Politics, 1868: “Would You Marry Your Daughter to a N******?”

Would you want your daughter to marry a...
“Would You Marry Your Daughter to a Nigger?” Harper’s Weekly, July 1, 1868.
Supreme Court Justice Salmon Chase joins a negro man and an Irish woman in miscegenation marital bliss while Democratic Party politicos look on.

This is how they rolled in 1868.

The political cartoon above is taboo in today’s polite political society. But in 1868, racial and ethnic prejudice was out front and in your face. And the message here is a little more complicated than you might think at first.

Before, during, and after the Civil War, the Democratic Party openly used racial prejudice as a way to appeal to and galvanize white voters. Miscegenation – race mixing – was one of the Party’s favorite themes.

The image from Harper’s Weekly is a somewhat complex satire of that theme and of the man depicted in it, Salmon Chase. (The bald-headed man in the center of the picture is Chase.) Chase was a member of Abraham Lincoln’s cabinet, and was made Chief Justice of the Supreme Court via Lincoln’s nomination. Chase was known as an anti-slavery man, but in 1868 the Democratic Party – which had been a pro-slavery party before the war – considered nominating him for president, and it seems Chase was interested.

Harper’s Weekly, which supported the Republican Party, decided to have a little fun at the expense of Chase, the Democrats, and also, Irish Americans, who were part of the Democratic Party’s electoral coalition. Irish Americans in New York City had gained some infamy in the wake of the Draft/race riot of 1863.

Basically, Harper’s is chiding Democrats for politically miscegenating with a presumably pro-miscegenation Chase; and is chiding Chase for politically miscegenating with men that Harper’s considered Democratic scoundrels. The other persons in the cartoon include northern Democrats, some associated with New York City’s Tammany Hall political machine; and others such as despised Copperhead Clement Vallandingham and Nathan Bedford Forrest of Fort Pillow fame.

This particular image is made even more lurid by its simian-like depiction of an Irish woman with the “Democratic Party” veil. Even whites from the British Isles could be subjected to nativist caricature and ridicule. Interestingly, the African-American in the picture is not caricatured.

Because of the acrimonious partisanship of US politics today, some people have expressed a desire to return to the good old days of American civics. But as the above cartoon shows, the old days were not necessarily all that good.

A list of men in the picture is here:

The other figures in the cartoon are leading Democratic politicians. On the left side (l-r): John Hoffman, New York gubernatorial candidate; John Morrissey, Tammany Hall associate and former prize-fighter; Fernando Wood (background), former New York City mayor; Manton Marble, New York World editor; Senator Thomas Hendricks of Indiana, a presidential candidate; and, James Gordon Bennett Sr., former New York Herald editor.

On the right side (l-r): Horatio Seymour, former New York governor and eventual 1868 presidential nominee; Representative James Brooks of New York; Clement Vallandingham, former leader of the Peace Democrats; Senator James Doolittle of Wisconsin (background), a presidential candidate; George Pendleton, 1864 vice presidential nominee and the leading 1868 presidential candidate; Raphael Semmes (background), famed Confederate admiral; and Nathan Bedford Forrest, former Confederate general of Fort Pillow infamy.

The 1868 presidential election was won by Republicans Ulysses S. Grant, President, and Schuyler Colfax, Vice President.

A different view of secession


Front of a Civil War era envelope, titled “Secession.” Source: Library of Congress, Reproduction Number LC-DIG-ppmsca-11328

Ah, you can’t beat that old time humor. This is a Civil War era envelope that I saw in the Library of Congress (LOC) online archives. This is from the LOC description of the item:

Date Created/Published:[between 1861 and 1865]
Medium: 1 print : wood engraving on envelope ; image and text 5 x 4.5 cm, on envelope 8 x 14 cm.
Summary: Picture shows an African American boy and mother with a bundle running.
Notes: Title from item.
Gladstone’s inventory code and notes: Envelope 20; illustration of black mother and child; mother has animal-like head.

The characters in the image are, to say the least, unflatteringly depicted as stereotypical caricatures. Of course we of today find this outrageously offensive. But this is how they rolled back in the day. Note that, the face of the child in this picture is not shown; maybe it’s just as well.

But I suggest that observers not get too hung-up about the picture’s visual vulgarity. This image wasn’t so much about mocking African Americans. It was about satire and irony at the expense of slaveholders and the Confederacy, and secondarily, a statement concerning the desire of the enslaved to be free. Either way, it sends the message that the goal of southern independence had a whole ‘nother meaning for bondsmen and bondswomen. That it is a gendered and family depiction of the contrabands (a term used in the North to describe runaway slaves) adds to its poignancy.

