We Will Meet Only to Growl: Interview Given in Washington, D.C., on September 12, 1883
WE WILL MEET ONLY TO GROWL: INTERVIEW GIVEN IN
WASHINGTON, D.C., ON 12 SEPTEMBER 1883
New York , 12 September 1883.
The proposal for a National Colored Convention to meet in Louisville, Kentucky,
in September 1883 generated months of controversy in the black community.
The formal call for the meeting, with Douglass as the first signatory,
had been published in newspapers in late April. The convention summons
proved deeply divisive. Richard T. Greener, former dean of the law school of
Howard University, whose name appeared on the call without his authorization,
immediately and angrily attacked the convention organizers as office
seekers. Charges of fraud in the selection of delegates to the convention from
the District of Columbia and elsewhere intensified the dispute. Several news-
papers speculated that the disagreement over holding the convention was
largely a generational one, and the Philadelphia urged
younger men such as Greener to let the veterans of the antislavery struggle
have their say. Loyalty to the Republican party was also at issue. John Mercer
Langston urged loyalty; the New York said that Douglass believed in
loyalty, “but he further believes that judicious kicking leads to wholesome
results.” White Republicans opposed the convention; Douglass suggested in
an interview in the Washington on 8 May that “the republican presses
betray a fear that the convention will be anti-republican, while the colored
editors fear that the convention will be controlled by the existing administration.”
On 12 September, shortly before departing Washington, D.C., for the
Louisville convention, Douglass gave a longer interview to a reporter from the
New York , concerning his expectation for the gathering. Rosetta
D[ouglass] Sprague to Douglass, 26 July 1883, Douglass to Blanche K.
Bruce, 28 August 1883. Blanche K. Bruce to Douglass, 28 August 1883,
General Correspondence File, reel 3, frames 762-63, 770-72, 772-73, FD
Papers, DLC; Charleston (S.C.) , 3 May 1883; Washington
, 5, 12 May, 14, 28 July 1883; Washington , 8 May 1883;
Washington , 12, 19 May, 2, 23 June, 14 July 1883; New
York , 19 May, 2 June, 22 September 1883; Philadelphia , 24, 31 May 1883; Chicago , 8 September 1883.
WASHINGTON, September 12.—A WORLD correspondent called on
Mr. Fred Douglass this afternoon at his beautiful home on Uniontown Hill,
overlooking the city. His parlor is hung around with pictures and portraits.
A life-size picture of Lincoln occupies the place of honor, and opposite it is
a large-sized frame containing “The Friends of Freedom,” portraits of the
leading anti-slavery agitators of twenty-five years ago. On the walls just
beyond are portraits of Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton.
“Mr. Douglass,” asked the correspondent, “what do you think will be
done at the coming convention of colored men at Louisville?”
Brushing back the long white hair from his forehead he looked steadily
for a full minute at the pictures on the wall before he broke the silence.
“It will be pretty hard to tell what this convention will do,” he answered.
“Of course it cannot ignore politics entirely, for now that the
colored man is a citizen, a voter and a taxpayer the question of politics and
the party that is to govern the country in which he lives is one of vital
interest to him as well as to any other citizen. Still, it is not the intention to
make it a political convention.”
“What is its main object?”
“The advancement of the condition of the colored race. True, we have
many privileges now; we have the elective franchise and some of us hold
office, but we have not all that we feel that we, as citizens, are entitled to
ask and expect. The laws as they stand are all right enough. If they were
enforced they would give us all the privileges that we require. What we
want is the more thorough enforcement of the laws in the South, so that the
colored citizen may enjoy the privileges that the Constitution and the laws
confer upon him. We want the right to vote unmolested, to have the jury
privileges that the law gives us and we want better educational privileges.
We want an honest day’s wage for an honest day’s work, so that our citizens
may gain for themselves homes and intelligence and self-respect and the
respect of the country and the world.”
“Then you will not ask that any new laws shall be enacted?”
THEY WILL MERELY GROWL.
“No, we shall merely growl because those that we have are not enforced.”
“Do you really think that is the case?”
“The fact that we are in the majority by from 30,000 to 80,000 in
several States of the South1The U.S. Census of 1880 reported a greater number of black than white residents in Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina. U.S. Bureau of the Census, , 333. and yet get, nothing in any of them shows that
there must be some truth in the frequently published statements that the
colored man is denied the elective franchise.”
“But if the convention is to be a growl, as you term it, it must growl at
the Republican party and must have some political effect!”
“Yes, it will probably have some effect. I imagine that it will alienate
some voters from the Republican party, but not a large number. There will
probably be some pretty loud complaints and a loud cry for more offices.
There is trouble in our kitchen and Oliver Twist wants more,2Douglass alludes to the famous scene in the second chapter of Charles Dickens’s novel where the title character, at his first dinner at the workhouse, requests more gruel. Gilbert A. Pierce, (1872; New York, 1965), 100-01. and this fact
will have its effect upon the voters of the party.”
