Was it Right to Topple President William McKinley’s Statue? Part 3 – McKinley and African Americans

William McKinley was the 25th president of the USA - from 1897-1901. While before becoming president his political career was focused on Ohio, there was a status of McKinley in Arcata, California until it was toppled in February 2019. Here, Victor Gamma returns and looks at the case for and against the removal of the statue. In part 3, we look in depth at McKinley’s relationship with African Americans.

If you missed it, in part 1 here Victor provides the background to the statue removal and in part 2 here he looks at McKinley’s relationship with Native Americans.

Booker T. Washington, an educator, orator, and advisor to US presidents. Washington met with William McKinley.

The protestors in Arcata, California accused the 25th president of supporting “racism and murder.” How does this charge stand up? From his youth McKinley shared the strong anti-slavery and pro-union views of his family. Not long after the fall of Fort Sumter, the young McKinley answered his country’s call and volunteered for service. He served bravely throughout the conflict, rising to the rank of major. He, in fact, liked to be referred to as “The Major” for the rest of his life. As such he played his part, along with millions of others, in re-uniting the nation and freeing the slaves. During his political life he remained steadfastly dedicated to the party of Lincoln and full civil rights for the ex-slaves. His first political speech took place in 1867. His theme? Give African Americans the vote. He spent a good amount of that year continuing to work for this cause. 

His campaign for African American suffrage and equal rights for African Americans did not end in 1867. After election to congress in 1876 he continued to advocate for disenfranchised African Americans. On April 28, 1880 at the Republican State Convention in Columbus, Ohio he attacked the Democratic suppression of African American voting rights. He described the Democratic effort to establish one-party rule in the South and the almost complete suppression of opposition political activity. Using the example of a largely African American district he denounced the fact that the population had “been disenfranchised by the use of the shotgun and the bludgeon.” He then challenged his audience with a burning question:

“Are free thought and free political action to be crushed out in one section of the country? I answer No, no! But that the whole power of the Federal Government must be exhausted in securing every citizen, black or white, rich or poor, everywhere within the limits of the Union, every right, civil and political, guaranteed by the Constitution and the laws.”

1880s and African American votes

McKinley continued hammering at this theme throughout the 1880s, referring to “Southern outrages” and reminding his fellow congressmen that the small number of African American representatives was proof that African Americans were being denied the vote in the South. He continued to uphold the Old Guard Republican ideal long after many had given up on Reconstruction. One such speech appealed to the desperate need to enforce the Reconstruction Amendments:

“...the consciences of the American people will not be permitted to slumber until the great constitutional right, the equality of the suffrage, equality of opportunity, freedom of political action and political thought, shall not be the mere cold formalities of constitutional enactment as now, but a living birthright which the poorest and humblest, white or black, native born or naturalized citizen, may confidently enjoy, and which the richest and most powerful dare not deny.”

McKinley and the 1896 election

Throughout his career McKinley sought African American support. While in Congress he supported Reconstruction and opposed the white-supremacist policies of the Democrats. He received African American delegations both in Georgia while staying with friend and supporter Mark Hanna, and at his home in Ohio during the run for the White House. During this stay in Georgia, which was essentially a campaign trip, he became the first presidential hopeful-nominee in American history to address an African American audience. On this occasion he spoke at an African American church. When it came time to officially run for the nation’s highest office, McKinley conducted his run entirely from his front porch. During the presidential election campaign of 1896, hundreds of delegations made their way to Canton, Ohio to show support or hear from the candidate. Included among these visitors were several African American delegations that made the journey to the candidate’s front porch to show their support. African Americans as a whole supported McKinley because, during this time of the rise Jim Crow, they knew he did not support increasing discrimination. Bishop B. W. Arnett, of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, stressed to McKinley that: “We come to assure you that we will never cease our efforts on your behalf until we have achieved such a victory in November as was won by our fathers in their early struggles for liberty… you represent the cardinal principles of the Republican Party which have so benefited our race—the principles for which you and your comrades struggled from 1861 to 1865.” Another African American delegation, this one from McKinley’s own Stark County, had first-hand knowledge of the candidate’s character and policies. On July 3, 1896 this local organization came to see their candidate. William Bell of Massillon, Ohio delivered a brief message of support as follows:

“You have always treated us, just as you do everybody else . . . with great consideration and kindness, and on every occasion have been our friend, champion and protector. We come to congratulate you and assure you of our earnest support until you are triumphantly elected next November.”

