THE COUNTRY struggling to find a new equilibrium in the aftermath of the Civil War, Shepherd—and Washington—faced numerous challenges. Shepherd used the years after the war to build his fortune and establish himself as a major player on the local scene while crafting a strategy to consolidate the District of Columbia and change its form of governance. An additional distraction—and spur to action—was the per sis tent campaign to “remove” the nation’s capital closer to the geographic center of the expanding nation. Membership on the Levy Court1 would provide Shepherd with a vehicle for launching trial political balloons on Washington’s future.
Shepherd’s tactics, if not his strategy, on one issue—the civil rights aspirations of Washington’s black citizens—appeared to change after he resigned from the Common Council and was defeated in his bid for alderman in 1864. He had repeatedly offered views on racial issues in the past, opposing both the black franchise and attempts to put blacks “on an equality” with whites. His use of what would today be considered racist language (e.g., “darkies”), while not uncommon at the time, suggests a paternalistic attitude at minimum. As the 1860s drew to an end and the District’s black citizens obtained the vote, Shepherd downplayed his racial views by promoting consolidation of the District of Columbia charter in the name of government efficiency and economic prosperity. He abandoned explicit calls for black subordination, despite continuing to champion policies that would eliminate black suffrage.
Washington’s black residents were well aware of the changed political environment brought about by the defeat of the Confederacy. Following the District of Columbia Emancipation Act of April 16, 1862, the city’s black population intended to push for full rights as Americans. Black Washingtonians, with Radical Republican congressional support, fought for the vote.2 More than 2,500 of the city’s leading black residents petitioned Congress in fall 1865, arguing for political equality on the grounds that “we are intelligent enough to be industrious, to have accumulated property, to build and sustain churches and institutions of learning. . . . We are intelligent enough to be amenable to the same laws and punishable alike with others for the infraction of said laws. . . . Without the right of suffrage we are without protection and liable to combinations of outrage.”3 Partly in response to such pleas, the Thirty-Ninth Congress opened its first session in December 1865 with submission of bills in both houses to extend the franchise to all black male D.C. residents over the age of twenty-one.
White Washingtonians overwhelmingly opposed black voting rights and in a December plebiscite voted resoundingly against it. In Washington City, whites were 6,591 against and 35 in favor, while in Georgetown, the vote was 712 against, with only one in favor. Washington mayor Richard Wallach complained that supporters of black voting rights had “little association, less sympathy, and no community of interest with the city of Washington,” describing them as only temporary residents who “claim and invariably exercise the right of franchise elsewhere.”4 Radical Republicans in Congress were outraged by such views. Representative George Julian (R-Ind.) summarized the Radical perspective in a House speech: “The ballot should be given to the negroes as a matter of justice to them. It should also be done as a matter of retributive justice to the slaveholders and rebels. . . . That contempt for the negro and scorn of free industry which constituted the mainspring of the rebellion cropped out [in Washington] during the war in every form.”5
While he followed these matters closely, Shepherd had other, pressing concerns. He had set his sights on using his plumbing and gas fitting as well as his home construction operations to make himself a major economic force in Washington. What motivated him to pursue this goal is unknown, but it is not a stretch to think that the premature death of his father, the collapse of family finances, and the necessity for his mother to open a boarding house to pay the bills played an important part. It was already apparent that he was by nature an active and determined person. Shepherd demonstrated a talent for business that suited the freewheeling era after the Civil War that came to be known as the “Gilded Age.” This period, given its nickname by Mark Twain and Charles Dudley Warner in their novel of the same name published in 1873, was characterized by weak or ineffectual presidents, congressional malleability, and the creation of some of the nation’s largest fortunes at the time. It was a time when ambitious men (and women) would reject waiting their turn or for approval from their social betters to pursue personal ambition.
New interest in the nation’s capital made it attractive to newcomers, many from the North or West, with money, ambition, or both. Shepherd was among the most consequential of this new generation of Washingtonians. Despite his financial success, the “old citizens” of Washington, whose families were not necessarily more than a generation or two older than his, closed their social ranks to him. Boston, Philadelphia, New York, even Baltimore, all had urban pedigrees going back much farther than Washington, so Shepherd considered himself an ideal candidate to thrive in the changing environment in Washington.6
While he concentrated on building his commercial and social base, Shepherd continued to devote time and energy to laying the groundwork for his vision of remaking Washington. He was well suited in several respects for this role: he was a staunch Republican but socially conservative, thus able for a while to bridge the gap between the Radical Republicans in Congress pushing for integrating blacks into the mainstream of America and the hostile but influential Washington white population who wanted nothing to do with the political equality of the races. Through his tenure on the Levy Court, Shepherd carried on, as he had during his three terms on the Washington City Common Council, experimenting with forms of local government.
Shepherd’s business efforts were rewarded with success. His rapidly increasing wealth tracked closely with his growing influence in Washington affairs. He first made the list of well-to-do Washington taxpayers in 1865, with reported taxable income of $3,350 (local banker George Washington Riggs topped the list with $54,681). Shepherd was in a group of up-and-coming businessmen that included gas company president Joseph F. Brown, contractor John O. Evans, builder Moses Kelly, Evening Star part owner Samuel H. Kauffmann, and John H. Semmes, a prominent local political figure.7 Among influential local Washington residents, attitudes toward Shepherd were tolerant, if not congenial, as long as he focused on business and advocated reforming local government from the sidelines.
The group of leading Washington income earners was diverse: Riggs, a banking partner of William Wilson (W. W.) Corcoran, had become wealthy from marketing bonds to fund the Mexican-American War. Moses Kelly, a contractor-builder, partnered frequently with Shepherd in building homes in the District of Columbia and was politically supportive. Samuel H. Kauffmann, originally from Ohio, where he published a small newspaper, became a part owner with Shepherd of the Evening Star in 1867 and also supported Shepherd’s political endeavors. John Evans, a builder who was to receive many contracts from the Board of Public Works, was a trustee of Shepherd’s Washington Club.8 John Semmes, sharing a Charles County family background with Shepherd, had served as alderman on the Washington City Council during the Civil War while Shepherd was on the Common Council.9 Only Joseph Brown, head of the gas company, was a thorn in Shepherd’s side, and the two had clashed repeatedly on the City Council.
By 1866 Shepherd’s taxable income had jumped dramatically, to $29,244, placing him between Riggs, the banker ($12,296), and financier Henry D. Cooke ($69,659).10 Shepherd’s taxable income in 1867 ranked seventh among thirty-six individuals making more than $10,000 a year.11 By 1870 Shepherd was listed as the fourth wealthiest Washingtonian, with personal property of $117,000. Only Corcoran ($228,000), A. H. Herr ($177,000), and Cooke ($152,000) exceeded him.12 In keeping with his increasing wealth and business stature, Shepherd made sure to present an image of wealth and success. Daughter Grace captured the private man in a charming reminiscence written after her father’s death:
Father was bodily, next to Mother, the cleanest mortal I ever knew. Water, soap, toilet vinegar and bay rum! He was as finicky as a fastidious girl about linen and clothes, a dandy in fine shirts made to order, thin ribbed silk underclothes, finest linen handkerchiefs, usually embroidered with his A.R.S. . . . always, perhaps since his children vied for gifts suitable for him.
No one darned skillfully enough to mend his fine lisle hose except Mother. His shirts were made to order