An undated portrait of Congressman William W. Griest (1858-1929), who served in Congress from 1909 until his death in 1929, representing the Pennsylvania district that included Lancaster, the home town of Thaddeus Stevens. Griest was a leader in protesting the D. W. Griffith film, The Birth of a Nation, because he and others claimed that it was a libelous attack on Thaddeus Stevens. A character in The Clansman, the book upon which Griffith based his 1915 photoplay, was said to be modeled on Stevens. The Griffith film used that character and his fictitious actions to justify the rise of the Ku Klux Klan in retaliation for the “negro-carpetbagger regime” in post-war South Carolina.
The back and forth debate played out in letters to the editor of local newspapers.
____________________________________________
From the Lancaster New Era, August 17, 1915:
LIBEL ON MEMORY OF STEVENS IS REBUKED
DID NOT GO SOUTH DURING THE RECONSTRUCTION
Congressman Griest Upholds Contention of Brooklyn Man Who is Preparing to Publicly Answer “The Clansman”
At this time, when The Birth of a Nation, the moving picture that has been shown in various cities in the East, has been stirring up trouble because of the probability of it provokes race feeling, having been founded in part on Thomas Dixon’s story of The Clansman, the following correspondence will be especially interesting.
A Brooklyn resident, William Hemstreect, writes to “any relative, friend, or official associate of Hon. Thaddeus Stevens,” asking whether Thaddeus Stevens had gone south during the reconstruction period for the purpose of directing or influencing reconstruction or having any official business there or private interference.”
Mr. Hemstrect takes the view that The Clansman, in which statements such as these are made, utters a falsification, and in the same Congressman Griest, who received the letter from Mayor Trout, strongly concurs in Mr. Hemstreet’s beliefs, and ably defends the memory of the “Old Commoner.” The following is the correspondence:
Brooklyn, N. Y., August 11, 1915.
To Any relative, Friend of Official Associate of Hon. Thaddeus Stevens, M C.
The book, The Klansman, represents Mr. Stevens as having been to one of the ‘Southern’ States during the reconstruction period. I was officially engaged in the House of Representatives during that period, and I never heard of Mr. Stevens being down South directing or influencing reconstruction or having any official business there or private interference.
I think The Clansman ought to be publicly answered, which I am preparing to do.
Will you kindly inform me whether Mr. Stevens went South at all during reconstruction, and, if so, whether it was officially or personally.
Respectfully,
(signed) William Hemstrect
[The response came from Congressman William W. Griest and was printed in the same edition of the newspaper]
Mr. William Hemstrect, 1332 Bergen Street, Brooklyn, N. Y.
Dear Sir:
Your letter of the 11th instant, addressed “To any relative, friend or official associate of Hon. Thaddeus Stevens, has been handed to me by Hon. H. L. Trout, Mayor of the city of Lancaster, to whom it was delivered by the post office authorities.
Representing now the district in Congress which gave Thaddeus Stevens and his illustrious service in behalf of human freedom to the Nation, it is a pleasure to me, and to all others who revere the memory of one of the strongest characters in our national life, to know that you are preparing to publicly brand as false the vile accusations and insinuations concerning Thaddeus Stevens which are contained int that disreputable publication entitled The Clansman upon which the picture play, The Birth of a Nation, is, in part, founded.
It is almost inconceivable as it is highly discreditable that any Southern man, more than half a century after the close of the War of the Rebellion, should seek by malicious libel and gross caricature to fan anew the dying embers of race hatred and sectional strife; and such action becomes unspeakably despicable when it is undertaken by a professed minister of the Gospel, who, under the cloak of his holy calling, endeavors to assassinate the character of a great man whose whole life work was consistent devotion to the lifting up of the lowly and the relief of the oppressed.