The front porch candidate’s own remarks to African American groups included the following statements: “It is a matchless civilization in which we live; a civilization that recognizes the common and universal brotherhood of man.”

McKinley as president

As governor and president McKinley condemned lynching - a quarter of a century before Congress finally found within itself the conviction to pass anti-lynching legislation. Let’s look at McKinley’s statement in context:

“These guarantees (basic freedoms such as speech) must be sacredly preserved and wisely strengthened. The constituted authorities must be cheerfully and vigorously upheld. Lynchings must not be tolerated in a great and civilized country like the United States; courts, not mobs, must execute the penalties of the law. The preservation of public order, the right of discussion, the integrity of courts, and the orderly administration of justice must continue forever the rock of safety upon which our Government securely rests.” 

Despite the pressures of changing times, McKinley never wavered from adherence to the tenets of the party of Lincoln. He maintained and extended the traditional Republican inclusion of African Americans in government and expressed support for their cause. He spoke against having the nominating convention to be held in St. Louis for fear that African American delegates would not be able to get a hotel room. He once refused to stay at a hotel that would not serve African Americans. He included two African Americans on his inauguration committee. He appointed several African Americans to government positions. He was the first U.S. president to visit the Tuskegee Institute (established in 1881). He went 140 miles out of his way to do so. This act was of signal importance in bringing attention and support to this educational institution which was doing so much to help African Americans improve their conditions of life. When the Spanish-American War broke out, McKinley was diligent to make sure that African American soldiers served, even reversing orders attempting to prevent the recruitment of African American soldiers. Military service was an important part of the on-going process of African Americans gaining respect from white society as they performed valuable service and demonstrated their valor.

The Major also met with African American leaders such as Ida Wells and Booker T. Washington at the White House more than once. This event took place years before Theodore Roosevelt's famous White House meeting with Washington. The great educator recorded his impressions of McKinley and their meeting on his second visit to see McKinley. At this time a number of race riots had recently taken place in the south.  Washington noted that the president seemed “greatly burdened by reason of these disturbances.” Despite a long line of people waiting to see the president, McKinley detained Washington for some time to discuss the current condition of African Americans. He remarked repeatedly to Washington that he was “determined to show his interest and faith in the race, not merely in words, but by acts." The fruit of this meeting was the first visit to Tuskegee by a sitting president of the United States. 

Conclusion

Could he have done more? Certainly. Beyond the measures discussed here he was not notably pro-active in improving the situation regarding civil rights. What he did was to maintain the Republican tradition followed by his predecessors and sympathize with the plight of African Americans. However, in the words of a McKinley historian, “given the political climate in the South, there was little McKinley could have done to improve race relations, and he did better than later presidents. Theodore Roosevelt, who doubted racial equality and Wilson who supported segregation.” He did not share the radical Reconstructionist vengeful attitude toward the defeated South but rather all his life advocated reconciliation between the two sections. It must be understood that at the time the memories of the Civil War were still fresh and the need to strengthen the bonds of union still dominated the American consciousness. One of McKinley's key objectives was to continue healing the wounds of the old separation and to do everything he could to build unity between the sections. Pushing too hard on civil rights would have destroyed that effort. He may not have been a strong civil-rights advocate, but he did accomplish several ‘firsts’. In the last analysis, his actions and policies were certainly a far cry from “racism and murder.”

 

Now in part 4 here, the final part in the series, you can read about McKinley’s character.

Was it Right to Topple President William McKinley’s Statue? Part 1 – Statue Toppled

William McKinley was the 25th president of the USA - from 1897-1901. While before becoming president his political career was focused on Ohio, there was a status of McKinley in Arcata, California until it was toppled in February 2019. Here, Victor Gamma returns and looks at the case for and against the removal of the statue.

In part 1 we provide the background to the statue removal and look at how McKinley treated Native Americans.

