least seven establishments loudly proclaim. ‘We’re the largest and the oldest!’”

It was one of the last, great years for hats, and the competition was intense.

“Millinery seasons are short and violent. The peak periods are the 10 weeks prior to Easter and the 10 weeks prior to Fall. Yet there’s never a lull. For if the industry isn’t making hats it’s planning hats, and it’s always busy talking hats.”

“Roughly 60 million units of millinery are sold per year. In the overall accounting, 80 percent are in the below-$10 category, only 3 percent in the over-$35 salon group.”

The article lists several of 1963′s most important hat designers:

“Sally Victor and Mr. John are generally acclaimed the crowned heads of couture’s royal family. Also include are Lilly Dachè, Adolfo, Emme, Chanda, the house of Hattie Carnegie, and a dynamic young newcomer called Mr. Halston.”

Just 30 years-old at the time, Halston was to become famous for his skills in draping the feminine form in solids of classical elegance.

“It was Halston who created the ‘Kennedy pillbox.’ He smiles at the recollection. ‘I made it for her long before the inauguration,’ he relates. ‘Funny thing is when she put it on she dented the top of it—pushed it in, I guess, holding it against the wind. lt was photographed that way, and soon I noticed all the women wearing pillboxes were pushing them in. Halston also made the large rolled brims Jackie wore to India. He estimates that ‘fifty percent of the downtown business was based on that hat that season.’”

In the highly competitive market of that time, hat-makers could only produce a few styles each year. They hoped that one of their styles would take off, but to ensure their profitability they stole designs from each other.

“In his race to prepare a line for the selling season, the 39th Street manufacturer often finds it expedient to steal. ‘How many designers do I have?’ chuckles Harry Samet. ‘Two who work in my place—and one hundred and eighty working for others. So they call us pirates. But we compliment them, don’t we?’

“Lilly Dachè agrees. ‘When they stop copying me, ah, then I am finished.’

“Piracy is encouraged by the Millinery Institute of America, an organization sponsored by the downtown manufacturers, the uptown creators and the Millinery Workers’ Union. ‘Let’s face it,’ expounds Charles Rothenberg, who heads the Millinery Institute of America. ‘It is the ability to copy down, mass-produce and render fashion at the lowest price level that makes the American woman the best-dressed female in the world.’

The institute seeks to encourage women to buy six hats per year. (Current estimates pinpoint the odd fraction of 2.8 hats per woman.)”

So what happened to America’s hats? One reason for their decline is their loss of usefulness. We no longer need to cover our heads in our brief walk between vehicles and buildings.

Some historians claim the hat died when hairstyles became more luxuriant. Others state that President Kennedy set a trend for hatless attire (although he definitely wore a hat on state occasions.)

Not a hatless soul to be found in 1880's 5th Avenue. (Library of Congress)

In fact, both of these factors were part of a larger influence. In the 1960s, American society broke with the tradition of serious attire. The trend-setters among young Americans didn’t want to dress for respectability as their parents had, but for comfort. They also wanted something that reflected their own generation. They wanted to advertise the studied casualness of youth in jeans, shorts, t-shirts, and athletic wear. The suit, the tie, and the hat became historical artifacts.

The hat has made a meager comeback in the form of baseball caps. But caps are nearly indistinguishable, and anonymous. The crown may proclaim a baseball team or a seed company, but they say almost nothing about the wearer.

In contrast, a hat is a prominent display of its wearer’s character and taste — and Americans generally aren’t comfortable making  such a bold statement.

The Fall of the American Hat The Saturday Evening Post