Replying to your inquiry, I have the honor to say that so far as the records show there is no basis whatsoever for the statement that Thaddeus Stevens went South during the days of reconstruction immediately following the war for the purpose of personal interference with and domination of the rehabilitation of the Southern States. Stevens was then an old man, in enfeebled health, and all of his time and vitality were necessary for the discharge of the strenuous duties which leadership in the Congress deceived upon him. Even had he gone into the States lately in the rebellion against the Government of the United States for the purpose of personal observation it could very easily have been because he desired dependable information on which to base federal law.
It will next be in order for the Reverend and unreconstructed Thomas Dixon to again voice aloud the bitterness which burns within him by concocting some libelous caricature on the Hero of Appomattox, who not only visited the States in Rebellion, but who led the victorious legions of the Union that conquered them; or to maliciously assail Abraham Lincoln, who entered Richmond, the failed capital of the South, among the first after its evacuation by the Army of Northern Virginia.
Yours very truly.
W. W. Griest
____________________________________________
On November 20, 1915, the Lancaster New Era weighed in with an editorial:
THADDEUS STEVENS
As many of our readers know, there is now on exhibition in the city of Philadelphia a picture-film called The Birth of a Nation. It is based on a book written by one, Thomas Dixon, called The Clansman. It purports to present a true account of the personal life of the late Thaddeus Stevens, and represents him as a man of low character, who had a colored woman for his mistress. Dixon, also, in a communication to the New York Sun, deliberately stated that Mr. Stevens and this woman were buried side by side in a negro cemetery. To show the untruth of these assertions and in order that the name of our most eminent statesman shall not be thus traduced. Judge Landis, in a letter which is published in another column, has carefully gathered together, chiefly from records, the story of Mr. Stevens’ life in these respects.
The Civil War is but a memory to most of those now living, and, as a consequence, the new generations do not fully appreciate its vital importance to the nation nor do they understand the bitter feelings which were on both sides engendered by it. Therefore when they see this film they take it for granted that it is a true representation of Mr. Stevens, or Dixon would not have the temerity to thus present it. That it is not true is shown by the facts enumerated in the letter. Lancaster County was a border county, and it contained many persons, who, by reason of their sympathy for the South, were called “Copperheads.” In his love for the Union, Mr. Stevens handled these opponents, in a matter fitting to their desserts, and, as a consequence, no lies were spared by them to blacken his character. It will be remembered that he was the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives, and, by virtue of this position, was the leader of the House. He was, as a consequence, the most powerful force in the Government. His efforts to save it were ceaseless, and it is for this reason that he has become the subject of this Southerner’s malice. As Judge Landis well says, instead of detraction and vilification, “he deserves well of his country.” We, therefore, advise our readers to carefully read this letter. Mr. Stevens served our people with fidelity, and he was so highly esteemed by them that he was renominated for Congress unanimously, when everyone knew he was dead. The letter corrects the falsehoods against his reputation, which, for gain, are now spread by Dixon and others over the country.
____________________________________________
The debate over the portrayal of Stevens in the film then carried over into 1916. The Mayor of Lancaster stopped the film showing. This was not acceptable to the Lancaster Intelligencer, January 26, 1916:
INDIGNATION IN CITY AND COUNTY IS GENERAL
Action of Mayor Trout in Stopping ‘The Birth of a Nation’ Castigated
MUCH SYMPATHY IS EXPRESSED FOR YECKER
Who Got the Approval of Mayor and Others Before Booking Show
ACTS WITHOUT AUTHORITY
SO SAY ATTORNEYS NOT ANSWERABLE TO BOSSISM OF MAYOR’S ACTION
There was general indignation throughout the city and county last evening and today over Mayor Trout’s ruling that The Birth of a Nation should not be shown in this city at the Fulton opera House, under penalty of the theatre losing its license and the manager being prosecuted for criminal libel on the memory of Thaddeus Stevens. The ruling of the mayor spoiled the pleasure of thousands of the best citizens of the city and county. But there ought not to be so much complaint, as the public is getting just the kind of government they vote for. Nothing less, nothing more.
