Benjamin Coates to Frederick Douglass, November 20, 1856
DOES SLAVERY EXIST IN LIBERIA?
PHILADELPHIA, Nov. 20th, 1856.
F. DOUGLASS, ESQ.: DEAR SIR:—The charge
that the Liberians buy and sell slaves, and that
the President of the Republic holds thirty or
forty of his fellow-men as chattels, having been
widely circulated, by one who has held a respectable
position in society—not only as a Presbyterian
clergyman, but also a prominent anti
slavery man—and has thus done incalculable
injury to the good name, and just aspirations of
a whole people nobly struggling for freedom—
very many good and true friends of the colored
man in the United States could not believe that
so grave a charge, affecting so seriously the reputation
of an entire community, and more or
less calculated to injure the character of a race,
would have been circulated by a professed friend
of that down-trodden people, with very . These charges were completely refuted
at the time in the Colonization journals;
but the refutation was not generally published
by the papers originally giving currency to the
charges and was, therefore, unknown to their
readers. As Mr. Nesbit has since made the
same charges in his book, and as Dr. Delany, in
his introduction, has called my attention particularly
to that chapter on slavery, I have not
felt at liberty, by my silence, to appear to give
my assent to it. But in giving my unqualified
denial of the whole story, as I have done in
the following communication, I have not
thought it just or proper to confine my remarks
to Mr. Nesbit, but have preferred to deal particularly
with the original slanderer, and more
responsible party. Should any one think my
remarks too severe, I would ask of them to consider
the aggravated nature of the offence; and,
if any are still disposed to doubt the testimony
of the Rev. George Thompson, and others to
whom I have alluded, I trust that you, Mr.
Douglass, will consider the matter of sufficient
importance to allow the use of your columns
for the most thorough investigation.
I was not a little astonished to find that a
remark of mine, accompanying the letter of
Rev. Alex. Crummell, had called forth communications
from three different parties, in your last
paper; but what surprised me most, was the
lengthy "Protest" of Rev. George Thompson,
"relative to the use made of his name by Colonizationists."
Now I would like to say to Mr. Thompson
that as he has made my letter the occasion of
presenting to the public, personal charges
against the "Colonization Society," and Colonizationists,
it is a matter that I must be excused
from participating in; further than I may be
concerned by any unwarrantable use of his
name, in referring to his forthcoming book on
Liberia, and noticing the fact that he had informed
me "that he would thoroughly expose
the base and infamous falsehoods of Nesbit's
book, which stated among other things that
slavery existed in Liberia," &c. This is the only
use I made of Mr. Thompson's name. I certainly
never intended "to Mr. Thompson
say a word against the Rev. John Rankin;"
but I said, , "In this,
however, Nesbit only repeated the shameful
falsehoods uttered and published a few years
since by the Rev. John Rankin, of Ripley, O."
&c.; and I presume that all your readers, except
Mr. Thompson, so understood me. Mr.
Rankin certainly did; and I am very glad to
see the three letters published together, as they
completely refute each other, as far as I am concerned
—for Mr. Thompson distinctly says, (I
quote his language verbatim, so as to make no
mistake,) "Now, I say that I should write,
and show the shameful falsehoods of Nesbit—
for his '' is made up
of the most aggravated lies; and Nesbit knew
they were lies, if he ever saw Liberia; and none
the less shameful and false, and uncalled for, are
the statements and vomiting of gall of ,
in the introduction." Well, this is pretty strong
language; but Mr. Thompson only applies it to
and —for he goes on to say,
"but I do think I did not use language in my
letter to this friend, implying that Bro. John
Rankin (whom I highly esteem) uttered 'infamous
falsehoods.' I am sure I could not have
used any such language. But I say, in
substance, that I knew not the ladies from
whom Bro. Rankin obtained his information
that the Liberians held salves, &c., , so far as I could discern
by my visit among them."
Now, friend Douglass, I wish yourself and
your readers to notice that this is the emphatic
testimony of an honest man as to the FACTS of
the case—one who has spent a large part of his
life in efforts to benefit the African race, both
in American and in Africa—one whose testimony
I presume will not be disputed. He states distinctly
;
and that the statements of and
to that effect are "shameful falsehoods," and
"aggravated lies," &c.; but he does not use
such language to Bro. Rankin. Well Mr.