“What percentage of the colored vote will it take away from the
Republican party?”
“That is pretty hard to estimate. I don’t think the percentage will be
sufficiently large to make any material change in the relations of the two
parties, though it is undoubtedly true that the colored element now holds
the balance of power between the two parties.”
“What percentage of the colored vote is now Democratic?”
“Somewhere from 5 to 10 per cent, probably not over 5 per cent, as a
whole, though in some States of the South it is greater. In Georgia, for
instance, I presume 10 per cent, or more of the colored vote is Democratic.
There are circumstances under which it would be much larger.”
“What circumstances, Mr. Douglass?”
BUTLER AND THE NEGROES.
“Well, the nomination of Ben Butler by the Democrats. If Ben Butler
were nominated by the Democrats or by any other party he would carry a
very heavy vote among the colored people of the South.3Benjamin Butler had returned to the Democratic party in 1878 after sixteen years as a Republican and won election as Massachusetts governor in 1882. In that office, Butler courted the support of the state's burgeoning working-class population. In the spring of 1884, two minor parties, the National Greenback-Labor party and the Anti-Monopoly party, offered him their presidential nomination. At that time Butler still hoped to receive the nomination of the Democratic party and delayed responding to the smaller groups. He played a leading role in the Democratic National Convention of 1884 where he unsuccessfully fought to add planks favoring currency inflation and a protective tariff to the platform. After attracting practically no support for his own candidacy, Butler backed Thomas A. Hendricks of Indiana. When the Democrats instead nominated Grover Cleveland of New York, Butler bolted the party and accepted the combined Greenback and Anti-Monopoly nominations. In a number of states, Butler attempted to fuse his electoral slate with the weaker of the two major parties. When these efforts failed he concentrated on courting Democrats unhappy with Cleveland and almost brought the Tammany Hall machine into his camp. On election day, Butler received a disappointing 175,000 votes out of ten million cast. Richard S. West, Jr., (Boston, 1965), 366, 382-432; Howard P. Nash, Jr., (Rutherford, N.J., 1969), 277-97; Robert S. Holzman, (New York, 1954). 224-29; Schlesinger, , 2: 1569-72. Ben was the hero
of New Orleans, you know, and it was he that invented the term, ‘contraband
of war.’ The colored people of the South think very highly of him for
this and for the advice that he has given them since. He could get a vote in
the South that no other Democrat could. His nomination would make the
South solid for the Democrats beyond a peradventure.”
“Is there any probability that the convention will declare for him?”
“No, I think not. I don’t think it will declare for anybody; nor is it
likely to declare against the Republican party or in favor of the Democrats.
If it makes any declarations for anybody it will probably be in favor of
Robert Lincoln.4The eldest child of Abraham and Mary Todd Lincoln, Robert Todd Lincoln (1843-1926) was born in Springfield, Illinois. Educated at Phillips Exeter Academy and Harvard College, Lincoln studied law for four months at the Harvard Law School before joining the staff of General Ulysses S. Grant. On leaving the army after the Civil War, Lincoln resumed his law studies in Chicago and was admitted to the bar there in 1867. Active in Republican politics, Lincoln accepted the appointment as secretary of war by President James Garfield in 1881 and served until 1885. At the Republican National Convention of 1884 Lincoln received only a few votes for president but was a leading contender for the second spot on the ticket until he refused to have his name put forward. He returned to public life in 1889 when President Benjamin Harrison named him ambassador to England. Lincoln was later president of the Pullman Company, but resigned in 1911 because of declining health. John S. Goff, (Norman, Okla, 1969); , 11: 266-67. He has made a capable and wise official, and the name
and memory of his father are very dear to the colored people. I think
Lincoln is the strongest man on the Republican side with them, and Butler
the strongest on the Democratic side.”
NOT AN ARTHUR BOOM.
“You have been charged, Mr. Douglass, with calling the convention in
the interest of the present Chief Magistrate?”5Chester Arthur.
“There are two mistakes in that charge. In the first place, I did not call
the convention. It was called before I knew anything about it, and my name
was put on the committee without my knowledge. Of course I couldn’t
refuse to do anything likely to be of benefit to the race, and so I consented
to do the work assigned me. I had nothing to do with the origin of the
movement. As to its relations to the President, I don’t think it has any. If it
has I don’t know it. If there is any scheme to indorse or in any way boom
the present Administration I don’t know it. I believe that the colored voters
feel kindly towards the President, though there has been nothing in his
course especially affecting their interests in any manner. But I don’t think
the convention is to be manipulated in his interest at all. I don’t think it will
nominate or indorse anybody for the Presidency, or ask a place for any
colored man on the national ticket as has been intimated, but it will probably
take pretty bold ground and rather hold itself aloof from any entangling
alliance, waiting to see what time and the party nominations and platforms
may develop.”