William McKinley is sworn in as US president by Chief Justice Melville Fuller. To the right is outgoing President Grover Cleveland.

Introduction

With media attention focused on statues of former slave-owners, very little media coverage has focused on the removal of a 111-year old statue that took place on the west coast of America. It was not Father Serra or Columbus. In fact, little information got to the general public about this statue to a figure not usually linked with California history: William McKinley, 25th president of the United States. In the small town of Arcata, California a diverse group of activists and city officials targeted the statue for removal beginning in 2017. The average American has not even heard of McKinley let alone that a statue of our 25th president graced the Golden State. He clearly is famous, or infamous, enough, though, to have stirred the wrath of the residents of this lovely seaside community. 

The illustrious career of William McKinley Jr. came to a sudden and untimely end at the hands of an assassin. This pointless act of violence took place on September 6, 1901 at the Pan American Exposition in Buffalo, New York. McKinley was greeting a long line of visitors at the Temple of Music. He liked people and, to the consternation of his security service, insisted on shaking everyone’s hand. Among those who waited in line to meet the president was an anarchist named Leon Czolgosz. When his turn came McKinley reached out but instead of an open hand Czolgosz presented a revolver. The assassin fired at the president at point blank range twice. Taken to a nearby house for medical attention, McKinley, despite rallying briefly, succumbed on September 14 due to infections caused by the wound. The death of the popular McKinley was immediately met by a widespread and genuine outpouring of national grief. 

As if that terrible ending of his life were not bad enough, he has recently been condemned to a “second death” by character assassination. The questions the article seeks to consider are:

·       Was the decision to remove this statue appropriate?

·       What standards were used to justify the statue’s removal?

·       Did the standards have merit?

This article will attempt to answer these questions by examining the arguments of those that demanded the removal of the McKinley statue. The facts of the case will be submitted to the candid readers that they may decide if our 25th president deserved his “second death.” Let’s begin!

Copy-Cat Statue Topplers?

In this small community of 17,000, overlooking the Pacific only two-hours’ drive from Oregon, debate over the statue can be traced to the 1970s. Discussion turned into a demand for action after the Charlottesville, Virginia riots over the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee in 2017. With a reputation for being one of the most left-wing cities in the country, any statue politically to the right of Ho Chi Minh would probably have not survived long in these extremist times. Inspired by Charlottesville, local Native American activists began a petition drive to remove the statue. Protests became a fixture on the plaza where the statue was located. Normally dull City Hall meetings came alive as both defenders and opponents of McKinley’s removal generated lively public debate. A common rationale amongst the protestors was that after seeing Confederate statues fall, they became convinced that their remote city needed to take care of its own “statue-problem.” Rapidly all the real and alleged grievances of Native American activists and other marginalized groups were projected onto the silent, long-suffering 8 ½’ image. Essentially, McKinley became a symbol of everything the protestors opposed or disliked. 

What holds Water?

Now let’s look at each accusation in turn and weigh their merits. As lovers of history I invite you to be deeply concerned that history is “done right.” The standard we use is not whether it is right or wrong to topple a statue or whether McKinley took actions that are deemed morally wrong by the protestors. Was McKinley actually guilty of the charges brought against him? Also, the issue is whether McKinley’s actions were justified in the context of the 19th century given the norms of the time and the information McKinley possessed. For example, a nineteenth-century factory owner whose employees contracted illness due to exposure to chemicals cannot be condemned if no one at the time was aware of the effects of those chemicals, and he otherwise treated them fairly. 

McKinley and Indigenous Americans

Now, on to the accusations: first, Chris Peters, head of the Arcata-based Seventh Generation Fund for Indigenous People called McKinley a proponent of “settler colonialism” that “savaged, raped and killed.” He furthermore claimed that McKinley was responsible for "directing the slaughter of native peoples." 

