THE LATE EMIGRATION CONVENTION.

MR. EDITOR: SIR:—Those who speak by favor ought to speak briefly; hence, I can only remark, in passing, that though it be regretted that the Hon. Gerrit SmithSmith, Gerrit

Gerrit Smith (1797– 1874), a New York businessman and land speculator, became best known for his philanthropic work for such reform causes as temperance and abolition. Between 1828 and 1835, he donated large sums of money to the American Colonization Society, but abandoned that movement in 1835 when his sympathies shifted to the immediate abolitionists. In the 1840s, he gave approximately 140,000 acres of land in upstate New York to three thousand black settlers, thus qualifying them to vote. Smith was a founder and frequent candidate of the Liberty party, running for governor of New York on that ticket in 1840 and winning a seat in Congress in 1852. When the Free Soil merger with moderate antislavery Democrats and Whigs lured away many Liberty party supporters, Smith helped bankroll that organization until 1860. Smith befriended Douglass when the latter moved to Rochester, and Smith frequently helped finance Frederick Douglass’ Paper. Like Douglass, Smith supported John Brown, but psychological stress caused by the failure at Harpers Ferry brought on the first of a series of bipolar episodes that greatly reduced his subsequent reform activities. Ralph Volney Harlow, Gerrit Smith: Philanthropist and Reformer (1939; New York, 1972); Gerald Sorin, The New York Abolitionists: A Case Study of Political Radicalism (Westport, Conn., 1971), 269– 87; Lewis Perry, Radical Abolitionism: Anarchy and the Government of God in Antislavery Thought (Ithaca, N.Y., 1973), 170– 80; John R. McKivigan and Madeleine Leveille, “The ‘Black Dream’ of Gerrit Smith, New York Abolitionist,” Syracuse University Library Associates Courier, 20:61– 76 (Fall 1985); NCAB , 2:322– 23; DAB, 17:270– 71. has been so severely censured, because he is not fully understood, yet, as his great intellect must know full well, that the true reformer is always misunderstood and misrepresented, we trust his great heart will not require colored men, who are so deeply interested as sufferers, to understand him better, or judge him more leniently than white men, who are interested only as co-laborers. To what end does a reviewer accuse the committee of uncharitableness in the resolution touching the Hon. Gerrit Smith, which, if not equally chaste in expression, is certainly less severe in its censure, than similar resolutions of our white anti-slavery friends? Perhaps the charge is intended merely as a preface to the extraordinary and, to Emigrationists, novel assertion that they are "giving up in utter despondency the cause of their enslaved brethren." Altogether a mistake, my dear sir. Emigrationists believe that slavery and prejudice must everywhere cease to exist, and all men stand upon the basis of equal rights. The question at issue is simply a question of time and means. But as I have not to refute an argument, but to repel a sneer, I need not propound or defend the faith of the Emigrationists, but proceed to the next charge, truly a grievous one.

The committee forsooth have dared to think their own scheme the best ever proposed, and have plainly spoken out their thought. True, Whig, Democratic, Free Soil, Liberty Party, and anti-slavery conventions do the same; but then, they are not composed of "new men," and, moreover, they are composed of white men, which may make a difference with some in the estimate due their action. Besides, who does not know that the "cool assurance," and "calm complacency," of which reviewer complains, are the peculiar characteristics of "Young America?" Boasting is the key note of the national eloquence. "Our great and glorious country, and our great and glorious selves," as the inhabitants thereof, are the themes alike of the grave senator in the halls of Congress, and the village orator on the village pump. Surely a little self glorification on the part of colored men ought not to be made a reproach by those who so much admire the peculiar characteristics of the Anglo-American, that they preach assimilation as the only sure and saving means of the swart man's elevation.

