Chapter VI: Introduction: To the Collection,41 April 1, 1872 (4)

To the Republican Party, devoted to ideas and principles, I turn now with more than ordinary solicitude. Not willingly can I see it sacrificed. Not without earnest effort against the betrayal can I suffer its ideas and principles to be lost in the personal pretensions of one man. Both the old parties are in a crisis, with this difference between the two: the Democracy is dissolving, the Republican party is being absorbed; the Democracy is falling apart, thus visibly losing its vital unity,--the Republican Party is submitting to a personal influence, thus visibly losing its vital character; the Democracy is ceasing to exist, the Republican Party is losing its identity. Let the process be completed, and it will be no longer that Republican Party which I helped to found and have always served, but only a personal party,--while instead of those ideas and principles which we have been so proud to uphold will be Presidential pretensions, and instead of Republicanism there will be nothing but Grantism.

Political parties are losing their sway. Higher than party are country and the duty to save it from Cæsar. The Caucus is at last understood as a political engine moved by wire-pullers, and it becomes more insupportable in proportion as directed to personal ends. Nor is its character changed when called a National Convention. Here, too, are wire-pullers; and when the great Office-Holder and the great Office-Seeker are one and the same, it is easy to see how naturally the engine responds to the central touch. A political convention is an agency and convenience, but never a law, least of all a despotism; and when it seeks to impose a candidate whose name is a synonym of pretensions unrepublican in character and hostile to good government, it will be for earnest Republicans to consider well how clearly party is subordinate to country. Such a nomination can have no just obligation. Therefore with unspeakable interest will the country watch the National Convention at Philadelphia. It may be an assembly (and such is my hope) where ideas and principles are above all personal pretensions, and the unity of the party is symbolized in the candidate; or it may add another to Presidential rings, being an expansion of the military ring at the Executive Mansion, the senatorial ring in this Chamber, and the political ring in the custom-houses of New York and New Orleans. A National Convention which is a Presidential ring cannot represent the Republican Party.

Much rather would I see the party to which I am dedicated, under the image of a life-boat not to be sunk by wind or wave. How often have I said this to cheer my comrades! I do not fear the Democratic Party. Nothing from them can harm our life-boat. But I do fear a quarrelsome pilot, unused to the sea, but pretentious in command, who occupies himself in loading aboard his own unserviceable relations and personal patrons, while he drives away the experienced seamen who know the craft and her voyage. Here is a peril which no life-boat can stand.

Meanwhile I wait the determination of the National Convention, where are delegates from my own much-honored Commonwealth with whom I rejoice to act. Not without anxiety do I wait, but with the earnest hope that the Convention will bring the Republican Party into ancient harmony, saving it especially from the suicidal folly of an issue on the personal pretensions of one man.

INTEREST AND DUTY OF COLORED CITIZENS IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

LETTER TO COLORED CITIZENS, JULY 29, 1872.

I will say to the North, Give up; and to the South, Keep not
back.--ISAIAH, xliii. 6.

* * * * *

The immediate occasion of the present Letter appears in the
following, from colored citizens of Washington to Mr. Sumner:--

WASHINGTON, D. C., July 11, 1872.

SIR,--We, the undersigned, citizens of color, regarding you
as the purest and best friend of our race, admiring your
consistent course in the United States Senate and elsewhere
as the special advocate of our rights, and believing that
your counsel at this critical juncture in the period of our
citizenship would be free from personal feeling and partisan
prejudice, have ventured to request your opinion as to what
action the colored voters of the nation should take in the
Presidential contest now pending.

The choice of our people is now narrowed down to General Grant
or Horace Greeley. Your long acquaintance with both and your
observation have enabled you to arrive at a correct conclusion
as to which of the candidates, judging from their antecedents
as well as their present position, will, if elected, enforce
the requirements of the Constitution and the laws respecting
our civil and political rights with the most heart-felt
sympathy and the greatest vigor.

We hope and trust you will favor us with such reply as will
serve to enlighten our minds upon this subject and impel our
people to go forward in the right direction. Our confidence in
your judgment is so firm, that, in our opinion, thousands of
the intelligent colored voters of the country will be guided in
their action by your statement and advice.

Hoping to receive a reply soon, we have the honor to be,

With great respect,

Your obedient servants,

A. T. AUGUSTA, M. D. SAMUEL PROCTOR.
DAVID FISHER, sr. J. J. KETCHUM.
JNO. H. SMITH. CHAS. N. THOMAS.
EDWARD CRUSOR. WM. H. SHORTER.
WM. H. A. WORMLEY. HENRY HILL.
WILLIAM P. WILSON. FURMAN J. SHADD.
R. W. TOMPKINS. GEO. D. JOHNSON.
JOHN H. BROWN. CHRIS. A. FLEETWOOD.
HENRY LACY. CHAS. F. BRUCE.
W. H. BELL. DAVID FISHER, jr.
J. L. N. BOWEN. DAVID KING.
JACOB DE WITTER. WM. POLKENY.

HON. CHARLES SUMNER.

LETTER.

WASHINGTON, July 29, 1872.

GENTLEMEN AND FELLOW-CITIZENS:--

If I have delayed answering your communication of July 11th, which
was duly placed in my hands by your committee, it was not because
the proper course for you seemed doubtful, but because I wished to
reflect upon it and be aided by information which time might supply.
Since then I have carefully considered the inquiries addressed to me,
and have listened to much on both sides; but my best judgment now is
in harmony with my early conclusion.

