Cassius Marcellus Clay: The Life of an Antislavery Slaveholder and the Paradox of American Reform by Anne E. Marshall published by University of North Carolina Press (Sept. 2025)
As I was growing up in the 1960s I used to sit by the TV and watch Cassius Clay demolish other boxers. I thought that his name came straight out of the Bible and I asked by mother why a modern African American would have a name that someone in ancient Rome would have. She laughed and said that the Black boxer was not named after the original Roman leader. He was named after a Southern abolitionist.
I have read some of the Kentucky Unionist’s speeches, but I never really did much research into his life. I was glad to see a few months ago that the University of North Carolina published a new biography of this intentionally misunderstood man.
I say “intentionally misunderstood” both because Southern pro-slavery writers made up stories about Clay’s life, but also because Clay himself distorted the public image of himself. People reading about him in the 1860s might have a wrong impression of him, but, also, my mother had a similar distorted impression of his actions and beliefs. So, one reason you may want to read this new biography is to find out how wrong your previous ideas on Clay’s life are just wrong.
As this new biography by Anne E. Marshall shows, Clay’s life was in part his lived life and in part a lived life in his nation’s newspapers. Pro-slavery editors exaggerated Clay’s confrontation with slavery, but so did abolitionist news sources. The anti-slavery press was so engaged by a prominent Southern leader that it ascribed heroic accomplishments to him and brought in into line withe the most advanced views on race and slavery. Pro-slavery sources ascribed all manner of violence, philandering, and extortion to him.
When Cassius was born in 1810, he came into the world in a wealthy family. His father owned the most property in his county, he was the militia captain, and the magistrate. He had possession of seventy-six slaves. The father died when Cassius was eighteen and his son inherited a sizeable portion of the estate. He was now a wealthy property holder.
In his thirties, Cassius became known for criticizing slavery, even though he continued to own slaves. Anti-slavery activists began contacting him because he was a Southern example of their beliefs. Salmon P. Chase was one of the first Free Soilers to reach out to him, and he became Cassius’s friend. Chase was not a popular man among whites in Kentucky. When their slaves escaped to Ohio, Chase represented them in the state courts. Simply to be a known ally of Chase could mean Clay’s life was in danger.
Politics in Kentucky was very rough. At a political rally in 1843 another spectator charged at Clay. Clay pulled out a Bowie knife to keep his attacker at bay. The man was handed a revolver and he shot Clay, but the bullet hit the Bowie knife and was deflected. Cassius then attacked him and cut his left eye out and his left ear was severed. For his views and his alliances, Clay was always in danger.
During the Mexican War, Cassius commanded troops in the invasion force. Passing through the deep South he took a sharply negative view of slavery. He wrote to his brother: “The more I see of slavery in the South the less I like it…I am sorry you have so much invested in slaves as troublesome times are ahead.” Of course, Cassius cared less about the impact of slavery on Blacks than he thought that it disadvantaged white non-slaveholders.
In 1860, he was an important campaigner for Abraham Lincoln in Pennsylvania, Indiana, Ohio, and Illinois. As an anti-abolitionist Free Soiler, he could appeal to “moderates” who believed in white supremacy but opposed the further spread of slavery.
Lincoln rewarded the Kentuckian by making him the ambassador to Russia, a job he did not want. As he prepared to leave, Cassius still owned slaves. When he returned to the United States in 1869 he was reluctant to speak out for the newly freed enslaved African Americans. He supported the ending of slavery but he was against the Federal government protecting the rights of African Americans. In a private letter he wrote that the new president Ulysses S. Grant was for “centralization, and punishment, [and] subjection of the South [and for] dividing her population and crippling her industry and making her powerless for all time.” By 1872 he had broken with the Republican Party. Anne Marshall writes that this was not an unusual turnaround for Southern Unionists. They supported the preservation of the Union, but not at the expense of raising Blacks up to equality with whites. In 1875, Cassius Clay journeyed to Mississippi to redeem the state for the white supremacist Democratic Party. Quite a turnaround.
Clays personnel life took a sharp dive when he came home after Moscow. He complained to a friend that his wife would not sleep with him and treated him as a stranger. She had not seen him for six years and had heard rumors of his alleged infidelities. He was also alienated from his children. In 1877 he filed for divorce.
Most of the rest of Cassius Clay’s very long life was lonely and accompanied by sudden changes. For example, in 1884 be became a Republican again! He also shot one of his servants and was tried for homicide, although he was acquitted at trial. In 1894 when Clay was 84, he announced that he was marrying a fifteen year old servant.
When Clay died, he was honored as an early Southern abolitionist. Of course this was not true. One of the largest Black organizations in Kentucky honored him by saying “a man who in his time stood almost single and alone for a defenseless race during the eventful period that tried men’s souls…It was Cassius M. Clay, a giant in intellect and a lion in courage who contended for the emancipation and civilization of our people…” He was hailed for being “maimed and scarred for the God-given rights of all mankind.” Of course he was not.
Anne Marshall has picked a good subject to write about. Even for laypeople devoted to the Civil War Era, there are surprises in every chapter. She integrates primary sources into the narrative of the text quite well. Unfortunately we don’t get to hear the voices of his immediate family. His wives and children are, in large part, silent.
After reading this book you will understand why the greatest boxer of the 20th Century changed his name.
Follow Reconstruction Blog on Social Media: