Black Gotham: A Family History of African Americans in Nineteenth-Century New York City (54 page)

To the organizers, blacks could never be principal actors in this new imperialism, but they were still necessary to its implementation. E. A. Burke, the unreconstructed southerner appointed director of the exposition, explained the role he envisioned for blacks. Management, he opined, was striving to “reach out our hand to our brother in black
… and implant in him the desire to come out of the slough of ignorance and make a manly effort to occupy with us the improved farm, the workshop, and the factory.”
²⁶
Translation: with benevolent concern, the exposition was making every attempt to teach blacks the importance of manual labor, to which they were obviously most suited.

Insulted by attitudes like Burke’s, blacks were divided over whether to participate in the exposition or not. For Philip White and Peter W. Ray the decision was clear: in the fall of 1884 they accepted appointments as commissioners representing New York’s blacks. They probably didn’t go as far as a correspondent to the
Globe
who called the exposition a “special and providential means for the elevation of the Negro race,” but they must have been pleased by management’s initial promises of exhibition space and funds. Even after the exposition reneged and some black commissioners resigned, White and Ray remained convinced that this was an unequaled opportunity to prove to the nation, indeed to the world, what black Americans were capable of.

To showcase “colored talent, ingenuity and industry,” black men and women joined together to pool energy and resources. According to the
Freeman
, Philip sent a case of pharmaceutical preparations; Albro Lyons, a copperplate engraved by Patrick Reason; and Samuel Scot-tron, several of his inventions, “shade ruler, blackboard table, adjustable mirror, improved adjustable mirror, ladies’ toilet case and linen keeper.” Sarah Garnet submitted examples of her students’ work, “chip frames, wire work, books of composition, each one containing a public building of New York City, specimen cards with State, municipal and educational offices upon them.” Other women exhibited quilts and needlework in the form of lace, embroidery, crochet, and braid work.
²⁷

The commissioner for New Jersey’s blacks wrote a retrospective summary for a new monthly magazine, the
A.M.E. Church Review.
Commenting on the varied nature and quality of the contributions, he asserted that these were determined more by region than by race, and that in his opinion “wherever the characteristics of the negro, as a race, may appear, it was certainly not visible in their exhibit.” Talent, from his point of view, resided in material conditions rather than in any putative racial traits. He reserved his highest accolades for the domestic arts of
black women: “The women’s work compared favorably with that of their white sisters, so much so that it was hard to tell where the one ended and the other began.”
²⁸

Beyond expositions like the one in New Orleans, black Brooklynites fought to make themselves seen and heard on the national stage. In contrast to earlier decades, they now had a greater voice in party politics. Inevitably, dissension broke out in their ranks: while the majority of black Brooklynites (indeed of all black Americans) remained staunch Republican, some declared themselves Democrats, while still others became Mugwumps (Republicans who abandoned their party during the election of 1888 and sided with the Democrats). Yet they all shared a common goal: full equal rights for all black Americans.

Like most of the black elite, the men in my family—Philip White, Peter Guignon, Peter Williams Ray, and Jerome B. Peterson—remained loyal to the party of Lincoln despite its less than perfect record on black civil rights. The newspaper trail of their activities is scant. But I do know that in 1872 Philip, Peter, and others got together to endorse the reelection of President Grant, whose administration had facilitated passage of the Fifteenth Amendment. Some ten years later, a group that included Charles Reason and Charles Ray created the Aggressive Radical Republican League and adopted a series of resolutions, one of which was a call for the nomination of a black for “presidential elector,” or delegate to the Electoral College. In 1887, black Republican ward clubs united to form the Colored Citizens Central Republican League of Kings County, to which Philip belonged. After the election of Republican presidential candidate Benjamin Harrison in 1888, several members attended inaugural events in Washington, D.C., sponsored by that city’s black elite; Philip was there accompanied by Elizabeth and Ellie.
²⁹