I am touched by the appeal you make. It is true that I am the friend
of your race, and I am glad to be assured that in your opinion I have
held a consistent course in the Senate and elsewhere as the special
advocate of your rights. That course, by the blessing of God, I mean
to hold so long as life lasts. I know your infinite wrongs, and feel
for them as my own. You only do me simple justice, when you add a
belief that my counsel at this critical juncture of your citizenship
“would be free from personal feelings and partisan prejudice.” In
answering your inquiries I can have no sentiment except for your
good, which I most anxiously seek; nor can any disturbing influence
be allowed to interfere. The occasion is too solemn. Especially is
there no room for personal feeling or for partisan prejudice. No man
or party can expect power except for the general welfare. Therefore
they must be brought to the standard of truth, which is without
feeling or prejudice.

QUESTIONS PROPOSED.

You are right in saying that the choice for the Presidency is
now “narrowed down” to President Grant or Horace Greeley. One of
these is to be taken, and, assuming my acquaintance with both and
my observation of their lives, you invite my judgment between
them, asking me especially which of the two, “_judging from their
antecedents as well as present position_,” would enforce the
Constitution and laws securing your civil and political rights “with
_the most heart-felt sympathy and the greatest vigor_.” Here I remark
that in this inquiry you naturally put your rights in the foreground.
So do I,--believing most sincerely that the best interests of the
whole country are associated with the completest recognition of
your rights, so that the two races shall live together in unbroken
harmony. I also remark that you call attention to two things,--the
“antecedents” of the candidates, and their “present position.” You
wish to know from these which gives assurance of the most heart-felt
sympathy and greatest vigor in the maintenance of your rights,--in
other words, which, judging by the past, will be your truest friend.

The communication with which you have honored me is not alone.
Colored fellow-citizens in other parts of the country, I may say in
nearly every State of the Union, have made a similar request, and
some complain that I have thus far kept silent. I am not insensible
to the trust reposed in me. But if my opinion is given, it must be
candidly, according to my conscience. In this spirit I answer your
inquiries, beginning with the antecedents of the two candidates.

ANTECEDENTS OF THE CANDIDATES.

Horace Greeley was born to poverty and educated himself in a
printing-office. President Grant, fortunate in early patronage,
became a cadet at West Point and was educated at the public expense.
One started with nothing but industry and character; the other
started with a military commission. One was trained as a civilian;
the other as a soldier. Horace Greeley stood forth as a Reformer and
Abolitionist. President Grant enlisted as a Proslavery Democrat,
and, at the election of James Buchanan, fortified by his vote all
the pretensions of Slavery, including the Dred Scott decision.
Horace Greeley from early life was earnest and constant against
Slavery, full of sympathy with the colored race, and always foremost
in the great battle for their rights. President Grant, except as a
soldier summoned by the terrible accident of war, never did anything
against Slavery, nor has he at any time shown any sympathy with
the colored race, but rather indifference, if not aversion. Horace
Greeley earnestly desired that colored citizens should vote, and ably
championed impartial suffrage; but President Grant was on the other
side.

Beyond these contrasts, which are marked, it cannot be forgotten that
Horace Greeley is a person of large heart and large understanding,
trained to the support of Human Rights, always beneficent to
the poor, always ready for any good cause, and never deterred by
opposition or reproach, as when for long years he befriended your
people. Add to these qualities, conspicuous in his life, untiring
industry which leaves no moment without its fruit, abundant political
knowledge, acquaintance with history, the instinct and grasp of
statesmanship, an amiable nature, a magnanimous soul, and above all
an honesty which no suspicion has touched,--and you have a brief
portraiture where are antecedents of Horace Greeley.

Few of these things appear in the President. His great success in
war, and the honors he has won, cannot change the record of his
conduct toward your people, especially in contrast with the life-time
fidelity of his competitor, while there are unhappy “antecedents”
showing that in the prosecution of his plans he cares nothing for the
colored race. The story is painful; but it must be told.

GRANT’S INDIGNITY TO THE COLORED RACE.

I refer to the outrage he perpetrated upon Hayti, with its six
hundred thousand blacks engaged in the great experiment of
self-government. Here is a most instructive “antecedent,” revealing
beyond question his true nature, and the whole is attested by
documentary evidence. Conceiving the idea of annexing Dominica, which
is the Spanish part of the island, and shrinking at nothing, he began
by seizing the war powers of the Government, in flagrant violation
of the Constitution, and then, at great expenditure of money, sent
several armed ships of the Navy, including monitors, to maintain the
usurper Baez in power, that through him he might obtain the coveted
prize. Not content with this audacious dictatorship, he proceeded to
strike at the independence of the Black Republic by open menace of
war, and all without the sanction of Congress, to which is committed
the power to make war. Sailing into the harbor of Port-au-Prince with
our most powerful monitor, the Dictator, (properly named for this
service,) also the frigate Severn as consort, and other monitors in
their train, the Admiral, acting under instructions from Washington,
proceeded to the Executive Mansion accompanied by officers of his
squadron, and then, pointing to the great war-ships in sight from
the windows, dealt his unjust menace, threatening to sink or capture
Haytian ships. The President was black, not white. The Admiral would
have done no such thing to any white ruler, nor would our country
have tolerated such menace from any Government in the world. Here was
indignity not only to the Black Republic with its population of six
hundred thousand, but to the African race everywhere, and especially
in our own country. Nor did it end here. For months the Navy of the
United States was kept hovering on the coast, holding that insulted
people in constant dread and anxiety, while President Grant was to
them like a hawk sailing in the air, ready to swoop upon his prey.

FALSE IMPRISONMENT OF AN AMERICAN CITIZEN.

