Syracuse University Library
Special Collections Research Center
Gerrit Smith Broadside and Pamphlet Collection

Gerrit Smith's reply to colored citizens of Albany : Peterboro, March 13, 1846.

Smith, Gerrit, 1797-1874.

Digital Edition.

This digitization project was supported by Regional Bibliographic Databases and Interlibrary Resources Sharing Program funds, awarded by the New York State Library.

Call number: Smith 437

GERRIT SMITH'S REPLY TO COLORED CITIZENS OF ALBANY.

PETERBORO, March 13, 1846.

Messrs. WILLIAM RICH, JAMES HENDERSON, FRANCIS LIPPINS, JOHN WENDALL, CHAS. S. MORTON, RICHARD THOMPSON, WILLIAM H. TOPP:

GENTLEMEN, -

Your letter is received. You are members of a State Central Committee, whose object is to restore the right of suffrage to the colored people of this State: and, so far as I am acquainted with you, you are yourselves of this description of people.

Your eloquent and affecting letter spreads out your views of my duty in respect to the Convention for revising the Constitution of this State. Passing over every thing else on its five pages, I proceed, at once, to examine its two leading positions.

The first of these is - that suffrage is "the point at issue": and the second - that it is my duty to vote for men for seats in the Convention, "whether Whigs or Democrats, who will pledge themselves" to favor your claim to the right of suffrage.

But the first of these positions is as manifestly untrue, as would be the position, that the eligibility to civil office of ministers of the gospel is "the point at issue"; or, as would be the position, that the eligibility of landless men, or foreigners, to the office of Governor is "the point at issue." The question is not, how we shall get into the New Constitution this one good thing, or that one good thing, or the other one good thing. The true and unspeakably more important question is, how we shall obtain for the people of this State a Civil Government, such as it should be in its object, form, and spirit.

If by the second position, you mean, that I ought not to refuse to vote for a man, merely because he holds Whig or Democratic doctrines, I agree with you. But, if you mean by it, that I am at liberty to vote for men, who think slaveholders fit to administer Civil Government, then I disagree with you. I am not ignorant of the representation, that I would confine my vote, and would have others confine theirs, to members of the Liberty party. Such representation is, however, as false, as it is frequent and industrious. Its design is to convict me of narrow mindedness and of the spirit of a partisan; and, thus, to strip me of any influence, which I may have, in the choice of delegates to the Convention. From the first, my ground has been, that we are to choose the most suitable men for our candidates, be those men in or out of the Liberty party. My only concern has been, that the men we choose be suited to the work to which we call them: - and, now, to the question - who are the men, that are suited to it?

Were we called on to supply a community with one man to preach the gospel and another to lecture on temperance, we should choose persons adapted to these employments. We should not choose an infidel for the one and an unreformed drunkard for the other. But, we are not to have less reference to adaptation, in choosing men to construct a Civil Government. In choosing them, we are to feel ourselves shut up to the duty of choosing such, as have the head and the heart for this high and holy work. Whom then may we not choose? We may not choose slaveholders. For, whilst the chief intent of God in the gift of Civil Government is, obviously, to provide therein protection for the poor and ignorant and weak and oppressed, such dependent ones are the very ones, whom the slaveholder makes the victims of his avarice and lust and cruelty. They are the very ones, whose life-blood it is his business to tread out. Whom else may we not choose? We may not choose those, who think slaveholders fit to administer Civil Government; - for such must be well nigh as ignorant, as slaveholders themselves, of the true designs and legitimate duties of Civil Government. The man, who can choose a slaveholder for the work of administering or constructing a Civil Government; does, in that very choice, prove himself unfit for the work.

Deriving my views of Civil Government from the Bible-views, "the preaching" of which on Sundays, as well as on other days, for the last fete years, has rendered me even more odious than I was before, - you must excuse me, gentlemen, for declining to vote for those, who think slaveholders entitled either to mold or to administer Civil Government. Slaveholders being the greatest of all pirates, I must contend, that Civil Government owes them none of its honors; owes them, in short, nothing but its severest punishments.

Civil Government being, in its existing perversions, the heaviest curse and most terrible enemy of the poor, I cannot consent to join you in any course, the tendency of which is to leave it essentially unimproved. On the contrary, my desires are deep, that you should unite your endeavors with my own to bring back Civil Government to its original and Heaven-impressed character. Oh how happy, were every Civil ruler able to say in the review of his official conduct, as Job said in review of his: "I was a lather to the poor!" Oh how happy, could God say of every Civil ruler, as He said of one: "He judged the cause of the poor and needy!" Oh how happy, if every Civil Government should "hide the outcast and betray not him that wandereth," and make itself that merciful shelter to the oppressed, and that strong support to the weak and helpless, which God requires every Civil Government to be!

