JOSEPH J. KIRKBRIDE¹The photographer Joseph John Kirkbride (1842–99) was born in Philadelphia, the son of Dr. Thomas Story Kirkbride and Ann West Jenks. He graduated from the University of Pennsylvania Medical School in 1872. As a result of ill health, Kirkbride never practiced medicine full-time; instead, he distinguished himself as an amateur photographer, traveling throughout the United States and around the world and documenting his journeys. His photograph albums are now part of the Library of Congress’s photography collection. A birthright Quaker, Kirkbride lived with his family in Philadelphia for the majority of his life. He never married. 1850 U.S. Census, Pennsylvania, Philadelphia County, 43; 1870 U.S. Census, Pennsylvania, Philadelphia County, 126; 1880 U.S. Census, Pennsylvania, Philadelphia County, 80D; George S. Layne, “Kirkbride-Langenheim Collaboration: Early Use of Photography on Psychiatric Treatment,” Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, 105: 182–202 (April 1981); “U.S., Quaker Meeting Records, 1681–1935,” Ancestry.com. TO FREDERICK DOUGLASS

Washington[, D.C. c. 17 March] 1877.

UNITED STATES SENATE CHAMBER.

HON. FREDK. DOUGLASS.

ESTEEMED SIR.

While in the Capital, yesterday and immediately after the adjournment
of the Senate, I happened to drop in upon a group of men gathered in the
“Supreme Court Room”²Designed by the architect Benjamin Henry Latrobe, the Supreme Court Chamber was located on the ground floor of the original north wing of the Capitol. The Court met there from February 1810 until August 1814, when, during the War of 1812, British troops invaded Washington, D.C., and set the Capitol ablaze. After its restoration was completed in 1819, the Supreme Court met in this chamber continuously until 1860. While beautifully designed, the chamber was characterized as a dark and damp room with poor ventilation. In 1860, the Court moved upstairs to the former Senate Chamber, and the “Old Supreme Court Chamber” was converted into a law library. The Court moved to its current building in 1935. The U.S. Senate Commission on Art and Antiquities, The Supreme Court Chamber, 1810–1860 (Washington, D.C., 1981); John J. Patrick, The Supreme Court of the United States: A Student Companion, 2d ed. (New York, 2001), 57. who were excitedly discussing the probability of
your confirmation.³Rutherford B. Hayes appointed Frederick Douglass marshal of the District of Columbia, and the latter accepted the position on 13 March 1877. The public soon became aware of the appointment, and Douglass visited the city hall, where the marshal’s office was located, on 15 March 1877 to begin planning for the transition. In an executive session on 17 March 1877, the Senate confirmed the appointment on a vote of 30–12. Senator Roscoe Conkling of New York championed Douglass in this proceeding, and the opposition denied that race was their deciding factor. Douglass Papers, ser. 2, 3: 328–29; Washington National Republican, 9, 16 March 1877; Muller, Lion of Anacostia, 69–71; Blight, Prophet of Freedom, 583. Believing, from what I was told that, the “true inwardness” of the opposition came from a source you may not be advised of,
I have thought it my duty to apprise you thereof. The facts gleaned were
these viz: that the seeming disapproval of your confirmation as exhibited at the meeting of the Republican Central Committee⁴The territorial government of the District of Columbia had been abolished in 1874, and with it the participation of its citizens in any elections. Supporters of the Republican party maintained a series of ward clubs and a Central Committee to organize public demonstrations and lobby the federal government. On 15 March, the Central Committee held a meeting at its headquarters at 1513 Pennsylvania Avenue to organize a mass celebration of the election of Rutherford B. Hayes as president and the appointment of Douglass as the District’s marshal. The Washington National Republican’s brief report on that meeting concluded cryptically: “There was a long discussion regarding the appointment of Mr. Douglass to the position of United States Marshal for the District of Columbia, and pending discussion of the resolution before that meeting on the subject, the committee adjourned.” Kirkbride might have stumbled on a group in the Capitol on 16 March 1877 voicing opposition to Douglass’s appointment. The Senate, however, confirmed it in an executive session on the following day. When the Central Committee finally held its mass meeting on 26 March 1877, only one of its many speakers alluded to Douglass’s appointment. Washington National Republican, 9, 16, 18, 27 March 1877; Harrison, Washington during Civil War, 293–310. was instigated
by “Langston,”⁵Suspicion and ill will between Douglass and John M. Langston were long-standing by the time of Hayes’s election, but no evidence has been located of the latter making an active effort to block the marshal appointment. Langston’s supporters called for the president to appoint him to a position of equal stature to Douglass’s. In March 1877 the press reported on efforts to appoint Langston commissioner of agriculture. Later efforts focused on a diplomatic post, culminating in Hayes’s appointment of Langston as minister plenipotentiary to Haiti. New York Times, 31 March 1877; Langston, Virginia Plantation to the Capitol, 353–54; William Cheek III, “Forgotten Prophet: The Life of John Mercer Langston” (Ph.D. diss., University of Virginia, 1961), 172–75. for “Ordways”⁶It is plausible that Albert Ordway (1843–97) or, more likely, Nehemiah G. Ordway (1828– 1907) were contenders with Frederick Douglass for the District of Columbia marshal’s position. Albert Ordway was born in Boston and studied at Harvard University. When the Civil War began, he enlisted in the Massachusetts militia in April 1861. He quickly rose within the ranks and was brevetted brigadier general at the age of twenty-two. At the end of the war, Ordway was promoted to provost marshal general of Virginia, and he served until February 1866, when his regiment was mustered out of service. Although offered a commission in the regular army, he returned to civilian life, engaging in business in Richmond. In 1877, Ordway moved to Washington, D.C., and was commissioned brigadier general in command of the National Guard in the District. Nehemiah Ordway was born in Warner, New Hampshire. His first major position was as sheriff of Merrimack County, where he served until 1860, when President Lincoln appointed him inspector of the mail service. In 1862 he was elected sergeant at arms of the House of Representatives and served for twelve years. He served in the New Hampshire Senate from 1875 to 1880. President Hayes then appointed him territorial governor of Dakota, where he served until 1884. Ordway returned to Washington, D.C., and spent the remainder of his life engaged in business. Portland Morning Oregonian, 22 November 1897; Washington Evening Star, 2 July 1907; Philip (N.D.) Weekly Review, 17 July 1908; Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Meeting of the Association of Military Surgeons of the United States Held at Kansas City, Missouri, Sept. 27, 28, and 29, 1899 (Columbus, Ohio, 1900), 49–50. interest who in return was to promote

