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

Gerrit Smith's reply to Henry Wilson.

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 536

GERRIT SMITH'S REPLY TO HENRY WILSON.

PETERBORO March 20th 1866.

Hon. HENRY WILSON, U. S. Senate,

MY DEAR SIR,

I see that, in the course of a debate in the Senate of the United States a few days ago, you charge me with having been opposed to the Anti-Slavery Amendment, which is now declared to be a part of the Constitution. I confess that I was opposed to it - to both the time and wording of it. Whether I carried my opposition to an unreasonable extent all can judge, who will read the following extract from my Cooper Institute Speech of January 4 1865.

How immeasurably absurd it is to call the Constitution pro-slavery is seen in the fact, that it needs not the slightest alteration in line or letter to be entirely harmonious with the most thorough anti-slavery amendment; and in the further fact, that a stranger to the history of America would not so much as suspect that there is slavery in her Constitution; and in the still further fact, that to apply to the enslavement of a white man clauses which no more point and express themselves to this end than do the clauses in question to the end of enslaving the black man, would be held by all to be ridiculous, insulting, and infamous to the last degree.

But although slavery is repeatedly forbidden in the Constitution, and nowhere in it permitted, nevertheless I would not only not oppose but I would favor such an amendment of it as would in plain and literal terms forbid slavery. A sufficient reason for such an amendment is, that the Constitution has been so continuously tend thoroughly perverted to the upholding of slavery. War, however, with all its excitements and distractions, is not the best time for altering the organic law of a nation. That solemn work needs all the leisure, calmness, and composure which peace brings. Then, too, we need to be absorbed in the one purpose and one work of succeeding in the war. Is it said that slavery is in the way of such success ? I answer that we need not amend the Constitution in order to put it out of the way. That can be done quicker than by amending it. Nevertheless, I would waive all question in regard to the time for amending the Constitution, and be concerned only about the terms of the amendment. To have it in such terms as would imply that without it the Constitution is for slavery, would be to wrong and blot the memory of the honest, unsuspecting masses who adopted the Constitution; to disgrace our nation in the eyes of other nations; and to make our posterity ashamed of both ancestry and nation. If the amendment shall not be such, as to say in plain terms that the Constitution is against slavery, it should at least be such as to imply it. If the amendment shall not go so far as to say that the interpretation of the Constitution for slavery is a misinterpretation, nevertheless it should at least imply that it is ; and this it would imply if it should declare that the Constitution shall never be so interpreted as to legalize or permit the legalization of slavery, but shall ever be so interpreted as to forbid both.

The War is not yet ended: - and, therefore, it is not yet time to be amending the Constitution. Enough however at this point. Let us now to the question which you put in the same debate. "I ask the Senate and the country where in God's name would the slaves of the country be of the counsels of Gerrit Smith had been followed !"

1st. What were my counsels before the Rebellion? For very many years I argued that slavery was not only not in the Constitution, but that it could not possibly be embodied in any law. I spoke of it as the superlative piracy; nay, as a worse crime than murder - every right - minded parent preferring the murder to the enslavement of his children; and I therefore inferred that to call slavery law is a more emphatic solecism and absurdity than it would be to call murder law. I besought my countrymen to know no law for slavery. It is true that I had no knowledge of John Brown's designs upon Harper's Ferry, until I heard that he was a prisoner Beat whatever else I, with my characteristic horror of bloodshed, may think of those designs, I deeply honor them, so far as they show that be knew no law for slavery, and respected no pretensions of law for slavery. The able and keenly-discriminating Rev. Dr. Bacon has recently been arguing that Brown had no right to deliver the enslaved by using force against "a recognized and established government." The Doctor simply fails to "Remember them that are in bonds as bound with them." Whatever the Government under which he himself were held in slavery, he would, nevertheless, not hesitate to thank the man, who should be so contemptuous of that Government, as to get around it or even to break through it, and set him free. The religion, which the Doctor professes, makes our moral duty intelligible at this as well as at every other point. For what is a Government, be it the American or any other, which upholds slavery ? It is, like slavery itself, a stupendous piracy: and whoever he be that honors it, does therein dishonor God and betray humanity.

Again, for very many years before the Rebellion I was entreating my countrymen, in sheets innumerable and in speeches innumerable, one of which was on the floor of Congress, to put away slavery speedily in order to prevent its going out in blood, as it otherwise surely would do.

