STATES ***

                            THREE ADDRESSES

                                ON THE

                Relations Subsisting between the White
                       and Colored People of the
                            United States,

                                  by

                          FREDERICK DOUGLASS.

                    [Illustration: decorative bar]

                              WASHINGTON:
                GIBSON BROS., PRINTERS AND BOOKBINDERS.
                                 1886.

In Louisville, KY., 1883.

     The following was delivered by FREDERICK DOUGLASS as an address to
     the people of the United States at a Convention of Colored Men held
     in Louisville, Ky., September 24, 1883:

FELLOW-CITIZENS: Charged with the responsibility and duty of doing what
we may to advance the interest and promote the general welfare of a
people lately enslaved, and who, though now free, still suffer many of
the disadvantages and evils derived from their former condition, not the
least among which is the low and unjust estimate entertained of their
abilities and possibilities as men, and their value as citizens of the
Republic; instructed by these people to make such representations and
adopt such measures as in our judgment may help to bring about a better
understanding and a more friendly feeling between themselves and their
white fellow-citizens recognizing the great fact as we do, that the
relations of the American people and those of civilized nations
generally depend more upon prevailing ideas, opinions, and long
established usages for their qualities of good and evil than upon courts
of law or creeds of religion. Allowing the existence of a magnanimous
disposition on your part to listen candidly to an honest appeal for fair
play, coming from any class of your fellow-citizens, however humble, who
may have, or may think they have, rights to assert or wrongs to redress,
the members of this National Convention, chosen from all parts of the
United States, representing the thoughts, feelings and purposes of
colored men generally, would, as one means of advancing the cause
committed to them, most respectfully and earnestly ask your attention
and favorable consideration to the matters contained in the present
paper.

At the outset we very cordially congratulate you upon the altered
condition both of ourselves and our common country. Especially do we
congratulate you upon the fact that a great reproach, which for two
centuries rested on the good name of your country, has been blotted out;
that chattel slavery is no longer the burden of the colored man’s
complaint, and that we now come to rattle no chains, to clank no
fetters, to paint no horrors of the old plantation to shock your
sensibilities, to humble your pride, excite your pity, or to kindle
your indignation. We rejoice also that one of the results of this
stupendous revolution in our national history, the Republic which was
before divided and weakened between two hostile and irreconcilable
interests, has become united and strong; that from a low plain of life,
which bordered upon barbarism, it has risen to the possibility of the
highest civilization; that this change has started the American Republic
on a new departure, full of promise, although it has also brought you
and ourselves face to face with problems novel and difficult, destined
to impose upon us responsibilities and duties, which, plainly enough,
will tax our highest mental and moral ability for their happy solution.

Born on American soil in common with yourselves, deriving our bodies and
our minds from its dust, centuries having passed away since our
ancestors were torn from the shores of Africa, we, like yourselves, hold
ourselves to be in every sense Americans, and that we may, therefore,
venture to speak to you in a tone not lower than that which becomes
earnest men and American citizens. Having watered your soil with our
tears, enriched it with our blood, performed its roughest labor in time
of peace, defended it against enemies in time of war, and at all times
been loyal and true to its best interests, we deem it no arrogance or
presumption to manifest now a common concern with you for its welfare,
prosperity, honor and glory.

If the claim thus set up by us be admitted, as we think it ought to be,
it may be asked, what propriety or necessity can there be for the
Convention, of which we are members? and why are we now addressing you
in some sense as suppliants asking for justice and fair play? These
questions are not new to us. From the day the call for this Convention
went forth this seeming incongruity and contradiction has been brought
to our attention. From one quarter or another, sometimes with argument
and sometimes without argument, sometimes with seeming pity for our
ignorance, and at other times with fierce censure for our depravity,
these questions have met us. With apparent surprise, astonishment, and
impatience, we have been asked: “What more can the colored people of
this country want than they now have, and what more is possible to
them?” It is said they were once slaves, they are now free; they were
once subjects, they are now sovereigns; they were once outside of all
American institutions, they are now inside of all and are a recognized
part of the whole American people. Why, then, do they hold Colored
National Conventions and thus insist upon keeping up the color line
between themselves and their white fellow-countrymen? We do not deny the
pertinence and plausibility of these questions, nor do we shrink from a
candid answer to the argument which they are supposed to contain. For we
do not forget that they are not only put to us by those who have no
sympathy with us, but by many who wish us well, and that in any case
they deserve an answer. Before, however, we proceed to answer them, we
digress here to say that there is only one element associated with them
which excites the least bitterness of feeling in us, or that calls for
special rebuke, and that is when they fall from the lips and pens of
colored men who suffer with us and ought to know better. A few such men,
well known to us and the country, happening to be more fortunate in the
possession of wealth, education, and position than their humbler
brethren, have found it convenient to chime in with the popular cry
against our assembling, on the ground that we have no valid reason for
this measure or for any other separate from the whites; that we ought to
be satisfied with things as they are. With white men who thus object the
case is different and less painful. For them there is a chance for
charity. Educated as they are and have been for centuries, taught to
look upon colored people as a lower order of humanity than themselves,
and as having few rights, if any, above domestic animals, regarding them
also through the medium of their beneficent religious creeds and just
laws--as if law and practice were identical--some allowance can, and
perhaps ought to, be made when they misapprehend our real situation and
deny our wants and assume a virtue they do not possess. But no such
excuse or apology can be properly framed for men who are in any way
identified with us. What may be erroneous in others implies either
baseness or imbecility in them. Such men, it seems to us, are either
deficient in self-respect or too mean, servile and cowardly to assert
the true dignity of their manhood and that of their race. To admit that
there are such men among us is a disagreeable and humiliating
confession. But in this respect, as in others, we are not without the
consolation of company; we are neither alone nor singular in the
production of just such characters. All oppressed people have been thus
afflicted.

It is one of the most conspicuous evils of caste and oppression, that
they inevitably tend to make cowards and serviles of their victims, men
ever ready to bend the knee to pride and power that thrift may follow
fawning, willing to betray the cause of the many to serve the ends of
the few; men who never hesitate to sell a friend when they think they
can thereby purchase an enemy. Specimens of this sort may be found
everywhere and at all times. There were Northern men with Southern
principles in the time of slavery, and Tories in the revolution for
independence. There are betrayers and informers to-day in Ireland, ready
to kiss the hand that smites them and strike down the arm reached out to
save them. Considering our long subjection to servitude and caste, and
the many temptations to which we are exposed to betray our race into the
hands of their enemies, the wonder is not that we have so many traitors
among us as that we have so few.

The most of our people, to their honor be it said, are remarkably sound
and true to each other. To those who think we have no cause to hold this
convention, we freely admit that, so far as the organic law of the land
is concerned, we have indeed nothing to complain of, to ask or desire.
There may be need of legislation, but the organic law is sound.

Happily for us and for the honor of the Republic, the United States
Constitution is just, liberal, and friendly. The amendments to that
instrument, adopted in the trying times of reconstruction of the
Southern States, are a credit to the courage and statesmanship of the
leading men of that crisis. These amendments establish freedom and
abolish all unfair and invidious discrimination against citizens on
account of race and color, so far as law can do so. In their view,
citizens are neither black nor white, and all are equals. With this
admission and this merited reproof to trimmers and traitors, we again
come to the question, Why are we here in this National Convention? To
this we answer, first, because there is a power in numbers and in union;
because the many are more than the few; because the voice of a whole
people, oppressed by a common injustice, is far more likely to command
attention and exert an influence on the public mind than the voice of
single individuals and isolated organizations; because, coming together
from all parts of the country, the members of a National convention have
the means of a more comprehensive knowledge of the general situation,
and may, therefore, fairly be presumed to conceive more clearly and
express more fully and wisely the policy it may be necessary for them
to pursue in the premises. Because conventions of the people are in
themselves harmless, and when made the means of setting forth
grievances, whether real or fancied, they are the safety-valves of the
Republic, a wise and safe substitute for violence, dynamite, and all
sorts of revolutionary action against the peace and good order of
society. If they are held without sufficient reason, that fact will be
made manifest in their proceedings, and people will only smile at their
weakness and pass on to their usual business without troubling
themselves about the empty noise they are able to make. But if held with
good cause, and by wise, sober, and earnest men, that fact will be made
apparent and the result will be salutary. That good old maxim, which has
come down to us from revolutionary times, that error may be safely
tolerated, while truth is left free to combat it, applies here. A bad
law is all the sooner repealed by being executed, and error is sooner
dispelled by exposure than by silence. So much we have deemed it fit to
say of conventions generally, because our resort to this measure has
been treated by many as if there were something radically wrong in the
very idea of a convention. It has been treated as if it were some
ghastly, secret conclave, sitting in darkness to devise strife and
mischief. The fact is, the only serious feature in the argument against
us is the one which respects color. We are asked not only why hold a
convention, but with emphasis, why hold a _colored_ convention? Why keep
up this odious distinction between citizens of a common country, and
thus give countenance to the color line? It is argued that, if colored
men hold conventions, based upon color, white men may hold white
conventions based upon color, and thus keep open the chasm between one
and the other class of citizens, and keep alive a prejudice which we
profess to deplore. We state the argument against us fairly and
forcibly, and will answer it candidly and we hope conclusively. By that
answer it will be seen that the force of the objection is, after all,
more in sound than in substance. No reasonable man will ever object to
white men holding conventions in their own interests, when they are once
in our condition and we in theirs, when they are the oppressed and we
the oppressors. In point of fact, however, white men are already in
convention against us in various ways and at many important points. The
practical construction of American life is a convention against us.
Human law may know no distinction among men in respect of rights, but
human practice may. Examples are painfully abundant.

The border men hate the Indians; the Californian, the Chinaman; the
Mohammedan, the Christian, and _vice versa_. In spite of a common nature
and the equality framed into law, this hate works injustice, of which
each in their own name and under their own color may justly complain.
The apology for observing the color line in the composition of our State
and National conventions is in its necessity and in the fact that we
must do this or nothing, for if we move our color is recognized and must
be. It has its foundation in the exceptional relation we sustain to the
white people of the country. A simple statement of our position
vindicates at once our convention and our cause.

It is our lot to live among a people whose laws, traditions, and
prejudices have been against us for centuries, and from these they are
not yet free. To assume that they are free from these evils simply
because they have changed their laws is to assume what is utterly
unreasonable and contrary to facts. Large bodies move slowly.
Individuals may be converted on the instant and change their whole
course of life. Nations never. Time and events are required for the
conversion of nations. Not even the character of a great political
organization can be changed by a new platform. It will be the same old
snake though in a new skin. Though we have had war, reconstruction and
abolition as a nation, we still linger in the shadow and blight of an
extinct institution. Though the colored man is no longer subject to be
bought and sold, he is still surrounded by an adverse sentiment which
fetters all his movements. In his downward course he meets with no
resistance, but his course upward is resented and resisted at every step
of his progress. If he comes in ignorance, rags, and wretchedness, he
conforms to the popular belief of his character, and in that character
he is welcome. But if he shall come as a gentleman, a scholar, and a
statesman, he is hailed as a contradiction to the national faith
concerning his race, and his coming is resented as impudence. In the one
case he may provoke contempt and derision, but in the other he is an
affront to pride, and provokes malice. Let him do what he will, there is
at present, therefore, no escape for him. The color line meets him
everywhere, and in a measure shuts him out from all respectable and
profitable trades and callings. In spite of all your religion and laws
he is a rejected man.

He is rejected by trade unions, of every trade, and refused work while
he lives, and burial when he dies, and yet he is asked to forget his
color, and forget that which everybody else remembers. If he offers
himself to a builder as a mechanic, to a client as a lawyer, to a
patient as a physician, to a college as a professor, to a firm as a
clerk, to a Government Department as an agent, or an officer, he is
sternly met on the color line, and his claim to consideration in some
way is disputed on the ground of color.

Not even our churches, whose members profess to follow the despised
Nazarene, whose home, when on earth, was among the lowly and despised,
have yet conquered this feeling of color madness, and what is true of
our churches is also true of our courts of law. Neither is free from
this all-pervading atmosphere of color hate. The one describes the Deity
as impartial, no respecter of persons, and the other the Goddess of
Justice as blindfolded, with sword by her side and scales in her hand
held evenly between high and low, rich and poor, white and black, but
both are the images of American imagination, rather than American
practices.