How does this accusation hold up? First, clarity is needed on the terms “settler colonialism.” Settler colonialism is a form of colonialism that results, often unintentionally, in the replacement of the original population of the colonized territory with a new society of settlers. This phenomenon has been going on since Ancient Egypt. It also includes what amounts to “settler colonialism” among American indigenous tribes themselves. For instance, the Lakota Sioux undertook a migration to the south in the same century that McKinley lived, in which they pushed aside the Omaha tribe. In the words of one source “Attacks from the Sioux Tribe and disease often meant the relocation of the villages.” Following Peter's logic, every statue created since the days of the Pharaohs should be removed and the statue of Crazy Horse, near Mount Rushmore, as well. This is the first reason the accusation is unfair: one cannot apply different standards to different people for the same crime.

Second, McKinley is absolutely innocent of this charge for the following reasons. The Homestead Act was passed when McKinley was a 19-year-old sergeant in the Union Army and thus he had nothing to do with that measure. During the post-Civil War period he was busy establishing a career in Ohio as a lawyer and raising a family and had nothing to do with anything remotely akin to “settler colonialism.” Elected to congress in 1876, the up-and-coming politician ultimately gravitated toward the Ways and Means Committee and became an expert on the tariff. His focus was on policies that would encourage national prosperity, which he felt would benefit all people. Once again, he was not known for any overt statements or actions promoting “settler colonialism.” From 1892 to 1896 he was Governor of Ohio and continued to have nothing to do with policy towards indigenous peoples. On the other hand, since McKinley served as president for several years, he did ultimately direct policy affecting Native Americans. Is it here that McKinley committed the alleged misdeeds? Let’s look at the McKinley presidential record with regard to Native Americans.

President McKinley and Native Americans

Counted among his many friends were two men who were themselves great friends of Native Americans: Senator Matt Quay and Ethan Allan Hitchcock. Mr. Quay was part Native American, and an official member of the Delaware tribe. He was also a champion of both Native American and African-American rights. Hitchcock served as McKinley’s Secretary of the Interior from February 20, 1899. He has been called the most effective leader of the department in its first half century of existence. Among other things, the Department handled issues related to Native Americans. As Secretary, Hitchcock set a new standard for the department, vigorously prosecuting land fraud and assisting Native American peoples and protecting their rights. This represented a turning point in the Office of Indian Affairs, which had been notoriously inept. Additionally he fully embraced the conservation movement, influencing McKinley in taking many measures to expand and protect forests and other resources.

One example of McKinley’s attitude towards indigenous people regards the Navajo Tribe. A bill was sent to the chief executive’s desk which involved a group of white entrepreneurs scheming to open up what was left of the Navajo lands to exploitation. McKinley and Hitchcock saw through the scheme and flatly rejected it, ruling in favor of the tribe. In fact, this was the most important veto the 25th president ever issued. In a careful and strongly worded message, McKinley explained why he would not sign the bill. He began by describing the condition of the tribe and the land, that, under the treaty of June 1, 1863 and subsequent executive orders, was reserved for the Navajo people. He next declared that those boundaries were inadequate for the tribe. He had thus, by executive order on January 8, 1899, enlarged the tribe’s boundaries. The territory of the Navajo was therefore significantly extended so as to, in his own words, provide “sufficient grass and water for their flocks and herds, and avoiding the prior contention and friction between them and the whites.” The president’s opinion was that it would be neither “just nor possible” to confine them to the previous smaller reservation. McKinley next noted that the Navajo had accepted the new, revised boundaries. He then turned to the proposed bill, which desired to open a substantial amount of the Navajo land to mining operations. McKinley protested that no effort had been made to gain the permission of the Navajo people. He stated that the inevitable effect of the law would be to take the remaining land from the Navajo and asked why such a bill was being proposed that made no effort to negotiate with the tribe in question. He also praised the Navajo’s “habits of industry and husbandry.” More than once he mentioned his concern for the Navajo’s flocks of sheep, which are, by the way, an extremely important part of Navajo culture and economy.

This doesn’t really sound like “savagery, raping and killing” does it? In studying the career of McKinley one will find the same pattern of fairness, high standards and broadmindedness in most of his dealings. When McKinley had the facts, in this case given to him by the vigilant Hitchcock, he was eager to do what was just. His Secretary of the Interior Hitchcock was alert to prevent further injustices to Native Americans. He knew his boss McKinley shared his views and so the two worked as a team to do what they believed was right by the Native Americans.

Now you can read part 2 on McKinley’s relationship with Native Americans here.