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

William Goodell : Peterboro, Nov. 1, 1854.

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 492

PETERBORO, Nov. 1, 1854.

WILLIAM GOODELL,

DEAR FRIEND,

I see, in the "American Jubilee", that you, too, are unsparing in your criticisms upon my unsparing career in Congress. Unlucky, indeed-since it meets with favor, at the hands of neither friends nor foes!

These plaguy Whigs are the ruin of me! They have taken all the wind out of my abolition sails! They have carried off all my abolition honors. And not content with that, they have cast me down into the class of proslavery men.

What a godsend to the Whigs was the Nebraska bill! All of them in the free States arrayed themselves against it. This was, it is true, a cheap way of making themselves abolitionists. But, that it made them really such, was what they insisted on, in the ears of the credulous and silly abolitionists. I am sorry, that I have to call them credulous and silly. But, alas, too many of them have proved themselves to be such. The Whigs now claimed with more plausibility and effect than ever, that no other antislavery organization than the Whig party is necessary; and that this party is clearly entitled to the votes of all, who sympathize with the slave. All this told upon the mass of abolitionists. But in that mass there is a very radical little handful, who are slow to believe in the abolition character of the Whig party, even after all, that the Nebraska occasion has done to improve such character. They are slow to attribute a genuine abolition to the party, that insulted and vilified them, because they would not vote for the slaveholder, Henry Clay; to the party, that elected the slaveholder, General Taylor; to the party, whose Millard Fillmore signed the diabolical fugitive slave bill. What, now, should the Whig party do with this little handful? One thing they could do with it - and that they quickly determined to do. They could strike at it, through me. By utterly disgracing me, they could do something toward disgracing it. By making it appear, that I am but a hypocrite, and no abolitionist at all, they would make room for the inference, that all the abolitionists of my radical type are but hypocrites, and no abolitionists at all. So at it they went. It was my misfortune to be a member of Congress. Hence, since voting against the Nebraska bill had become the sole test of an abolitionist - the sole proof of being an abolitionist - all that was necessary to blast my abolition character was to spread the impression, that I did not vote against it. This impression was spread, as rapidly and as universally, as the many-tongued Whig press could spread it. And my delinquency, in order to aggravate it to the utmost, was ascribed to a peculiarly disgraceful cause. It was, every where, said, that I had been guilty of preferring my bed to my duty - of preferring the indulgence of sleep to keeping vigils for liberty.

It is true, that there were two things, which stood, pretty sternly, in the way of convincing the country, that I fled from the vote on the Nebraska bill. One was that, of the radical speeches made against the Nebraska bill, mine was, confessedly on all hands, the most radical; and was, therefore, quite as like as any other speech, to be followed up by the vote of its author. The other, and far more important, thing was, that the records showed my vote against the bill. Yes, the records showed, that, in spite of my much laughed at honest habit of going to bed at nine o'clock, I was, nevertheless, in the Capitol, an hour before midnight, to vote against the Nebraska bill.

These were, indeed, obstacles in the way of the undertaking. But they were not insurmountable. "A lie well stuck to" can overcome almost any truth. The Whig press has abundantly proved the power of such perseverance. Its continued representations, from that day to this, that I did not vote against the Nebraska bill, have, in the public mind generally, over come the truth, that I did vote against it. All truth to the contrary notwithstanding, the Whigs have, nevertheless, succeeded in, getting the country to class me with the Nebraskaites. I am riding in the same troop with Cass, Douglass &, Co. In a word, the Whigs, as I said, at the beginning of my letter, have ruined my abolition character: - and, what is worst of all, they have ruined it, in the eyes of my fellow abolitionists. Even you yourself were surprised, when learning from me, that I did vote on the Nebraska bill. You had believed until then, that I did not vote on it. On my return from Washington, I found, that some of my intelligent neighbors did not know, that I voted on it. They read Whig newspapers. I was in a County Antislavery Convention in Morrisville, a few days ago. The subject of my course on the Nebraska bill came up, and consumed an hour. Several of the speakers had supposed, until then, that I did not vote on the bill: and it was manifest from what was said, that, to this day, there is a wide spread belief, even in my own County, that I did not vote on it. Inquiries whether I voted on it, and, even, how I voted on it, are continually coming to me, by mail and otherwise, from all parts of the State. Oh, these Whig newspapers!

I will add another illustration of the power of the Whig press to mislead the abolitionists. When in Rochester, a few weeks since, I called on one of the earliest and most intelligent abolitionists. In the course of our conversation, he expressed his regret, that I did not make a speech in Congress against slavery! He reads the Whig newspapers: and, like myself, he is especially fond of the New-York Tribune. I conjecture, that, as he had read so often, in this able and interesting newspaper, of my actual, or probable, apostasy from the cause of the slave, he had lost all impression of the speeches, which I had made in Congress for the slave.

But of all the illustrations of the power of the Whig press over abolitionists, in this matter of my relation to the Nebraska bill, none has so much astonished me, and, I confess, none has so much pained me, as a Resolution, adopted by a National Convention of colored people, held in Cleveland, Ohio, last August. That Convention, after passing Resolutions in high praise of Mr. Garrison and other prominent abolitionists, condescended to notice me in the following insulting Resolution

"Resolved, that we heartily regret the refusal of our recent ardent friend, Hon. Gerrit Smith, further to serve the cause of the oppressed in the Councils of this nation, and hope, that, on due reflection, he may yet consent to lose a meal of victuals, or an hour's sleep, for the cause of down-trodden and suffering humanity."

I must think, that, however poor and valueless my well intended services for my colored brethren, it was, in no respect, proper, but, in every respect, most ungracious and unainiable so to requite them.

By the way, it has ever been so, that the abolitionists have consented to be befooled and bewitched by the Whig press. They take the Whig papers, and read them, and believe them: and they actually judge of each other, not in the light of what they know of each other, but in the light of what the Whig papers tell them of each other. In spite of all lessons to the contrary, the abolitionists will still have it, that the Whigs are nearly related to them - as nearly as first cousins, if not, indeed, as nearly as half brothers: and they will have it, too, that the trustworthiness of the Whigs is as great, as their relationship is near. Hence, the fact, that abolitionists have so little confidence in each other - for the Whigs succeed in destroying such confidence. And from this fact comes the further fact, that the public have but little confidence in abolitionists: - for, if they refuse to confide in each other, the public will, naturally, refuse to confide in them. I scarcely need add, that this failure, by reason of the Whigs, to command the public respect, accounts, in no small degree, for the slow progress of our principles. The best of principles are greatly prejudiced by the lack of confidence in their especial and prominent advocates.

I would say, in this connexion, that I think no better of the Democrats than I do of the Whigs. The Democrats are undisguised, open, servants of the slave-power: and, hence, I need say nothing to guard abolitionists against seductive and misleading influences; in that quarter.

But it is by no means, in respect to the Nebraska bill only, that my Congressional life has fallen under censure. Indeed, after the Whigs got the people into the habit of finding fault with me, nothing I could say, or do, would suit the people. The Whigs got me going down hill: and, then, I received a rapid succession of kicks from all sides. To illustrate for what purely

[2]

imaginary offences I was kicked, in some instances - the Garrison abolitionists of Ohio fell upon me because on the floor of Congress, I treated all the members of Congress, as gentlemen. Surely, there is not another person of whom they would have complained for his conforming himself to this conventional decorum: - a conventional decorum, which is observed in every other assembly, as well as in Congress; and by Garrison abolitionists, as much as by any other decent people. Nevertheless, for my having done what every one, of them is civil enough to do, they actually resolved, at their late meeting in Ohio (,so far as I recollect the tenor of the Resolution,) that I am a grand corrupter of the public morals! But I do not blame these good people for their harsh Resolution. The public habit of complaining of my course in Congress was so strong, that they could not keep themselves from sliding into it. Besides, as they had passed, a Resolution, two years before, that I was an apostate from the antislavery cause, they were strongly tempted to pass a Resolution now, which should be somewhat in keeping with that. But I repeat, that, I do not blame them. I hold the Whigs responsible for it all - for they began it all. Nor do I feel hard toward the Whigs. Poor fellows! they have so many other sins to answer for, I shall never hurt, nor hate, them for their sins against me.

I will here say, that I was struck with the influence of the Whig press upon the Temperance press. Considering, that I was one of the very earliest soldiers in the Temperance army; and that I was making Temperance speeches in Washington - ay, (and, what was a new thing) in Congress itself, and considering, moreover, that I was endeavoring to bring the members of Congress under the good influence of a cold-water dinner table; I did flatter myself, that I should have the sympathy and commendation of the Temperance press. I confess, that I was not altogether destitute of such reward. Nevertheless, in the case of some of the Temperance newspapers, the reward was overbalanced by complaints of my course on the Nebraska bill. Far different had been their treatment of me, had I been a Whig; and had the Whig press led off in praise, and not in disparagement, of me.

I could not but observe the influence of the Whig press on the religious press also. I carried into Congress the religion of Jesus Christ. My speeches acknowledged its claims, and were imbued with its spirit. Nevertheless, there were few of the religious newspapers to give me their countenance: and some of them relished and repeated the misrepresentations of the Whig press concerning me. Perhaps, however, the unkind aspect of the religious press toward me was not all of Whig influence. I have not, for these twenty years, been an especial favorite with the religious press.

I said, that it was not in respect to the Nebraska bill only, that my Congressional life is complained of. Another cause of complaint, and the only other one I will refer to in this letter, is the remark in my speech on the Mexican Treaty, that I should be willing to have Cuba come to us, "even if she shall not previously abolish her slavery". This remark was the occasion of a

fresh onslaught upon me. Many Whig papers were, now, severer than ever upon me: and the National Era and other antislavery papers, which had spared me thus far, could spare me no longer. The Era was, of course, temperate and courteous - for its editor combines with great ability the bearing of a gentleman. There were some antislavery papers, however, which spoke very unkindly, and very coarsely, of me. I had, now, become, in the esteem of such papers an open apostate from the holy cause of freedom. They declared, that I was, no longer, fit to remain in Congress; and that they were glad of the resignation of my seat. The National Antislavery Standard was very ill-natured toward me: and even Mr. Garrison, though he said nothing himself against my much censured position concerning Cuba, consented to copy into his Paper some of the very ugliest things that were said against it.

But I will delay, no longer, to come to your review of this position. You put the very worst possible construction on it. I am not, altogether, surprised, that you do. The Whig misrepresentations of my course in Congress had prepared the public mind for such construction: and that, notwithstanding your friendship for me, your love of justice and your candor, you should, insensibly, sympathize with that state of the public mind, and be, insensibly biased by it, is not strange.

You, totally, misapprehend the position, which you so severely and utterly condemn. I wish that you had, before reviewing it, addressed interrogatories to me, concerning its meaning. Gladly would I have answered them. You will say, that I should, have fully explained the position in the speech, in, which I took it. Oh, I wish I could have had time to do so! I should have been glad to have consumed a whole day, in doing so - a whole day, in talking to Congress of human rights, in this connexion. But look at my circumstances, in the case. The Mexican Treaty was up. I got the floor. The debate was confined to two days; and it was, now, the evening of the second day; and a number of speakers were to follow me. No speaker is allowed to exceed an hour: and. in such circumstances, far less than an hour was my full share of the time. Moreover, what I had to say of Cuba was in connexion with the, purely incidental topic of the "Monroe doctrine". I could, therefore, but glance at Cuba.