Taking advantage of the general disposition in this country to impute
crime to color, white men _color_ their faces to commit crime and wash
off the hated color to escape punishment. In many places where the
commission of crime is alleged against one of our color, the ordinary
processes of the law are set aside as too slow for the impetuous justice
of the infuriated populace. They take the law into their own bloody
hands and proceed to whip, stab, shoot, hang, or burn the alleged
culprit, without the intervention of courts, counsel, judges, juries, or
witnesses. In such cases it is not the business of the accusers to prove
guilt, but it is for the accused to prove his innocence, a thing hard
for any man to do, even in a court of law, and utterly impossible for
him to do in these infernal Lynch courts. A man accused, surprised,
frightened and captured by a motley crowd, dragged with a rope about his
neck in midnight-darkness to the nearest tree, and told in the coarsest
terms of profanity to prepare for death, would be more than human if he
did not, in his terror-stricken appearance, more confirm suspicion of
guilt than the contrary. Worse still, in the presence of such hell-black
outrages, the pulpit is usually dumb, and the press in the neighborhood
is silent or openly takes side with the mob. There are occasional cases
in which white men are lynched, but one sparrow does not make a summer.
Every one knows that what is called Lynch law is peculiarly the law for
colored people and for nobody else. If there were no other grievance
than this horrible and barbarous Lynch law custom, we should be
justified in assembling, as we have now done, to expose and denounce it.
But this is not all. Even now, after twenty years of so-called
emancipation, we are subject to lawless raids of midnight riders, who,
with blackened faces, invade our homes and perpetrate the foulest of
crimes upon us and our families. This condition of things is too
flagrant and notorious to require specifications or proof. Thus in all
the relations of life and death we are met by the color line. We cannot
ignore it if we would, and ought not if we could. It hunts us at
midnight, it denies us accommodation in hotels and justice in the
courts; excludes our children from schools, refuses our sons the chance
to learn trades, and compels us to pursue only such labor as will bring
the least reward. While we recognize the color line as a hurtful force,
a mountain barrier to our progress, wounding our bleeding feet with its
flinty rocks at every step, we do not despair. We are a hopeful people.
This convention is a proof of our faith in you, in reason, in truth and
justice--our belief that prejudice, with all its malign accompaniments,
may yet be removed by peaceful means; that, assisted by time and events
and the growing enlightenment of both races, the color line will
ultimately become harmless. When this shall come it will then only be
used, as it should be, to distinguish one variety of the human family
from another. It will cease to have any civil, political, or moral
significance, and colored conventions will then be dispensed with as
anachronisms, wholly out of place, but not till then. Do not marvel that
we are not discouraged. The faith within us has a rational basis, and is
confirmed by facts. When we consider how deep-seated this feeling
against us is; the long centuries it has been forming; the forces of
avarice which have been marshaled to sustain it; how the language and
literature of the country have been pervaded with it; how the church,
the press, the play-house, and other influences of the country have been
arrayed in its support, the progress toward its extinction must be
considered vast and wonderful.

If liberty, with us, is yet but a name, our citizenship is but a sham,
and our suffrage thus far only a cruel mockery, we may yet congratulate
ourselves upon the fact that the laws and institutions of the country
are sound, just and liberal. There is hope for a people when their laws
are righteous whether for the moment they conform to their requirements
or not. But until this nation shall make its practice accord with its
Constitution and its righteous laws, it will not do to reproach the
colored people of this country with keeping up the color line--for that
people would prove themselves scarcely worthy of even theoretical
freedom, to say nothing of practical freedom, if they settled down in
silent, servile and cowardly submission to their wrongs, from fear of
making their color visible. They are bound by every element of manhood
to hold conventions in their own name and on their own behalf, to keep
their grievances before the people and make every organized protest
against the wrongs inflicted upon them within their power. They should
scorn the counsels of cowards, and hang their banner on the outer wall.
Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow. We do not believe,
as we are often told, that the negro is the ugly child of the national
family, and the more he is kept out of sight the better it will be for
him. You know that liberty given is never so precious as liberty sought
for and fought for. The man outraged is the man to make the outcry.
Depend upon it, men will not care much for a people who do not care for
themselves. Our meeting here was opposed by some of our members, because
it would disturb the peace of the Republican party. The suggestion came
from coward lips and misapprehended the character of that party. If the
Republican party cannot stand a demand for justice and fair play, it
ought to go down. We were men before that party was born, and our
manhood is more sacred than any party can be. Parties were made for men,
not men for parties.

If the six millions of colored people of this country, armed with the
Constitution of the United States, with a million votes of their own to
lean upon, and millions of white men at their back, whose hearts are
responsive to the claims of humanity, have not sufficient spirit and
wisdom to organize and combine to defend themselves from outrage,
discrimination, and oppression, it will be idle for them to expect that
the Republican party or any other political party will organize and
combine for them or care what becomes of them. Men may combine to
prevent cruelty to animals, for they are dumb and cannot speak for
themselves; but we are men and must speak for ourselves, or we shall not
be spoken for at all. We have conventions in America for Ireland, but we
should have none if Ireland did not speak for herself. It is because she
makes a noise and keeps her cause before the people that other people go
to her help. It was the sword of Washington and of Lafayette that gave
us Independence. In conclusion upon this color objection, we have to say
that we meet here in open daylight. There is nothing sinister about us.
The eyes of the nation are upon us. Ten thousand newspapers may tell if
they choose of whatever is said and done here. They may commend our
wisdom or condemn our folly, precisely as we shall be wise or foolish.

We put ourselves before them as honest men, and ask their judgment upon
our work.

THE LABOR QUESTION.

Not the least important among the subjects to which we invite your
earnest attention is the condition of the labor class at the South.
Their cause is one with the labor classes all over the world. The labor
unions of the country should not throw away this colored element of
strength. Everywhere there is dissatisfaction with the present relation
of labor and capital, and to-day no subject wears an aspect more
threatening to civilization than the respective claims of capital and
labor, landlords and tenants. In what we have to say for our laboring
class we expect to have and ought to have the sympathy and support of
laboring men everywhere and of every color.

It is a great mistake for any class of laborers to isolate itself and
thus weaken the bond of brotherhood between those on whom the burden and
hardships of labor fall. The fortunate ones of the earth, who are
abundant in land and money and know nothing of the anxious care and
pinching poverty of the laboring classes, may be indifferent to the
appeal for justice at this point, but the laboring classes cannot afford
to be indifferent. What labor everywhere wants, what it ought to have,
and will some day demand and receive, is an honest day’s pay for an
honest day’s work. As the laborer becomes more intelligent he will
develop what capital he already possesses--that is the power to organize
and combine for its own protection. Experience demonstrates that there
may be a wages of slavery only a little less galling and crushing in
its effects than chattel slavery, and that this slavery of wages must go
down with the other.

There is nothing more common now than the remark that the physical
condition of the freedmen of the South is immeasurably worse than in the
time of slavery; that in respect to food, clothing and shelter they are
wretched, miserable and destitute; that they are worse masters to
themselves than their old masters were to them. To add insult to injury,
the reproach of their condition is charged upon themselves. A grandson
of John C. Calhoun, an Arkansas land-owner, testifying the other day
before the Senate Committee of Labor and Education, says the “negroes
are so indolent that they fail to take advantage of the opportunities
offered them; that they will only devote so much of their time to work
as will enable them to procure the necessities of life; that there is
danger of a war of races,” etc., etc.

His testimony proclaims him the grandson of the man whose name he bears.
The blame which belongs to his own class he shifts from them to the
shoulders of labor. It becomes us to test the truth of that assertion by
the light of reason, and by appeals to indisputable facts. Of course the
land-owners of the South may be expected to view things differently from
the landless. The slaveholders always did look at things a little
differently from the slaves, and we therefore insist that, in order that
the whole truth shall be brought out, the laborer as well as the
capitalist shall be called as witnesses before the Senate Committee of
Labor and Education. Experience proves that it takes more than one class
of people to tell the whole truth about matters in which they are
interested on opposite sides, and we protest against the allowance of
only one side of the labor question to be heard by the country in this
case. Meanwhile, a little reason and reflection will in some measure
bring out truth! The colored people of the South are the laboring people
of the South. The labor of a country is the source of its wealth;
without the colored laborer to-day the South would be a howling
wilderness, given up to bats, owls, wolves, and bears. He was the source
of its wealth before the war, and has been the source of its prosperity
since the war. He almost alone is visible in her fields, with implements
of toil in his hands, and laboriously using them to-day.

Let us look candidly at the matter. While we see and hear that the
South is more prosperous than it ever was before and rapidly recovering
from the waste of war, while we read that it raises more cotton, sugar,
rice, tobacco, corn, and other valuable products than it ever produced
before, how happens it, we sternly ask, that the houses of its laborers
are miserable huts, that their clothes are rags, and their food the
coarsest and scantiest? How happens it that the land-owner is becoming
richer and the laborer poorer?

The implication is irresistible--that where the landlord is prosperous
the laborer ought to share his prosperity, and whenever and wherever we
find this is not the case there is manifestly wrong somewhere.

This sharp contrast of wealth and poverty, as every thoughtful man
knows, can exist only in one way, and from one cause, and that is by one
getting more than its proper share of the reward of industry, and the
other side getting less, and that in some way labor has been defrauded
or otherwise denied of its due proportion, and we think the facts, as
well as this philosophy, will support this view in the present case, and
do so conclusively. We utterly deny that the colored people of the South
are too lazy to work, or that they are indifferent to their physical
wants; as already said, they are the workers of that section.

The trouble is not that the colored people of the South are indolent,
but that no matter how hard or how persistent may be their industry,
they get barely enough for their labor to support life at the very low
point at which we find them. We therefore throw off the burden of
disgrace and reproach from the laborer where Mr. Calhoun and others of
his class would place it, and put it on the land-owner where it belongs.
It is the old case over again. The black man does the work and the white
man gets the money.

It may be said after all the colored people have themselves to blame for
this state of things, because they have not intelligently taken the
matter into their own hands and provided a remedy for the evil they
suffer.

Some blame may attach at this point. But those who reproach us thus
should remember that it is hard for labor, however fortunately and
favorably surrounded, to cope with the tremendous power of capital in
any contest for higher wages or improved condition. A strike for higher
wages is seldom successful, and is often injurious to the strikers; the
losses sustained are seldom compensated by the concessions gained. A
case in point is the recent strike of the telegraph operators--a more
intelligent class can nowhere be found. It was a contest of brains
against money, and the want of money compelled intelligence to surrender
to wealth.

An empty sack is not easily made to stand upright. The man who has it in
his power to say to a man, you must work the land for me for such wages
as I choose to give, has a power of slavery over him as real, if not as
complete, as he who compels toil under the lash. All that a man hath
will he give for his life.

In contemplating the little progress made by the colored people in the
acquisition of property in the South, and their present wretched
condition, the circumstances of their emancipation should not be
forgotten. Measurement in their case should not begin from the height
yet to be attained by them, but from the depths whence they have come.

It should be remembered by our severe judges that freedom came to us not
from the sober dictates of wisdom, or from any normal condition of
things, not as a matter of choice on the part of the land-owners of the
South, nor from moral considerations on the part of the North. It was
born of battle and of blood. It came across fields of smoke and fire
strewn with wounded, bleeding, and dying men. Not from the Heaven of
Peace amid the morning stars, but from the hell of war--out of the
tempest and whirlwind of warlike passions, mingled with deadly hate and
a spirit of revenge; it came, not so much as a boon to us as a blast to
the enemy. Those against whom the measure was directed were the
land-owners, and they were not angels, but men, and, being men, it was
to be expected they would resent the blow. They did resent it, and a
part of that resentment unhappily fell upon us.

At first the land-owners drove us out of our old quarters, and told us
they did not want us in their fields; that they meant to import German,
Irish, and Chinese laborers. But as the passions of the war gradually
subsided we were taken back to our old places; but, plainly enough, this
change of front was not from choice, but necessity. Feeling themselves
somehow or other entitled to our labor without the payment of wages, it
was not strange that they should make the hardest bargains for our
labor, and get it for as little as possible. For them the contest was
easy; their tremendous power and our weakness easily gave them the
victory.

Against the voice of Stevens, Sumner, and Wade, and other far-seeing
statesmen, the Government by whom we were emancipated left us completely
in the power of our former owners. They turned us loose to the open sky
and left us not a foot of ground from which to get a crust of bread.

It did not do as well by us as Russia did by her serfs, or Pharaoh did
by the Hebrews. With freedom Russia gave land and Egypt loaned jewels.

It may have been best to leave us thus to make terms with those whose
wrath it had kindled against us. It does not seem right that we should
have been so left, but it fully explains our present poverty and
wretchedness.

The marvel is not that we are poor in such circumstances, but rather
that we were not exterminated. In view of the circumstances, our
extermination was confidently predicted. The facts that we still live
and have increased in higher ratio than the native white people of the
South are proofs of our vitality, and, in some degree, of our industry.

Nor is it to be wondered at that the standard of morals is not higher
among us, that respect for the rights of property is not stronger. The
power of life and death held over labor which says you shall work for me
on my own terms or starve, is a source of crime, as well as poverty.

Weeds do not more naturally spring out of a manure pile than crime out
of enforced destitution. Out of the misery of Ireland comes murder,
assassination, fire, and sword. The Irish are by nature no worse than
other people, and no better. If oppression makes a wise man mad it may
do the same, and worse, to a people who are not reputed wise. The woe
pronounced upon those who keep back wages of the laborer by fraud is
self-acting and self-executing and certain as death. The world is full
of warnings.

THE ORDER SYSTEM.

No more crafty and effective devise for defrauding the southern laborers
could be adopted than the one that substitutes orders upon shopkeepers
for currency in payment of wages. It has the merit of a show of honesty,
while it puts the laborer completely at the mercy of the land-owner and
the shopkeeper. He is between the upper and the nether millstones, and
is hence ground to dust. It gives the shopkeeper a customer who can
trade with no other storekeeper, and thus leaves the latter no motive
for fair dealing except his own moral sense, which is never too strong.
While the laborer holding the orders is tempted by their worthlessness,
as a circulating medium, to get rid of them at any sacrifice, and hence
is led into extravagance and consequent destitution.

The merchant puts him off with his poorest commodities at highest
prices, and can say to him take these or nothing. Worse still. By this
means the laborer is brought into debt, and hence is kept always in the
power of the land-owner. When this system is not pursued and land is
rented to the freedman, he is charged more for the use of an acre of
land for a single year than the land would bring in the market if
offered for sale. On such a system of fraud and wrong one might well
invoke a bolt from heaven--red with uncommon wrath.

It is said if the colored people do not like the conditions upon which
their labor is demanded and secured, let them leave and go elsewhere. A
more heartless suggestion never emanated from an oppressor. Having for
years paid them in shop orders, utterly worthless outside the shop to
which they are directed, without a dollar in their pockets, brought by
this crafty process into bondage to the land-owners, who can and would
arrest them if they should attempt to leave when they are told to go.

We commend the whole subject to the Senate Committee of Labor and
Education, and urge upon that committee the duty to call before it not
only the land-owners, but the landless laborers of the South, and thus
get at the whole truth concerning the labor question of that section.

EDUCATION.

On the subject of equal education and educational facilities, mentioned
in the call for this convention, we expect little resistance from any
quarter. It is everywhere an accepted truth, that in a country governed
by the people, like ours, education of the youth of all classes is vital
to its welfare, prosperity, and to its existence.

In the light of this unquestioned proposition, the patriot cannot but
view with a shudder the widespread and truly alarming illiteracy as
revealed by the census of 1880.

The question as to how this evil is to be remedied is an important one.
Certain it is that it will not do to trust to the philanthropy of
wealthy individuals or benevolent societies to remove it. The States in
which this illiteracy prevails either can not or will not provide
adequate systems of education for their own youth. But, however this may
be, the fact remains that the whole country is directly interested in
the education of every child that lives within its borders. The
ignorance of any part of the American people so deeply concerns all the
rest that there can be no doubt of the right to pass laws compelling the
attendance of every child at school. Believing that such is now required
and ought to be enacted, we hereby put ourselves on record in favor of
stringent laws to this end.

In the presence of this appalling picture, presented by the last census,
we hold it to be the imperative duty of Congress to take hold of this
important subject, and, without waiting for the States to adopt liberal
school systems within their respective jurisdictions, to enter
vigorously upon the work of universal education.

The National Government, with its immense resources, can carry the
benefits of a sound common-school education to the door of every poor
man from Maine to Texas, and to withhold this boon is to neglect the
greatest assurance it has of its own perpetuity. As a part of the
American people we unite most emphatically with others who have already
spoken on this subject, in urging Congress to lay the foundation of a
great national system of aid to education at its next session.

In this connection, and as germane to the subject of education under
national auspices, we would most respectfully and earnestly request
Congress to authorize the appointment of a commission of three or more
persons of suitable character and qualifications to ascertain the legal
claimants, as far as they can, to a large fund now in the United States
treasury, appropriated for the payment of bounties of colored soldiers
and sailors; and to provide by law that at the expiration of three or
five years the balance remaining in the treasury be distributed among
the colored colleges of the country, giving the preference as to amounts
to the schools that are doing effective work in industrial branches.

FREEDMEN’S BANK.

The colored people have suffered much on account of the failure of the
Freedman’s bank. Their loss by this institution was a peculiar hardship,
coming as it did upon them in the days of their greatest weakness. It is
certain that the depositors in this institution were led to believe
that as Congress had chartered it and established its headquarters at
the capital the Government in some way was responsible for the safe
keeping of their money.

Without the dissemination of this belief it would never have had the
confidence of the people as it did nor have secured such an immense
deposit. Nobody authorized to speak for the Government ever corrected
this deception, but on the contrary, Congress continued to legislate for
the bank as if all that had been claimed for it was true.

Under these circumstances, together with much more that might be said in
favor of such a measure, we ask Congress to reimburse the unfortunate
victims of that institution, and thus carry hope and give to many fresh
encouragement in the battle of life.

BOUNTY AND PENSION LAWS.

We desire, also, to call the attention of Congress and the country to
the bounty and pension laws and to the filing of original claims. We ask
for the passage of an act extending the time for filing original claims
beyond the present limit.

This we do for the reason that many of the soldiers and sailors that
served in the war of the rebellion and their heirs, and especially
colored claimants living in parts of the country where they have but
meagre means of information, have been, and still are, ignorant of their
rights and the methods of enforcing them.

But while we urge these duties on Congress and the country, we must
never forget that any race worth living will live, and whether Congress
heeds our request in these and other particulars or not, we must
demonstrate our capacity to live by living. We must acquire property and
educate the hands and hearts and heads of our children whether we are
helped or not. Races that fail to do these things die politically and
socially, and are only fit to die.

One great source of independence that has been sought by multitudes of
our white fellow-citizens is still open to us--we refer to the public
lands in the great West. The amazing rapidity with which the public
lands are being taken up warns us that we must lay hold of this
opportunity soon, or it will be gone forever. The Government gives to
every actual settler, under certain conditions, 160 acres of land. By
addressing a letter to the United States Land Office, Washington, D.
C., any person will receive full information in regard to this subject.
Thousands of white men have settled on these lands with scarcely any
money beyond their immediate wants, and in a few years have found
themselves the lords of a 160-acre farm. Let us do likewise.

CIVIL RIGHTS.

The right of every American citizen to select his own society and invite
whom he will to his own parlor and table should be sacredly respected. A
man’s house is his castle, and he has a right to admit or refuse
admission to it as he may please, and defend his house from all
intruders even with force, if need be. This right belongs to the
humblest not less than the highest, and the exercise of it by any of our
citizens toward anybody or class who may presume to intrude, should
cause no complaint, for each and all may exercise the same right toward
whom he will.

When he quits his home and goes upon the public street, enters a public
car or a public house, he has no exclusive right of occupancy. He is
only a part of the great public, and while he has the right to walk,
ride, and be accommodated with food and shelter in a public conveyance
or hotel, he has no exclusive right to say that another citizen, tall or
short, black or white, shall not have the same civil treatment with
himself. The argument against equal rights at hotels is very improperly
put upon the ground that the exercise of such rights, it is insisted, is
social equality. But this ground is unreasonable. It is hard to say what
social equality is, but it is certain that going into the same street
car, hotel, or steamboat cabin does not make any man society for another
any more than flying in the same air makes all birds of one feather.

Two men may be seated at the same table at a hotel; one may be a Webster
in intellect, and the other a Guiteau in feebleness of mind and morals,
and, of course, socially and intellectually, they are as wide apart as
are the poles of the moral universe, but their civil rights are the
same. The distinction between the two sorts of equality is broad and
plain to the understanding of the most limited, and yet, blinded by
prejudice, men never cease to confound one with the other, and allow
themselves to infringe the civil rights of their fellow-citizens as if
those rights were, in some way, in violation of their social rights.

That this denial of rights to us is because of our color, only as color
is a badge of condition, is manifest in the fact that no matter how
decently dressed or well-behaved a colored man may be, he is denied
civil treatment in the ways thus pointed out, unless he comes as a
servant. His color, not his character, determines the place he shall
hold and the kind of treatment he shall receive. That this is due to a
prejudice and has no rational principle under it is seen in the fact
that the presence of colored persons in hotels and rail cars is only
offensive when they are there as guests and passengers. As servants they
are welcome, but as equal citizens they are not. It is also seen in the
further fact that nowhere else on the globe, except in the United
States, are colored people subject to insult and outrage on account of
color. The colored traveler in Europe does not meet it, and we denounce
it here as a disgrace to American civilization and American religion and
as a violation of the spirit and letter of the Constitution of the
United States. From those courts which have solemnly sworn to support
the Constitution and that yet treat this provision of it with contempt
we appeal to the people, and call upon our friends to remember our civil
rights at the ballot-box. On the point of the two equalities we are
determined to be understood.

We leave social equality where it should be left, with each individual
man and woman. No law can regulate or control it. It is a matter with
which governments have nothing whatever to do. Each may choose his own
friends and associates without interference or dictation of any.

POLITICAL EQUALITY.

Flagrant as have been the outrages committed upon colored citizens in
respect to their civil rights, more flagrant, shocking, and scandalous
still have been the outrages committed upon our political rights by
means of bull-dozing and Kukluxing, Mississippi plans, fraudulent
counts, tissue ballots, and the like devices. Three States in which the
colored people outnumber the white population are without colored
representation and their political voice suppressed. The colored
citizens in those States are virtually disfranchised, the Constitution
held in utter contempt and its provisions nullified. This has been done
in the face of the Republican party and successive Republican
administrations.

It was once said by the great O’Connell that the history of Ireland
might be traced like a wounded man through a crowd by the blood, and
the same may be truly said of the history of the colored voters of the
South.

They have marched to the ballot-box in face of gleaming weapons, wounds,
and death. They have been abandoned by the Government, and left to the
laws of nature. So far as they are concerned, there is no Government or
Constitution of the United States.

They are under control of a foul, haggard, and damning conspiracy
against reason, law, and constitution. How you can be indifferent, how
any leading colored men can allow themselves to be silent in presence of
this state of things, we cannot see.

“Should tongues be mute while deeds are wrought which well might shame
extremest hell?” And yet they are mute, and condemn our assembling here
to speak out in manly tones against the continuance of this infernal
reign of terror.

This is no question of party. It is a question of law and government. It
is a question whether men shall be protected by law, or be left to the
mercy of cyclones of anarchy and bloodshed. It is whether the Government
or the mob shall rule this land; whether the promises solemnly made to
us in the Constitution be manfully kept or meanly and flagrantly broken.
Upon this vital point we ask the whole people of the United States to
take notice that whatever of political power we have shall be exerted
for no man of any party who will not, in advance of election, promise to
use every power given him by the Government, State or National, to make
the black man’s path to the ballot-box as straight, smooth and safe as
that of any other American citizen.

POLITICAL AMBITION.

We are as a people often reproached with ambition for political offices
and honors. We are not ashamed of this alleged ambition. Our destitution
of such ambition would be our real shame. If the six millions and a half
of people whom we represent could develop no aspirants to political
office and honor under this Government, their mental indifference,
barrenness and stolidity might well enough be taken as proof of their
unfitness for American citizenship.

