FREDERICK DOUGLASS TO CASSIUS M. CLAY

Rochester[, N.Y.] 26 July 1871.

HON: C. M. CLAY.

MY DEAR SIR:

I am obliged by your letter of the 15th although I am not the writer of
the letter to which it is a reply. Remembering your noble, and I may say,
your glorious effort in the strong and perilous past, I was much astonished
by what you now seem to regard for you, the path of political duty. The
Republican party cannot be broken up at this juncture, without, in my
judgment, putting in peril not only the Freedmen of the South, but the
honor and safety of the country. In my mind, I had better put a pistol to
my head and blow my brains out, than to lend myself in my will to the
destruction or the defeat of the Republican party. The facts concerning
Gen. Grants voting in the past were well known in 1868—and he was
voted for nevertheless. He has proved himself a better Republican than he
was supposed to be when he was first nominated and voted for. Though I
am a party man I am no man’s partizan. I stand for General Grant while
he is the stand<ard> bearer of the great party that elected him and I am
extremely sorry to find that you cannot see it to be your duty to do the
same.¹Following Grant’s first presidential term, Clay was unconvinced of the Radical Republicans’ Reconstruction programs, and as early as January 1871 he began openly criticizing Grant. Clay ultimately campaigned for the Liberal Republican candidate, Horace Greeley, in 1872. Clay was opposed to the continued military occupation of the South and sought to restore local control to southerners. As a Kentuckian, he appealed to southern Democrats to join the Liberal movement; he served as a leader of the Kentucky delegation to the National Liberal Republican Convention in May 1872. Westminster (Md.) , 26 January 1871; Smiley, , 222–25. If Gen Grant is sorry concerning Cuba—and I think he is, he is in
company with Senator Sumner²Charles Sumner. and other great and good men. I am not
sure either that killing Grant, would help Cuba. In deciding the question
as to who shall receive the nomination in 1872 the whole ground shall be
calmly and carefully surveyed. What can be done, should be as carefully
considered as well as what to be done. To me, it does not seem likely

that the Republican party will find a candidate of equal strength with
General Grant. The uncontrollable logic of events points him out as our
candidate, we must take him or take division, weakness and defeat. I have
not committed my self to this view in my paper—but shall do so at no
distant day, unless I get unexpected light to the contrary.³On 10 August 1871, Douglass republished an article from the New York that concluded, “Give General Grant two full terms of official service, and . . . the financial and political questions left by the war will be pretty thoroughly settled.” The following week, he published an original editorial listing all the praiseworthy accomplishments of Grant’s administration during the last three years and pointing out everything to be feared if the Democrats regained the presidency. In late December 1871, Douglass wrote an editorial concerning what he called the “Political Civil War,” which he feared might split the Republican party. He encouraged squabbling politicians to put aside personal grievances and objections and to show unity regarding the reelection of Grant. , 10, 17 August, 21 December 1871. I note what you
say of General Grant’s nepotism. Since reading your letter, I have been
at the pains of looking into the Diplomatic Service. The result is, to my
mind, disastrous to your charge. I have before me the Tribune <almanac>
1871. I commend to your attention page 43. You will there find the names
of all our foreign ministers.⁴Douglass refers to , which listed people employed in the U.S. diplomatic service on page 43. For thirty-five nations, it gave the minister’s name, native state, salary, and date of appointment. (New York. 1871), 43. I will not copy them here—but I think that I
would respectfully <refer> you to that list list before you venture to repeat
this Statement, that General Grant has promoted but one man, not a relation, in the diplomatic service. You astonish me beyond measure when
you tell me that you cannot approve of Grant’s proscriptive course toward
the defeated rebels. Great God! were ever rebels and traitors treated with
equal unity? My dear Mr Clay there must be some mistake about this. You
are a brave man and a generous man, but not even your generosity can
exceed that which the Government has extended to our defeated slaveholding rebels of the South. I see no such surrender of personal liberty in
the Ku Klux Bill⁵The Ku Klux Klan Act of 20 April 1871. as you see in it. A large discretion is given the president it is true. But what of that? You say that something must be trusted
to the people in a Government like ours. That is true and wise. Equally
true and wise is it, that in order to good government something must also
be trusted to the public servants of the people. When Minister to Russia,
you enjoyed a pretty large margin of discretion. I have no question that
you used it wisely, and patriotically and would do so again. Power is easily abused—but when men are to be governed some body must have the
power to govern. A cruel and brutal police officer will some times make
it <his office> the means of gratifying his [illegible]. What then, shall we
strip the office of power? But my dear Mr Clay, I did not mean to argue
this question with you—and I will not. If Cassius M. Clay cannot set
himself right any effort of mine by way of argument will be unavailing.
I write simply in acknowledgement of your note. And in token of my old
time respect for your great deeds in favor universal liberty and justice.

Very truly yours

FREDK DOUGLASS.

ALS: General Correspondence File, reel 2, frames 606–07, FD Papers, DLC.