Ever wonder who the “scot” in “scot-free” is?
Well, wonder no more.
It’s commonly stated the “Scott” here was a man named Dred Scott- famed for being
involved in one of the most pivotal court cases in U.S. history- the mid-19th century
Dred Scott vs Sanford, which decided if Scott and his family should be free or not (more
on this in the Bonus Facts in a bit).
However, it turns out this isn’t correct.
In truth, the phrase actually dates all the way back to at least the 11th century.
The "scot", in this case, is from the Old Norse word "skot" meaning something to the
effect of "payment" or "contribution".
In English, "scot" initially just meant "tax".
The phrase “scot free” was first used in reference to municipal tax levies.
Each person in a town would be obligated to pay a share of the scot (tax), which was called
their "lot".
In some areas, you also were not allowed to vote unless you paid your lot of the scot.
Those who didn't pay, such as the poor or those wealthy individuals that could get out
of it because that’s been a thing seemingly forever, were then "scot free".
Thus, initially, the term more or less just implied you got out of paying your taxes.
It quickly spread to being used whenever someone got out of paying anything they should have,
monetarily speaking.
Today, it is also used in reference to non-monetary forms of payment, such as someone who commits
a crime, but then gets off "scot free", without being punished in any way for their crime.
One of the earliest known references to the phrase comes from the Charter of 1066 where
it states, "Scotfre and gauelfre, on schire and on hundrede."
Basically: "Scot free and tribute, divide lots by subdivisions within a county."
Moving on from here, ever wonder who the “Jay” is in “Jaywalking”?
Turns out once again, this wasn’t a person.
Or, at least, not a specific person, more or less referring to a group of people- country
bumpkins, rednecks, or hicks.
More specifically, it comes from the fact that "Jay" used to be a generic term for someone
who was an idiot, dull, rube, unsophisticated, poor, or simpleton.
Thus, to "Jay walk" was to be stupid by crossing the street in an unsafe place or way.
Or, more aptly, a country person visiting the city who wasn't used to the rules of the
road for pedestrians in an urban environment, so would attempt to cross or walk in the streets
anywhere.
As it stated in the January 25, 1937 New York Times, "In many streets like Oxford Street,
for instance, the jaywalker wanders complacently in the very middle of the roadway as if it
was a country lane."
Although the Oxford English Dictionary states that the first known use of the term "jaywalking/jaywalker"
was in the June of 1917 edition of Harper's Magazine, "The Bostonian … has reduced ‘a
pedestrian who crosses streets in disregard of traffic signals’ to the compact jaywalker."
In fact, the first actual known reference we could find was from a 1909 Chicago Tribune
where it stated, "Chauffeurs assert with some bitterness that their `joyriding' would harm
nobody if there were not so much jaywalking."
The term was also mentioned in a 1915 New York Times article where they stated they
found the term "jay walking" "highly shocking" and "truly opprobrious" (shameful).
This was in reference to the way it was used at the time, akin to a racial slur, but in
this case more of a pejorative "class" term.
Specifically, a derogatory term against poor people by people who were wealthy enough to
drive.
Automobile related companies popularly used this term in various anti-pedestrian campaigns.
For instance, John Hertz, president of Yellow Cab, even went so far as to say, "We fear
the `jay walker' worse than the anarchist, and Chicago is his native home."
Chicago is still noted today for rampant jaywalking among the populace.
In order to counter the automobile interests who were trying to get pedestrians off the
road, for a time the term "jay drivers" was used as a derogatory term for people who drive
cars in such a way as to hog the road or pose a danger to pedestrians.
This obviously didn't catch on and, in the end, the automobile companies won the fight
for use of roads.
Next up: quitting cold turkey.
For those unfamiliar, when you quit something “cold turkey” it means that you’re quitting
smoking, drinking, a hard drug, or eating delicious chocolate cake right then and there
without being slowly weaned off the addictive, possibly chocolatey substance.
So where did this come from?
“Cold turkey” actually started off meaning “plain speaking,” a meaning that is still
around today, though much less prominently- with this definition usually in the form of
"talking turkey" today, and only said by your grandparents.
The phrase "cold turkey" first appeared in print in 1914 in the Des Moines Daily News:
“I've heard [Reverend Billy] Sunday give his 'Booze' sermon, and believe me that rascal
can make tears flow out of a stone.
And furthermore he talks "cold turkey".
You know what I mean - calls a spade a spade.”
Exactly how turkeys are related to plain speaking is unknown, but the leading hypothesis is
that a plate of cold turkey is a simple meal without many frills—that is, it was pretty
plain.
Therefore, “talking cold turkey” meant “talking plainly.”
That said, there isn’t a lot of direct evidence to back this hypothesis; it’s seemingly
the most likely of the various hypotheses etymologists have come up with.
As for the "abruptly stopping a bad habit" definition, one of the earliest references
of this can be found in 1921 in a Canadian newspaper, The Daily Colonist:
“Perhaps the most pitiful figures who have appeared before Dr. Carleton Simon are those
who voluntarily surrender themselves.
When they go before him, they [drug addicts] are given what is called the 'cold turkey'
treatment.”
As for the jump from plain talking to quitting drugs this once again is thought to be centered
around the “simple” explanation.
If talking cold turkey means talking plainly, then quitting cold turkey means quitting plainly
without any frills or fancy methods used- just doing it.