It is no crime to seek or hold office. If it were it would take a larger
space than that of Noah’s Ark to hold the white criminals.

One of the charges against this convention is that it seeks for the
colored people a larger share than they now possess in the offices and
emoluments of the Government.

We are now significantly reminded by even one of our own members that we
are only twenty years out of slavery, and we ought therefore to be
modest in our aspirations. Such leaders should remember that men will
not be religious when the devil turns preacher.

The inveterate and persistent office-seeker and office-holder should be
modest when he preaches that virtue to others which he does not himself
practice. Wolsey could not tell Cromwell to fling away ambition properly
only when he had flung away his own.

We are far from affirming that there may not be too much zeal among
colored men in pursuit of political preferment; but the fault is not
wholly theirs. They have young men among them noble and true, who are
educated and intelligent--fit to engage in enterprise of “pith and
moment"--who find themselves shut out from nearly all the avenues of
wealth and respectability, and hence they turn their attention to
politics. They do so because they can find nothing else. The best cure
for the evil is to throw open other avenues and activities to them.

We shall never cease to be a despised and persecuted class while we are
known to be excluded by our color from all important positions under the
Government.

While we do not make office the one thing important, nor the one
condition of our alliance with any party, and hold that the welfare,
prosperity and happiness of our whole country is the true criterion of
political action for ourselves and for all men, we can not disguise from
ourselves the fact that our persistent exclusion from office as a class
is a great wrong, fraught with injury, and ought to be resented and
opposed by all reasonable and effective means in our power.

We hold it to be self-evident that no class or color should be the
exclusive rulers of this country. If there is such a ruling class, there
must of course be a subject class, and when this condition is once
established this Government of the people, by the people, and for the
people, will have perished from the earth.

IN WASHINGTON, D. C., 1885.

     On being introduced by Hon. B. K. BRUCE, on the occasion of the
     twenty-third anniversary of the abolition of slavery in the
     District of Columbia, FREDERICK DOUGLASS spoke as follows:

FRIENDS AND FELLOW-CITIZENS: Your committee of arrangements were pleased
to select me as your orator of the day, on an occasion similar to this,
two years ago. At that time, while appreciating the honor conferred upon
me, I ventured to express the wish that some one of the many competent
colored young men of this city and District had been chosen to discharge
this honorable duty in my stead. There were excellent reasons for that
wish then, and there are even much better reasons for the same wish now.
Time and cultivation have largely added to the number of those from whom
a suitable selection might have been made, and one of these silent, yet
powerful, agents whose mission it is to create and destroy all things
mortal has left me much less desire for such distinguished service now
than two years ago. Happily, however, the burden is not heavy or
grievous, and the proper story of this occasion is simple, familiar, and
easily told. In observing the anniversary of the abolition of slavery in
the District of Columbia, we attract the attention of the American
people to one of the most important and significant events in their
national history, and at the same time evince a grateful and proper
sense of the wonderful changes for the better that have taken place in
our condition, and in that of the country generally. Though in its
immediate and legal operation this act of emancipation was local in its
range as to territory, and limited in its application as to the number
of persons liberated by it, morally it looms upon us as a grand,
comprehensive, and far-reaching measure.

To appreciate its importance we must not consider it as a single
independent act standing alone, nor as one pertaining to this District
only, nor to the colored people only. We must regard it as a part of a
series of splendid public measures, as one of so many steps in the
national progress looking to one beneficent and glorious result, a large
contribution to the honor and welfare of the whole country. It was the
auspicious beginning of a great movement in the councils of the nation,
made necessary by the war, and one which finally culminated in the
complete and permanent abolition of slavery, not only in the District of
Columbia, but in every part of the Republic. Thus viewed it was the one
act which broke the gloomy spell that bound the nation in the bonds of
servile, unnatural reverence and awe for slavery. It withdrew the
sympathy of European nations from the rebellion; it brought the moral
support of the civilized world to the loyal cause; it erased the foulest
blot that ever stained our national escutcheon; it gave to the war for
the Union a logical, humane, and consistent purpose; it solved a problem
which was the standing grief of good men, and the perplexity of
statesmen for ages; it gave courage and hope to our armies in the field;
it weakened the rebellion; it raised the whole nation to a higher and
happier plane of civilization, and placed the American people where they
never were before, in a position where they could consistently and
effectively preach liberty to all the nations of the world.

The 16th of April, the anniversary of this great act of the nation,
strangely and erroneously enough has been considered simply as the
colored man’s day only. The business of consecrating and preserving its
memory has been, by common consent, relegated to him exclusively. But,
in this, our fellow-citizens have been more generous to us than just to
themselves. Colored men have very little more reason to hallow this day
than have white men. If it brought freedom to us, it brought peace and
safety to them, and hence they may well enough unite in this and similar
celebrations, and regard the day as theirs as well as ours. No truth
taught by our national history is more evident than this, that while
slavery dominated the southern half of the Republic, and free
institutions prevailed in the northern half, peace and harmony between
the two sections were utterly and forever impossible. No man can serve
two masters, and the attempt of our Government to do this was a
stupendous failure. The union between liberty and slavery was a marriage
without love, a house divided against itself; a couple unequally yoked
together, held together by external force, not by moral cohesion; it
brought happiness to neither, and misery to both.

Like any other embodiment of social and material interest peculiar to a
given community, slavery generated its own sentiments, its own morals,
manners, and religion; and begot a character in all around it in favor
of its own existence.

In nearly everything indigenous and peculiar to society in the two
sections, they were as separate and distinct as are any two nations on
the globe. The longer they were thus linked together in the bonds of
outward union, the more palpable became their points of difference, and
the more passionate became their hostility to each other. Liberty became
more and more the glory of the North, and slavery more and more the idol
of the South. Not even the bonds of Christian fellowship were strong
enough to hold together the churches of the two sections.

In view of this settled and growing antagonism, only one of three
courses was opened to the nation: The first was to make the country all
slaves, the second was to make it all free, and the third was to divide
the Union, and let each section set up a government of its own--the one
based upon the system of slavery, and the other based upon the
principles of the Declaration of American Independence.

Thanks to the wisdom, loyalty, patriotism, courage, and statesmanship
developed by the crisis, the nation rejected equally the idea of making
the country all slaves, and permitting two separate nations, with
hostile civilizations, side by side, with a chafing, bloody border
between them, but chose to give us one country, one citizenship, and one
liberty for all the people, and hence we are here this evening. There
was never any physical reason for the dissolution of the Union. The
geographical and topographical conditions of the country all served to
unite rather than to divide the two sections. It was moral not physical
dynamite that blew the two sections asunder.

We are told by the poet that--

    “Lands intersected by a narrow frith, abhor each other;
     Mountains interposed make enemies of nations,
     Which else, like kindred drops, had mingled into one.”

But in this case there were neither friths nor mountains to separate the
South from the North, or to make our Southern brethren hate the people
of the North. The moral cause of trouble in the system of slavery being
now removed, peace and harmony are possible, and, I doubt not, these
blessings, though long delayed, will finally come. In calling attention
to the event which makes this day precious we honor ourselves, and
honor the noble and brave men who brought it about. We render our humble
tribute of gratitude to-day, not only to those whose valor and whose
blood on the battlefield brought freedom to the American slave; not only
to the great generals who led our armies, but to our great statesmen as
well who framed our laws; and not to these only, but also to the noble
army of men and women which preceded both statesmen and warriors in the
cause of emancipation, and made these warriors and statesmen possible.
Neither would our gratitude forget those who supplemented the great act
of emancipation by carrying the blessings of education to the benighted
South, thus preparing the liberated freedman for the duties of
citizenship.

I need not stop here to call the roll of any of these classes. The
nation knows the debt it owes them, and will never forget them. We have
but to mention the honored name of Abraham Lincoln in the Presidential
chair, of Ulysses S. Grant in the field, at whose bedside a grateful
nation now stands mute in sympathy and sad expectation; of William Lloyd
Garrison in the columns of the _Liberator_, of Wendell Phillips on the
rostrum, of Charles Sumner in the Senate, to cause a host of noble men
and women to start up and pass in review before us.

But I drop this brief reference to the history and personnel of the
anti-slavery movement, and will speak of matters nearer our times and
equally pertinent to this occasion. Those who abolished slavery did
their work, and did it well. They served their day and generation with
wisdom, courage, and fortitude, and are an example to this and coming
generations. They bravely upheld the principles of liberty and justice,
and it will go well with this nation and with us if we in our time, and
if those who are to come after us in theirs, shall adhere to and uphold
these same principles with equal zeal, courage, fidelity, and fortitude.
One generation cannot safely rest on the achievements of another, and
ought not so to rest.

Hitherto there has been little variety in the thoughts, resolutions, and
addresses presented for consideration on occasions similar to this. Each
celebration has been almost a _fac-simile_ of its predecessors. The
speeches have been little more than echoes of those made before, because
the conditions of their utterances have been so uniform, and all one
way. To-day, however, conditions are changed, or appear to be changed.
We do not stand where we stood one year ago. We are confronted by a new
Administration. The term of twenty-four years of steady, unbroken,
successful Republican rule is ended. The great Republican party that
carried the country safely through the late war against the rebellion,
emancipated the slave, saved the Union, reconstructed the government of
the Southern States, enfranchised the freedmen, raised the national
credit, improved the currency, decreased the national debt, and did more
for the honor, prosperity, and glory of the American people than was
ever done before in the same length of time by any party in any country
under similar circumstances, has been defeated, humiliated, and driven
from place and power.

For the first time since the chains fell from the limbs of the slaves of
the District of Columbia; for the first time since slaves were raised
from chattels to men; for the first time since they were clothed with
the dignity of American citizenship they find themselves under the rule
of a political party which steadily opposed their every step from
bondage to freedom, and this fact may well enough give a peculiar
coloring to the thoughts and feelings with which this anniversary of
emancipation is celebrated.

The great question of the hour respects the true significance of this
change in the national front. What does it portend? How will it affect
our relations to the people and government of this country? How was this
stupendous change brought about, and, in point of fact, it may be asked
with some propriety if there has really been any serious change made in
our condition by this change in the relations of parties?

To the eye of the colored man the change, or apparent change, in the
political situation is very marked, and wears a very sinister aspect. He
has so long been accustomed to think the Republican party the
sheet-anchor of his liberty, the star of all his hopes, that he can see
nought but ill in the ascendancy of the Democratic party. He addresses
it much as did Hamlet his father’s ghost:

    “Tell why thy canonized bones, hearsed in death,
     Have burst their cerements; why the sepulchre.
     Wherein we saw thee quietly inurn’d,
     Hath oped his ponderous and marble jaws to cast thee up again.
     What may this mean, that thou, dead corpse,
     Again in complete steel, revisit’st thus the glimpses of the moon,
     Making night hideous, and we, poor fools of nature,
     So horridly to shake our disposition
     With thoughts beyond the reaches of our souls?”

It is, perhaps, too early to determine the full significance of the
return of the Democratic party to power, or to tell just how that return
to power came about. One thing must be admitted, and that is that the
power and vitality of the Democratic party have been vastly underrated.
It has indulged in vices and crimes enough to have killed a dozen
ordinary parties, and yet it lives. At times it has really seemed to be
dead. Some said it had died by opposing the war for the Union, but it
was not so. We thought the life had gone out of it when it took our late
friend, Horace Greely, for its candidate for the Presidency and adopted
a Republican platform, but it was not so.

It was the same old party in a new dress, and time has shown that it was
as full of life and power as ever. The fact is, it was never either
honestly dead or securely buried. Even when it slept it had one eye
open, and saw better with that one eye than did the Republican party
with its two. Our mistakes concerning it have been made abundantly clear
by the late election and the dazzling splendor of the recent
inauguration. We thought the Democratic party dead when it was alive,
and the Republican party alive and strong when it was half dead. Long
continuance in power had developed rival ambitions, personal
animosities, factional combinations in the Republican party that were
fatal to its success and even endangered its life.

