Part 3

Who accuses us of cowardice? No one, unless it be my honorable opponent. Can we purchase freedom and independence by the sacrifice of thousands of our unfortunate people, in belligerent opposition to those who have the prëeminence in position, power and influence; whose numerical strength is ten times that of our own? We may sell our lives dearly, carry havoc and destruction into the ranks of our enemies, but the numerical preponderance, the unlimited means at their control, must force us to succumb or cease to exist on this continent as a race. All reason and experience will decide that—look at it as you may. The history of the Aborigines of this country must satisfy you of the force of this mode of reasoning.

To contend against the government then with any hope of success, is vain and not worthy of the time we spend in discussing it.

Admitting, for mere argument, that the government would accept our services, how could we, more than the commander of the West, General Fremont, influence the policy of the administration to our liberation or emancipation from prejudice and slavery? No, my friends, your reason must answer, no!—no fighting will emancipate you from prejudice. Will any one tell me that to-day a poor man, of little or no intellectual cultivation, from the Independent Government of Hayti, will be more respected in this or any country than one of the native born of this country, of our color? Did they not wield both fire and sword fiercely, to desperation, for the liberties they now enjoy? But to command respect, wealth and education must do it—_they_ will do more towards destroying that prejudice which darkens our existence than all the fighting we can effect under the most favorable circumstances.

Mr. G. tells us that we should make ourselves felt. In that I agree with him; but may we not question the manner in which we can do it the more effectually.

I am told the object of the exhibitors at the Great Exhibition in London, the World’s Fair, in 1851, was to make themselves felt by the exhibition of their great advancement in Art and Science; the object of those nations contributing their quota by invitation, was the same. The Fair was, we are told, a complete success. That should satisfy us, that the cultivation of peace, of arts and science, will go equally as far as an unsuccessful war, to produce that high respect we are advised to fight for. I, for one, am satisfied that other means of making ourselves felt, at less sacrifice of existence and more beneficial to the desired end, than wielding the sword, can be found. That impression that awards us credit, and challenges not only competition as equals, but commands that respect which an array or force of arms, situated as we are, can never force upon this or any nation whose interests are immediately identified with the institution of slavery—and the safety of that depending to an extent upon the crushing despotism and deprivations visited upon those dangerous to its progress or stability—is what we want to make ourselves felt. No unarmed, ununiformed masses of colored men, parading through the streets, will ever produce or tend to produce such impression.

Mr. G. takes this stand: (I give his own language, word for word, as follows:) “Now I maintain that, for all practical purposes, whatever be the turn of the war, preparation on our part, by the most efficient knowledge of military art and discipline, is one of the most positive demands of the times.”

As an off-set to that position, I here take my stand: That the encouragement of every pursuit of industry and education, aside from war matters, are deserving and should (more especially at this time while the usurpers of our rights and liberties are engaged in desperate conflict) meet our most vigorous and undivided cöoperation! That that policy, adopted, realized, and perfected, alone can produce the requisite means to establish our claim to the respect we need; to open the many avenues of wealth, prominence, political and civil equality, without which, no display of military drill, of hordes of unarmed or armed men, ignorant of every other necessary qualification as serviceable citizens, will command.

Momentary admiration for exhibitions of well drilled men and military tactics, which I believe would follow, would create sensation among the sight-lovers who swarm in all thickly populated districts; but that indelible impression, mighty to move the hearts of men to action, but when moved, calls forth imperishable convictions, lasting as time itself, must emanate from something deeper, more reliable, than brute force or the chance life of military campaigning, of soldiers ungarnished by the more essential qualities that make the man the citizen. As to military displays creating respect by efficient drill, especially among us, I have my doubts. The most ignorant, unprincipled desperado, or tyrant, or usurper, that disgraces humanity by his villainy, may be the most perfectly disciplined soldier, may be daring, regardless of danger either to limb or life—his daring may create admiration, but his infamous character, as a man of dishonorable proclivities, dissipation and barbarity, will blast his reputation, however bravely won on the field of battle.

Mr. G. says: “Had every State in the Union taken active steps in the direction of forming regiments of color, we should now, instead of numbering eight regiments, of about eight thousand five hundred men, have numbered seventy-five thousand, besides awakening an interest, at home and abroad, that no vacillating policy of the half-hearted semi-secessionists of the North could have suppressed. It would have relieved the administration of so much room for cavil on the slavery question, and colored men’s right to bear arms,” &c., &c.

Permit me to ask of any candid thinker, who, perhaps, is better informed than myself on this matter, whether the States can independently force any number of men upon the General Government contrary to the wish or will of the constituted authorities, who I suppose have the power of either accepting or rejecting white or colored men, as prudence, interest, or necessity dictates, or who were disqualified by legal restrictions?

If the States cannot constitutionally do this, would not then the encouragement of raising those regiments environ the administration in complications, and force that cavil which friend G. would obviate?

