How to Read Political Cartoons as Primary Sources: Satire as Historical Evidence

In 1754, a reader of the Pennsylvania Gazette unfolded the paper to see a startling image: a snake cut into eight pieces, each segment labeled with a colonial abbreviation, and beneath it the ominous command, “Join, or Die.” That reader—a colonist, a printer, a politician—would have instantly grasped the meaning: the British colonies must unite against the French and their Native American allies, or face destruction. This was Benjamin Franklin’s “The Join or Die” cartoon, one of the earliest and most famous political cartoons in American history. For the contemporary reader, the image was immediate and urgent, a visual editorial that required no text to convey its warning. But for the modern historian, it is a primary source that opens a window into the anxieties, loyalties, and political language of the mid-eighteenth century.

Political cartoons have been a staple of public discourse since the eighteenth century, appearing in newspapers, broadsides, and magazines. They are, as the TeachingHistory.org guide notes, “vivid primary sources that offer intriguing and entertaining insights into the public mood, the underlying cultural assumptions of an age, and attitudes toward key events or trends of the times.” To read them as evidence, we must learn to decode their visual language, understand their historical context, and treat them with the same caution we apply to any document. This article provides a framework for that analysis, drawing on examples from British and American history and the guidance of archival institutions like the National Archives and the Library of Congress.

What Happened?

The political cartoon as a distinct genre emerged in the early eighteenth century in Britain, where artists like William Hogarth and later James Gillray and George Cruikshank used satire to comment on politics, social mores, and public figures. In America, Benjamin Franklin’s “The Join or Die” (1754) is often cited as the first American political cartoon, and it was reprinted and adapted during the American Revolution and the Civil War. Throughout the nineteenth century, cartoons became a regular feature of newspapers, especially with the rise of illustrated weeklies like Punch (founded 1841) in Britain and Harper’s Weekly (1857) in the United States.

The National Archives provides a brief history of cartoons in Britain, noting that they have been used “to comment on politics and society” since the eighteenth century. For example, a cartoon by George Cruikshank from 1820 depicted Queen Caroline, whose divorce trial from King George IV became a public spectacle. The cartoon commented on the royal scandal, appealing to public sentiment.

For historians, political cartoons are primary sources because they are contemporaneous artifacts—created at the time, by people who lived in that time, for an audience that shared the same cultural references. They are not neutral records; they are arguments, often exaggerated and one-sided. Yet precisely because of that, they reveal what contemporaries believed, feared, and laughed at. The Library of Congress has assembled a primary source set on “Political Cartoons and Public Debates,” including Franklin’s “Join or Die,” to illustrate how these images shaped and reflected public discourse.

Key developments in the history of political cartoons include:

• 1754: Benjamin Franklin publishes “The Join or Die” in the Pennsylvania Gazette.
• 1780s-1820s: British satirists like James Gillray and George Cruikshank produce thousands of cartoons for the London market.
• 1841: Punch magazine is founded in London, establishing the political cartoon as a regular feature.
• 1850s-1900: American newspapers like Harper’s Weekly and Puck popularize the “Thomas Nast” style of cartooning, influencing elections and public opinion.

How It Was Seen at the Time

For contemporaries, political cartoons were a familiar and effective form of commentary. They were read by a largely literate audience who understood the visual conventions and allusions of the day. A cartoonist like Cruikshank could assume that his viewers knew the personalities and events being ridiculed. The National Archives advises that to use cartoons as sources, “we need to learn how to read them and figure out their historical context.” That context includes the political debates, the cultural references, and the specific events that the cartoonist referenced.

At the time, cartoons were often seen as a form of entertainment, but they were also taken seriously as propaganda. The Library of Congress notes that political cartoons “have been a part of public debate” since the 18th century. They were used to persuade, to mock, and to rally. For example, during the American Revolution, cartoons like “The Bostonians Paying the Excise-Man” (1774) depicted colonists tarring and feathering a customs officer, which was a real event but also a symbol of resistance. The image was designed to rally support for the colonial cause.