One great lesson taught by Republican defeat is familiar to all. It is
the folly of relying upon past good behavior for present success.
Parties, like men, must act in the living present or fail. It is not
what they have done or left undone in the past that turns the scale, but
what they are doing, and mean to do now. The result shows that neither
the past good conduct of the Republican party nor the past bad conduct
of the Democratic party has had much to do with the late election.

Americans have too little memory for good or bad political conduct. The
people have said in the late election, “We care nothing for your past;
but what is your present character and work?” And in rendering judgment
they have said, “We see little ground for preferring one to the other.”

But, fellow-citizens, it is consoling to think that this change in the
political front justly implies no real change for the worse in the moral
convictions of the American people. On the great questions that divided
the parties during the periods of war and reconstruction there has been
no change whatever. Upon all the great measures of justice, liberty,
and civilization, originated and carried through Congress by the
Republican party, I believe the heart of the nation to be still safe and
sound. If the measures then in controversy between the parties were now
submitted to the American people, I fully believe they would sustain
them one and all by an overwhelming vote.

The trouble was that the Republican party in the late campaign forgot
for the moment its high mission as the party of great moral ideas, and
sought victory on grounds far below its ordinary level. It made national
pelf more important and prominent than national purity. It made the body
more important than the soul; national prosperity more important than
national justice. There was no square issue made up between the parties.
One talked in favor of the tariff and the other did not talk against it.
Both together beat the air and raised a dust, confused counsel, blinded
the voters, and rendered victory a thing of chance rather than a thing
of choice. The Republican party was not more surprised by defeat than
the Democratic party was astonished by victory. Twelve hundred votes
would have changed the result; so that nothing for the future can be
safely predicted upon the election either way. It does not imply that
the Democratic party is in power to stay, or that the Republican party
is out of power to stay, or that new parties are to arise and take the
place of the old.

While it was painfully evident that the Republican party, during the
late canvass, had little or nothing to say against the outrages
committed upon the newly enfranchised people of the South, it was
equally plain that the Democratic party had nothing to say in defense of
these outrages. Yet it is not strange, in view of the history of the two
parties, that much alarm was felt by colored people all over the South
when they first learned that the great Republican party was defeated and
that the Democratic party was soon to administer the National
Government.

Ignorant as the colored people of the South have been, and may still be,
about other matters of national importance, they have always been
intelligent enough as to the character and relations of political
parties. They have never been mistaken as to the historical difference
between the party which gave them liberty and the party which sought to
continue their enslavement. They had known the Democratic party long
and well and only as the party of the old master class. They naturally
held the triumph of that party as a victory of the old master class. In
the panic of the moment they saw in it a possible attempt to
rehabilitate the old order of government in the South, in which they
would be greatly oppressed if not enslaved.

In the joy and exultation of the old master class over the defeat of the
Republican party, and over the return of the old Democratic party to
power, they read what they thought their doom. Jealous of their newly
gained liberty, as well they might be, feeling themselves in peril and
left naked to their enemies, their fears amounted to agony. But, thanks
to the kind assurances promptly given by the President-elect and by
other Democrats in high places, this alarm was transient, and has now
given way in some measure to a feeling of confidence and security.

How long this feeling of confidence and security will last, however,
will depend upon the future policy of the present administration. The
inaugural address of President Cleveland was all that any friend of
liberty and justice could reasonably ask for the freedmen. It was a
frank and manly avowal, worthy of the occasion. It accepted their
citizenship as a fact settled beyond debate, and as a subject which
ought to attract attention only with a view to the improvement of their
character and their better qualification by education for the duties and
responsibilities of citizens of the Republic.

No better words have dropped from the east portico of the Capitol since
the inauguration days of Abraham Lincoln and Gen. Grant. I believe they
were sincerely spoken, but whether the President will be able to
administer the government in the light of those liberal sentiments is an
open question. The one-man power in our government is very great, but
the power of party may be greater. The President is not the autocrat,
but the executive of the nation. But, happily, the executive is yet a
power, and may be able to obtain the support of the co-ordinate branches
of the government in so plain a duty as protecting the rights of the
colored citizens, with those of all other citizens of the Republic. For
one, though Republican I am, and have been, and ever expect to be,
though I did what I could to elect James G. Blaine as President of the
United States, I am disposed to trust President Cleveland. By his words,
as well as by his oath of office, solemnly subscribed to before
uncounted thousands of American citizens, he is held and firmly bound
to execute the Constitution of the United States in the fullness of its
spirit and in the completeness of its letter, and thus far he has shown
no disposition to shrink from that duty.

The Southern question is evidently the most difficult question with
which President Cleveland will have to deal. Hard as it may be to manage
his party on the civil service question, where he has only to deal with
hungry and thirsty office-seekers, nineteen out of every twenty of whom
he must necessarily offend by failing to find desirable places for them,
he will find it incomparably harder to meet that party’s wishes in
dealing with the Southern question. There are several methods of
disposing of this Southern question open to him, and there are lions in
the way, whichever method he may adopt.

First. He may adopt a policy of total indifference. He may shut his eyes
to the fact that in all of the Gulf States political rights of colored
citizens are literally stamped out; that the Constitution which he has
solemnly sworn to support and enforce is under the feet of the mob; that
in those States there is no such thing as a fair election and an honest
count. He may utterly refuse to interfere by word or deed for the
enforcement of the Constitution and for the protection of the ballot,
and let the Southern question drift whithersoever it will, to a port of
safety or to a rock of disaster. He will probably be counselled to
pursue the course of President Hayes, but I hope he will refuse to
follow it. The reasons which supported that policy do not exist in the
case of a Democratic President. Mr. Hayes made a virtue of necessity. He
had fair warning that not a dollar or a dime would be voted by a
Democratic Congress if the army were kept in the South. The cry of the
country was against what was called bayonet rule.

Secondly. The President may pursue a temporizing policy; keep the word
of promise to the ear and break it to the heart, a half-hearted, a
neither hot nor cold, a good Lord and good devil policy. He may try to
avoid giving offence to any, and thus succeed in pleasing none; a policy
which no man or party can pursue without inviting and earning the scorn
and contempt of all honest men and of all honest parties.

Thirdly. He may decide to accept the Mississippi plan of conducting
elections at the South; encourage violence and crime; elevate to office
the men whose hands are reddest with innocent blood; force the negroes
out of Southern politics by the shot-gun and the bulldozer’s whip;
cheat them out of the elective franchise; suppress the Republican vote;
kill off their white Republican leaders, and keep the South solid; and
keep its one hundred and fifty-three electoral votes--obtained thus by
force, fraud, and red-handed violence--ready to be cast for a Democratic
candidate in 1888. This might be acceptable to a certain class of
Democrats at the South, but the Democrats of the North would abhor and
denounce it as a bloody and hell-black policy. It would hurl the party
from power in spite of the solid South, and keep it out of power another
four and twenty years.

Fourthly. He may sustain a policy of absolute fidelity to all the
requirements of the Constitution as it is, and, as John Adams said of
the Declaration of Independence, he may bravely say to the South and to
the nation: “Sink or swim, survive or perish, I am for the Constitution
in all its parts! I will be true to my oath, and I will, to the best of
my ability, and to the fullest extent of my power, defend, protect, and
maintain the rights of all citizens, without regard to race or color.”

There can be no doubt as to which of these methods of treating the
Southern question is the most honest and safe one. There may be many
wrong ways for individuals or nations to pursue, but there is but one
right way, and it remains to be seen if this is the one the present
administration will adopt and pursue. Left to the promptings of his own
heart and his own view of his constitutional duties, and to his own
sense of the requirements of consistency, and even expediency, I firmly
believe that President Cleveland would do his utmost to protect and
defend the constitutional rights of all classes of citizens. But he is
not left to himself, and may adopt a different policy.

One thing seems plain, which it is well for all parties to know and
consider. It is this: There are 7,000,000 of colored citizens now in
this Republic. They stand between the two great parties--the Republican
party and the Democratic party--and whichever of these two parties shall
be most just and true to these 7,000,000 may safely count upon a long
lease of power in this Republic. It is not their votes alone that will
tell. There is deep down among the people of this country a love of
justice and fair play, and that fact will tell. It is now as it was in
the time of war, and it will be so in all time. The party which takes
the negro on its side will triumph. The world moves, and the conditions
of success and failure have changed.

Formerly, devotion to slavery was the condition upon which the success
of the Democratic party was based. But time and events have swept away
this abhorred condition. Liberty, not slavery, is now the autocrat of
the Republic. Neither politics nor religion can succeed in the future by
pandering to the prejudices arising out of slavery. Let the great
Democratic party realize this fact, and shape its policy in accordance
with it; let it do justice to the negro, and it will certainly succeed
itself in power four years hence, and long years after.

On the contrary, if it forgets the nation’s progress, falls back into
its old ruts, and seeks success on the old conditions; if it forgets
that slavery has now become an anachronism, a superstition of the past,
having no proper relation to the age and body of our times, it will be
ignominiously driven from place and power four years hence, and no arm
can, or ought to, save it.

    “There is a tide in the affairs of men, which,
     Taken at the flood, leads on to fortune.”

This tide is now rising at the feet of President Cleveland and his
administration, and, as I have said, it remains to be seen if it will be
wisely taken at the flood. Depend upon it, if the Democratic party does
not avail itself of the colored man’s support the Republican party
certainly will. That party is still the colored man’s party, and it will
be all the more likely to consider the claims of the colored man, in
view of its late defeat, and the causes by which that defeat was brought
about. Twelve hundred more colored votes in the State of New York would
have saved that party from defeat.

Unless the ballot is protected better than heretofore the Augusta speech
of the Hon. James G. Blaine, delivered after the election, will be the
keynote of the Republican campaign four years hence. There is only one
way to prevent the success of the Republican party if that issue is
permitted to be raised. The Northern people were sound for free soil;
sound for free speech; sound for the Union; sound for reconstruction in
other days, and they will be sound for justice and liberty and a free
ballot to the newly enfranchised citizens when that issue shall be
fairly presented as a living issue between the two contending parties.

The great mistake made by the leaders of the Republican party during the
late canvass was the failure to recognize the facts now stated, and
their refusal to act upon them. They had become tired of the old issues
and wanted new ones. They made their appeal to the pocket of the nation,
and not to the heart of the nation. They attended to the mint, anise,
and cummin of politics, but omitted the weightier matters of the
law--judgment, mercy, and faith. They were loud for the protection of
things, but silent for the protection of men. These things they ought to
have done, and not left the other undone.

The idea that righteousness exalteth a nation, and that sin is a
reproach to any people, was, for a time, lost sight of. The
all-engrossing thought of the campaign was a judicious, discriminating
protective tariff. The great thing was protection to the wool of Ohio;
to the iron of Pennsylvania, and to American manufactures generally.
Little was said, thought, or felt about national integrity, the
importance of maintaining good faith with the freedmen or the Indian, or
the protection of the constitutional rights of American citizens, except
where such rights were in no danger.

The great thing to be protected was American industry against
competition with the pauper labor of Europe--not protection of the
starving labor of the South. The body of the nation was everything; the
soul of the nation was nothing. It did not appear from the campaign
speeches that it was important to protect and preserve both, or that the
body was not more dependent upon bread for life than was the soul
dependent upon truth, justice, benevolence, and good faith for health
and life. In the absence of these, the soul of the nation starves,
sickens, and dies. It may not fall at once upon the withdrawal of these,
but persistent injustice will, in the end, do its certain work of moral
destruction. No nation, no party, no man can live long and flourish on
falsehood, deceit, injustice, and broken pledges. Loyalty will perish
where protection and good faith are denied and withheld, and nothing
other that this should be expected, either by a party, a man, or by a
government. On the other hand, where good faith is maintained, where
justice is upheld, where truth and right prevail, the government will be
like the wise man’s house in Scripture--the winds may blow, the rains
may descend, the flood may come and beat upon it, but it will stand,
because it is founded upon the solid rock of principle. I speak this,
not only for the Republican party, but for all parties. Though I am a
party man, to me parties are valuable only as they subserve the ends of
good government. When they persistently violate the fundamental rights
of the humblest and weakest in the land I scout them, despise them, and
leave them.

