William Douglass to Frederick Douglass and Martin R. Delany, December 18, 1848
WILLIAM DOUGLASS1The Reverend William Douglass (?–1861) was the rector of Philadelphia’s St. Thomas African Episcopal Church. Founded in 1792 by Absalom Jones and the first black congregation in that city, St. Thomas called William Douglass to be its preacher in 1834. Born to free black parents in Baltimore, William Douglass had been an African Methodist Episcopal clergyman in his native city. In the early 1830s he quit that denomination and became the first black Episcopal minister ordained in a slave state. An intelligent and articulate clergyman, William Douglass emphasized self-help as the key to racial elevation in his sermons and other ministerial duties. Despite his response to Frederick Douglass’s criticism, the Reverend Douglass apparently feared for the safety of his church building if he allowed militant black abolitionists to lecture there. In 1855 William Douglass married Sarah Mapps Douglass, an important female black abolitionist and educator. Julie Winch, Philadelphia's Black Elite: Activism, Accommodation, and the Struggle for Autonomy, 1787–1848 (Philadelphia, 1988), 157–61; Robert F. Ulle, “A History of St. Thomas’ African Episcopal Church, 1794–1865” (Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1986), 81–101; ANB, 6:821–22. TO FREDERICK DOUGLASS AND MARTIN R. DELANY
Philadelphia, [Pa.] 18 Dec[ember] 1848.
MESSRS. EDITORS:—
In your editorial of the 8th inst., headed “St. Thomas’ Church, Philadelphia,”2Frederick Douglass’s editorial on St. Thomas African Episcopal Church appeared in the 8 December 1848 issue of his newspaper. The first lengthy quotation in the letter is correct, except that William Douglass misquotes Frederick Douglass in saying “spend some discussion.” Frederick Douglass wrote, “Upon these questions severally, it may yet be proper to expend some discussion.” NS, 8 December 1848. you inform your readers that “the real question at issue between W. D. and the North Star is not whether a meeting-house (sanctuary) ought to be reverenced. I[t] is not whether ordination is right; nor is it whether Christ was in favor of or opposed to a religion of forms and ceremonies.” You proceed further to say, that “upon these questions severally, it may yet be proper to spend some discussion. At present, however, we think it best to confine the controversy to the question at issue. The question is this: Is the St. Thomas’ Church, Philadelphia, by its practice and position, hostile to the anti-slavery movement? We affirm that it is. W. D. denies the charge, and demands the evidence upon which we base the charge.” This part of your article I perused with mingled emotions of joy and regret—of joy to find the question narrowed down into so small a compass—of regret, to learn that it is narrowed down “only for the present.” We were vain enough to suppose that the several divisions of your marshaled host above stated had been completely routed. But it appears that you will not have us to be elated above measure. Your intimation admonishes us to moderate our joy, from the admitted fact, that the retreat was performed in the finest order; hence, after they have been sufficiently recruited, you will have us calculate upon their return again, to render you effectual service, (perhaps) long before the decisive blow is struck. Well, be it so. I will not suffer myself to be carried away in an ecstacy of delight, in view of the sacrifice thus made of what I shall always regard as very objectionable matter, but shall be content with enjoying the calmer satisfaction of knowing that, “for the present” at least, I have but the one point to keep in view. And here I would take pleasure in dispensing with further preliminaries, and proceed at once to consider how the affirmative part of this question has been sustained by you. But there has been so much dust raised round and about it, whether by the heels of your retreating forces or by the hurry and bustle of arranging your main body yet occupying the field, I am not anxious to determine; but all this must be cleared away before we shall be prepared to see how you have disposed of what you now admit to be the only point at issue.
In my second communication with the North Star,3William Douglass wrote to Frederick Douglass on two previous occasions in 1848 concerning the same subject. The first letter, dated 19 October, appeared in the 27 October issue of the North Star. The second letter, dated 15 November, was published in the 24 November issue. I explicitly stated that my remarks would be confined to what had been said respecting St.