There were tens of thousands of enslaved people who liberated themselves during the war, and their story is not well known or understood in American memory. But as this tiny bit of humor indicates, it was on the minds of wartime Americans. As we commemorate and consider this 150th Anniversary of the Civil War and Emancipation, it’s something that should be on our minds as well. But I’m not sure if people have focused on this much as we reach the halfway point of the Sesquicentennial.

Perhaps it’s because the process of emancipation was not always a pretty sight. But we can’t look away at truth and insight, simply because it’s ugly.

The Confederate soldier’s view of the colored soldier, Part 2: Sketches from Prison (“De’ Bottom Rails on Top Now”)


Drawing of a US Colored Troop prison guard and a Confederate prisoner at Point Lookout, Maryland. The guard tells the prisoner: “Git away from dat dar fence white man or I’ll make Old Abe’s Gun smoke at you I can hardly hold de ball back now. De bottom rails on top now.”
Source: “Guard challenging Prisoner,” from Point Lookout Sketches

****

In antebellum America, and in the American South in particular, the black male slave had no honor or manhood. He was considered “degraded,” lacking any rights that a white man was bound to respect, and lacking any dignity that a white man was bound to recognize.

And then the Union decided to arm the slaves in its war against the Confederacy. And everything changed.

What a sight it must have been for Confederate soldiers to see: former slaves on the battlefield, armed, dangerous, and fighting for a different vision of the South. It was one of the Confederate soldier’s worst fears, come to life.

Imagine how much worse it must have been for a Confederate soldier to be taken prisoner, and having those former slaves as his prison guards. Now, it was the black man who was keeping the white man from freedom. Just imagine…


A USCT guard warns a Confederate prisoner, “You little Reb wid de red shirt double quick into line or I’ll pop a cap at you.” First prisoner: “Oh I’m nearly broke down.” Second prisoner (with red shirt): “Oh me! I’m nearly froze.”
Source: “On a cold night in January,” from Point Lookout Sketches

****

Continue reading

Frederick Douglass: Fighting Against a “White Man’s War”/Part 3

Part 2 of 3 of this Frederick Douglass birthday celebration is here.


President Lincoln recruiting the Negro: One good turn deserves another, London Punch, 1862.

The caption reads, “Why, I du declare, it’s my dear old friend Sambo. Course you’ll fight for us, Sambo. Lend us a hand, old hoss, du.” This cartoon was published a month before Lincoln issued the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation in September 1862. More details on the cartoon are here.

One notable aspect of the cartoon is that the black character is depicted realistically, while the Lincoln figure is caricatured. In American cartoons, it was common to show blacks as having exaggerated and buffoonish facial features, such as huge lips.
****

I congratulate you, upon what may be called the greatest event of our nation’s history (issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation), if not the greatest event of the century…

In the hurry and excitement of the moment, it is difficult to grasp the full and complete significance of President Lincoln’s proclamation. The change in attitude of the Government is vast and startling. For more than sixty years the Federal Government has been little better than a stupendous engine of Slavery and oppression, through which Slavery has ruled us, as with a rod of iron. The boast that Cotton is King was no empty boast. Assuming that our Government and people will sustain the President and the Proclamation, we can scarcely conceive of a more complete revolution in the position of a nation…

I hail it as the doom of Slavery in all the States. I hail it as the end of all that miserable statesmanship, which has for 60 years juggled and deceived the people, by professing to reconcile what is irreconcilable.

We are all liberated by this proclamation. Everybody is liberated. The white man is liberated, the black man is liberated, the brave men now fighting the battles of their country against rebels and traitors are now liberated, and may strike with all their might, even if they do hurt the Rebels, at their most sensitive point. [Applause.] I congratulate you upon this amazing change—the amazing approximation toward the sacred truth of human liberty.
– Frederick Douglass, Speech at The Cooper Institute in New York, February 6, 1863

****

By February 1863, Frederick Douglass was surely feeling joyful and triumphant. On January 1 of 1863, president Abraham Lincoln issued the final version of the Emancipation Proclamation. America’s slaves were declared forever free – with the caveat that the slave-holding Border States (Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri) and some Unionist or Union controlled areas in the Confederacy (such as Tennessee and Louisiana) were exempted. But that wasn’t a show stopper for Douglass; he believed that the Proclamation marked the beginning of the end of slavery. Time would prove him correct.

