J. M. Whitfield to Frederick Douglass, September 25, 1853
BUFFALO, Sept. 25th, 1853.
FREDERICK DOUGLASS, ESQ: DEAR SIR:—
I have noticed, in your comments upon the
Call for the Convention of friends of En-
igration, to be held at Cleveland, many se-
vere, and, in my opinion, unjust strictures
upon the movement; and as I have seen ob-
jections of similar import raised by others, I
desire, with your permission, briefly to an-
swer some of them.
On of the [prominent?] objections raised
against us by yourself and others, is that while
we have issued a Call for a National Conven-
tion of the friends of Emigration, for the
purpose of devising the best means of carry-
ing into operation what we believe to be
just and wise policy, that is, the concentra-
tion, as far as possible, of the black race in
the central and southern portions of Amer-
ica, so that it may exercise its proper influ-
ence in moulding the destiny, and shaping
the policy of the American Continent, and
in securing a proper field for the full devel-
opment of its own power and resources, and
while that Call is emphatically for the friends
of the measure, and none others—we are as-
sailed on all sides as though we had no right
to issue such a Call—a course which can be
accounted for only on the ground that the as-
sailants suppose that we are incapable of
acting for ourselves, or of knowing our own
wants.
You say that "whatever may be the mo-
tives for sending forth such a Call," you
"deem it uncalled for, unwise, unfortunate,
and premature;" and you "venture to pre-
dict that the same judgment will be pro-
nounced upon it by a majority of intelligent
thinking colored men." It may perhaps be a
sufficient answer to this, to say that the sign-
ers of the Call, (many of whom are men of
cultivated minds, not accustomed to rash or
hasty action upon important subjects,) after
mature deliberation and interchange of views
are fully convinced that it is imperatively
called for, eminently wise and timely, and if
conducted with energy, cannot fail of being
salutary in its influences. You also say "our
enemies will see in this movement a cause of
rejoicing, such as they could hardly have
anticipated so soon, after the manly position
assumed by the colored National Convention
held in Rochester. They will discover in the
movement, a division of opinion amonst us
upon a vital point, and will look upon this
Cleveland Convention as opposed in spirit
and purpose to the Rochester Convention."
So far from rejoicing, I believe that our
enemies will see as much greater cause for
dreading the holding of the Cleveland than
of the Rochester Convention, as a master
would have greater reason for fearing the
loss of the slave, who arms himself, and
leaves his premises with the determination
to be free or die, than he would the one who,
after a few vain applications submits to the
lash, and devotes the energies which should
be employed in improving himself and his
children, to building up the fortune of a ty-
rant whose constant endeavor is to crush him
lower and lower in degradation, and entail
the same hopeless condition upon his pos-
terity. I suppose the purpose of the Cleve-
land Convention to be as much superior to
that of the Rochester Convention, as deeds
are superior to words—as strenuous efforts
to obtain freedom, even if unsuccessful, are
superior to whining or suplicating submis-
sion to slavery. The purpose of the Roch-
ester Convention (for which it deserves great
credit as a step, and that, too, an important
one, in the right direction) was to endeavor
to create a union of sentiment and action
among the colored people, and, to give it effi-
ciency, by forming a kind of national organ-
ization here, under the overshadowing in-
fluence of our oppressors. I believe that
movement to be a good one, because it must
ultimately lead "intelligent thinking colored
men" to the conclusion which many of us
ignorant and thoughtless which many of us
ignorant and thoughless ones have arrived
at intuitively—that is, that colored men can
never be fully and fairly respected as the
equals of the whites, in this country, or any
other, untill they are able to show in some
part of the world men of their own race oc-
cupying a primary and independent position,
instead of a secondary and inferior one, as
is now the case everywhere. In short, that
they must show a powerful nation in which
the black is the ruling element, capable of
maintaining a respectable position among
the great nations of the earth; and I believe
that the reflex influence of such a power
with the increased activity that its re-action
will excite in the colored people of this
country, will be the only thing sufficiently
powerful to remove the prejudices which ages
of unequalled oppression have engendered,
unless the bleaching theory of Henry Clay
should prevail, and be carred into practice,
by which the negro race in this country is to
be absorbed [and?] [...] [rest?] in that of
the Caucasian—a consummation, in my
opinion, not to be wished for. I believe it
to be the destiny of the negro, to develope a
higher order of civilization and Chrisitanity
than the world has yet seen. I also consider
it a part of his "manifest destiny," to pos-
sess all the tropical regions of this continent,
with the adjacent islands. That the negro is
to be the predominant race in all that region
in regard to numbers, is beyond doubt. The
only question is, shall they exercise the
power and influence their numbers entitle
them to, and become the ruling political el-
ement of the land in which they live? or
shall they, as too many of our brethren in
this country seem to be willing to do, tamely
submit to the usurpations of a white aristoc-
racy, naturally inferior to themselves in phy-
sical, moral and mental power, and devote
their lives to building up a power whom
every energy will be wielded to crush them?
