FREDERICK DOUGLASS TO CHARLES SUMNER

Washington, D.C. 12 Dec[ember] 1870.

HON: CHAS: SUMNER:

MY DEAR SIR:

I am obliged by your note of this morning. To all who have spoken to me
in respect to the St Domingo question,¹One of the most controversial diplomatic initiatives of the Grant administration was its attempt to annex the Dominican Republic. In 1869, Grant’s personal representative, General Orville Babcock, negotiated a treaty of annexation with the Dominican president, Buenaventura Báez. The Senate twice refused to ratify the treaty, largely because of the vociferous opposition of a faction of the president’s own Republican party, led by Charles Sumner. To rally public support for the treaty, Grant persuaded Congress to authorize him to send a commission to the Dominican Republic to investigate political and economic conditions there and to ascertain popular sentiment toward American annexation. The commissioners selected by Grant were Andrew White, president of Cornell University; Samuel G. Howe, a wealthy Boston reformer; and Benjamin Wade, a former U.S. senator from Ohio. Although he regarded the position as “inconsiderable and unimportant,” Douglass accepted an appointment as assistant secretary to the commission. The commissioners, their staff, and numerous reporters left New York City on 17 January 1871 and arrived at Samana Bay seven days later. Douglass participated in the commission’s interviews with Dominican governmental officials and civic leaders and also had the responsibility of contacting English-speaking blacks who had migrated from the United States to the Samana area during the Civil War. The commission arrived back in Washington, D.C., on 26 March 1871 and soon thereafter published a report strongly favoring annexation. Despite regrets at disagreeing with his friend Sumner, Douglass endorsed the annexation policy as being in the mutual interests of both nations, in speeches and in editorials in the . Opponents of annexation remained obdurate, however, and the treaty was never ratified. Douglass to Hamilton Fish, 3 April 1871, General Correspondence File, reel 2, frame 589, FD Papers, DLC; , 19 January, 23 February, 6 April 1871; Washington , 24 February 1871; Washington , 28 March 1871; Charles Callan Tansill, (1938; Gloucester, Mass., 1967), 428–40; Merline Pitre, “Frederick Douglass and the Annexation of Santo Domingo,” , 62: 390–400 (October 1977). I have said I must learn the views
of Senator Sumner before I commit myself entirely to the annexation of
that country to ours.²The issue of the annexation of Santo Domingo drove a wedge not only between Douglass and Charles Sumner, but also between Sumner and President Grant. While Grant adamantly desired the annexation, and was supported by Douglass and other Republicans, other politicians of the new Liberal Republican persuasion vehemently opposed any such annexation. Grant initially believed Sumner would support the treaty to annex Santo Domingo, but that proved to be a gross misunderstanding of Sumner’s claim of being “an Administration man.” Douglass later said that he believed that Sumner felt the “annexation was a measure to extinguish a colored nation, and to do so by dishonorable means and for selfish motives.” Douglass, on the other hand, thought the annexation meant, “the alliance of a weak and defenseless people . . . to a government which would give it peace, stability, prosperity, and civilization.” Douglass felt that after the fall of slavery, the United States should have no qualms about extending American dominion. It has also been asserted that Sumner did not want to annex the Dominican Republic because he disdained the people there. The New York reported on one of Sumner’s speeches in which he described the Dominican people as “a turbulent, treacherous race, indolent and not disposed to make themselves useful to their country or to the world at large.” In the end, Sumner and Douglass’s relationship was salvaged, but Grant and Sumner were not able to move past their differences and remained bitter toward each other for years. , ser. 2, 3:319; Calhoun, , 229–61.
I have no hesitation however in assuring you that if
that country honestly wishes to come to us, I now see no reason against
the policy of receiving her. I say this supposing the conditions upon which
she comes are all right. I need not assure you that I deem myself happy
when at aggre agreement with you—and somewhat embarrassed when
otherwise

Yours Very Truly and gratefully

FREDERICK DOUG LASS

ALS: Charles Sumner Correspondence, MH-H.