Imperial Intent
The 1869 Attempt to Derail Grant—A Brief Preview of Book Content
The Imperialist, a newspaper published by those who also claimed to be members of a secret society, had the sole aim of promoting America’s return to monarchy and build a western empire. It was a short lived effort (April-July-1869, then went dark). You will notice that it employed Grant’s 1868 campaign slogan “Let us have Peace” and recast it as a slogan that meant let us have empire; without empire, no peace! Make America Royal Again!
The Imperialist was meant to reinvigorate monarchy in America, with, presumably, Grant as the first Imperator. With apologies to Curtis Yarvin/Moldbug (who may be excited at such an historical discovery), this publication, was not serious. Or was it?
The Imperialist trained its sights on many of democracy’s ills. In the process it also launched an attack on modern journalism that was then prevalent—given to gossip, peddlers of vulgar opinion, unserious, propagandist, etc. This is remarkably not much different from the criticisms of the so-called press day—except today’s disguises its aim. Today’s corporate content providers are fake news all the way down. Yet, The Imperialist meant to be high minded.
In the book I will make a brief mention of this event and the stir it caused. Sneak peek: it was likely was an op in the growing effort to undermine Grant and challenge him in 1872. The question here is, was this newspaper for real? Was it a joke? Was it an OP?! Of all the academics who wrote about this paper years after the fact, none considered it might have been a plot to entrap Grant, portraying him as a power hungry tyrant. That is, it was meant to be a propagandist paper to frame Grant as a man who wanted to be King. After all, the Democrats in the ’68 election claimed Grant was a dictator, or would end the republic if elected. With this publication southern papers in particular could say, see this proves it! Grant’s appeal is for those (the North) who want the return of Caesar!
Of course this played into southern fears as the paper believed the only remedy for our ills was to call on G.A.R., the Grand Army of the Republic to install a new emperor and occupy the country via martial law.
There were efforts to demonstrate the publishers of The Imperialist were not joking. One such essay from The Galaxy, an anonymous insider contended the paper was not meant to upset the canvas of the 1868 campaign, so, the triumvirate in charge of the secret society that published the paper held off. This writer stated that the men behind it were prominent “Americans by birth, and gentlemen of position and culture.”1 The troubling thing is that the members of this imperial society “regretted” the publicity. It should not be lost on the careful reader that this calls into question the purpose of publishing a paper and sending it to other newspapers in the land? Something does not add up.
These high men of society, presumably educated, had to know their paper would cause a sensation. They had to know it generate intrigue—meaning the overthrow of the republic so soon after a Civil War in which one party deigned to do just that.
The most interesting defense of The Imperialist from this piece in The Galaxy made the bold claim that American journalism necessitated salvation from one man. The aim was to “free [us] from the low vulgarisms which heretofore disgraced” all newspapers:
A newspaper, like any other commodity, can be pushed into circulation by persistent advertising. Its real value to its readers is a matter of minor importance. If it be constantly advertised, the public will buy it.
There can be no other reason companies like CNN still exist today. Some things never change. In their statement of intent, the paper’s goal was to establish an empire, and to rid the public mind of the lies of “popular sovereignty” and “equality.” The less talented must SUBMIT! The members of the secret imperial society wanted to “strike a blow against mob government.”
The anonymous author also stated that The Imperialist never wanted to be associated with the Lost Cause, or so this writer contends. However,
Only in the South did any portion of the press welcome the new-comer. Several Southern papers embraced the new political doctrine, and advocated it with the zeal of new converts to a new faith.
The writer added:
The existence of [the newspaper] was thought to be a thorn in the side of the Republicans, and the Democrat politicians were, therefore, anxious to keep it alive…more than one Democrat State committee paid money into the treasury of [the paper].
Did these bright and talented monarchists not think that the Democrat party would support this effort and use it to their own advantage? So, what gives? Is this true? I went to look. If there was support in the South, I would find it in their papers. What I found does not even tap the vast coverage of this monarchist effort.
One South Carolina paper wrote while it was a little wary of the aim of The Imperialist, nevertheless concluded “if an empire must come, we decidedly prefer such an one.”2 Another speculated whether it was a serious paper, and concluded it was “chief among the organs” of the Republican party.”3 Another ran without edit or comment various columns on the death of the republic of the Founders.4 The Republican leaning North Carolina Standard, noted that The Imperialist appealed to former rebels, and for good reason—they tried to install their own form of monarchical government in the slave oligarchy.5
Democrat papers in the North, and around NYC, condemned the effort. At this time, most of the papers in NYC were Democrat affiliated. The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, wrote, that the few advertisers of the paper should be boycotted, adding, “there must be some limit to free speech.”6 Banning some political speech? Yes, that was the Democrat party in the North, as well as the South.
The NYT gave the paper little coverage but mocked it not unreasonably stating that, “everyone would want to be emperor” if such thing had public support. The Evening Star, dismissed it: “strikes the reader as a huge hoax.” The National Republican wrote that while some monarchists likely exist, they have been discredited since the Revolution when most left. It welcomed the paper as an example of political idiocy.7
There was one paper that connected Grant to imperial intent distinctly. You will have to read the book for that account. However, the political intent of The Imperialist whether it meant to be a serious intellectual attempt, or an OP to sway public opinion, was used to do exactly that—sway public opinion that Grant was bad for the country and the only way to save the Union was to elect a Democrat in 1872.
Some would employ the general argument of The Imperialist as a pretext to launch a campaign against Grant. While the paper was not named explicitly, the arguments were similar—Grant=dictator.
This betrayal would come from within the Republican Party.
Please note my Christmas special on now this month where you will be able to access locked content. 👇👇👇
“Imperialism in America,” The Galaxy, November 1869, 658.
Yorkville Enquirer, July 8, 1869.
Memphis Daily Appeal, May 28, 1869.
Charleston Daily News, June 2, 1869. To be fair this southern paper was quite pro-Republican.
May 5, 1869, p. 1.
Brooklyn Daily Eagle, May 18, 1869, p. 2.
NYT, April 7, 1869; Evening Star, May 7, 1869; National Republican, April 22, 1869.