"Here (in the United States) we were born—here will we live, by the help of the Almighty—and here we will die, and let our bones lie with our fathers," was the sentiment of the colored people of Pittsburgh in 1831. If the antiquity of opinions were proof indisputable of their correctness, and men were not a progressive being, the above quotation, from their fathers, would be invaluable as a rule of action for the children. But, as humanity is now constituted, it is barely possible that a people like us, in a transition state from slavery to freedom, may outgrow a platform in twenty-three years[.] If not, we may as well go back a few decades further and adopt the creed of our grandfathers, in import like the following: Here (on Massa's plantation) we were born —here will we live, if Massa don't sell us—and here we will die, and let our bones lie with the rest of Massa's niggers.

Again; the committee is charged with making a novel distinction between the terms suffrage and franchise. That there is a difference between the right of voting, and the right of being elevated by the popular voice of every office in the gift of the people is evident, whether the terms suffrage and elective franchise can properly be applied to mark that difference, is another question of more importance, which those skilled in logmachy [sic] may settle at their leisure. In the meantime, it is to be hoped that the time is not far distant when colored men will need neither "history, philosophy, nor logical conclusions," true or false, to convince them that they are here an oppressed people, but that the instincts of outraged humanity, and a consciousness of their rights as men, will be to them confirmations of the fact, strong as proof from holy writ.

It is not my purpose to defend the style of the Report on the political destiny of the colored race, at which reviewer covertly sneers. I presume the committee would readily admit that there are more perfect specimens of English composition extant; but whether that composition, which, though profusely rich in style, is wretchedly poor in sentiment—which substitutes sonorous periods for sound reasoning and pointless wit, for pungent argument better subserves the great end of language, the communication of thought is, to say the least, an open question.

Again, we are told the schemes proposed by the Emigrationists are impracticable.—Now, it is to be presumed that reviewer knows wherof he affirms, that it is no chimera of his own creation, such as an immediate emigration "en masse," or a hostile invasion of other countries with fire and sword; but the actually proposed plans of the Convention, which he thus confidently stamps with impractibility. What are these plans? First, then, the direction of a tide of emigration, similar to the late Kanzas movement, to some part of Central or South America, or the West Indies, partial at first, but gradually widening and deepening until it becomes general, and embraces all who wish to leave this land of whips, and chains, and degradation, for a land where wealth, intelligence and integrity render their possessor eligible to the highest station of honor and emolument—thus to afford an asylum whither the oppressed colored man of the United States might resort, as the oppressed of Europe are now flocking hither. Now, if this plan be impractible, a National Council, an Industrial School, or any other project requiring unity of sentiment and effort, are equally vain. Hence the Cleveland Convention is not the only one guilty of devising "gigantic but impractible schemes." Emigration to Canada is another scheme proposed by the Convention, also the purchase of land in the Canadian Provinces, even by those of us who never intend leaving the United States.

Reviewer further says, "that the true issue for us, as a people, is upon our recognition as men, entitled to all the rights and privileges enjoyed by our white fellow-citizens." Glad to find that he is tending in the right direction, one step more and he is on the Emigration platform. Add to the above the concluding clause of the twelfth resolution of our Declaration of Sentiments, "and we will either attain to these or accept of nothing," and the deed is done. It is because we are conscious of our rights as men, and are tired of waiting for that "sense of justice," of which reviewer speaks, which, while it may be pretty strong, is certainly very slow to give us our rights, that we wish to emigrate. In conclusion, we are told that it would be "better for colored men to take such a course as would render indispensably an essential constituent in the ruling element of this their native land." What that course is, we are not informed. We hope he does not mean assimilation, for there are many to whom the thought, that their great grandchildren may possibly be able to sneak into the ruling element, does not afford a sovereign balm for the ills they now suffer. Besides, it is not certain that coming generations, further removed from slavery and its influences, will co-operate in the grand design, and make color the only test of fitness in their matrimonial connections, without which co-operation the consummation, so devoutly wished by some, can never be attained.

Now, Mr. Editor, a word more, and I have done. Since all profess to labor for the same end—the elevation of our people—why need we impugn each other's efforts. Argument may at length convince those in the wrong of their error, and convert those in the right, but contempt and ridicule, never.—Vinegar never catches flies, except those little tiny flies of wing too feeble for independent flight, that are always found hovering about, and resting upon what looks bigger than themselves.

Yours truly,

F.