For Frederick Douglass' Paper

FARMINGTON, Dec. 14th, 1854.

FRIEND DOUGLASS:—I have for some time felt an aversion to using my pen in a newspaper controversy; yet, in reading in your paper of Dec. 1st, an article signed W. W., I feel constrained to say something on the subject. This question, in regard to whether the prejudice against our race, is on account of our color or condition was agitated some years ago[.] I then believed that it was not on account of our color, and I have had no reason as yet to change that belief. Having seen but a few numbers of your paper, I know neither the origin of the present controversy, nor the arguments which have been presented to oppose the views of your correspondent. But satisfied as I am that the prejudice is not against color, I feel that it is an injury to ourselves, and discouraging any attempt on our part to better our condition in this country. If the prejudice is against our color—which comprises every known shade of the human race, from the jet black to the pure Caucasian—that prejudice cannot be removed, except by removing the cause. This, I believe, friend Douglass, to be logical. What then can be the cause of the prejudice existing against us? It cannot be our poverty, for "here, in this country, poverty is no crime." We "are not advocates of any unpopular tenets of religious faith, and have no peculiar religion of" our "own, but have fostered and adopted the religious faith of those by whom" we "are surrounded;" what then can be the cause of this injustice? It is because we are the descendants, or in some way connected with a class of persons who have been degraded and held as slaves in this country.

A case in point. A person possessing a small portion of African blood, not discoverable to the eye, puts up at a first class hotel[.] He is genteel in his appearance, and pays his way like the rest. So long, as it is supposed that he is what he appears to be—white—he fares well enough. But if it leaks out that, he is by blood connected with the African race, he is forcibly ejected into the street.—Was the prejudice against him on account of his color?

Another: A young man from Brazil, and connected with the Brazailian nobility, enters Yale College as a student. When seen by those who do not know him, he is supposed to be a negro. Where is the prejudice against color in his case? He is a lion among the fastidious students. His acquaintance is courted by the first families in the city. He sits on the sofa, and promenades the streets with their daughters.

These cases I know to be facts, and they could be multiplied indefinitely.

I have said that if the prejudice is against color, it cannot be removed. Your correspondent may ask how can it be removed, if it is not? Let me answer. If we acknowledge —as we must—that in former years—long before you and I were born—the African race in this country, with some few exceptions, were a low, immoral, reckless, improvident class, unfit associates for respectable persons, whose chief enjoyment was drinking, fighting, carousing.

It matters not how they became so, or why they were so—so fas as concerns my argument. That they were so, must be admitted, letting the responsibility for it rest where it may. Here, then, I have the origin of the prejudice. Is it strange that it should have been as violent as it has been? If, then, we

would get rid of the prejudice, we must remove the cause for it. Are the free colored people of the United States as ignorant, immoral, intemperate, and improvident, as they were forty or thirty years ago? far from it. Is the prejudice as strong against them now as then? Far from it. Who does not remember the Jim Crow Cars; the forward deck of steamboats; the outside of stages; the negro pews in churches; which, though occasionally met with, are not, as formerly, universal. If, then, prejudice is overcome as fast as the condition is changed how, then, can it be said the prejudice is against the complexion of our race, which has never, and can never change; because it consists, as I said before, of every known color of the human race.

It may be said that we cannot associate with our equals among the whites, no matter what may be our attainments in intelligence, virtue, education, or wealth. I know that if a fast, young, colored man, will get up masquerades, attend races, and play the dandy or fop, no matter how long his purse may be, or how respectable his outward appearance, or the amount of information on any and every subject he may possess, he will meet with abuse and insult. The whites who practice these things, do not like to be held up to ridicule by being imitated by us; and that part of the community whose esteem is of real value to us, despise them as they do us. If we wish to command respect, let it be of those who are respected by all mankind. Men of learning, and intelligence, Principals of Colleges, and Schools, Divines, and, though last, not least, the "Corps Editorial." It is these who mould public opinion, and who court rather than shun those who imitate them, be they black or white.

There is one passage in the article, by W. W., (I wish he would use some other initials for convenience of pronunciation,) which I do not understand. He says, "now, if this prejudice was founded on condition, it would not exist among the colored people themselves, because their condition and connexion with respect to liberty and slavery being the same, no cause for prejudice would exist; yet, however unwilling we may be to confess it, this same prejudice exercises an evil influence among the colored people, and has often affected the stability of their institutions, and the happiness of their social circles."

Be so kind as to tell me, if you can tell, what he means. Is it that colored people are prejudiced against themselves, or against each other, on account of their color? or that one shade thinks itself superior to another shade? What is this "same prejudice" of the white man—for it is he, I presume, that he is contending against—that the colored man possesses? Does the white man distinguish between the shades? and, if so, which does he prefer? If he refers to a distinction, which the light and dark colored citizens of Philadelphia made between each other some years ago, let me tell him that prejudice was mostly confined to that city, and existed in the dark ages of the era of African civilization in this country; but, I trust that the overwhelming flood of light which has been poured out upon our race, within the last twenty years, has subdued, if not entirely removed those silly distinctions. There is not a man in all Pennsylvania who feels such a prejudice; though there may be some who bear the "form and features of a man," that do.

The subject, my dear sir, seems to me to be a foolish one to discuss; and I cannot for

the life of me see, how, in view of these facts daily transpiring, any one can honestly believe that the prejudice of the whites against us—I say us, for I love to identify myself with the rest of my race, though not suffering much from prejudice—I say that I do not see how any one can honestly believe that the prejudice is on account of color. I am growing old, and have had some experience; and, I know that when we wish to combat any doctrine advanced by another, we can always find arguments which, we may think, are solid enough to silence our opponents; but, of which, a discerning and impartial public may think differently.

In regard to the present controversy, I do not, of course, know your views, never having read them; but the fact that this prejudice spoken of is not against color, is too self-evident to be overthrown by any specious argument, however far-fetched.

Respectfully yours,

J. B.