Thomas Nast - America's Cartoonist

Many Americans start their day off perusing the comic section of their local newspaper searching for humor in what is sometimes a no-nonsense existence.  They also look to the editorial page to glance at the political cartoons which can have a big impact on their world view.  Images, rendered skillfully can give us a snapshot about current topics and influence our way of thinking, both culturally and politically.  Cartoons help make confusing and difficult topics relatable.  Thomas Nast, the "father of American cartoon art" made a tremendous impact in this arena and his influence can be seen throughout our modern society.  

Thomas Nast depicting himself.

A political cartoonist must above all be skilled at his art if his message is to be well-received.  If this same artist is going to have a larger impact than the immediate, he must also be an expert on politics.  A 1908 article by the New York Times described Nast's skill as the following, "...this man was not alone an artist, else his work would never have been done.  He was a politician - a little one in the beginning, great one in the end."  It was this duality that qualified Nast to bring down the infamous and notoriously corrupt "Boss" Tweed, leader of the New York political machine in the 1870s.  His brilliant advocacy of the Republican Party during the post-war period helped the party maintain its political power throughout the era.  American art historian Albert Boime declared, "As a political cartoonist, Thomas Nast wielded more influence than any other artist of the 19th century. He not only enthralled a vast audience with boldness and wit, but swayed it time and again to his personal position on the strength of his visual imagination. Both Lincoln and Grant acknowledged his effectiveness in their behalf, and as a crusading civil reformer he helped destroy the corrupt Tweed Ring that swindled New York City of millions of dollars. Indeed, his impact on American public life was formidable enough to profoundly affect the outcome of every presidential election during the period 1864 to 1884."

Nast was a German born immigrant who began working as an illustrator at fifteen years old and had published his first significant newspaper art at the age of 18 (1854 - for Harper's Weekly).  He worked for a number of newspapers during the 1860s before settling in at Harper's Weekly in 1862.  Nast spent twenty-four years at the popular publication before leaving in 1886.  During his tenure at Harper's, Nast was prolific in his work.  His art supported Lincoln's efforts to raise troops, opposed President Johnson's reconstruction policies, helped get Lincoln (1864) and Grant (1868 and 1872) elected, and fought corruption in New York City.  While Nast did not invent the political cartoon, he modernized it and his style and writing informed those who followed him.

Perhaps Nast's most famous contribution to the medium was his depiction of the elephant as the symbol for the Republican Party.  He later branded the symbol with G.O.P. - launching the term "Grand Old Party."  Nast's satirical style and application of the elephant found a multitude of Republican supporters throughout the period, much to the ire of their Democratic opponents

Nast also proved to be a man of his times and one of the enduring criticisms of him has been his bigotry and perpetuation of stereotypes.  The artist consistently depicted Irish immigrants as violent drunks (a stereotype which had a lasting impact) and despite of having been a champion of abolition and opponent of segregation began to draw racist depictions of African Americans during the latter stages of his career.  Unfortunately for Nast, later critics have emphasized these depictions, often at the expense of his other work.

The the most enduring illustration produced by Nast during his long and successful career was that of Santa Claus, which is still believed to be the basis of today's depiction of Old St. Nick.  Nast left an amazing body of work and an enduring legacy for generations of American political cartoonists.

Grover Cleveland: Classic Liberal

Grover Cleveland, America's 22nd and 24th president, is best remembered as the only man to serve two non-consecutive terms (1885-1889 and 1893-1897).  This does Cleveland a injustice as he should be remembered as the last of the classic liberal presidents.  His dedication to honesty and a firm conviction to maintaining governmental accountability provide a sharp contrast to many of our current politicians.  Cleveland was driven by his dedication to the Constitution and took his oath to "preserve, defend, and protect" without reserve.  He was somewhat unique in his own time and ours, in that he possessed selfless courage in the face of electoral realities.  Cleveland did not compromise his core political values in order to garner votes in the effort to maintain his office.  Historian Allan Nevins described the president's character as thus, "[I]n Grover Cleveland, the greatness lies in the typical rather than unusual qualities.  He had no endowments that thousands of men do not have.  He possessed honesty, courage, firmness, independence, and common sense.  But he possessed them to a degree other men do not."