We boast of our riches, power, and glory as a nation, and we have reason
to do so. But what is prosperity, what is power, what is national glory,
when national honor, national good faith, and national protection to the
rights of our citizens are denied? Of what avail is citizenship and the
elective franchise where a whole people are deliberately abandoned to
anarchy by the Government under which they live, and told they must
protect themselves from violence as best they may, for, practically,
this is just what the American Government has said to the colored and
white Republican voters of the South during the last eight years.
Minister Lowell was accused of not protecting the rights of
Irish-Americans in England, and our ships are just now ordered to Panama
to look after the interests of American citizens in Central America.
This is all right, but when and where have our army and navy gone to
protect the rights of American citizens at home? To say, “I am a Roman
citizen!” could once arrest the bloody scourge and cause the brutal
tyrant to turn pale. But who cares now for the citizenship of any
American Republican, black or white, in Mississippi or South Carolina?
We are rich and powerful. But we should remember that the whole vast
volume of human history is dotted all along with the wrecks of nations
which have perished amid wealth, luxury, and splendor. What doth it
profit a nation to gain the whole world if it shall lose its own soul?
Henry Clay, in 1839, made an elaborate defence of the right to hold
property in man. Two hundred years of legislation has sanctioned and
identified negro slaves as property. When warned by anti-slavery men of
the dreadful consequences of perpetuating slavery, he said that that
warning had been given fifty years before, and that it had been answered
by fifty years of unexampled prosperity. His idea was that if slavery
were a curse God would not allow a nation that upheld it to prosper. The
argument was sophistical, but it contained a great truth after all, and
time only was required to verify it. He forgot that God reigns in
eternity; that space is sometimes given for repentance. He did not
remember, as Jefferson did, that God is just, and that His justice
cannot sleep forever.

Had Mr. Clay lived to see, as we have seen, the union of his beloved
country rent asunder at the centre, and hostile armies composed of his
beloved countrymen on the field of battle, amid dust, smoke, and fire,
blowing each other to pieces from the cannon’s mouth; had he seen five
hundred thousand of the youth and flower of both sections of this land
cut down by the sword and flung down into bloody graves; had he seen in
the wake of this fratricidal war the smoldering ruins of noble towns and
cities, and the nation staggering under a debt heavier than a mountain
of gold; had he seen the sullen discontent and deadly hate which
survived the war, and traced all these calamities and more, as he must
do, to the existence of slavery, he would, in all the bitterness of his
soul, have cursed the day when he poured out his eloquence in defence of
that system which brought upon his country these accumulated horrors.

The lesson of this national experience is in place to-day, and it would
be well for this nation to study and learn it. Look abroad! What rocks
Europe to-day? What causes the Emperor of all the Russias to be uneasy
on his pillow? What makes Austria tremble? Why does England start up
frantically at midnight and search her premises? You know, and I know,
that these countries have aggrieved classes among them who have just
ground of complaint against their governments.

Now, fellow-citizens, let me speak plainly. This is an age when men go
to and fro in the earth, and knowledge increases oppressed peoples all
over the world are protesting with earthquake emphasis against all forms
of injustice, some by one means and some by another. Examples, like
certain diseases, are contagious. Railroads, steam navigation, electric
wires, newspapers, and traveling emissaries are abroad. Can you be quite
sure that the oppressed laborers in this country, white and colored,
will not some day make common cause and learn some of the dangerous
modes of protest against injustice adopted in other countries? I deal in
no threats, for myself or for any of my countrymen, and am only for
peaceful methods; but I say to all oppressors, “Have a care how you goad
and imbrute the colored man of the South!” He is weak, but not
powerless. He is submissive to wrongs, but not insensible to his rights.
He is hopeful, but not incapable of despair. He can endure, but even to
him may come a time when he shall think endurance has ceased to be a
virtue. All the world is a school, and in it one lesson is just now
being taught in letters of fire and blood, and that is, the utter
insecurity of life and property in the presence of an aggrieved class.
This lesson can be learned by the ignorant as well as by the wise. Who
can blame the negro if, when he is driven from the ballot-box, the
jury-box, and the schoolhouse, denied equal rights on railroads and
steamboats, called out of his bed at midnight and whipped by regulators,
compelled to live in rags and wretchedness, and his wages kept back by
fraud, denied a fair trial when accused of crime, he shall imitate the
example of other oppressed classes and invokes some terrible explosive
power as a means of bringing his oppressors to their senses, and making
them respect the claims of justice? This would indeed be madness, but
oppression will make even a wise man mad.

It should not be forgotten that the negro is not what he was twenty
years ago. Kossuth once said that bayonets think. The negro is beginning
to think. Years ago a book had as little to say to him and had as little
meaning for him as a brick. It was then a thing of darkness and silence.
Now it is a thing of light and speech. Education, the sheet anchor of
safety to society where liberty and justice are secure, is a dangerous
thing to society in the presence of injustice and oppression.

I pursue this thought no further. A hint to the wise ought to be
sufficient. Let not my words be construed as a menace, but taken as I
mean them--as a warning; not interpreted as inviting disaster, but
considered as designed to avert disaster.

Fellow-citizens, many things calculated to make us thoughtful have
occurred since I addressed you on an occasion like this, two years ago;
but nothing has occurred which ought to make us more thoughtful than the
recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on the civil
rights bill. That decision came upon the country like a clap of thunder
from a clear sky. It came without warning. It was a surprise to enemies
and a bitter disappointment to friends. Had the bench been composed of
Democratic judges some such a decision might have come upon us without
producing any very startling effect. But the fact was otherwise. This
blow was dealt us in the house of our friends. The bench was composed
of nine learned Republican judges, and of these nine honorable men only
one came to our help, I mean Honorable Justice John M. Harlan. He stood
up for the rights of colored citizens as those rights are defined by the
fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

It was a magnificent spectacle, this grand representation of American
justice standing alone, and the country will not soon forget it. Without
meaning any disrespect to the Supreme Court, or reflecting upon the
purity of its motives, I must say here, as I have said elsewhere, and
shall say many times over if my life is spared, that that decision is
the most striking illustration I have ever seen of how it is possible to
keep alive the letter of the law and at the same time stab its spirit to
death. Portia strictly construed the law of Venice for mercy, and this
rule of construction has the approval of all the ages, but the Supreme
Court of the United States construed American law against the weak and
in the interest of prejudice and brutality. Never before was made so
clear the meaning of Paul’s saying, “The letter killeth, but the spirit
giveth life.”

I am glad, and I know that you are glad, that there was one man on that
bench who had the mind and heart to be as true to liberty in this its
day as was the old Supreme Court of slavery in its day. While slavery
existed all presumptions were made in its favor. The obvious intention
of the law prevailed, but now the plain intention of the law has been
strangled by the letter of the law.

The fourteenth amendment of the Constitution was plainly intended to
secure equal rights to all citizens of the United States, without regard
to race or color, and Congress was authorized to carry out this
provision by appropriate legislation. But by this decision of the
Supreme Court the fourteenth amendment has been slain in the house of
its friends. I have no doubt that that decision contributed to the
defeat of the Republican party in the late election. I repeat, that
decision may well make colored men thoughtful.

Kentucky has done many evil things in her time, but she has also done
many great and good things. She has recently given us a law by which
equal educational advantages have been extended to colored children.
Long ago she gave us James G. Birney, the first abolition candidate for
the presidency of the United States; a former slave-holder, but one who
emancipated his slaves on his own motion; a genuine gentleman of the old
school, and one to be gratefully remembered by every friend of liberty
in this country. She has given us Cassius M. Clay, the man who fought
his way to freedom of speech on his native soil. She has given us John
G. Fee, the earnest and devoted educator of the freedman. Nor is this
all. She has given us two of the largest hearts and broadest minds of
which our country can boast; men who had the courage of their
convictions, and who dared, at the peril of what men hold most dear, to
be true to their convictions. These strong men--one dead and the other
living--are Abraham Lincoln and John M. Harlan. Abraham Lincoln is
already enshrined in the hearts of the American people, and Justice John
M. Harlan will hold a place beside him in the hearts of his countrymen.

You remember the public meeting held in Lincoln Hall, and the free
expression of opinion upon the unsoundness of the decision of the
Supreme Court on the civil rights bill. You will also remember that the
ablest and boldest words there spoken were from the lips of Robert G.
Ingersoll, a man everywhere spoken against as an infidel and a
blasphemer. Well, my friends, better be an infidel and a so-called
blasphemer than a hypocrite who steals the livery of the court of heaven
to serve the devil in.

Infidel though Mr. Ingersoll may be called, he never turned his back
upon his colored brothers, as did the evangelical Christians of this
city on the occasion of the late visit of Mr. Moody. Of all the forms of
negro hate in this world, save me from that one which clothes itself
with the name of the loving Jesus, who, when on earth, especially
identified himself with the lowest classes of suffering men, and the
proof given of his Messiahship was that the poor had the Gospel preached
unto them. The negro can go into the circus, the theatre, the cars, and
can be admitted into the lectures of Mr. Ingersoll, but cannot go into
an Evangelical Christian meeting.

I do not forget that on the occasion of the civil rights meeting I have
mentioned, one evangelical clergyman, a real man of God, gave to the
gospel trumpet a certain sound. The religion of Dr. John E. Rankin, like
the love of his Redeemer, is not bounded by race or color, but takes in
the whole human family. No truer man than he ever ascended a Washington
pulpit.

In conclusion let me say one word more of the soul of the nation and of
the importance of keeping it sensitive and responsive to the claims of
truth, justice, liberty, and progress. In speaking of the soul of the
nation I deal in no cant phraseology. I speak of that mysterious,
invisible, impalpable something which underlies the life alike of
individuals and of nations, and determines their character and destiny.

It is the soul that makes a nation great or small, noble or ignoble,
weak or strong. It is the soul that exalts it to happiness, or sinks it
to misery. While it modifies and shapes all physical conditions, it is
itself superior to all such conditions. It is the spiritual side of
humanity. Fire cannot burn it, water cannot quench it. Though occult and
impalpable, it is just as real as granite or iron. The laws of its life
are spiritual, not carnal, and it must conform to these laws or it
starves and dies. The outward semblance of it may survive for a time,
just as ancient temples and old cathedrals may stand long after the
spirit that inspired them has vanished. But they, too, will moulder to
ruin and vanish. The life of the nation is secure only while the nation
is honest, truthful, and virtuous; for upon these conditions depend the
life of its life.

A few years ago a terrible and desolating fire swept over the proud
young city of Chicago, and left her architectural splendors in ashes. In
a few hours her “cloud-capped towers and gorgeous palaces” and solemn
temples crumbled to dust, and were scattered to the four winds of
heaven, so that no man could find them, but there remained the invisible
soul of a great people, full of energy, enterprise, and faith, and
hence, out of the ashes and hollow desolation, a grander Chicago than
the one destroyed arose “as if by magic.”

      “What constitutes a state?
    Not high raised battlements, or labored mound,
      Thick walls or moated gate;
    Not cities proud, with spires and turrets crowned;
      Not bays and broad armed ports,
    Where, laughing at the storm, rich navies ride.
      No, men; high-minded men!
    With power as far above dull brutes endued,
      In forest, brake, or den,
    As beasts excel cold rocks and brambles rude;
      Men who their duties know,
    But know their rights, and knowing, dare maintain.”

IN WASHINGTON, D. C., 1886.

     In introducing Mr. FREDERICK DOUGLASS, on the occasion of the
     Twenty-fourth Anniversary of Emancipation in the District of
     Columbia, Prof. J. M. GREGORY made the following remarks:

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: For many years prior to 1861 the friends of
freedom, seeing the prominence slavery had acquired because of its
existence at the capital of the nation, and the evil influence which it
necessarily exerted upon legislation, sought in vain by petitions and
other measures for its abolition in the District of Columbia. It was
not, however, till the national conscience began to be quickened by the
reverses of our armies, and legislators to realize the dangers which
threatened the life of the nation, that the cause could muster
sufficient strength to gain a hearing in Congress.

On the 16th of December, 1861, Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, introduced
into the Senate a bill providing for the immediate emancipation of
slaves in the District upon the payment to the owners of $300 for each
slave. As was to be expected the bill was antagonized by pro-slavery men
in the Senate and House. They feared that the measure proposed was the
entering wedge for the final overthrow of their pet institution in the
South. As subsequent events proved their fears were not without
foundation. Notwithstanding the bitter opposition which the bill
encountered, it passed both houses of Congress in less than four months
from its first introduction in the Senate, and was approved by the
President on the 16th of April, just twenty-four years ago to-day.

