John Mackey votes, 1840
Though American women weren’t legally allowed to vote until 1920, more than one voted in the nineteenth century—often wearing male clothing. A number of them were arrested on the spot. (Demanding that the suspicious voter raise his hat was a popular ploy by the authorities, as these voters didn’t always cut their hair to the length worn by men in the nineteenth century.) Others probably cast their vote in peace.
John Mackey was not one of the fortunate ones. Mackey was taken before the magistrate under suspicion of being female—and proved to be carrying a bundle of clothes worn by women. Which, the magistrate was assured, Mackey occasionally wore.
Was Mackey nonbinary? or a woman explaining her two sets of clothing? Hard to tell. But Mackey was a lively individual—drunk or not—and provided an interesting little scene that the New York Daily Herald seems to have found highly entertaining.
[Note: “Rather how came you so” is a play on a phrase from an English song titled “The Queer Little Man”: “A queer little man, ‘very how came you so’/ Went home on a dingy night;” the man is drunk. (Hodgson’s National Songster. London, England: Orlando Hodgson, nd; p. 290; at google books) The “voters with short consciences”—men who voted when or where they weren’t eligible—occupy the rest of the article, untranscribed.]
“Police Office: April 15.—Voters with Short Consciences, and One of the Wrong Sex.” New York Daily Herald [New York, New York] 16 April 1840; p. 1.
The only charges which occupied the atten[ti]on of the Magistrates throughout the day, were connected with the election. At the discharge of the watch, Campbell, who is attached to the Fifth district, paraded a good looking, dark featured hero, who said his name was John Mackey, and that he came from Hartford, Connecticut. The watchman said that he found the accused “rather how came you so;” and as Mackey said something about voting, why, he thought it his duty to bring him up, on suspicion of having voted the wrong ticket. As the young fellow had a small bundle under his arm, the Magistrate was rather inquisitive respecting its contents, and directed it to be opened when to his horror and astonishment, out rolled a complete suit of female attire. The accused, however, said that there was no occasion for the least alarm, as the clothing was her own, and that he (or she[)] sometimes wore one and sometimes the other.
The worthy Magistrate said that he was completely puzzled what to do, when the prisoner enquired if it was a crime to been [sic] in “male attire.”
“No,[“] said the Magistrate, “certainly not, if you are a man; which, it seems, is not the case with you.” “Why, you would never have known the difference,” rejoined the prisoner. “Well, sir,” said the Magistrate, “we’ll see, and have you examined by one of our most trusty officers.”
Here a bystander suggested that the creature must be an hermaphrodite; and if so, entitled to wear either male or female attire.
The worthy justice immediately directed her to be taken to the tombs by Prince John, and the necessary overhauling to be performed; and in a few moments Prince John came back and said, “from occular demonstration” he was satisfied that she was an Indian; and as perfect a woman as he could find any where[.]
The worthy Magistrate immediately directed her to be locked up in “the tombs” alone.
previous: George Wilson steals a horse, 1838
next: Mary Perkins, sailor, 1840
To “Nineteenth-Century American Children & What They Read”
Some of the children | Some of their books | Some of their magazines
Some works for adults, 1800-1872