cursed the slaveholder, spurned slavery, and, with the power of a Hercules, had riven the contemptible fetters that bound his manly form, dashing them to atoms, and walked forth untrammeled as nature had designed him, a god-like native nobleman. I borrow not the term of “native noble” as applied to you; for I find in the files of a paper before me, the term used by myself towards you, more than six years since.³Delany probably described Douglass as a “native noble” in the Pittsburgh Mystery, a paper he edited from 1843 to 1848. No extant copies of the Mystery for the period referred to by Delany, earlier than 1845, have been located. Ripley, Black Abolitionist Papers, 4:12–29n. I believe I need no endorsement to prove my abiding; if I did, I should apply to no other than yourself. But this I think will be conceded at once; and I should not have said a word on this point, had I not desired to record anew my personal estimate of yourself and efforts as a man and brother, thereby to put at rest any miscomprehensions or misconstructions that might follow the tone of your remarks.

The letter, though addressed to Mr. Ward, contained strictures upon your late review of his course, yet I will go, and so intimated to Mr. Ward, an even length in attacking or condemning the posit[i]on of Mr. Ward on that occasion, as stated by you; but I cannot admit that, in doing this, it is necessary to impugn his motives, unless he was an avowed or known enemy, which I do not accuse you of charging designedly to injure Mr. Ward; but such, my dear sir, was the tenor of your whole course towards him.

My letter was intended as much a review of past feelings that existed among you, as for the present—as much to Mr. Ward as yourself, (only on presumption, as I had no means of ascertaining his course toward you,) and indeed not only Mr. Ward and yourself, but that distinguished eloquent gentleman of whose manly bearing and unexceptionable ability I have often borne testimony—Mr. H. H. Garnet,⁴Henry Highland Garnet. but his name being disconnected with the late transaction, I did not feel at liberty to drag it in, although during the controversy—the unfortunate, unhealthy controversy that existed between you last summer and fall,⁵Relations between Douglass and Garnet grew strained over a variety of issues throughout the 1840s. Garnet advocated the use of violence, while Douglass argued for nonresistance. Garnet believed that abolitionists should support sending Bibles to slaves, while Douglass averred that this was a waste of effort. Their differences became heated debates both on the lecture podium and in the pages of antislavery newspapers. In 1849 English abolitionist Henry Richardson invited Garnet to Britain to promote the Free Produce Movement and freedom in general. Douglass railed against Garnet, insisting that Garnet had never supported the first issue, that Garnet would promote violence to the detriment of the abolitionist cause as a whole, and that Garnet would use the opportunity to criticize Douglass to the British audience on which Douglass heavily relied for support. Douglass launched his own short-lived campaign to discredit Garnet in Britain, but his efforts did not succeed. Garnet counterattacked by accusing Douglass of professional jealousy. That same year, Garnet’s failure to appear as advertised at a Buffalo convention in honor of West Indian Emancipation led to another assault by Douglass on Garnet’s integrity. Garnet responded by assailing Douglass’s leadership within the abolitionist movement and his nonviolent position. In later years, the two would continue to disagree, particularly in the late 1850s, when Garnet became a leading advocate of colonization. Blackett, Building an Antislavery Wall, 143–45; Schor, Henry Highland Garnet, 104–07. I sat down to write a letter similar to my recent one, but forebore, lest it would be received with a different feeling and spirit from that which it was intended, and instead of good, evil might result therefrom.

In the connection in which I made reference to the “uncivilized, vulgar attacks of the Mississippi ruffian,” far, very far be it from an intention, on my part, to liken you, or any other gentlemen for whom I entertain sentiments of respect, and this declaimer was particularly made at the time—I repeat that it was not so intended, but simply to illustrate the fact that the position occupied by those to whom I then addressed myself, could easily be construed to emulate such persons only.—

You will readily perceive that the excep- [missing text]⁶The bottom half of the page on which this letter appears in the North Star is missing. ments of the