Thomas’ Church. Your readers know that I adhered to this strictly. It is true that, as a foundation for a future and separate argument, we submitted. Whether or not the Protestant Episcopal Church, either in her General or Diocesan Conventions, has ever declared herself hostile to the anti-slavery movement; and substantially said, fasten this charge from her own published documents, and after that is done, then show the link that holds St. Thomas’ Church in the same hostile position.4Frederick Douglass had alluded to restrictions imposed on St. Thomas African Episcopal Church by the Protestant Episcopal church. At the time the denomination admitted St. Thomas in the 1790s, the Protestant Episcopal church barred the congregation from sending a clergyman or other delegates to denominational conventions. The bishop of the Philadelphia diocese also made it a policy to oversee important ceremonies such as confirmation at St. Thomas. In the 1840s the diocese founded a mission church directly under its control to minister to Philadelphia’s blacks in competition with St. Thomas. By the end of the 1840s, the Reverend William Douglass and the lay leaders of St. Thomas began lobbying the diocese for more equal treatment. This effort, despite growing support from sympathizers in white clerical ranks, did not succeed until 1864. Ulle, “History of St. Thomas’ African Episcopal Church,” 110–12, 115–28. Besides this, point out if you can, in any part of my “long letter,” so styled, the least allusion to the church at large, much less anything like a defence of its anti-slavery character. This is the false position you have vainly tried to force me into—you have even made me complain that the Episcopal church in general is not allowed the plea of neutrality. This I said, not with reference to the Episcopal Church generally, but I said it, as you ought to have known, with exclusive reference to St. Thomas’ Church, Philadelphia—I said it in reply to the specific charge preferred against that church of “bolting and barring her doors against the cause of the slave.”5A quotation from Frederick Douglass’s editorial “Colored Churches in Philadelphia.” NS, 27 October 1848. For, surely, bolting and barring cannot consist with neutrality.—I might exclaim here, What artlessness! what milk-white honesty! I take another step in advance. The kind of evidence demanded on my part, seems to have produced in your nervous system a wonderful excitement—you are perfectly astounded at the very idea of such a requisition. So, “in all kindness to W. D.,” you denounce the demand as “opposed to all the just modes of reasoning, and to every dictate of common sense.”6Unless otherwise noted, all subsequent quotations in this letter come from Frederick Douglass’s editorial “St. Thomas Church, Philadelphia.” NS, 8 December 1848.—Mercy!—what a shower of blessings upon my head, “in all kindness”! You have, I am sure, made this assertion without due consideration. Is the demand really so monstrous as to render my sanity questionable?—Let us see. To show the folly of my demand, you have, unfortunately for your purpose, referred to “our own boasted Republic”—solemnly declaring, that it holds these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, &c., and at the same time holding in most cruel bondage three millions of our brethren. Now, would it not be as proper, were you to “to ask7The reading of “to ‘to ask” is almost certainly compositor error. as proof of the pro-slavery character of this nation, a resolution DECLARING it, as to ask the same proof against the Protestant Episcopal Church”? I reply here in the following manner. Have the framers of that document to which attention has been called, left nothing in it “DECLARING the pro-slavery character of this nation”?—Have they not left some cause in the Constitution which neutralizes the sublime and glorious sentiments referred to? How often have you, with others, referred to the 4th art. 2d sec. of that instrument, which says, “No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall
be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”8This passage, from article IV, section 2, of the U.S. Constitution, is known as the fugitive slave clause. When combined with enforcement through the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, the clause was widely interpreted as favoring the property rights of slaveholders, and some abolitionists used this interpretation to demonstrate the proslavery nature of the Constitution. Although there was little debate about the fugitive slave clause at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, it became a center of the debate over slavery in the nineteenth century. Paul Finkelman, Slavery and the Founders: Race and Liberty in the Age of Jefferson (Armonk, N.Y., 1996), 81–82; Donald E. Lively, The Constitution and Race (New York, 1992), 14–16. How often have you referred to this, not only to prove the pro-slavery character of the instrument, but the pro-slavery character of this nation? Again: What is the line of argument pursued by S. H. Foster in his famous book, in order to show the guilt of the various churches on the subject of slavery?9The author mentioned is actually antislavery activist Stephen S. Foster. William Bolles first published Foster’s book, The Brotherhood of Thieves; or, A True Picture of the American Church and Clergy, in 1843 in New London, Connecticut, and in 1844 the Antislavery Office published it in Boston. Does he not look into their several ecclesiastical councils, and thence expose the foulness of those resolutions passed by their respective bodies, and thus show how he reaches the conclusion sought? Yet the demand on my part for a similar course to be taken by you, has been met by a denunciation. I shall let it pass now for what it is worth.
I might now turn to a survey of the main ground, were it not that old Apollyon10Apollyon was a biblical demon referred to as the “angel of the bottomless pit” and king of the locusts that plague the earth. The name originates in Greek and means “destroyer.” Rev. 9:11; Freedman, Anchor Bible Dictionary, 1:301–02. stands in the way. He has been raised again. I[t] is true he is brought up from the pit this time, not for the purpose of ridiculing ordination, but with a less objectionable design—to show “the practical working of a rigid adherence to” an exclusive “rule.” The explanatory motive is duly appreciated, but I must say, I do not see any great improvement in the image. The devil is the devil, paint him as you may, and I cannot allow the possibility of his appearing “in holy orders,” for any purpose whatever. Why so fond of dressing the arch-fiend in robes, and then holding him up to view? Let the ‘execrable shape’ go back to his punishment. Worn and weary of removing obstructions that were skilfully placed in my path, I have at length arrived at an elevated spot, where I can take an unbounded survey of the particular point at issue.
