I see that you and I do differ philosophically... as I said you are entitled to your opinion.
And don't think that I don't see your point or that I'm necessarily trying to change your mind. It's an interesting difference of opinion, otherwise I'd keep mine to myself.
It does not matter really what Gaines thought about the cover... the cover itself wasn't the issue.
No, but it and his attitude were emblematic of the issue.
In general, you have always been able to get away with publishing whatever you want, as long as you keep the "nasty" stuff out of the eyes of kids. Yoc mentioned fairy tales and nursery rhymes, and there's a reason they're perpetually for sale: The book covers don't show the mermaid cut to ribbons on the rocks or the wolf being disemboweled by the woodsman.
(2) He showed the moral code of his comics by showing up and defending them as best he could... in this regard he was a man of conviction.
I may be overlooking it, but in his testimony, I've never seen the part where he says something like, "we take pains to show the wicked being punished in our stories in a manner we find deterring." Even Congressmen could've understood THAT.
What you suggest is that he cave in for the good of comics and for his own material gain...
To me, it's not "caving in" or "selling out" to acknowledge fault and keep up with the market. In my eyes, Gaines DID cave, by allowing Congress to dictate purely a bowlderized industry that he'd just have no part of.
I mean, really: Does Mad have the artistic merit and moral lessons of the rest of the EC line? No, it was the best seller at the time. He clearly wasn't the Randian perfectionist artist you're painting if that's what he was willing to preserve. (Ahem--Sorry, I've been reading "The Fountainhead," where to a great extent, every character represents a position on this issue, with protagonist Roark absolutely refusing to work on any project where his vision is tainted by anything whatsoever.)
(3) An alternate distribution for his comics wouldn't help. Even when I began reading Marvel comics in the 70s they were placed on the newsstand racks next to the adult magazines. Gaines wouldn't be able to honestly state he could control distribution. No one could... ever.
It's not a matter of control. It's a matter of understanding. The guy running the newsstand can do what he wants, once it's delivered (subject to local laws, which I think is important, here, since they can say "horror books can't be sold lower than three feet off the ground, and not to minors), but it'd be clear that the horror/crime books were different and could be treated differently.
I can see John's points and would love a crystal ball to see if EC could have in deed survived under a separate 'adult code'. I believe I read that using 'adult' on a cover was a kiss of death sales wise for 'Amazing Adult Fantasy.'
Two points, here.
First, for the other reasons you mention, I doubt EC would've survived more than a few more years, but a lot of those issues are things we only know in hindsight. The players involved wouldn't have figured any of it into their reasoning--heck, DC would've probably abandoned the field, had they only known what the margins would be like.
Second, I used the word "adult" because it's a handy term that's descriptive and honest. They're books that you ONLY want adults reading. That's distinct from the more common "mature," which some kids are and some kids aren't, and the content rarely is. What I actually envision is more like "Code Approved 18" and "Code Approved 80," for example. Something so the seller knows that these books go down here, while those better go up there, if they don't want trouble from the beat cops.
Also, Amazing Adult Fantasy tanked because it was...well, kind of lame. Mumbly monsters, "OMG I'M teh alien spy!" twists, and the like, as I recall (I read scans--shhhh!). In fact, I think there was only one story that was interesting, and it was more for historical reasons (in that it substantially prefigured...the X-Men, maybe?) rather than because it was actually any good.