The debates on this and kindred questions makes memorable the second
session of the Thirty-seventh Congress, and they are of special interest
because they indicated a new departure in the line of argument pursued
by Northern statesmen. They based their arguments for emancipation, not
upon grounds of expediency, but the great principles of right and
justice.

The importance of this act must not be overlooked. It struck the
shackles from the limbs of 3,000 human beings and placed them in the
ranks of freemen. It took away the shame which slavery had brought upon
the National Capital. But this was not all. It elevated the nation in
its own eyes and in the eyes of the civilized world, and roused a
feeling of patriotism and pride. It called forth an expression from the
National Legislature, and a majority of the members by solemn vote
arrayed themselves on the side of emancipation and liberty, in
opposition to slavery and oppression. It was the forerunner of the great
emancipation proclamation--that proclamation which more than all his
other acts makes the name of Abraham Lincoln secure to all posterity.

In our rejoicing on this occasion we should not forget to hold in
grateful remembrance the men whose votes secured the passage of the
bill, and especially its author, a man who by his works proved himself a
friend of the oppressed, Hon. Henry Wilson, the benefactor of the
District.

When the emancipation bill became a law in 1862, there were 15,000
colored people in the District of Columbia, 12,000 of whom were free and
the remainder slaves. They maintained eight schools for the education of
their children, and were the owners of twelve churches, which cost about
$75,000. With the increase of population came the demand for more
churches, so that to-day they have eighty churches and missions in the
District. Many of the churches are very valuable and located on some of
the principal streets and avenues, the new Metropolitan Church alone
being valued at $100,000.

Under the old system the word “colored” appeared opposite the name of
each colored person paying taxes on the books of the Collector of Taxes.
Now, no such distinction is made, and there are no data from which the
number paying taxes among colored citizens can be definitely known. From
information received at the tax office, I judge that there are about 180
persons with property assessed individually at $1,000, the assessed
valuation of real estate in this District being two-thirds to actual
cash valuation. It will be quite in keeping with the facts to say that
two of our citizens have acquired property valued at $100,000 each, two
at $75,000, six at $25,000, fifteen at $20,000, twenty at $10,000, and
fifty at $5,000, making in the aggregate at least a million of dollars.
I am positively assured that the increase in the valuation of property
owned by colored men since emancipation is 100 per cent. This, we think,
is a most creditable showing for our property interests.

Of the 15,000 colored people in the District at the time of emancipation
there were proportionately more skilled carpenters and masons than now
in a population of 70,000. But labor has become more diversified. We are
now engaged in pursuits in which we had no experience before the war. In
1861 a colored lawyer was a personage unknown to the national capital.
Now half a dozen colored lawyers successfully practice their profession
in the courts of the District. Then we had no physicians, regular
graduates of medical schools; now a dozen or more follow the practice of
medicine in the cities of Washington and Georgetown, and are recognized
as men of skill and ability by the profession. One of these physicians,
with his assistant, is in charge of the Freedman’s Hospital, one of the
largest and most successful hospitals in the country. Government
employment tends to keep out many from some business occupations in
which the people in other large cities engage, but this disadvantage, if
disadvantage it be considered, operates no more against us than against
other citizens.

The greatest progress made, however, and that which is necessarily the
first in order of time and importance, has been in matters of education.
The schools have increased from 8 to 174, with an average attendance of
9,000 children, giving employment to more than 100 teachers. Twelve of
the school-houses in which these schools are conducted are among the
largest and most convenient school buildings in the District. Too much
cannot be said in praise of the teachers, supervising principals,
superintendent and trustees, for it is by their combined efforts largely
that the schools have attained that degree of excellence for which they
are known. Howard University and Wayland Seminary, placed on heights
commanding beautiful views of Washington, are among the results of
emancipation. These institutions grew out of the necessities of the
times to meet the wants of colored youth for higher and professional
education. It is proper that we should take pride in our schools and
institutions of learning, for they are the chief instruments through
which our children are to receive the training which will fit them to
properly discharge the duties that will afterward devolve upon them as
men and women and to elevate the race to an equality of development and
enlightenment with other peoples.

We often hear the question asked, “What are we to do with the
Americanized negro?” Articles have appeared in newspapers, pamphlets,
and magazines giving what the author regards as a proper solution of
the negro problem, so-called. But I ask why should there be a negro
problem any more than a problem for any other class of the American
people? We need not go far to seek the answer. It is found in the fact
that in certain parts of our country the people are not willing to
receive the negro into full fellowship and to grant him the civil and
political rights enjoyed in common by other citizens. They take from him
the means of elevation and then reproach him with inferiority. They
would rejoice to rid the country of his presence by colonization, but
seeing the utter hopelessness of the colonization scheme, they seek to
inflame the public mind against him by constant appeals to the low and
narrow prejudices entertained by certain classes of the American people.
When the 300 colored citizens from Cleveland visited President-elect
Garfield at Mentor, he said in reply to the address, to which he had
given respectful attention, that he did not profess to be more of a
friend to colored men than hundreds of others, but he was in favor of
giving, and, so far as it was consistent with the duties of his office,
would give them _opportunity_ to achieve success for themselves. This is
all we ask to-day. This is all we can reasonably ask. Give us fair play,
equal opportunity, and we will work out our own destinies.

Ten years ago, in this city, on the occasion of the unveiling of the
Freedman’s Monument in memory of Abraham Lincoln, an eminent divine,
after congratulating the orator of the day upon his masterly portrayal
of the character of the martyr President, turned to General Grant and
said: “There is but one Frederick Douglass.” This distinguished citizen,
the orator who paid the eloquent tribute to the memory of Mr. Lincoln on
the occasion referred to, the Hon. Frederick Douglass, will now address
you.

At the conclusion of Prof. Gregory’s remarks Mr. Douglass said:

FRIENDS AND FELLOW-CITIZENS: I appear before you again, and for the
third time since my residence among you, to assist in the celebration of
the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. And while I highly
appreciate the honor and the confidence implied in your call upon me to
do so, when I consider the importance of the task it has imposed, I can
say in all sincerity, as I have said before, that I wish that your
choice of speaker had fallen upon one of our young men, quite as well
qualified to serve you as myself. I want to see them coming to the front
as I am retiring to the rear. Then the fact that I have several times
addressed you upon subjects naturally suggested by the recurrence of
this interesting anniversary is, of itself, somewhat embarrassing. It is
not an easy task to speak many times on the same subject, before the
same audience, without repeating the same views and sentiments. If,
therefore, you find me committing this offence to-day, you will consider
the difficulty of avoiding it, and also that the same views and
sentiments are as pertinent and necessary to-day as years ago. You need
not fear, however, that I shall inflict upon you any one of my former
orations. I am not bound by any such necessity. The field is broad, and
the material is abundant. The phases of public affairs touching the
colored people of the United States are never stationary. They change
with every season, and often many times in the course of a single year.
There is no standing still for anybody in this world. We are either
rising or falling, advancing or retreating.

Last year, at this time, we were confronted with an unusual and somewhat
alarming state of facts. We stood at the gateway of a new and strange
administration. After wandering about during twenty-four years, seeking
rest and finding none, often hungry and sometimes thirsty, and, though
not feeding swine or eating husks, yet not unfrequently found in very
low places and wasting the substance of the national family, our
prodigal Democratic son, with one tremendous effort of will, returned to
the White House, and was received with every demonstration of parental
joy and gladness. Of course this did not take place without a murmur of
complaint and disapproval. There was an elder brother here as elsewhere;
one who had remained at home, worked the old farm, kept the fences in
repair; one who had done his duty and made things in the old house
comfortable and pleasant generally. Indeed, but for his elder brother,
the Republican party, the house would have been broken up, the whole
family turned out of doors and scattered in poverty and destitution. It
was natural, therefore, when this elder brother saw the great doings at
the White House one year ago, when he heard the music and saw the
dancing, and learned what it was all about, he was not over well
pleased, and thought his father not only soft-hearted, but a little
soft-headed, and a trifle ungrateful, if not crazy withal. But elder
brothers, you know, are usually reasonable and patient, and are
generally quite submissive to parental authority, and though he knew
the bad character of the young truant who had now come home, he hoped he
had reformed. How far this cheerful and patient hope has been justified
by one year of this administration I will not now stop to say; I may,
however, remark, as a prelude to what I shall hereafter say, that as far
as the colored people of the country are concerned, their condition
seems no better and not much worse than under previous administrations.
Lynch law, violence, and murder have gone on about the same as formerly,
and without the least show of Federal interference or popular rebuke.
The Constitution has been openly violated with the usual impunity, and
the colored vote has been as completely nullified, suppressed, and
scouted as if the fifteenth amendment formed no part of the
Constitution, and as if every colored citizen of the South had been
struck dead by lightning or blown to atoms by dynamite. There have also
been the usual number of outrages committed against the civil rights of
colored citizens on highways and by-ways, by land and by water, and the
courts of the country, under the decision of the Supreme Court of the
United States, have shown the same disposition to punish the innocent
and shield the guilty, as during the presidency of Mr. Arthur. Perhaps
colored men have fared a little worse, so far as office-holding is
concerned. In some of the Departments, I am sorry to say, there have
been many dismissals, but, even in this respect, colored men have not
suffered much more than one-armed soldiers, and other loyal white men,
whose places were wanted by deserving Democrats. Upon the whole, candor
compels me to admit that this twenty-fourth year of our freedom finds us
thoughtful, somewhat mystified by what is passing around us, but
hopeful, strong to suffer, and yet strong to strive, with a moderate
degree of faith that, under the Constitution and its amendments, we
shall yet be clothed with dignity of freedom and American citizenship.
But more of this in the right place.

I take it that no apology is needed for these annual celebrations, for,
notwithstanding the unfriendly outlook of affairs, we have yet much over
which to rejoice. Besides, such demonstrations of popular feeling in
regard to large benefits received and progress made, are consistent with
and creditable to human nature. They have been observed all along the
line of by-gone ages, and are peculiar to no class, clime, race, or
color. From the day that Moses is said to have smote the Red Sea, and
the Hebrews passed safely over from Egyptian bondage, leaving Pharaoh
overwhelmed and struggling with that hell of waters, down to the 4th of
July, 1776, when the fathers of this Republic threw off the British
yoke, declared their independence, and appealed to the god of battles,
similar events to that which we now celebrate have been gratefully and
joyfully commemorated.

If, for any reason, I feel like apologizing to-day, it is not for this
celebration, but for an incident connected with it, and by which it is
greatly marred. For the first time since the emancipation of the slaves
of the District of Columbia we have two celebrations in progress at the
same time. This should not be so. By this fact we have said to the world
that we are not sufficiently united as a people to celebrate our freedom
together. This spectacle of division among men working for a common
cause is not pleasing in any case, and is especially displeasing and
shocking in this instance. Without attempting to show which party is to
blame in this controversy, I have no hesitation in saying that this
division itself is most unfortunate, disgraceful, and mortifying. It
cannot fail, I fear, to make an unfavorable impression for us upon
thoughtful observers. But, standing here as your mouthpiece to-day, I
beg the disgusted public to remember that colored men are but men, and
that the best men will sometimes differ, and will often differ more
widely and violently about trifles than about things of substance, where
a difference of opinion would be at least dignified. Something must,
however, be pardoned to the spirit of liberty, especially in those who
have but recently acquired liberty. There is always some awkwardness in
the gait of men who, for the first time, have on their Sunday clothes.
When we have enjoyed the blessings of liberty longer we shall put away
such childish things and shall act more wisely. We shall think more of a
common cause and its requirements and less of obligation to support the
claims of rival individual leaders. Depend upon it, a repetition of this
spectacle will bring our celebrations into disgrace and make them
despicable.