Mr. Green also informs us that “the evidences of God’s demands upon our patriotism as warriors, are so strong, that none need mistake them.” I have yet to see the evidences of God’s will or demands upon us in that direction, to take up arms for our own destruction, to destroy our bond brother, or to assist those who are contending in spirit against His righteous mandates, the principle of which is “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” If, then, the result of that policy advocated by Mr. G. cannot effect the desired end he would have, we must, if ever entertaining it, abandon it at once, and pursue that policy which reason teaches is not only the safest but the wisest.

I am satisfied, that recruiting, drilling or fighting, will never break this innate prejudice imbedded in the hearts of this nation.

The admiration we might win by bravery, &c., when brought into action as soldiers, might easily be overshadowed by one act or false accusation, brought against us by those jealous of our gallant exploits when in active service.

With all respect for Mr. Green’s literary accomplishments and scholar-like production, he is still in the dark, and may with propriety cry out, as one in times gone by, “Lord! that I may receive my sight.”

Supposing that we, with one accord, enter upon that fallacious policy of raising regiments for the war, could we do it without it becoming a public feature, noticeable by foes as well as friends?

With Southern emissaries thronging our hotels, thoroughfares, stores, &c., would not the Confederates be likely to gain this important information with equal facility as they obtain other news that enables them to counterbalance every move made by the national forces? If we admit this, why may we not, from the knowledge we have of their (the Southerners’) disposition, believe that, as a direful retaliation, they would arm their free and enslaved colored men, and compel them to fight against us on the field of battle, while such patriots as A. M. G., who we could not well afford to lose, would have the unpleasant duty assigned to him and his associates in arms of destroying those whom he might now benefit by adopting a policy contrary to the misguided suicidal course he so eloquently advocates. If I have the honor to be termed “one of those unfortunates who are willing to wait and see the salvation of God,” by Mr. G., I accept the conferred honor with many thanks.

The wisdom of the course I advocate, and that advocated by A. M. G., time alone will decide. Patiently, however, I abide time, clinging to my avowed policy, humbly trusting in Him who I have every reason to think has taken the cause of the oppressed of our people in this land out of our weak hands, and has or is about to answer our many appeals in His own glorious way, while we continue to lift our hearts, our hands, in praise and thanksgiving to His holy name.

R. H. V.

IV.

REPLY.

From the Anglo-African, November 9 and 16, 1861.

MR. EDITOR:

Absence from home has prevented my notice of the rejoinder of your able correspondent, R. H. V., on the War policy. I now avail myself of a leisure hour to reply. I am one of those who believe that truth loses nothing from investigation, and it is at all times the most pleasant and agreeable feature in the honest investigation of truth to know that your opponent can properly appreciate honor, candor and gentlemanly generosity for the views of his antagonist. My friend, your correspondent R. H. V., seems largely to possess those characteristic traits of a gentleman and scholar. I am pleased to find my antagonist on this question, of that progressive class of minds, who can honorably differ with his fellows, without condescending to that hateful and disgusting virulence manifested of late among the ancient leaders of our people, in very high circles. I think among us boys, (as our more ancient leaders are wont to term us,) this practical fact of itself develops progress. My friend thinks that so far as my declamation is concerned, my arguments may do very well; but he wants facts to make it appear that my position is tenable. I am willing to submit our previous articles, respectively, to the arbitration of those who have read them, and abide their decision as to whose arguments are the most self-evident, and whose position is sustained by the greatest number of facts. I think that a careful comparison of the articles and the premises on which they are based, will prove my friend’s production quite as liberally bereft of that important auxiliary in debate (proof) as my own iridescent missive. Invidious distinctions among the colored people of this continent have done more to keep us oppressed than all other efforts of white men combined. By this rule we have ever been unable to wring from this government the acknowledgment of black genius, adequate to the successful competition of whites, in governmental power. White men have ever made us believe that the interests of black men in Mexico, Hayti, Jamaica, Canada, and even in Africa, were really as dissimilar to the interests of colored Americans, as is the difference in the respective statures of the giraffe and dormouse. All these countries offered very superior advantages to colored men of genius, long before American diplomacy and American prejudice had the power to influence them against us. But this stand-still policy, and this reasoning upon the false and prejudiced suggestions of our oppressors and misguided friends, has been the successful drawback to every well-directed plan of concentrated effort for our elevation, such as would have been adopted with successful results by any other people similarly situated. Had we obeyed the dictates of reason, and the offer of those people made to us years ago, instead of now going to California to black boots, wait at tables, and wash spittoons, our leading men might have been large contractors, land owners, and citizens to all intents and purposes; while the secondary class of our people might have filled very enviable positions in contrast to what they now fill in that country; for, you remember, that the acquisition of territory from Mexico changed none of her laws relating to her resident citizens in any part of the territory ceded to, or purchased by, the United States. What, then, kept us from joining with the English and French emigrants in California before the war?—becoming citizens under the law of Mexico, and forcing the United States, by the laws of nations, to respect that position to the present day, as she does blacker men and less cultivated than two-thirds of the colored people of the United States—who cannot even enjoy their oath against one of those fellows, black though he be, if he happen to be a Mexican? The reason is obvious; white men, seeing the result of such a measure, denied our identity of interest with the colored people favored by the laws of Mexico and California; and though Mexico entreated us to make our home with them, (as Hayti now entreats us from the same reasons,) we objected. Our leading men, reasoning upon this absurd theory of prejudiced white men, counseled us to stand still and see the salvation of God; but instead of the analogy being carried out, and we seeing our oppressors declining in strength, as did Israel, we see them day by day growing stronger; until they had made that blessed land of Freedom as odious from their accursed prejudice as any other part of the United States, and now these same leaders cease to counsel standing still, but counsel our going to California. In the name of heaven, I ask, for what should we now go there? They say, to better their condition and make a living; I say to become worse slaves and menials than us they leave behind. This is the stand-still policy I am at variance with; standing still till all advantages are lost, and we are left in the same darkness and degradation that a brilliant epoch in the history of our country has found us, and is compelled to leave us, because we refuse to get up and run with the world to the great issue to which she is tending—universal Freedom. There is no such thing as stand still in this nineteenth century; you must progress backward or forward; the world is rushing on; he or they who will not move with her, must be crushed by her onward march.

My friend says he has yet to learn that these are practically established facts; “that grasping the sword will emancipate us from prejudice and slavery.” Indeed, he asks: “Will the proposition bear questioning?” I answer, yes, in the most positive sense, because four-fifths of all the emancipations from these evils among men have been brought about by this means. The Israelites were carried away captives seven times by Pharoah, Tiglath-Pilaser, Shalmanezer, Nebuchadnezer, and finally, by Titus. These men forced them to serve as slaves and vassals, not only to themselves, but to their successors in Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, and Persia, over which empires they respectively held dominion. The Israelites groaned and prayed to God, lifting their windows towards the city of the great King three times a day—but never were released in five out of seven cases, till they grasped the sword, and like Samson, cried to God for strength to drive it to the hilt. In one of the other cases of the seven, God himself, by the use of elements more destructive and desolating than the sword, effected the purpose by a national slaughter. My comment on all these Bible transactions may be found in the writings of the Prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and Hosea. A careful study of these inspired writers, and the chronological history of the Jews through all those years of their servitude and degradation, develops the fact that the special direction of God, by the mouth of his prophets, is decidedly at variance with my friend’s peace measures and neutral policy, in a war against the greatest moral, social, and intellectual antagonist to human progress that now curses the civilized world. Turning from sacred history to more recent dates, I am taught by the modern historian that the vassals and slaves of the entire continent of Europe, a few centuries ago, are now its free citizens—made free by the power of their own strength, contending often against fearful odds for the advancement of the cause of human suffrage. The once lowest castes of Hindostan are now the free gentoos of that empire. The slaves that built the pyramids of Egypt are now, it is true, the degraded but free Moslem of that land. The Mexicans that Cortez found in that country, working as slaves of the emperors and priesthood, are now the free population of Mexico. The slaves of England, France, and Spain, in the West Indies, are now the independent Haytians, the citizens of the Dominican Republic, and the British West Indies. Now let me ask by what special interposition of Providence, aside from the general rule of grasping the sword, have these changes been brought about? The answer comes back from the earliest antiquity, that the universal rule for Emancipation, Equality and Enfranchisement, whether it be to the Jewish slaves of antiquity, the Roman slaves, the Grecian helots, the German feudal vassals, the serfs of Russia, the Indian slaves of Mexico and Central America, or the African slaves of the West India Islands, the one, the all-prevailing influence for removing these accursed systems of tyranny and oppression is, and ever has been, an appeal to the sword, wielded by strong and energetic arms and minds, aided and guided by that Omnipotence that is ever on the side of justice, and who directs the blow so as to spread terror and dismay among the oppressors of a crushed and bleeding race, the outraged struggling victims of injustice and wrong. So will God help us if we conform to this universal rule; and cease to cling to this abstract rule of “stand still and see the salvation,” etc., which, after all, never can be applied to our case at present, for the Israelites had done what we have steadily refused to do, _i. e._, they had spoiled their oppressors, and were marching out of their land in rank and file. Are we willing to do likewise? Then, again, it was only when they had gone to the last extremity of human effort, and were about to turn back to slavery, and to be buried in Egypt, that Moses gave the command to stand still, etc. Now, I am willing to grant my friend the full benefit of this one isolated case in support of his theory, as far as it goes—when we have performed our part as faithfully even as those to whom it was addressed. When the slaves have raised the standard of rebellion against their masters, and have broken every yoke, and then, by some great impending danger, are about to yield and go back again to slavery, I, like Moses, rather than retrograde, would readily counsel standing still, at least for a while. When we of the North, by indefatigable exertion (and sacrifice, if required) have armed and equipped ourselves, and become proficient in all that pertains to self-defence, as men in our condition should be, and then find ourselves environed with some of the difficulties that my friend predicts would follow such a significant result, and we, like Israel, are about turning back to our present unhappy and insignificant condition, I, for one, should steadfastly counsel standing still with fixed bayonets and torn cartridges, to see the salvation of God; which I verily believe would be seen, if we followed those general rules to which I cling, notwithstanding the enemy’s prëeminence of position, superior numerical strength, &c.