Monday, August 30, 2010

From New Orleans to New York to Nairobi: Housing is a Human Right!



This is the Black Agenda Morning Shot for Monday, August 30, 2010 being brought to you by Kali Akuno from New Orleans, Louisiana. As Black August 2010 draws to a close, Black people in New Orleans, the Mississippi Gulf Coast, and throughout the country commemorated the Ma’afa or great calamity of Hurricane Katrina that struck the Mississippi Gulf Coast on August 29th, 2005.

The day was one of remembrance for those who needlessly lost their lives due to government incompetence and strategic neglect and those who were and remain displaced. It was also a day of continued resistance to the ethnic and class cleansing taking place in New Orleans and other Black and oppressed communities throughout the Gulf Coast.

Perhaps the most strategic act of resistance occurred in the St. Bernard Community of New Orleans where Survivors Village protested President Barack Obama’s visit of the Columbia Parc development, which rests on the site of the demolished St. Bernard Development.

In a statement issued after the demonstration, Survivors Village stated: “as the rest of the city focused on the disaster of August 29, 2005 as an event that happened and has passed, residents of public housing and supporters stood in an all day rain to protest the visit of President Obama to a neighborhood that has been purged of poor people, turned over to Warren Buffet and his investor friends, and is being promoted as the future of public housing around the country.”

The future that Obama came to support today is the total privatization of public housing throughout the country, which his administration is advancing with its promotion of the PETRA Bill. As billionaire Warren Buffet stated on his visit of the Columbia Parc development in March, “New Orleans is Key”, by which he meant the total destruction of public housing which he is promoting through his Purpose Built Communities organization which he co-founded with Atlanta Tom Cousins, who administered the destruction of all of Atlanta’s public housing earlier in the decade.

However, activists in New Orleans have no intention on submitting to the designs of PETRA, or complaining with Buffett’s dreams and going the way of Atlanta. They are mobilizing on the following demands:

•  that any former resident wanting to live in Columbia Parc should be admitted immediately and unconditionally
•  that the false charges against Sharon Jasper be dropped immediately and the threat to terminate her voucher be withdrawn
•  that the demand for more than 30,000 Section 8 vouchers be met immediately, and
•  that the PETRA bill threatening to privatize public housing throughout the country be permanently withdrawn.
 ------------------------
To learn more about this story or to support the initiatives of Survivors Village visit http://communitiesrising.wordpress.com.
Also visit the US Human Rights Network www.ushrnetwork.org.
Again, this is Kali Akuno bringing you some news you can use for the Black Agenda Report.

Thursday, August 19, 2010

 Fewer Than Half of African-American
Males Graduate from High School
on Time, Schott Report Finds
Despite the hype about education progress in NYC's schools by Mayor Bloomberg and his YESMen, our young Black Male citizens are deeper into the School-to-Prison Pipeline. A mere 28 out of 100 young Brothers graduate. Let's not even talk about what those graduates know since they -on average (median or mean... take your pick... either way, it reveals Educational Genocide)- read and do math at 3rd and 4th grade levels. The solution here in NYC and across Black America is in Our Black Hands and Minds-- not some corporate-sponsored hype machines called Green Dot, Kipp or Harlem Children's Zone.

(click on chart to enlarge)




 

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Is Princeton's DuBois Institute's Scholars Summer Program Trying to Create a 21st Century "Talented Tenth"?

Take a look at this short video news report and see whether or not they (The WEB DuBois Institute at Princenton University) are trying to create what DuBois in his later life saw as an elitist error. Please also read their statements below so as to generate your own understanding of what they are trying to do.

WEB DuBois realized that true leaders emerge from sites of struggle-- not manufactured out the of ebony and ivory towers of academe. Yes, many of our 20th Century leaders were Sisters and Brothers who came thru colleges. But their leadership skills and acceptance came via struggles in our communities and places of work.

The Revolutionary Leader commits class suicide and hence, dedicates her/his life to the Liberation of her/his people. This does not have to mean that one gives up their profession. It means that one pushes their profession as far as it can go for the sake of advancing the Black Liberation Struggle. I don't get that sense of development with this Princeton based Institute that is named after a great Black Revolutionary who dedicated almost nine decades of his life to the fundamental social and economic transformation of US Society so as to help make Black Liberation a reality.

Dubois, like Martin Luther King, is being pimped by those very same class enemies of the vast majority of our People. It is great to see the young Sisters and Brothers from different class backgrounds coming together for 5 intellectually intensive weeks. But to have the goal of being elite "leaders" who will legitimate and guide our people further into the HellHole called Capitalism is absolutely wrong!

And we need to challenge that at every opportunity we get!

I also understand that this is about the only thing that could come out of the Princeton of 2010. why? Because we are now in an age when reactionary ideas and policies dominate academia. The liberals and progressives in academia have been kicked to the curb or sequestered in academe's version of "the box" (i.e. intellectual solitary confinement). Class stratification among Black students and faculty is more pronounced now than since the 1940s and 50s when E Franklin Frazier was observing and writing about the budding Black petty bourgeoisie.

I am sure many of you who have not yet given up The Good Fight have ideas on how we can combat this creeping malaise of the "Niggeoisie." Feel free to post your suggestions here!
-------------------

=============================

W.E.B. DuBois Scholars Institute:  

Message From the Executive Director

Guided by an inspired sense of duty to help our people and make America better, the W.E.B. DuBois Scholars Institute was founded in 1988 with the aim of solving some of society’s intractable problems of poverty, urban decay, and disintegrating families, not by attacking the problems but by strengthening the solution. The solvers of these problems will most likely come from the high-achieving African- American and Latino-American youths that demonstrate an ability to lead and achieve both in and out of the classroom. The Institute provides training to equip them with the skills and confidence to function as effective “change agents” in their schools, their communities, and the community at large. For the duration of its existence; the W.E.B. DuBois Scholars Institute has benefitted from the support of many people, groups, and organizations. Many people have volunteered their service and talents as well as financial support on our behalf.


As we begin the first quarter of the 21st century, hopelessness, despair, and poverty remain problems of epidemic proportions in African-American and Latino-American urban communities. After decades of neglect in a society that is rapidly changing through advancement in technology, science and education, these problems have become increasingly more complex and difficult to understand and solve. They have contributed to a steady increase in the education and economic gaps that exist between impoverished urban and affluent suburban households. As such, the need for cadres of highly trained scholars, leaders, and entrepreneurs who are committed to mobilizing their talents and other resources to improve their comminutes and the nation is greater now than ever before.

Hence, at this phase of the W.E.B. DuBois Scholars Institute’s existence, it is appropriate for us to reflect on its effectiveness. What is its real value? To what extent are former participants engaged in personal growth and community service activities consistent with the aims of the Institute?

Each year from 1988 to the present, we have maintained statistical data in such areas as student participants’ academic-achievement records and leadership activities. It is clear from the data, as well as from reports from students, parents, educators, and community leaders that the Institute is on target in preparing the quality of minds and character that will be needed in the new century. We find that young scholars, after attending the Institute, often move on with higher expectations for themselves; have a more informed world view; and have a commitment to engage their talents in the study of complex problems and in improving the lives of others.

Though in some ways its simplicity flies in the face of wisdom: Our aim is to help solve some of society’s intractable problems of poverty, urban decay and disintegrating families, not just by attacking the problems, but by strengthening the solution. Activist scholars, who possess a commitment to eliminating poverty and racism are an integral part of that solution. As they mature, these potential leaders are expected to work collectively to provide hope, direction and vision for African-Americans and Latino-Americans in the 21st century.

Indeed, that is the essence of the Institute’s philosophy: Giving Back.

Cordially,
Sherle L. Boone
Founder and Executive Director 


--------------------

About The Institute

Since its inception in 1988, a primary aim of the W.E.B. DuBois Scholars Institute has been to develop a cadre of young leaders / scholars with a sense of community purpose, who would be committed to giving back for the betterment of their communities and nation. As they evolve into maturity, these potential leaders are expected to provide hope, direction, and vision for African-Americans and Latino-Americans in the 21st century. The Institute provides training designed to develop such cadres of brilliant minds from these groups who will possess a commitment to eliminating poverty and racism, and will inspire the masses to overcome conditions that impede their prosperity and pursuit of happiness.
====================

...And a Lil Sumthin Sumthin via Poltical HipHop... What if the Tea Party Was BLACK?


Sunday, August 08, 2010

Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) Score By Race

 Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) 
Score By Race + Gender- 2009
(Click image to enlarge)
==============

Let's Look at the Racial Disparity a little closer...
...And the Gap is Widening!






Wednesday, August 04, 2010

Video Interview With Chicago Teachers Union Prez Karen Lewis

Charter School Hype & Privatization--
Karen Lewis Breaks It Down



PARTII of Interview:


-----------------
Karen Lewis is a president of Chicago Teachers Union and a chemistry teacher at Martin Luther King College Prep, Chicago, IL.
====================================

Monday, August 02, 2010

French Cops Brutalize Evicted African Women & Babies


French Riot Police Drag Away Women And Babies

VIDEO: 
UK, Monday August 02, 2010
Damien Pearse, Sky News Online

French riot police have been captured on video dragging immigrant women along the ground with babies on their backs during an eviction.




The video posted on the web shows officers armed with batons scuffling with African immigrant squatters from an encampment in the suburbs of Paris.
One of the women is visibly pregnant.

French police drag away women of African origin
A mother clings desperately to her terrified baby during the eviction
The footage, shot by a member of a housing-rights organisation, shows police dragging a woman across the ground with her infant trailing behind in the dirt.
No-one was injured in the July 21 operation in La Courneuve, a suburb northeast of Paris, local officials said.
But human rights campaigners denounced the "brutal evacuation" of some 200 people.

French police drag away women of African origin
A baby - strapped to its mother's back - is dragged along the dirt
MRAP, a leading human rights group, said people in the video had all been expelled from previous housing and provided with no long-term solutions.
The evacuation was handled "according to legal procedures and rules", the government of the Seine-Saint-Denis region around La Corneuve said.
French politicians and the media have attacked a host of new government proposals targeting immigrants suspected of crimes.

French police drag away women of African origin
A pregnant woman is dragged along the ground by riot police
They have accused President Nicolas Sarkozy of pandering to the far-right in a bid to boost his popularity.
The interior minister defended the measures, calling them part of France's "war against insecurity".

Thursday, July 29, 2010


Let me say--putting all my cards on the table so to speak--that the Sherrods are my friends. Charles Sherrod, the husband of the now controversial, fired USDA official Shirley Sherrod, was one of the founders and leaders of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). We worked together.