The final decision was reached by the mayor late yesterday after an afternoon session between the mayor, City Solicitor B. J. Myers, and Manager Yecker and President Broome, of the Fulton Opera House Corporation.
The Birth of a Nation is the most extravagant of all the film attractions. It has been shown everywhere, and has met with the general commendation of the public. So near as can be learned, there were only two protestants — the negro waiters as a body, and Congressman W. W. Griest.
It was stated at the opera house last evening that The Birth of a Nation was only booked after much thought and after “Manager Yecker had seen the mayor and got his verbal approval,” as well as the approval off the leaders in the law and order movement and everyone else that it was thought might object to the film.
Sympathy for Yecker
The revocal of the permission to put on the film has not only spoiled the pleasure of a vast army of Lancaster city and county people, as was evidenced by the large advance sale of seats and the hundreds of mail orders from the county, but it has been a costly experiment to both the opera house and the owners of the film. More than 40 people with the show are out of employment, for three days, unless it can be booked elsewhere, which is not likely at this late date. Besides, much sympathy is expressed for Manager Yecker. He has gone to a great deal of expense also and from the advance sale of seats there was a promise of turning what has been a very poor season into at least an even break.
When an attempt was made to get Griest’s version of the matter, it was announced at his office “that he was out of the city.”
Mayor Trout was not at his office this morning. But his secretary announced “that it was useless for reporters to waste shoe leather hunt-…. [Note: The article cuts off at this point with no continuation].
______________________________________________
The Lancaster New Era, in its January 31, 1916 edition, published a series of letters, opposed to the showing of the film:
THE BIRTH OF A NATION
Protest From a Veteran
To the Editor of The New Era.
I hear a lot of talk and bluster over the Southern author’s propaganda to blacken the character of Thaddeus Stevens. If the people of Lancaster County were men, not mice, they would soon run the whole show out of town as long as there is a Union soldier alive, and, if they felt like the writer, Mayor’s or Court injunctions would not be necessary. As this matter stands, it appears the people of Lancaster — and for that matter all of Pennsylvania — have forgotten the great services of Thaddeus Stevens in the cause of this Union. During the stress of the great Southern rebellion, Mr. Stevens never quailed before the Southern secessionists, but like adamant he stood in their path, and now that the Old Lion is dead, these men would gnaw at his bones. Mr. Stevens was a faithful ally and friend of our beloved Lincoln. He was the soldier’s friend also, and now that we have a great and prosperous country — all due to the efforts of Stevens and men of his character — and from the foundations which he helped to lay many citizens of Lancaster have grown rich and opulent, owning opera houses, etc., etc., and for the sake of more dollars would lend their aid to malign and blacken the name of this great and good man, passes my understanding.
Luther G. Sherman
Late of No. 209th Pennsylvania Volunteers, Army of the Potomac
Lancaster, Pennsylvania, January 27, 1916.
From a Norwood Woman
To the Editor of The New Era.
Dear Sir — I do not see the Lancaster papers and so do not know what opinion was expressed in any of them as to the presentation of the play, The Birth of a Nation in Fulton Opera House. I am glad for the honor of the citizens of Lancaster that there was considerable opposition on the part of persons of influence to prevent the presentation of the play. I was most presumptuous on the part of the manager of the opera house to propose such a presentation. How a real patriot could consent so to cater to the sentiments of a Southern rebel I cannot understand. I should think if there were any veterans left in Lancaster they would feel themselves insulted by the patronage offered to the author of the play or the story on which it is founded. It would be a lasting reflection on the self-respect and patriotism of the people of Lancaster if this play were presented in the home of Thaddeus Stevens.
M———-,
Norwood, January 27, 1916.
Still Another Protest
To the Editor of The New Era.
