When Did the Reign of Emperor Norton Really Begin?
Proclamatory Signs That — For Him — It Began Well Before 1859
GENERATIONS of those who have followed the Emperor Norton story have believed, told, and passed down the following postulation:
The Emperor’s reign began on the specific date — 17 September 1859 — that Joshua Norton walked into the offices of the San Francisco Daily Evening Bulletin at the southeast corner of Montgomery and Merchant Streets and handed someone there what the Bulletin in that evening’s edition called a “paper” bearing the news that
I, Joshua Norton, formerly of Algoa Bay, Cape of Good Hope, and now for the last 9 years and 10 months past of San Francisco, California, declare and proclaim myself Emperor of these United States….
Given the documentation and substance of this Proclamation, the dating of the inauguration of Emperor Norton’s reign to 17 September 1859 would appear to be a settled fact.
Except.
Except for a line that Emperor Norton attaches to his signature to several of his Proclamations of the 1860s, in which the Emperor dates these Proclamations but also further specifies that a given Proclamation was issued “in the [X]th year of our reign.”
Assuming, for example, that a Proclamation that Emperor Norton signed “in the 16th year of our reign” was one he issued between the 15th and 16th anniversaries of his reign…
The “math” that the Emperor uses in these little clauses strongly suggests that he may have thought of himself as being Emperor for at least 4 years — and for as much as 7 years — before he declared it publicly in 1859.
Here are the examples:
1864
A Proclamation published in the Petaluma Journal and Argus was issued on “this the 29th day of June, in the 10th year of Our Reign, A.D. 1864.”
This suggests a reign that began between the second half of 1854 and the first half of 1855.
Proclamation of Emperor Norton, Petaluma (Calif.) Journal and Argus, 30 June 1864, p. 2. Source: Newspapers.com
1865
A Proclamation published in the Stockton Independent was issued on 26 June 1865 and in the “Eleventh year of our reign.”
This points to a reign that began between the second half of 1854 and the first half of 1855.
Proclamation of Emperor Norton, Stockton (Calif.) Independent, 1 July 1865, p. 1. Source: California Digital Newspaper Collection
1868
In late September 1868, Spain’s “Glorious Revolution” culminated in the ousting and forced exile of Queen Isabella II.
On December 7 of that year, Emperor Norton offered an “opinion relative to the difficulties in Spain” that was published in the Daily Alta California on December 19.
In the course of his remarks, the Emperor referred to “the history of the United States for the last sixteen years, during our reign over the American nation.” Taken to the letter, this would infer the Emperor’s most specific dating for the beginning of his reign: December 1852 — the month that he signed the rice contract with Ruiz Hermanos on 22 December 1852.
Opinion of Emperor Norton "relative to the difficulties in Spain," Daily Alta California, 19 December 1868, p. 1. Source: California Digital Newspaper Collection
1869
Here is a Proclamation published in the Oakland Daily Transcript on 8 January 1869 and “in the 16th year of our reign.”
This suggests a reign that began sometime in 1853.
“Proclamation by Emperor Norton I,” Oakland Daily Transcript, 8 January 1869, p. 3. Source: Newspapers.com
The following Proclamation published in the Stockton Independent was issued on 18 July 1869 and “in the 17th year of our reign.”
This indicates a reign that began between the second half of 1852 and the first half of 1853.
Proclamation of Emperor Norton, Stockton (Calif.) Daily Independent, 21 July 1869, p. 2. Source: California Digital Newspaper Collection
We have no image for the next Proclamation, issued a week later. But, both Allen Stanley Lane in 1939 and William Drury in 1986 include it in their biographies. Moreover, the subject matter and the writing style is consistent with Emperor Norton. All of which speaks to the authenticity of this decree.
Whereas, we, Norton I, Dei Gratia Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico, being anxious for the future fame and honor of the residents of San Francisco, do hereby command all our good and loyal subjects to furnish the means and exert their best skill and advance money to make Mr. Marriott's aerial machine a success.
NORTON I.Given at San Francisco, Cal., this 25th day of July, A.D. 1869, in the seventeenth year of our reign.
As with the preceding decree, the Emperor’s dating of this July 1869 Proclamation as being issued “in the seventeenth year of our reign” points to a reign that began between the second half of 1852 and the first half of 1853.