I do not find fault with your position, that there are no conditions (provided slavery has not been previously abolished) on which it is expedient for us and Cuba to be blended into one nation. Perhaps, you are right, in this position. At an rate, as there is not the least probability, that such blending will ever take place on the terms, which I proposed, I am not it all anxious to convince you, or others, that it is expedient, that it should take place. Had you stopped here, I should have had no controversy with you. My judgment I hold as cheap, as you, or any other person, holds it: and I should have felt no promptings of ambition, or pride, to prove, that it was not at fault, in this instance. But you are very far from stopping here. You go on to argue (,and that, indeed, is the great aim of your Review,) that I was guilty of a flagrant offence against the Divine law, is consenting to the union of Cuba with this country. So flagrant an offence, as you make it - so obvious an offence, as you make it - I could, hardly, be guilty of, without giving room to call in question my integrity as an abolitionist, and as a christian.

Now, I beg you to lay down this letter, right here; and, after you shall have divorced yourself from the public prejudice against my speech, and abandoned your foregone conclusion, that it must be a very wicked one, you will be prepared to read it, carefully and candidly. So read it - and you will then learn from the speech itself just what I did say: and you will then hold me responsible for that, and not at all for what the newspapers tell you I said; and not at all for your imaginations of what I said. I pause, till you have so read the speech.

And, now, taking it for granted that you have obeyed my request, and learned what my speech really does say about Cuba, you will agree with me

1st. That I am not amenable to the charge of being a filibuster: - for I did not propose to get Cuba into the Union, either by whipping her into it, or by buying her into it.

2d. That, so far from my proposing, that the Governments of the two countries should stipulate for the continuance of slavery, I did not so much as propose, that these Governments, or any other Governments, should have aught to do in negotiating the terms of the union. I treated with contempt the idea, that the voice of the Cuban Government is essential in the matter; and I laid down the doctrine distinctly, that, in the dividing of this nation, or in the uniting of it with another, the voice of the Government of this country is not essential.

3d. That the only union of Cuba and this country, which I proposed, was the union of the people of Cuba with the people of this country; - a union dictated by the interest and choice of the two peoples, and to take place, whether Government willed it, or not.

Surely, you ought not to wonder, that, I have here spoken so lightly of the authority of Governments. You have, for many years, known, from my writings and speeches, that I regard these Governments as usurpations, and as conspiracies against human rights, rather than legitimate Civil Governments. The Government of this State, so long as it recognizes property in man, or makes color a disqualification for the enjoyment of rights, merits neither the honor, nor the name of Civil Government.

Surely, too, you ought not to wonder, that, when I speak of the people, I include the enslaved, as well as the free. You were present on the memorable occasion, thirteen years ago, when I reported my "Address to the slaves:" and you, doubtless, recollect, that the great doctrine of the Address is, that men do not cease to be of the people, when they become slaves; and that they forfeit none of their rights by falling under the yoke of slavery. It is true, that you and some other great and good men, who were also present, were so startled by the bold and novel positions of the Address, as to vote against it. But that is a reason, why you should remember, rather than why you should forget, its doctrines.

[3]

And, now, my dear friend is the speech in question the wicked speech, which you thought it to be, when you reviewed it? Is it wicked for poor slaves of Cuba - the most afflicted and outraged of all slaves - to desire to cast in their lot with our slaves? If it is not, then it is not necessarily, wicked for freemen to desire it for them. Surely, you will not, because portions of them are so unhappy, as to be reduced to slavery, deny, that peoples may unite with each other. Surely, you will not deny, that their calamity - the bitterest of all calamities - should not be allowed to work the forfeiture of their rights. Surely, you will not consent, that the wrongs against them - the heaviest of all wrongs - shall be plead against their rights. I do not say, that it would be expedient for America and Hungary to enter into an alliance with each other. But I do say, that the fact, that there is oppression in the two countries would not make such alliance. necessarily wicked. The alliance may be in spite of such oppression - not in accordance with it. It may be to overthrow - not-to sustain - such oppression. If with this object m view, I should favor such alliance, you would not denounce me, as a flagrant offender against, Heaven. But as well might you denounce me in that case, as in the case of my favoring, with the like object in view, the union of Cuba with America. I say, with the like object: and I am sure, that you will not impute to me the opposite object of strengthening the hands of the oppressor.

