Stephen A. Myers to Frederick Douglass, March 1, 1859
STEPHEN A. MYERS TO FREDERICK DOUGLASS
Albany, [N.Y.] 1 March 1859.
In your “reply to Mr. Watkins,”1William J. Watkins. of last week,2The 25 February 1859 issue of Frederick Douglass’ Paper, mostly likely containing Douglass’s editorial reply to William J. Watkins, has not survived. my name is used several
times in the course of your remarks. My offence, in your eyes, seems to
be in acting with the Republican party, in order to affect certain reforms.
Well, what other practical thing can I do? How much have you done by
voting for Gerrit Smith? How much will you accomplish by voting for
him at every election for a score of years to come? The only difference
between us is, that one acts on the practical side of the question, and the
other on the theoretic. It is all very fine to talk about the shor-tcomings of
the Republican party, but the question is, What are you going to do about
it? There can be but two parties, and no man who is worth reasoning with,
will deny that the Republican is the best. Every body knows that for the
next generation, probably, either the Democrats or Republicans must rule
the State and Union. Now, what does all our theorizing amount to in face
of this stubborn reality? It may do for scholars and recluses. But a living,
earnest, working man wants to see some result to his labor.—The only
real question before a man seeking for the equal rights of all men is, shall
I vote for the Republican party or for the Democratic party? All other talk
is a waste of words—mere hair splitting.3The most likely origin in English of the expression “hair splitting” is Robert Boyle’s Excellence of Theology Compared With Natural Philosophy (London, 1674), author’s preface, 10: “The great difficulty . . . so to behave oneself, as to split a hair between them, and never offend either of them.” Let us be done with it. I, for one,
shall not vote for Democrats and consequently shall vote for Republicans.
The Republicans in this State with few exceptions are in favor of Univer-
sal Suffrage and a Personal Liberty Bill.4Though many states adopted “personal liberty laws” to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, New York was not among them. The issue remained unresolved until 1858, when Republicans gained control of the New York State Legislature. Abolitionists and antislavery Republicans sent in numerous petitions urging the legislature to adopt a law similar to one in Massachusetts in order to create obstacles to enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act. Despite divisions among conservatives in the Republican party, a select committee recommended the adoption of such a law, one that would include the phrase “every person who shall come or be brought into the State shall be free.” But conservative Republicans with Democratic allies successfully buried attempts to pass two bills sent to the legislature. Consequently, New York remained without a personal liberty law. New York Herald, 12 March 1860; Thomas D. Morris, Free Men All: The Personal Liberty Laws of the North, 1780-1861 (Baltimore, 1974), 181-83.
They give thousands of dollars
to aid fugitive slaves. They defend our rights in the schools, the cars, an——d
the steam boats. No candid man will deny these facts nor assert that the
Democrats do any such things. Then what is the sense of all this rhetoric
about “a head without a heart," “the Serpent and political Eve of the Gar-
den,”5An allusion to the devil in the form of a serpent tempting Eve in the Garden of Eden. Gen. 3:1-5. and the like. Common sense men will throw their influence, give their labor and cast their votes where they will tell. Others may indulge
in air castles.
STEPHEN MYERS.
PLSr: FDP, 4 March 1859.