Now, I ask you, whether thus far "the counsels of Gerrit Smith" were unfavorable to the slave. We [unreadable] pass on to see whether they were during the Rebellion. As soon as slavery had fired at Sumter, he called on the nation to fire at slavery, and to put an end to the abomination. The first year of the Rebellion he went to New York to exert what little influence be could in hastening Emancipation; and, in a speech to a very large assembly, took for his chief doctrine: "Whichever party (the North or the South) gets (frees) the slave; gets the victory." All through the Rebellion, he continued to urge that immediate and entire ,justice be done to the black man by wielding the war power to this end. All through the Rebellion, be argued that the way to shorten it, to save treasure and life and to save the nation, was to secure the friendship and aid of the black man.

And, now, tell me whether, even as far down as this, there was any thing in my "counsels" to justify you singling me out as, in effect, the great enemy of the slave ? I say in effect - for I see in your speech on the occasion referred to, that you highly honor my "motives." By the way, you can hardly honor them more than do, the motives of the strong and brave Henry Wilson. We will now proceed to see what have been my "counsels" since the Rebellion. Scarcely had the Confederacy collapsed before I went to New York, and in the pipe pence of a large assembly in Cooper. Institute argued the right of the nation to prescribe the terms of Peace - not by slow and cowardly changes in the Constitution, but, boldly and instantly, by force of the right of

conquest. (And, just here, let me say that, from the time the South threw away the Constitution down to the preseut day, the word "Constitution," when used in reference to relations and rights between the North and the South, has been to my soul the most sickening of all words. Until the South has been recognized as again, under the Constitution, she should not be spoken to of her rights under it - for she has none. She

[2]

should be spoken to only of our rights under the law of war, and these are the absolute rights of the conqueror.) What in my judgment should be the terms of Peace may be seen in the following extract from my Speech on that occasion.

It was, perhaps, quite unnecessary to produce an authority for what is so certain as the right of the, conqueror to insist that the conquered shall be controlled at points where he would otherwise be like to repeat his mischief. Having this right, how reasonable it is for us, the conqueror in this War, to require -

1st. That then, shall be no more slavery, in the rebel States.

2d. That none of their inhabitants shall ever again lose or gain civil or political rights by reason of their race or origin.

3d. That their large landed estates shall be broken up - not for the benefit of Northern people, but to be parceled out solely to the Southern poor. Our soldiers can not be overpaid; but we are able to pay them without taking, to this end, any of the lands, which belong to the Southern people.

4th. That all debts incurred in aid of the rebellion shall be repudiated.

5th. That the loyal, and only the loyal, of the rebel States shall be allowed access to the ballot-box.

Slavery is chargeable with this war : and all these requirements are necessary to prevent its virtual, if not, indeed, its literal reestablishment. In no one of these is any punishment or any indemnity exacted. To leave the soil and the ballot in the hands of the slaveholders, and neither in the hands of the slaves, would be to leave them in such relations to each other, as could not fail to beget oppressions closely resembling, if not indeed identical with, those of slavery. From these oppressions might come the worst of wars - a war of races. For the black millions of the South, made by this war immeasurably more conscious of their rights and their powers to assert them, will not be, hereafter the patient beings they have hitherto been. Moreover, from the haughty spirit and intolerable demands of the oppressors might soon proceed another war of the South with the North.

How blind are the men, who deny that the black man shall vote! They must be born again in their new birth, and in nothing short of it, will they get rid of their caste-spirit and contempt of races. When rid of these depravities, they will see, not only that there is no folly so great and no ingratitude so base, as is this taking from our black saviours the muskets with which they have saved the nation, and at the same time, withholding from them the ballot with which to save themselves; but they will also see that negro suffrage is indispensable to save the white loyalists of the South, ay, and to save the South.

Although I would have disfranchisement for life to be the sentence in the case of the disloyal leaders, and for not less than ten or a dozen years in the case of the disloyal masses, I, nevertheless, would have the disfranchisement cease as soon as compatible with the public safety: and this, by the way, would be very soon, were the black man allowed the ballot and the soil. For then, not only the power of the disloyal to work evil would be neutralized, but their disposition to work it would die out with their power to work it. Oh ! that the Southern whites were wise ! How quickly and gladly then would they let the black man vote! Present appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, never will the ballot be secure in their own hands until the black man is allowed to vote. Never until then will there be Peace at the South. Never until then will the black man be contented. Nay, never until then will his vengeance cease to burn.

