Nubia to Frederick Douglass, November 23, 1854
For Frederick Douglass' Paper.
FROM OUR SAN FRANCISCO CORRESPONDENT.
SAN FRANCISCO, Nov. 23, 1854.
FREDERICK DOUGLASS: SIR:—I resume
my pen, for the purpose of giving you a
sketch of what we are doing. We are
beginning to experience those difficulties, among
ourselves, which are so familiar to all in the
Atlantic States. I mean those petty jealousies
occasioned by a difference of locality;
this is to be depricated at all times, but
especially when united action is indispensible
to the accomplishment of our purposes.
A short time since, a meeting was
called by the colored people in this place
to consider their condition, and the
measures necessary in view of such condition.
The meeting resulted in the adoption and
publication of resolutions expressive of their
rights and wrongs, their actual condition
and intentions, exhortations to their
brethren in other parts of the State, to unite
with them and make one grand effort for the
attainment of the objects desired. A response
was made to these resolutions by the
colored friends of Sacramento City, in the
shape of [resolutions?] [embracing?] all the ideas
contained in the San Francisco resolutions,
with the exception of the sixth resolution,
the language of which they considered too
inflammatory.
A copy of the minutes of the Sacramento
meeting, together with their resolutions, was
sent to San Francisco, with a request that
a meeting be held for the purpose of acting
upon them. A meeting was accordingly
called for Wednesday evening, the 22d
November. The Rev. J. J. Moore was
appointed Chairman, and Messrs Starkey and
Gilliard, Secretaries. The Sacramento resolutions
being called up, a discussion endued
on their merits. Mr. Townsend (the author
of the San Francisco resolutions) did not object to the sentiments contained in the resolutions, but to their literary defects.—He said, "a superabundance of language was employed, and the sentences were ungrammatically constructed." Mr. Gilliard here offered a substitute for the first resolution,
(the one under discussion)[.] This was
opposed by W. H. Newley and J. Bowers,
who thought the adoption of the substitute
was an act of discourtesy to the Sacramento
friends, that if the sentiments were understood
from the language employed, the
language had accomplished as much as the
best selected language could have done.—
After much more discussion, pro and con, in
which Mr. Smithey, of Oberlin College, Mr.
Ruggles, and others participated, it was
resolved to lay the resolution on the table,
with the exception of the last one, which
recommended the holding of a Convention.
Here the opposers of the Convention
availed themselves of the indefiniteness of
the resolution as to the time of holding the
Convention, by placing an unwarrantable
construction upon it, saying that by adopting
the resoluion, they did not obligate
themselves to hold a Convention for one or
two more years, thus virtually rejecting the
resolution. After having adopted them, the
meeting finally adjourned to the following
Monday.
Now, had our Sacramento friends simply
adopted the resolution, emanating from San
Francisco, and expressed their willingness
to acquiesce in any measures originating
in San Francisco, I apprehend there would
have been no oppostion. The idea of the
Sacrmento friends proposing anything to
the San Francisco friends, was too absurd to
be tolerated for a moment. But more anon.
Business in this place is exceedigly dull;
wages are low, and rents enormously high.
I am indebted to the politeness of Mr.
Jeremiah Bowers for the forwarding of this
letter, who is returning home the second time.
Yours respectfully,
NUBIA.