This heartless, cruel proceeding found a victim among our white
fellow-citizens. An excellent merchant of Connecticut, praised by all
who know him, was plunged into prison by Baez, where he was immured
because it was feared that on his return to New York he would expose
the frauds of the plotters; and this captivity was prolonged with the
connivance of two agents of the President, one of whom finds constant
favor with him and is part of the military ring immediately about
him. That such an outrage could go unpunished shows the little regard
of the President for human rights, whether in white or black.

HARD TO BEAR THESE OUTRAGES.

I confess my trials, as I was called to witness these things.
Always a supporter of the Administration, and sincerely desiring
to labor with it, I had never uttered a word with regard to it
except in kindness. My early opposition to the Treaty of Annexion
was reserved, so that for some time my opinions were unknown. It
was only when I saw the breach of all law, human and divine, that I
was aroused; and then began the anger of the President and of his
rings, military and senatorial. Devoted to the African race, I felt
for them,--besides being humbled that the Great Republic, acting
through its President, could set such an example, where the National
Constitution, International Law, and Humanity were all sacrificed.
Especially was I moved when I saw the indignity to the colored race,
which was accomplished by trampling upon a fundamental principle
of International Law, declaring the equality of nations, as our
Declaration of Independence declares the equality of men.

This terrible transaction, which nobody can defend, is among the
“antecedents” of President Grant, from which you can judge how much
the colored race can rely upon his “heart-felt sympathy.” Nor can it
be forgotten that shortly afterward, on the return of the Commission
from this island, Hon. Frederick Douglass, the colored orator,
accomplished in manners as in eloquence, was thrust away from the
company of the Commissioners at the common table of the mail-packet
on the Potomac, almost within sight of the Executive Mansion, simply
on account of his color; but the President, at whose invitation he
had joined the Commission, never uttered a word in condemnation of
this exclusion, and when entertaining the returned Commissioners at
dinner carefully omitted Mr. Douglass, who was in Washington at the
time, and thus repeated the indignity.

OTHER ANTECEDENTS.

Other things might be mentioned, showing the sympathies of the
President; but I cannot forget the Civil Rights Bill, which is the
cap-stone of that Equality before the Law to which all are entitled
without distinction of color. President Grant, who could lobby so
assiduously for his San Domingo scheme, full of wrong to the colored
race, could do nothing for this beneficent measure. During a long
session of Congress it was discussed constantly, and the colored
people everywhere hung upon the debate; but there was no word of
“heart-felt sympathy” from the President. At last, just before the
Nominating Convention, he addressed a letter to a meeting of colored
fellow-citizens in Washington, called to advance this cause, where he
avoided the question by declaring himself in favor of “the exercise
of those rights to which every citizen should be entitled,”[175]
leaving it uncertain whether colored people are justly entitled to
the rights secured by the pending bill. I understand that Horace
Greeley has been already assailed by an impracticable Democrat as
friendly to this bill; but nobody has lisped against President Grant
on this account.

Among “antecedents” I deem it my duty to mention the little capacity
or industry of the President in protecting colored people and in
assuring peace at the South. Nobody can doubt that a small portion
of the effort and earnest will, even without the lobbying, so freely
given to the San Domingo scheme, would have averted those Ku-Klux
outrages which we deplore,--thus superseding all pretence for further
legislation by Congress. But he is disabled both by character and
the drawback of his own conduct. After violating the Constitution
and International Law to insult the Black Republic, and setting
an example of insubordination, he is not in condition to rebuke
law-breakers.

PRESENT POSITION OF CANDIDATES.

Passing from “antecedents,” I come now to the “present position”
of the two candidates, which is the subject of your next inquiry.
If in any formal particulars the two are on equality, yet in all
substantial respects the obvious advantage is with Horace Greeley.

NOMINATIONS OF THE TWO CANDIDATES.

Each was nominated by a Republican Convention, one at Cincinnati
and the other at Philadelphia; so that in this respect they may
seem to be on equality. But it will not fail to be observed that
the Convention at Cincinnati was composed of able and acknowledged
Republicans, many having acted with the party from its first
formation, who, without previous organization, came together
voluntarily for the sake of Reform and Purity in the Government;
while, on the other hand, the Convention at Philadelphia was composed
of delegates chosen largely under the influence of office-holders,
who assembled to sustain what is known as Grantism, being the
personal government and personal pretensions of President Grant,
involving nepotism, repayment of gifts by official patronage, neglect
of public duty, absenteeism, quarrelling, military rule, disregard
of Constitution and Law, with general unfitness, and indignity to
the colored race,--all of which is so unrepublican as to make its
support impossible for true Republicans. Therefore the Convention at
Philadelphia, though calling itself Republican, was less Republican
in reality than that at Cincinnati.

THE TWO PLATFORMS.

The two platforms, so far as concerns especially the colored race,
are alike in substance; but that of Cincinnati is expressed in terms
more worthy of the equal rights it states and claims: “We recognize
the equality of all men before the law, and hold that it is the duty
of Government, in its dealings with the people, to mete out equal
and exact justice to all, of whatever nativity, race, color, or
persuasion, religious or political.” In other respects the platform
of Cincinnati is the more republican, inasmuch as it sets itself
against those unrepublican abuses which have been nursed by the
President into pernicious activity.

SUPPORTERS OF THE TWO CANDIDATES.

From the two nominations and two platforms I come to the supporters
of the candidates; and here I look, first, at those immediately about
them, and, secondly, at the popular support behind.

