William James Watkins to Frederick Douglass, March 4, 1859
[n.p.] 4 March 1859.
MR. EDITOR:—
It is a maxim as old as the marriage covenant, that differences of opinion will exist, even in the best regulated families. This contrariety will be more or less developed, so long as man’s compound organism is in so many respects dissimilar. No two men or women are exactly alike, mentally, morally or physically. And I have never yet seen any two men, who, on all questions, entertained precisely the same opinions. And I never will until I become acquainted with two men, born with the same organism, and reared under the same circumstances.
This train of thought was induced by the remark of a friend to-day, in conversation with me, “how is it that you colored men can't all see and act alike on this Anti-Slavery question?” “For the same reason that you white men differ upon all subjects,” I promptly replied.
It is, however, to me a source of the most poignant regret, when I am compelled to differ from those whose superior abilities, ripe experience, and unquestioned fidelity to the cause of Human Rights, are such as to invest any conclusion to which they may arrive, on the question of our liberties, with the force and authority of Medo-Persian law.1Watkins is referring to the ancient Medo-Persian Empire and the nature of its law. The Medo-Persian Empire was established in 539 B.C.E. when the Medes and Persians captured Babylon. Like that of Babylon, the Medo-Persian government was monarchical, and the king’s word created laws. But under the Medo-Persian regime, once the king established a law, it could never be reversed, even by the king himself. In the Bible, Daniel refers to the nature of the Medo-Persian law: “Then the conspirators came to the king and said to him, ‘Know, O king, that it is a law of the Medes and Persians that no interdict or ordinance that the king establishes can be changed.'" Dan. 6:15; Sir Percy Molesworth Sykes, A History of Persia, 2 vols. (1915; New York, 1969), 1:172; Glenn E. Curtis and Eric Hooglund, eds., Iran: A Country Study (Washington, D.C., 2008), 4; Michael D. Coogan, ed., The New Oxford Annotated Bible (New York, 2007), 1266; Robert William Rogers, A History of Ancient Persia: From its Earliest Beginnings to the Death of Alexander the Great (1929; Freeport, N.Y., 1971), 63. But very wise men often commit very egregious blunders. They often assume positions which are untenable, and cling to the illusory imaginings of Error, with as much tenacity as they do to the living realities of an axiomatic truth. But “humanum est errare.”2Latin for “to err is human.” And I have no right to look for exemption in your case.
I have read with much interest your strictures upon my letter.3Watkins refers to his letter written to Douglass on 10 February 1859 and printed in the 11 February 1859 issue of Frederick Douglass’ Paper. In this letter, Watkins asked Douglass to limit his critique of the Republican party and to focus on the suffrage movement in New York State. Douglass responded to Watkins’s letter in an editorial in the March 1859 edition of Douglass’ Monthly. While Watkins argued that blacks needed to work with Republican leaders to secure enfranchisement, Douglass continued to criticize the Republican party, saying that suffrage would be inaccessible if advocates of the movement continued to rely on the aid of Republican leaders. In fact, he believed that suffrage could be attained were it not for these party leaders: “Could the question be submitted to the people, for a free vote, without the trammels or the influences of party leaders, we would gladly submit it to-morrow, secure in a triumphant majority." Douglass then suggested that attention should be given to securing equal education opportunities for black children, which he labeled as a “decidedly more accessible” issue. To the dismay of Watkins, Douglass stressed the equal education issue and believed that gaining suffrage in New York would be difficult to achieve. William James Watkins to Frederick Douglass, FDP, 11 February 1859; DM, 1:33 (March 1859). I beg you, however, to read that letter again. The most acute vision will fail to discern in it a single word of apology for the short-comings of the Republican party. You do not fairly meet the issue I presented, but proceed to a discussion of the characteristics of the leaders of that party. I took issue with you not because you are not a colored Black Republican, but because when a few of us are making all the exertions in our power, to secure the Elective Franchise, from those who have the ability to extend it; when we are striving to induce among our people that unanimity of action which is so desirable; instead of obtaining your co-operation, you turn a cold shoulder upon the movement, and with a spasmodic ebullition of zeal for which colored New Yorkers are eminently distinguished, press upon our consideration, the question of Equal School Rights—a