Dear Sir — In the columns of criticism in your paper of the noble effort of our Mayor and a few courageous men, is there room for one voice in their defense? Are we so sodden, so steeped in the craze for mere amusement and entertainment that we can find pleasure in seeing one of our most eminent citizens traduced and misrepresented? Has the older generations forgotten, and the younger generations and children entirely ignorant of the great work of Thaddeus Stevens? Have we all forgotten that he was foremost among the great lovers of human liberty, that he not only helped to free millions of slaves, but also to free our beloved Republic, this “land of the free,” of the stigma and disgrace of holding millions of human beings in slavery? Let our children be taught to reverence and uphold the memory of our great men and women. Let them be taught to rise up and call themselves blessed.
R. S.
From a Former Lancastrian
To the Editor of The New Era.
I saw in your paper that The Birth of a Nation has been suppressed in Lancaster. I saw the film in New York, also heard Dr. S. S. Wise, at Carnegie Hall, deliver a very strong address opposing it. His objection was the injustice it does the negro race. He made no mention of the character of Stoneman representing Thaddeus Stevens, and that it was untrue that Stevens was the kind of man portrayed. He said the management of the film at New York said it represented true history, and, while Dr. Wise did not deny the truth of it, said it was only too true to the sense that the Thaw and Becker cases would be a true history of our time. Now, I being born and raised in Lancaster, and hearing Thaddeus Stevens praised by my mother at home and my teacher at school and on different public occasions, was very much surprised to see Stevens portrayed in that manner. If he is the man the film the film portrays him, I think he was dead wrong. Is it true that he became powerful enough, after Lincoln’s death, to force the negroes in power in a certain section of the South? Did he behave licentiously to his negro servant, and had he a daughter that the negro whom he made powerful politically tried to compel her to marry him and that Stevens thereby saw the error he made in helping the negroes to political power? Those are the things I take out of the film. If they are not true, I suggest you use your influence to have the film produced in Lancaster and tell the people wherein the film lies, and, with the help of the people, spread the news broadcast that no character as Stoneman ever had a being in Thaddeus Stevens, the Great Commoner. The Birth of a Nation is being shown to crowded houses everywhere and is having a powerful influence on public opinion on the race question. Now is the time to do your part. I, for one, want to know to what degree of truth there is in the character of Stoneman.
Yours in the interest of truth as we see it.
Yours truly,
Richard E. Zell
Garwood, New Jersey, January 27, 1916.
A Statement By Rev. Shirley
To the Editor of The New Era.
The following statement, in relation to the presentation of The Birth of a Nation was made to his congregation by Rev. R. H. Shirley, pastor of the Strawberry Street A. M. E. Church.
The Birth of a Nation belies American history on every page. We do not object to the play because colored people are represented in it, but we protest against commercializing the negro’s ignorance at a time when he was not responsible for it. Nor does it help the case to know that poor, ignorant whites have been thus represented. We object to it because it is untrue to facts. It falsifies history in order to agitate and foster race antagonism.
It is true that a negro was once Lieutenant Governor of one of the Southern States, and history tells us that he filled the office and retired with credits to himself, his constituents, and his race. He is represented in this play as having locked a white woman in his office and endeavored to marry him, but she is released by the arrival of a Ku Klux band.
But the most dastardly thing of all, in this day and time, is that our children, our young people and any Pennsylvania audience for that matter should see that illustrious citizen, Thaddeus Stevens, represented in basest of plots under the name of Hon. Austin Stoneman. And, further, that he whom those who knew him best hold up as an example of personal purity, should be shown as entering into the unmentionable social customs of the gentlemen of that region.
I don’t know everybody in Lancaster, but I have faith in the pride of the white people of the city, and I believe they will honor Lancaster and vindicate the character of our noble dead by letting the play seriously alone.
At the conclusion of the publication of the letters, the editors made the following statement:
With the publication of the above communications, The New Era deems it wise to bring to an end the discussion of The Birth of a Nation through its columns. Nothing will be gained by a continuance of the debate which would only engender bitterness and we believe that to avoid further unpleasantries the issue better be dropped, and it will be as far as this newspaper is concerned.
_____________________________________________
News articles from Newspapers.com.
Corrections and additional information should be added as comments to this post.