Such, when nine or ten months ago, the hour for making Peace had arrived, were my views of its proper conditions and indispensable securities. Would God that our National Executive and National Legislature had come together at that time and into an agreement to impose these conditions and require these securities! Both the North and the South would have acquiesced in them. That was the time to make Peace. Then the North, with a fresh sense of her dearly-earned rights, had no thought of surrendering them. No thought had she then of leaving unharvested the fruits of so much of her treasure and blood. But she is demoralized by this delay in leaking Peace: and unpatriotic and selfish interests find opportunity to come into the ascendant. At that time the most that the South expected - and even this not confidently - was to save her lives and her homes. But, now, with her blacks thrown again under her feet, and flattered with the prospect of being again put into substantially her former relation to them, the old habit of arrogance, tyranny and cruelty, engendered by that abominable relation, is fast reviving.

Thus have I shown what were my "counsels" at the time of the downfall of the Rebellion, and what in my judgment were the proper terms of Peace. I add that to this day these "counsels" and these terms have never for a moment been abandoned, no, nor in the slightest degree, changed as there any thing in them, that tended to make harder the lot of the lack man ?

I need say no more to vindicate myself. It was wrong in you, my old and much-esteemed friend, to tell "the Senate and the country" that my "counsels", had they been followed, would have been of ruinous bearing upon the black man. You intended me no wrong. It was only that you did not, at the moment when you were speaking of me, rightly remember my record. That record is truly a very black one. Even my child-heart was wrung with sorrow for the slave. It is hardly too much to say that I have been a negro, all my life time - that, all my life time, I have put my soul in his "soul's stead", and been one with him. I do not however forget that a man may be even a literal negro, and yet counsel unwisely for the interests of his fellow negroes. hose of my "counsels", which you arraigned, may possibly have been unwise. But I am sure that even you will not think they were remarkably so, if you will take the pains to see just what they were.

You were offended because I bad written against the Representation Amendment. You should not have been. You had more reason to regret that my writing was not convincing enough to restrain you from voting for it. I do not call in question the intended effect of your vote. That you and many who voted with you in tended to serve thereby the cause of equal rights, is not to be denied. But what was the practical tendency of your vote can be seen in the light of what would be the practical effect of such an Amendment to the Constitution. And in that light may I not retaliate and ask: "Where in God's name will the slaves of the country b[unreadable] the counsels of Henry Wilson are followed ?"

1st. The Amendment would be a bad blot upon the Constitution, and therein a deep disgrace to the nation. For the Constitution would then imply that there might be "in any State," and without thereby violating the Constitution, caste arrangements; - nay, that there might be in it races of men proscribed on account of their natural and therefore irresponsible peculiarities - proscribed for no crime, no, nor for the slightest fault, of their own - proscribed, indeed, in spite of their rare intelligence and of their adornment with the highest virtues.

2d. The Amendment, because resulting in the continued disfranchisement of the freedmen, would also result in their substantial re-enslavement. You will however tell me that the Southern States will hasten to enfranchise their freedmen in order to save from diminution their representation in the national councils. But a secession spirit - a desire to insulate herself - is infinitely more prevalent at the South than a national interest. Gladly would she surrender all her interest in the nation and all her representation in its councils for the sake of regaining, as by exclusive white suffrage she would, the control of her freedmen. he would be as quick to choose the latter and to submit to the penalty of giving up the former as a drunkard is to choose the rum instead of the water. But, I hold, that if she covets an effective influence in the nation, the very way for her to make sure of it is to deny suffrage to the negro - far in that way she secures, as without it she could not, the alliance of the negro-hating Democratic Party. In short, an Amendment for the very purpose of again putting both the N orth and the South into the hands of the slavemasters would not need to differ from this one in a single word.