Horace Greeley has among his immediate supporters, in all parts of
the country, devoted and consistent Republicans, always earnest for
Reform and Purity in Government, on whose lives there is no shadow
of suspicion,--being a contrast in character to those rings which
play such a part in the present Administration. The country knows too
well the Military Ring, the Senatorial Ring, and the Custom-House
Ring, through which the President acts. Such supporters are a poor
recommendation.

DEMOCRATS TURNING REPUBLICANS.

Looking at the popular support behind, the advantage is still with
Horace Greeley. President Grant has at his back the diversified army
of office-holders, drilled to obey the word of command. The speeches
praising him are by office-holders and members of rings. Horace
Greeley finds flocking to his cause large numbers of Republicans
unwilling to continue the existing misrule, and as allies with them
a regenerated party springing forward to unite in this liberal
movement. Democrats, in joining Horace Greeley, have changed simply
as President Grant changed when he joined the Republicans,--except
that he was rewarded at once with high office. The change is open.
Adopting the Republican platform, which places the Equal Rights of
All under the safeguard of irreversible guaranties, and at the
same time accepting the nomination of a life-time Abolitionist, who
represents preëminently the sentiment of duty to the colored race,
they have set their corporate seal to the sacred covenant. They may
continue Democrats in name, but they are in reality Republicans,
by the same title that those who sustain Republican principles are
Republicans,--or rather they are Democrats, according to the original
signification of that word, dedicated to the rights of the people.

It is idle to say that Horace Greeley and the Republicans who
nominated him are any less Republican because Democrats unite with
them in support of cherished principles and the candidate who
represents them. Conversions are always welcome, and not less so
because the change is in a multitude rather than an individual. A
political party cannot, if it would, and should not, if it could,
shut the door against converts, whether counted by the score, the
hundred, or the thousand; and so we find that the supporters of
President Grant announce with partisan triumph the adhesion of a
single Democratic politician or a single Democratic newspaper. On
equal reason and with higher pride may the supporters of Horace
Greeley announce the adhesion of the Democratic party, which, turning
from the things that are behind, presses on to those that are before.

GREELEY’S ELECTION THE TRIUMPH OF REPUBLICAN PRINCIPLES.

It is also idle to say that the election of Horace Greeley as
President, with Gratz Brown as Vice-President, both unchangeable
Republicans, will be the return of the Democratic party to power. On
the contrary, it will be the inauguration of Republican principles,
under the safeguard of a Republican President and Republican
Vice-President, with Democrats as avowed supporters. In the
organization of his Administration, and in the conduct of affairs,
Horace Greeley will naturally lean upon those who represent best the
great promises of Equal Rights and Reconciliation made at Cincinnati.
If Democrats are taken, it will be as Republicans in heart,
recognizing the associate terms of the settlement as an immutable
finality.

The hardihood of political falsehood reaches its extreme point,
when it is asserted that under Horace Greeley the freedmen will be
reënslaved, or that colored people will in any way suffer in their
equal rights. On the contrary, they have in his election not only the
promises of the platform, but also his splendid example for a full
generation, during which he has never wavered in the assertion of
their rights. To suppose that Horace Greeley, when placed where he
can do them the most good, will depart from the rule of his honest
life is an insult to reason.

It is none the less idle to suppose that Democrats supporting
Horace Greeley expect or desire that he should depart from those
principles which are the glory of his character. They have accepted
the Cincinnati platform with its twofold promises, and intend in
good faith to maintain it. Democrats cannot turn back, who at the
Convention adopting this platform sang Greeley songs to the tune of
“Old John Brown, his soul is marching on.” Seeking especially the
establishment of character in the National Government, they will
expect their President to be always true to himself.

Therefore I put aside the partisan allegations, that Horace Greeley
has gone to the Democrats, or that he will be controlled by
Democrats. Each is without foundation or reason, according to my
judgment. They are attempts to avoid what you recognize as the true
issue, being the question between the two candidates; or perhaps
they may be considered as scarecrows to deter the timid. Nobody who
votes for Horace Greeley will go to the Democrats; nor do I believe,
that, when elected, Horace Greeley will be under any influence except
that enlightened conscience which will keep him ever true to the
principles he represents.

The conclusion from this comparison between the two candidates is
plain. Unquestionably the surest trust of the colored people is in
Horace Greeley. In everything for your protection and advancement he
will show always the most heart-felt sympathy and the greatest vigor
beyond what can be expected from President Grant. He is your truest
friend.

VOTE FOR GREELEY.

Gentlemen, in thus answering your two inquiries, I have shown why
you, as colored fellow-citizens, and also all who would uphold your
rights and save the colored race from indignity, should refuse to
sanction the reëlection of the President, and should put trust in
Horace Greeley. I ought to add, that with him will be associated
as Vice-President Gratz Brown, whom I have known for years as a
most determined Abolitionist. The two together will carry into the
National Government an unswerving devotion to your rights, not to be
disturbed by partisan dictation or sectional prejudice.

Besides all this, which may fitly guide you in determining between
the two candidates, it is my duty to remind you, that, as citizens
of the United States, and of part of the country, your welfare is
indissolubly associated with that of the whole country. Where all are
prosperous you will be gainers. Therefore, while justly careful of
your own rights, you cannot be indifferent to the blessings of good
government. It is for you to consider whether the time has not come
for something better than the sword, and whether a character like
Horace Greeley does not give stronger assurance of good government
than can be found in the insulter of the colored race, already famous
for the rings about him and his plain inaptitude for civil life.
The supporters of President Grant compel us to observe his offences
and shortcomings, and thus the painful contrast with Horace Greeley
becomes manifest. It will be for others in the present canvass to
hold it before the American people.