Contemporaries did not always agree with the cartoon’s message. Some readers might have found the satire offensive, while others laughed. But the cartoon was a recognized part of the public sphere, a place where ideas were contested and opinions shaped. As TeachingHistory.org explains, cartoons offer “insights into the public mood, the underlying cultural assumptions of an age, and attitudes toward key events or trends of the times.”

“Political cartoons are vivid primary sources that offer intriguing and entertaining insights into the public mood, the underlying cultural assumptions of an age, and attitudes toward key events or trends of the times.” — TeachingHistory.org

Historical Snapshot

What People Knew at the Time

Contemporaries had a wealth of knowledge that modern readers often lack. They knew the key political figures, the events of the day, and the popular symbols and allusions that cartoonists used. For example, a cartoon of Queen Caroline in 1820 would have been immediately understood by a British reader who knew the scandal of the king’s divorce trial. A modern viewer must research the context to appreciate the meaning.

This table compares the knowledge of a contemporary viewer with what we know now:

Different Perspectives

The Cartoonist’s Perspective

The cartoonist was an active participant in the political debate, not a neutral observer. They often had a specific point of view, whether it was a loyalist, a reformer, or a satirist. For example, George Cruikshank’s caricatures of Queen Caroline were sympathetic to her cause, while other artists mocked her. The cartoonist’s perspective is embedded in the image, and we must account for it.

The Audience’s Perspective

The audience read cartoons within their own social and political context. A cartoon that might be seen as harmless by one group could be seen as dangerous by another. For instance, a cartoon that mocked the king could be seditious to a loyalist, but a rallying cry to a reformer. The National Archives warns that “there are certain things you need to watch out for when using cartoons as sources. Just like written documents, treat them with caution.” This includes the fact that cartoons are not neutral records; they are created to persuade or mock.

What the Sources Got Wrong

Political cartoons are not objective. They exaggerate, distort, and sometimes lie. They simplify complex issues into a single image, and they often rely on stereotypes. For example, a cartoon from the American Civil War might depict the enemy as a brutal savage, or a political rival as a monkey. These caricatures are not meant to be accurate portrayals but to evoke an emotional response.

Historians must be aware of these distortions. The National Archives advises that “Just like written documents, treat them with caution.” The cartoonist’s purpose is to persuade, not to record fact. Therefore, the historical evidence they provide is about the beliefs and attitudes of the time, not necessarily about the factual reality of the events. For instance, a cartoon that shows a politician as a devil may not reflect the actual character of that person, but it reveals the hatred or fear that the cartoonist and his audience felt.

Common Misconceptions

How Historians See It Today

Modern historians treat political cartoons as a rich but challenging primary source. They use systematic methods to analyze them: first, they identify the cartoonist, the publication, and the date; second, they research the historical context—the events, people, and issues of the time; third, they decode the visual elements (symbols, allegories, caricatures); and fourth, they consider the intended audience and the purpose of the cartoon. This method is outlined by TeachingHistory.org, which offers a framework for interpreting political cartoons in the classroom. The Library of Congress also provides a primary source set that includes cartoons and suggests questions for analysis.

Historians also recognize that cartoons are not “transparent” records. They are constructions, and they must be read with a critical eye. The National Archives emphasizes the need to “treat them with caution,” just as with any other source. Today’s historians see cartoons as valuable evidence of the *mentalité*—the shared beliefs, fears, and assumptions—of a past society. They do not take the cartoon’s message at face value but use it to understand the range of opinions and the emotional tone of the era.

Conclusion

Political cartoons are a unique and powerful form of primary source. They combine the visual and the verbal to capture a moment in time, not as a neutral record, but as a passionate argument. By learning to read them—by decoding their symbols, understanding their historical context, and recognizing their biases—we gain a vivid sense of how people in the past saw their world. As Benjamin Franklin’s “Join or Die” reminds us, a single image can speak volumes about the fears and hopes of an age. The primary sources teach us that history is not just a list of facts but a world of opinions, anxieties, and dreams, and that the cartoonist’s pen is a powerful tool for preserving that world.