So what are we looking at? Well, the whole video shows Shirley Sherrod using an anecdotal story to describe a prejudicial attitude she had 24 years ago about her reservations with helping white farmers given the plight of black farmers; she used it as an illustration of racial reconciliation. It was important, she said, to get beyond race when it came to helping farmers in need.

Here's the conclusion Sherrod comes to in her remarks on this matter: ''Working with him made me see that it's really about those who have versus those who don't. And they could be black, they could be white, they could be Hispanic--it made me realize that I needed to help poor people.''

In truth, nobody black--at least of a certain age--completely escapes the inclination to mentally mutter: How come the white people get most of the help? That Sherrod was willing to use her own attitude from a quarter century ago seems like a positive thing; especially with a U.S. government department that has been as notoriously racist and discriminatory as the USDA.

I know Charles Sherrod better than Shirley Sherrod. Back in the day when he was SNCC project director for southwest Georgia, he insisted on a racially integrated organizing team. Those of us stationed in Mississippi were reluctant, saying, that our assignment was dangerous enough without adding to the danger in this way. But Charlie insisted that we had to force the issue. This history adds to the strangeness of the kind of controversy swirling around Shirley Sherrod.

As a reporter, I know how easy it is to take an excerpt and project it in such a way as to distort the position of someone, especially if you have a political agenda.

After watching the entire video of Sherrod's remarks, NAACP president and chief operating officer Ben Jealous has now retracted his organization's initial renouncement of Shirley Sherrod, declaring that the NAACP had been  ''snookered.'' Jealous even suggested that the controversy was a deliberate deception by the conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart, who ''broke'' this story.

At least the NAACP's Jealous took the time to look at the entire video. Apparently neither the White House nor the Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack bothered to do so once they felt the flames of right-wing criticism. But then again, blacks traditionally have been expendable at this level of politics.

Charles Cobb Jr. is senior analyst for All Africa. His latest book is On the Road to Freedom: A Guided Tour of the Civil Rights Trail.
----------------------------

Shirley Sherrod and the Politics of Overreaction
By: Terence Samuel
July 20, 2010

I feel bad for Shirley Sherrod. Not just because she lost her job. Not just because it may be that she did not do what she is accused of doing. Not because her only crime may be the very postmodern transgression of being on video and out of context. (Hear her remarks in context here.) I feel bad for Shirley Sherrod because she is only the latest example of how difficult it is for us to get beyond our own racial race. I feel bad for her because I feel bad for all of us. We're stuck. Her firing and the overreaction from the White House, the USDA and the NAACP are just more depressing plot points in the sad story of race in America.

The irony here is so rich that it is almost farcical. After almost 150 years of the USDA being a bastion of racist and discriminatory practices that hurt hundred of thousands of black people, a black USDA employee is accused of not helping a white farmer because he was white, and gets fired. It's a small thing, but that's what racism is: small, stupid and always painful. It appears that Sherrod told this story on herself, but she is bigger and smarter than that and was actually making the opposite point.

Sherrod is not just a victim of current partisan circumstances; she is also a victim of our long, tangled and painful history of race. Her "confession" that she did not apply "the full force of what I could do" to help a white farmer save his farm is exactly the kind of thing that had been happening to black farmers who dealt with the USDA since President Abraham Lincoln established the "people department" in 1862. Only that is not what Sherrod did. For generations, white employees of the USDA, particularly in the South, used the full force of what they could do to make sure that black people were shut out of loan, grant and housing programs that should have been open to everyone.

The class-action suit that tried to redress this harm, famously known as Pigford, was filed in 1997 and settled in 1999. Pigford has achieved iconic civil rights status for the light it cast on the historical wrongs committed by the department. U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman, who issued the ruling in the case, looked squarely at the history: "Today there are fewer than 18,000 African-American farms in the United States, and African-American farmers now own less then 3 million acres of land," he wrote. "The United States Department of Agriculture and the county commissioners to whom it has delegated so much power bear much of the responsibility for this dramatic decline."

The suit alleged that not only had the Agriculture Department discriminated against black farmers, but when they complained about that discrimination, the USDA did not investigate or respond to those charges of bias. One of the conditions of the settlement was that the federal government would pay $50,000 to each farmer who sought USDA help and did not get it.

But when the Obama administration took office, the farmer found a champion in former Iowa governor and new Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, who announced that fixing the civil right enforcement problems and the department's poor reputation were among his top priorities.

Vilsack concluded that the eight years of the Bush administration that followed Pigford only made a bad problem worse. More than 14,000 civil rights claims were filed against the USDA during the Bush administration, but almost none got any attention.

Vilsack ordered a review. "We just need to know," he told me in the spring of 2009. "One of two things happened: Either we don't let people know when they have a legitimate claim or we were not reviewing them properly."

The sensitivity and focus attached to this case is such that in February of this year, Vilsack and Attorney General Eric Holder announced a settlement of $1.25 billion to pay more Pigford claims, and the administration budgeted $1.15 billion in a 2010 supplemental budget request for those settlement costs.

This was not the time for Sherrod to say that she did not do what she could to help a farmer because of his race. This is the kind of this that will get you fired at USDA. In a statement released by the USDA Tuesday, Vilsack said he had accepted Sherrod's resignation, and took the time to repeat that the department would not tolerate discrimination.

The irony, of course, is that Shirley Sherrod may be guilty of no such thing. Just to recap:

Sherrod's story about the white farmer took place more than two decades before she worked for USDA, and the entire point of the story was that race is not an issue. The story was about how she and the family became friends and how she eventually helped them save their farm.

In the wake of her resignation, the farmer's wife, Eloise Spooner, told CNN that Sherrod went all out to help them. "She's the one I can credit with helping us saving our farm," Spooner said, but 26 years later, conservative bloggers could rewrite that story to great effect.

Soon after Obama took office, Vilsack noted that some of the lingering problems had to do with USDA'S troubled history: "I think it is a reflection of the past and decisions that were made long ago, and we are still dealing with the consequences," he said.

Add Shirley Sherrod to the list of consequences. We're stuck in consequences.

Terence Samuel is The Root's editor-at-large. His first book, The Upper House: A Journey Behind the Closed Doors of the U.S. Senate, was released in May by Palgrave Macmillan. Follow him on Twitter.

---------

Links:

[1] http://www.theroot.com/users/tsamuel
[2] http://www.theroot.com/buzz/usda-official-resigns-over-racist-remarks
[3] http://www.theroot.com/buzz/plot-thickens-naacp-retracts-condemnation-shirley-sherrods-remarks
[4] http://www.theroot.com/views/usda-still-last-plantation
[5] http://www.newser.com/story/95984/usda-employee-resigns-over-racist-video.html
[6] https://www.amazon.com/dp/0230623611?tag=root04c-20&camp=213381&creative=390973&linkCode=as4&creativeASIN=0230623611&adid=1V6B00NB2KDAZKAH1ZE4&
[7] http://www.twitter.com/tsamuel100
[8] http://www.facebook.com/theroot
[9] http://www.twitter.com/theroot247




-----------------------------
Rachel Maddow Cuts to The Chase on Racist Smear of Sista Sherrod

-----------------------------------------

Shirley Sherrod To Sue Andrew Breitbart

JESSE WASHINGTON | 07/29/10
SAN DIEGO — Ousted Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod said Thursday she will sue a conservative blogger who posted a video edited in a way that made her appear racist.
Sherrod was forced to resign last week as director of rural development in Georgia after Andrew Breitbart posted the edited video online. In the full video, Sherrod, who is black, spoke to a local NAACP group about racial reconciliation and overcoming her initial reluctance to help a white farmer.

Speaking Thursday at the National Association of Black Journalists convention, Sherrod said she would definitely sue over the video that took her remarks out of context. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has since offered Sherrod a new job in the department. She has not decided whether to accept.

Sherrod said she had not received an apology from Breitbart and no longer wanted one. "He had to know that he was targeting me," she said.

Breitbart did not immediately respond to a call or e-mails seeking comment. He has said he posted the portion of the speech where she expresses reservations about helping the white farmer to prove that racism exists in the NAACP, which had just demanded that the tea party movement renounce any bigoted elements.

Some members of the NAACP audience responded approvingly when Sherrod described her reluctance to help the farmer.

The farmer came forward after Sherrod resigned, saying she ended up helping save his farm.

Vilsack and President Barack Obama later called Sherrod to apologize for her hasty ouster.

Obama said Thursday that Sherrod "deserves better than what happened last week."

Addressing the National Urban League, he said the full story Sherrod was trying to tell "is exactly the kind of story we need to hear in America."

Obama has acknowledged that people in his administration overreacted without having full information, and says part of the blame lies with a media culture that seeks conflict but not all the facts.

At the journalists convention, Sherrod was asked what could be done to ensure accurate coverage as conservatives like Breitbart attack the NAACP and other liberal groups.

Sherrod, 62, responded that members of her generation who were in the civil rights movement "tried too much to shield that hurt and pain from younger people. We have to do a better job of helping those individuals who get these positions, in the media, in educational institutions, in the presidency, we have to make sure they understand the history so they can do a better job."

She said Obama is one of those who need a history lesson.

"That's why I invited him to southwest Georgia. I need to take him around and show him some of that history," Sherrod said.

Sherrod said the description of the new job she has been offered in the office of advocacy and outreach was a "draft," and she questioned whether any money had been budgeted for its programs.

"I have many, many questions before I can make a decision," she said.

Despite her experience, Sherrod said she believes the country can heal its racial divisions – if people are willing to confront the issue.

"Young African-Americans, young whites, too, we've done such a job of trying to be mainstream that we push things under the rug that we need to talk about. And then we get to situations like this," she said.

"I truly believe that we can come together in this country. But you don't (come together) by not talking to each other. You don't get there by pushing things under the rug."
Sherrod said her faulty firing should not be blamed on all media.

Before the full video was released, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly said Sherrod should be fired, and others called her speech racist. O'Reilly later apologized.

"They had a chance to get the facts out, and they weren't interested," Sherrod said.

She said she declined to give Fox an interview because she believed they were not interested in pursuing the truth. "They would have twisted it," she said.

A Fox News spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
___

Jesse Washington covers race and ethnicity for The Associated Press. He is reachable at jwashington(at)ap.org.


Tuesday, July 27, 2010


Basil Davidson has died in England aged 95. 
Why should that concern me as an African?


basil_davidson.jpg
Basil Davidson, journalist-historian
Cameron Duodu is a Ghanaian journalist, writer and commentator www.allafrica.com/stories/201007221129.html Well, soon after my country Ghana gained its independence in 1957, thoughts that we had never been exposed to, in our missionary and government schools, began to sneak into our consciousness. For instance, one black American historian/artist called Earl Sweeting, arrived in Accra and tried to interest us in a series of colourful post-cards he had drawn that carried such 'provocative' titles as 'Africans teaching the Greeks mathematics'; 'Africans teaching the Greeks medicine'; and 'Africans teaching the Greeks philosophy.' As editor of the monthly magazine, Drum, I was approached not by Sweeting himself but by his wife, a thin, husky-voiced African-American lady, to run an article on Sweeting's work. I was quite keen to do it, but unfortunately, Sweeting said he had left the books that would support his claims in the US. As a hard-boiled journalist, this sounded like a self-serving excuse, and I stalled the lady by saying that it wasn't possible for me to do anything until I could verify his statements independently.