Cleveland Clearing Out Corruption

Throughout his tenure in the White House Cleveland resisted what he considered bad policy or governmental overreach.  He firmly believed that government expenditure should be kept at a minimum (shocking!) and be used only to carry out essential constitutional functions. "When a man in office lays out a dollar in extravagance, he acts immorally by the people," stated Cleveland.  In order to fulfill his perceived duties under the Constitution, Cleveland made full use of his veto power.  He had used the veto extensively as Mayor of Buffalo and Governor of New York to curb legislative excesses and he would use the tool extensively as president.  Cleveland exercised his power of veto 584 times while in office (346 regular vetoes and 238 pocket vetoes in eight years - by comparison FDR had 372 vetoes in twelve years). 

His most interesting veto came on Feb. 16, 1887, when he vetoed the Texas Seed Bill (House Bill 10203).  A drought, which had started in 1883, had afflicted a number of counties in Texas.  Desperate Texas farmers had requested relief from their Congressmen who created legislation providing $10,000 (a small sum even for the late 19th century) to the Commissioner of Agriculture for purchase of seed grain for distribution to those who were suffering.  Cleveland could have easily supported the legislation and been lauded for it, but instead he chose to issue the following veto message:

"It is represented that a long-continued and extensive drought has existed in certain portions of the State of Texas, resulting in a failure of crops and consequent distress and destitution.

Though there has been some difference in statements concerning the extent of the people’s needs in the localities thus affected, there seems to be no doubt that there has existed a condition calling for relief; and I am willing to believe that, notwithstanding the aid already furnished, a donation of seed grain to the farmers located in this region, to enable them to put in new crops, would serve to avert a continuance or return of an unfortunate blight.

And yet I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan, as proposed by this bill, to indulge a benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds for that purpose.

I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that though the people support the Government the Government should not support the people.

The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.

It is within my personal knowledge that individual aid has to some extent already been extended to the sufferers mentioned in this bill. The failure of the proposed appropriation of $10,000 additional to meet their remaining wants will not necessarily result in continued distress if the emergency is fully made known to the people of the country.

It is here suggested that the Commissioner of Agriculture is annually directed to expend a large sum of money for the purchase, propagation, and distribution of seeds and other things of this description, two-thirds of which are, upon the request of Senators, Representatives, and Delegates in Congress, supplied to them for distribution among their constituents.

The appropriation of the current year for this purpose is $100,000, and it will probably be no less in the appropriation for the ensuing year. I understand that a large quantity of grain is furnished for such distribution, and it is supposed that this free apportionment among their neighbors is a privilege which may be waived by our Senators and Representatives.

If sufficient of them should request the Commissioner of Agriculture to send their shares of the grain thus allowed them to the suffering farmers of Texas, they might be enabled to sow their crops, the constituents for whom in theory this grain is intended could well bear the temporary deprivation, and the donors would experience the satisfaction attending deeds of charity."

This remarkable veto demonstrates Cleveland's willingness to forgo what was popular in a pursuit of higher principles - a dedication to the Constitution - as written.  His lessons are appropriate for the modern world and perhaps Washington politicians might at some point reclaim their sense of duty to the document they swore an oath to - hope springs eternal...  Thank you Grover Cleveland for providing a historical example on how to govern with the people's best interests in mind!

Quiet Contemplation

In a society of instant access to information individuals rely on synthesis to gain understanding.  Soundbites and brevity take the place of quiet contemplation in life's journey for deeper insight.  Modernity has increased the tempo of life and desire by individuals to gain a quick and instant access to understanding.  This new age has also become increasingly transactional, which in turn has made accumulation of information more about utility than knowledge for knowledge's sake.  One might suggest that this is a natural evolution.  It is clear that the more we rely on technology and speed, the less time we have to be deliberate and ponder ideas.  Perhaps it is time to pause and ask society if this mad dash toward instant information is entirely healthy.

