The Mastery of Success. Thorstein Veblen
So far, things worked favorably; and, having thus bagged a goodly number of prominent reformers, the next effort was to get the ear of the public. Here, new machinery was brought into play. A statement was published in the “Philadelphia Inquirer” (a paper which, ever since the war commenced, has been notorious for its “sensation” news,) that a charming and accomplished young mulatto girl was about to publish a book on the subject of the blending of the races, in which she took the affirmative view. Of course, so piquant a paragraph was immediately copied by almost every paper in the country. Various other stories, equally ingenious and equally groundless, were set afloat, and public expectation was riveted on the forthcoming work.
Some time in February last, the book was published. Copies, of course, were sent to all the leading journals. The “Anglo-African,” the organ of the colored population of New York, warmly, and at great length, indorsed the doctrine. The “Anti-Slavery Standard,” edited by Mr. Oliver Johnson, gave over a column of serious argument and endorsement to the work. Mr. Tilton, of the “Independent,” was not to be caught napping. In that journal, under date of February 25, 1864, he devoted a two-column leader to the subject of Miscegenation and the little pamphlet in question. Mr. Tilton was the first to announce a belief that the book was a hoax. I quote from his article:
“Remaining a while on our table unread, our attention was specially called to it by noticing how savagely certain newspapers were abusing it.”
* * *
“The authorship of the pamphlet is a well-kept secret; at least it is unknown to us. Nor, after a somewhat careful reading, are we convinced that the writer is in earnest. Our first impression was, and remains, that the work was meant as a piece of pleasantry—a burlesque upon what are popularly called the extreme and fanatical notions of certain radical men named therein. Certainly, the essay is not such a one as any of these gentlemen would have written on the subject, though some of their speeches are conspicuously quoted and commended in it.”
* * *
“If written in earnest, the work is not thorough enough to be satisfactory; if in jest, we prefer Sydney Smith—or McClellan’s Report. Still, to be frank, we agree with a large portion of these pages, but disagree heartily with another portion.”
* * *
“The idea of scientifically undertaking to intermingle existing populations according to a predetermined plan for reconstructing the human race—for flattening out its present varieties into one final unvarious dead-level of humanity—is so absurd, that we are more than ever convinced such a statement was not written in earnest!”
Mr. Tilton, however, hints that the colored race is finally in some degree to form a component part of the future American; and that, in time, “the negro of the South, growing paler with every generation, will at last completely hide his face under the snow.”
One of the editorial writers for the “Tribune” was so impressed with the book that he wrote an article on the subject, arguing about it with apparent seriousness, and in a manner with some readers supposed to be rather favorable than otherwise to the doctrine. Mr. Greeley and the publishers, it is understood, were displeased at the publication of the article. The next morning nearly all the city journals had editorial articles upon the subject.
The next point was, to get the miscegenation controversy into Congress. The book, with its indorsements, was brought to the notice of Mr. Cox, of Ohio (commonly called “Sunset Cox;”) and he made an earnest speech on the subject. Mr. Washburne replied wittily, reading and commenting on extracts from a work by Cox, in which the latter deplored the existence of the prejudice against the Africans. A few days after, Mr. Kelly, of Pennsylvania, replied very elaborately to Mr. Cox, bringing all his learning and historical research to bear on the topic. It was the subject of a deal of talk in Washington afterward. Mr. Cox was charged by some of the more shrewd members of Congress with writing it. It was said that Mr. Sumner, on reading it, immediately pronounced it a hoax.
Through the influence of the authors, a person visited James Gordon Bennett, of the “Herald,” and spoke to him about “Miscegenation.” Mr. Bennett thought the idea too monstrous and absurd to waste an article upon.
“But,” said the gentleman, “the Democratic papers are all noticing it.”
“The Democratic editors are asses,” said Bennett.
“Senator Cox has just made a speech in Congress on it.”
“Cox is an ass,” responded Bennett.
“Greeley had an article about it the other day.”
“Well, Greeley’s a donkey.”
“The ‘Independent’ yesterday had a leader of a column and a half about it.”
“Well, Beecher is no better,” said Bennett. “They’re all asses. But what did he say about it?”
“Oh, he rather indorsed it.”
“Well, I’ll read the article,” said Bennett. “And perhaps I’ll have an article written ridiculing Beecher.”
“It will make a very good handle against the radicals,” said the other.
“Oh, I don’t know,” said Bennett. “Let them marry together, if they want to, with all my heart.”
For some days, the “Herald” said nothing about it, but the occasion of the departure of a colored regiment from New York City having called forth a flattering address to them from the ladies of the “Loyal League,” the “Herald,” saw a chance to make a point against Mr. Charles King and others; and the next day it contained a terrific article, introducing miscegenation in the most violent and offensive manner, and saying that the ladies of the “Loyal League” had offered to marry the colored soldiers on their return! After that, the “Herald” kept up a regular fusillade against the supposed miscegenic proclivities of the Republicans. And thus, after all, Bennett swallowed the “critter” horns, hoofs, tail, and all.
The authors even had the impudence to attempt to entrap Mr. Lincoln into an indorsement of the work, and asked permission to dedicate a new work, on a kindred subject, “Melaleukation,” to him. Honest Old Abe however, who can see a joke, was not to be taken in so easily.
About the time the book was first published, Miss Anne E. Dickinson happened to lecture in New York. The authors here exhibited a great degree of acuteness and tact, as well as sublime impudence, in seizing the opportunity to have some small hand bills, with the endorsement of the book, printed and distributed by boys among the audience. Before Miss Dickinson appeared, therefore, the audience were gravely reading the miscegenation handbill; and the reporters, noticing it, coupled the facts in their reports. From this, it went forth, and was widely circulated, that Miss Dickinson was the author!
Dr. Mackay, the correspondent of the “London Times,” in New York, was very decidedly sold, and hurled all manner of big words against the doctrine in his letters to “The Thunderer;” and thus “the leading paper of Europe” was, for the hundredth time during the American Rebellion, decidedly taken in and done for.
The “Saturday Review”—perhaps the cleverest and certainly the sauciest of the English hebdomadals—also berated the book and its authors in the most pompous language at its command. Indeed, the “Westminster Review” seriously refers to the arguments of the book in connection with Dr. Broca’s pamphlet on Human Hybridity, a most profound work. “Miscegenation” was republished in England by Trübner & Co.; and very extensive translations from it are still passing the rounds of the French and German papers.
Thus passes into history one of the most impudent as well as ingenious literary hoaxes of the present day. There is probably not a newspaper in the country but has printed much about it; and enough of extracts might be collected from various journals upon the subject to fill my whale-tank.
It is needless to say that the book passed through several editions. Of course, the mass of the intelligent American people rejected the doctrines of the work, and looked upon it either as a political dodge, or as the ravings