Here are two Proclamation published a few weeks later in the Petaluma Journal and Argus that both were were issued “this 17th day of August in the “17th year of our reign.”
Once again, this speaks to a reign that began between the second half of 1852 and the first half of 1853.
Proclamations of Emperor Norton, Petaluma (Calif.) Journal and Argus, 18 August 1869, p. 2. Source: California Digital Newspaper Collection
:: :: ::
A FEW observations to make about these seven Proclamations in which Emperor Norton attaches a “reign clock” to his signature:
All of the Proclamations were published outside San Francisco. Perhaps Emperor Norton believed that, by the mid to late 1860s, his imperial project was well enough known in his adopted city but needed a PR boost in outlying areas.
None of the Proclamations were issued after 1869. Perhaps the Emperor concluded that, ten years after declaring himself in 1859, he was sufficiently established to obviate the need to mention the length of his reign.
Over the course of the 5-year period when Emperor Norton issued these Proclamations, he posited an earlier and earlier start for his reign. In June 1864, the Emperor’s “year of our reign” pointed to reign that began as late as early 1855. But, with successive Proclamations, the Emperor inched this window forward until, by July 1869, his “year of our reign” pointed to reign that began as early as late 1852.
Surely, it is no accident that the larger window of late 1852 to early 1855 corresponds to the dates of Joshua Norton’s legal and financial crisis arising from his rice contract dispute with the firm of Ruiz Hermanos — a crisis that effectively ended Joshua’s business career: Joshua signed the rice contract in December 1852. Ruiz sued him for non-payment in January 1853. After Joshua prevailed in the lower courts, Ruiz appealed to the California Supreme Court, which ruled against Joshua in October 1854. In May 1855, the Fourth District Court set the financial terms of the high court’s decision, ordering Joshua to pay Ruiz $20,000.
The most obvious message of Emperor Norton’s situating the beginning of his reign in late 1852 / early 1853 would seem to be: He wanted to forget — and hoped that others would forget — his “wilderness period” of nearly seven years between the time his business fortunes went south and the time he made his imperial claims public in 1859.
In its 9 January 1880 obituary of the Emperor, the Daily Alta California summarizes the rice affair then goes on to say:
Previous to this time Norton had been a strong anti-Republican, advocating England's system of Government, and insisting that that of the United States was infamously crude and should be reconstructed. What it wanted was an Emperor, and he would add: “If I were Emperor of the United States, you would see great changes effected, and everything would go along harmoniously.”
Both Allen Stanley Lane in his 1939 biography of Emperor Norton and William Drury in his 1986 biography appropriate this passage — including the line attributed to Joshua Norton — as though the whole thing was previously documented rather than created from whole cloth, as the Alta had a long track record of doing in its coverage of Emperor Norton. Drury even goes so far as to put the passage in the mouth of the Emperor’s old friend Joseph Eastland. But, it appears that this is just Drury being Drury — inventing connections where none exist, to bolster his story.
All in all, the passage — particularly the “If I were Emperor” line — reads like an apocryphal tale that is just too good to be true. But, even if it were true — even if Joshua did reference a hypothetical scenario that cast him as “Emperor of the United States” — this would not rise to the level of evidence that Joshua was moving in this direction.
Ultimately — absent any contemporaneous documentation that Joshua Norton saw himself as Emperor before his Proclamation of September 1859 — the Emperor’s “reign dates” of his 1864–69 Proclamations have to be seen possibly as part of a retroactive strategy on the Emperor’s part to sand down the rough edges of his personal narrative, but that tell us little about when he actually came to see himself in imperial terms.
And yet: It stands to reason that, by the time Joshua walked his Proclamation to the Daily Evening Bulletin declaring himself Emperor on in September 1859, he already had been thinking of himself as Emperor for some time.
For how long? Who knows.
Long enough, certainly, to make it more accurate to qualify Joshua Norton’s Proclamation of 17 September 1859 as marking the beginning of his public reign, understanding that Emperor Norton’s true reign — the reign of his personal imagination — got a head start on that.
:: :: ::
For an archive of all of the Trust’s blog posts and a complete listing of search tags, please click here.
Search our blog...