The doctrine of your Review is, that it is sinful for two nations to become one, so long as there is slaveholding in both, or in either, of them. Admit, that it is so, when the Governments - the Governments, that ordain, and uphold, the-slavery - negotiate the union. But the union, which I justify, is to be brought about by the people, and in contempt and defiance of their slave holding Governments. Admit, too, that it is a sin for the people to accomplish such a union, unless the interests and desires of the slaves are consulted. But when those interests and desires call for it (,and without that I would ever protest against it,) is the union then sin?

To deny, that two peoples may come together, so long, as their usurping Governments are holding a portion of them in slavery, is virtually to hold the unhappy slaves responsible for the devilism of such Governments. Their coming together may be the only hopeful way for the slaves to escape from such devilism, and gain their liberty. But, according to your theory, that way is forbidden to them. So, according to your theory, two peoples may not come together, if any portions of them are oppressed by land-monopoly, nor, indeed, if they are the subjects of any other Governmental wrong.

Strange as it is, it is, nevertheless, so, that, all through your Review, you treat me, not as arguing the right of peoples - even the most oppressed broken-hearted, and desolate among them - to unite their fortunes and make common cause; but as arguing the right of their usurping Governments to continue their crimes against their subjects. Hence, you interpret me to hold to such a union of Cuba, as shall obligate me, on the score of good faith and consistency, to refrain, ever after the union shall take place, from calling on Government to abolish Cuban slavery. I can but wonder, that you should think me either so ignorant, or so depraved, as to lay myself under such an obligation. The writer in the Free Presbyterian, whom you quote, is even more outspoken, at this point, than you are. As he views the union, which I advocate, my vote for it would, necessarily, expose me to "the charge of collusion with slavery!"

There is nothing in your Review, that I more regret than the part, where you leave me open to the suspicion of hypocrisy. In the speech in question, I anticipated a speedy termination of American slavery. You intimate, that this anticipation is in conflict with my well-known state of mind on that point. I supposed, that you were so familiar with my writings and speeches on that point, as not to forget, that I have, for many years, held that American slavery is short-lived. Those writings and speeches abundantly show, that my despondency in regard to American slavery proceeds, not from my anticipations of its long life, but from my anticipations of its violent death.

I need say no more. The doctrines, which I incidentally glanced at in my speech on the Mexican Treaty have long, been precious to me; and I have, long, sought to make them precious to my fellow abolitionists. They are doctrines, which I can never surrender, so long, as I continue to recognize in the slave all the fulness of rights, which belongs to any other man, and, so long, as I hold the people superior to the usurpations and conspiracies, which, under the stolen name of Government, have got the control of the people. To have Whigs and Democrats confound these doctrines with the motives of filibusters, vulgar politicians, and office-seekers, does, in no degree, surprise me, nor wound my heart, nor disturb my good nature. But, I confess, that I do feel grieved - ay, and sometimes indignant - when I find my fellow abolitionists, by whose side I have stood, and suffered, and sacrificed these twenty years, falling into this mistake. I am well aware, that there are narrow-minded abolitionists, as well as narrow-minded other men - abolitionists, who will insist on running all abolitionists into one mould - the same, mould of doctrines, thoughts, and words. These are the one-idea abolitionists. Of course, the abolitionist, who thinks for himself - and, that too, on a great variety of subjects - must suffer not a little, when he falls into the hands of such abolitionists, and his character and proportions come under their forcing and stereotyping process. But there are large-minded abolitionists, also: and I am, always, very sad, when I see them allow the spirit of bigotry to invade their noble nature, and transform, them into illiberal and uncharitable judges of their fellow abolitionists.

I hope, that both you and the public will pardon this letter. I dislike to appear in defence of myself: - and I, very seldom, do. But incessantly assailed as I am, at every point of my conduct and character - and, that too, by both friends and foes - it seems excusable, that I should, now and then, speak for myself. If, however. I may never defend myself, still may I not, as I have done in parts of this letter, defend great and cherished doctrines, when they are struck at, through myself?

With great regard,

your friend,

GERRIT SMITH.