I wasn't happy to stall them, for I wanted - emotionally - to accept 
Sweeting's claims. But intellectually, I was apprehensive that if I ran 
his claims, which stood on its head the orthodox view that almost 
everything we knew about civilisation was to be traced to the Greeks, I 
would become a laughing stock, at least in academic circles.
  

muslimsfirstonland by earl sweeting.jpg
Earl Sweeting's depiction of African Muslims arriving in North America BEFORE Columbus
My caution was, however, not baseless: Even as I was trying to find ways of making sense of Sweeting's work, the American magazine, Newsweek, got hold of some of his postcards and made fun of them in a derisive article entitled, 'If you have no history, write one!' That, fortunately, did not deter Ghana's ruling party, the Convention People's Party (CPP) from commissioning Sweeting to paint some very beautiful murals that greeted visitors to the CPP Headquarters in Accra, with the themes he was so keen to propagate - the Greeks sitting at the feet of African savants, acquiring knowledge. It was to take 30 years or so for Martin Bernal to publish 'Black Athena' (published by Rutgers University Press (1987) ISBN 0-8135-1277-8) and provide the intellectual substance that conclusively supported the ideas in Sweeting's postcards. Meanwhile, very soon after my encounter with Earl Sweeting, friends of mine studying history or archaeology at the University of Ghana, Legon - among them the late Chris Hesse (who became Ghana's High Commissioner in Zimbabwe) Annan Cato (former Ghana High Commissioner in London and Jimmy Anquandah, now Professor of Archaeology at Legon - began to talk excitedly about a writer called Basil Davidson, who, they said, was writing the 'real' history of ancient Africa. These discussions were done in hushed tones - almost as if they were discussing contraband - because the firm line Legon at the time (an institution mainly staffed by Britons, of course) was that any touting of African historical greatness stemmed from 'charlatan' sources. The historical tradition taught at Legon in those early days was largely predicated upon the view, expressed by a respected British historian and philosopher, David Hume that: 'I am apt to suspect the negroes and in general, all the other species of men (for there are four or five different kinds) to be naturally inferior to the whites. There never was a civilized nation of any other complexion than white, nor even any individual eminent either in action or speculation... Not to mention our colonies, there are Negroe slaves dispersed all over Europe, of which none ever discovered any symptoms of ingenuity; tho' low people, without education, will start up amongst us, and distinguish themselves in every profession.'

Anton Wilhelm Amo
But Hume's pronouncement was a blatant lie. For a Ghanaian, Anton Wilhelm Amo
an Nzema (a sub-group of  the Akan people of Ghana) had, even before Hume wrote in 1753, 
established himself in Germany as one of the great thinkers of his time.

Amo was born in Awukena, near Axim, in 1711. When he was only about four
 years old, he was taken to Amsterdam by the Dutch East India Company. 
There, he was given as a present to Anthony Ulrich, Duke of Brunswick- 
Wolfenbüttel, to whose palace in Wolfenbüttel Amo was taken. Treated as a
 member of the Duke's family, he was educated at the University of 
Halle. He finished his preliminary studies in 1729 - a mere two years, 
his dissertation being: 'The Rights of Moors in Europe'.

Amo then moved to the University of Wittenberg, where he studied logic, 
metaphysics, physiology, astronomy, history, law, theology, politics, 
and medicine. He also acquired six languages (English, French, Dutch, 
Latin, Greek, and German). He gained his doctorate in philosophy at 
Wittenberg in 1734. His thesis was 'On the Absence of Sensation in the 
Human Mind and its Presence in our Organic and Living Body.' That was a 
full 21 years before David Hume made his ignorant remark quoted above.

Amo achieved more: He returned to Halle as a lecturer in philosophy and 
was made a Professor in 1736. In 1738, he wrote his second major work: 
'Treatise on the Art of Philosophising Soberly and Accurately'. 
Ironically, the Wikipedia biography of Amo states that Amo, writing 15 
years before Hume published his racist views, 'developed an empiricist 
epistemology very close to that of philosophers such as John Locke and 
David Hume'. So Hume might well have been influenced by Amo's work, 
whilst condemning Amo's race!

If David Hume could be excused for not knowing any better, the same 
cannot be said of the famous British historian, Hugh Trevor-Roper 
(Professor of History at Oxford university and author of 'The Last Days 
of Hitler'), who stated in 1963 - in terms that suggested that the world
 had stood still since David Hume's days - that 'perhaps in the future, 
there will be some African history to teach. But at present there is 
none'.

It can be seen from the foregoing that when Basil Davidson published his
 'Old Africa Rediscovered' [Victor Gollancz, London, 1959] and it fell 
into the hands of my student friends in the Ghana of the early 1960s, 
they were handed an intellectually revolutionary weapon. They changed 
the central themes of African history from: When Europeans first came to
 our continent; what they did once here; and the 'benign' changes they 
wrought in the lives of the 'savage' natives they came to find - to: 
What great civilisations existed on African soil at a time when the 
people of many European countries were still clothed in skins.

The recommendation of my student friends induced me to buy 'Old Africa 
Rediscovered'. Reading that book was like being knocked on the head with
 a hammer! A soft hammer, however, that benignly scraped away part of 
one's brain cells and replaced them with new, vibrant ones that ensured 
that one maintained a sane attitude to the world thereafter. For how 
could the finely balanced society in which I was brought up, and which 
had survived slavery, ethnic wars, famine and pestilence, be dismissed 
as 'barbarous' by 'historians' who did not even speak my language?

The history I had been taught in school, in such textbooks as 'A Short 
History of the Gold Coast', by W E F Ward, talked endlessly about wars 
between, say, the Ashantis and the British, or the Ashantis and other 
Ghanaian ethnic groups. I still remember two names from that type of 
history - Kwadwo Otibu and Kweku Aputae. They seemed to have cost their 
people a lot of blood and yet for absolutely nothing, as far as I can 
remember!

It appeared from such 'histories' that Africa was a land full of 
barbarous peoples 'until the whiteman came'. Then the whiteman endured a
 lot of troubles, but succeeded in stamping out such evils as 'human 
sacrifice', 'panyarring' and 'slavery' (which incidentally, was carried 
out only by such slave raiders as 'Samory and Babatu' or some Ashanti 
Kings.)

The role of the whiteman in the slave trade - in building boats 
specifically meant to transport as many slaves as possible from Africa 
to overseas destinations; in bringing to Africa iron chains, leg 
shackles, handcuffs, branding irons, neck-irons and other instruments 
specially designed and forged in Europe and then brought to Africa - 
were conspicuous by their almost total absence from the history we 
learned.

But even more shocking - from a backward glance - was the dearth of 
information about relevant African empires such as Ghana, Mali, Songhai,
 Mossi, Zulu, Xhosa, Matabele, Great Zimbabwe, Bakongo and others which 
had not only impressed visitors with their wealth, but were immensely 
resilient because they had somehow evolved highly advanced social 
intervention mechanisms that enabled their peoples to survive war, 
disease and famine, and to even resist - temporarily, alas! - the guns 
and cannons with which the whitemen often announced their arrival.

Most of these books, such as the aforementioned 'Old Africa 
Rediscovered', 'The Search For Africa' (ISBN: 978-0-85255-714-3 
Published by James Currey, Oxford,1994) Black Mother (Victor Gollancz, 
London 1961) and many others, can be found on the Internet.

Basil Davidson began to fill in the gaps for us. Each book - he wrote 
more than 30 - was a revelation. Then, in 1984, he crowned his research 
into the history of Africa by using the powerful medium of television to
 link the past and the present of the continent. In a production called 
simply, 'AFRICA', he and my very good friend, the late, erudite 
television producer, John Percival (whom I worked with in producing the 
documentary, 'Rich Man, Poor Man', for BBC Television) brought the 
continent alive for viewers of Channel 4 TV in Britain.

John Percival gave me advance copies of the tapes of the AFRICA 
programmes before they were televised, and I had an absolutely 
marvellous time running them and digesting the information. Basil 
Davidson had come full circle in my mind. When I attended the premiere 
of the series in London, I had the unique honour of meeting Father 
Trevor Huddleston, another pioneer historian of Africa, whose book, 
'Naught For Your Comfort', was the first book to present to me, a vivid 
description of the oppression blacks were living under in apartheid 
South Africa.

So much has Basil Davidson's work enriched the world's understanding of 
Africa that one scholar, Barbara Ransby (community organiser and 
co-founder of the Ella Baker-Nelson Mandela Centre, Ann Arbor, Michigan,
 USA, who teaches history at De Paul University, Chicago) has accorded 
Davidson this supreme accolade: 'I assumed he was an African or of 
African descent!'

Barbara Ransby wrote:

'I first encountered the writings of Basil Davidson when I was an 
undergraduate student at Columbia University in the early 1980s. I had 
already been a political activist and organiser for several years before
 returning to college... I was told right away by my professors that in 
order to be an objective scholar, one had to be totally divorced from 
one's subject emotionally and in every other way. The prescription for 
quality scholarship was what has been termed by Parker Palmer and others
 as "bloodless objectivism".

'I thought to myself how could I ever write about the struggles of 
oppressed people without infusing my own passions and strivings into my 
work? ... How could I research and write about movements for liberation 
in the so-called Third World, without revealing my partisanship and 
forfeiting my credibility?

'Fortunately, Basil Davidson offered me a way out. Although we never 
met, he was one of a handful of scholar-activists who offered me an 
alternative model of what and who a radical intellectual could be, and 
demonstrated to me that political activism and good academic work were 
not mutually exclusive...'

Davidson was a major influence on a whole generation of young scholars 
who wanted to research African history more out of solidarity with 
progressive forces on the continent, rather than as a result of some 
vague interest in an exotic dissertation topic. Writing in the 1950s and
 1960s, at a time when Africa herself was in the throes of a 
revolutionary struggle against colonialism, Davidson's early work was 
not only an inspiration to progressives inside academia, but was an 
important resource for African leaders themselves. Ransby wrote:

'It is unclear to me whether his relationship with and respect for 
leaders like [Amilcar] Cabral grew out of his research, or whether his 
research was inspired by his personal relationship with African 
revolutionaries. In any case, those interests and experiences became 
inseparable over the years and are reflected in Davidson's writings...