Whatever the case, back in the 1920s, this phrase in this context was mostly only used
to refer to people quitting some drug.
However, over time it has evolved to mean quitting anything.
Moving on from there- dead ringer, meaning a perfect
imitation of something.
While it is commonly stated this is somehow connected to people being buried and having
a bell at the surface they could ring to let someone know if they were still alive, this
has nothing to do with the origin of this term.
Instead, actual documented evidence points to a different story entirely: horse racing.
In the 1800s, a "ringer" was a stand-in for a horse at a race.
Sometimes, people would clandestinely replace a slower horse with a faster horse or vice
versa for later betting purposes.
Of course, the horses had to look extremely similar in order for this con to be pulled
off.
In 1882, an article published in the Manitoba Free Press described this: "A horse that is
taken through the country and trotted under a false name and pedigree is called a 'ringer.'"
The word "ringer" started out as a word for someone who rang bells, such as the bells
in a church.
The jump from ringing bells to switching out horses probably seems like a big one, but
in the early 1600s another phrase appeared that helps sort it all out.
That phrase is “ring the changes,” today meaning "to do something in a different way
in order to make it more interesting."
Originally, this simply meant that the bell ringer was ringing a pattern of bells that
included all variations and eventually brought the ring back to its starting point.
However, a variation of “ring the changes” cropped up by the 18th and 19th centuries
which meant “substitute counterfeit money for good.”
From there, it is easy to see why the term “ringer” would be applied to a horse that
was secretly substituted in for another in horse racing.
The horse ringers obviously were not dead, though, or they wouldn’t be able to race.
In this case, the word “dead” is used to mean “exact or precise,” as with many
other phrases that use the word, such as “dead centre.”
This meaning has been around since the 16th century, though exactly how the word’s meaning
morphed from actual death to “exact” isn’t known.
"Dead" was added to "ringer" soon after ringer started being applied to horses.
The first known published case of “dead ringer” appears in the Oshkosh Weekly Times
in June 1888: "Dat ar is a markable semlance be shoo", said
Hart looking critically at the picture.
"Dat's a dead ringer fo me.
I nebber done see such a semblence.
Bonus Fact: For those not familiar with the Dred Scott
case, Dred Scott was a slave, born in Virginia somewhere between 1795-1799 who ultimately
played a large role in accelerating the start of the U.S. Civil War and indirectly helped
popularizing the Republican Party.
Scott originally was owned by the Peter Blow family but was sold to Dr. John Emerson who
moved around a lot due to being a doctor in the U.S. army.
During this time, Dred Scott found himself living briefly in Illinois (a free state)
and the Wisconsin Territory (in present day Minnesota) where slavery was outlawed.
As such, at around 47-51 years old, even though he was at the time living in a non-free territory,
he petitioned for his freedom on the grounds that when he was in those free territories,
he should then have been automatically free, both by state laws and by the Northwest Ordinance
of 1787.
He filed suit initially on April 6th, 1846 with the courts to have himself and his wife
and two daughters freed.
Why he waited so long to do so isn't known.
It is speculated that he didn't know of the law at the time, so didn't bring the matter
up while living in those free regions.
This first suit was dismissed due to insufficient evidence, but the court allowed Scott to re-file.
During the second trial, the jury ruled in the Scott family's favor and proclaimed them
free due to the fact that Dr. Emerson had illegally held him as a slave while Scott
lived in free regions.
However, this decision was appealed and the Missouri State Supreme Court ruled against
the Scotts in 1852.
This was particularly significant because it overturned the firmly established "once
free, always free" precedent, with Scott and his family having been free during the interim
of the jury's ruling and the State Supreme Court's ruling.
After another failed suit, the case was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court: Dred Scott
v. Sandford (note: the court misspelled Sanford as Sandford).
They ruled against him 7-2, stating that because of his race and original status of slave he
had no rights as a citizen of the U.S. and, thus, could not file suit against anyone in
a U.S. court.
This was contrary to common practice in free states where many allowed freed slaves to
become citizens.
As such, because the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, it effectively
nullified those people's citizenships.
Their ruling also overturned the Missouri Compromise as unconstitutional because it
would allow slave owners to be deprived of their property (slaves) without any sort of
due process (if the slave owners traveled through or moved to a territory where slavery
was outlawed), which violated the Fifth Amendment.
Needless to say, the Supreme Court's ruling outraged abolitionists who had recently formed
the Republican Party three years before in 1854 with one of their primary goals being
to stop the spread of slavery.
The ruling became hotly debated throughout the country, polarizing many individuals on
the issue of slavery and ultimately bolstering the new Republican Party's numbers, helping
to eventually get Abraham Lincoln elected as President in 1860 as the first Republican
U.S. President.
After the ruling, the Scotts were given back to the Blow family, who had originally owned
them.
The Blows subsequently granted them their freedom.
Unfortunately, Dred Scott didn't get to enjoy this too long as he died of tuberculosis a
year later, but at least his family was free and his court case was pivotal in accelerating
the process that would ultimately lead to the freedom of all slaves in the United States.
Incidentally, the Supreme Court's ruling in the Dred Scott case technically still stands
to this day (having never been directly overruled by the Supreme Court since then).
However, the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments have effectively done the work of overruling
the court's decision in that case.
The Thirteenth Amendment outlawed slavery and the Fourteenth Amendment, among other
things, provides a citizenship clause which allowed people of any race to become citizens
of the United States.