“Langstons” claim for the of the Insane Asylum;⁷The longtime superintendent of the Government Insane Asylum, locally known as St. Elizabeths Hospital, Charles H. Nichols had come under investigation by Congress in 1869 and 1876 for inappropriately benefiting financially from his position. Nichols stepped down in early 1877. Kirkbride would have been well aware of issues surrounding St. Elizabeths because Nichols was a close friend and admirer of his father, Dr. Thomas Story Kirkbride, a pioneer in psychiatric treatment. The younger Kirkbride’s visit to Washington, in fact, might have concerned the effort to find a replacement for Nichols. Langston, a law professor at Howard University, would seem to be a dubious choice for the superintendency of St. Elizabeths, and the position ultimately went to Dr. William W. Godding, a former assistant surgeon at the hospital who had more recently been superintendent of the state hospital in Staunton, Massachusetts. Thomas Otto, St. Elizabeths Hospital: A History (Washington, D.C., 2013), 8–11, 14–15, 36–38, 60–64, 89, 97, 123. that
Profs. Langston felt the injustice done by the President when he (Langston) was declared to be, “,[”]
and which fact Mr. Douglass would be compelled to acknowledge as being contrary the result of that and subsequent meetings so determining. I
do not know how this information may be of service to you, but, I thought
possibly it might point to the source of this “delay element,” and if so will
discover a bad man’s tricks. It may be well to state that the spokesman of
the party alluded to was a member of the “committee” and he told me that
he attended the meeting well acquainted with its purposes, as since developed. Further, that the “Bar” was to be incited at “Langstons” insistence.⁸Some press reports claimed that a majority of the District of Columbia’s bar was opposed to Douglass’s nomination to become marshal. A five-member committee was sent to lobby Congress against the appointment on the grounds that Douglass was “unfamiliar with our people and their responsibilities, unbred in our local usuages and unacquainted with the intricate judicial system under which we live.” Rumors circulated in the city that Douglass had selected as his deputy Arthur Shepherd, the brother of the former territorial governor Alexander R. Shepherd, who had been accused of corruption. Douglass quickly disputed that accusation. The U.S. Senate Committee for the District of Columbia heard the bar delegation but still recommended the nomination on to the full Senate, which approved it the following day. Douglass Papers, ser. 2, 3: 328–29; Washington National Republican, 17 March 1877; Whyte, Uncivil War, 132, 215, 217–19, 225–26, 234.

With distinguished regard I am

Yours Respectfully

J. J. KIRKBRIDE MD.

ALS: General Correspondence File, reel 9, frames 82–83, FD Papers, DLC.