W[illiam] Garbutt to Frederick Douglass, November 17, 1854
COLUMBIA, Pa., Nov. 17, 1854.
MR. EDITOR: SIR:—Your argument on the subject of "Prejudice," as reported in the Standard, I shall not attempt to follow, but will take your own sentiments as found under the editorial head of your paper of Oct 6th.
You assert that "Poor Remond foolishly affirmed his belief that it was the black man's color—an assertion which, if true, takes this hateful prejudice out of the category of sin, pride and folly, and makes it natural, and therefore unblameworthy; for, to like black, blue, green or yellow, or to like neither black, blue, green or yellow, is a mere matter of taste, and no one can be blamed for their preference either way, or neither way; but very different is this to the feeling we denominate 'prejudice against color;' 'tis the very worst form and manifestation of human pride, selfishness and hatred, and which would manifest itself quite as violently, and as wickedly, if the victims were as white as the driven snow, instead of
being black."
The above extract embraces the whole force of your argument; and it is quite strange, friend Douglass, that this prejudice, which you regard as sinful when applied to condition, and which Mr. Green characterizes as "murderous everywhere," should so far change its nature when applied to color, that it loses its rank in the "category of sin," and dwindles into sinless "preference," or matter of taste. It will require a microscopic vision to discover the point or dividing line between "prejudice and preference." It must be as narrow as that which separates "light from heat," and its geographical boundary must lie between justice and injustice. I confess, I have no chart that will guide me to that peculiar spot. It does, however, appear to my mind that if it be sinful for this "murderous prejudice" to inflict its penalties on any people, on account of their condition, (when the fault of that condition may in part be the result of their own imprudent actors,) it would be equally sinful, if not more so, when applied to their complexions over which they can have no control.
Therefore, I am inclined to believe that Mr. R. would not have come nearer the mark if he had have been wise enough to have used the term condition, instead of color.
I do most heartily agree with your description of both "prejudice and preference." They are so universal in their nature and actions, that they do not separately belong to any one complexion, but are fostered by all complexions. You have admitted that sinless "preference" may rest on color; and until you prove that its concomitant "prejudice" may not also be against color, you will not have given a good reason why Remond's "admission" was a "foolish one."
Now, this leads us to the important inquiry, From whence do these "prejudices" and "preferences" emanate? Are they not wholly instinctive in their nature, and do they not represent the various emanations of the human heart, from the most excited purity to the most debasing corruption?
I assert that they are purely instinctive, and are not "endowed with brains," or the "reasoning faculties," or they would at least be entitled to "toleration," and might possibly be to the respect of mankind. They possess the same senses, and are guided by the same "light." They have the same power of seeing, hearing, tasting, and smelling, and therefore, it is very natural they should be attracted by the same objects. Or will you have the one roaming over the world in search of condition, while the other is reveling amid the variegated hues of complexion. It appears to my mind that "prejudice" is but "preference" intensified by "human pride, selfishness and hatred;" and that the same persons may be victimized by its influence in one community and idolized in another, and all on account of their complexions. For the proof of this assertion, I will refer you to Messrs. Douglass, Remond, Garnett, Pennington and Ward, and all others who have visited England, Ireland, and Wales, either on their own business, or as missionaries in the cause of the slaves or travelled throughout New England, as compared with Pennsylvania.
It will scarcely be denied that New England abolitionists have shown such a preference for the talents of colored men, that they have often eulogized their public efforts far beyond their own highest conception of their merits, and very far beyond what their "own people" conceived they were justly entitled to. Now, if this "prejudice" was founded on condition, it would not exist among the colored people themselves, because their condition and connexion with respect to liberty and slavery being the same, no cause for prejudice would exist; yet, however unwilling we may be to confess it, this same prejudice exercises an evil influence among the colored people, and has often affected the stability of their institutions, and the happiness of their social circles.
I will now refer to an argument used by Mr. Remond, which I have not seen contradicted, viz: "That color was the pivot on which this whole question turned." Now, if this be true, it is morally certain that if there was no pivot, or resting place, there would be no "turning," which, being legitimately interpreted, means that if there were no difference in the complexion of the people of this county, there would be no complexional prejudice.
It was both ingenious and logical in Mr. Green to say that "color was of no account." By the assertion he probably meant to show that this prejudice had not only existed, but could continue to exist without the attracting allurements of color. To this I will agree as an ancient question; and as it affected ancient nationalities, and the Quakers, Jews, Catholics, North American Indians, and perhap's a few others—and I will accept his definition as a "Biblical" question. It was the scourge of the Children of Israel, and its potency was felt by both Jews and Gentiles. It was visible at the Crucifixion of Christ, and the martyrdom of the Apostles, as well as in the Holy Cross and the Protestant Reformation.
Then the pivot on which this prejudice
rested or turned, was the invasion of some territory—national feud—birthright claim to sovereignty, or the profession of some new, pure, or idolatrous faith, or worldly distinctions, such as poverty and wealth, &c. But so far as this prejudice affects the colored population of this country, more of these impediments exist. They have no peculiar titles to territories, honors or wealth; and here, in this country, poverty is no crime.
They are not the advocates of any unpopular tenets of religious faith, and have no peculiar religion of their own, but have fostered and adopted the religious faith of those with whom they are surrounded.—Therefore, looking at this subject in the light of the past and present, I say I must differ with him when I say, that as an American question, the pivot on which this prejudice rests, is the "COLOR OF THE SKIN."
W. W.