It is affirmed by the North Star, that St. Thomas’ Church, Philadelphia, is hostile to the anti-slavery movement. How is this position sustained? The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States is arraigned.—Witnesses are called up and examined. Two scriptural rules are brought forward to fix upon her brow “the brand of hostility—“By their fruits ye shall know them;”11Matt. 7:20.—“Inasmuch as ye did it not unto these, the least of my brethren, ye did it not unto me.”12Matt. 25:45. The former of these rules refers to sins of commission, the latter to sins of omission. This seems to be more relied on as testimony to fix the brand of hostility (negatively.) Well, let us admit the force of this to its full extent, which may be thus expressed: “She has not done what she ought to have done in the cause referred to.” Verbal testimony is next called up, and says: “She has never treated slavery as a sin; it has never expressed the first word of sympathy with the anti-slavery movement, or even thanked God for its existence, or expressed a hope that the movement would succeed.” I shall not attempt to depreciate the character or lessen the force of this negative testimony. We are travelling in a
pleasant road now, and seem to be accompanied with congenial spirits; hence we advance rapidly. Next appears documentary evidence, containing names both of the living and the dead. These doctrines represent Laymen and Bishops uniting to exclude from the Theological Seminary, N.Y., two young men of well-cultivated minds, noble aspirations and sterling worth, merely because “their skins were not colored like their own.”13In an editorial that appeared in the 8 December 1848 issue of the North Star, Frederick Douglass cited the Protestant Episcopal church’s rejection of two black applicants, Alexander Crummell in 1839 and Isaiah De Grasse in 1836, for admission to its General Theological Seminary in New York City as evidence of racism in the denomination. Wilson Jeremiah Moses, Alexander Crummell: A Study of Civilization and Discontent (New York, 1989), 17, 25–30. They disclose the additional fact of certain colored Episcopal churches being denied representation. Last of all, ‘the grave-yard, tomb-stones, inscriptions on coffin-lids,’ all have been made to utter, with one united voice, against the criminal at the bar. But what does all this array of testimony amount to? What would be the verdict of an impartial jury from the testimony adduced? I have no doubt but they would fix the same brand of guiltiness upon her forehead that marks every other denomination of professing Christians in the country—the guilt of un-christian prejudice against the people of color. But who ever denied this? Who ever sought to make light of, palliate or conceal it? You do the writer of this great injustice, to suppose that he is blind to, or the least insensible of, the withering spirit that meets us in all the various white churches in the country—But what bearing has this upon St. Thomas’ Church? How do you fasten the guilt upon her? Merely to say that she is a “branch” of the church shown to be guilty of the sin of omission on the great question of human liberty, will not answer. Is the son to be held accountable for the sins of the father?14A reference to Ezek. 18:20.—Surely not. I shall not further anticipate on this point. Should a regular and direct attack be made here, I stand ready to meet it. Approaching the close of your remarks, I observe the following statement, designed partially to show “the practical working of a strict adherence to a rule,” exclusive, and partially to show that our church, by her “practice, is hostile to the anti-slavery movement.” “While you would not admit Frederick Douglass, M. R. Delany, or Charles L. Remond, to speak for the slave, the Rev. T. Allen,15In a 29 December 1848 editorial in the North Star, Frederick Douglass acknowledged learning that this Reverend Allen was no longer a slaveholder, but again charged that he had preached at St. Thomas while then still owning slaves. a notorious slaveholder, has been repeatedly an occupant of the pulpit of that church.” Now, so much of this as relates to Mr. Allen, in justice, should be recalled.—Your mind has been greatly abused with regard to that pious and devoted man. So far is he from being “notorious” as a slaveholder, that he claims no human being on earth as a slave. So you must look for some other “occupant of that pulpit” that will render you greater assistance in making out your case.—Once more. After first naming yourself, you have taken the responsibility of attaching the names of two other gentlemen, equally remarkable with yourself, for their dignified bearing and self-respect, and who, I am sure, do not feel themselves highly complimented in being