TOO MUCH OF A REPUBLICAN TO VOTE FOR GRANT.

Speaking now for myself, I have to say that my vote will be given
for Horace Greeley; but in giving it I do not go to the Democratic
party, nor am I any less a Republican. On the contrary, I am so much
of a Republican that I cannot support a candidate whose conduct in
civil life shows an incapacity to appreciate Republican principles,
and whose Administration is marked by acts of delinquency, especially
toward the colored race, by the side of which the allegations on
the impeachment of Andrew Johnson were technical and trivial.
Unquestionably President Grant deserved impeachment for high crimes
and misdemeanors, rather than a renomination; and on the trial it
would have been enough to exhibit his seizure of the war powers,
and his indignity to the Black Republic with its population of six
hundred thousand, in violation of the National Constitution and of
International Law. And here a contrast arises between him and Abraham
Lincoln. The latter in his first Annual Message recommended the
recognition of what he called “the independence and sovereignty of
Hayti”; but it is at these that President Grant has struck. One of
Abraham Lincoln’s earliest acts was to put the Black Republic on an
equality with other powers; one of President Grant’s earliest acts
was to degrade it.

I am so much of a Republican that I wish to see in the Presidential
chair a life-time Abolitionist. I also wish a President sincerely
devoted to Civil-Service Reform, beginning with the “One-Term
Principle,” which President Grant once accepted, but now disowns. I
also wish a President who sets the example of industry and unselfish
dedication to the public good. And I wish to see a President through
whom we may expect peace and harmony, instead of discord. Strangely,
President Grant seems to delight in strife. If he finds no enemy, he
falls upon his friends,--as when he struck at the Black Republic,
insulted Russia in his last Annual Message, offended both France and
Germany, and then, in personal relations, quarrelled generally.

PRINCIPLES ABOVE PARTY.

My own personal experience teaches how futile is the charge, that,
because Horace Greeley receives Democratic votes, therefore he
becomes a Democrat, or lapses under Democratic control. I was first
chosen to the Senate by a coalition of Free-Soilers and Democrats.
Democratic votes helped make me Senator from Massachusetts,--as they
also helped make my excellent friend Mr. Chase Senator from Ohio,
and will help make Horace Greeley President. But neither Mr. Chase
nor myself was on this account less faithful as a Free-Soiler,--and,
answering for myself, I know that I never became a Democrat or
lapsed under Democratic control. I do not doubt that Horace
Greeley will be equally consistent. The charge to the contrary, so
vehemently repeated, seems to reflect the character of those who make
it,--except that many repeat it by rote.

There is a common saying, “Principles, not Men”; and on this ground
an appeal is made for President Grant, it being justly felt that
in any personal comparison with Horace Greeley he must fail. But a
better saying is, “Principles _and_ Men.” I am for the principles of
the Republican Party in contradiction to Grantism, and I am for the
man who truly represents them. By these principles I shall stand,
for them I shall labor, and in their triumph I shall always rejoice.
If any valued friend separates from me now, it will be because he
_places a man above principles_. Early in public life I declared my
little heed for party, and my indifference to the name by which I was
called; and now I confess my want of sympathy with those who would
cling to the form after its spirit has fled.

GREELEY’S NOMINATION A RESPONSE TO LONGING FOR PEACE.

This answer would be incomplete, if I did not call attention to
another and controlling consideration, which cannot be neglected
by the good citizen. Watching the remarkable movement that has
ended in the double nomination of Horace Greeley, it is easy to see
that it did not proceed from politicians, whether at Cincinnati or
Baltimore. Evidently it was the heart of the people, sorely wrung by
war and the controversies it engendered, which found this expression.
Sir Philip Sidney said of the uprising in the Netherlands, “It is
the spirit of the Lord, and is irresistible”; and such a spirit is
manifest now. I would not use the word lightly, but to my mind it
is Providential. Notwithstanding the counteracting influence of
politicians, Republican and Democratic, in the face of persistent
ridicule, and against the extravagance of unscrupulous opposition,
the nomination at Cincinnati was triumphantly adopted at Baltimore.
Such an unprecedented victory, without concert or propulsion of
any kind, can be explained only by supposing that it is in harmony
with a popular longing. That Democrats, and especially those of the
South, should adopt a life-time Abolitionist for President is an
assurance of willingness to associate the rights of their colored
fellow-citizens with that Reconciliation of which Horace Greeley was
an early representative. In standing by Jefferson Davis at his trial
and signing his bail-bond, he showed the same sentiment of humanity
he so constantly displayed in standing by the colored race throughout
their prolonged trial; so that the two discordant races find kindred
hospitality in him, and he thus becomes a tie of union. In harmony
with this interesting circumstance is the assurance in his letter of
acceptance, that, if elected, he will be “the President, not of a
party, but of the whole people.”

RECONCILIATION.

The nomination has been adopted by the Democrats in convention
assembled. This was an event which the supporters of President Grant
declared impossible. I do not see how it can be regarded otherwise
than as a peace-offering. As such it is of infinite value. The Past
is rejected, and a new Future is begun with the promise of concord.
Here is no ordinary incident. It is a Revolution, and its success
in pacifying the country will be in proportion to its acceptance
by us. I dare not neglect the great opportunity, nor can I stand
aloof. It is in harmony with my life, which places Peace above all
things except the Rights of Man. Thus far, in constant efforts for
the colored race, I have sincerely sought the good of all, which I
was sure would be best obtained in fulfilling the promises of the
Declaration of Independence, making all equal in rights. The spirit
in which I acted appears in an early speech, where I said: “Nothing
in hate; nothing in vengeance.”[176] My object was security for Human
Rights. Most anxiously I have looked for the time, which seems now at
hand, when there should be reconciliation, not only between the North
and South, but between the two races, so that the two sections and
the two races may be lifted from the ruts and grooves in which they
are now fastened, and, instead of _irritating antagonism_ without
end, there shall be _sympathetic coöperation_.