Thompson certainly is the best judge of what
his duty is, and I trust that he will accord the
same privilege to me. I am aware that in many
of the Southern States their laws punish a black
man very severely for many offences, for which
a white man is not punished at all; but as such
laws do not accord with my sense of justice, I
do not feel it my duty to abide by them. I
hold to the doctrine, that "," and "," are none the
less "," when put forth by
a man, than by a man; and further,
I believe it is none the less wicked for a
Presbyterian clergyman to give currency to
"aggravated lies," and "shameful falsehoods"
against his brethren, than for an obscure layman
to do the same thing. While Mr. Thompson,
therefore, feels it to be duty to expose the
one, I feel it to be duty to expose the other.
I cannot "make fish of one, and flesh of
the other." Were I to do so, well might Messrs.
Nesbit and Delany think me partial, and actuated
by a prejudice against their race which
they attribute to Colonizationists generally, although
not to myself personally; and in this
matter I wish to be distinctly understood, that
I am actuated by no personal feeling towards
Mr. Rankin. I have no acquaintance with him,
and never saw him but once, many years since
at the General Assembly of the Presbyterian
Church, held in this city, (previous to the division
in that body, I I mistake not,) when I
formed a rather favorable impression in regard
to him; and neither do I consider him a sinner
above all others, for I know he has many confederates
in his crime throughout the Union,
who having entertained a bitter enmity towards
the Colonization Society, are determined to
wreak their vengeance against the young, free
and independent Republic of Liberia, to blast
the reputation of its people, and destroy its
usefulness—and in this spirit, and with this determination,
are prepared to use any means to accomplish
their wicked purpose. It needs only
a moment's reflection to perceive that this is a
crime of no ordinary character—for, while admitting
the fact, that few will be disposed to
deny that the people of Liberia have been forced
to leave the land of their birth owing to the
iniquitous laws of many of the States, and the
cruel prejudice that prevails against them in
all the States, I am far from agreeing with Mr.
Thompson that Colonizationists are responsible
for these laws, and this prejudice; but supposing
that it was so, should not the true friends of
the African race sympathize with the
of Colonization prejudice who have encountered
all the difficulties of a new country in a tropical
climate, far away from relatives and friends,
and the home of their youth, to secure for themselves
and their children that freedom which is
the birthright of man, and which had been denied
them in America? But instead of the
sympathy and encouragement which they had a
right to expect from those who had made the
loudest professions of friendship for them, and
their race in America, they are persecuted by
some of these professed frieds of their race,
their weakness, and their poverty sneered at,
their noble efforts to establish an independent
Republic ridiculed; and not content with this,
the most infamous falsehoods are resorted to, to
ruin their character and destroy their hopes
and prospects, even accusing them of tolerating
slavery, of buying and selling their fellow-men
for money! charging that "the President
of the Republic owns thirty or forty
slaves," and "that they are cruelly whipped
and gashed," &c. These are some of the
charges of one of Mr. Rankin's ladies, whose
character for veracity he endorses, but whose
name he refuses to give. He, therefore, makes
the charges his own; he is the only, responsible
party known; and what can be the object
in making these unfounded accusations against
a distant people some thousands of miles off,
and who, therefore, are deprived of the opportunity
of refuting the charges, except to ruin
their reputation in the minds of the American
people, to destroy this hopeful young Republic,
and, to prove to the world that the African
race is incapable of self-government? thus most
effectually strengthening the hands of the slaveholders,
who profess to believe that the colored
man is not able to take care of himself, that he
is not susceptible of improvement as other men
are, and therefore needs a master.
In this wholesale slander of the Liberians,
Mr. Rankin becomes an important ally of the
slaveholders, whether such was his object or
not. He is doing more for the cause of slavery
extension, than Toombs, Atchison, or Stringfellow.