Echoing the prewar skepticism of editor Thomas Hamilton, not
all members of the black elite lined up blindly behind Republican candidates. During the 1872 meeting, my great-great-grandfather suggested withholding support of Grant and waiting until after the Liberal Republican Party held its convention. “There were men in that Convention,” Peter declared, “who had been friends to the colored men before General Grant.” Black Brooklynites, he warned, needed to be careful “lest they should get themselves into a snarl.” The friend Peter alluded to was none other than Horace Greeley, still a maverick and still impossible to label. During the Civil War, Greeley had defended the right to secession, and in its aftermath had promoted amnesty for Confederate veterans and sectional reconciliation. At the same time, he spoke out against the Ku Klux Klan and insisted on the federal government’s obligation to guarantee free elections in the South. Disenchanted with Grant’s first administration, its dependence on big business, its protectionist stance, and its massive corruption, Greeley decided to make a run for the presidency. Amazingly, he was nominated by both the Liberal Republican and Democratic Parties. Although most prewar abolitionists were disgusted with him, Charles Sumner eventually threw him his support. Nevertheless, Grant won with 56 percent of the vote.
³⁰

The men at the 1872 meeting summarily dismissed Peter’s proposal and sent up three cheers for Grant. Some ten years later, however, it was impossible to ignore such dissenting views. George Downing was among the first seriously to question blacks’ blind loyalty to the Republican Party, and was soon joined by T. Thomas Fortune and T. McCants Stewart. With the editor’s blessing, Downing took to the pages of the
Globe
and
Freeman
to express his views at great length. Echoing the rationale behind his friend Charles Sumner’s endorsement of Greeley, Downing argued that no political party should take the black vote for granted: “I desire a division of the colored vote, because I believe it will be better to have more than one party anxious, concerned, and cherishing the hope that at least a part of that vote may be obtained; because a division would result in increased respect from all quarters, and create general competitive concern.” Most were horrified, but Fortune took Downing’s side. The country needs to understand, he declared in a
Globe
editorial, that “we are not as sheep led to the slaughter, but are
men mindful of the blessings of economical and honest administration of the government [who] demand our full share of consideration from the parties with which we affiliate.”
³¹

Neither Downing nor Fortune was as yet prepared to vote the Democratic ticket, but they were vociferous in their criticism of recent Republican administrations. During the 1884 presidential campaign that pitted Democrat Grover Cleveland against Republican James Blaine, the
Globe
reluctantly supported Blaine; but soon after Cleveland’s election Fortune began praising the new administration as liberal and progressive.
³²
His enthusiasm for Cleveland was shared by T. McCants Stewart. Both men were impressed when Cleveland made good on his promise to appoint blacks to federal positions.

By the next election, all three men had solidified their position as black Democrats. Fortune and Stewart actively campaigned for Cleveland even though the
Age
, now under the stewardship of my grandfather, remained staunchly Republican and endorsed Benjamin Harrison. Black Republicans’ delight with Harrison’s victory was short-lived. Under his administration, the Lodge federal election bill, mandating federal supervision of congressional elections to protect black voting rights, and the Blair education bill, providing federal aid to public schools, went down to defeat; blacks in Mississippi were disfranchised; and white violence against blacks rose dramatically in the South. But neither could black Democrats gloat for long over Cleveland’s reelection in 1892. During his second administration, Cleveland abolished black patronage, and worse still, maintained a deafening silence over lynching, disfranchisement, and mob law in the South.
³³
Downing, it turned out, was wrong. The black man’s vote still counted for nothing.

It’s been said that all politics is local. Fortune agreed with this adage, repeatedly arguing that a divided black vote was as necessary in local elections as in national ones. Since Brooklyn was a Democratic stronghold,
from a local perspective it made sense that its black population would affiliate with the Democratic Party.

