Joseph Treat to Frederick Douglass, February 18, 1852
LETTER FROM JOSEPH TREAT.
Frederick Douglass: Dear Friend:—Last summer, I furnished two or three articles for your paper, which you criticised severely. I was glad that you did so, though I think that you quite mistook my spirit, and purpose. I intended to call on you, when I passed through Rochester on my return to the East, (I never yet had the pleasure of speaking with you,) and hand you another communication; but I was detained so late, that I needed every moment of my time, day and night, to enable me to get to Ohio in season for our Anniversary, since which period, by a very extraordinary combination of circumstances, it has been rendered almost absolutely impossible for me to correspond with any paper. Now, however, that I begin to have a little leisure, I shall be glad, occasionally, to speak briefly through your columns.
Your last issue, (Feb. 12th,) is before me, and I wish to comment on two of its articles. My strictures have respect to the spirit which the writers of those articles exhibit, which I think is not kind, nor in accordance with love, and, therefore, not right.
The first article is from the pen of W.O. Duvall, who, after characterizing the supporters of the Fugitive Slave Law, and the scheme of African Colonization, as "villains," adds. "May the whole litter of these be blasted and accursed!" Is this said well?—Would Christ have said so? Are human beings—our divine brothers—the dear and precious children of the Almighty Father—to be classed along with puppies and pigs? And then, are they to be not only contemned, and hated, but absolutely cursed? Is this the way to do them good?
In speaking, too, of the Christiana affair, he says, "that if Hanaway and his companions saved the lives of the kidnappers, they ought to be convicted of treason, and that if the worthless carcasses of all those hell-hounds had been left dead on the field, it would have cost neither individuals nor the State one farthing more? and that he deeply regrets that liberty deprived slavery of but one man." How can Friend Duvall talk so? Can he, and yet have the spirit of an Abolitionist? Is not this the identical spirit which reigns in the bosom of the slaveowner—the spirit which offers "so much for my man if taken alive, or fifty dollars for his head!"—the spirit of wrath, and malice, and hate? Is it not (like the spirit of the slave-owner) inhuman, murderous, and blood-thirsty?
The other article, is the anonymous Poem on the last page, addressed to Webster, to the whole tone of which, I take exceptions, but to three passages of which, I must particularly, and strongly object. As to the first one—Is it well, or right, to characterize the erring brother who betrayed the Nazarene Jesus, as "the damned Iscariot?" Who has damned Iscariot? Not the good man whom he betrayed—for he, in the loftiness of his noble nature, prayed, "Father, forgive him, for he knows not what he does!" Not that Father, for he never curses nor damns any of his children, but loves them only, and does them good, insomuch, that when they do evil to themselves, he is on their side against their own evil, calling them away from it, and bidding them be not at all sufferers, but only blessed and happy. Shall we, then, damn whom God and the good all save?
Then, too, is it well with bitterness to denounce our Brother as a fool, and tauntingly tell him to "exult in getting gold—his price for serving hell." Is this the way to win a man to the truth? Will Webster any the more easily be brought to love the slave, and to treat the runaway as a ma, rather than to hunt him through the land like a wild beast, by being addressed in such a vein?—And this criticism applies equally to others, besides the writers for Douglass' Paper. Immediately upon the passage of the Fugitive Bill, William Lloyd Garrison, from his sick bed, fulminated a most terrible Phillipie against its authors, in which, in the very spirit of this Poem, he exclaimed: "Rave, and roar, and utter great swelling words of vanity, and damned and damning Haynau, who fillest the chair of State, &c."—words not at all calculated, in my opinion, to do Mr. Webster any good, but only to madden him, and render his mind ten-fold more set against the truth, and which, therefore, seeing they were said unwisely, should not have been said at all. O, when shall we all come to discard the
use of such venomous weapons, and to trust alone to truth, forbearance, pity, and the Omnipotence of Love!
And then, again, is it the prompting of a kind, brotherly heart, to ask Mr. Webster why he has not the "grace" to follow the example of Judas and hang himself? Could we tantalize one whom we loved, by asking him such a question as that? And ought we not to love even Daniel Webster? Nay, is it not a shame to insert that word "even," as if there could possibly be any doubt whether we ought to love him, or as if we could any way help doing so—as if our whole nature must not gush out toward him with affectionate yearning, and we bind him to our heart of hearts, and feel that he is all our own! 'Is he not a man and a brother? Does the fact that an individual is so unwise and undeveloped as to be chargeable with great crimes, release us from, our obligation to be kind to him? Does it not rather increase it? While we have to speak with all possible plainness, and in tones most strongly condemnatory, of his deeds, should we not be all the more careful to speak only tenderly and affectionately of him?
One nation in this country, has taken upon itself the responsibility of hating and horribly abusing another nation in it—may we who see this, not take upon ourselves to serve that people, as it serves this! May the Abolitionists never become like unto the slaveholder! May they be born again, and have a new spirit! Friend, is not this a more excellent way?
Yours for love and good will to all,
JOSEPH TREAT.
Nelson, Portage Co., Ohio,
Feb. 18th, 1852.