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

Gerrit Smith to George T. Downing : equal rights for blacks and whites.

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 580

GERRIT SMITH TO GEORGE T. DOWLING.

EQUAL RIGHTS FOR BLACKS AND WHITES.

[col. 1]

PETERBORO March 6th 1874.

GEORGE T. DOWNING, Esq.,

MY DEAR SIR,

Your article in the N.Y. Independent on the Civil Rights Bill I have read with pleasure. On account of an obstinate attack of vertigo, I have, for months, for-borne to write on the subject of the Bill. And I now write you this letter, not because I feel able to write it - but because, under my apprehension that the black man is threatened with further oppression, my spirit cannot rest unless it be testifying, though ever so feebly, against the meanness, cruelty and great wickedness of such oppression.

I confess that I am somewhat afraid that the Civil Rights Bill, - or any other which may be substantially like it, will fail to become a law. One effect of this failure will be the death of the Republican party. For having come into power as a reform party, and having continued in power as such, it will, of necessity, cease to live when it shall cease to be it reform party. I do not apprehend that its death will be followed by the restoration of the Democratic party to power. That party, in its earlier days a progressive and good one, became a miserably conservative and bad one. Notwithstanding there was a countless number of patriotic and noble men in it, the party allowed itself, by force of its pro slavery training, to sympathize with the enemy in our late War. This sympathy was fatal to it. It was a sin not to be forgiven. The party, though it may struggle, years longer, against its constantly approaching destiny, must at last break up, and its members become a tree to attach themselves to some party of less odious name and of less fatal traditions. The old Federal party abounded in great and good men. Nevertheless as it saw that it could never recover from its mistake of sympathizing with our enemy in the War of 1812-15, it deliberately disbanded very soon after that War.

For the Republican party to claim to be any longer a reform party after it shall have refused equality of civil rights to the millions of our colored countrymen would be absurd. Its excuse for this high crime against God and man, that these millions are ignorant, would be base and impudent to the last degree. For not only is the ignorance of a race no excuse for robbing it of the rights of our common humanity, but the last people for whose advantage this excuse should be offered are they, who enslaved and therefore darkened and debased this ignorant race. Alas, is there to be no end to the wrongs of this unoffending and gentle people, who, instead of wreaking revenge upon us for their ages of oppression, forgave its and sped their bloood [sic] to save us!

The Decision of the U. S. Supreme Court in the New Orleans Slaughter Case is much relied on by the opponents of the Civil Rights Bill. But this Decision should be quoted modestly rather than confidently, seeing that four of the Judges and the Chief Justice one of the four, dissented from it. The Court, to render clearer its distinction of two classes of citizens - one of the State, and the other of the United States - enumerates - some of the privileges and immunities of the latter. Amongst these privileges and immunities is his (the U. S. citizen's) right "to come to the seat of Government to assert any claim he may have upon that Government, or transact any business he may have with it, to seek its protection, to share its offices, to engage in administering its functions. He has the right to free access to its seaports through which all operations of foreign commerce are conducted, to the sub-treasuries, land offices, and courts of justice in the several States: also the right to peaceably assemble and petition redress of grievances."

But how can a black man enjoy these immunities and privileges it he be denied, save on the most degrading terms, the public vehicles and hotels? and denied them he will be, unless he shall be able to prove, at every stage of his journey, that he is traveling in the capacity of a United States citizen. Or is it meant that the black man, be a Federal or a State citizen, is to walk and not ride, to carry bread and cheese in his pocket instead of sitting at the well-furnished table, and instead of a comfortable bed indoors, to steal away like a fugitive slave into the woods? And how can he hold a Federal office in a negro-hating State without his right to the decent accommodations, refined pleasures and respectful treatment enjoyed by white office-holders being frequently called in question? Hence, notwithstanding this enumeration of rights in the Decision, there are not two classes of black citizens - for such citizens cannot freely exercise these rights when they are in States, which deny equal rights to black men. But if a State has the power to disable a black man and deprive him of citizenship, it must have no less power over a white man also. So it turns out that this class of United States citizens is but a conditional class-conditioned on the will and action of the States. A constitutional class of citizens must however have an absolute existence : and this great nation is not under the humiliating necessity of getting the consent of little Rhode Island or little Delaware, ere it can invest the people of the United States with absolute citizenship. The constitution knows one and only one class

