One of Thomas Nast’s most reproduced cartoons is his 1869 Uncle Sam’s Thanksgiving Dinner depicting a new America at the dinner table. While an 1860 version of this cartoon might have shown only white Anglo-Saxon Protestants seated at the table, with perhaps a black waiter and an Irish cook in the background, this shows pretty much everybody invited to dinner!
This is the first Thanksgiving of the Grant administration. Reconstruction has been wrestled away from Andy Johnson and placed in the hands of men who believed in equal rights before the law. The 14th Amendment had been ratified the year before and the 15th Amendment, giving blacks the right to vote, had been introduced at the beginning of 1869. The Know Nothings, such a powerful force of political anti-immigrantism just a decade earlier, seemed on their way to extinction.
Most of all, for Nast, his beau ideal of a man, Ulysses S. Grant was president!
In this article I will dissect the imagery of the cartoon and reproduce some commentary about it. Please add your insights and reactions.
When I show people this cartoon, the first thing that they notice is “diversity.” There are people of all colors and cultures at the table. Nast could have reflected the actual numerical diversity of the U.S. at the time and shown mostly white native born men and women, a token Irishman, a German who looked like Nast’s own immigrant self, and three or four African Americans, but he didn’t. He depicts America as a genuinely multicultural enterprise. While all of these peoples might never have come together around an actual 1869 dinner table, Nast was pointing the way to future, not simply allegorizing his present.
The centerpiece at this dinner, quite literally, is “Universal Suffrage.” This is presumably something that all of the men, and women, can get behind. The 15th Amendment was on the table, women’s suffrage was being discussed in the state houses. In November of 1868 many black men had gone to the polls to vote. Enfranchisement of all and an end to violent voter suppression was on the horizon.
On the centerpiece, and easier to see in the black and white version of the cartoon is the phrase “Self Government.” This may seem odd, but the Civil War had put the whole idea of whether ordinary people could govern themselves in doubt.
In the cartoon most of the people are identifiable ethnic or cultural figures. There are only two who appear to be whites from the then-dominant culture. One is Uncle Sam and the other is the woman seated at the foot of the table. Nast essentially created the modern image of Uncle Sam, and this was his first depiction of the mythical figure.
I think that it is interesting that in a room where everyone seems to be talking, Uncle Sam is not lecturing, he is serving. He is the host, not the boss.
The woman is placed between two men of color. Like Uncle Sam, she is not talking. She appears to be listening to something the apparently Chinese man is saying. The African American man to her left seems about to speak. In many parts of the country, this sort of scene would have lead to social ostracism for the white woman and a beating for the black and Chinese men.
The painting behind Uncle Sam has the word “Welcome” on the frame. It is a painting of Castle Garden in New York City. Now called Castle Clinton or more simply “The Battery,” Castle Garden had since the 1850s been the State of New York’s receiving station for new immigrants, sort of a Civil War Era Ellis Island.
The portraits of Lincoln, Washington and Grant loom over the dinner, giving the imprimatur of American history to this seemingly modern gathering.
In case you missed the inclusive message, at the bottom left corner is the phrase “Come one, come all.” Not exactly a sentiment Steve Miller could get behind.
On the lower right corner is an assertion of equality.
Above the portrait of Grant is a sash saying “15th Amen dement.” It has been speculated that Nast intentionally broke up the word to say “Amen” to universal male suffrage.
Under Lincoln’s portrait are the words from his Second Inaugural:
The Atlantic Magazine has an article on the cartoon. From the article:
Nativism has a long history in the United States and it remains with us still. The 19th century southern politician John C. Calhoun argued without embarrassment that “all men are created equal” was not meant literally, and that America was a country of and for white men….
But there is another concept of the American people, the one championed by Abraham Lincoln: that America is no mere ethno-state but a new nation, whose identity comes not from common blood but from common conviction. See how Lincoln put it in 1858, in a speech that praises the “old men” of 1776 and their deeds and then turns to immigration:
“We have … among us perhaps half our people who are not descendants at all of these men. If they look back through this history to trace their connection with those days by blood, they find that they have none, they cannot carry themselves back to…that glorious epoch and make themselves feel that they are part of us, but when they look through that old Declaration of Independence they find that these old men say that ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,’ and then they feel … that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote that Declaration, and so they are.”
What a profound and radical idea: that one becomes American by accepting the American creed.
Happy Thanksgiving to All!
-Pat
Follow Reconstruction Blog on Social Media:
How do I share this picture?