The existing differences ought to be ended. There is a time for all
things, and we are admonished by a wide-spread popular uprising,
bursting the bonds of party, that the time has come for estrangement
to cease between people who by the ordinance of God must live
together. Gladly do I welcome the happy signs; nor can I observe
without regret the colored people in organized masses resisting the
friendly overtures, even to the extent of intimidating those who are
the other way. It is for them to consider carefully whether they
should not take advantage of the unexpected opening, and recognize
the “bail-bond” given at Baltimore as the assurance of peace, and
unite with me in holding the parties to the full performance of its
conditions. Provided always that their rights are fixed, I am sure it
cannot be best for the colored people to band together in a hostile
camp, provoking antagonism and keeping alive the separation of races.
Above all, there must be no intimidation; but every voter must act
freely, without constraint from league or lodge. Much better will
it be when the two political parties compete for your votes, each
anxious for your support. Only then will that citizenship by which
you are entitled to the equal rights of all have its natural fruits.
Only then will there be that harmony which is essential to a true
civilization.

The present position of the colored citizen is perilous. He is
exposed to injurious pressure where he needs support. But I see no
early extrication except in the way now proposed. Let him cut adrift
from managers who would wield him merely as a political force, with
little regard to his own good, and bravely stand by the candidate
who has stood by him. If Democrats unite with him, so much the
better. The association, once begun, must naturally ripen in common
friendship and trust.

I am for peace in reality as in name. From the bottom of my heart I
am for peace, and I welcome all that makes for peace. With deep-felt
satisfaction I remember that no citizen who drew his sword against
us has suffered by the hand of the executioner. In just association
with this humanity will be the triumph of Equal Rights, when the
promises of the great Declaration are all fulfilled, and our people
are united, as never before, in the enduring fellowship of a common
citizenship. To this end there must be Reconciliation. Nor can I
withhold my hand. Freely I accept the hand that is offered, and reach
forth my own in friendly grasp. I am against the policy of hate; I
am against fanning ancient flames into continued life; I am against
raking the ashes of the Past for coals of fire yet burning. Pile up
the ashes; extinguish the flames; abolish the hate!

And now, turning to the Democratic party, I hold it to all the
covenants solemnly given in the adoption of a Republican platform
with Horace Greeley as candidate. There can be no backward step.

WATCHWORD FOR THE CANVASS.

With no common sympathy I observe that Mr. Hendricks, a leading
Democrat, whom I knew and esteemed in the Senate, has recently
announced his acceptance of the Constitutional Amendments with their
logical results. He proposes, as a proper key-note to the popular
movement now swelling to a sure triumph, “Just Laws and Public
Virtue.” This is a worthy aspiration, entirely fit for the occasion.
My watchword is, “The Unity of the Republic, and the Equal Rights of
All, with Reconciliation.” Such is my heart-felt cry; and wherever
my voice can reach, there do I insist upon all these, humbly
invoking the blessings of Divine Providence, which, I believe, must
descend upon such a cause.

* * * * *

Accept my best wishes for yourselves personally, and for the people
you represent.

And believe me, Gentlemen,

Your faithful friend,

CHARLES SUMNER.

To Dr. AUGUSTA, WILLIAM H. A. WORMLEY, and others.

LETTER TO SPEAKER BLAINE.

AUGUST 5, 1872.

July 31, 1872, Mr. Blaine addressed a letter to Mr. Sumner
through the newspapers, arraigning him as recreant both to party
and principle, in the position taken by him on the Presidential
question in his recent Letter to Colored Citizens. Mr. Sumner
responded as follows:--

WASHINGTON, August 5, 1872.

DEAR SIR,--I have seen the letter addressed to me by you through the
public prints, and I notice especially, that, while animadverting
upon my support of Horace Greeley, you say not one word in
vindication of that compound of pretensions known as Grantism in
contradistinction to Republicanism, which you would install anew in
the Government.

You are greatly concerned about the company I keep. To quiet your
solicitude, I beg leave to say, that, in joining the Republicans
who brought forward an original Abolitionist, I find myself with so
many others devoted to the cause I have always served that I had not
missed you until you hastened to report absence; nor had I taken
account of the “Southern Secessionists,” who, as you aver, are now
coöperating with me in support of this original Abolitionist, except
to rejoice, that, if among former associates some like yourself
hesitate, their places are supplied from an unexpected quarter.

You entirely misunderstand me when you introduce an incident of
the past, and build on it an argument why I should not support
Horace Greeley. What has Preston Brooks to do with the Presidential
election? Never, while a sufferer, did anybody hear me speak of
him in unkindness; and now, after the lapse of more than half a
generation, I will not unite with you in dragging him from the
grave, where he sleeps, to aggravate the passions of a political
conflict, and arrest the longing for concord. And here is the
essential difference between you and me at this juncture. I seize the
opportunity to make the equal rights of all secure through peace and
reconciliation; but this infinite boon you would postpone.