question which, for a “long length of periods,["] (whatever be its relative merits,) has been suffered to sleep soundly, nursed by the gentle rock of "COMMUNIPAW."4James McCune Smith. Ah! Mr. Editor, why is it that that sleep knew no waking until resurrected by the trumpet blast of Equal Suffrage? Now, to be candid, I am of the opinion that you are not very desirous that success should crown the special effort a few of us are now making, notwithstanding the loss of your co-operation, if not your sympathy. Why is it that this movement is now almost entirely ignored by such leading men as yourself? For I call the readers of “F. Douglass’ Paper” to bear witness to the truthfulness of the statement, that not even you have employed your vigorous pen, during the present winter, in urging our people to act on the suffrage question. But it is not your vis inertia5Isaac Newton developed the concept vis inertiae, or force of inertia, in his laws of motion. I. Bernard Cohen and George E. Smith, Cambridge Companion to Newton (Cambridge, Eng., 2002) 61. of which I most complain, but your attempted disparagement of the efforts some of us are making to induce the Republican party to act in conformity with its own platform of principles, by extending to us here in New York, while they have the power, the elective franchise. For my part, I do not feel disposed to wait for such extension until the arrival of that millennial era, when the correct views of Hon. Gerrit Smith and his gifted namesake, concerning the Constitu-
tion of the U. S., shall be adopted by the American people, and become
thoroughly crystallized in their political acts.
The Republican party is not, Sir, what I desire it to be, and what it must be, to preserve its vitality. Large bodies move slowly. And I am not one of those who, calling themselves Radical Abolitionists, seem to fasten
upon the inconsistencies of its leaders, and because of their want of moral stamina, consign them, along with “Stephen, the colored Thurlow,”6Stephen Myers of Albany edited temperance and antislavery newspapers and helped lead the movement for black suffrage in New York. Like Myers, Thurlow Weed, the influential Whig and later a Republican political boss, edited his newspaper, the Evening Journal, in Albany. Watkins refers to Myers as “Stephen, the colored Thurlow” because of the similarities between the two men’s occupations and dedication to the antislavery movement. Penn, The Afro-American Press, 48-51; Quarles, Black Abolitionists, 33, 95, 154, 172-73, 219-20. to
“utter darkness."7Variants of this phrase occur frequently in the Bible. Ps. 107:14; Matt. 8:12, 25:30. And as to your “fear that when the little joker is raised, our brethren (Meyers,8Stephen Myers. Rich,9William Rich. Watkins,10William J. Watkins. etc.) will look as blank with dis-
may, as they did in reading through Gov. Morgan’s11Edwin Dennison Morgan (1811-83) was born in Massachusetts and educated in the common schools of Hartford, Connecticut. After an apprenticeship in a Hartford general store, he moved to New York City, where he became a prosperous import merchant. In 1850, Morgan was elected to the state senate, where he served until elected governor on the Republican ticket in 1858. Reelected in 1860, he oversaw the enlistment of 223,000 New York men into the Union army during the Civil War’s first two years. From 1863 to 1869, Morgan served in the U.S. Senate, where he sided with the conservative Republican factions on most Reconstruction questions. James A. Rawley, Edwin D. Morgan, 1811-1883: Merchant in Politics (New York, 1955); Michael Les Benedict, A Compromise of Principle: Congressional Republicans and Reconstruction, 1863-1569 (New York, 1974), 164, 265, 298; ACAB, 4:398; NCAB, 3:51. first Inaugural,"12Watkins refers to abolitionists’ disappointment with New York governor Edwin Morgan’s first inaugural address in 1859. According to Douglass, Morgan ran his campaign on an antislavery platform, but many abolitionists feared that he would not support antislavery legislation once elected. These abolitionists were criticized for supporting Gerrit Smith for office instead of Morgan. The historian Eric Foner labels Morgan a moderate in the Republican party, so he was therefore less likely than a candidate like Smith to push the antislavery issue. In reference to the governor’s first inaugural speech, Douglass wrote in Douglass’ Monthly: “Governor Morgan, whose anti-slavery was so loudly proclaimed to the people before his election, finds no occasion, in his Message, to utter an anti-slavery sentence.” Abolitionists’ concerns over Morgan’s intentions were realized when he made no real effort, once in office, to support the antislavery movement. DM, 1:21 (February 1859); Eric Foner, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party before the Civil War (New York: 1995), 210.
