Iowa - "the shining star of radicalism"?
July 8, 2010 6:22 PM
Is it true that Ulysses S. Grant said that Iowa was the "shining star of radicalism"?
In Marilynne Robinson's Gilead, the narrator's grandfather says "The President, General Grant, once called Iowa the shining star of radicalism" (p. 176). Robinson uses that phrase twice elsewhere: once in Gilead on p. 220, and once in her companion novel Home on p. 210.
My searches have gotten me nowhere. Google searches don't turn up anything about the phrase except obvious references to these two novels (also a 2007 journal called Midamerica I don't have access to, but I suspect that's also referring to one of Robinson's novels). There's nothing on JSTOR.
So, my question has two parts: (a) did Grant say this and (b) what sources say he said it?
In Marilynne Robinson's Gilead, the narrator's grandfather says "The President, General Grant, once called Iowa the shining star of radicalism" (p. 176). Robinson uses that phrase twice elsewhere: once in Gilead on p. 220, and once in her companion novel Home on p. 210.
My searches have gotten me nowhere. Google searches don't turn up anything about the phrase except obvious references to these two novels (also a 2007 journal called Midamerica I don't have access to, but I suspect that's also referring to one of Robinson's novels). There's nothing on JSTOR.
So, my question has two parts: (a) did Grant say this and (b) what sources say he said it?
"Bright Radical Star" appears to be the phrase, though it's apparently a paraphrase:
posted by artlung at 6:57 PM on July 8, 2010
Grant's message was that he "hoped the people of Iowa, whose soldiers achieved such immortal renown in the field, would be the first state to carry impartial suffrage unfalteringly." It had gone down in other states, as an interviewer paraphrased his words, "but he trusted that Iowa, the bright Radical star, would proclaim by its action in November that the North is consistent with itself, and willing to voluntarily accept what its Congress has made a necessity in the South"7Found in Iowa History Reader By Marvin Bergman, Google Books.
7. Quoted in Des Moines Weekly Register, 4 November 1868
posted by artlung at 6:57 PM on July 8, 2010
I would direct this question to Robinson herself, or the Ulysses S. Grant Association. As a native of Galena, Illinois, directly across the Mississippi River, Grant would have been quite familiar with Iowa politics, so he could have said it; it may even be true (although I have my doubts about it being a widely considered opinion). But I'm more than a little skeptical that he actually said such a thing and it has not entered the political lexicon.
posted by dhartung at 7:00 PM on July 8, 2010
posted by dhartung at 7:00 PM on July 8, 2010
"it may even be true (although I have my doubts about it being a widely considered opinion)"
Iowa has a long history of progressivism -- desegregated schools in 1868 and public accommodations in 1873, first US state to admit a woman to the bar (1869), allowed interracial marriage quite early, its farmers' association split with the national body because the Iowa body opposed the Korean war; the very first decision of the Iowa Supreme Court in 1839 was to outlaw slavery in Iowa. (You'll note that these progressive attitudes mostly center around personal freedom and equality, rather than economics.)
While we tend to think of more rural areas as conservative today, there is a long history of small farmers being on the progressive end of politics, and that's part of the history that drives the left in Iowa as well as Minnesota and Wisconsin. I'd also point out at the midwest has a strong public university system that has reached deep into the rural areas for as long as it's been in existence; most of the farmers I know have B.Ag.s from nationally-ranked state universities and have studied more Shakespeare than I have!
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:18 PM on July 8, 2010
Iowa has a long history of progressivism -- desegregated schools in 1868 and public accommodations in 1873, first US state to admit a woman to the bar (1869), allowed interracial marriage quite early, its farmers' association split with the national body because the Iowa body opposed the Korean war; the very first decision of the Iowa Supreme Court in 1839 was to outlaw slavery in Iowa. (You'll note that these progressive attitudes mostly center around personal freedom and equality, rather than economics.)
While we tend to think of more rural areas as conservative today, there is a long history of small farmers being on the progressive end of politics, and that's part of the history that drives the left in Iowa as well as Minnesota and Wisconsin. I'd also point out at the midwest has a strong public university system that has reached deep into the rural areas for as long as it's been in existence; most of the farmers I know have B.Ag.s from nationally-ranked state universities and have studied more Shakespeare than I have!
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:18 PM on July 8, 2010
Thanks everyone!
An addendum: both Bright Radical Star and the Iowa History Reader apparently have the wrong citation: it's in the Iowa State Weekly Register, not the Des Moines Weekly Register (which never existed).
The Cedar Rapids public library has generously put all of its newspaper archives online for free. On their site, you can see the quotation in its original context here, on the second page of the Nov. 4, 1864 edition, in the second column.
For posterity, here's a transcript of the article. The pdf is quite difficult to read in spots, and some of this may be inaccurate:
GEN. GRANT ON IMPARTIAL SUFFRAGE IN IOWA
On the 19th last, one of the most prominent politicians of this State had a conversation with Gen. Grant, in which the General expressed himself as being particularly solicitous about the success of impartial suffrage in Iowa. He said he "hoped the people of Iowa, whose soldiers achieved such immortal renown in the field, would be the first State to carry impartial suffrage through unfalteringly. It had gone down in other States, but he trusted that Iowa, the bright Radical star, would proclaim by its action in November that the North is consistent with itself, and willing to voluntarily accept what its Congress had made a necessity in the South. The negro race by their devotion in the war, by their faithfulness when all others were faithless, had nobly earned the possession of their deprived rights, and surely should have it before the white rebels whom they helped to subdue."
