JOSEPH WARNER¹While the signature at the end of this missive cannot be verified, it is possible that it belonged to Joseph Warren (1815–?). Born in Maine, Warren later moved to Michigan and began working for the U.S. Treasury Department. By 1870, he had been transferred to Washington, where he was part of the Sixth Auditors group, making between $1,200 and $1,600 a year. The connection between Warren, the New National Era, and the Douglasses is not clear, but since Charles Douglass was also employed by the Treasury Department at the time, it is possible that the two had struck up an acquaintance. Also, since Warren was a longtime employee of the Treasury Department, it is not unreasonable to think he might have been composing or collecting articles for publication concerning pending tariff legislation. 1870 U.S. Census, District of Columbia, Washington, 104; Register of Officers and Agents, Civil, Military, and Naval in the Service of the United States . . . 1871 (Washington, 1871), 26; The United States Treasury Register, Containing a List of All Persons Employed in the Treasury Department . . . 1874 (Washington, 1874), 33; William H. Boyd, Boyd’s Directory of Washington, Georgetown, and Alexandria . . . 1871 (Washington, 1871), 363. TO FREDERICK DOUGLASS

Washington, [D.C.] 9 Jan[uary] 1872.

FREDK. DOUGLASS ESQ:

Your Sons²By June 1871, the New National Era was being published by Douglass’s sons Lewis and Frederick Jr., who had been involved with the newspaper since its inception. A Treasury Department clerk, Charles seems to have contributed occasional articles. Early on, Lewis was listed as the assistant editor to his father, though he apparently acted as chief typesetter too. In January 1871, when the senior Douglass, accompanied by Charles, was sent by President Grant to the Dominican Republic for two months, Frederick Jr. placed himself in charge of “business management” and Lewis took over as editor. NNE, 21 January 1871; Blight, Prophet of Freedom, 529, 539. inform me that you think too much space is given to the Tariff.³By and large, editorials in the New National Era in 1871 took stances against revisions to tariff legislation. Though some believed that African Americans in the 1870s were “radical ‘freetraders,’ ” Douglass and other black editorialists were ardent protectionists opposed to opening up international trade. The New National Era hoped that the American people would not be swayed by the zeal of pro-British propaganda, which promoted altering the status quo tariffs. An article titled “Cause of Our National Prosperity” urges readers to “ ‘let well enough alone.’ [As] we have stated that there has been no period in the history of the county in which its progress and wealth and general prosperity has been greater than during the last ten years under the present tariff system.” In the end, only minor changes were made to importation laws in June 1872. NNE, 7, 14, 21, 28 December 1871, 4 January 1872; F. W. Taussig, The Tariff History of the United States: A Series of Essays, 4th ed. (1892; New York, 1905), 171–92.

My reasons for giving the subject so much prominence is first because
I think it is more intimately concerns the welfare of the working men of
the country than almost any other, and second because I hope to make it
of direct advantage to the paper.

The manufacturing is, next to agriculture, the great interest of the
country. Production is its breath of life. They will make a desperate struggle to save it from the free traders. The New Era is the only defender they
have here, and they must help its circulation. As an effort to help the paper
in this way is consistent with its views, and therefore requires no sacrifice
of principles, it has seemed to me that it may [illegible] done.

When the tariff bill is [illegible] it will bring the protection—its here,
and then we will see whether I am right in the hope I have intimated. The
Syracuse Post now have ordered 300 copies of the next no. and 300 of a
succeeding no. on account of an article in favor of continuing publication
to that intent.⁴Many residents of Syracuse, New York, would have agreed with the New National Era on protectionism because of the local salt industry. Lake Onondaga, on which Syracuse is built, is home to numerous salt springs. Since at least 1654, Europeans had been extracting salt from the region for profit. Under the tariffs on salt imports in place since 1864, the New National Era reported that Syracuse salt producers thrived. As with many other industries, salt producers feared that reducing tariffs would lower profits and employment for many domestic industries. NNE, 11 January, 28 March 1872; W. W. Clayton, History of Onondaga County, New York (Syracuse, N.Y., 1878), 44–54.

Whatever I may say about the republican opponents of Grant, I think
is a legitimate criticism, since I make no attacks upon his personal character, and never charge them with corruption &c. I have always thought a
man’s political career is fair game, as Gen. Grants enemies certainly do.
It dont hurt the paper to be talking about [illegible] [illegible] [illegible],
provided there is no other course than that we differ from them on political questions and acts and say so plainly.⁵As Joseph Warren says, he did not wish to harm the paper’s Republican reputation by criticizing President Grant publicly, even if he did not always agree with Grant’s political positions or respect his political ability. After the Black Friday gold scandal (24 September 1869), in which Grant’s brother-in-law was implicated, the New National Era was reporting in 1871 that Democrats and some “sorehead” Republicans had grown disgruntled with Grant’s appointments. These critics accused him of accepting “costly presents,” and were upset that he had appointed some twenty-five of his relations to office. The New National Era defended the president, arguing that twelve of these supposed relatives were, in fact, “neither related to the President nor to Mrs. Grant.” Some of Grant’s relatives had indeed been put in office, but as the paper pointed out, some of these appointments occurred before Grant’s presidency. NNE, 5, 12, 19 October, 9 November, 7, 14 December 1871.

But if you desire that no reference should be made to the Republicans
who are as free in their comments upon the President, except of a complimentary character, all you have to do is to say so [and] I will avoid that
subject.

Yours Truely,

JOSEPH WARNER

ALS: General Correspondence File, reel 2, frames 621–22, FD Papers, DLC.