If the Cleveland Convention gives, as we
hope it will, proper response to these great
practical questions, its position will be as
much more manly than that assumed by the
Rochester Convention, as freedom is supe-
rior to slavery, or self-reliance to childish de-
pendence on others.
To the charge that "our enemies will dis-
cover a division of opinion amongst us upon
a vital point," I would answer what if they
do? All but bigots and fanatics know that
there ever have been, and probably ever will
be, divisions of opinion among men upon
questions vitally connected with their tempor-
al and spiritual welfare; and the more vital
the question, the greater the difference of
opinion, and the harder to reconcile the conflict-
ing views—consequently all reasonable men
are willing to make allowances for honest dif-
ferences of opinion, because they know that
entire unanimity is to be expected only where
tyranny on the one hand dictates, and ser-
vility on the other submits. The only op-
position that I am able to discover, either in
spirit or in purpose, to the Rochester Conven-
tion is, that it goes a step further in the
same direction, and purposes to walk
in the path which the Rochester Con-
vention has pointed out. The child who has
ventured to stand alone, must of necessity
either step on, or fall down again and craw[l]
in the dust; and if we prefer walking for-
ward although it may be with feeble and
tottering steps, in the path where freedom
and a glorious destiny beckon us on, [to?]
crawling again in the dust at the feet of our
oppressors, we think that we deserve praise
rather than [censure?] for the choice.
The last objection you make to the [Con.?]
that it "is illiberal and cowardly," because
it excludes all but the friends of the measure,
is too ridiculous to deserve serious comment.
What would be thought of the Whig or Dem-
ocrat who should bring a serious charge
against the opposite party, because they
would not admit him as a delegate to their
Conventions, with the right to vote on shap-
ing the policy, and nominating the candi-
dates of his opponents? It strikes me that
such a claim would be regarded as transcend-
ently impudent, were not its impudence sur-
passed by its absurdity; and I doubt very
much whether his opponents could be
brought to recognize the justice of such a
claim, however willing or anxious they might
be to discuss the questions at issue between
them. The friends of Emigration are not
afraid to meet the colored people on that
subject, but they choose to rest under the im-
putation of cowardice, sooner than prove
themselves fools by admitting the avowed
enemies of a measure, as the ones to devise
ways and means for promoting its success.—However, if the opponents of Emigration de-
sire, we are are ready and willing to discuss
it, either in a Convention, if they choose to
appoint one for the purpose, or through the
press; and all that we ask is, that an equally
fair hearing shall be allowed to each party.
We apprehend, however, that any thing like
a fair discussion of the subject is not desired
by the opponents of the measure; but that
an attempt will be made to excite the preju-
dices of the people beforehand, by raising
the cry of Colonization, expatriation, &c.—If any of our brethren have arguments ad-
dressed to our reason as men, by which they
think they can convince us of the folly of
our measures, or the wisdom of their own,
we will endeavor to receive and reply to them
in the same spirit; but if wholesale denun-
ciations and misrepresentations are to take
the place of facts and arguments, we must
respectfully but firmly decline entering into
any such controversy. Life is too short, and
our foes too numerous and powerful, for us
to waste our time wrangling with brethren
because we differ in relation to the means
necessary to promote the same great end
which we have equally at heart, the eleva-
tion of our race.
We hope that our brethren who differ from
us in opinion will do us the justice to believe
that our position in favor of Emigration is
the result of no rash and hasty speculation,
but of full and well-matured deliberation;
and that, therefore, the stereotyped and com-
monplace objections raised by them have
been thoroughly examined by us in all their
bearings, without at all shaking our confi-
dence in the wisdom and policy of Emigra-
tion. We wish it also to be understood, that
we consider the line of argument usually
pursued by colonizationists and abolitionists,
pro and con, in relation to Colonization or
Emigration en masse,to be a tissue of non-
sense on both sides—because contending for
the practicability, or impracticability, of a
measure which is absolutely impossible. We
do not wish it to be supposed that we are so
utterly ignorant of the laws which govern
population, as to think that a nation or class
of people scattered through all the ramifica-
tions of society, in a great and civilized na-
tion like the colored people in the United
States, ever did, ever will, or ever can emi-
grate en masse. No fact is better fixed by the
world's history than this, that a people who
have passed the pastoral state, never can by
any possibility be brought to emigrate en
masse. If our brethren will bear these things
in mind, it may lead them to form a more
correct opinion of our position than they
seem to have done hitherto.
Respectfuly yours,
J. M. WHITFIELD.