'When Davidson began his research and writing on Africa, racist Tarzan 
movies were the main channel through which most westerners experienced 
Africa... One of the myths that Davidson's powerful book, 'The African 
Slave Trade' (James Currey 1961) effectively debunks is the notion that 
sub-Saharan Africa really had no significant history before the 
Europeans arrived ... Basil Davidson gave us a very different image; one
 which belied the racist myths which had permeated academic discourse as
 much as popular culture ...
'I must confess that, after reading some of his work and initially 
knowing nothing about Davidson, the man, I assumed he was African or of 
African descent, largely because he wrote with such honesty and 
compassion about his subject ... I was surprised to learn otherwise.' 
(Published in Race and Class October 1994)

Basil Davidson was born in Bristol, England, on 9 November 1914 and died
 on 9 July 2010. His writing ability and the discipline that saw him 
through 30 books is all the more amazing because he left school at the 
early age of 16. His first break came when, after editing some obscure 
publications, he was appointed to be a correspondent of The Economist 
magazine in Paris. 

Whilst travelling around Europe for the magazine, he learnt several 
European languages. So when the Second World War broke out in 1939 and 
he joined the British army, he was considered excellent material for the
 British wartime secret service, the 'Special Operations Executive' 
(SOE).

The SOE sent him to Hungary, from where he also worked in the Balkans. 
He was captured by the Italian allies of Hitler. Luckily for him, the 
British had also captured some minor Italian royal duke in Ethiopia and a
 prisoner swap was arranged whereby Davidson was exchanged for the duke.
 Davidson ended the war as a Colonel, decorated with the Military Cross,
 the 3rd highest medal for British officers.

However, after the war, the brave and extremely intelligent Davidson was
 passed over for any official position in Britain, because officialdom 
had tagged him as a 'dangerous fellow traveller' mainly because of his 
association with Tito and other European communists who fought against 
Hitler. The British embraced the wartime heroism of these leftists and 
exploited it to the full. But once the war was over, they just became 
Cold War undesirables. Even when Davidson was offered an appointment 
outside the UK - as a UNESCO editor in Paris - British officials vetoed 
the appointment.

Thrown on his own resources as a journalist once again, Davidson 
described accurately, the rise of apartheid in South Africa, and was 
promptly listed as a 'prohibited immigrant' to South Africa. He turned 
his attention to the racists in Central African Federation, as well as 
the Portuguese territories in Africa - Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique and 
Angola. He faced hostility everywhere imperialism reigned. Once, he was 
invited to stay with a police commissioner whom his family knew - even 
as the man's office was in the process of ejecting him from the (then) 
Tanganyika (now Tanzania). He politely declined to become the guest of 
his 'enemy'!

His books on Africa contain exquisite, clearly-written quotes that show 
no ambiguity about where he stood. One is this:

'There is a false myth [Davidson wrote] that surrounds this majestic 
[Egyptian] civilization. Visiting Europeans refused to believe that 
Africans indigenous to inner Africa could have created it. They would 
rather us believe that this city was created in its own bubble, apart 
from the rest of Africa and its people. But, the evidence shows that the
 main migration toward the Nile River and Egypt was from the African 
communities of the Sahara. Some evidence of this includes the fact that 
even the Egyptian Pharaohs are painted as black in surviving artwork. 
[emphasis added]. Many [ancient] Egyptians were reddish-pink in colour, 
showing a mix of the indigenous people and the Nubians. The Pharaohs 
built temples which were absolutely African, obviously to impress the 
southern Africans ... The Greek explorer Herodotus described the scene 
most accurately when he said that the various races in the world were 
'different but equal.'

Another valuable quote is this:

'While searching for gold, white explorers first saw a city in the heart
 of Africa built of stone hundreds of years ago ...These kingdoms were 
as good and well governed as the European medieval ones. Evidence shows 
that earlier records prove that other outsiders admitted this about 
Africa, proving that racism is a relatively new concept...The mutual 
respect between black and white, which once existed, was also destroyed 
[by racism]. Science has given us a new look into Africa's history ... 
It debunks the preposterous myth of the inferiority and sub-human status
 of the African people.'

And finally, this judgement on perhaps the most controversial issue in 
African history: in the 'balance' of what might be called the 'profit 
and loss' account of the Atlantic slave trade, who does bear the greater
 responsibility for the heinous crime against humanity that slave trade 
was: Europe or Africa?:

Judge Basil Davidson: 'Africa and Europe were jointly involved [in the 
slave trade]. Yet it is also true that Europe dominated the connection, 
vastly enlarged the slave trade, and continually turned it to European 
advantage and to African loss.'

No wonder it was assumed by some that Basil Davidson was an African! 
Africa thanks him. May he rest in peace. Our condolences go to his wife 
Marion, and their three sons.

Cameron Duodu is a journalist, writer and commentator.
 
[\[\[\[\[\[\[\[\[\[\[\[\[\\[\[\[\[\[\
Dear Sam,

John Henrik Clarke seeded quite a bit during his years as a teacher- activist in Harlem.

It was at his home, one evening, that he had Basil Davidson in to visit for dinner and a chat. They were friends of long standing with a common interest in digging deep into African history. For this particular evening, John invited me as the third person. I had begun to read Basil Davidson as my major content for embarking upon the teaching of African history in a program designed by John for the HAR - YOU ACT Heritage classes part of the Poverty Program at the Harlem YMCA and other venues in the Harlem community. Keith E. Baird rounded out our Heritage team during this period.

The dinner for this evening was delicious as well as I can remember. The moving excitement for this young teacher was to be sharing in, by mainly listening to, their discussion of world history, the ebb and flow of then current struggles on the continent, their global connections and the relationship of forces. Rich indeed! Very heady stuff and heavy! Afterwards, Basil and I rode the "A" train down to the Village. He was staying in that area during this visit. I lived in the East Village at the time and he was not comfortable with the NYC subways. After a while, during the ride, I became embarrassed for asking so many questions and apologized for my eagerness. He was at all times patient, relaxed and unhurried with the calm, attentiveness to detail and clarity that lifelong students/teachers possess. This last is a much later understanding of and insight into revolutionary intellectuals whose paths I've wandered across and been instructed by. He was generous enough with his time to accept my offer of a drink when we got off the train.

I've forgotten the exact drink, the details of the conversation and the name of the Village bar we visited; what I carry with me until this day, some fifty years later, is the profound and lasting impression of continuing and consistent serious scholarship, that we are forever students of history and the dialectical development of contradictions over enormous spans of time and dedicated struggle. That impression has become my life's instruction.

Our Movement has lost a true brother, friend and comrade, but his work, monumentally,remains and continues to instruct our Movement.

On a corner in the West Village of New York City, almost fifty years ago, we shook hands, shared 'so long's' and I thanked him for being so very generous with his time and powerfully instructive with his work.

Basil Davidson, Presente!

Comradely, 

Jim Campbell
(Elder Educator/Activist now residing in South Carolina)

Thursday, July 22, 2010

Politoon- "Back in Black"

More Bush than Bush: 
Obama Promotes Assassination of US Citizens and Even More Torture

=====================

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Frederick Douglass' 4th of July Speech (1852)


“What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?
Frederick Douglass on 5 July 1852

Occasion: Meeting sponsored by the Rochester Ladies’ Anti-Slavery Society, Rochester Hall, Rochester, N.Y. To illustrate the full shame of slavery, Douglass delivered a speech that took aim at the pieties of the nation -- the cherished memories of its revolution, its principles of liberty, and its moral and religious foundation. The Fourth of July, a day celebrating freedom, was used by Douglass to remind his audience of liberty’s unfinished business.

What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?


Mr. President, Friends and Fellow Citizens:

He who could address this audience without a quailing sensation, has stronger nerves than I have. I do not remember ever to have appeared as a speaker before any assembly more shrinkingly, nor with greater distrust of my ability, than I do this day. A feeling has crept over me, quite unfavorable to the exercise of my limited powers of speech. The task before me is one which requires much previous thought and study for its proper performance. I know that apologies of this sort are generally considered flat and unmeaning. I trust, however, that mine will not be so considered. Should I seem at ease, my appearance would much misrepresent me. The little experience I have had in addressing public meetings, in country school houses, avails me nothing on the present occasion.

The papers and placards say, that I am to deliver a 4th [of] July oration. This certainly sounds large, and out of the common way, for it is true that I have often had the privilege to speak in this beautiful Hall, and to address many who now honor me with their presence. But neither their familiar faces, nor the perfect gage I think I have of Corinthian Hall, seems to free me from embarrassment.

The fact is, ladies and gentlemen, the distance between this platform and the slave plantation, from which I escaped, is considerable — and the difficulties to be overcome in getting from the latter to the former, are by no means slight. That I am here to-day is, to me, a matter of astonishment as well as of gratitude. You will not, therefore, be surprised, if in what I have to say, I evince no elaborate preparation, nor grace my speech with any high sounding exordium. With little experience and with less learning, I have been able to throw my thoughts hastily and imperfectly together; and trusting to your patient and generous indulgence, I will proceed to lay them before you.

“May [the reformer] not hope that high lessons of wisdom, of justice and of truth, will yet give direction to her destiny? Were the nation older, the patriot’s heart might be sadder, and the reformer’s brow heavier. . . . There is consolation in the thought that America is young.”

This, for the purpose of this celebration, is the 4th of July. It is the birthday of your National Independence, and of your political freedom. This, to you, is what the Passover was to the emancipated people of God. It carries your minds back to the day, and to the act of your great deliverance; and to the signs, and to the wonders, associated with that act, and that day. This celebration also marks the beginning of another year of your national life; and reminds you that the Republic of America is now 76 years old. I am glad, fellow-citizens, that your nation is so young. Seventy-six years, though a good old age for a man, is but a mere speck in the life of a nation. Three score years and ten is the allotted time for individual men; but nations number their years by thousands. According to this fact, you are, even now, only in the beginning of your national career, still lingering in the period of childhood. I repeat, I am glad this is so. There is hope in the thought, and hope is much needed, under the dark clouds which lower above the horizon. The eye of the reformer is met with angry flashes, portending disastrous times; but his heart may well beat lighter at the thought that America is young, and that she is still in the impressible stage of her existence. May he not hope that high lessons of wisdom, of justice and of truth, will yet give direction to her destiny? Were the nation older, the patriot’s heart might be sadder, and the reformer’s brow heavier. Its future might be shrouded in gloom, and the hope of its prophets go out in sorrow. There is consolation in the thought that America is young. Great streams are not easily turned from channels, worn deep in the course of ages. They may sometimes rise in quiet and stately majesty, and inundate the land, refreshing and fertilizing the earth with their mysterious properties. They may also rise in wrath and fury, and bear away, on their angry waves, the accumulated wealth of years of toil and hardship. They, however, gradually flow back to the same old channel, and flow on as serenely as ever. But, while the river may not be turned aside, it may dry up, and leave nothing behind but the withered branch, and the unsightly rock, to howl in the abyss-sweeping wind, the sad tale of departed glory. As with rivers so with nations.

