“A New State of Things?” A Pre-Imperial Proclamation from Joshua Norton in July 1859

And Other Signs That Norton Remained On the Scene — And in San Francisco — In the Period Between His Insolvency and His Installation as Emperor

BIOGRAPHERS of Joshua Norton long have been at pains to account for Joshua’s whereabouts and his activities on the period between his declaration of insolvency in 1856 and his declaration of Emperorship in 1859.

In his 1939 biography, Emperor Norton: The Mad Monarch of America, Allen Stanley Lane closes one chapter in August 1856, with a sketch of the insolvency. On the following page, Lane opens the next chapter in September 1859, with Joshua’s appearance at the San Francisco Daily Evening Bulletin to deliver his Proclamation declaring himself Emperor. He makes no attempt to explain the three-year gap in his timeline.

Nearly 50 years later, William Drury, in his own 1986 biography Norton I: Emperor of the United States, provided a few — but not many — more details about Joshua Norton’s life between late 1856 and late 1859.

Drury notes that, in 1857 and 1858, Joshua placed occasional ads for one-off commodities deals he was working on. Here’s one, from 3 May 1857:

Joshua Norton ad for linseed oil, Daily Alta California, 3 May 1857, p. 2. Source: California Digital Newspaper Collection

Drury also identifies where he believes Joshua Norton lived between 1858 and 1860 — 255 Kearny Street between Broadway and Vallejo.

There is a 255 Kearny listing for Joshua in Langley’s 1858 directory for San Francisco:

Listing for Joshua Norton in Langley’s 1858 San Francisco directory, p. 216. Source: Internet Archive

Although there is not a “Norton Joshua” listing in the 1859 directory, there is a listing for a “Norton Jesse, mcht” at the same address. It seems reasonable to guess that “Jesse” might be a mistranscription — accidental or purposed — of our Joshua.

Listing for “Jesse” Norton in Langley’s 1859 San Francisco directory, p. 214. Is this really Joshua? Source: Internet Archive

These details have not kept generations of Norton-followers from supposing and believing and claiming that Joshua Norton left San Francisco after his 1856 insolvency and lived somewhere else — from which he “returned” to declare himself Emperor.

There is no evidence to support this — which is one reason why I’ve been saying for years that the evidence points to Joshua’s having been in San Francisco all along.

This and the fact that, in his own Proclamation declaring himself Emperor on 17 September 1859, Joshua Norton describes himself as being “for the last nine years and ten months past of San Francisco, California.”

Translation: “It’s September 1859, and I’ve been living here without interruption since November 1849.”

:: :: ::

THE TRUTH IS, though…

Very few traces of the Joshua Norton of 1856–1859 have found their way to the surface.

I sometimes say that “history goes dark” about him during this period — even though I know the history is not as dark as some suppose.

But, there is new light!

Here are three discoveries about Joshua Norton’s “movements” in 1857–1859. Together with providing additional evidence that Joshua was in San Francisco during this period, these actions and activities could be seen as building on one another — with the most momentous taking place in July 1859, just a couple of months before Joshua’s declaration of himself as Emperor in September of that year.

But, no fair peeking ahead!

1857

This one is less a discovery than a rescue of a piece of history that Allen Stanley Lane included as a tiny asterisked note outside the main text of his 1939 biography. William Drury didn’t mention it in his 1986 biography, and a Google search returns nothing — so, it appears to be information that has been orphaned for more than 80 years.

The San Francisco Daily Evening Bulletin of 17 September 1857 carried the following item reporting that Joshua Norton had been appointed a juror in the case of I. Ferris Waldron, who had been indicted for stealing a bar of gold from Wells, Fargo & Co.

Item announcing jury for the case of I. Ferris Waldron, with Joshua Norton listed as one of the jurors. San Francisco Daily Evening Bulletin, 17 September 1857, p.3. Source: GenealogyBank

Unable to reach a unanimous verdict, the jury was discharged a week-and-a-half later.

Item announcing discharge of jury for the I. Ferris Waldron case, with Joshua Norton listed as one of the jurors. San Francisco Daily Evening Bulletin, 28 September 1857, p.3. Source: GenealogyBank

Allen Stanley Lane saw the real significance of Joshua’s membership on a jury in 1857, writing that “[o]bviously he was not demented then.”

More to the point, I would say — and possibly what Lane meant: Joshua was not seen as being demented. The Court of Sessions would not have appointed him as a juror if it did not been persuaded that he was fully capable of serving as a juror.

1858

In an apparent effort to regain his footing after the California Supreme Court in October 1854 ruled against him in the rice case, Joshua Norton, at the San Francisco Democratic Convention of May 1855, offered himself as a candidate for city and county tax collector — a paid position.