represented as complainants for not having been as freely admitted into the pulpit as Mr. Allen. So I think we may regard their names as misplaced, and your own left singly and alone on the top of the hill. Several years will yet have to pass away before I shall attain the age of “fifty;” were it not so, seniority might claim the right to say a word to you on modesty; but as it is, I forbear. Take the following for a reply to the complaint. We have a large lecture-room, under the control of the vestry, in which Messrs. Harned,16William Harned (1804–?) of Brooklyn, New York, published several antislavery tracts and served as an agent for the North Star and the American Missionary Association. NS, 1 May 1851; 1850 U.S. Census, New York, Kings County, Brooklyn, Fourth Ward, 318; William J. Hearne and James B. Webb, Brooklyn City Directory and Yearly Advertiser for 1847–1848 (Brooklyn, N.Y., 1847), 110; Henry R. Hearne and William J. Hearne, Brooklyn City Directory and Yearly Advertiser for 1848–1849 (Brooklyn, N.Y., 1848), 136; idem, Brooklyn City Directory and Yearly Advertiser for 1849–1850 (Brooklyn, N.Y., 1849), 149. Bacon,17Though born in the Midwest, Leonard Bacon (1802–81) attended school in New England and ultimately graduated from Yale University. After attending Andover Theological Seminary, Bacon became a Congregational minister, serving the prestigious First Church in New Haven, Connecticut. Although he did not approve of the extreme tactics of the Garrisonian abolitionists, Bacon was a moderate opponent of slavery and supporter of the free soil movement. In Slavery Discussed in Occasional Essays, written in 1846, he outlined his belief that slavery as a social system was wrong. Bacon also wrote and spoke frequently on behalf of the temperance and anti-Catholic causes. Hugh Davis, Leonard Bacon: New England Reformer and Antislavery Moderate (Baton Rouge, La., 1998); McKivigan, War against Proslavery Religion, 153, 176; DAB, 1:479–81. Bond,18Born in Baltimore, Thomas Emerson Bond, Sr. (1782–1856), practiced medicine before becoming a Methodist Episcopal church minister. Bond edited many Methodist periodicals, including the New York Christian Advocate and Journal (1840–48, 1852–56). In his editorial positions and at church conferences, Bond resisted abolitionist efforts to persuade the Methodist Episcopal church to take a stronger antislavery ground after the church’s 1844 sectional schism. Donald G. Mathews, “Orange Scott: The Methodist Evangelist as Revolutionary,” in Antislavery Vanguard: New Essays on the Abolitionists, ed. Martin Duberman (Princeton, N.J., 1965), 93–94; NCAB, 11:161–62. Burleigh,19Born in Plainfield, Connecticut, Charles Calistus Burleigh (1810–78) left the study of law to enter the abolitionist ranks in the early 1830s. He became the editor of the Garrisonian Pennsylvania Freeman in the 1840s, advocated antisabbatarianism, wrote tracts in opposition to capital punishment, and supported the cause of woman suffrage. Ripley, Black Abolitionist Papers, 3:224n; ACAB, 1:455; DAB, 2:284–85. Dr. Elder,20William Elder (1806–85) was a Pennsylvania physician, attorney, and author. He first studied medicine in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, but later turned to law. In 1845 he moved his practice from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia. There, he advocated political abolition and contributed articles to the Republic, a free soil newspaper. Beginning in 1854, Elder published numerous books, including biographies, historical works, volumes on economic issues, and essay collections. DAB, 3:68. and last, though not least, Dr. J. J. G. Bias,21An early African American physician, James J. Gould Bias (?–1864) attended the Eclectic Medical College of Philadelphia in 1851 and 1852. An advocate of temperance and popular education and a leading elder of the African Methodist Episcopal church, Bias also supported abolitionist activities in Philadelphia. 1848 Mail Book of the North Star, 163, FD Papers Project, InIU; NS, 5 January 1849; Theophilus Gould Steward, Fifty Years in the Gospel Ministry from 1864 to 1914 (Philadelphia, 1921), 20. have all severally spoken. They entered through the door which was unbolted then, and remains so to the present. What now is the present state of the question? You affirmed that St. Thomas' Church was hostile to the anti-slavery movement. To sustain this charge, you have shown that the General Episcopal Church is guilty of entertaining unholy prejudices against their colored brethren; you may say, if you please, that you have shown her to be pro-slavery. But I inquire, have you pointed out the pro-slavery link that holds St. Thomas’ Church in the same hostile position? In this you have completely failed. St. Thomas’s, as yet, remains unaffected in view of the unfounded charge that has been brought against her. I find her looking the accuser full in the face—no joints trembling, no muscular motion whatever is perceived that indicates either shame or remorse; but I behold her standing on the firm ground of her individuality, with all that calm composure which conscious innocence inspires. You may, if you please, violate every rule of propriety, by condescending to use coarse, “old-hag” descriptions of the mother church, the offspring, nevertheless, will continue to stand forth justified, declared innocent of the slanderous charge of hostility to the cause of the slave, by the united voice of the thinking, discriminating and impartial portion of your readers.
I shall not conclude by leaving you to your conscience in a general way,
as you in your parting blessing left me; but shall act a more faithful part by
you. I shall propose a particular point, on which, I think, you may examine
your conscience to some profit. Reference is had now to the ninth com
mandment—“Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”22Exod. 20:16.
Yours as ever,
P.S. The following are some of the errors that appeared in my second arti—
cle, through inattention to the manuscript: Think something of the form
should read, see something; new order of things understood, should read,
introduced.
W. D.
PLIr: NS, 29 December 1848.