Of all other men in the country, General Grant knows the true services rendered by the negroes in the war, and among all men no one is more willing and anxious to see the manhood of the race restored to its own custody. We trust these words of our noble leader will reach every voter in the State before election day, and we ask each loyal man who has decided to vote against the amendments to pause and ask himself if he is so much better than Gen. Grant that he can vote to make himself the sheriff of the rights and liberties of his brother men. Are you willing to set your judgment against those of your chosen and gallant candidates? or will you be honest enough to release yourself from the captivity of prejudice, and act with the glad conscience of a man determined that the law of Divinity shall have full sway in making all men free and equal?
There are nearly two thousand negroes now in Iowa who served with Grant in the army. He led them then, he is leading you now. He says that by their valor in battle they reconquered their full rights, and that the people of Iowa cannot without ingratitude and guilt longer hold back their just meed. In the Southern counties of the State more than this many white rebels, who fought against you in war will fight with you on Tuesday next to keep the black soldiers from the possessive grasp of their thrice earned due. You are moving with rebel bayonets against Union heroes. The colored man who stood by your slain brother in battle, is now the object of your ??? (contempt?), while the rebel whose bullet laid your kinsmen low is now hand in hand with you in this war against the faithful Afric. One has been guilty of treason and murder -- the other is stained with no crime but that of being created free by God and enslaved by man. Will you, Republican voter, work with those to whom Grant is looking for the greatest victory of the election, or will you array yourself with those who are fighting against him personally and against his most cherished wishes politically?
posted by dd42 at 10:24 PM on July 8, 2010
An addendum: both Bright Radical Star and the Iowa History Reader apparently have the wrong citation: it's in the Iowa State Weekly Register, not the Des Moines Weekly Register (which never existed).
The Cedar Rapids public library has generously put all of its newspaper archives online for free. On their site, you can see the quotation in its original context here, on the second page of the Nov. 4, 1864 edition, in the second column.
For posterity, here's a transcript of the article. The pdf is quite difficult to read in spots, and some of this may be inaccurate:
GEN. GRANT ON IMPARTIAL SUFFRAGE IN IOWA
On the 19th last, one of the most prominent politicians of this State had a conversation with Gen. Grant, in which the General expressed himself as being particularly solicitous about the success of impartial suffrage in Iowa. He said he "hoped the people of Iowa, whose soldiers achieved such immortal renown in the field, would be the first State to carry impartial suffrage through unfalteringly. It had gone down in other States, but he trusted that Iowa, the bright Radical star, would proclaim by its action in November that the North is consistent with itself, and willing to voluntarily accept what its Congress had made a necessity in the South. The negro race by their devotion in the war, by their faithfulness when all others were faithless, had nobly earned the possession of their deprived rights, and surely should have it before the white rebels whom they helped to subdue."
Of all other men in the country, General Grant knows the true services rendered by the negroes in the war, and among all men no one is more willing and anxious to see the manhood of the race restored to its own custody. We trust these words of our noble leader will reach every voter in the State before election day, and we ask each loyal man who has decided to vote against the amendments to pause and ask himself if he is so much better than Gen. Grant that he can vote to make himself the sheriff of the rights and liberties of his brother men. Are you willing to set your judgment against those of your chosen and gallant candidates? or will you be honest enough to release yourself from the captivity of prejudice, and act with the glad conscience of a man determined that the law of Divinity shall have full sway in making all men free and equal?
There are nearly two thousand negroes now in Iowa who served with Grant in the army. He led them then, he is leading you now. He says that by their valor in battle they reconquered their full rights, and that the people of Iowa cannot without ingratitude and guilt longer hold back their just meed. In the Southern counties of the State more than this many white rebels, who fought against you in war will fight with you on Tuesday next to keep the black soldiers from the possessive grasp of their thrice earned due. You are moving with rebel bayonets against Union heroes. The colored man who stood by your slain brother in battle, is now the object of your ??? (contempt?), while the rebel whose bullet laid your kinsmen low is now hand in hand with you in this war against the faithful Afric. One has been guilty of treason and murder -- the other is stained with no crime but that of being created free by God and enslaved by man. Will you, Republican voter, work with those to whom Grant is looking for the greatest victory of the election, or will you array yourself with those who are fighting against him personally and against his most cherished wishes politically?
posted by dd42 at 10:24 PM on July 8, 2010
Man, that word is impossible to read, no matter how you magnify it, but both length and letter configuration are wrong for "contempt." I think it may be "wrath," but you'd probably have to see the physical paper to be sure. Anyway, thanks for the transcription!
posted by languagehat at 11:28 AM on July 9, 2010
posted by languagehat at 11:28 AM on July 9, 2010
Thanks, languagehat! You might be right with "wrath" - it's true, it's definitely not "contempt." Maybe someday when I'm in Iowa I'll take a look at a physical copy.
posted by dd42 at 1:19 PM on July 9, 2010
posted by dd42 at 1:19 PM on July 9, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by languagehat at 6:52 PM on July 8, 2010