[3]

But do I mean to say that a people in the enjoyment of their civil rights can, even if they are denied access to the ballot-box, be fairly said to be enslaved ? I do not. What I mean to say is that, whenever in a Republic a despised and hated race is robbed of the right of suffrage, it will, whatever the professions, promises and guards to the contrary, if of sufficient numbers to arouse jealousy and inspire fear, be robbed of its civil rights also, and be therefore an enslaved race. But will not the "Civil Rights Bill", if it become a law, save to the black men of the South their civil rights. A very little time would show that it would not. All their civil rights, including rights of property and rights in the courts, if unaccompanied and unsustained by suffrage, would be but as cobwebs before the hostile suffrage. The voting race could and would at every point tie, hand and foot, the non-voting race. Its pre-eminent aim in casting the ballot would be to sweep away every right from the non-voting race. It would have the power as well as the disposition to evade or overcome every provision in the "Civil Rights Bill". It would make the intervention of the Federal Courts provided for in that Bill not only unpopular and perilous, but impossible. I say impossible - for the nation would not consent to support a standing army large enough to make it possible. Rely upon that Bill or upon any thing short of impartial suffrage for Peace and Justice at the South, and there will be no Peace and Justice there. The schools for the oppressed race will be quickly broken up; its every right will be quickly assailed; and there will be no resource left to it but the mighty resource of despair. Wo, wo to the oppressors when the oppressed are driven to this the last of all resources! Of what avail would be the Bill under a Democratic Administration? And, surely the cowardice, haltings and derelictions of many of the Republican leaders make the speedy incoming of such an Administration but too probable. Under such an Administration the slave-power would be left to do as it pleased in the South, if not indeed, in the North also. And he, who flatters himself that these Republican leaders would not, for the sake of Southern favor and Southern votes, consent to see the provisions of the Bill unenforced, has far more confidence in their incorruptibility than lie ought to have.

Can you believe that the "Civil Rights Bill" will suffice to protect the negro and the white loyalist of the South ? Strange if you can ! You well know that no laws sufficed to protect from being sold into slavery your Massachusetts black seamen, who, in their lawful pursuits, were so unfortunate as to touch Southern soil. You well know, too, that Massachusetts sent her eminent citizens, Mr. Hoar and Mr. Hubbard, to the South to look after the rights of these outraged seamen; and that, notwithstanding the abundant and even organic law on the side of those Commissioners, they had to fly back to the North to save themselves from being murdered. Do you say that the Rebellion has improved the temper of the South? It has made that temper much worse. Never before was her hatred of the negro and the white loyalist so intense. Do you believe that she has repented ? She has not. And, what is more, our impenitence leaves little hope that she will give up hers. Had the North, when the South laid down their arms, stood up for Justice to the negro, she would have honored both herself and Justice in the eyes of the South. But she preferred to begin the new national existence in the spirit of Injustice to the negro, and, as a necessary consequence, she has gamed no hold upon the Southern conscience, and is powerless to move the Southern heart to penitence. If that heart repent, it will be notwithstanding the hardening influences upon it of an unjust policy and base example on the part of the North.

The "Civil Rights Bill" like much other legislation in our country and in the world, proceeds upon the false principle that Government is to be the main dependence for the protection of its subjects. But the true principle is that, in the main, they are to be left to be their own protectors. ow, in a Republic, the great means of self protection is the ballot. Hence, when our Government robs one of our races of the ballot or suffers the robbery, all in vain will it attempt to make up for the robbery by promising protection to the victims. The "Civil rights Bill" cannot serve the black man in the place of the ballot. But the ballot in his hands would make the Bill quite superfluous.

I spoke of impartial suffrage. I did not mean by it universal suffrage. Whilst I fully believe that suffrage is a natural right, I am nevertheless ready to admit that slavery so far unnaturalizes the slave race and the slave-holding race, as, in no small degree, to impair the fitness of both for casting the ballot. Hence, I should be content to see a degree of book education, say reading, made a prerequisite for voting in the Rebel States. Proof of loyalty in the voter should be insisted on. Though I cheerfully admit that a very generous interpretation of its evidences could be well-afforded, were the blacks admitted to the ballot-box.

I need say no more. Indeed, for a long time, I have had very little courage to say any thing for the salvation of my pre-eminently guilty and pre-eminently infatuated country. Though she has suffered so much for it, she still refuses to repent of her oppression of the poor. Why, then, should my hope be strong that she will be saved ? I hardly expect any thing better than that she will go on in her wickedness, and crown it with the superlative folly of denying the ballot to the loyal and according it to the disloyal, and with the superlative in gratitude of taking up her black saviors and casting them again under the feet of their and her enemies. Can she survive all this under the reign of a God of Justice ? I do not believe that she can. I add that her survival of it would supply the atheist with a new argument.

With great regard

your friend

GERRIT SMITH.