Do you ask me, whether proslavery voters - and by proslavery voters I especially mean those, who vote for slaveholders - cannot be depended on to make our New Constitution all I wish to see it - I answer, that they, who have not imbibed the Bible idea of Civil Government, and who think slaveholders suitable persons for Civil rulers, are as unfit to appreciate the true character and uses of Civil Government, as swine are to appreciate pearls; and are, therefore, totally unfit to frame political Constitutions. It is enough for me to know, in order to justify the withholding of my vote from proslavery voters, that the dignity of Civil Government should not be insulted, nor its purity sullied, by choosing them either to construct, or to administer it.

But what tight have I to feel confident, that proslavery voters will make the Constitution, in any respect, what I, as an antislavery man, would have it? What right have I to feel confident, that they will go even for universal suffrage? You do not yourselves believe, that they will, unless they pledge themselves, that they will: - and the very fact, that they cannot be trusted without a pledge, shows, that they cannot be trusted with it. You would not require a pledge from William Jay, or William Goodell, or Alvan Stewart. Their antislavery character makes it unnecessary makes it, indeed, unthought of. Be assured, gentlemen, that if your candidates' proslavery character is such, that you must exact a pledge of them to go against that character - to go against themselves - you but tempt them to hypocrisy, and but expose yourselves to disappointment, when you exact their pledges. I would, that you were consistent on this point. You would trust no man with your key, of whom you required a pledge not to steal your money. Why, then, should you vote power into the hands of a man, whose pledge you need, that lie will not use that power to rob you of one of your most important natural rights? I say natural rights - for I indignantly reject the idea, that voting is a mere franchise - a mere gift of Government. It is an inherent, as well as a most important right.

I wish not to be misunderstood. I do not deny, that they who shall, on this occasion; give you their pledges, will redeem them. I only deny, that you are at liberty to trust either them, or their pledges. They, who organized the Liberty Party, did so for the sole reason, that they found that the men, who cling to proslavery parties, cannot be trusted on any question affecting that of slavery. With the members of such parties right is not the rule of expediency, but expediency the rule of right: - and if considerations of expediency prompt them to give a pledge to-day, they may, nevertheless, to-morrow, yield to the stronger considerations of expediency, which shall demand its violation.

But, if I am not allowed to feel sure, that members of proslavery parties, though pledged to do so, will give you back the right of suffrage, of which you have been so wickedly and meanly robbed; how much less can I feel sure,

[2]

that they will make the New Constitution testify directly against slavery? And is there not the most urgent need that it should so testify? The South is, now, busy in imbedding slavery, its deeply as she can, in her Constitutional laws. She is, now, busy in propagating the doctrine, that, the world over, the appropriate condition of the laborer is slavery. She is, now, busy in extending Cite dominion of slavery. Site has already seized a large part of Mexico; and, now, looks with gloating eyes on the remainder - on Cuba and Hayti also. Surely, then, this is a time, when the

North should be as actively antislavery, as the South is actively proslavery. Surely, then, this is a time, when the North should speak out in her Constitutional laws as decisively unit as loudly against slavery, as the South does in tiers for it - and this she should do, if only to protest thereby against being longer bound, hand and foot, by the slave power. The present is, most emphatically, the time for the Constitution of this great State to say, that the slave, come he whence he may, is, with his first tread upon the soil of this State - with his first breathing of its air - a freeman. The present, most emphatically, is the time for the Constitution of this great State to declare, that none of the prisons of the State and no persons, who hold office under its Government, shall be at the service of the pursuers of slaves. The present too is, most emphatically, the time for the Constitution of this great State to provide for the effectual punishment of such pursuers; and also for the effectual punishment of such of its citizens, as shall be guilty of trafficking in human beings in any part of the world, or of taking property-liens on human beings, in any part of the world. Is it said, that the Federal Constitution stands in the way of the universal liberty, which I propose? Rightly interpreted, it does not. Rightly interpreted, it is, from beginning to end, an antislavery instrument. But, what if it be on lite side of the oppressor? An authority paramount to its authority - the authority of Heaven itself - requires the Government of the State of New-York and every other Civil Government; to protect all the guiltless poor within their respective jurisdictions.

Do you say, that such Constitutional provisions in behalf of liberty and of human rights, as I have here suggested, have never yet had a place in the fundamental and organic law of any State or Nation? That they never have had, is the greater reason why they should have. There would be no surprise, were it proposed to have Constitutional provisions in behalf of property or education. Why should there be at propositions for Constitutional provisions against the demands and encroachments of slavery? Our present Constitution provides, that the Onondaga salt Springs and the Erie and Champlain Canals shall never be sold, but shall always remain the property of the People of the State. It also provides, that the avails of the lands belonging to the said People, shall be added to the Counnon School Fund. Were our fellow citizens not more concerned respecting questions of property than questions of personal liberty - about money than about man - they would, beyond a doubt, esteem such Constitutional provisions, as I have suggested, to be preeminently suitable.

