GERRIT SMITH TO FREDERICK DOUGLASS

Peterboro, [N .Y.] 9 Feb[ruary] 1849.

FREDERICK DOUGLASS—

I lay down the last North Star to tell you how happy the reading of it has made me.

It has long been a question of deep interest with me, whether the colored men of the North will take the ground that the Federal Constitution requires the abolition of American slavery.¹Gerrit Smith was among the earliest advocates of antislavery politics, but originally held the conventional position that the U.S. Constitution safeguarded slavery in states where it was already established. By 1847, however, Smith had adopted the more radical view that the Constitution was inherently hostile to slavery. His lobbying of Douglass was instrumental in persuading the black abolitionist to convert from the contrary Garrisonian position that the Constitution was a proslavery document. In the mid-1850s Smith, Douglass, William Goodell, and a small band formed the Radical Abolition party with antislavery constitutionalism as a central tenet. John Stauffer, The Black Hearts of Men: Radical Abolitionists and the Transformation of Race (Cambridge, Mass., 2002), 22–23, 25–27, 31, 164–68; Harlow, Gerrit Smith, 280–81; Wiecek, Sources of Antislavery Constitutionalism, 253, 258–59. I have been sure that they would, if such men as Douglass, Purvis, Remond,²Both Robert Purvis and Charles Lenox Remond remained loyal to the Garrisonian position that the U.S. Constitution protected slavery. They therefore refused to vote, denounced the Liberty party, and endorsed northern “disunionism” to escape culpability for defending slavery. In 1852, when Douglass had abandoned those positions, Purvis publicly condemned Douglass and cancelled his subscription to Frederick Douglass’ Paper. FDP, 20 May 1852; Pease and Pease, They Who Would Be Free, 79–80, 89, 196, 245, 294–95; Stewart, Holy Warriors, 98–99. &c., &c., should agree on this subject with Garnet,³At an 1848 meeting of the Liberty League held in Buffalo, New York, Henry Highland Garnet and Douglass each outlined their opposing positions on slavery and the Constitution. In support for the Constitution as an antislavery document, Garnet placed emphasis on the document’s preamble and the use of the word “person” instead of “slave.” He submitted that the ambiguous nature of the Constitution itself allowed it to be interpreted in favor of liberty and antislavery. Schor, Henry Highland Garnet, 934–94. Ward,⁴Samuel Ringgold Ward (1817–66) was a black Congregational minister, abolitionist, editor, and orator. Around 1820 Ward escaped from slavery with his family. By 1834 he had become active in abolitionist circles and later lectured for the American Anti-Slavery Society. After 1844 Ward also acted as a spokesman for the Liberty party. In the 1840s he edited two Syracuse-based abolitionist newspapers, including the Impartial Citizen, but both failed financially. Following his 1851 involvement in the Jerry Rescue, he immigrated to Canada. Ward’s involvement in abolitionist activities necessarily brought him into close contact with Douglass, who remarked that “as an orator and thinker he [Ward] was vastly superior . . . to any of us,” and that “the splendors of his intellect went directly to the glory of his race.” Douglass, Life and Times (1881), 284; Samuel Ringgold Ward, Autobiography of a Fugitive Negro: His Anti-Slavery Labours in the United States, Canada and England (1855; New York, 1968); Quarles, Black Abolitionists, 79, 98, 133, 138, 210. &c., &c.

Your comments on Calhoun’s⁵Best known for his advocacy of states’ rights, John Caldwell Calhoun (1782–1850), a prominent politician from South Carolina, appeared on the national political scene in 1812 as one of the “War Hawks” who entered Congress on a platform that supported the War of 1812. Calhoun quickly rose to prominence, and in his third congressional term James Monroe appointed him secretary of war. In 1824 and 1828 his popularity found him elected vice president; however, Calhoun resigned his post and returned to defend the rights of his home state of South Carolina during the Nullification Controversy of 1831 and 1832. Election to the Senate from South Carolina ensured that Calhoun would remain on the national political scene, and he returned to a cabinet post as secretary of state under John Tyler. John Niven, John C. Calhoun and the Price of Union: A Biography (Baton Rouge, La., 1988); Charles M. Wiltse, John C. Calhoun, 3 vols. (New York, 1944–51); DAB, 3:410–19. manifesto,⁶The “manifesto” Smith describes is actually a congressional committee report titled “The Address of Southern Delegates in Congress to Their Constituents.” In it, Calhoun outlined the grievances perpetrated by the enemies of slavery and warned of the dangers of admitting more free states to the Union. He believed that upsetting the balance of free and slave states would allow abolitionists to amend the Constitution and create other measures that would outlaw slavery. The address was a call for a unity among southern states to prevent any further advances by antislavery elements in Congress. It failed to gain the support he hoped for, and in fact, southern Whigs strongly opposed it. NS, 9 February 1849; Irving H. Bartlett, John C. Calhoun: A Biography (New York, 1993), 364–67; DAB, 2:411–19. and your reply to C. H. Chase,⁷C. H. Chase wrote to Douglass challenging him to debate the wording of a resolution, adopted by the Western New York Anti-Slavery Society in 1848, concerning the Constitution as an antislavery document. Douglass published Chase’s letter, dated 23 January 1849, along with his own reply expressing his belief that the Constitution was a proslavery document. Both letters appear in this volume. NS, 9 February 1849. cheer me with the hope that you are on the very eve of wielding the Federal Constitution for the abolition of American Slavery. When I shall see you with your lips and your newspaper doing this, great will be my rejoicing.

You admit that the Constitution is capable of an anti-slavery interpretation. Every admission which I could desire in this matter, follows necessarily from the one you have made.

I agree with you, that there is much historical proof of an attempt to smuggle slavery into the Constitution; but the attempt was unsuccessful. Still, we treat it as if it had been successful.

My neighbor Brown and I make a bargain. I draw up the instrument. We both sign it. I aimed, in drawing it up, to cheat Brown out of his horse. We litigate before His Honor, Frederick Douglass. Judge Douglass finds no difficulty in so interpreting the instrument as to leave Brown his horse, and is convinced that the horse justly belongs to Brown. But the judge sees proof outside of the instrument, that I meant to defraud Brown out of his horse. Will the judge be so partial to rascality as to award the horse to me? No; he will not. Why then should he consent to sacrifice the slave to rascally intentions? If he should, I think it must be because during the greater part of his life, he has been a slaveholder. The common opinion is, that