How have racial or cultural references in 19th-century Jingle Bells lyrics been changed or removed over time?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Scholarly research and contemporary reporting show that "Jingle Bells" entered the public sphere in the 1850s as "One Horse Open Sleigh" and was performed in minstrel contexts — including a documented 1857 performance at Ordway's minstrel hall — which scholars say connects the tune to 19th‑century blackface minstrelsy even though the surviving lyrics themselves mostly describe sleighing and flirting [1] [2] [3]. Over time publishers and performers stripped explicit minstrel markers from sheet music and popular retellings (removing a dedication to Ordway and changing the frontispiece), and modern accounts differ on whether Pierpont intended racial mockery or whether the song’s minstrel association has simply been obscured by later popularization [3] [4] [5].
1. The original context: a minstrel stage appearance documented
Researchers have located a playbill showing "One Horse Open Sleigh" performed by Johnny Pell in September 1857 with Ordway’s Aeolians, a troupe associated with blackface minstrelsy; that performance is the clearest documentary link tying the tune’s earliest known public life to minstrel entertainment rather than to church or family caroling [2] [3].
2. What the 19th‑century lyrics actually say — and don’t say
The earliest printed and extant verses focus on sleighing, Miss Fanny Bright, flirting ("Take the girls tonight") and comic mishaps; the text that survived into mainstream editions contains no direct racial slurs or dialect lines in its common verses, which complicates claims that the song’s literal lyrics are overtly racist [6] [7] [8].
3. How minstrel markers were removed from print and public memory
Scholars note that later retitlings and reprints altered paratextual cues: for example, the 1859 retitled sheet removed a dedication to John P. Ordway and replaced frontispieces with neutral bell engravings — a process historians characterize as erasing the song’s immediate theatrical ties to minstrelsy even while its performance history remained linked to that repertoire [3].
4. Scholarly disagreement over intent and meaning
Kyna Hamill and other theatre historians argue the song circulated within a commercial minstrel culture and that elements of performance practice (dandy display, comic laughter) align it with racialized stage traditions; Hamill cautions that the minstrel context has been "subtly and systematically removed" from popular histories [5] [9]. Hamill herself, according to reporting, has said her work documents performance history rather than asserting a direct, singular intention by Pierpont to write a racist song — a nuance sometimes lost in public debates [10].
5. Popular retellings and modern controversy
In recent years viral videos and media figures have foregrounded the minstrel connection, prompting widespread headlines and partisan responses that range from describing the carol as rooted in racist mockery to dismissing those claims as overreach; both camps rely on the same historical scholarship but emphasize different conclusions about culpability and what should follow from the history [11] [9] [12].
6. What changed in the lyrics or presentation over time
Practically speaking, the most consistent changes were editorial and performative: publishers and performers altered or omitted verses deemed risqué (flirtatious lines), retitled the song, and removed explicit links to Ordway’s minstrel enterprise; the familiar chorus and sanitized verses became codified through recordings and sheet music even as the minstrel origin receded from popular narratives [1] [8] [3].
7. Limitations and open questions
Available sources document the minstrel performance and the removal of certain paratextual identifiers from prints [3] [2], but they do not provide definitive evidence that every subsequent lyric change was motivated solely by an effort to hide racist origins; some changes respond to propriety, commercial taste, or simple abbreviation for popular singing [13] [14]. Available sources do not mention a comprehensive list of every altered line across all 19th‑century printings.
8. Takeaway for readers
History shows the difference between a song’s literal surviving lyrics and its performance context: "Jingle Bells" as most people sing it today is lyrically benign, but key documentary evidence ties its early mass circulation to minstrel performance traditions; historians such as Hamill argue that those origins were obscured by later editorial choices, while other commentators emphasize that the song’s present text lacks explicit racialized language [5] [6]. Understanding both strands — textual content and theatrical context — is essential to an honest account of how cultural works change and how uncomfortable histories are sometimes effaced [3] [4].