You will, gentlemen, readily admit, that members of proslavery parties cannot be relied on to incorporate the suggested provisions, nor, indeed, any other antislavery provisions, in the new Constitution. The National Whig and Democratic parties would be broken up, were their members in this State to take such a stand against slavery. Brit, if they cannot be relied on to take such a stand, would I not be a traitor to the slave; were I to vote for them? - and would not he also be a traitor to the slave, who should ask me to vote for them? But you urge oil me the importance of your obtainment of the right of suffrage. I admit its importance: and, then, turn to urge on you the infinitely greater importance of adhering to our principles. You are, gentlemen, my fellow abolitionists. Our business, as abolitionists, is to maintain and apply our abolition principles - and not to barter them away for universal suffrage, or for any other good. We are to rejoice in all the gain, that comes from adhering to our principles; and we are never to make the experiment of trying what profit there is in abandoning them.

You intimate, that I undervalue the importance of your possessing the right of suffrage. Possibly, I do undervalue it. However that may be, frankness requires me to admit, that my greater desire is not for universal suffrage, but for universal acquiescence in the true character and uses of Civil Government; not that every man vote, but that every man cast his vote in the right spirit and for the right ends.

The right of suffrage, when exercised selfishly and tyrannically, is no blessing either to him, who exercises it, or to others. In five of the six New England States, all men possess this right; and they exercise it, in behalf of American slavery. It was not, when they were Monarchies, but when they were Republics, and the right of suffrage widely diffused among their citizens, that slaves were most numerous in Greece and Rome. Were there but a few voters in this Nation, the system of American slavery could riot be maintained. The proslavery parties, which uphold the infernal system, could not uphold it, were not the great mass of American citizens in their ranks - were not the great mass of American citizens proslavery voters. It requires millions of tyrants to uphold that system: and the mistaken views of Civil Government, and the selfish expectations from their party connexions, make tyrants of our millions of voters who uphold it. Were half of these millions not voters, that half would be accessible to antislavery truth; and would soon be brought to swell to irresistibleness the influences against slavery. Should, however, those just views of Civil Government prevail, which every abolitionist is bound industriously to inculcate, the greater the number of voters, the better. For in that case the voter would have, along with the power, the disposition, to uphold the right and put down the wrong. The doctrine, therefore, of every abolitionist - of every friend of the right and the true - should be UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE AND JUST VIEWS OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT.

But you will, perhaps, say, that colored men can certainly be relied on to vote against slavery; and that so far, at least, the right of suffrage would be properly exercised by them. Pardon me for my belief; that colored men are no better and no wiser than white men. If to-day, the right of suffrage were restored to the colored men of this State, to-morrow would see them enrolled in proslavery parties, and ready, in the selfishness of their hearts, and in their ignorance of the character and duties of Civil Government, to vote for slavery - to vote for the buyers and sellers and whippers and plunderers of the Lord's poor. I venture the remark, that more than three-fourths of the colored men, who voted in this Nation, in the Fall of 1844, voted for those, who belong to the class, that traffic in colored people, whip colored women, and steal colored babies.

Be assured, gentlemen, that the great political evil of the world is not, that so few vote - but that they, who do vote, vote so ignorantly, so selfishly, so tyrannically. How painful to the heart of enlightened benevolence is an American Election! - a selfish strife about Banks and Tariffs and Treasuries, instead of a philanthropic endeavor to give liberty to the slave, and protection to the poor! - a perverting of Civil Government from its merciful work of caring for the needy and the oppressed, into an instrument of avarice and tyranny!

Would, that there were twenty thousand men in this State to lift up their voices, and to cast their ballots, in favor of restoring Civil Government to the true and Bible idea of Civil Government! How happy would be their influence on the Convention! The New Constitution would, in that case, testify against slavery, as the most stupendous fraud - as "the sum of all villanies." It would, in that case, restore to you the right of suffrage - for slavery, having robbed you of that right; the Constitution, which denounces slavery, will give you back that right. I fear, however, that there will not be twenty thousand, nor even ten thousand, men to stand up for a righteous, humane, and Heaven-featured, Civil Government. Certain it is, that none, who vote for proslavery men, can be reckoned among its advocates. God grant us such a Government! Slavery could riot live under, or near, it: and it could no more refuse universal suffrage, than water can refuse to run down hill.

Whether, however, ours shall be a false or trite Government, I would have universal suffrage enjoyed under it for I would not have a man deprived of his right, however great the danger, that he may abuse it.

