The Great Teddy Bear Panic of 1907

In the opinion of Reverend Michael Esper, teddy bears were public enemy number one.

In July 1907, Esper, leader of the Catholic Church of St. Joseph in St. Joseph, Michigan, addressed his congregation about an upcoming social gathering at the church. Church members were encouraged to bring a doll for sale to help raise funds. Esper said all dolls are welcome, but a teddy bear – a stuffed, furry bear that has become a fashionable toy these days – is not.

“While I will not forbid it, I would like everyone who attends this event to understand that it is my deepest desire that no one brings a teddy bear to add to their doll collection,” he said.

Such bears were “a bunch of abominations” that he found “disgusting”. Elsewhere he called them “pseudo-animals.”

Esper was not alone in his condemnation of teddy bears, although it is one of the stranger protests of the 20th century. What could an ordinary person or anyone else have against one of the most innocent toys ever invented? What did the bears do to cause such anger and be condemned as contributing to the moral decline of society?

Esper had his reasons.

1. Bear Country
2. In defense of the teddy bear

Bear Country

The bear he left the presidency. In November 1902, the president Theodore Roosevelt went on a bear hunt in Mississippi at the invitation of Governor Andrew Longino. Roosevelt, known as an intrepid outdoorsman, intended to put the bear in his crosshairs and blast the hapless animal into nonexistence.

However, nature did not want to cooperate. Roosevelt didn’t see any bears. Eventually, his tracker cornered the bear and tied it to a tree, but Roosevelt didn’t mind: he considered attacking a defenseless bear unsportsmanlike and refused to shoot. (However, the bear was still marked for death – it was killed by another person during a hunt).

The media had a field day with the president’s perceived nobility. So did cartoonist Clifford Berryman, who drew a panel for Washington Post. showing Roosevelt’s refusal. The cartoon was so successful that Berryman added bears to his drawings of Roosevelt.

The story caught the attention of Morris Michtom, a pastry chef from Brooklyn, who thought the teddy bear might spark public interest. His wife Rose started sewing them by hand; Michtom sought and obtained Roosevelt’s permission to name him “Teddy Bear” in honor of Roosevelt’s nickname “Teddy”. Although the president reportedly hated being called “Teddy Bear,” he didn’t mind Michtom using it to describe stuffed animals. (Stuffed teddy bears have existed before, of course especially in Germany, where plush toy manufacturer Margarete Steiff sold bears, elephants and other animals. Her nephew Richard is said to have sketched a teddy bear back in 1894.)

Soon, Michtom founded the Ideal Toy Company. Ideal and other manufacturers watched the bears disappear from store shelves, helped by the publicity of Roosevelt’s story. The toy, which ranged in price from 50 cents to $5, soon created the teddy bear industry bringing with annual sales of $2 million.

In 1907, it seemed that bears would become an ever-popular toy category that could potentially replace the permanent doll market due to their unisex nature. While boys of the era largely avoided dolls, the teddy bear was socially acceptable. After all, bears were considered marauding killers.

However, the plush style trend has not escaped the attention of critics. The loudest was the Reverend Michael Esper, whose warning made national headlines. It wasn’t just his anti-teddy bear stance, but his reasoning. Esper believed that teddy bears could undermine the motherly instincts of little girls, who he believed were better fed by dolls, and declared that the trade and cuddling of teddy bears would lead to “racial suicide.”

The concept of racial suicide was there sent out by a prominent sociologist of the era, Edward Ross, who warned that the combination of immigration and low birth rates could weaken American culture. (His ideas are reminiscent of today’s “Great Replacement Theory”). Esper relied on this cheeky theory, conjecturing that teddy bears would cause fewer babies to be born.

“There is something natural about a little girl caring for a doll,” he said Hi his 15-minute speech about bears. “This is the first manifestation of the feeling of motherhood. And in the development of these maternal instincts lies the hope of all nations… It is a monstrous crime to do anything that will lead to the destruction of these instincts. This is what the teddy bear does and why it will be a contributing factor to the problem of racial suicide if the practice is not suppressed.”

Father Esper seemed deeply disgusted by even the presence of bears. “What is more disgusting than the sight of a small child petting, caressing and even kissing these pseudo animals?” he asked.

In defense of the teddy bear

Newspaper editors certainly understood the nature of gold mining, echoing the comments of the Reverend who seemed to regard teddy bears as a kind of cotton-stuffed evil. Esper’s tirade spread, encouraging both agreement and criticism. Reporters even questioned President Roosevelt about it. Although he rejected to make a statement consistent with the protocol, he was said to have read Esper’s comments with interest.

Jane Close, a supervisory sewing teacher in a New York City school district, Agreement with Esper’s penchant for plush things, if not his exact motive. “Teddy bears are not good for little girls,” she said. “The bear deprives children of the pleasure of caring for the doll. He can’t wear pretty dresses and fine underwear, and the little girl who has him as a pet doesn’t get any encouragement to do these things. Therefore, she loses her education related to fancy dress. A teddy bear is okay for boys, but not for girls.

Another critic, W.A. Ramsay – who was described By Nevada State Journal as “childless and unmarried, and yet an observer,” he agreed. “I agree with the priest,” he said. “I never liked a teddy bear. An old-fashioned doll is an object that a child can play with. There is something human about a doll, at least it has a human image, but these toy beasts have nothing to recommend them.

The bear took heavy fire. However, he had his defenders. “Anything that evokes as much love and compassion among children as a teddy bear is certainly safe and sane.” he said Mrs. Dwight Goss, teacher in Grand Rapids, Michigan. “I have noticed that little girls often prefer a teddy bear to their dolls, but I think it is because a teddy bear is less volatile… when it comes to maternal instinct, nature has planted it too deep for a teddy bear or anything else to threaten it if that’s the case. There is nothing to worry about in this regard.”

Mrs. George Murphy, director of a Grand Rapids kindergarten, was irritated by suggestions that the bears might not accept the doll. “There is no chance that a teddy bear will ever become a usurper in the world of dolls,” she said. “Little girls love their dolls and playhouses because they represent family and home. Thanks to them, they recreate small dramas of family life. The teddy bear is new and you can trust the child to give it the right place.”

Mrs. Murphy was prescient. Before the 1907 holiday season, interest in teddy bears was waning. Toy manufacturers and retailers noticed demand for bears was plummeting, though it was impossible to tell whether Esper’s comments had an effect on people or whether the bear was simply waning.

Richard Osmun, editor Toys the magazine believed Esper had made a difference. “Father Esper of St. Catholic Church. Józefa is not alone in his fear of the evil of the teddy bear” – Osmun he said in August 1907. “At first, when bears were something of a novelty, there was little opposition from mothers to their use. But now that the novelty has worn off, some mothers are leaning towards the view that nothing should replace the old doll in their children’s hearts.”

The bears, of course, suffered no lasting damage from Esper, although the same could not be said for Harold Smith. In 1923, a 14-year-old boy crossed paths with his father, who was already associate with a church in Detroit. Esper caught Smith trying to steal donation boxes. As he took Smith to the parish house, the boy tried to escape. Esper took aim and shot the child with his revolver. Fortunately, Smith was not seriously injured. With all due respect to Esper, it seems he could have posed a much greater threat to children than the humble teddy bear.

Read more about toy fashion: