I wrote to obtain subsistence. I had travelled and speculated until I found myself out of means.”
The book was stopped by him in the midst of the first edition of one thousand.
He always likened himself, concerning that literary undertaking, to Gumpton Cute, a character in the play of Uncle Tom’s Cabin, who, “being on a filibustering expedition, got a little short of change.” Thus failing in all that he had designed, with the most laudable motives in view, and succeeding in that with which he neither desired nor could be satisfied—making a poor book. While he good-humoredly admits the fallacy of his moves, yet his friends, mindful of the long, wearisome months of toil and anxiety, and of high hopes wrecked, regret them, as making a void useless and unnatural in his life’s history, and consider it an episode illegitimate in his rôle.
In February, 1856, he removed to Chatham, Kent County, Canada, where he continued the practice of medicine. While his “visiting list” gave evidence of a respectable practice, his fees were not in proportion to it. His practice embraced a great portion of those who were refugees from American slavery; hence his income here did not exceed that acquired at Pittsburg.
Here his activity found wider scope, and new fields of labor were opened to him. It was not likely that one of such marked character would remain unrecognized. He was ever suggesting measures tending to ameliorate the condition of one class or another, which resulted in gaining for him an influence only surpassed by that wielded by him at his post of duty at the South.
Once, while in Canada, an important suggestion of his being adopted, it resulted in driving both candidates—conservative and reformer—together, compelling them to offer terms for the support of the black constituency.
He took part freely in all political movements in his adopted home. For several years he was one of the principal canvassers in the hustings in the ridings of Kent for the election, and was one of the executive committee, and belonged to the private caucus of A. McKellers, Esq., member of the Provincial Parliament from Kent County.
These facts will render it conclusive that his activity was none the less in a country where the progress of his race met no resistance, but only varied in its method. Whatever prominence here, as elsewhere, was attained by him, was cast in the balance as an offering to his people.
Here were matured his plans for an organization for scientific purposes, which afterwards gave him fame in other lands. Here also was he connected with the beginning of a movement in behalf of human liberty, the most sublime in conception, and mysterious in its accomplishment, written of in modern times. The first was in 1858, when had been completed a long contemplated design of his—that of inaugurating a party of scientific men of color, to make explorations in certain portions of Africa.
In the early part of May, 1859, there sailed from New York, in the bark Mendi, owned by three colored African merchants, the first colored explorers from the United States, known as the Niger Valley Exploring Party, at the head of which was its projector, Dr. Delany. His observations he published on his return to this country, so that they need no repetition here, though an important treaty formed with the king and principal chiefs of Abeokuta we have noticed in another portion of this work. It was the importance attached to this mission, and the successful accomplishment of it, that gave him prestige, rendering him eligible to membership of the renowned International Statistical Congress of July, 1860, at London. He travelled extensively in Africa for one year.
In April, prior to his departure for Africa, while making final completions for his tour, on returning home from a professional visit in the country, Mrs. Delany informed him that an old gentleman had called to see him during his absence. She described him as having a long, white beard, very gray hair, a sad but placid countenance; in speech he was peculiarly solemn; she added, “He looked like one of the old prophets. He would neither come in nor leave his name, but promised to be back in two weeks’ time.” Unable to obtain any information concerning his mysterious visitor, the circumstance would have probably been forgotten, had not the visitor returned at the appointed time; and not finding him at home a second time, he left a message to the effect that he would call again “in four days, and must see him then.” This time the interest in the visitor was heightened, and his call was eagerly awaited. At the expiration of that time, while on the street, he recognized his visitor, by his wife’s description, approaching him, accompanied by another gentleman; on the latter introducing him to the former, he exclaimed, “Not Captain John Brown, of Ossawatomie!” not thinking of the grand old hero as being east of Kansas, especially in Canada, as the papers had been giving such contradictory accounts of him during the winter and spring.
“I am, sir,” was the reply; “and I have come to Chatham expressly to see you, this being my third visit on the errand. I must see you at once, sir,” he continued, with emphasis, “and that, too, in private, as I have much to do and but little time before me. If I am to do nothing here, I want to know it at once.” “Going directly to the private parlor of a hotel near by,” says Major Delany, “he at once revealed to me that he desired to carry out a great project in his scheme of Kansas emigration, which, to be successful, must be aided and countenanced by the influence of a general convention or council. That he was unable to effect in the United States, but had been advised by distinguished friends of his and mine, that, if he could but see me, his object could be attained at once. On my expressing astonishment at the conclusion to which my friends and himself had arrived, with a nervous impatience, he exclaimed, ‘Why should you be surprised? Sir, the people of the Northern States are cowards; slavery has made cowards of them all. The whites are afraid of each other, and the blacks are afraid of the whites. You can effect nothing among such people,’ he added, with decided emphasis. On assuring him if a council were all that was desired, he could readily obtain it, he replied, ‘That is all; but that is a great deal to me. It is men I want, and not money; money I can get plentiful enough, but no men. Money can come without being seen, but men are afraid of identification with me, though they favor my measures. They are cowards, sir! Cowards!’ he reiterated. He then fully revealed his designs. With these I found no fault, but fully favored and aided in getting up the convention.
“The convention, when assembled, consisted of Captain John Brown, his son Owen, eleven or twelve of his Kansas followers, all young white men, enthusiastic and able, and probably sixty or seventy colored men, whom I brought together.
“His plans were made known to them as soon as he was satisfied that the assemblage could be confided in, which conclusion he was not long in finding, for with few exceptions the whole of these were fugitive slaves, refugees in her Britannic majesty’s dominion. His scheme was nothing more than this: To make Kansas, instead of Canada, the terminus of the Underground Railroad; instead of passing off the slave to Canada, to send him to Kansas, and there test, on the soil of the United States territory, whether or not the right to freedom would be maintained where no municipal power had authorized.
“He stated that he had originated a fortification so simple, that twenty men, without the aid of teams or ordnance, could build one in a day that would defy all the artillery that could be brought to bear against it. How it was constructed he would not reveal, and none knew it except his great confidential officer, Kagi (the secretary of war in his contemplated provisional government), a young lawyer of marked talents and singular demeanor.”
Major Delany stated that he had proposed, as a cover to the change in the scheme, as Canada had always been known as the terminus of the Underground Railroad, and pursuit of the fugitive was made in that direction, to call it the Subterranean Pass Way, where the initials would stand S. P. W., to note the direction in which he had gone when not sent to Canada. He further stated that the idea of Harper’s Ferry was never mentioned, or even hinted in that convention.
Had such been intimated, it is doubtful of its being favorably regarded. Kansas, where he had battled so valiantly for freedom, seemed the proper place for his vantage-ground, and the kind and condition of men for whom he had fought, the men with whom to fight. Hence the favor which the scheme met of making Kansas the terminus of the Subterranean Pass Way, and there fortifying with these fugitives against the Border slaveholders, for personal liberty, with which they had no right to interfere. Thus it is clearly explained that it was no design against the Union, as the slaveholders and their satraps interpreted the movement, and by this means would anticipate their designs.
This also explains the existence of the constitution for a civil government found in the carpet-bag among the effects of Captain Brown, after his capture in Virginia, so inexplicable to the slaveholders, and which proved such a nightmare to Governor Wise, and caused him, as well as many wiser than himself, to construe it as a contemplated overthrow of the Union. The constitution for a provisional government owes its origin to these facts.
Major Delany says, “The whole matter had been well considered, and at first a state government had been proposed, and in accordance a constitution prepared. This was presented to the convention; and here a difficulty presented itself to the minds of some present, that according to American jurisprudence, negroes, having no rights respected by white men, consequently could have no right to petition, and none to sovereignty.
“Therefore it would be mere mockery to set up a claim as a fundamental right, which in itself was null and void.
“To obviate this, and avoid the charge against them as lawless and unorganized, existing without government, it was proposed that an independent community be established within and under the government of the United States, but without the state sovereignty of the compact, similar to the Cherokee nation of Indians, or the Mormons. To these last named, references were made, as parallel cases, at the time. The necessary changes and modification were made in the constitution, and with such it was printed.
“Captain Brown returned after a week’s absence, with a printed copy of the corrected instrument, which, perhaps, was the copy found by Governor Wise.”
During the time this grand old reformer of our time was preparing his plans, he often sought Major Delany, desirous of his personal coöperation in carrying forward his work. This was not possible for him to do, as his attention and time were directed entirely to the African Exploration movement, which was planned prior to his meeting Captain Brown, as before stated. But as Captain Brown desired that he should give encouragement to the plan, he consented, and became president of the permanent organization of the Subterranean Pass Way, with Mr. Isaac D. Shadd, editor of the Provincial Freeman, as secretary.
This organization was an extensive body, holding the same relation to his movements as a state or national executive committee hold to its party principles, directing their adherence to fundamental principles.
This, he says, was the plan and purpose of the Canada Convention. Whatever changed them to Harper’s Ferry was known only to Captain Brown, and perhaps to Kagi, who had the honor of being deeper in his confidence than any one else. Mr. Osborn Anderson, one of the survivors of that immortal band, and whose statement as one of the principal actors in that historical drama cannot be ignored, states that none of the men knew that Harper’s Ferry was the point of attack until the order was given to march. It was Mr. Anderson whom Captain Brown delegated to receive the sword[2] from Colonel Washington, on that night when the Rubicon of slavery was crossed by that band of hero pioneers who confronted the slave power in its stronghold. The first sound of John Brown’s rifle, reverberating along the Shenandoah, proclaimed the birth of Freedom. Already he saw the mighty host he invoked in Freedom’s name. He heard their coming footfalls echoing over Virginia’s hills and plains, and upon every breeze that swept her valleys was borne to him his name entwined in battle anthem. He saw in the gathering strife that either Freedom or her priest must perish, and with a giant’s strength he went forward to his high and holy martyrdom, thereby inaugurating victory.
It seems remarkable that the man whom Providence had chosen to warn a guilty nation of its danger, and through whom the African race in America received the boon of freedom, which is but a prelude to the entire abolition of slavery on the western continent, should be sent first to Major Delany in Canada, through whom alone he considered himself able to perfect the plans necessary to begin the great work! Certainly the ways of Providence are beyond mortal comprehension. The extraordinary kindness of the jailer to the old hero prophet in the midst of hostile men in Virginia elicited surprise in the North, and was the subject of remark by many. To a playfellow of Martin Delany in childhood it was no matter of wonderment that he should sympathize with his helpless, way-worn prisoner, if the heart of the man were at all akin to the heart of the child. The open admiration demonstrated by the Virginia jailer for the character of his captive was a picture striking and pleasing in the midst of all the dark surroundings of that time. The man who, in the midst of hostile faces lowering with hate and fear towards him who sat beside him on his way to death, could say, “Captain Brown, you are a game man,” proved himself, after his prisoner, the bravest man in Virginia that day.
In regard to the relation sustained by the brave Avis to Major Delany in childhood, it may be of interest to know that the acquaintance was renewed in after years, during the Mexican war, by the major’s frequently sending him copies of the paper of which he was then editor in Pittsburg. These were duly acknowledged by Captain Avis, who recognized his name, and adverted to some of the scenes of their childhood, but cautioned him against sending them regularly, lest it should attract attention at the post-office, the paper being thoroughly anti-slavery, and taking grounds against the war, as being waged for the propagation of slavery. Hence anti-slavery sentiments were not unfamiliar to Avis. And we know not but that at some time, in that lonely prison cell, the name of Martin Delany, whom the testimony of Mr. Richard Realf before the Senate committee had made to play such a conspicuous part in the singularly significant councils at Chatham, was mentioned; and who can say it may not have been a link that had first knit the captor to the captive?
The testimony of Mr. Realf before the Senate committee appointed to investigate the Harper’s Ferry affair resulted in placing Major Delany in a most cowardly light. The charges were to the effect that he, “Dr. Delany, had repeatedly urged the black men in the convention, and that all his acts and advices tended to encourage them to go with Captain Brown, to aid in an overthrow of the government, as a measure that would succeed.” This is without foundation. Major Delany is remembered, by those who attended the councils at Chatham, as having objected to many propositions favored by Captain Brown, as not having the least chance of giving trouble to the slaveholders, except the fortification at Kansas. At one time, having objected repeatedly to certain proposed measures, the old captain sprang suddenly to his feet, and exclaimed severely, “Gentlemen, if Dr. Delany is afraid, don’t let him make you all cowards!”
Dr. Delany replied immediately to this, courteously, yet decidedly. Said he, “Captain Brown does not know the man of whom he speaks: there exists no one in whose veins the blood of cowardice courses less freely; and it must not be said, even by John Brown, of Ossawatomie.” As he concluded, the old man bowed approvingly to him, then arose, and made explanations.
He accounted for Mr. Realf’s discrepancies from the fact that the young man was a stranger to the country, and understood but little of its policy, and his former position in life never brought him in contact with men of such character as Mason, of Trent notoriety, and the rest of the pro-slavery committee, upon whose torturing rack he was stretched, upon the charge of attempting to overthrow the government!
But a few years after beheld the chairman of that committee a fugitive, a prisoner, and an exile, and Virginia the battle-ground of contending armies, one inspired by an anthem commemorating the name of him whom Virginia in her madness sacrificed to her destruction, the other endeavoring to destroy the Union in accordance with the teachings of the judges of Captain Brown and his followers.
While this stern judge of the Senate Chamber was hiding his blighted name in exile, the name of Richard Realf shone among the brightest at Lookout Mountain, as he rushed forward, amid a shower of bullets, to replace the national standard after its bearer had fallen.
These misrepresentations of Major Delany’s connection with the Harper’s Ferry insurrection embarrassed him greatly, at one time, while abroad, which we give, and will also show the importance attached to the Harper’s Ferry invasion abroad.
While reporting on his explorations during his visit to Scotland, a letter (anonymous) was sent to Sir Culling Eardley Eardley, implicating the Major (Dr. Delany) with the “insurgents under John Brown.”
Such was the effect of this insidious missive, that a whole day (Sabbath) was spent by gentlemen of the highest social and public position in discussing the matter, and considering the propriety of dropping and denouncing him.
But wisdom prevailed, and they determined to disregard the anonymous informant’s advice. With this a learned ex-official of her majesty’s government called upon him at his residence in Glasgow, and reported the proceedings to him. He was met with an argument from Major Delany, to which he assented, and replied that it was the same in substance as used by himself and the great-hearted Sir Culling Eardley Eardley. After passing through the scrutiny of these British statesmen, he received no further annoyance concerning this while in Europe.
Of the movement at Harper’s Ferry, followed by the almost immediate execution of Captain Brown and his devoted followers, he was ignorant, until in Abeokuta he received a copy of the New York Tribune sent from England for him.
It was after the Canada Convention, in accordance with designs as before stated, he embarked for Africa, accompanied by Robert Douglass, Esq., of Philadelphia, the genius whom prejudice denied the right to study peacefully his glorious art in the academy of his native city, but whom the Royal Academy of England received within its portals, and Professor Robert Campbell, of the Philadelphia Institute for colored youth.
After his expedition into Central Africa, gratified at the success of his discoveries, as well as the knowledge acquired concerning the people, among whom he found evidences of a higher civilization than that which travellers accredit them, he departed for Europe, and arrived at Liverpool May 12, 1860, where remaining for three days, he entered London on the evening of May 15.
Here he received marked attentions from gentlemen of the highest social and public position. Three days after his arrival he was invited to meet a council of gentlemen in the parlors of Dr. Hodgkin, F.R.G.S., the Right Honorable Lord Calthorpe, M.H.M.P.C., presiding, with Lord Alfred Churchill, chairman. These councils, continuing from time to time, terminated in the great soirée at Whitehall, July 27, at which were invited six hundred members of Parliament, ending in the formation of the African Aid Society, numbering among its members the following personages: Rt. Hon. Lord Calthorpe, the Lord Alfred Churchill, Hon. Mr. Ashby, Thomas Bagnall, Esq., J. P., Rev. J. Baldwin Brown, B.A., Edward Bullock, Esq., George Thompson, late M.P., Sir Culling Eardley Eardley, Bart., Sir J. H. Leake, Rear Admiral, Wm. McArthur, Esq., Rev. Samuel Morton, M. A., Jonathan Richardson, Esq., M. P., Dr. Norton Shaw, Secretary Royal Society, Rev. Thomas Mesac, M. A., Rev. Mr. Cardell, M. A., Henry Dunlop, Esq., Ex-Lord Provost of Glasgow.
He was also honored with the privilege of being present at some of the most important councils in behalf of the cause of King Victor Emmanuel, at which letters from the distinguished Garibaldi and the prime minister, Count Cavour, were read.
Besides these he was everywhere the recipient of numerous invitations, both for public and private receptions, where the most distinguished courtesy was extended to him. While in London he attended a grand déjeûné at the Crystal Palace, together with three hundred and fifty other guests, representing the élite of the world: at this presided the late Rt. Hon. Earl Stanhope, Dr. Delany being assigned a seat at the table with the foreign ambassadors and delegates.
At two brilliant gatherings at the Gallery of Art and Queen’s Rooms he participated. In his hours of relaxation from business engagements connected with his explorations, he often found it convenient and profitable to make social visits. To these he refers often as fraught with interesting memories, but to none with more pleasurable recollection than a visit made to the venerable and learned astronomer, John Lee, Esq., D. C. L., where he attended the annual festival of Reform held by him in the great park of his residence at Hartwell Palace, of Elizabethan memory, and assigned by the British government to Louis XVIII. while in exile.
At these festivals the tenants and working-class gather, and partake of the advantages of traffic there offered in wares and stores, in edibles and fancy goods, as the good Dr. Lee and lady apportion for their benefit, together with the sale of these articles. They were entertained with addresses on moral and scientific subjects by distinguished speakers invited for the occasion.
This continues generally for three days, concluding with various gymnastic and muscular exercises; in some the women take part, when prizes are distributed by the doctor and his lady. On the first day of the festival a ceremony is observed, which enhances the interest of the occasion, and in this connection will serve to illustrate the elegant hospitalities extended to the African explorer. A committee, selected by their host’s approval, usually meet and choose as president of the occasion some distinguished person present. A stranger or foreigner, if present, is invariably honored with the position, and is assigned, in this event, the historic chambers once occupied by the exiled monarch of France and his queen, furnished with the ancient garniture as when occupied by them.
When the committee returned, they announced, as their choice for president, Dr. M. R. Delany, the African explorer. This was unexpected by him, but was heartily received by the guests present, some sixty-three in number, who doubtless understood it among themselves prior to its public announcement.
While in London transacting business connected with the exploration, it was Delany’s privilege to attain a distinction never before reached by a colored American under like auspices.
At this time he appeared more prominently before the American public, owing to his presence in that august assembly known as the International Statistical Congress, presided over by His Royal Highness Albert, Prince Consort of England.
At this Congress had convened the most intellectual and distinguished representatives of all the nations of the civilized world.[3] To this, by virtue of his position and acknowledged scientific acquirements, he received a royal commission, and sat, during its session, an honored member. His remarkable presence would, of itself, have attracted the attention of the Continental members; but a movement was destined to render him more conspicuous.
The value of his position in that learned gathering was doubly enhanced and appreciated by him. It was a triumphant recognition of the progress of his race, as well as of the ability of the representative. His admission into that Congress was not based upon national credentials,—for they would have been refused to him,—but was supported by his individual claims as the proud representative of his ancestral land.
His sterling ability won for him the friendly interest of the great Lord Brougham, who, at the first meeting, called the attention of the American minister to him, which remark, being construed offensively, resulted in the withdrawal of the American delegates, at the head of which was Judge Longstreet of Georgia. Through them and their pro-slavery partisans north and south, Major Delany acquired a popularity distasteful with the American public, to whom the circumstance was known imperfectly, and then only in a prejudicial manner. So many comments were made by the press, all tending to produce the utmost unpleasantness between the two countries, that it seemed likely to have resulted in a more disagreeable misunderstanding, but was checked by the inevitable ridicule which attached to it.
When the news of the withdrawal of the American delegates first reached the public, it was through an official source—a letter from Judge Longstreet, the American representative to the Congress. It was given to the public through Hon. Howell Cobb, of Georgia, secretary of the treasury under the Buchanan administration. And as it was only through this medium, we propose to furnish the statement of the principal personage in the affair, decisive and trustworthy, and also to reproduce the letter of Judge Longstreet, which, in view of the position occupied by them both at this time, will be of additional interest.
Delany says,—
“This is a subject upon which I never desire to enter. Very seldom—I think not more than two or three times, and then only to my most intimate friends—have I ever related the circumstance, and always approached it with sensitive delicacy; because to attempt to speak about it without relating the whole, is to make it ridiculous, and leave on the mind of the auditor the impression that there must have been on the part of the distinguished lord a most absurd and abrupt intrusion upon the transactions and doings of that dignified body.
“And since Judge Longstreet withdrew from that body immediately after the organization, and before doing anything, going home, and having nothing to report but the cause of his delinquency or remissness, his official report to the secretary of the treasury necessarily being concerning me, therefore I am compelled to give the facts as to how it really transpired. And certainly no one of the most sensitive delicacy about matters of this kind will accuse me of dragging in extraneous matter. Indeed, it ceases to be a question of propriety, and turns entirely upon a question of right, as to whether or not I have the right of self-defence against an attack by a high official of the government? Or is it not the government which attacks me through its foreign representative and cabinet minister? The entire affair was contrary to my desire, and by no means flattering to me, as Judge Longstreet reported as officially follows.”
We give the following from the report of the secretary of the treasury for the year ending June 30, 1860:—
Letter from A. B. Longstreet to Howell Cobb.
London, July 21, 1860.
Sir: My mission to the International Congress terminated abruptly, even before the first regular meeting for the transaction of business.
At the appointed time (16th instant) a preliminary meeting was called, to appoint officers and arrange the order of business for the regular meetings. All the foreign delegates were declared to be vice-presidents, and, by invitation of the chairman, took their seats as such upon the stand. Lord Brougham was, I think, the last member of the Congress who entered the hall, and was applauded from the first glimpse of him until he took his seat; it was near and to the left of the chair. Mr. Dallas, appearing as a complimentary visitor,[4] was seated to the right, in a rather conspicuous position. Things thus arranged, the assembly waited the presence of his royal highness, the prince consort, who was to preside and open the meeting with an address. He soon appeared, delivered his address, and took his seat. As soon as he concluded, and the long-continued plaudits ceased, Lord Brougham rose, complimented the speech very highly and deservedly, and requested all who approved of it to hold up their hands. We did so, of course. This done, he turned to Mr. Dallas, and addressing him across the prince’s table, said, “I call the attention of Mr. Dallas to the fact that there is a negro present (or among the delegates), and I hope he will have no scruples on that account.” This appeal was received by the delegates with general and enthusiastic applause. Silence being restored, the negro, who goes by the name of Delany, rose and said, “I thank your royal highness and Lord Brougham, and have only to say that I am a man.” This, too, was applauded warmly by the delegates. I regarded this an ill-timed assault upon our country, a wanton indignity offered to our minister, and a pointed insult offered to me. I immediately withdrew from the body. The propriety of my course is respectfully submitted to my government.
What England can promise herself from exciting the ire of the United States, I cannot divine. Surely there is nothing in the past history of the two countries which offers to her the least encouragement to seek contests with the great republic, either national or individual. Will not her championship of the slave against his master be in full time when the slave shall complain of his lot and solicit her interference.
My reasons, more at large, for the course that I have pursued, will be found in the London Morning Chronicle, herewith transmitted, which, in its slightly-modified form, I pray you to regard as a part of my report.
I am, sir, your most obedient, humble servant,
A. B. Longstreet.
Hon. Howell Cobb, Secretary of the Treasury.
The American Delegate and Lord Brougham.
To the Editor of the Morning Chronicle.
Sir: After what occurred at the first meeting of the Statistical Congress, I withdrew immediately from that body, intending to offer no reasons for my course, because, from what I saw, I judged that they would not be worth the paper on which they might be written. I reserved them, therefore, for my own government. After waiting a while to see what comments the papers would make upon the opening scenes of the Congress, I commenced my despatch to my government; but a friend, in whose opinions I have great confidence, said he thought I ought to address the people here in vindication of myself. Upon this intimation (for it was rather an intimation than counsel) I sat down, and, amidst a thousand doubts and interruptions, wrote the subjoined communication. I was just bringing it to a close for the press yesterday (Thursday), when I received information that, at the opening of the meeting on the day previous, Lord Brougham had explained his remarks at the first meeting, as I would see in a paper referred to, and the information came with a request that I would return to the Congress. I read the explanation in that paper and two others. They only differ in their reports of it, but they all concur in making his lordship disavow any intention to show any disrespect to the American minister or the United States; and they make him say that he merely meant to call to notice an interesting or a statistical fact, viz.: that there was a negro in the assembly. Now, I found myself in a very ticklish predicament. It was not his lordship’s remarks so much as the reception they met with, by all my associates of the Congress, that determined me to leave it. The signs were infallible that in that body I could not be received as an equal, either in country or in character, while the negro was received with open arms. They understood his lordship as I did. All the papers understood him in the same way, and some of them glory in the exposure of the American minister, and promise themselves a rich treat when the president shall discover in what contempt his minister is held here. All this remains precisely as it did before his lordship’s explanation. Of course, therefore, I cannot return to them. They would receive me courteously, no doubt,—possibly, now, with plaudits,—but why? Not from personal respect to me or my country, but to avoid schism in the society—to preserve its popularity. I am only three years removed from an Englishman (I date from the birth of my government), and I have too much English spirit in me to thrust myself into any company upon charity. Had the delegates received his lordship’s remarks with a silent smile (ill-timed as they were), and Dr. Delany’s response in the same way, I never should have left the Congress. But the plaudits came like a tempest of hail upon my half-English spirit. Nothing, then, in the piece needs qualification, but what refers to his lordship’s intentions. Learning these from his own lips, I sat down to correct it in all that imputed to him, directly or impliedly, wrong intentions and wrong feelings; but I found that they were so often referred to in a vast variety of ways, so often intermingled with sentiments void against the principal, but good against the indorsers, and in all respects good against the leading spirits of Europe and the Congress, and so essential to the harmony and grammatical construction, that if I undertook to correct generally, I should hardly leave it printable or readable. And yet the piece must now appear; for if not, it will go forth to all Europe that the United States delegate took offence, pro-slavery like, at an old man’s playful remark, left the Congress at the beginning, and that neither explanations nor entreaties could bring him back. I have neither time nor patience to remodel it, much less to rewrite it. I am called away to-day; I should have been off from London before. In my dilemma I have concluded to publish the piece just as I wrote it; not now as fairly representing his lordship, but as exactly representing my understanding of him when I left the Congress, and the reasons. I am at the bar now, and I am to be judged of by the reasonableness of my interpretations and of my conduct founded on them. I beg his lordship, in consideration of my situation, to indulge me in this. In return, I beg the reader to treat as revoked, and utterly null and void, every reference to his lordship that is in the slightest degree inconsistent with his explanation. I am not very far behind him in years; I have long been his debtor, and I esteem him almost reverentially; and if he is not debtor for his judicial reform bill to my native state, there is the most remarkable coincidence between the two systems that ever occurred since the world began. If he is, he ought to esteem me for my state’s sake. Be this as it may, we are too old to quarrel.
A. B. Longstreet.
To the Public.
Before I terminate my first and last visit to Europe, I deem it due to my country and myself to leave behind me a word of comment upon a most remarkable incident of that visit. It may be of some service to the people on both sides of the Atlantic. England owes to my country much respect—to my native state a little. I came hither as a delegate (and by accident the only delegate) from the United States to the International Congress, now in session at this place. The appointment was made by request of the authorities of this country. I am a native of the State of Georgia, the birthplace of the two gallant Tattnalls, the one well known to me, the other well known to England. He was that humane and chivalrous commodore, who, at the peril of his commission and his life, rescued the captain and the crew of Hope’s sinking ship from a watery grave at Peiho. He has received much praise for the deed, but not quite all that is due to him, for in yielding to his generous impulses, he forgot that his no less gallant brother was borne from the battle-field at Point Peter, severely wounded by British muskets. What is done in war should be, but is not, always forgotten in peace. The commodore’s conduct was approved by his government—that government which Mr. Dallas represents at the court of St. James.
The Statistical Congress convened, a preliminary meeting was held to appoint officers and arrange the order of business. All the foreign delegates were declared to be vice-presidents, and they took their seats on the platform with the presiding officer. Mr. Dallas, a complimentary visitor, took his seat to the right of the chair, Lord Brougham to the left. All things being now in readiness for the opening of the regular meeting, his royal highness, Prince Albert, appeared, took the chair, and opened the meeting with that admirable address which has been published, and which carries its highest commendation on its face. As soon as he had concluded, and the long-resounding plaudits ceased, Lord Brougham rose, and after a few remarks strongly and deservedly complimentary of the address, and after calling upon all present to testify their approval of it by holding up their hands, (!) he turned to the American minister, and addressing him across the table of his royal highness, said, “I call the attention of Mr. Dallas to the fact that there is a negro present, and I hope he will feel no scruples on that account.” This appeal to the American minister was received with general applause by the house. The colored gentleman arose, and said, “I thank his royal highness and your lordship, and have only to say that I am a man.” And this was received with loud applause.
Now, if the noble lord’s address to the American minister was meant for pleasantry, I must be permitted to say that the time, the subject, and the place were exceedingly unpropitious to such sallies. If it was meant for sarcasm, it was equally unfortunate in conception and delivery. If it was meant for insult, it was mercilessly cruel to his lordship’s heart, refinement, dignity, and moral sense. I could readily have found an apology for it in his lordship’s locks and wrinkles, if it had not been so triumphantly applauded. The European delegates understood it; the colored gentleman understood it; and from the response of the latter we can collect unerringly its import. It was meant as a boastful comparison of his lordship’s country with the minister’s. It was meant as a cutting reflection upon that country where negroes are not admitted to the councils of white men. This is the very least and best that can be made of it, and the dignity of the American minister’s character and office, his entire disconnection with slavery personally, and his peculiar position in the assembly, were no protection to his country from this humiliating assault; nay, he is selected as the vehicle of it before the assembled wisdom of Europe, who signify openly their approbation of it. All the city papers that I have seen differ from each other in their report of this matter, but they all soften its rugged features somewhat. The Times is the most correct, but at fault in making Lord Brougham preface his remarks to Mr. Dallas with, “I hope my friend, Mr. Dallas, will forgive me for reminding him,” &c., and in making Dr. Delany (the colored gentleman) say to Lord Brougham, “who is always a most unflinching friend of the negro.” If one or the other of these remarks were made, I did not hear it; the doctor would hardly have used the last.
Now, I take leave to say that a Briton was the last man on earth who should cast contemptuous reflections upon the United States, and the delegates the last men on earth who should have countenanced them. Not one of them, not a man on all the broad surface of Europe, can assail that country without assailing some near home-born friend of his own language and blood, or some kinsman by short lineage from a common ancestry. She spreads herself out from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from the Gulf to the Lakes, and through all her length and breadth she is one vast asylum for the poor, the oppressed, the down-trodden, the persecuted of the world. Her sons are a multitudinous brotherhood of all climes, religions, and tongues, living together in harmony, peace, and equality, so far as these can possibly prevail within her borders. Say what you may, think as you may, sneer as you may, at her “peculiar institutions;” she is, after all, the good Samaritan of nations. Do a people cry and waste from famine? She loads her ships with supplies, and lays them at the sufferer’s doors without money and without price. Do an oppressed people strike for liberty? You will find some of her sons under their flag. Does a wife’s cry come across the water for help to find a noble, long-missing husband? She fits out her ships; her volunteers man them; they search nearly to the pole; learn the husband’s fate; disburden the wife’s heart from suspense, and then lie down and die from the exposure and toils of the search. Does she find a nation’s sloop of war afloat, still sound but unmanned? She puts her in decent trim, and sends her to her owner in charge of her own men and at her own expense. “Bear with me.” If “I am become a fool in glorying, ye have compelled me, for I ought to have been commended to you.”
Such a nation is not to be taunted, certainly not by Great Britain. Her slavery is a heritage, not a creature of her own begetting. It was forced on her against her wishes, her prayers, and her protestations; screwed down upon her, pressed into her, until it has become so completely incorporated with her very being, that it is now impossible to eradicate it. The term “slave property,” is borrowed; it is not of her coinage. In all her slave states there are not ten men living (until very recently not one) who ever made a slave of a free man, counting the Hottentot a freeman. Their sin, then, is not in making slaves, but in not restoring them to liberty, in courtesy to the sensibilities of those who made them for us. Before they make this exaction of us, they surely ought to have the magnanimity of Judas, and lay the price at our feet. But let us look into this matter a little.
There are about 4,000,000 of slaves in the United States. They are worth, at a very moderate calculation, $240,000,000; but as we wish to keep within the realm of morality, we cast that little item aside. There they are, from a day old to one hundred years old—ignorant, helpless, thriftless, penniless. What would become of them if set free? They would suffer, languish, die. Does charity, does religion, demand of us to put them in that condition? How are they to live? “Support them yourselves,” said a man to me once, of more negrophilism than brains. What would we have to support them on, and what obligation is there upon one class of freemen to support another? The very act of emancipation would consign nineteen twentieths of the masters to abject penury and want. There would be no more conscience, mercy, or remorse in the scramble between the races for the provision on hand at the date of the act, than there is for the means of safety among the crew of a sinking ship. The last year’s crop of cotton was, in round numbers, 4,500,000 bales. Three fourths of this amount goes abroad, and most of it to England. Will the reader take the trouble to compute the amount of shipping it takes to transport that quantity of cotton from America to Europe, the number of hands employed in the transportation, and the number employed in working up the raw material? Shipping, seamen, manufacturers, under-workmen, must all go by the board the first year of emancipation. Now, add to the exports 80,000 tierces of rice and 128,000 hogsheads of tobacco in the same category (nearly), and tell me if it is possible to conceive of a greater calamity that could befall the world than the immediate emancipation of the slaves of the United States. Nine millions, at least, would certainly be ruined by it (the slaves and their masters), as the first fruits of the measure; and hundreds of thousands, if not millions more, in the free states and kingdoms, i.e., all who are dependent upon cotton, rice, and tobacco in any way for a living,—as its ultimate fruits. Will it be said that the negroes will still produce these articles for their own benefit? How could they, unless the masters would give them the land to cultivate, implements to till it, and food and clothing for one year? To do this would cost the masters at least two hundred million dollars more; and what would become of the whites and their dependants in the mean time? But if the negroes had the outfit, they would not make the fifth part of these articles the first year. Look at your freedmen in the West Indies. We regard them as a warning, not as an encouragement. In the face of the thunderbolt, I would assert that our slaves are infinitely healthier, holier, and happier, than your freedmen. Will it be said that white labor would supply their places? How could we hire white labor? And if it performed the work, where would the slaves be? But what of foreigners dependent upon those articles? Will it be said the shipping and labor would be turned into other channels? What other? The world does not produce the article, nor the wants of the world a demand for them, if it did. This thing of diverting large amounts of labor and capital from one channel into another, is a work of time; it cannot be accomplished in a day. They who have seen the effects of a change of fashion, simply upon many laborers, may form some distant idea of the consequences of turning millions of property and labor into new channels. Time may turn the sailor into a farmer, but death would overtake him before employment, where there were practised farmers enough to supply the demand.
Now, I could say much more to show the utter impracticability of emancipation in the United States, even upon the score of humanity; but enough is said until what is said be fairly answered. Until it is fairly answered, until some practicable means is pointed out of ridding ourselves of slavery, I enter my most solemn protest against all denunciation of our country on account of it. It is like denouncing a man because he carries an incurable disease; and coming from British lips, it is like stabbing a man, and, while catching his blood to work into puddings, abusing him for bleeding, and crying out all the time, “Cure yourself! cure yourself! or keep out of decent company!” But if abuse, vilification, sarcasm, and contempt, are to be the lot of slaveholders, let it be the lot of slaveholders alone, and of those alone who thrust themselves unbidden into the society of their betters.
Whatever his lordship did not intend by the remark,—and I am ready to believe that he did not intend to wound,—he certainly did intend to bring to the minister’s notice that England made no distinction between men on account of their color; and herein his lordship was lamentably unfortunate, for the whole scene showed that not only he, but all his applauders, make a marked distinction between colors. Would not his lordship have had more respect for the feelings of any white man than to have made him the object of special notice—and such a notice!—to men gathered from all quarters of the world? Would his lordship’s discourtesy to a white man have been applauded, as it was, by gentlemen of refinement and delicacy? True, it hit Dr. Delany’s sensibilities exactly in the right place, for he returned thanks for it; but the chances were a thousand to one that it would have enkindled his indignation. “What!” he was likely to have said, “is it a boast of the nobility of England that I am admitted to a seat among white men?” His thanksgiving, too, was applauded—a thing not exactly in keeping with our ordinary dealings with white men. And when he proclaimed the indubitable fact, “that he was a man,” again he was applauded. If any other man had arisen in the assembly, and said the self-same thing, he would have been laughed at, not applauded. Again: his lordship pointed him out as a “negro,”—that was the word,—not, as some of the gazettes have it, a “colored person,” or “colored gentleman;” the Times has it right. Now, if he had felt a due regard for the doctor’s rank, would he not have softened his designation, as the papers have kindly done for him? I am told that the doctor is a member of the Geographical Society, and a delegate from Canada. If so, I demand, by all the canons of courtesy, why he was not called to the stand as one of the vice-presidents, and placed right between Mr. Dallas and myself? Here would have been a scenic representation of thrilling moral effect—more eloquent of Old England’s love of freedom and contempt of mastery than all lip-compliments of all her nobles put together. Or, if that seat was too low for the doctor, why was he not placed between Lord Brougham and the chair? Had I seen him there, verily my own heart would have swelled with a compliment to noble Old England which no lips could have fitly uttered. Where was the doctor at the prince’s reception? I did not see him there. To what section does he belong? I do not find him allotted to either. To how many of the entertainments has he been invited? Now, in all this, I detect a lurking feeling, ever and anon peeping out, which convinces me that the colored man is yet far, very far, below the white man in public estimation, even in Europe; and, until this is conquered, let not the European assume to lecture the American upon his duty to the slave, or upon the equality of the races. Why, if the thing is fated to us, like death, can any man of common humanity and generosity take pleasure in throwing it in our teeth? Slavery is either a blessing or a curse. If a blessing, why disturb us in the enjoyment of it? You Englishmen ought to plume yourselves upon it, for it is your benefaction. If a curse, you should not embitter it. We regard it as a blessing; why disenchant us of the delusion? You say it is a great sin. I doubt it, as I find it; and shall ever doubt, while Paul’s Epistle to Philemon is universally acknowledged an inspired epistle. (See note on page 115.) But suppose it a sin; has God commissioned you to reform it? and do you think you ever will reform it by eternally sprinkling vitriol upon the master? As for your contempt, we would rather not have it, to be sure; but if you will be content with that, we will live in peace forever, for it is an article in equal store on both sides. If you cannot condescend to our company, we will not complain at giving a place to Dr. Delany, and we can beatify you with four millions precisely such. But in your intercourse with us, do not, for your own sakes, forget all the rules of delicacy, benevolence, and humanity, for every adult of us can stand up and say, “I am a man!” Farewell to thee, London, for a short time; one more brief look at thy wonders, and then farewell forever! Another visit to Liverpool; I like her better than London, because she likes my people better. “Interest!” “Cotton!” It may be so, but I am grateful for love of any kind in England. Never, in all my long, long life, did my heart-strings knit around a fair one so quickly and so closely, as they did around a lady in London, who approached me, and said, “Mr. Longstreet, I must get acquainted with you. I love your country; I have several kinsmen there.” That’s natural; that’s woman-like. It is for man to draw favors from a country and curse her. God bless her! And God bless the family in which she said it. As Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, slaveholders, are in heaven, I hope to get there, too. May I meet them all there! But whither am I wandering? Liverpool—another look at Liverpool, another benefice to the English Cunard line, and then farewell to Europe forever and forever!
A. B. Longstreet.
P. S. I forgot to mention many kind invitations that I have received from distinguished personages. I declined them all, not indifferently nor disrespectfully, but because they were obviously given to me as a member of the Congress, which I was not when they reached me, and never shall be.
Note. The Epistle to Philemon has been an enigma to commentators for seventeen hundred years. That it is the fruit of divine inspiration has never been questioned by Christians; and it is but a letter from Paul to a brother, pleading for a runaway slave whom he sent home to his master. Read it, and see the Christians who joined in it. In Paul’s day they did not steal negroes and murder their masters. There were no Browns and Hugos in those days. Philemon was beloved of Paul, was doubtless a preacher, and had a church in his house. Is not the enigma now solved? Can we not now see why the epistle was inspired? What would become of us if we were bound to emancipate under all circumstances, or forfeit heaven? I have only hinted at the horrors of the thing.
“It was made the subject of inquiry by some as to the means by which I entered that scientific assemblage. It was through the same doorway which admitted every other member, not a delegated representative, that is, a royal commission.
“By the established usages of this annual assembly, any persons of known scientific attainments, great authorship, mechanical inventions of mathematical complication, researches and discoveries in topographical, geological, or geographical explorations, are regarded as legitimately entitled to the consideration of the royal commissioners, three of whom are always appointed by the sovereign or ruler of that country to which the succeeding Congress is assigned to meet. These commissioners have all the arrangement of the coming Congress in their hands, and issue all the commissions of special membership to those not accredited as national representative delegates.
“By courtesy, the diplomatic representatives of every nation present are ex-officio vice-presidents, with two specially selected vice-presidents.
“When the time drew near for the arrival of his royal highness, the Congress was organized, the members taking their seats, and the official dignitaries seated on the platform.
