battle of detroit 1863

The Detroit Race Riot of 1863 occurred during the American Civil War on March 6, 1863 in the city of Detroit, Michigan. At the time, it was reported as “the bloodiest day that ever dawned upon Detroit.” It began due to unrest related to racism and themilitary draft..

While not as famous or destructive as riots later in Detroit’s history, the riot of 1863 was certainly a momentous occasion for the city of Detroit. The casualties of the day included at least two innocent people dead, a multitude of others, mostly African-American, mercilessly beaten. 35 buildings were burned to the ground, and a number of other buildings were damaged by fire.

The riot resulted in the creation of a full-time police force for Detroit.March 6, 1863 the Detroit Free Press reported “the greatest excitement” in the 

city’s history.  The paper labeled that day “the bloodiest day that ever dawned upon 

Detroit.”  The city had experienced its first race riot.  While not as famous or destructive 

as riots later in Detroit’s history, the riot of 1863 was certainly a momentous occasion for 

the city of Detroit and a historical event worthy of examination.  The tallies of the day 

included at least two innocent people dead, a multitude of others—mostly AfricanAmerican—mercilessly beaten, 35 buildings burned to the ground, and a number of other 

buildings damaged by fire.

   

 For weeks news of the riot and related issues filled the pages of the city’s two 

main papers, the Detroit Free Press and the Detroit Advertiser and Tribune.  The Free 

Press was a Democratic paper, and the Advertiser and Tribune was a Republican paper.

  

Because of their respective political ideologies, the papers would often use different 

angles—and sometimes different facts—when reporting on the same event.  It is 

impossible to define exactly what it meant to be either a Republican or a Democrat in the 

1860s; like modern times, the political ideologies of the Civil War were more a spectrum

than two distinct camps.  However, as the two papers represented them, there were some 

key aspects to the ideologies of each party.  The Advertiser and Tribune represented a 

Radical Republican view.  The paper supported abolition absolutely and black rights to 

some extent.  The paper supported the war, and most of the time President Lincoln.  Its 

main criticism of the commander and chief was that he was not radical enough in his 

below tree trog   
ù
    support of emancipation, the use of black soldiers, and African-American 
ri
rights in 

general.   

 The Free Press supported the war as well—though not how it was being fought.  

This paper did not support Lincoln, and blamed the problems with the war on him and his 

administration. 
 The paper advocated white supremacy in every instance, and supported 

the war solely for the purpose of sustaining the union, not to end slavery or even to stop 

its expansion.  As far as the other issues of the day went, the Free Press was much more 

pro-labor and pro-working class than the Advertiser and Tribune.   

 In some ways both papers can be seen as vessels of their respective parties within 

the political culture of Detroit.  It is important, however, not to treat this representation as 

an absolute.  The papers were speaking as members of a party, to other members of that 

party, but they were not speaking for every member of the party that they represented.  

When looking at the events surrounding the riot it is important to keep in mind that the 

papers, especially the Free Press, were talking to a group of people that share, for the 

most part, similar beliefs.   

 Because of the inherent party conflict between the papers, they did not shy from 

attacking each other.  After the riot, the Advertiser and Tribune was very critical of city 

officials, but the paper reserved its harshest criticism for its competition.  On the seventh 

of March the Advertiser and Tribune ran a column in part condemning the mob but 

mostly accusing the Free Press of “intend[ing] to excite the ignorant and prejudiced 

against the negro primarily, and the secondarily against the Republicans….”4

  In the same 

issue, the Advertiser and Tribune said, “this is a Free Press mob!”  The next day the 

paper lead off with the headline: “The Free Press MThe article attempted to prove 

                                               

 “The Nature and Causes of the Riot.”  Detroit Advertiser and Tribune.

 March 7, 1863, afternoon ed.   Kundinger 3 

its allegation by citing several passages from the Free Press over the preceding months 

that it claimed to have “educated the ignorant mob up to the necessary ferocity.”

 Simple perusing of the papers makes it clear that the Free Press was more 

interested than the Advertiser and Tribune in stories that attacked African-Americans.  

This is neither unique nor surprising when the papers’ party affiliations are taken into 

account.  However, the Advertiser and Tribune’s accusations that the Free Press

deliberately incited the mob are unique.  I will first explain the facts of the riot.  Then, 

through a study of the Free Press in the months preceding the riot, I will examine the 

accusations of the Advertiser and Tribune and any culpability on the part of the Free 

Press.  While there is no evidence to show that the Free Press purposefully instigated the 

mob, it is clear that the paper expressed the same attitudes of hate and prejudice that 

caused the violence on March sixth.   

 The Free Press used blatant racism and stories that tied African-Americans to 

incendiary issues to form a racial rhetoric designed to portray blacks as not only inferior, 

but also as a threat.  The blatant racism—such as jokes about how blacks smell—served 

little purpose other than making fun of another race, and doing so in a way that made the 

paper’s white readers feel superior.  However, the paper also tried to incite fear and anger 

in its readers by reporting on hot issues—such as labor, war, citizenship, and morality—

and showing how blacks were a threat to whites, usually of the working class, within 

each of these broader issues.   

 To understand the perceived threat, one must take into account that during this 

time period a man’s role was as the head of his household.  In this role a man was 

supposed to provide for his family, protect his family, and serve as an upstanding citizen.

 This role as head of household was so ingrained that even the concept of citizenship was 

tied to it; one voted as the leader of his family, not solely for himself.  The articles in the 

Free Press portrayed threats that at their core can be seen as threats to a man’s role as the 

leader of his household.  The paper showed blacks as being dangerous to several of the 

functions that men identified as being their roles in life.    

 Before the coverage of the papers can be examined, the facts of the event must be 

understood. Anderson Ruffin Abbott (1837-1913), the son of refugees, became a medical doctor in Toronto. He volunteered in 1863 to serve as a surgeon in the United States Army during the American Civil War. He returned to Toronto after the American Civil War, practised medicine and became a coroner for Kent CountyPres