Fellow-citizens, I shall not presume to dwell at length on the associations that cluster about this day. The simple story of it is that, 76 years ago, the people of this country were British subjects. The style and title of your “sovereign people” (in which you now glory) was not then born. You were under the British Crown . Your fathers esteemed the English Government as the home government; and England as the fatherland. This home government, you know, although a considerable distance from your home, did, in the exercise of its parental prerogatives, impose upon its colonial children, such restraints, burdens and limitations, as, in its mature judgement, it deemed wise, right and proper.

But, your fathers, who had not adopted the fashionable idea of this day, of the infallibility of government, and the absolute character of its acts, presumed to differ from the home government in respect to the wisdom and the justice of some of those burdens and restraints. They went so far in their excitement as to pronounce the measures of government unjust, unreasonable, and oppressive, and altogether such as ought not to be quietly submitted to. I scarcely need say, fellow-citizens, that my opinion of those measures fully accords with that of your fathers. Such a declaration of agreement on my part would not be worth much to anybody. It would, certainly, prove nothing, as to what part I might have taken, had I lived during the great controversy of 1776. To say now that America was right, and England wrong, is exceedingly easy. Everybody can say it; the dastard, not less than the noble brave, can flippantly discant on the tyranny of England towards the American Colonies. It is fashionable to do so; but there was a time when to pronounce against England, and in favor of the cause of the colonies, tried men’s souls. They who did so were accounted in their day, plotters of mischief, agitators and rebels, dangerous men. To side with the right, against the wrong, with the weak against the strong, and with the oppressed against the oppressor! here lies the merit, and the one which, of all others, seems unfashionable in our day. The cause of liberty may be stabbed by the men who glory in the deeds of your fathers. But, to proceed.

Feeling themselves harshly and unjustly treated by the home government, your fathers, like men of honesty, and men of spirit, earnestly sought redress. They petitioned and remonstrated; they did so in a decorous, respectful, and loyal manner. Their conduct was wholly unexceptionable. This, however, did not answer the purpose. They saw themselves treated with sovereign indifference, coldness and scorn. Yet they persevered. They were not the men to look back.


As the sheet anchor takes a firmer hold, when the ship is tossed by the storm, so did the cause of your fathers grow stronger, as it breasted the chilling blasts of kingly displeasure. The greatest and best of British statesmen admitted its justice, and the loftiest eloquence of the British Senate came to its support. But, with that blindness which seems to be the unvarying characteristic of tyrants, since Pharaoh and his hosts were drowned in the Red Sea, the British Government persisted in the exactions complained of.

The madness of this course, we believe, is admitted now, even by England; but we fear the lesson is wholly lost on our present rulers.

Oppression makes a wise man mad. Your fathers were wise men, and if they did not go mad, they became restive under this treatment. They felt themselves the victims of grievous wrongs, wholly incurable in their colonial capacity. With brave men there is always a remedy for oppression. Just here, the idea of a total separation of the colonies from the crown was born! It was a startling idea, much more so, than we, at this distance of time, regard it. The timid and the prudent (as has been intimated) of that day, were, of course, shocked and alarmed by it.

Such people lived then, had lived before, and will, probably, ever have a place on this planet; and their course, in respect to any great change, (no matter how great the good to be attained, or the wrong to be redressed by it), may be calculated with as much precision as can be the course of the stars. They hate all changes, but silver, gold and copper change! Of this sort of change they are always strongly in favor.

These people were called tories in the days of your fathers; and the appellation, probably, conveyed the same idea that is meant by a more modern, though a somewhat less euphonious term, which we often find in our papers, applied to some of our old politicians.

Their opposition to the then dangerous thought was earnest and powerful; but, amid all their terror and affrighted vociferations against it, the alarming and revolutionary idea moved on, and the country with it.

On the 2d of July, 1776, the old Continental Congress, to the dismay of the lovers of ease, and the worshipers of property, clothed that dreadful idea with all the authority of national sanction. They did so in the form of a resolution; and as we seldom hit upon resolutions, drawn up in our day, whose transparency is at all equal to this, it may refresh your minds and help my story if I read it.

“Resolved, That these united colonies are, and of right, ought to be free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown; and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, dissolved.”

Citizens, your fathers made good that resolution. They succeeded; and to-day you reap the fruits of their success. The freedom gained is yours; and you, therefore, may properly celebrate this anniversary. The 4th of July is the first great fact in your nation’s history — the very ring-bolt in the chain of your yet undeveloped destiny.

Pride and patriotism, not less than gratitude, prompt you to celebrate and to hold it in perpetual remembrance. I have said that the Declaration of Independence is the ring-bolt to the chain of your nation’s destiny; so, indeed, I regard it. The principles contained in that instrument are saving principles. Stand by those principles, be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost.

From the round top of your ship of state, dark and threatening clouds may be seen. Heavy billows, like mountains in the distance, disclose to the leeward huge forms of flinty rocks! That bolt drawn, that chain broken, and all is lost. Cling to this day — cling to it, and to its principles, with the grasp of a storm-tossed mariner to a spar at midnight.



The coming into being of a nation, in any circumstances, is an interesting event. But, besides general considerations, there were peculiar circumstances which make the advent of this republic an event of special attractiveness.

The whole scene, as I look back to it, was simple, dignified and sublime.

The population of the country, at the time, stood at the insignificant number of three millions. The country was poor in the munitions of war. The population was weak and scattered, and the country a wilderness unsubdued. There were then no means of concert and combination, such as exist now. Neither steam nor lightning had then been reduced to order and discipline. From the Potomac to the Delaware was a journey of many days. Under these, and innumerable other disadvantages, your fathers declared for liberty and independence and triumphed.

Fellow Citizens, I am not wanting in respect for the fathers of this republic. The signers of the Declaration of Independence were brave men. They were great men too — great enough to give fame to a great age. It does not often happen to a nation to raise, at one time, such a number of truly great men. The point from which I am compelled to view them is not, certainly, the most favorable; and yet I cannot contemplate their great deeds with less than admiration. They were statesmen, patriots and heroes, and for the good they did, and the principles they contended for, I will unite with you to honor their memory.

They loved their country better than their own private interests; and, though this is not the highest form of human excellence, all will concede that it is a rare virtue, and that when it is exhibited, it ought to command respect. He who will, intelligently, lay down his life for his country, is a man whom it is not in human nature to despise. Your fathers staked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, on the cause of their country. In their admiration of liberty, they lost sight of all other interests.

They were peace men; but they preferred revolution to peaceful submission to bondage. They were quiet men; but they did not shrink from agitating against oppression. They showed forbearance; but that they knew its limits. They believed in order; but not in the order of tyranny. With them, nothing was “settled” that was not right. With them, justice, liberty and humanity were “final;” not slavery and oppression. You may well cherish the memory of such men. They were great in their day and generation. Their solid manhood stands out the more as we contrast it with these degenerate times.

How circumspect, exact and proportionate were all their movements! How unlike the politicians of an hour! Their statesmanship looked beyond the passing moment, and stretched away in strength into the distant future. They seized upon eternal principles, and set a glorious example in their defence. Mark them!

Fully appreciating the hardship to be encountered, firmly believing in the right of their cause, honorably inviting the scrutiny of an on-looking world, reverently appealing to heaven to attest their sincerity, soundly comprehending the solemn responsibility they were about to assume, wisely measuring the terrible odds against them, your fathers, the fathers of this republic, did, most deliberately, under the inspiration of a glorious patriotism, and with a sublime faith in the great principles of justice and freedom, lay deep the corner-stone of the national superstructure, which has risen and still rises in grandeur around you.

Of this fundamental work, this day is the anniversary. Our eyes are met with demonstrations of joyous enthusiasm. Banners and pennants wave exultingly on the breeze. The din of business, too, is hushed. Even Mammon seems to have quitted his grasp on this day. The ear-piercing fife and the stirring drum unite their accents with the ascending peal of a thousand church bells. Prayers are made, hymns are sung, and sermons are preached in honor of this day; while the quick martial tramp of a great and multitudinous nation, echoed back by all the hills, valleys and mountains of a vast continent, bespeak the occasion one of thrilling and universal interests nation’s jubilee.

Friends and citizens, I need not enter further into the causes which led to this anniversary. Many of you understand them better than I do. You could instruct me in regard to them. That is a branch of knowledge in which you feel, perhaps, a much deeper interest than your speaker. The causes which led to the separation of the colonies from the British crown have never lacked for a tongue. They have all been taught in your common schools, narrated at your firesides, unfolded from your pulpits, and thundered from your legislative halls, and are as familiar to you as household words. They form the staple of your national poetry and eloquence.

I remember, also, that, as a people, Americans are remarkably familiar with all facts which make in their own favor. This is esteemed by some as a national trait — perhaps a national weakness. It is a fact, that whatever makes for the wealth or for the reputation of Americans, and can be had cheap! will be found by Americans. I shall not be charged with slandering Americans, if I say I think the American side of any question may be safely left in American hands.

I leave, therefore, the great deeds of your fathers to other gentlemen whose claim to have been regularly descended will be less likely to be disputed than mine!


THE PRESENT.

My business, if I have any here to-day, is with the present. The accepted time with God and his cause is the ever-living now.

“Trust no future, however pleasant,
Let the dead past bury its dead;
Act, act in the living present,
Heart within, and God overhead.”

We have to do with the past only as we can make it useful to the present and to the future. To all inspiring motives, to noble deeds which can be gained from the past, we are welcome. But now is the time, the important time. Your fathers have lived, died, and have done their work, and have done much of it well. You live and must die, and you must do your work. You have no right to enjoy a child’s share in the labor of your fathers, unless your children are to be blest by your labors. You have no right to wear out and waste the hard-earned fame of your fathers to cover your indolence. Sydney Smith tells us that men seldom eulogize the wisdom and virtues of their fathers, but to excuse some folly or wickedness of their own. This truth is not a doubtful one. There are illustrations of it near and remote, ancient and modern. It was fashionable, hundreds of years ago, for the children of Jacob to boast, we have “Abraham to our father,” when they had long lost Abraham’s faith and spirit. That people contented themselves under the shadow of Abraham’s great name, while they repudiated the deeds which made his name great. Need I remind you that a similar thing is being done all over this country to-day? Need I tell you that the Jews are not the only people who built the tombs of the prophets, and garnished the sepulchres of the righteous? Washington could not die till he had broken the chains of his slaves. Yet his monument is built up by the price of human blood, and the traders in the bodies and souls of men, shout — “We have Washington to our father.” Alas! that it should be so; yet so it is.

