Was Emperor Norton Channeling George Washington?

BY WHICH I mean: Was the Emperor channeling Washington intentionally?

I began to ponder this question a dozen years ago, when I first encountered Emperor Norton’s second Proclamation — the one in which he abolished Congress — published in the San Francisco Daily Evening Bulletin on 12 October 1859:

Proclamation of Emperor Norton, San Francisco Daily Evening Bulletin, 12 Ocober 1859, p. 3. Source: Genealogy Bank

In the preamble of this Proclamation, the Emperor writes [emphasis mine]:

It is represented to us that the universal suffrage, as now existing throughout the Union, is abused; that fraud and corruption prevent a fair and proper expression of the public voice; that open violation of the laws are constantly occurring, caused by mobs, parties, factions and undue influence of political sects; that the citizen has not that protection for person and property which he is entitled to be paying his pro rata of the expense of Government....

As if to suggest that this preamble holds the key to everything he is trying to accomplish, Emperor Norton quotes the preamble — and only the preamble — less than four months later, in the short address that he proposed to deliver to the “National Convention” that he summoned with his original Proclamation of 17 September 1859.

The Emperor originally set the Convention for 1 February 1860 in Musical Hall, at Montgomery and Bush Streets. When this venue was destroyed by fire in January 1860, he changed the date and location to 8 February 1860 in the Assembly Hall at Kearny and Post.

The Convention never took place. But, the Bulletin ran the text of Emperor Norton’s proposed address in its edition of 4 February 1860.

The passage where the Emperor quotes from his Proclamation of 12 October 1859 is highlighted in orange:

“Emperor Norton — The Approaching Convention — The Imperial Address,” article publishing text of address Emperor Norton proposed to deliver at his "National Convention" planned for 8 February 1860, San Francisco Daily Evening Bulletin, 4 February 1860, p. 3. The Emperor’s self-quote from his Proclamation of 12 October 1859 is highlighted in orange. Source: Genealogy Bank

:: :: ::

I HIGHLIGHT the specific phrase about "mobs, parties, factions and undue influence of political sects" for a couple of reasons.

For starters, it reinforces Norton's general disaffection with political parties…

• First seen in his signature on a February 1856 open letter of protest against the San Francisco Democratic Party;

• Shortly afterward demonstrated by his August 1858 announcement of himself as an "Independent Candidate" for Congress, pledging "to devote the whole of my attention and abilities to promote the interests and welfare of my constituency — irrespective of all parties";

• Further confirmed by the Emperor’s impromptu speech at a public “No Party” forum held at the Mercantile Library in July 1875; and

• Most notably represented by his two Proclamations, in 1869 and again in 1876, abolishing the Democratic and Republican parties.

But, also…

Norton's language calls to mind George Washington's farewell address of 1796, where Washington warned against “the spirit of party generally,” writing [emphases mine]:

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction; to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community, and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans, digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things to become potent engines by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

And later [emphases mine]:

Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual, and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose; and there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

Especially in Norton's early Proclamations and in his later Proclamations that speak to political influence peddling and corruption as these relate to elected office and political parties, Norton seems to be channeling the spirit of Washington.

I often have noted that Joshua Norton chose 17 September 1859 — the 72nd anniversary of the date when delegates the Constitutional Convention, in Philadelphia, signed the U.S. Constitution on 17 September 1787 — to issue his Proclamation declaring himself Emperor.

But is it also just a coincidence that George Washington's farewell address was dated 17 September 1796?

Or that, in speaking to the imperative of "a fair and proper expression of the public voice" in his Proclamation of 12 October 1859, the Emperor used a phrase very similar to the one that Washington did when Washington — in the first sentence of his address — invoked the virtue of "a more distinct expression of the public voice"?

:: :: ::

IT WOULD BE remiss to offer an entire article — even an article as brief as this one — suggesting the real George Washington as a possible inspiration for Emperor Norton without mentioning Frederick Coombs (1803–1874).

Frederick Coombs a.k.a. George Washington II with bust of George Washington, c.1865. Source: San Francisco Public Library

Coombs first arrived in San Francisco in late 1849, around the same time as Joshua Norton. He was a noted author and lecturer in phrenology and continued in this vein for the next couple of years. But, he made his way during this period mainly as a photographer; Coombs had a daguerrean gallery at the corner of Montgomery and Clay Streets, which he maintained until January 1852 before selling the business and moving back to his native New York.

Returning to San Francisco in summer 1859, Coombs initially tried to re-establish his photography business. But, by March 1861, he had procured a powdered wig and was styling himself as George Washington II — becoming one of the city’s more notable street characters over the next 3½ years.

As likely as not, the grudging rivalry between Emperor Norton and George Washington II was a fiction ginned up by items such as the following that appeared on the front page of the Daily Alta California on 27 August 1862:

“Approaching a Crisis,” in “City Items,” Daily Alta California, 27 August 1862, p. 1. Source: California Digital Newspaper Collection

If Emperor Norton did bear a grudge against George Washington II, perhaps the issue was not a geographical turf war — as often proposed — but, rather, a philosophical one:

The Emperor saw himself — not Coombs — as carrying forward Washington’s legacy and colors.

Food for thought.

:: :: ::

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

Search our blog...