Ethiop (William J. Wilson) to Frederick Douglass, June 19, 1852
From Our Brooklyn Correspondent.
Dear Douglass:—Friend Barry has thrown, a little more light upon his hitherto peculiar position, relative to the wealth question, and the connection of the blacks therewith. I say, friend, for I must now, so write him down—nay, I am but too happy to do so, since seeing him through the medium of his last epistle; and if I have said aught to would a friendly feeling, I beg to plead in excuse that true friends, found in certain directions, are "so like angel's visits, few and far between," that I perhaps have been too desirous to feel and handle, and see if they were really flesh and bones before so denominating them. Will friend Ronham, with whom I shall have a word in future, excuse this as an excuse also? Presuming that he (Barry) is a friend, the whole thing is plain before me. I now see that it was his peculiar wealth notions, not as applicable to the blacks merely, that led him to build his frail fabric into the labyrinth of semi-primitive, semi-dreamy speculations; while from neither of whose dangers does he seem very readily to get; still the one threatents to tumble about his ears, the other, to [lose] him in its thick maizes; so, as a recip[rocal] friend, let me try and help him. "If any man knows how to lay out a dollar profitably, let him, by all means get it," says friend Barry. Again; "no man can get honestly over [ten] thousand dollars, and none hath need of more," is another corner-stone of [illegible] Barry's babric. Now if no danger [illegible] himself, doubtless our good friend de[illegible] that his structure may fall to the ground [illegible] it withstand now the simplest [illegible] see.
1. Suppose I, a hard-working man, am by fortuitous circumstances, placed in the midst of wealth and men of wealth, [would it be] thieft, or even wrong, in me to develop what had been so profusely strewn around me on the one hand, or to receive from those amidst whom I am thus placed of their abundance for an equivalent on the other? Suppose I thus get the dollar, may I not get two? and if two, two hundred; and if two hundred, two, ten, twenty thousand or upwards? But suppose I only get the one hundred in the way proposed; and with that I purchase a plot of ground. But as the light of the present is material improvement, it may so follow me to my lovely spot, that of their abundence the wealthy tender me thousands as an equivalent for what I only paid one hundred, (which is not unfrequently the case;) and I again re-invest, and again the light of improvement follow me, and again of their abundance they tender are thousands more; and thus my means swell far beyond the bounds proscribed by friend Barry. Now, will I have committed thieft or even fraud in its reception? And suppose I employ one man, and pay him fair wages: and, by industry and the confidence of those who have means to spend in my particular vocation, I am enabled to employ more; say a hundred or upwards of able-bodied, but hitherto un-employed, half-starved men, who wish to work without the trouble or risk of arrangements, shall I employ them, friend Barry,
even at the risk of my own means swelling ere long up to or beyond the fifty thousand dollars? In fine, I find myself in the midst of a mine of wealth and beauty; and have done whatever I could to develop the one and exhibit the other; still its exhaustless resources demand greater efforts than I can or have need to make, having in addition much to do in the way of self-improvement, innocent amusement and pleasent recreation. If, without the trouble of management, others could be participants, gladly would they come in and help to make still greater acquisitions, even though my means swelled beyond the set bounderies of fifty thousand dollars.—Would I, friend Barry, commit fraud by so doing? Happily the varieties of our composition make some prefer to arrange, and some to work after arrangements. Should men, then, make fair and mutual contracts, will friend Barry and his little flat-headed Dutchman tell, either in Gath or publish in the streets of Aschalon, that they are "sheatin one another?" Answer, friend.
2. You, friend Barry, protest you would not have a hoard of idlers. I take back the expression then. Designedly you would not, and yet, does your semi-primitive, semi-dreamy philosophy so befog your vision that you cannot see that its ultimate effect upon the blacks if put in practice would produce precisely such a result, destroying all just and laudable ambition, all high and noble aspirations? Answer, friend.
3. "Why propose as a rule for the many," says friend Barry in substance, "what can only be followed by the few, which make but the exception?" Plainly I would have as a rule for the many, just what is proper, if only one followed it, friend Barry. I would have, for instance, the many follow the immutable law of justice; but those who are its votaries amount to but the exception. I would have the many follow as a rule the imperative [laws] of health; still their votaries form but the exception. I would have the many [follow] the unchangeable law of God; but the [few] who do so compose but the exception. So also of the matter of wealth; having [follow] established the truth of its usefulness, it follows that all ought to strive, though few obtain it. Sir William Jones has said, (and common sense loudly responds to the sentiments.) "aim high, as you will be sure to fall below it." Now, I would have the people of color "aim high" in the business of wealth getting; and if, as you say, friend Barry, but few can obtain it, who can estimate the vast amount of good that will acrue both by way of example and material aid to the many? or who can measure the distance the many may get on thereby, in the direction of even competency? Can you, friend Barry? Just here, then, I yet fear, consists our difference. I would have a poverty-stricken people use every proper means that would relieve and elevate them. You would
have them to continue to drudge in straight-jackets only, as being the more honest. I would have the blacks play a manly part, by entering fully in all the affairs of men; not merely working by arrangement, but arranging in common with, and for others as well. You, friend Barry, in your crude notions of honesty, which, in their application to the class in question, becomes dishonesty, since they not only rob said class of its share in arrangements and compacts of society, but consigns it to the very bottom of the rank, and bids it there to drag out a life most disgraceful—you would thus degrade it to a state worse than infamy itself. Not designedly would you do all this, friend Barry, but such is the ultimatum of your notions.
4. In you[r] anxiety you propose a chain and block for the idle blacks, rather than have them miss the chances of good trades, and even in your extremity you make a grab at
the doctors, both of law and divinity, not permitting to escape the man of medicine.—Methinks I see you now, friend Barry, with grapples in hand, seeking through the idle board for some one of these black-coated gentlemen. But even here I must interpose and beg you to spare. Doctors, really such so far from being as you so unscrupulously pronounce them "nuisances," are most invaluable to mankind. Doctors of laws show us the way of earth; doctors of divinity, the way of heaven; and what shall I say more, why the man of medicine, the way of life and health. Even now, as the current of these thoughts pass through my brain, I am sitting with my feet in a huge tub of scalding water, and a smart little medical gentleman before me, of whom I am taking advice: yet, in the strict sense, I, Ethiop, claim to fall under none of these appellations. No, no, friend Barry, write me down as a plain man, accustomed to look at things only as they are. My dear Douglass I beg you will do the same.
Yours, truly,
Ethiop.
Brooklyn Heights, June 19, 1852.