If the Democratic Party dominated Brooklyn politics, Boss Hugh McLaughlin dominated the Democratic Party. Although the only elected position he ever held was that of registrar early in his career, by 1873 McLaughlin was the undisputed boss of Brooklyn’s Democratic Party. He dispensed patronage in the form of jobs, contracts, and charity, asking for votes in return. He selected all his party’s candidates, in particular the city’s mayors; once elected, he demanded full subservience. During his tenure, Democratic mayors paraded through City Hall one after the other with few Republican interruptions. They served McLaughlin rather than the citizenry. And whether they started out with good intentions or not, they inevitably gave in to the corruption that plagued the city in the areas of public health, tax collection, and the granting of contracts.
³⁴

Implementing their theory of a divided black vote, in 1887 Fortune and Stewart worked actively not only for Cleveland but also for Alfred C. Chapin, McLaughlin’s mayoral candidate. Stewart became wildly popular among Brooklyn’s white Democrats, addressing rallies numbering in the thousands. Although Cleveland lost the national election, Democrats prevailed locally. Chapin was sworn in as mayor and was reelected two years later.

Stewart’s and Fortune’s involvement in local Democratic politics galvanized black Republicans into action, resulting in the formation of the Colored Citizens Central Republican League of Kings County. At a mass meeting attended by Philip, Peter W. Ray, and Jerome B. Peterson, the league, according to the
Age
, nominated James W. Mars, its president (and commodore of the Ugly Fishing Club), as Republican candidate for alderman-at-large. None too pleased with the nomination of a black man, local Republican officials dragged their feet. But worried about the defection of black voters, they relented and agreed to run Mars as assemblyman for the Third District. Since this ward was the richest in the city and virtually all white, the election was entirely bogus.
³⁵

Local party politics was all about garnering votes for the candidate
and gaining influence in return. I wondered how Brooklyn’s black men benefited.

“Last evening,” a report in the
Brooklyn Union
informed its readers on June 13, 1884, “Mr. White’s house was invaded by about fifty of his neighbors and friends.” They had assembled to honor my great-grandfather’s service as a Brooklyn citizen and public official. Taking the floor, James Mars reminisced about how some two years earlier a subcommittee of the Colored Taxpayers’ Committee had called on then mayor Seth Low and requested him to appoint Philip to a vacant seat on the Brooklyn Board of Education. “The mayor looked upon us suspiciously,” Mars continued; “he seemed to think the act an intrusion—at least, so it seemed to us. But, to our astonishment, after a while Mr. White got the appointment.”
³⁶

As Brooklyn’s Republican mayor from 1882 to 1886, Seth Low was one of the very few local politicians who successfully managed to break Boss McLaughlin’s iron grip over the city. In background, upbringing, and temperament, Low was the exact opposite of McLaughlin. His ancestors had come from England on the
Mayflower;
in the early nineteenth century, his grandfather, Seth, had settled in Brooklyn, where he acquired considerable influence in civic affairs. Gaining substantial wealth by trading all over the world, Seth Low was embraced by Knickerbocker society. His son, Abiel, expanded his father’s business and founded the family firm, A. A. Low and Brothers. To a certain extent, Abiel was civic minded: he was a member of the Union League Club at the time of the draft riots and worked with it to advance the Union cause. Yet he remained primarily preoccupied with his mercantile interests.

Mayor Seth Low took after his grandfather, who was said to have whispered to him with his dying breath, “Be kind to the poor.” After a
stint in his father’s firm, Low left to pursue a life of public service and joined the Republican Party. In 1882, he was elected mayor of Brooklyn, defeating McLaughlin’s candidate. Unlike the Democratic mayors, Low was hard working, efficient, and honest. He went after delinquent taxpayers; modernized the police force, fire department, and sanitation services; overhauled procedures for granting contracts; improved the school system. True to his word, he rejected partisanship and patronage. He became unpopular. By the time he left office, he had alienated just about everybody, Republicans and Democrats, politicians and citizens alike.
³⁷