“The royal crimson chair, and one on either side reserved for the prince and his associates, vice-presidents, were vacant. Great demonstrations were made, which gave evidence that some important personage approached, when it was soon observed that it was the arrival of the ex-lord high chancellor of England. He was escorted to his seat on the platform.
“Soon after, music was heard, succeeded by the entry of pages, unrolling the crimson carpet, which preceded the entry of the prince president. At this the whole Congress arose to their feet, with rousing claps of applause. Ascending the platform, his royal highness stood before the chair of state, bowed, and took his seat, when immediately the Hon. George M. Dallas, the American minister, and the Right Hon. Lord Brougham, were conducted by the royal commissioners to the vacant seats on the right and left of his royal highness.
“The prince, with his usual dignity, now arose, bowed, and commenced reading one of the most profound and philosophically simple and comprehensive addresses delivered during the present century.
“In the course of his remarks, he alluded to his former preceptor, Count Vishers, paying great compliments to him. He concluded amidst suppressed applause, suggestive of a feeling which hesitated to show itself, for fear of committing an impropriety before the royal author. That great and generous-hearted gentleman, Lord Brougham, instantly arose, and addressing the Congress, said, ‘I rise not to address myself to his royal highness, but to you, my lords and gentlemen of the Congress, not to permit the presence of his royal highness to restrain you from giving vent and full scope to that outburst of applause, which you are desirous of giving in approbation of that great good sense, philosophical and most extraordinary discourse, to which we have had the honor and pleasure, as well as profit, of listening.’
“Immediately taking his seat, the assemblage gave vent to rapturous applause. As it concluded, he again rose to his feet, remarking in general terms that it was a most extraordinary assemblage of the world’s wisdom, and that those who were there were fortunate in being members of such a body, presided over by that great personage, the prince consort of England.
“He also made allusions to the presence of the imperial director of public works from France, the representatives from Brazil, Spain, and some other countries, as an evidence of the progress of the age; then taking his seat, and instantly arising in such a hasty manner, as though something important had been omitted, that he attracted the attention of the entire assembly; when, extending his hands almost across his Royal Highness, he remarked, ‘I would remind my friend, Mr. Dallas, that there is a negro member of this Congress’ (directing his hand towards me): smiling, he resumed his seat. Mr. Dallas, seeming to receive this kindly, bowed and smiled.
“Count Vishers now rose to reply to the compliments made to him by the prince; then followed the director of the public works from France, followed by the Brazilian representative, and concluding with the Spanish diplomatist.
“While I fully comprehended his lordship’s interest, meaning, and its extent, the thought flashed instantly across my mind, How will this assembly take it? May it not be mistaken by some, at least, as a want of genuine respect for my presence, by the manner in which the remarks were made? And again, would not my silence be regarded as inability to comprehend a want of deference on the part of his lordship? Or should I not be accused of regarding as a compliment a disparaging allusion towards me? These thoughts passed through my mind so soon as his lordship concluded his remarks, and as soon as the minister from Spain was seated, I rose in my place, and said,—
“‘I rise, your Royal Highness, to thank his lordship, the unflinching friend of the negro, for the remarks he has made in reference to myself, and to assure your royal highness and his lordship that I am a man.’ I then resumed my seat. The clapping of hands commenced on the stage, followed by what the London Times was pleased to call ‘the wildest shouts ever manifested in so grave an assemblage.’
“So soon as the applause had subsided, the prince arose and announced the Congress adjourned, to meet at two o’clock the next day; the sections to meet in their several departments at ten, to meet the general Congress at two.
“These were my words verbatim. Why Judge Longstreet’s sarcastic interpolations, I do not know, nor am I able to account for such manifestations.
“They were not simply British, as the learned judge complained in his singular report to the secretary of the treasury, ‘because the loudest and wildest shouts’ came from the Continental members. These manifestations I can only attribute to a spontaneous outburst of gratification to them at a scene so unexpected in all its relations, without any reference whatever to the United States. And Judge Longstreet entirely misinterpreted the interest and meaning of the manifestation.
“I take pleasure in making the correction now, as far as the generous great are concerned, that it may be favorably recorded in the history of our time, because they would not beg an interpretation at the hands of those who wilfully persist in an historic misrepresentation of that which in all diplomatic and national civility—to say nothing of generosity—should have been understood and accepted by all present.
“The next day, when the general Congress convened, on calling for the reports from the several sections, which presented the papers for ratification before that body, alphabetically arranged, and by courtesy commencing with America, it was discovered that the entire American representation, except Dr. Jarvis, from Boston, Mass., had withdrawn,—the fact being stated by the doctor, who presented the paper placed in his hands by Judge Longstreet, whose office it was to present it as head of the representation, and only direct national delegate (Dr. Jarvis being only a state delegate). Lord Brougham, the first vice-president, who, in the absence of the royal president, filled the chair, arose, remarking, ‘This reminds me of a statement made in the papers this morning, that I had designedly wounded the feelings of the American minister at this court, which I deny as farthest from my intention, as all who know me (and I appeal to the American minister himself, Mr. Dallas being a friend of mine), whether I have not uniformly stood forth as the friend of that government and people? Now, what is this “offence” complained of? Why, on the opening of this august assemblage (possibly the largest in number, and the most learned, that the world ever saw together from different nations, to be among whom any man might feel proud, as an evidence of his advance, civilization, and attainments), what is the fact? Why, here we see, even in this unequalled council, a son of Africa, one of that race whom we have been taught to look upon as inferior. I only alluded to this as one of the most gratifying as well as extraordinary facts of the age.”
“The noble and philanthropic lord then took his seat amidst another cause of offence.”
These are the facts of that historical incident quoted from his own writings on the subject. Whatever may have been the motive underlying the action of the southern judge besides the reasons given to the public by him, it is not our province to interfere with; but if it were his intention to bring the high-toned negro delegate, receiving the same honors accorded to the other members of the Congress, into derision, in his undignified haste his failure was most signal in Europe, as well as with most thinking persons, not governed by their prejudices, in America.[5]
The following comment, written at the time, is from the papers of his friend, Mr. Frederick Douglas, who, towering in colossal grandeur beside the self-made heroes of our country, his eagle glance noting every pulse-throb of the great American body politic, seems a proper exponent of these indisputable facts.