I cannot help thinking that the wish is father to the thought, and that a
defeat of the Colored Black Republican Equal Suffrage Movement,13Possibly a reference to the New York State Suffrage Association. at
present, is a consummation devoutly to be wished by you, and the few of
our people who sympathize with you in your present position. For a tri-
umph of our movement just now, would be regarded by all practical men,
as a justification of the course adopted by nearly all the colored voters in
the State in the recent contest for Governor. But whether successful or not
this year, or the next, or the next, I know of at least one man who will not
abate one jot or tittle of the perseverance of the importunate widow in the
Gospel,14Luke 18:1-5. the prospect of whose “continual coming” procured an answer
to her petition. And of course, those who now do nothing for the cause,
will help us celebrate the victory, and dance to the merry music of “see how WE apples swim!”
“Fly swiftly ‘round, ye wheels of Time,
And bring the welcome day.”15“Fly swiftly ‘round, ye wheels of Time, / And bring the welcome day” was written by the English minister and hymn writer Isaac Watts (1674-1748), and the lines serve as the final two stanzas of “Hymn 21: A Vision of the Kingdom of Christ among Men.” Watts organized his written hymns into three categories: paraphrases of biblical texts, poems on general divine subjects, and hymns written for the Lord’s Supper. Inspired by Revelation 21: 1-4, “Hymn 21” falls into the first category. The hymn paraphrases verses wherein the new heaven and new earth are introduced as God’s dwelling place. Watts noted that his use of metaphor was written to conform “to the level of vulgar capacities.” The simple language of his hymns likely contributed to their popularity, since many survive into the present. Robert Goodacre, ed., The Psalms and Hymns of the Late Dr. Isaac Watts: In Two Volumes (London, 1821), 2:29; ODNB (online).
Consistency, Mr. Editor, is a jewel.16Most frequently stated as “Consistency, thou art a jewel,” this phrase has been attributed to a variety of sources, including the Bible, Shakespeare, and a popular eighteenth-century Scottish ballad. According to John Bartlett, none of these claims can be verified. Bartlett suggests that the phrase evolved over time and cannot be verifiably said to originate in any one place. Instead, he notes the tendency to compare virtue or excellence to the brilliance of a jewel by way of emphasis. New York Times, 26 February 1888; John Bartlett, Familiar Quotations: A Collection of Passages, Phrases, and Proverbs Traced to Their Sources in Ancient and Modern Literature, 10th ed. (1855; Boston, 1919), 1046. You will remember that when
the lamented Thos. L. Jennings,17A free black dry cleaner in New York City, Thomas L. Jennings (1791-1856) was probably the first African American to receive a patent for his “dry scouring” process. Jennings attended both national and state conventions, agitating for equal civil rights. Curry, Free Black in Urban America, 222; Foner and Walker, Black State Conventions, 1:88. and others, were concentrating their
efforts in order to procure the abolition of Caste in the cars of your city
railroads, you did not see fit to attempt to divert them from the object
before them, by calling in question the propriety of their throwing their
entire public and organized movements into the single issue of “riding in
the cars of the Third Avenue Railroad Company.’'18The Third Avenue Railroad Company was a street railroad system in New York City operating in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Like most other streetcar companies of the era, the Third Avenue Railroad Company was segregated. In 1854, an incident between a black woman and a driver led to a court case and the desegregation of the company. Elizabeth Jennings (1830-1901), the daughter of the black leader Thomas L. Jennings, was a teacher and an organist for the First Colored American Congregational Church. In July 1854, she boarded a whites-only streetcar on her way to church. When the driver insisted that she get off and wait for the car designated for blacks, she refused. The driver attempted to physically remove Jennings, and eventually did so with the aid of a police officer. At a public meeting at the First Colored American Congregational Church, Jennings’s testimony was read, and it was resolved that her case should be brought before the legal authorities. The story gained public recognition after appearing in Horace Greeley’s New York Tribune and Frederick Douglass’ Paper. In February 1855, Elizabeth Jennings v. the Third Avenue Railroad Company was brought before the Brooklyn Circuit; future U.S. president Chester A. Arthur served as Jennings’s lawyer. The decision, which went in favor of Jennings, awarded her $225 in damages and desegregated the Third Avenue Railroad Company in New York City. FDP, 28 July 1854, 2 March 1855; John H. Hewitt, Protest and Progress: New York’s First Black Episcopal Church Fights Racism (New York: 2000), 98, 101-03. You urged them on.