“The evil that men do, lives after them,
The good is oft’ interred with their bones.”

“What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence?”

Fellow-citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here to-day? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?

Would to God, both for your sakes and ours, that an affirmative answer could be truthfully returned to these questions! Then would my task be light, and my burden easy and delightful. For who is there so cold, that a nation’s sympathy could not warm him? Who so obdurate and dead to the claims of gratitude, that would not thankfully acknowledge such priceless benefits? Who so stolid and selfish, that would not give his voice to swell the hallelujahs of a nation’s jubilee, when the chains of servitude had been torn from his limbs? I am not that man. In a case like that, the dumb might eloquently speak, and the “lame man leap as an hart.”

But, such is not the state of the case. I say it with a sad sense of the disparity between us. I am not included within the pale of this glorious anniversary! Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The blessings in which you, this day, rejoice, are not enjoyed in common. The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought life and healing to you, has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth [of] July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn. To drag a man in fetters into the grand illuminated temple of liberty, and call upon him to join you in joyous anthems, were inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony. Do you mean, citizens, to mock me, by asking me to speak to-day? If so, there is a parallel to your conduct. And let me warn you that it is dangerous to copy the example of a nation whose crimes, lowering up to heaven, were thrown down by the breath of the Almighty, burying that nation in irrecoverable ruin! I can to-day take up the plaintive lament of a peeled and woe-smitten people!

“By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down. Yea! we wept when we remembered Zion. We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof. For there, they that carried us away captive, required of us a song; and they who wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion. How can we sing the Lord’s song in a strange land? If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth.”

Fellow-citizens; above your national, tumultuous joy, I hear the mournful wail of millions! whose chains, heavy and grievous yesterday, are, to-day, rendered more intolerable by the jubilee shouts that reach them. If I do forget, if I do not faithfully remember those bleeding children of sorrow this day, “may my right hand forget her cunning, and may my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth!” To forget them, to pass lightly over their wrongs, and to chime in with the popular theme, would be treason most scandalous and shocking, and would make me a reproach before God and the world. My subject, then fellow-citizens, is AMERICAN SLAVERY. I shall see, this day, and its popular characteristics, from the slave’s point of view. Standing, there, identified with the American bondman, making his wrongs mine, I do not hesitate to declare, with all my soul, that the character and conduct of this nation never looked blacker to me than on this 4th of July! Whether we turn to the declarations of the past, or to the professions of the present, the conduct of the nation seems equally hideous and revolting. America is false to the past, false to the present, and solemnly binds herself to be false to the future. Standing with God and the crushed and bleeding slave on this occasion, I will, in the name of humanity which is outraged, in the name of liberty which is fettered, in the name of the constitution and the Bible, which are disregarded and trampled upon, dare to call in question and to denounce, with all the emphasis I can command, everything that serves to perpetuate slavery-the great sin and shame of America! “I will not equivocate; I will not excuse;” I will use the severest language I can command; and yet not one word shall escape me that any man, whose judgement is not blinded by prejudice, or who is not at heart a slaveholder, shall not confess to be right and just.

But I fancy I hear some one of my audience say, it is just in this circumstance that you and your brother abolitionists fail to make a favorable impression on the public mind. Would you argue more, and denounce less, would you persuade more, and rebuke less, your cause would be much more likely to succeed. But, I submit, where all is plain there is nothing to be argued. What point in the anti-slavery creed would you have me argue? On what branch of the subject do the people of this country need light? Must I undertake to prove that the slave is a man? That point is conceded already. Nobody doubts it. The slaveholders themselves acknowledge it in the enactment of laws for their government. They acknowledge it when they punish disobedience on the part of the slave. There are seventy-two crimes in the State of Virginia, which, if committed by a black man, (no matter how ignorant he be), subject him to the punishment of death; while only two of the same crimes will subject a white man to the like punishment. What is this but the acknowledgement that the slave is a moral, intellectual and responsible being? The manhood of the slave is conceded. It is admitted in the fact that Southern statute books are covered with enactments forbidding, under severe fines and penalties, the teaching of the slave to read or to write. When you can point to any such laws, in reference to the beasts of the field, then I may consent to argue the manhood of the slave. When the dogs in your streets, when the fowls of the air, when the cattle on your hills, when the fish of the sea, and the reptiles that crawl, shall be unable to distinguish the slave from a brute, there will I argue with you that the slave is a man!

Enslaved boy 1855

For the present, it is enough to affirm the equal manhood of the negro race. Is it not astonishing that, while we are ploughing, planting and reaping, using all kinds of mechanical tools, erecting houses, constructing bridges, building ships, working in metals of brass, iron, copper, silver and gold; that, while we are reading, writing and cyphering, acting as clerks, merchants and secretaries, having among us lawyers, doctors, ministers, poets, authors, editors, orators and teachers; that, while we are engaged in all manner of enterprises common to other men, digging gold in California, capturing the whale in the Pacific, feeding sheep and cattle on the hill-side, living, moving, acting, thinking, planning, living in families as husbands, wives and children, and, above all, confessing and worshipping the Christian’s God, and looking hopefully for life and immortality beyond the grave, we are called upon to prove that we are men!

Would you have me argue that man is entitled to liberty? that he is the rightful owner of his own body? You have already declared it. Must I argue the wrongfulness of slavery? Is that a question for Republicans? Is it to be settled by the rules of logic and argumentation, as a matter beset with great difficulty, involving a doubtful application of the principle of justice, hard to be understood? How should I look to-day, in the presence of Americans, dividing, and subdividing a discourse, to show that men have a natural right to freedom? speaking of it relatively, and positively, negatively, and affirmatively. To do so, would be to make myself ridiculous, and lo offer an insult to your understanding. There is not a man beneath the canopy of heaven, that does not know that slavery is wrong for him.

What, am I to argue that it is wrong to make men brutes, to rob them of their liberty, to work them without wages, to keep them ignorant of their relations to their fellow men, to beat them with sticks, to flay their flesh with the lash, to load their limbs with irons, to hunt them with dogs, to sell them at auction, to sunder their families, to knock out their teeth, to burn their flesh, to starve them into obedience and submission to their masters? Must I argue that a system thus marked with blood, and stained with pollution, is wrong? No! I will not. I have better employments for my time and strength, than such arguments would imply.

What, then, remains to be argued? Is it that slavery is not divine; that God did not establish it; that our doctors of divinity are mistaken? There is blasphemy in the thought. That which is inhuman, cannot be divine! Who can reason on such a proposition? They that can, may; I cannot. The time for such argument is past.

At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed. O! had I the ability, and could I reach the nation’s ear, I would, to-day, pour out a fiery stream of biting ridicule, blasting reproach, withering sarcasm, and stern rebuke. For it is not light that is needed, but fire; it is not the gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake. The feeling of the nation must be quickened; the conscience of the nation must be roused; the propriety of the nation must be startled; the hypocrisy of the nation must be exposed; and its crimes against God and man must be proclaimed and denounced.


What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy — a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour.

Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the old world, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival.


INTERNAL SLAVE TRADE.

Take the American slave-trade, which, we are told by the papers, is especially prosperous just now. Ex-Senator Benton tells us that the price of men was never higher than now. He mentions the fact to show that slavery is in no danger. This trade is one of the peculiarities of American institutions. It is carried on in all the large towns and cities in one-half of this confederacy; and millions are pocketed every year, by dealers in this horrid traffic. In several states, this trade is a chief source of wealth. It is called (in contradistinction to the foreign slave-trade) “the internal slave trade.” It is, probably, called so, too, in order to divert from it the horror with which the foreign slave-trade is contemplated. That trade has long since been denounced by this government, as piracy. It has been denounced with burning words, from the high places of the nation, as an execrable traffic. To arrest it, to put an end to it, this nation keeps a squadron, at immense cost, on the coast of Africa. Everywhere, in this country, it is safe to speak of this foreign slave-trade, as a most inhuman traffic, opposed alike to the laws of God and of man. The duty to extirpate and destroy it, is admitted even by our DOCTORS OF DIVINITY. In order to put an end to it, some of these last have consented that their colored brethren (nominally free) should leave this country, and establish themselves on the western coast of Africa! It is, however, a notable fact that, while so much execration is poured out by Americans upon those engaged in the foreign slave-trade, the men engaged in the slave-trade between the states pass without condemnation, and their business is deemed honorable.

Behold the practical operation of this internal slave-trade, the American slave-trade, sustained by American politics and American religion. Here you will see men and women reared like swine for the market. You know what is a swine-drover? I will show you a man-drover. They inhabit all our Southern States. They perambulate the country, and crowd the highways of the nation, with droves of human stock. You will see one of these human flesh-jobbers, armed with pistol, whip and bowie-knife, driving a company of a hundred men, women, and children, from the Potomac to the slave market at New Orleans. These wretched people are to be sold singly, or in lots, to suit purchasers. They are food for the cotton-field, and the deadly sugar-mill. Mark the sad procession, as it moves wearily along, and the inhuman wretch who drives them. Hear his savage yells and his blood-chilling oaths, as he hurries on his affrighted captives! There, see the old man, with locks thinned and gray. Cast one glance, if you please, upon that young mother, whose shoulders are bare to the scorching sun, her briny tears falling on the brow of the babe in her arms. See, too, that girl of thirteen, weeping, yes! weeping, as she thinks of the mother from whom she has been torn! The drove moves tardily. Heat and sorrow have nearly consumed their strength; suddenly you hear a quick snap, like the discharge of a rifle; the fetters clank, and the chain rattles simultaneously; your ears are saluted with a scream, that seems to have torn its way to the centre of your soul! The crack you heard, was the sound of the slave-whip; the scream you heard, was from the woman you saw with the babe. Her speed had faltered under the weight of her child and her chains! that gash on her shoulder tells her to move on. Follow this drove to New Orleans. Attend the auction; see men examined like horses; see the forms of women rudely and brutally exposed to the shocking gaze of American slave-buyers. See this drove sold and separated forever; and never forget the deep, sad sobs that arose from that scattered multitude. Tell me citizens, WHERE, under the sun, you can witness a spectacle more fiendish and shocking. Yet this is but a glance at the American slave-trade, as it exists, at this moment, in the ruling part of the United States.