Joshua Norton listed as a candidate for city and county tax collector at San Francisco Democratic Convention of May 1855, San Francisco Daily Herald, 20 May 1855, p. 2. Source: California Digital Newspaper Collection

Three years later, in a sign that he still was casting about for a new public role — and possibly also an early indicator of his national aspirations — Joshua Norton took out an ad in the Daily Evening Bulletin announcing his candidacy for U.S. Congress. The ad ran on the 21st, 23rd and 24th of August 1858, with the election itself slated for September 1859:

Joshua Norton’s ad announcing candidacy for U.S. Congress, San Francisco Daily Evening Bulletin, 21 August 1858, p. 2. Source: GenealogyBank

To the Public — At the earnest solicitation of a number of my friends, of all parties, I have been induced to offer myself as an INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE for the ensuing session of Congress. In the event of my election, I pledge myself to devote the whole of my attention and abilities to promote the interests and welfare of my constituency — irrespective of all parties.

From my long residence in California, I am thoroughly acquainted with the wants of this, my adopted State, and use every effort to promote immigration and the construction of the Pacific Railroad.

Having every confidence in my ability to faithfully represent your interests, I confidently solicit the support of all parties.

JOSHUA NORTON

Was Joshua really “induced to offer” himself “[a]t the earnest solicitation of a number of my friends”? Or was this an early version of “At the peremptory request of a large majority of the citizens of these United States”?

The seems less important than that the friends Joshua references are “of all parties,” and that he proposes to run as an “INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE” — someone who is not beholden to any political party, and to whom all constituents can appeal for public-spirited representation.

Joshua appears to have remained a political independent. But — especially given that he had sought a nomination from the Democratic Party in 1855 — this 1858 announcement could be seen as an early effort on Joshua Norton’s part to position himself as a figure that could transcend party politics.

1859

Joshua Norton was not on the ballot for the election of September 1859 — but, he continued to percolate.

That would seem to be the unmistakable takeaway of the following “Manifesto,” signed “Joshua Norton,” that ran as an ad in the Daily Evening Bulletin on 5 July 1859:

Joshua Norton’s ad issuing a “Manifesto” to the “Citizens of the Union,” San Francisco Daily Evening Bulletin, 5 July 1859, p. 2. Source: GenealogyBank

MANIFESTO FROM JOSHUA NORTON

Citizens of the Union — The Union is threat-ened with dissolution — dissentions exist between the North and South — measures affecting the general welfare cannot be got through Congress — confidence ceases to exist with foreigners in the integrity and stability of the institutions of the country — will you inaugurate a new state of things?

JOSHUA NORTON

Whereas the stated audience for Joshua’s announcement of his Congressional candidacy a year earlier was “the Public” — carefully qualified as meaning the California “constituency” that he sought to “represent” — the audience here is much bigger and broader: “Citizens of the Union.”

Did Joshua Norton purposely select July 5th — the day after Independence Day — as a time when he thought readers might have a heightened awareness and concern for issue of national unity and purpose?

Students of Emperor Norton will recognize “confidence ceases to exist with foreigners in the integrity and stability of the institutions of the country” as an early version of Joshua Norton’s concluding line in his Proclamation declaring himself Emperor on 17 September 1859 — which, worth noting, was just 10 days after the election. In this Proclamation (below) — published in the same paper, the Bulletin, that had published the Manifesto — Joshua defined the goal of his project as being to “cause confidence to exist, both at home and abroad, in our stability and integrity.”

Proclamation of Joshua Norton declaring himself Emperor of the United States, San Francisco Daily Evening Bulletin, 17 September 1859, p. 3. Source: GenealogyBank

Joshua concludes his July 1859 Manifesto by asking: “[W]ill you inaugurate a new state of things?”

Can there be any doubt but that this Manifesto was the grace note to the Empire that Joshua Norton announced two months later?

:: :: ::

A CODA…

In its editorial introduction to Joshua Norton’s “original” Proclamation of September 1859, the Daily Evening Bulletin wrote:

The world is full of queer people. This forenoon, a well-dressed and serious-looking man entered our office and quietly left the following document, which he respectfully requested we would examine and insert in the Bulletin. Promising him to look at it, he politely retired, without saying anything further.

Although the name “Joshua Norton” is right there in the Proclamation and the Bulletin would not have run the piece without knowing the author, the Bulletin’s intro has fostered the conventional wisdom that Joshua Norton was an unknown quantity to the Bulletin — a bit of a rando — when he walked in to the paper’s office in September 1859.

But, that can’t have been true.

Joshua had just dropped off his “paid ad” manifesto two months earlier.

So, why would the Bulletin pretend that it didn’t know exactly who Joshua Norton was?

Was there a decision at the Bulletin to “bottle” Joshua’s identity so as to make him seem unknown, exotic, alien?

Was such a decision instrumental in launching “Emperor Norton” into the San Francisco imagination?

:: :: ::

For an archive of all of the Trust’s blog posts and a complete listing of search tags, please click here.

Search our blog...