You, doubtless, were one of their number. Not even the great question
of Equal School Rights was suffered to interfere. And in this you were
right. In this you were wise. In this you counselled “Expediency.” One
thing at a time was the emphatic language of your acts. The result of your
efforts demonstrated the wisdom of your course. But now, Mr. Editor,
you object to organized movements for the presentation of single issues.
You appear to be very much disturbed. “Tobacco,” “signs,” “guns,” “little
jokers,” “STEPHEN MYERS," and “purgatory," completely block up and
darken your pathway.
“Single Issues!” Why, verily, my esteemed co-worker, and your able
correspondent “Philo,’’19Probably George T. Downing. who has inaugurated an entire public and orga-
nized movement into the single Issue of the “School Question," and who
is defending it with his wonted vigor, and ability, must “stand from under.”
As we both stand, pro tempore,20This Latin phrase is best translated as “for the time being.” as the representatives of “single issues,”
I trust we shall bear each other faithful company, and not fall out by the
way. A gentle hint to “Philo” is, at this time, sufficient.
You “take pleasure in offering evidence” of the moral imbecility of
the leaders of the Republican Party, “from no less authority than Mr. WAT-
KINS himself.” I say the leaders, for you remark, “the mass of the people
are with us.” I do not know that these leaders have changed for the bet-
ter. They are certainly too timid and time-serving. What I said in 1857, I
have no disposition to retract, although the Address from which you quote
was written not far from 55 W. Broadway,21James McCune Smith’s combined office and pharmacy was located at 55 West Broadway. When Smith first established his medical practice, he opened his office at 93 West Broadway, but relocated to this address a few years later. Stauffer, Works of James McCune Smith, xxiii; idem, Black Hearts of Men, 125; Calarco, The Underground Railroad, 255. under the resistless influence
of your mesmeric manipulations. And I never address the people on the
question of Human Freedom, without endeavoring to impress upon them
the necessity of compelling their leaders to maintain a more defensible,
a just position. But because I denounced these leaders in 1857, am I es-
topped from appealing to the party to forsake what you are pleased to designate, its “counting-house” policy?22Watkins refers to what Douglass labeled the Republican party’s “counting-house” policy. Douglass was probably criticizing the Republican party’s emphasis on economic issues, even in relation to slavery. The Republicans proclaimed the superiority of free labor and viewed the South as a stagnant and aristocratic society whose reliance on the institution of slavery threatened Northern interests. Republican leaders often used their free labor economic platform to appeal to conservatives who might not have supported an antislavery policy for its own sake but who perceived some gain from halting slavery’s spread into western territories. Douglass reluctantly supported the Republican presidential ticket in 1856 but subsequently grew disappointed by the party’s emphasis on the economic dimensions of antislavery politics. In January 1859, Douglass called on antislavery advocates to “no longer follow the partial side issues” and to focus less on “free white labor" and more on the slaves in bondage. Like other abolitionists, Douglass insisted that the moral issue of anti-slavery politics should trump economic arguments. DM, 1:1 (January 1859); Foner, Life and Writings, 2:396-400, 441; Foner, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men, 40-41, 59, 61. Is this a legitimate sequence of
such denunciation? Every candid man must answer NO.
I cannot, however, sympathize with you in your wholesale denuncia-
tion of the Republican party. If what you say be correct, it is worse than
modern Democracy. You give it no credit whatever. Herein lies your er-
ror.—You launch out with the broad assertion, that the “Republican party
is a political, not a humanitary party, and is governed by political, not
humanitary principles." The grammatical construction of this language
warrants the assertion that in your estimation, a party cannot at the same
time be both political and humanitary. Political principles are not neces-
sarily anti-humanitary; but your language implies that they are. Politics I
regard as nothing more than the science of government; of good or of bad
government. A man or a party may, therefore, be politico-humanitarian.