Should Mr. Rankin succeed in making
the Christian world believe the shameful falsehoods
put forth by him on the authority of his
Presbyterian ladies, for whose character he
vouches, he will have dealt with a more fatal
blow to the prospects of the African race in
the United States, both bond and free, than all
the border ruffianism combined could possibly
effect. The slavery propaganda will rejoice
with exceeding joy, while all the true friends of
the colored race, both North and South, would
feel that if all the efforts made in behalf of
Liberia has been in vain—if the noble self
devotion of some of the best men in America,
Missionaries of the Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian
and Episcopal churches, who have given
up even their lives for the purpose of spereading
the gospel in Africa, has been for nought—if
the efforts of Ashmun, Mechlin, Findley, and
Buchanan have been of no avail—if, in fact,
Christianity, with its churches and schools, has
accomplished nothing for Liberia, but that the
people of Liberia, their Chief Magistrate included,
with all the Christian influences surrounding
them, are still barbarous and inhuman
slaveholders, as Mr. Ranking would make the
world believe, then, indeed, may Christianity
weep, while the wicked rejoice.
I will here say to my colored friends, yourself
and your junior Editor included, who may think
my strictures on the Rev. Mr. Rankin too severe,
that I am aware that he is esteemed by
many of you as a good man, and a friend of
your race—and on that account his gross libels
on the Liberians have done the more harm;
without his name they would have been treated
no doubt as they deserved to be, as falsehoods
too absurd to be believed by any sensible man;
but I have found who really
believed this stuff because it was put forth
by John Rankin. I should have been glad, if
possible, to "discriminate between the man and
the act," as Mr. Burlingame attempted (very
unwisely, as I thought) between Preston S.
Brooks, as the man, and Bully Brooks, as the
cowardly assailant of Charles Sumner; but the
thing is impossible. Mr. Rankin has placed
himself before the public as the responsible
slanderer of Liberia, and through her of the
whole race; and there his name must remain until
he thinks proper to withdraw it. The
charges he published were refuted some years
since, on the most undoubted testimony of
English and American officers, including Sir
Charles Hotham, the Admiral of the British
Squadron on the African coast, and the names
of Mr. Rankin's authority demanded—which he
has refused to give—and he still has the audacity
to say, over his own signature, in the last
number of your paper, "I believe there is no
constitutional slavery in Liberia, but that it exists
there by common consent contrary to the
Constitution." Now, if Mr. Rankin really believes
what he says, I submit that he is not a
suitable man to teach the public, especially with
regard to Liberia; but I confess it is difficult
for me to pay so poor a compliment to his understanding
and information, as he does himself,
occupying, as he does, a prominent position as
an anti-slavery man.
I enclose with this the charges of Mr. Rankin,
cut from the of
Oct. 9th, 1852, which I will thank you to republish
with this, that your readers may understand
the case as it really is, and also for the
benefit of Mr. Nesbit, who requests a copy.—
[The article referred to may be found in another
column.—] I would suggest to Mr. Nesbit,
however, if he wishes to make use of it, in
the next edition of his book, that he should be
particular to give Mr. Rankin due credit for it.
In this matter, while I would not extenuate
falsehood in any man, yet between Mr. Rankin
and Mr. Nesbit, I think the latter the less guilty
man of the two; and I trust that he will yet see
his error, and the wrong he has done, and with
true manliness, openly acknowledge it. His letter
in your paper of the 14th inst., certainly
compares very favorably in all respects with
that of the Reverend gentleman immediately
following it. I am fully aware that the people
of Libera have not attained perfection, and
that Liberia is not a paradise; there are no
doubt evils there that need correction. Augustus
Washington pointed out some, and they
were at once looked into, and the remedy applied.
Mr. Crummell has also made several
valuable suggestions in his letters to myself
which were immediately adopted; and Mr.
Thompson says, that while he saw much in Liberia
that pleased him, he also saw some things
that displeased him; and he will, I trust, make
a truthful representation of all, and in a friendly
spirit that will do good. That Liberia has
often been painted in too high colors by enthusiastic
and over-zealous advocates, I have no
doubt—thus leading many to go there who sho'd
never have left their more comfortable abodes
in America. Men who have not the courage to
meet danger, nor the inspiring motives in the
love of freedom to overcome difficulties, should
not emigrate to Liberia. But those who feel
it to be their duty to spread the gospel, to give
their aid to the regeneration and civilization of
Africa, who are determined to be free themselves,
and wish to secure freedom for their
children without waiting for the slow progress
of events in the United States—such will often
undergo many difficulties and discomforts to accomplish
so great an object, and many such
will find happy homes in Liberia, and will thus
be the means of building up a Republic whose
influence will not only be felt in Africa, but also
in America, and throughout the civilized world.
