Uriah Boston to Frederick Douglass, September 28, 1855
URIAH BOSTON1A black barber from Poughkeepsie, Uriah Boston (1815-89) was born free in Pennsylvania. He corresponded regularly with many newspapers, including Horace Greely’s New York Tribune, the New York Colored American, and the Albany Patriot as well as Frederick Douglass’ Paper. Despite his advocacy of disunionism, Boston supported political abolitionism and the attempt by New York African American males to remove all restrictions on their voting. Ripley, Black Abolitionist Papers, 4:278-80; Foner and Walker, Black State Conventions, 1:81, 89. TO FREDERICK DOUGLASS
[n.p.] [28 September 1855.]
MR. EDITOR:—
Your kind notice of my first communication on this subject,2Douglass published an undated letter from “U.B.” in Frederick Douglass’s Paper on 31 August 1855. In an editorial response in the same issue, Douglass branded U.B.’s arguments supporting the dissolution of the Union as a means to end slavery “unsafe, unsound, and unwarrantable.” He concluded, “But you are not the only one who has failed to convince us on this point. Try again.” the objec-
tions made by you to the position taken, or which is the same thing, to
the results cast up by me, and a desire I cherish, to benefit what I can my
fellow beings, prompts me to reply to your objections; let me make myself
understood, as that is important. To this end, I remark, 1st. While the
South have not ceased to threaten the North with the cry of dissolution,3An allusion to the “Unionist” position taken by many Northern Whigs and Democrats on sectionally divisive issues. While often professing ethical, economic, or ideological opposition to slavery, such political leaders had opposed abolitionism as well as far milder antislavery proposals and instead supported various sectional “compromises” in order to avoid creating worries in the South about the security of that institution under the U.S. Constitution. Holt, The Political Crisis of the 1850s, 17-33; John M. McFaul, “Expediency vs. Morality: Jacksonian Politics and Slavery,” Journal of American History, 62:24-39 (June 1975).
Northern Representatives, in Congress, and Northern political leaders,
have not failed when called to an account for their treachery to freedom,
to make it the scape-goat for all their political sins. Here lies the secret of
our failures on the slavery question; and we suffer ourselves to be hum-
buged and fooled by this Southern scare-crow. The South should be made
to understand, that the Union is of more value to them, than it is to the
North. My opinion is, that, if the South really believed and felt conscious
that the Northern people desired to have the Union dissolved, we would
hear no more about dissolution from that quarter. It was this opinion that
prompted my former communication. And now, I will briefly notice your
objections. 1st. There is but a very small portion of the 5 millions South-
erners,4According to the 1850 U.S. Census, the white population of the slave states was 6,184, 477, and the total number of slaves living in those states was 3,200,138. In 1860 the census reported the total number of slaves as 3,953,760, and the white population of the slave states as 8,036,700. Richard H. Steckel, “The African American Population of the United States, 1790-1920,” in A Population History of North America, ed. Michael R. Haines and Richard H. Steckel (New York, 2000), 435; Otto H. Olsen, “Historians and the Extent of Slave Ownership in the Southern United States,” Civil War History, 18:101-16 (June 1972). who can use “bayonets,” and a smaller portion still, who would
use them against the slaves. It is estimated that there are 250,000 slave-
holders in the South.5In 1850 the U.S. Census listed 347,725 slaveholders in the United States. That figure is probably too low. In its instructions to the enumerators, the Census Bureau stipulated that only the head of each slave-owning household was to be counted as a slaveholder, since “the principal object [was] to get the number of slaves, and not that of masters or owners.” As a result, the figure is more accurately a reflection of how many slaveholding households there were in the United States in 1850, rather than the total number of slave owners. This same caveat holds true for the 395,216 slaveholders recorded in the 1860 U.S. Census. Diane Mutti Burke, On Slavery’s Border: Missouri’s Small-Slaveholding Households, 1815-1865 (Athens, Ga., 2010), 108; Susan B. Carter et al., eds., Historical Statistics of the United States: Earliest Times to the Present, Millennial Edition, 5 vols. (New York, 2006), 2: 379. This is the highest estimate, I have seen. But admit