Seven years have passed since the close of our Civil War; but,
unhappily, during all this period a hostile spirit has continued to
exist between the contending sections, while the rights of colored
fellow-citizens have been in perpetual question. Seven years mark a
natural period of human life. Should not the spirit be changed with
the body? Can we not after seven years begin a new life, especially
when those once our foes repeat the saying, “Thy people shall be my
people, and thy God my God”?

I declare my preference for an original Abolitionist as President,
and you seek to create a diversion by crying out that Democrats will
support him. To which I reply, So much the better. Their support is
the assurance that the cause he has so constantly guarded, whether of
Equal Rights or Reconciliation, is accepted by Democrats; and this is
the pledge of a true union beyond anything in our history. It is a
victory of ideas, without which all other victories must fail.

To intensify your allegation, you insist that I am ranged with
Jefferson Davis and Robert Toombs; but, pardon me, nobody knows how
the former will vote, while Robert Toombs is boisterous against
Horace Greeley, and with him are Stephens, Wise, and Mosby. This is
all very poor, and I mention it only to exhibit the character of your
attempt.

In the same spirit you seek to avoid the real issue by holding
up the possibility of what you call a Democratic Administration;
and you have the courage to assert, as within my knowledge, that
by the election of Horace Greeley “Congress is handed over to the
control of the party who have persistently denied the rights of the
black man.” You say that I know this. Mr. Speaker, I know no such
thing, and you should be sufficiently thoughtful not to assert it.
I am entirely satisfied that a canvass like the present, where the
principles declared at Cincinnati are openly accepted on one side
and not contested on the other, must result in a larger number of
Congressional Representatives sincerely devoted to the rights of the
colored citizen than ever before.

The Democrats will be pledged, as never before, to the ruling
principle that All Men are Equal before the Law, and also to the
three Constitutional Amendments, with the clause in each empowering
Congress to enforce the same by appropriate legislation. But besides
Democrats, there will be Liberal Republicans pledged likewise, and
also your peculiar associates, who, I trust, will not betray the
cause. Senators and Representatives calling themselves Republicans
have been latterly in large majority in both Houses; but the final
measure of Civil Rights, to which you refer, though urged by
me almost daily, has failed to become a law, less, I fear, from
Democratic opposition than from Republican lukewarmness and the want
of support in the President.

The great issue which the people are called to decide in November
is on the President, and nobody knows better than yourself that the
House of Representatives, chosen at the same time, will naturally
harmonize with him. So it has been in our history. Now harmony with
Horace Greeley involves what I most desire. With such a President,
Congress will be changed. For the first time since the war the Equal
Rights of All will have a declared representative at the head of the
Government, whose presence there will be of higher significance than
that of any victor in war, being not only a testimony, but a constant
motive-power in this great cause.

Opposition, whether open hostility or more subtle treachery, will
yield to the steady influence of such a representative. Therefore in
looking to the President I look also to Congress, which will take its
character in large measure from him. In choosing Horace Greeley we do
the best we can for the whole Government,--not only in the Executive,
but in the Legislative branch,--while we decline to support nepotism,
repayment of personal gifts by official patronage, seizure of the
war powers, indignity to the Black Republic,--also, the various
incapacity exhibited by the President, and the rings by which he
governs,--none of which can you defend. You know well that the rings
are already condemned by the American people.

For myself, I say plainly and without hesitation, that I prefer
Horace Greeley, with any Congress possible on the Cincinnati
Platform, to President Grant, _with his personal government and
his rings_,--a vote for whom involves the support of this personal
government, _with prolonged power in all the rings_. There must be
another influence and another example. The Administration, in all its
parts, is impressed by the President. Let his soul be enlarged with
the sentiment of justice, quickened by industry, and not only the two
Houses of Congress, but the whole country, will feel the irresistible
authority, overspreading, pervading, permeating everywhere.
Therefore, in proportion as you are earnest for the rights of the
colored citizen, and place them above all partisan triumph, you will
be glad to support the candidate whose heart has always throbbed for
Humanity. The country needs such a motive-power in the White House;
it needs a generous fountain there. In one word, it needs somebody
different from the present incumbent; and nobody knows this better
than Speaker Blaine.

The personal imputation you make upon me I repel with the indignation
of an honest man. I was a faithful supporter of the President until
somewhat tardily awakened by his painful conduct on the island of
San Domingo, involving seizure of the war power in violation of the
Constitution, and indignity to the Black Republic in violation of
International Law; and when I remonstrated against these intolerable
outrages, I was set upon by those acting in his behalf. Such is the
origin of my opposition. I could not have done less without failure
in that duty which is with me the rule of life. Nor can I doubt
that when partisan sentiments are less active you will regret the
wrong you have done me. Meanwhile I appeal confidently to the candid
judgment of those who, amidst all present differences of opinion,
unite in the great objects, far above Party or President, to which my
life is devoted.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

CHARLES SUMNER.

THE HONORABLE SPEAKER BLAINE.

RETROSPECT AND PROMISE.

ADDRESS AT A SERENADE BEFORE HIS HOUSE IN WASHINGTON, AUGUST 9, 1872.

The serenade was given under the auspices of the colored men of
the District, on the occasion of the Senator’s departure for
Boston,--and the crowd in attendance is reported to have been “one
of the largest ever gathered in Washington for a similar object.”
On presentation by Dr. Augusta as “the tried and true friend of the
African race,” Mr. Sumner said:--

FRIENDS AND FELLOW-CITIZENS:--

I am touched by this voluntary expression of friendship, and beg to thank you from the heart.