But, my object in this communication was
particular to disabuse the Liberians of the
charge of , or ; and I assert most positively, on
the most reliable information from every source
within my reach, that there is neither slavery
nor any kind of apprenticeship at all analogous
to slavery in Liberia, and no more ground for
the charge than there is that slavery exists in
the States of New York or Massachusetts; and
the charge that Ex-President Roberts owned
thirty or forty, has just as much foundation in
truth, or would be a charge that Gerrit
Smith, or Frederick Douglass, or John Rankin
were slaveholders—for both himself and President
Benson, Mr. Warner, Mr. Crummell, and
indeed Liberians generally, abhor slavery quite
as much as Gerrit Smith or Frederick Douglass
can possibly do. The charge is not only
utterly false, . It is the of John
Rankin and his ladies between them.
I have been thus explicit, and have extended
my remarks in order to settle this matter forever
—because, I found so much misapprehension
on the subject; for even, your associate
says in regard to my last letter in your paper
as follows: "The state of Society which Mr.
Nesbit describes may not be called slavery, in
Liberia; it may go by some such mild name
as apprenticeship; but if the personal discomforts,
restraints and intellectual deprivatins incident
to slavery, are endured by the apprentices
it is a mere subterfuge to deny that slavery
exists in the colony." For this I have to say
to your junior, that this is begging the whole
question; the word "if" is a very important
one in the paragraph quoted; and as I am
dealing with , and not , there
is no relevancy in his remarks. Had he known
the facts as he should, before undertaking
to judge in so important a matter, he would not
have so written, neither would he accuse either
Mr. Thompson or myself of using a "subterfuge"
to deceive the public. At the suggestion
of Mr. Nesbit, I called a few evenings
since at the boarding house of William Still,
where three returned Liberians were staying
—one of whom an Episcopal clergyman who
had spent four years in Liberia, came back to
. They all declare
emphatically, that there was nothing resembling
slavery in Liberia. This denial was made in the
presence of Mr. Still, clerk in the Anti-Slavery
office in this city, and in the presence of a relative
of one of your associates. I had previously
conversed with many returned Liberians on
this point, all of whom pronounced the charges
entire fabrications. Should there be any of
of your readers who still have doubts on this
subject, I will undertake to present them with
abundant testimony, that I think none can cavil
at; and that there are many intelligent and
well-meaning people who have believed these
calamies, I know full well. A short time since
a lady called on me to contribute towards the
creation of a college in Hayti, St. Domingo;
and among other reasons for it; she expatiated
on its importance, as Hayti was now the
hope of the African race, when the people were
free; the experiment in Liberia having become
so complete a failture that they had become
slaveholders, &c.—repeating the charges of Mr.
Rankin, with other things equally absurd—
I listened to her store to the end very patiently,
and then informed her, that I had many friends
in Liberia, and had probably a larger correspondence
with that Republic than any other person
in the United States not connected with the
Colonization Society; that Ex-President Roberts
and President Benson, were particular
friends of mine, whom I had known well for
more than twenty years; and that I had ample
evidence that the whole story had not a particle
of truth to sustain it. She seemed very much
surprised—was evidently sincere in her belief,
and replied to me, "Well, sir, if you have this
information, I think it your duty to make it
public, for I can assure you that there are a great
many who believe it," mentioning at the same
time the names of several respectable and well
known anti-slavery men from whom she received
the information; and when I reflected that the
charges of Mr. Rankin, although disproved, that
the correction had probably never been published
in any of the papers who had published Mr.
Rankin's statement, for I do not recollect even
to have seen it in an anti-colonization paper,
I could not but agree with this lady that I had
a duty to perform to my absent friends that
should no longer be resisted, even should I in
so doing make a personal enemy of Mr. Rankin,
and incur the displeasure of his friends.
I need hardly say to you, friend Douglass,
that I recognise the right of every colored American,
as well as every white American, to labor
in any part of the habitable world, wherever
duty may call in behalf of his race, or for
mankind whether that field of labor shall be
the United States, Canada, the West Indies or
South America, in Mendi, in Liberia or South
Africa, or even among the "heathen of the
South Sea"—notwithstanding the dictum of
your junior associate to the contrary.
Very truly yours,
BENJAMIN COATES.