You remark, farther, that the Democratic party is a party of Ideas, and is
thus contra-distinguished from the Republican party, which has none. Let
me quote you correctly. Speaking of the Republican party, you remark:
“It is reduced to the last analysis, the party of Arithmetical Progres-
sion. In this way it 1s contradistinguished from the Democratic party which
is the party of ideas, of bad ideas, unjust ideas, nevertheless of ideas.”
The fallacy of such an assertion is as glaring as the sun in mid-heaven.
The Democratic is not a party of Ideas, but of an Idea which is the exact
antipode of the fundamental, all-pervading Idea or Principle which un-
derlies the Republican party. Shall Slavery be extended or restricted? This
question furnishes the battle ground of the belligerents. The Democratic
party says, YES; the Republican party says, NO. The Idea of extending
the area of Slavery, is the only Idea which holds the Democratic party
together. It lives for that purpose, and it will die for that purpose. It flashes
from its eye, it burns upon its tongue, it gleams upon its brow, it rankles
in its heart. Evening and morning and at noon, does it cry aloud, “EX-
TEND SLAVERY!” This is the burden of its song, the substance of its prayer.
On the other hand, the Idea of extending the area of Freedom, is the vis
preservatrix23Latin for the “preserving power.” of the Republican party. It is, you gravely tell us, “a head
without a heart." It cares for nothing but “its own aggrandizement." Have
you fairly stated the difference between these parties? You will not affirm
that you have. Look, Sir, at the origin of the Republican party. It came
into being upon the wing of pro-slavery aggressions. Like the rainbow,
it was born of the tempest. It was a political necessity. It was a political
crystallization of that Anti-Slavery sentiment and feeling which had long
been smothered in the Whig and Democratic parties, and which at last, burst the cerements of corruption, and with God’s sunlight flashing all
around it, stood out like a promontory in the deep, blue sea, a monument
of the second Revolution in our nation’s history. And shall we now refuse
alliance with it, for a certain purpose, because it does not go far enough
in the right direction? Let Frederick Douglass of 1856 answer the query.
“We are not,” said he, “to refuse a position and actual advantage to the cause of Right and Liberty, because the entire claims of righteousness are
not acceded to, and gained at the same moment. God reigns in Eternity.—The progress of mankind is slow, and when society is willing to take even
one step in the right direction it may be well for the individual to help it
along by precept and example.”
* * * * * *
“Unquestionably, the practical carrying out of the Republican platform by the Federal Government would be a great good. We need not enumerate the various benefits which would flow from the policy therein
laid down. The limitation of slavery alone would prove an immense benefit; and if the action in that direction is followed up in the States by the
Republican element, as we believe it will be, all that we devoutly wish
may come to pass.”
Let the editor pro tem. of F. Douglass’ Paper24While Douglass traveled on an extended lecture tour in early 1859, James McCune Smith most likely served as the editor “pro tem” of Frederick Douglass’ Paper. In the March 1859 issue of Douglass’ Monthly, an announcement states: “Dr. James McCune Smith—This gentleman has often made us obliged to him, during the last ten years, for services to our common cause, and to Frederick Douglass’ Paper as a means of promoting that cause. He has now much increased our obligations to him, by kindly consenting to write the Editorials for our paper during our five or six weeks’ lecturing tour in the West.” DM, 1:35 (March 1859). swallow the above,
and if the task be too difficult, let Mr. Douglass himself assist him in the
attempt at deglutition.
But I quote with much pleasure Wm. Lloyd Garrison’s views of the Republican party.25The comments by William Lloyd Garrison are from his speech at the annual meeting of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society, printed in the 4 February 1859 issue of the Liberator. There is only one difference between the text in Watkins’s letter and the newspaper version. According to the Liberator, Garrison said that the Republican party acted “so as to save Kansas and Nebraska, and the vast territories of the West from the encroachments of the Slave Power." In his letter, Watkins leaves out the phrase “of the West, from the encroachments of.” Most likely, this was a small unintentional transcription error made by Watkins. Lib., 4 February 1859. I quote him for two reasons: First, because no one will
accuse him of a disposition to flatter the party; Secondly, because I know
of no better Anti-Slavery authority than he. What say you, Mr. Garrison?