I was born amid such sights and scenes. To me the American slave-trade is a terrible reality. When a child, my soul was often pierced with a sense of its horrors. I lived on Philpot Street, Fell’s Point, Baltimore, and have watched from the wharves, the slave ships in the Basin, anchored from the shore, with their cargoes of human flesh, waiting for favorable winds to waft them down the Chesapeake. There was, at that time, a grand slave mart kept at the head of Pratt Street, by Austin Woldfolk. His agents were sent into every town and county in Maryland, announcing their arrival, through the papers, and on flaming “hand-bills,” headed CASH FOR NEGROES. These men were generally well dressed men, and very captivating in their manners. Ever ready to drink, to treat, and to gamble. The fate of many a slave has depended upon the turn of a single card; and many a child has been snatched from the arms of its mother by bargains arranged in a state of brutal drunkenness.


The flesh-mongers gather up their victims by dozens, and drive them, chained, to the general depot at Baltimore. When a sufficient number have been collected here, a ship is chartered, for the purpose of conveying the forlorn crew to Mobile, or to New Orleans. From the slave prison to the ship, they are usually driven in the darkness of night; for since the antislavery agitation, a certain caution is observed.

In the deep still darkness of midnight, I have been often aroused by the dead heavy footsteps, and the piteous cries of the chained gangs that passed our door. The anguish of my boyish heart was intense; and I was often consoled, when speaking to my mistress in the morning, to hear her say that the custom was very wicked; that she hated to hear the rattle of the chains, and the heart-rending cries. I was glad to find one who sympathised with me in my horror.

Fellow-citizens, this murderous traffic is, to-day, in active operation in this boasted republic. In the solitude of my spirit, I see clouds of dust raised on the highways of the South; I see the bleeding footsteps; I hear the doleful wail of fettered humanity, on the way to the slave-markets, where the victims are to be sold like horses, sheep, and swine, knocked off to the highest bidder. There I see the tenderest ties ruthlessly broken, to gratify the lust, caprice and rapacity of the buyers and sellers of men. My soul sickens at the sight.

“Is this the land your Fathers loved,
The freedom which they toiled to win?
Is this the earth whereon they moved?
Are these the graves they slumber in?”

But a still more inhuman, disgraceful, and scandalous state of things remains to be presented.

By an act of the American Congress, not yet two years old, slavery has been nationalized in its most horrible and revolting form. By that act, Mason & Dixon’s line has been obliterated; New York has become as Virginia; and the power to hold, hunt, and sell men, women, and children as slaves remains no longer a mere state institution, but is now an institution of the whole United States. The power is co-extensive with the star-spangled banner and American Christianity. Where these go, may also go the merciless slave-hunter. Where these are, man is not sacred. He is a bird for the sportsman’s gun. By that most foul and fiendish of all human decrees, the liberty and person of every man are put in peril. Your broad republican domain is hunting ground for men. Not for thieves and robbers, enemies of society, merely, but for men guilty of no crime. Your lawmakers have commanded all good citizens to engage in this hellish sport. Your President, your Secretary of State, your lords, nobles, and ecclesiastics, enforce, as a duty you owe to your free and glorious country, and to your God, that you do this accursed thing. Not fewer than forty Americans have, within the past two years, been hunted down and, without a moment’s warning, hurried away in chains, and consigned to slavery and excruciating torture. Some of these have had wives and children, dependent on them for bread; but of this, no account was made. The right of the hunter to his prey stands superior to the right of marriage, and to all rights in this republic, the rights of God included! For black men there are neither law, justice, humanity, not religion. The Fugitive Slave Law makes MERCY TO THEM, A CRIME; and bribes the judge who tries them. An American JUDGE GETS TEN DOLLARS FOR EVERY VICTIM HE CONSIGNS to slavery, and five, when he fails to do so.

The oath of any two villains is sufficient, under this hell-black enactment, to send the most pious and exemplary black man into the remorseless jaws of slavery! His own testimony is nothing. He can bring no witnesses for himself. The minister of American justice is bound by the law to hear but one side; and that side, is the side of the oppressor. Let this damning fact be perpetually told. Let it be thundered around the world, that, in tyrant-killing, king-hating, people-loving, democratic, Christian America, the seats of justice are filled with judges, who hold their offices under an open and palpable bribe, and are bound, in deciding in the case of a man’s liberty, hear only his accusers!

In glaring violation of justice, in shameless disregard of the forms of administering law, in cunning arrangement to entrap the defenceless, and in diabolical intent, this Fugitive Slave Law stands alone in the annals of tyrannical legislation. I doubt if there be another nation on the globe, having the brass and the baseness to put such a law on the statute-book. If any man in this assembly thinks differently from me in this matter, and feels able to disprove my statements, I will gladly confront him at any suitable time and place he may select.


RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.

I take this law to be one of the grossest infringements of Christian Liberty, and, if the churches and ministers of our country were not stupidly blind, or most wickedly indifferent, they, too, would so regard it.

At the very moment that they are thanking God for the enjoyment of civil and religious liberty, and for the right to worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences, they are utterly silent in respect to a law which robs religion of its chief significance, and makes it utterly worthless to a world lying in wickedness. Did this law concern the “mint, anise and cummin” — abridge the right to sing psalms, to partake of the sacrament, or to engage in any of the ceremonies of religion, it would be smitten by the thunder of a thousand pulpits. A general shout would go up from the church, demanding repeal, repeal, instant repeal! And it would go hard with that politician who presumed to solicit the votes of the people without inscribing this motto on his banner. Further, if this demand were not complied with, another Scotland would be added to the history of religious liberty, and the stern old Covenanters would be thrown into the shade. A John Knox would be seen at every church door, and heard from every pulpit, and Fillmore would have no more quarter than was shown by Knox, to the beautiful, but treacherous queen Mary of Scotland. The fact that the church of our country, (with fractional exceptions), does not esteem “the Fugitive Slave Law” as a declaration of war against religious liberty, implies that that church regards religion simply as a form of worship, an empty ceremony, and not a vital principle, requiring active benevolence, justice, love and good will towards man. It esteems sacrifice above mercy; psalm-singing above right doing; solemn meetings above practical righteousness. A worship that can be conducted by persons who refuse to give shelter to the houseless, to give bread to the hungry, clothing to the naked, and who enjoin obedience to a law forbidding these acts of mercy, is a curse, not a blessing to mankind. The Bible addresses all such persons as “scribes, pharisees, hypocrites, who pay tithe of mint, anise, and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgement, mercy and faith.”


THE CHURCH RESPONSIBLE.

But the church of this country is not only indifferent to the wrongs of the slave, it actually takes sides with the oppressors. It has made itself the bulwark of American slavery, and the shield of American slave-hunters. Many of its most eloquent Divines. who stand as the very lights of the church, have shamelessly given the sanction of religion and the Bible to the whole slave system. They have taught that man may, properly, be a slave; that the relation of master and slave is ordained of God; that to send back an escaped bondman to his master is clearly the duty of all the followers of the Lord Jesus Christ; and this horrible blasphemy is palmed off upon the world for Christianity.

For my part, I would say, welcome infidelity! welcome atheism! welcome anything! in preference to the gospel, as preached by those Divines! They convert the very name of religion into an engine of tyranny, and barbarous cruelty, and serve to confirm more infidels, in this age, than all the infidel writings of Thomas Paine, Voltaire, and Bolingbroke, put together, have done! These ministers make religion a cold and flinty-hearted thing, having neither principles of right action, nor bowels of compassion. They strip the love of God of its beauty, and leave the throne of religion a huge, horrible, repulsive form. It is a religion for oppressors, tyrants, man-stealers, and thugs.


 It is not that “pure and undefiled religion” which is from above, and which is “first pure, then peaceable, easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.” But a religion which favors the rich against the poor; which exalts the proud above the humble; which divides mankind into two classes, tyrants and slaves; which says to the man in chains, stay there; and to the oppressor, oppress on; it is a religion which may be professed and enjoyed by all the robbers and enslavers of mankind; it makes God a respecter of persons, denies his fatherhood of the race, and tramples in the dust the great truth of the brotherhood of man. All this we affirm to be true of the popular church, and the popular worship of our land and nation — a religion, a church, and a worship which, on the authority of inspired wisdom, we pronounce to be an abomination in the sight of God. In the language of Isaiah, the American church might be well addressed, “Bring no more vain ablations; incense is an abomination unto me: the new moons and Sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth. They are a trouble to me; I am weary to bear them; and when ye spread forth your hands I will hide mine eyes from you. Yea! when ye make many prayers, I will not hear. YOUR HANDS ARE FULL OF BLOOD; cease to do evil, learn to do well; seek judgement; relieve the oppressed; judge for the fatherless; plead for the widow.”

The American church is guilty, when viewed in connection with what it is doing to uphold slavery; but it is superlatively guilty when viewed in connection with its ability to abolish slavery. The sin of which it is guilty is one of omission as well as of commission. Albert Barnes but uttered what the common sense of every man at all observant of the actual state of the case will receive as truth, when he declared that “There is no power out of the church that could sustain slavery an hour, if it were not sustained in it.”

Let the religious press, the pulpit, the Sunday school, the conference meeting, the great ecclesiastical, missionary, Bible and tract associations of the land array their immense powers against slavery and slave-holding; and the whole system of crime and blood would be scattered to the winds; and that they do not do this involves them in the most awful responsibility of which the mind can conceive.

In prosecuting the anti-slavery enterprise, we have been asked to spare the church, to spare the ministry; but how, we ask, could such a thing be done? We are met on the threshold of our efforts for the redemption of the slave, by the church and ministry of the country, in battle arrayed against us; and we are compelled to fight or flee. From what quarter, I beg to know, has proceeded a fire so deadly upon our ranks, during the last two years, as from the Northern pulpit? As the champions of oppressors, the chosen men of American theology have appeared — men, honored for their so-called piety, and their real learning. The LORDS of Buffalo, the SPRINGS of New York, the LATHROPS of Auburn, the COXES and SPENCERS of Brooklyn, the GANNETS and SHARPS of Boston, the DEWEYS of Washington, and other great religious lights of the land, have, in utter denial of the authority of Him, by whom they professed to he called to the ministry, deliberately taught us, against the example of the Hebrews and against the remonstrance of the Apostles, they teach “that we ought to obey man’s law before the law of God.”


My spirit wearies of such blasphemy; and how such men can be supported, as the “standing types and representatives of Jesus Christ,” is a mystery which I leave others to penetrate. In speaking of the American church, however, let it be distinctly understood that I mean the great mass of the religious organizations of our land. There are exceptions, and I thank God that there are. Noble men may be found, scattered all over these Northern States, of whom Henry Ward Beecher of Brooklyn, Samuel J. May of Syracuse, and my esteemed friend* on the platform, are shining examples; and let me say further, that upon these men lies the duty to inspire our ranks with high religious faith and zeal, and to cheer us on in the great mission of the slave’s redemption from his chains.
[*Rev. R. R. Raymond]


RELIGION IN ENGLAND & RELIGION IN AMERICA.