James Madison

Personal enlightenment comes from questions posed in an effort to heed the Delphic maxim, "know thyself" and the sage advice of Socrates which stated, "An unexamined life is not worth living." This can only occur in moments of quiet contemplation - moments that are greatly enhanced when one turns to the great works of history, religion, politics, and literature.  Inherent in this argument is the element of time.  Thomas Paine declared, "What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly."  It is only through repeated reading and thought that we come to conclusions  about the answers we seek.  Perhaps the most exciting part of this process is that for every question answered a multitude of other questions present themselves for further inspection.  Life then becomes a continual process of internal improvement and an exciting quest for answers.  However, one need not believe that this is an internal process only, many of societies greatest questions have been answered through quiet contemplation.

James Madison provides us with a fine example of what can result from dutiful and exacting dedication to quiet contemplation.  During the spring of 1787, Madison returned from his duties in the Confederation Congress to his estate Montpelier to conduct what historian Douglass Adair classified as "probably the most fruitful piece of scholarly research ever carried out by an American."  From within the tranquil confines of his library on the upper floor, Madison created the foundations for the American Constitution.  It is quite doubtful that this work could have been completed without this spring of quiet contemplation.

Does Madison's example provide us with an applicable lesson for modern society?  We live in an atmosphere in which work and diversion are all-consuming - who has time for quiet contemplation?  It might be argued that the answer lies in a modification of quiet contemplation for our modern times. Madison suggested that the only way in which a republic could survive was through an educated/informed electorate.  Based on recent events, one might question how little informed the current electorate is, no matter their political stripe.  Perhaps citizens today can take Madison's spring in an hour each day or carve out time from other leisure activities to quietly contemplate their own lives and the world around them.  We can hope that this will result in more or truly informed person and a better citizen for the Republic.

Virtue

John Adams

What is required to be a good citizen of a republic?  This was a question posed by our founders during the formative years of the American Republic.  They were attempting to determine the best form of government in a world outside the British Constitution - one that not only guaranteed individual freedom, but also protected minorities from the abuses of the majority.  In contrast to the current mantra of "I have my rights," the Founders put a high premium on responsibilities as well.  John Adams stated, "Liberty can no more exist without virtue than the body can live and move without a soul."  In a era dominated by siloism ("Siloism" is the maximization of one set of goals to the detriment of a wider common good), political party rancor, and the cult of individualism; what do we make of the significance today of virtue and its role in government?  What happens if our nation has differing concepts of virtue?  Does this impact the nature and actions of our government?  Do Americans still have the responsibility of being virtuous in a modern republican government?

What is virtue and how can we define it?  Virtue can be defined as moral excellence.  A virtue is a trait or quality that is deemed morally good and thus is valued as a foundation of principle and moral being.  Perhaps we should also clarify that civic virtue (which the Founders found so important) differs from that of individual virtue in that it deals with the whole of society. Civic virtue is the cultivation of habits important to the success of the community.  Closely linked to the concept of citizenship, civic virtue is often conceived as the dedication of citizens to the common welfare of the their community even at the costs of their individual interests. It should be noted, that the Founders believed one informed another and civic virtue could not exist in the absence of the individual form.

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.  As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters," declared Benjamin Franklin.  Can this eighteenth century quote help explain why American citizens have come increasingly under the dominion of a powerful central government.  Has our loss of virtue led us down a path where our "masters" have come to dominate most aspects of our lives?  Has our understanding of virtue changed from that our of predecessors to the point which they would be aghast at what America has wrought?  What do these questions mean for citizens, politicians, and educators?  In the posts that follow, I will attempt to determine to a greater extent what importance our founders attached to virtue and what it means for us as a republic today.