How is the Democratic party “contradistinguished” from the Republican?
Hear him:
“The Republican party has certainly been consistent in its efforts to
prevent the extension of slavery; it has spent a vast amount of money for
the purpose of enlightening the public sentiment, so as to save Kansas
and Nebraska, and the vast territories of the Slave Power. Let the party
have the credit of it. Why not? (Applause.) I know of nothing in this Anti-
Slavery cause which justifies me in being uncharitable or unfair. Give to
every party its due; and I say that, up to this time, the Republican party
has tried to prevent the extension of slavery, and has suffered greatly on
that account. Tell me that it is to be put in the same scale with the Demo-
cratic party—that party which is ready for every thing that the South desires, in the way of extending and eternizing slavery! How was it in the
last Presidential election? Was it nothing to the credit of the Republican party, that no representative of John C. Fremont26John C. Frémont was the Republican candidate for president in 1856. could stand upon South-
ern soil, except in peril of his life—when the whole party was outlawed in
all the Southern States—when no electoral ticket bearing his name could
have been tolerated in Georgia, or Alabama, or Carolina, or any Southern
State—and when if Henry Wilson27Elected to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts by a coalition of Free Soilers, Know-Nothings, and Democrats in 1855, Henry Wilson (1812-75) strongly advocated the abolition of slavery as a political goal. In 1862, he introduced a bill to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and as a Radical Republican, he was one of the strongest voices denouncing the Black Codes enacted under Presidential Reconstruction. In 1865 he introduced a bill aimed at nullifying all laws and ordinances discriminating against freemen and former slaves. Wilson replaced Schuyler Colfax as vice president during Ulysses S. Grant’s second term, but died in office. Ernest McKay, Henry Wilson: Practical Radical; A Portrait of a Politician (London, 1971), 94-95, 197-98. had dared to go down South, and
advocate his election to the Presidency, he would have gone there as a
man goes to the grave, and never would have come back to Massachusetts
alive? When a party stands in that attitude to slavery, and slavery stands
in that relation to it, I hold it is unfair and unjust to say that, after all, it is
as bad as the party that goes all lengths for the extension and eternization
of slavery. ('Hear, hear,’ and loud applause.)
“The Republican party, as a matter of fact—and we are dealing with
facts—embraces the anti-slavery voters of America, wherever they are—
with the exception, it may be, of the little handful who voted for Gerrit
Smith.—The American people, I say, who vote, and are anti-slavery in
spirit and sympathy, are all with the Republican party; not one is with the
Democratic party. Among them, of course, there are all phases of senti-
ment, from the most radical to the most superficial.—There is a good deal
of pro-slavery in the party, perhaps, but a great deal of warm and genuine
anti-slavery—sympathy, generosity, kindness, pity for the slave; blindness
of vision to a certain extent, a want of moral courage up to a certain point,
it may be, but, nevertheless, an earnest desire and struggle to do some-
thing whereby this odious Slave Power may be driven back, hedged up, or
in some way destroyed in the land. (Applause.) Judging it, as we are bound
to do, by its own test, therefore, as it disclaims being an anti-slavery party,
as it openly declares, that in regard to slavery where it now exists, it does
not mean to raise any agitation, and only means to try to prevent its exten-
sion, to that extent, I say, the party has been true, and my sympathies, to
that extent, have been with the party; for we also desire to save the great
West from the encroachments of the Slave Power, and establish freedom
on the Western soil.
* * * * * *
“My hope is in the great Republican party; not where it stands, but
it has materials for growth. The men who have gone into it are men who
have suffered, or lost caste, to some extent, because they would not go
with the Whig party or the Democratic party in their wickedness on the
side of the Slave Power.”
These are my sentiments, expressed much better than I can express them. And I hold that this party has accomplished at least as much practi-
cal good as those Radical Abolitionists who do little else than meet an-
nually and quadrennially, to go through certain political motions as a
compliment to the wealthy philanthropist from whom some of them are
continually receiving evidences of “distinguished consideration.”
WM. JAMES WATKINS.
PLSr: FDP, 4 March 1859.