this to be a true estimate, we may safely conclude, that many of these are
unfit to take part in any effort to put down slave insurrections. Others
would flee the instant danger was apprehended; others again are timid
and tender. On the other hand, the slaves are hardy, being used to rough
usage, and though ignorant, they are brave, and would, if properly led and
controlled, by some daring leader, be too formidable a force for any army
of high lived slaveholders, that could be brought against them. In addition
to this, there are many of the whites there, who would take sides with the
slaves. There are others from the North, that would be glad of an oppor-
tunity to aid the slaves for freedom’s sake; others, for plunder, and others
again out of ill will toward the stiff, aristocracy of the South. Combine
all these and they would never fail to brake every yoke. Secondly. With
regard to the welfare of the slaves, they would be placed in a position to
be benefited. Some would be benefited, others would not. On the whole I
believe even the slaves, would be benefited by an insurrection, whither it
would succeed or fail. I do not say that I desire this, but, I do believe, that
we would witness an insurrection within ten years after the dissolution
of the Union, that would shake the very foundation of the slave system. I
repeat, I do not desire such an event, but as the South make such a hobby
of dissolution, and as this would follow as one of the results of dissolution,
I should not regret it, but should feel to rejoice over it, upon the principle
of divine authority, as it is written: “wo[e] unto the wicked, for the reward
of his hands shall be given him, and he shall eat the fruit of his doings."6Isa. 3:10-11.
I believe in divine justice as well as in divine benevolence, and one of the
strongest convictions of my Christian faith is, that I shall be able cheer-
fully to say Amen, to God’s punishment of the incorrigibly wicked. “Then
the wicked shall cease from troubling, and the weary shall be at rest, and
the servant shall be released from his master."7Job 3:17, 19.
The last and only objection remaining to be noticed, is the one relative
to “accessions to colored churches,” with regard to which, permit me to
say, that, though I should rather see no distinctive organizations of “col-
ored people” yet, as they are already existing, and that according to the
will of the greater portion of the people, as the best that can be had at the
present, I can see no reason why they should not be improved, both in
numbers and respectability.—The only result that I at present cheerfully
acquiesce in, and heartily desire, is the grand final result—the destruction
of slavery. The others are the means to an end. I cannot see how any one
can doubt, that the speedy downfall of slavery, would follow the dissolu-
tion of the Union. Slavery is a system of weakness, and, if left to maintain
itself, must die. This is especially true of American slavery, at this age.
Why ask for proof to a self-evident fact. A man fatally diseased at the
vitals is diseased in every limb; so is a system, and slavery being a system
thus diseased, must die. If you say it is a healthy, sound system, than I
shall be willing to dissect it, and prove its unsoundness. This I think you
will not say, and therefore I drop the matter for the present.
As I said before, I believe slavery is a weak system, and it has, within
itself, the elements of death. It is a sick thing, kept alive by its connection
with the North. Now, if this sick thing would behave itself, I would bear
with it, but seeing it will give us no peace, but is all the while rumpusing,
and boasting of its deeds of daring, and its strength, I say cut it lose and
let us see what will come of it. Slavery reminds me of an aged piece of
poetry, which personifies a certain personage who did live, but, did live
hard. It runs thus:
‘“Hunty-bunty on the wall,
Hunty-bunty got a fall,
All the doctors in the land,
Couldn’t make Hunty-bunty stand."8U.B. makes a literary allusion to “Humpty Dumpty,” which first appeared in Mother Goose’s Melody in 1803, but references to a boiled concoction of ale and brandy, known as humpty-dumpty, date back to 1698. Knowles, Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, 567; OED, 2d ed. (online).
Let me add in conclusion that I hope “all the doctors in the land” will
let “Hunty-bunty” alone, and use their skill to better purpose.—At all
events I hope the better portion of the family will consent to let “Hunty-
bunty” have his own way,—let him go out and try his weakness.
Respectfully,
U.B.
PLIr: FDP, 26 October 1855.