[p. 1, col. 2]

of citizens - viz. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

Better would it be to break up our nation and pronounce it an utter failure than not to admit that it is bound to protect all classes of its citizens, Federal or State, from insults and outrages at the hands of their State governments. This it is bound to do by the spirit if not by the literal requirement of its constitutional obligation to guarantee to every State a republican form of government. And, just here, let the say that, after the rivers of blood shed in our land in the cause of freedom, equality and fraternity, republican government means much more than it formerly meant. It is no longer regarded as a republican government under which a man has the less rights for being a black man. The War has changed all that. It has brought back the nation out of the slough of the pro-slavery interpretations of the constitution to the high ground of the Declaration of Independence on which it set out. The nation has entered upon another stage of its journey. It must now admit, and practically too, the equal rights of all men. The black man and the white man are now equals before the law. Their social rights the law has nothing to do with. and neither party invokes its help ill that matter. But their equal legal rights are to be strictly maintained - and, if need be enforced at whatever cost. If a State tramples down any portion of its people, then constitution or no constitution, the nation must by the paramount laws of humanity and heaven lift them up again.

But it is said that this bringing of white and black children into the same school will not soon be found practicable, especially at the South. Yes, it will. Before bravely asserted reason prejudice melts away rapidly. What, however, if, in this case, prejudice shall turn out to be unexpectedly obstinate? which party must yield - must it be God, who "hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth," or shall it not rather be the Devil, who delights in his caste-spirit - for it is his own spirit ? In other words, which shall yield, the innocent and bumble black man or the haughty and guilty white one? Ten years ago, it was not thought possible at the South that white members of Congress could ever consent to sit by the side of black members of Congress: and, ten years hence, the mingling of white school children with black school children will be as fully acquiesced in as is the present mingling of white men and black men in the halls of Congress. Tempest mutantur, &c. The times change, and happily we change with them.

Constitutional questions are freely raised against the Civil Rights Bill. May the day draw near when such questions shall no longer be raised against fundamental human rights! A constitution, which is not built upon the recognition of our common humanity; is entitled to no respect. constitution, founded on favor to one sex or to one complexion, and guilty of ignoring the equal rights of the other sex or other complexion, is to be spurned. No constitution, no statute, no human paper, however good it may be, is to be an acknowledged authority in determining essential human rights. The right to our manhood and to the conditions of maintaining our manhood (such conditions, for instance, as are contained in the Civil Rights Bill) is not derived from the constitution. It comes from a source infinitely more sacred and authoritative - from a law infinitely older than the oldest works of men - from the law of human nature and of God. No judge is to pause to inquire whether by the constitution a man's a man. The man is himself the sufficient and sole proof of the fact. To go back of that proof is to insult him and insult his Maker, who made matt in his own image. In all matters pertaining to its proper sphere we can hardly show too much respect to the constitution. But in matters beyond that sphere, the constitution is no law.

Of all American judges I recall but one who, when the question of essential and inalienable human rights came before him, at once "struck hard pan," and based his decision simply and solely upon the immutable and everlasting law of God. Judge Harrington of Vermont may not have been a judge of high rank. Nevertheless, the highest niche in our American temple of justice is his appropriate place and deserved honor. For when the claimant of the fugitive slave impatiently asked what more could be required to substantiate his claim than the Bill of Sale lying before the court, the sturdy old Vermonter replied in thunder tones: "a Bill of Sale from God Almighty!" Worshippers of constitutions and human laws told the judge that the trembling one before him was a slave. But God told him - not a slave, but a man: and the judge agreed with the Apostles that it is better "to hearken unto God" than unto men. Would that the brave and sublime spirit, which made a grand man of Judge Harrington, might enter into the breasts of all our members of Congress and so make grand then of them also! Then would the Civil Rights Bill be safe.

Respectfully your friend,

GERRIT SMITH.