One is struck with the difference between the attitude of the American church towards the anti-slavery movement, and that occupied by the churches in England towards a similar movement in that country. There, the church, true to its mission of ameliorating, elevating, and improving the condition of mankind, came forward promptly, bound up the wounds of the West Indian slave, and restored him to his liberty. There, the question of emancipation was a high[ly] religious question. It was demanded, in the name of humanity, and according to the law of the living God. The Sharps, the Clarksons, the Wilberforces, the Buxtons, and Burchells and the Knibbs, were alike famous for their piety, and for their philanthropy. The anti-slavery movement there was not an anti-church movement, for the reason that the church took its full share in prosecuting that movement: and the anti-slavery movement in this country will cease to be an anti-church movement, when the church of this country shall assume a favorable, instead of a hostile position towards that movement.

Americans! your republican politics, not less than your republican religion, are flagrantly inconsistent.

You boast of your love of liberty, your superior civilization, and your pure Christianity, while the whole political power of the nation (as embodied in the two great political parties), is solemnly pledged to support and perpetuate the enslavement of three millions of your countrymen.

You hurl your anathemas at the crowned headed tyrants of Russia and Austria, and pride yourselves on your Democratic institutions, while you yourselves consent to be the mere tools and bodyguards of the tyrants of Virginia and Carolina.

You invite to your shores fugitives of oppression from abroad, honor them with banquets, greet them with ovations, cheer them, toast them, salute them, protect them, and pour out your money to them like water; but the fugitives from your own land you advertise, hunt, arrest, shoot and kill.

You glory in your refinement and your universal education; yet you maintain a system as barbarous and dreadful as ever stained the character of a nation — a system begun in avarice, supported in pride, and perpetuated in cruelty.

You shed tears over fallen Hungary, and make the sad story of her wrongs the theme of your poets, statesmen and orators, till your gallant sons are ready to fly to arms to vindicate her cause against her oppressors; but, in regard to the ten thousand wrongs of the American slave, you would enforce the strictest silence, and would hail him as an enemy of the nation who dares to make those wrongs the subject of public discourse!

You are all on fire at the mention of liberty for France or for Ireland; but are as cold as an iceberg at the thought of liberty for the enslaved of America.

You discourse eloquently on the dignity of labor; yet, you sustain a system which, in its very essence, casts a stigma upon labor.

You can bare your bosom to the storm of British artillery to throw off a threepenny tax on tea; and yet wring the last hard-earned farthing from the grasp of the black laborers of your country.

You profess to believe “that, of one blood, God made all nations of men to dwell on the face of all the earth,” and hath commanded all men, everywhere to love one another; yet you notoriously hate, (and glory in your hatred), all men whose skins are not colored like your own.

You declare, before the world, and are understood by the world to declare, that you “hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal; and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; and that, among these are, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;” and yet, you hold securely, in a bondage which, according to your own Thomas Jefferson, “is worse than ages of that which your fathers rose in rebellion to oppose,” a seventh part of the inhabitants of your country.

Fellow-citizens! I will not enlarge further on your national inconsistencies. The existence of slavery in this country brands your republicanism as a sham, your humanity as a base pretence, and your Christianity as a lie. It destroys your moral power abroad; it corrupts your politicians at home. It saps the foundation of religion; it makes your name a hissing, and a by word to a mocking earth. It is the antagonistic force in your government, the only thing that seriously disturbs and endangers your Union. It fetters your progress; it is the enemy of improvement, the deadly foe of education; it fosters pride; it breeds insolence; it promotes vice; it shelters crime; it is a curse to the earth that supports it; and yet, you cling to it, as if it were the sheet anchor of all your hopes.

Oh! be warned! be warned! a horrible reptile is coiled up in your nation’s bosom; the venomous creature is nursing at the tender breast of your youthful republic; for the love of God, tear away, and fling from you the hideous monster, and let the weight of twenty millions crush and destroy it forever!

THE CONSTITUTION.

Missouri Compromise Map 1850

But it is answered in reply to all this, that precisely what I have now denounced is, in fact, guaranteed and sanctioned by the Constitution of the United States; that the right to hold and to hunt slaves is a part of that Constitution framed by the illustrious Fathers of this Republic.

Then, I dare to affirm, notwithstanding all I have said before, your fathers stooped, basely stooped
“To palter with us in a double sense:
And keep the word of promise to the ear,
But break it to the heart.”

And instead of being the honest men I have before declared them to be, they were the veriest imposters that ever practised on mankind. This is the inevitable conclusion, and from it there is no escape. But I differ from those who charge this baseness on the framers of the Constitution of the United States. It is a slander upon their memory, at least, so I believe. There is not time now to argue the constitutional question at length — nor have I the ability to discuss it as it ought to be discussed. The subject has been handled with masterly power by Lysander Spooner, Esq., by William Goodell, by Samuel E. Sewall, Esq., and last, though not least, by Gerritt Smith, Esq. These gentlemen have, as I think, fully and clearly vindicated the Constitution from any design to support slavery for an hour.

“[L]et me ask, if it be not somewhat singular that, if the Constitution were intended to be, by its framers and adopters, a slave-holding instrument, why neither slavery, slaveholding, nor slave can anywhere be found in it.”

Fellow-citizens! there is no matter in respect to which, the people of the North have allowed themselves to be so ruinously imposed upon, as that of the pro-slavery character of the Constitution. In that instrument I hold there is neither warrant, license, nor sanction of the hateful thing; but, interpreted as it ought to be interpreted, the Constitution is a GLORIOUS LIBERTY DOCUMENT. Read its preamble, consider its purposes. Is slavery among them? Is it at the gateway? or is it in the temple? It is neither.

While I do not intend to argue this question on the present occasion, let me ask, if it be not somewhat singular that, if the Constitution were intended to be, by its framers and adopters, a slave-holding instrument, why neither slavery, slaveholding, nor slave can anywhere be found in it. What would be thought of an instrument, drawn up, legally drawn up, for the purpose of entitling the city of Rochester to a tract of land, in which no mention of land was made? Now, there are certain rules of interpretation, for the proper understanding of all legal instruments. These rules are well established. They are plain, common-sense rules, such as you and I, and all of us, can understand and apply, without having passed years in the study of law. I scout the idea that the question of the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of slavery is not a question for the people. I hold that every American citizen has a right to form an opinion of the constitution, and to propagate that opinion, and to use all honorable means to make his opinion the prevailing one. Without this right, the liberty of an American citizen would be as insecure as that of a Frenchman. Ex-Vice-President Dallas tells us that the constitution is an object to which no American mind can be too attentive, and no American heart too devoted. He further says, the constitution, in its words, is plain and intelligible, and is meant for the home-bred, unsophisticated understandings of our fellow-citizens. Senator Berrien tell us that the Constitution is the fundamental law, that which controls all others. The charter of our liberties, which every citizen has a personal interest in understanding thoroughly. The testimony of Senator Breese, Lewis Cass, and many others that might be named, who are everywhere esteemed as sound lawyers, so regard the constitution. I take it, therefore, that it is not presumption in a private citizen to form an opinion of that instrument.

Now, take the constitution according to its plain reading, and I defy the presentation of a single pro-slavery clause in it. On the other hand it will be found to contain principles and purposes, entirely hostile to the existence of slavery.

I have detained my audience entirely too long already. At some future period I will gladly avail myself of an opportunity to give this subject a full and fair discussion.

“Allow me to say, in conclusion, notwithstanding the dark picture I have this day presented of the state of the nation,
I do not despair of this country.”

Allow me to say, in conclusion, notwithstanding the dark picture I have this day presented of the state of the nation, I do not despair of this country. There are forces in operation, which must inevitably work The downfall of slavery. “The arm of the Lord is not shortened,” and the doom of slavery is certain. I, therefore, leave off where I began, with hope. While drawing encouragement from the Declaration of Independence, the great principles it contains, and the genius of American Institutions, my spirit is also cheered by the obvious tendencies of the age. Nations do not now stand in the same relation to each other that they did ages ago. No nation can now shut itself up from the surrounding world, and trot round in the same old path of its fathers without interference. The time was when such could be done. Long established customs of hurtful character could formerly fence themselves in, and do their evil work with social impunity. Knowledge was then confined and enjoyed by the privileged few, and the multitude walked on in mental darkness. But a change has now come over the affairs of mankind. Walled cities and empires have become unfashionable. The arm of commerce has borne away the gates of the strong city. Intelligence is penetrating the darkest corners of the globe. It makes its pathway over and under the sea, as well as on the earth. Wind, steam, and lightning are its chartered agents.

Oceans no longer divide, but link nations together. From Boston to London is now a holiday excursion. Space is comparatively annihilated. Thoughts expressed on one side of the Atlantic are, distinctly heard on the other. The far off and almost fabulous Pacific rolls in grandeur at our feet.

The Celestial Empire, the mystery of ages, is being solved. The fiat of the Almighty, “Let there be Light,” has not yet spent its force. No abuse, no outrage whether in taste, sport or avarice, can now hide itself from the all-pervading light.

The iron shoe, and crippled foot of China must be seen, in contrast with nature.

Africa must rise and put on her yet unwoven garment.

“Ethiopia shall stretch out her hand unto God.”

In the fervent aspirations of William Lloyd Garrison, I say, and let every heart join in saying it:

God speed the year of jubilee
The wide world o’er!
When from their galling chains set free,
Th’ oppress’d shall vilely bend the knee,
And wear the yoke of tyranny
Like brutes no more.
That year will come, and freedom’s reign,
To man his plundered rights again
Restore.

God speed the day when human blood
Shall cease to flow!
In every clime be understood,
The claims of human brotherhood,
And each return for evil, good,
Not blow for blow;
That day will come all feuds to end
And change into a faithful friend
Each foe.

God speed the hour, the glorious hour,
When none on earth
Shall exercise a lordly power,
Nor in a tyrant’s presence cower;
But all to manhood’s stature tower,
By equal birth!
THAT HOUR WILL, COME, to each, to all,
And from his prison-house, the thrall
Go forth.

Until that year, day, hour, arrive,
With head, and heart, and hand I’ll strive,
To break the rod, and rend the gyve,
The spoiler of his prey deprive-
So witness Heaven!
And never from my chosen post,
Whate’er the peril or the cost,
Be driven.

ggggggggggggggggg


Where the text can be found: The speech was originally published as a pamphlet. It can be located in James M. Gregory’s, Frederick Douglass, the Orator (1893). More recent publications of the speech include Philip Foner’s, The Life and Writings of Frederick Douglass (1950) and The Frederick Douglass Papers (1982), edited by John W. Blassingame.