Observer [James N. Still] to Frederick Douglass, January 11, 1855
LETTER FROM OBSERVER.
MR. EDITOR: SIR:—Instead of an entirely
original letter, I prefer to appear rather as
my own critic, or to make a little more plain
and definite some remarks in my letter of
Jan. 17th. It would, I must admit, have
been better to have examined more critically
the original manuscript. As to that, however,
manuscripts generally appear philosophical, t
ruthful and faultless in the eyes of
the writer—but not always so in the eyes of
the public, nor yet in those of other
individuals who may have an equal interest with
ourselves in examining the same subject.—
For instance, "Oliver" sees the faults, mistakes
and "mendacious blunders" of Communipaw,
sets him right, or tries to—and I
suppose thinks he succeeds. Barry sees
those of Langston's, and sets him right—
each one explains, defines, &c. Why, then,
should I not define, explain and set myself
right? To understand one's self, and to be
clearly understood by others, is not only
desirable, but important.
Just here, bye the bye, I would like to
make a suggestion—not only like to, but I will
make it. It may meet the eye and approval
of someone who will meet its requirements.
It is this—simply this—nothing but this—
that the said same one take weekly
cognizance of the article of each and every
correspondent, and "criticise" it as in his
judgment he may think best. This proposition
presupposes, of course, that the said critic
shall be a man of acknowledged abilities,
qualification and judgment.
The general character of each article,
including errors in grammar, logic, or general
statements, &c., to be summed up in as few
sentences as convenient. I know that there
are men who would not like to be so
criticised; and there are others who would not
need to be criticised. But in the main, it
would, I think, have a good effect, not only
on writers themselves, but to make those who
read them more attentive and observing.—
Nothing is so desirable at present as to enlist
the public ear. While there are those
who need not and would wish not to come
under the notice of the critic eye, who
presume always to be right, there is another
class who, like myself, are quite conscious
of their errors, and would like to have them
pointed out. Besides, whatever the workable
material we have should receive the best
possible direction. We have no time for
flimsy, trashy writings; and those who are
qualified to communicate their sentiments
on important subjects, clearly and successfully
should, by some means, be admonished
that they are most appreciated when they
Still, it may be "the business of some to
cater only what will foster happiness—what
will make us sing, life let us cherish, and
leave the weightier matter of the law for
others." But we think as your Assistant
Editor, "w," in his thrilling article of last
week, under the head of "What are we Doing,"
(the perusal of which we would most
earnestly commend to all, and especially to
the writer from whom the quotations above
are taken,) truthfully remarks—"This is not
the time for flattery. We should be painted
as we are—yes, with all the [scars?], if any,
upon our countenance. Let the picture be
a truthful one. We have been basking too
long already amid fantastic unrealities.
We have to deal with thumb-screws, and fetters,
and branding irons, and pro slavery clergymen,
and should be the last people in the
world to be lulled to sleep by pretty songs,
and enamored of pretty pictures."
But how could I help it. Besides, there
are but a few who notice or know or care
what you say, except you are assailing his
favorite "ism," or something of the kind.—There are but few who undertake or pretend
to maintain by their acts and writings any
position, policy or principle. Mr. A. is an
abolitionist, of course, from the fact that he
is a colored man, and must, therefore, to some
extent suffer with the slave. But still he
takes no interest in any feature of the anti-
slavery cause. He neither thinks nor feels
enough to pay two dollars to have the subject
presented to him and his family in its
various attigudes, relations, &., &., fifty-two
times in a year. But, doubt his sincerity, and
he would presume to be insulted. Mr. B.,
another very good, pious brother, goes a
half-dozen blocks past the shop of his colored
brother to trade with an Irishman or
Dutchman, who always votes against him
and rejects the access of [illegible] to workshops,
to participate in the manufacture of
the furniture, boots, hats, caps, &c., &c.,
which he gives them to make, or buys when
made. If we will give such our manufacturing
to do, in place of doing it ourselves, we
have no right to complain of their doing it
ALL themselves.
But "I am off the track again." And
while I now write, a poor, trembling and
severely frost-bitten fugitive hovers over my
stone, beside me, having just arrived from
the Palmetto State, and awaits the cessation
of the pittiless storm, for me to accompany
him to that branch of the U. G. R. R., that
loads through your city. But I have deviated
from my subject; so much so, that I
fear a critic, such as I have suggested, would
play the mischief with me.
Now to the point. I am made to say in
my article aforesaid, that we have been
persecuted for not regarding the Sabbath as
sacred, to preach for bleeding, dying
humanity. I intended to say, "for not regarding
the Sabbath as being too sacred to preach,
&c." I don't know. A word, however,
in regard to the Sabbath and the uses which
may be made of it. The uses to which the
Sabbath may be religiously put, and the
justification or utility of our holding an
alliance with pro-slavery churches, as to how
our recognition by that union, compliance,
&c., &c., implicates us in the sin of
slavery, or tends to reward the progress of
the anti-slavery cause, are questions that
should remain no longer undefined by every
colored community and every colored ministry
in the country. That the press and the
pulpit should be used and looked up to for
clear and unqualified expositions in these
and similar matters, there certainly can be
no question. Our ministers, however, evade
the consideration of them in their pulpits,
and seem but little inclined to use the press
for any purpose, nor even encourage it
among their congregations. We, for our
part, are not at all surprised at Mr. Watkins'
wailings and lamentations. He may well
ask, "what are we doing" in view of the
universal supineness, lethargy, and indifference.
We differ only from Mr. W. as regards
our field of operations. We claim
that we have interest to look after, promote,
and develop, all over this continent, and
particularly when there is unoccupied positions
that may be secured; and that is only the
man who takes a more limited view, who
would make these more northern and eastern
States the limit and present theatre of
war.
One thing, however, is certain, that we
must leave these large cities and throw
ourselves somewhere more on our own resources.
That is essential to the accumulation of
property, to the preservation of moral
character and to successful effort of whatever
kind, but more especially to insure respect
for ourselves and respect for each other, as
merit entitles us to it.
There is some talk here of organizing a
society of the laboring classes, for the purpose,
among other things, of securing more
constant, as well as more profitable, employ,
and of buying their provisions at wholesale,
and then divide them—a thing that should
have been done long since. But it is never
too late, &c.
OBSERVER.
BROOKLYN, L. I., Jan 11, '55.