But in the short run, there was a war to fight. After the issuance of the Proclamation, the Union’s efforts to recruit black men into the army began in earnest. And it wasn’t a sure thing that black men would enlist.

Many blacks were angry that they were denied enlistment when the war started, being told this was a “white man’s war.” The Emancipation Proclamation, for all the hope it offered, did not free slaves in Union strongholds; this was not the unequivocal call for black freedom that many wanted to see. And blacks were infuriated when they discovered that colored soldiers were paid less than their white counterparts. Wasn’t a black man’s life worth as much as a white man’s, they asked?

But where some had doubts, Douglass had resolve. No black leader was more prominent, insistent, and supportive of black enlistment than Douglass, at least in the several months after the Proclamation. Earlier, he said that unless the Union committed to ending slavery, “they don’t deserve the support of a single sable arm.” Now that the Union made the commitment, Douglass was all in.

While freedom for the slaves was paramount, Douglass saw another purpose in black military service: it would give colored people the opportunity to prove, through manly courage and performance of duty, that their race was worthy of full citizenship. Douglass understood that freedom and equality were not the same thing. If the colored man was to attain his due rights and respect, he must fight to earn it. If whites were fighting for their cause, then blacks could do no less for their own.

In his March 1863 “Men of Color to Arms” speech, Douglass argued

From East to West, from North to South, the sky is written all over, “Now or never.” Liberty won by white men would lose half its luster. “Who would be free themselves must strike the blow.” “Better even die free, than to live slaves.” This is the sentiment of every brave colored man amongst us. There are weak and cowardly men in all nations. We have them amongst us. They tell you this is the “white man’s war”; and you will be “no better off after than before the war”; that the getting of you into the army is to “sacrifice you on the first opportunity.” Believe them not; cowards themselves, they do not wish to have their cowardice shamed by your brave example. Leave them to their timidity, or to whatever motive may hold them back.

Douglass’ play of the “coward card” was a harsh critique for those not wanting to enlist, coming as it did in a male dominated era where the willingness to stand-up for one’s self and fight was a necessary proof of manhood; and in a racist era where the black male was stereotyped as docile, submissive, and lacking in fortitude. His rhetorical challenge went to the heart of 19th century conceptions of what it meant to be a man: if you’re not man enough to fight in this war, Douglass argued to his fellows, then you deserve your degraded position in American society.
Continue reading

Two Platforms in Pennsylvania, 1866: The Choice is Black and White

This is a political campaign poster from 1866. It’s described in Wiki:

“The two platforms” – From a series of racist posters attacking Radical Republican exponents of black suffrage, issued during the 1866 Pennsylvania gubernatorial race. (See “The Constitutional Amendment,” no. 1866-5.) The poster specifically characterizes Democratic candidate Hiester Clymer’s platform as “for the White Man,” represented here by the idealized head of a young man. (Clymer ran on a white-supremacy platform.) In contrast a stereotyped black head represents Clymer’s opponent James White Geary’s platform, “for the Negro.”

Below the portraits are the words, “Read the platforms. Congress says, The Negro must be allowed to vote, or the states be punished.” Above is an explanation: “Every Radical in Congress Voted for Negro Suffrage. Every Radical in the Pennsylvania Senate Voted for Negro Suffrage. Stevens [Pennsylvania Representative Thaddeus Stevens], Forney [John W. Forney, editor of the ” Philadelphia Press”:], and Cameron [Pennsylvania Republican boss Simon Cameron] are for Negro Suffrage; they are all Candidates for the United States Senate. No Radical Newspaper Opposes Negro Suffrage. “Geary” said in a Speech at Harrisburg, 11th of August, 1866–“There Can Be No Possible Objection to Negro Suffrage.”

This poster hails from the beginning of the Reconstruction era, just after the Civil War ended. The poster is correct in some respects. The so-called “Radical Republicans,” in and out of the US Congress, favored suffrage (voting rights) for the newly freed slaves. That policy was opposed in large part by the Democratic Party, using language that was sometimes viciously racist. Note that this poster was made by a northern Democrat, illustrating how divisive the issues of race and black rights were at the time even outside the South.

Source: Library of Congress CALL NUMBER: Broadside Collection, portfolio 159, no. 9 c-Rare Bk Coll. This image is available from the United States Library of Congress’s Prints and Photographs division under the digital ID cph.3g05342.