The thought is already gaining ground, that we have not heretofore
received the best influence which this anniversary is capable of
exerting; that tinsel show, gaudy display, and straggling processions,
which empty the alleys and dark places of our city into the broad
daylight of our thronged streets and avenues, thus thrusting upon the
public view a vastly undue proportion of the most unfortunate,
unimproved, and unprogressive class of the colored people, and thereby
inviting public disgust and contempt, and repelling the more thrifty and
self-respecting among us, is a positive hurt to the whole colored
population of this city. These annual celebrations of ours should be so
arranged as to make a favorable impression for us upon ourselves and
upon our fellow-citizens. They should bring into notice the very best
elements of our colored population, and in what is said and done on
these occasions, we should find a deeper and broader comprehension of
our relations and duties. They should kindle in us higher hopes, nobler
aspirations, and stimulate us to more earnest endeavors; they should
help us to shorten the distance between ourselves and the more highly
advanced and highly favored people among whom we are. If they fail to
produce, in some measure, such results, they had better be discontinued.
I am sure that such a lecture as I have now given on this point may be
distasteful to a part of this assembly. But I can say, in all truth,
that nothing short of a profound desire to promote the best interests of
all concerned, has emboldened me to run the risk of such displeasure,
and I hope the motive will excuse my offence.

And now, fellow-citizens, I turn away from this and other merely race
considerations, to those common to all our fellow citizens, yet happily
those in which we, too, are included. I call attention to the proposed
celebration of the centennial anniversary of our present form of
government. The year 1789 will never cease to be memorable in the
history and progress of the American people. It was in that year of
grace that the founders of the American Republic, having tested the
strength and discovered the weakness of the old articles of colonial
confederation, bravely decided to lay those articles aside as no longer
adequate to successful and permanent national existence, and resolved to
form a new compact and adopt a new constitution, better suited, in their
judgment, to their national character and to their governmental wants.
In this instrument they set forth six definite and cardinal objects to
be attained by this new departure. These were: First. “To form a more
perfect union.” Second. “To establish justice.” Third. “To provide for
the common defense.” Fourth. “To insure domestic tranquillity.” Fifth.
“To promote the general welfare.” And sixth. “Secure the blessings of
liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” Perhaps there never was an
instrument framed by men at the beginning of any national career
designed to accomplish nobler objects than those set forth in the
preamble of this constitution. They are objects worthy of a great
nation, worthy of those who gave to the world the immortal Declaration
of Independence, in which they asserted the equal rights of man, and
boldly declared in the face of all the divine right governments of
Europe the doctrine that governments derive their right to govern from
the consent of the governed.

How far these fundamental objects, solemnly set forth in the
Constitution, have been realized by the practical operation of the
Government created under it, I will not stop just now to state or
explain. Whether the Union has been perfectly formed, whether under the
ægis of the Constitution the sacred principle of justice has been
established, whether the general welfare has been promoted, or whether
the blessings of liberty have been secured, are questions to which
reference may be made in a subsequent part of this address. For the
present I refer to this grand starting point in the nation’s history for
another purpose. I wish simply to remind you of the flight of time; that
we are now drawing near the close of the first century of our national
existence, and the notice that should be taken of that fact. Without
going into the general questions raised a moment ago, as to the
fulfillment of what was promised in the Constitution, we may, in
passing, affirm what must be admitted by all, that under this form of
government so happily described, and so faithfully upheld by the great
lamented Abraham Lincoln, as “Government of the people, by the people,
and for the people,” this nation has become rich, great, progressive,
and strong. This fact is cheerfully acknowledged by the whole sisterhood
of contemporaneous nations. From thirteen comparatively weak and
sparsely populated States, skirting and hovering along the line of our
Atlantic coast, constituting a mere string of isolated communities, we
now have thirty-eight States covering our broad continent, extending
from east to west, and from sea to sea. Under our Constitution the
desert and solitary places have been reclaimed and made to blossom as
the rose. From a population of seven millions, we have reached the
enormous number of fifty millions; and in less than half a century we
shall have double that number. Such an augmentation of wealth, power,
and population has no example in the experience of any nation in ancient
or modern times. The mind grows dizzy in contemplation of the future of
a country so great and so increasing in greatness, and to whose
greatness there seems to be no limit. The question naturally arises,
what is to be the effect of such accumulated wealth, such vast increase
of population, such expanded domain, and such augmentation of national
power? Plainly enough either one of two very opposite conditions may
arise. It may either blast or bless, it may lift us to heaven or sink us
to perdition.

If we shall become proud, selfish, imperious, oppressive, and rapacious;
if we shall persist in trampling on the weak and exalting the strong,
worshipping the rich and despising the poor, our doom as a nation is
already foreshadowed.

That Almighty Power recognized in one form or another by all thoughtful
men; that Almighty Power which controls every atom of the earth, and
governs the universe; that Almighty Power which stood and measured the
globe, which beheld and drove asunder the nations, will surely deal with
us in the future as that Power has dealt in the past with other wicked
nations--it will bring us to dust and ashes. The rule of life for
individuals and for nations is the same. Neither can escape the
consequences of transgression. As they sow, so shall they reap. There is
no salvation for either outside of a life of truth and justice.
Contradiction to this in theory, for either individuals or nations, is a
damning heresy; and contradiction to this in practice is certain
destruction.

Large and imposing plans are just now proposed, and are maturing, for
the appropriate celebration of this first centennial year of our
national life. If these plans should be perfected and executed, as they
probably will be, and as they certainly should be, Washington will
witness a demonstration in this line far transcending in grandeur and
sublimity the centennial exposition in the city of Philadelphia ten
years ago.

These celebrations, like our own, have large uses. They serve as lofty
pedestals or platforms from which the national patriotism and
intelligence may survey the past, and, in some sense, penetrate and
divine the national future.

It is also fit and proper that our young and beautiful city of
Washington should be the theatre of such a grand national centennial
demonstration. It is the capital of the nation, and is, in some sense,
the shining sun of our national system, around which our thirty-eight
States, linked and inter-linked in one unbroken national interest,
revolve in union. Upon this spot no one citizen has more rights than
another. The right to be here is vested in all alike. Distance does not
diminish or alienate, contiguity does not increase any man’s right on
this soil. In this capital of the nation California is equal to
Virginia, and, as Webster said of Bunker Hill, “Wherever else we may be
strangers, we are all at home here.”

As a part of the people of this great country, we may feel ourselves
included. We represent the class which has enriched our soil with its
blood, watered it with its tears, and defended it with its strong arms,
but have hitherto been excluded from all part in our national glory.
Now, however, all is changed. We may look forward with pleasure to the
promised National Centennial Exposition, and take some credit to
ourselves for helping to make the District of Columbia a suitable place
for such a display. We have at least done a large proportion of the most
laborious and needed work to this end.

The wisdom of the framers of the Constitution of the United States in
granting to the nation, through its Congress, exclusive legislative
jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, has in nothing been more
abundantly and happily vindicated than in the abolition of slavery, and
in making it the freest territory of this country. The benefits of this
act are, however, not confined to the colored people. They are shared by
all the people of this District; not more by the colored than by the
white people.

Washington owes nothing to Maryland or Virginia (though born of those
parents) in comparison to its debt to the nation. Through the National
Government it has become the elegant and beautiful city that it is. It
is the nation that has graded and paved its broad and far-reaching
streets and avenues; it is the nation that has fenced and beautified its
numerous parks and reservations, and made them the joy of our children,
and the admiration of our visitors; it is the nation that has adorned
its ample public squares and circles with choice flowers, flowing
fountains, and imposing statuary; it is the nation that has erected
enduring monuments of bronze and marble in honor of our statesmen,
warriors, patriots, and heroes; it is the nation that has built here
those vast structures, the different departments, and crowned yonder
hill with a Capitol, one of the proudest architectural wonders of the
world; it is the nation that has built Washington Monument, the pride of
the city, the tallest structure that ever rose from the ground toward
heaven at the bidding of human pride, patriotism, or piety, standing
there in full view of all comers, whether approaching by land or water,
with its base deep down in the earth, and its capstone against the sky,
receiving and reflecting every light and shadow of the passing hour,
steady alike in sunshine and storm, defying lightning, whirlwind, and
earthquake--its grandeur and sublimity, like Niagara, impress us more
and more the longer we hold it in range of vision.

But the nation, as I have already said, has done more for the District
of Columbia than to clothe it with material greatness and splendor. It
has, by the act of emancipation, imparted to it a moral beauty. It has
not only made it a pleasure to the eye, but a joy to the heart. No
material adornment or addition has ever done or could do for this
District what the abolition of slavery has done. The nation did a great
and good thing fifteen years ago by giving us a local government, and a
Shepherd that lifted the city out of its deep mud and above its blinding
dust and put it on the way to its present greatness, but it did a
greater and better thing when it lifted it out of the mire of barbarism
coincident with slavery.

Fellow-citizens, we are proud to-day, and justly proud, of the
prosperity and the increasing liberality of Washington. With all our
fellow-citizens we behold it with pride and pleasure rising and
spreading noiselessly around us, almost like the temple of Solomon,
without the sound of a hammer. New faces meet us at the corners of the
streets and greet us in the market-places. Conveniences and improvements
are multiplying on every hand. We walk in the shade of its beautiful
trees by day and in the rays of its soft electric lights by night. We
make it warm where it is cool, and cool where it is warm, and healthy
where it is noxious. Our magnificence fills the stranger and sojourner
with admiration and wonder. The contrast between the old time of slavery
and the new dispensation of liberty looms upon us on every hand. We feel
it in the very air we breathe, and in the friendly aspect of all around
us. But time would fail to tell of the vast and wonderful advancement in
civilization made in this city by the abolition of slavery.

Perhaps a better idea could be formed of what has been done for
Washington and for us by imagining what would be the case in a return to
the old condition of things. Imagine the wheels of progress reversed;
imagine that by some strange and mysterious freak of fortune slavery,
with all its horrid concomitants, was revived; imagine that under the
dome of yonder Capitol legislation was carried on, as formerly, by men
with pistols in their belts and bullets in their pockets; imagine the
right of speech denied, the right of petition stamped out, the press of
the District muzzled, and a word in the streets against slavery the sign
for a mob; imagine a lone woman like Miss Myrtilla Miner, having to
defend her right to teach colored girls to read and write with a pistol
in her hand, here in this very city, now dotted all over with colored
schools, which rival in magnificence the white schools of any other city
of the Union; imagine this, and more, and ask yourselves the question.
What progress has been made in liberty and civilization within the
borders of this capital? Further on let us ask: Of what avail would be
our cloud-capped towers, our gorgeous palaces, and our solemn temples if
slavery again held sway here? Of what avail would be our marble halls if
once more they resounded with the crack of the slave whip, the clank of
the fetter, and the rattle of chains; if slave auctions were held in
front of the halls of justice, and chain-gangs were marched over
Pennsylvania avenue to the Long Bridge for the New Orleans market? Of
what avail would be our state dinners, our splendid receptions if, like
Babylon of old, our people were making merchandise of God’s image,
trafficking in human blood and in the souls and bodies of men? Were this
District once more covered with this moral blight and mildew you would
hear of no plans, as now, for celebrating within its borders the
centennial anniversary of the adoption of the Constitution of the United
States. Bold and audacious as were the advocates of slavery in the olden
time they would have been ashamed to invite here the representatives of
the civilized world to inspect the workings of their slave system. To
have done so would have been like inviting a clean man to touch pitch, a
humane man to witness an execution, a tender-hearted woman to witness a
slaughter. In its boldest days slavery drew in its claws and presented a
velvet paw to strangers. They knew it was like Lord Granby’s character,
which could only pass without reprobation as it passed without
observation. Emancipation liberated the master as well as the slave. The
fact that our citizens are now loudly proclaiming Washington to be the
right place for the celebration of the discovery of the continent by
Columbus, and the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, is
an acknowledgement of and attestation of the higher civilization that
has, in their judgment, come here with the abolition of slavery. They no
longer dread the gaze of civilized men. They no longer fear lest a word
of liberty should fall into the ear of a trembling captive and awaken
his manhood. They are no longer required to defend with their lips what
they must have condemned in their hearts. When the galling chain dropped
from the limbs of the slave the mantle of shame dropped from the brows
of their masters. The emancipation of the one was the deliverance of the
other; so that this day, in fact, belongs to the one as truly as it
belongs to the other, though it is left to us alone to keep it in
memory.

It is usual on occasions of this kind, not only to set forth, as I have