You advert to my connexion with the Liberty Party. There is, certainly, room to suspect, that one may be attached to the great and gloried - in Whig party, rather than to its principles - to the great and gloried - in Democratic party, rather than to its principles; but I cannot admit, that there is aught in the history of my connexion with the Liberty party to justify the suspicion, that I am attached to it, rather than to its principles. I can look to that little and despised party for no gratification of my ambition - for no personal advantages whatever. It can commend itself to me

only so far, as its principles commend it. That I must belong to it, is as much required by my moral man, as that I must breathe is by my physical. To doubt, when there are three political parties in tire field - two of them in full fellowship with slavery, and the other the uncompromising hater of it - to doubt, I say, in these circumstances, which to belong to, is, with me, an impossibility. The idea, that, in my course on this Convention question, I am acting as a

[3]

rnember of the Liberty party rather than as a man, is without foundation. As a man, I must oppose the choice of unfit persons to seats in the Convention: and I do not see, that the annihilation of the Liberty party could, or should, in any degree, weaken this opposition.

But I must close. I have written you in great haste and under incessant bodily pains. I could not, however, slight, or appear to slight, your esteemed letter. I thank you for your kind allusion to my efforts in behalf of my colored brethren. I claim no merit for them. I am only sorry, that they have been no more faithful and self-denying. I thank you also for admonishing me, that dishonor will attach to my name, should I, in voting for delegates to the Convention, go counter to your sense of propriety. But, I am so accustomed to suffer reproach, that I should hardly know myself, or be reconciled to myself, should 1 find myself commended. Besides, I, long ago, laid my account with being hated - hated by both white and colored men - for my course on this Convention question. Time and truth, however, will determine the character of that course. I patiently wait the result. For the present, they, who vote for the buyers and sellers of black men, will stand higher in the esteem of black men than they, who would sooner perish than so pervert the right of suffrage. But it may not be so always.

I do not say to you, that I sympathize with you under the deep wrongs, which the guiltiest of Nations heaps upon you. I leave it to your suddenly-sprung-up friends, whose lives show nothing of such sympathy, to make boast of it with their lips and pens. Nor do I seek to commend myself to you by framing an apology for you - ready, though I am, to admit, that the criminality of your desire to have abolitionists vote for proslavery men is diminished by the consideration, that you thereby hope to recover a most important right, and that you are deluded into the belief; that this,

and this only, is the way to recover it. I prefer a more manly course - and rebuke you. It is meet, that they, who think you their inferiors, should show their contempt of you by flattering you. It belongs to such, as think you their equals, to show their respect for you by rebuking you.

You call on abolitionists to trample on their distinctive and deeply cherished principles, and to vote political power and influence into the hands of those, who vote for slaveholders, and uphold slavery. How dare you call on them thus to disgrace themselves? - thus to wrong the slave and to wrong you? And how can you consent to seek what is your due, at the expense of such self degradation? Think you, that these Whigs and Democrats, who vote for slaveholders,

would vote for them, if white men were the slaves of these slaveholders? You know, that they would not. They vote for them, because their slaves are but black men. And is it for black men then to ask us to vote for these Whigs and Democrats? Shame on the black men, who, for gain, however great, can thus join with the crucifiers of the poor black slave! Say you in reply, that, though you get the right of suffrage at the expense of the slave, you will use it for his

deliverance? My frank, though perhaps offensive, rejoinder is, that there is but small room to hope for a very benevolent or beneficial exercise of a right, which has been so selfishly gotten. If, at the expense of the slave, you can join with his enemies, at his expense, you may also be willing to continue the union. But, however this may be, none will doubt; that to make slavery respectable is no way to overthrow it? And how can you more effectually contribute to

wake it respectable than by giving office, power, influence, and honor, to slaveholders or their allies? Would you have the practice of horse-stealing and sheep-stealing continued? Then get your fellow citizens to vote for horse-thieves and sheep-thieves, and for those who vote for them. And would you have the practice of man-stealing continued, then get your fellow citizens to vote for men-stealers, and for those who vote for them. But do not indulge the delusive hope, that American slavery will die a peaceful death, until we shall have come to hold it infamous to be a slaveholder, or to vote for a slaveholder, or to vote for hire, who will vote for a slaveholder. Call you this an extravagant denunciation of the slaveholder and his allies? Such it would have been called in Liverpool and Bristol, when those Cities were growing up out of the profits of the slave-trade. Utter it there now, however - and every heart will respond to it. Here too will every heart respond to it, just as soon as we shall have dissolved our political, ecclesiastical, commercial, and social relations with slavery, and shall feel free to think and speak of the abomination as reason and religion require us to think and speak of it.

Would, gentlemen, that the following mottos, which antislavery Conventions, in different parts of the State, are cordially adopting, were engraven on every heart:

"No slaveholder for civil office; and no person, who thinks a slaveholder fit for it."

"No man for civil office, but a republican; and no slaveholder, and no person, who thinks a slaveholder fit for civil office, is a republican."

I am, very respectfully, your friend and brother,

GERRIT SMITH.