Nast’s cartoon, and its embrace of a multicultural American dinner table, apparently caused some long-term indigestion for a lot of people — so much so that almost a decade later, coinciding with the end of Reconstruction, another cartoonist did a riff on it, but repeating every nasty racial and ethnic stereotype he could imagine.
The article doesn’t mention that the overwhelming majority of white Southerners were not allowed to vote. Anyone who had supported secession was denied the vote during Reconstruction, when Southern states were treated like occupied territories, governed by puppet governments of ex-slaves who did the bidding of Northern carpetbaggers. These carpetbaggers used their power to steal the land from Southerners and bleed the South dry. This, and not slavery, is why racial tensions are so bad in the United States. After all, many countries abolished slavery long after we did, and do not have the same racial tensions.
The legislatures in the South in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War were entirely White, voted in by white-only electorates. One of their first post-war acts was to pass the Black Codes which deprived freedpeople of even the most basic rights. The Civil Rights Act and 14th Amendment were passed because the Southern white electorate refused to recognize any rights for former slaves and other people of color. There was no election held in the South in which whites were disqualified on the basis of color. In fact, in most elections more people voted during Reconstruction than had before the war.
If your contention that it was Reconstruction and not slavery that led to racial animosity were correct, we would not have seen the passage of the Black Codes before African American men were even allowed to vote.
I think this is a complicated subject and there is both some truth and equal parts of distortion in the prior comments of Mr Sullivan and the Admin. In my opinion, all of the events of the pre and post Civil War ……as well as that always troublesome factor, “human nature”……..have to be taken into consideration when evaluating the actions of both sides, in the late 1860’s and beyond. Suffice it to say that the subsequent Jim Crow laws were both racially motivated, as well as motivated by retribution for what the South believed were various forms of oppression by the North during 1861 to 1865 and later.
As usual we “Monday Morning Quarterbacks” tend to think we know definitively what life was like back then and as a result we know with certainty what should have been done and what shouldn’t have. As much as we try, however, it’s impossible to do so, with the accuracy that is required. Consequently, using selective examples, from the past, to support one side or the other only serves to create more divisiveness and makes current day solutions even more elusive than they should be
What a fairy tale you’ve chosen to believe. Why you choose it says a lot about you.
And we know who you worship politically too.
The article ignores Nast’s virulent hatred of Irish Catholics and the Catholic Church. There is nothing redeeming about the man. He is simply disgusting.
The article is about a single cartoon by Nast and is not biography of the man. As I have written elsewhere, Nast developed stereotypes of Irish immigrants as simian that persisted into the 20th Century.
In which case, I’m at a loss as to why you glossed over it here. You mentioned that nativism was dead and dying.! Clearly it had some life left in it, no thanks to Nast.
As usual, Nast uses tropes to identify his guests, from the veil of the Spanish lady to the facial hair on the French and German guests. Seems No Irish were invited, typical Nast; a brilliant illustrator and an ardent bigot Funny as statues of others are coming down we can still find excuses to defend him
There is an Irish figure at the table. Upper right hand corner.
The hostess is Lady Columbia, who appears in other Nast cartoons.
The “apparently” Chinese man surely is Chinese, since he is wearing the queue, a very distinctive hairstyle that the Manchu Dynasty imposed on its Chinese subjects, and which even overseas Chinese often still wore until the Manchus were overthrown in 1911. The conspicuous Chinese presence is a reminder of the Burlingame Treaty of 1868, which for a time made Chinese immigration easier.
And then came the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882.
In which case, I’m at a loss as to why you glossed over it here. You mentioned that nativism was dead and dying.! Clearly it had some life left in it, no thanks to Nast. Also, in Mschine Made: Tammany Hall and the Creation of Modern American Politics,, Yerry Golway describes a Manhattan demonstration in support of a ptoposed amendment to the New York State constitution which would have reinstated property qualifications for voting. Nast marched in this parade as part of, shall we set, an unregulated militia, and CARRIED A GUN
Nast is better known for his Christmas illustrations, many of which had heavy political overtones. Winslow Homer also had a not-so-subtle Thanksgiving cartoon in 1860: “Two Great Classes,” showing the stark contrast between how the rich vs the poor celebrated it. Nast’s influence on both American holidays is immense, and his wartime images have heavily influenced how we celebrate and perceive both holidays today.
I have a Christmas piece on Nast as well.
Great piece of work: Nast’s cartoon and your breakdown and analysis. Best history post I’ve seen in a while. Thank you.
Thanks Ken.
Latinos Mexicanos our invite must still be in mail.