In seeing you on this occasion I think of you only as personal friends among whom I have lived more than twenty years. During this considerable period changes have occurred of incalculable importance to the country, but especially to the colored people. When I entered upon my public duties here Slavery was in the ascendant, giving the law to all the usages of life. The colored man was degraded. He was not allowed to testify in court; he was shut out from the public schools; he was excluded from the public conveyances, and thrust away from the ballot-box. But here in the National Capital all these terrible wrongs have ceased. The court-room, the school-house, the horse-car, and the ballot-box are all open, never to be closed. Revolutions do not go backward. Therefore you may rest secure in what has been won. Of this be sure, Slavery will never be revived, nor will you be restrained or limited in any of these rights you now enjoy. [_Applause, and three cheers for Mr. Sumner._]

Most sincerely do I congratulate you on these signal triumphs, so little to be expected when I first became acquainted with you. And when we consider the brief period in which they have been accomplished, I am sure you will unite with me in hope and trust for the future. [_Cries, “We will!”_]

It is my duty, however, to remind you that the work is not yet completed. This will be only by the enactment of a Civil Rights Bill which shall relieve the citizen, whoever he may be, from any exclusion or discrimination on account of his color. Only then will be established that Equality before the Law to which now, for the first time in our history, all political parties are distinctly pledged. Here there can be no question. [_Applause._] It is in the platforms of all. Of the early passage of such a law I do not doubt. Then will you have all the assurance of your rights that can be found in the Constitution and law. But that law will be the cap-stone. [_Applause._]

I shall not disguise from you that something more will be needed. There must be a constant, watchful, public opinion behind, to see that these are enforced in letter and spirit. Here there must be no failure in awakening and invigorating this public opinion. You can do much,--I would almost say you can do everything. How constantly have I urged, in public speech and in all my intercourse with you, that our colored fellow-citizens must insist upon their rights always, by petition, by speech, and by vote! Above all, never vote for any man who is not true to you. Make allegiance to you the measure of your support. [_Cheers._] So doing, all parties will seek your vote. [_Cheers._] You will be felt, and your cause will be irresistible.

Please accept these few words as my acknowledgment of your kindness this evening. [_Cries, “Go on!”_] From long acquaintance you know something of my sympathies. [_A voice, “I do!”_] Always from the beginning I have sought to serve you, and always to the end shall I seek to serve you. To your cause my life is dedicated, and nothing can turn me from it, nothing can tempt me or drive me from its support. [_Loud applause._]

FREDERICK DOUGLASS AND PRESIDENT GRANT.

LETTER TO HON. ANDREW D. WHITE, PRESIDENT OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY, AUGUST 10, 1872.

WASHINGTON, August 10, 1872.

MY DEAR SIR,--I am surprised by a statement purporting to proceed
from you, which I find under the telegraphic head, to the effect that
I have misrepresented facts with regard to Frederick Douglass.

In making this allegation you defend the Commissioners to San
Domingo, and allege that Mr. Douglass was well treated by them.
I have never said the contrary, nor have I ever alluded to the
treatment he received from them. Not a word or hint can be found on
the subject in anything written or spoken by me.

My allusion was to the exclusion of Mr. Douglass from the common
table of the mail-packet on the Potomac, almost within sight of the
Executive Mansion, simply on account of color,--and I added, that the
President, on whose invitation he had joined the Commission, never
uttered a word in rebuke of this exclusion, and when entertaining
the returned Commissioners at dinner carefully omitted Mr. Douglass,
who was in Washington at the time, and thus repeated the indignity.
On this you are represented as remarking, that General Sigel was
also omitted, but that, in fact, Mr. Douglass and General Sigel had
already left for their homes (forgetting that Mr. Douglass continued
in Washington); and you do not allow yourself to doubt, that, had
they been in town, they would have been included in the invitation.
Your apology clearly shows your opinion that they ought to have
been invited; but please not to forget that there was a reason for
inviting Mr. Douglass that did not exist in the case of General
Sigel. The General was white, and he had suffered no indignity on
board a mail-packet which it was in the power of the President to
rebuke by example.

But you are mistaken in the facts, as appears by the newspapers of
the time. The Commissioners reached Washington on the evening of
March 27th. They were entertained at dinner by the President March
30th. On the day before the dinner Mr. Douglass presided at the
Convention to nominate a Delegate to Congress from the District of
Columbia, and on taking the chair made a speech. Mr. Chipman was
nominated against Mr. Douglass, who made another speech thanking his
supporters for their votes. To gratify the friends of Mr. Douglass,
there was an understanding that he should succeed Mr. Chipman as
Secretary of the District. These things show that Mr. Douglass was
not only in Washington, but conspicuously so, presiding at a public
Convention, and being voted for as a candidate for Congress.

But we are not left to inference. Mr. A. M. Green, of Washington, who
at the Convention nominated Mr. Douglass for Congress, assures us
that he did not leave town till some days later. Mr. Green further
states, in a note dated August 10th, now before me, that about
this time he and another friend called on Mr. Douglass, in relation
to his appointment by the President as Secretary of the District;
that Mr. Douglass, while thanking them for their earnestness in
his behalf, assured them that he had no hope of success; that he
had “new evidence of the conservative character or tendency of the
Administration, which warranted him in the opinion that we could not
succeed”; and Mr. Green says that Mr. Douglass added these words:
“I was not only neglected without any rebuke for the offence from
the President, but the Commissioners have been invited to dine with
the President, and the same spirit of neglect has been exhibited in
that respect also.” Mr. Green adds, that recently, while on the way
to the National Colored Convention at New Orleans, Mr. Douglass, in
conversation with Mr. Downing and himself, “referred in a complaining
spirit to this circumstance.”