Viewing page 1 of 16

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

[[margin]] ^[[B K Ross]] [[/margin]]

Douglass' Monthly.
[[double line]]

"Open thy mouth for the dumb, in the cause of all such as are appointed to destruction; open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy." -1st Eccl. xxxi. 8,9.
[[double line]]

Volume III. Number VI.}
Rochester, New York, November 1860.
{Price- one dollar per annum.
[[double line]]

Contents of the present number.
[[line]]

New Trouble between Old Friends... 353, 362
The Political Abolition Convention at Worcester, Mass... 354,361
Jerry Celebration for 1860... 355, 367
The American Church and Clergy the Bulwark of American Slavery... 355
Wm. L Yancey at Corinthian Hall... 355
What is the Duty of Radical Abolitionists in the Present Campaign?... 357
Hayti and Colored Emigration... 358
Letters from the Old World... 360
Christianity and Color... 366
Negro Insurrection... 366
The 'Free Negro' in Maryland... 367
The Sacrifice... 368
Advertisemets, Obituary Notices, &c... 368
[[double line]]

Douglass' Monthly.
[[double line]]

New Trouble Between Old Friends
[[line]]

The stone of stumbling, the rock of offence, the source which, perhaps, more than all things else, has embarrassed, rendered inefficient, and made the Radical Abolition movement a subject of ridicule and reproach at home and abroad, has been the facility with which its leading men have found occasion to fall out by the way, about matters that, in themselves, have no necessary connection with the great object which should bind all hearts together, and unite all energies for its accomplishment. While agreed with each other concerning the inherent sinfulness and the stupendous criminality of slavery; while united and strong in the conviction that the immediate and complete abolition of slavery is the one great and first duty of the American people; while they have labored with zeal and ability to bring this guilty nation to the same high conviction of duty, they have again and again allowed themselves to fall out by the way, and quarrel with each other about minor points, about side issues, political theories and theological dogmas, about which workers in a common cause might well agree to differ, and which should never be permitted to disturb and mar the beauty of a great human movement for the human well being of four millions of the human family now sunk in this land to the condition of brutes. It is too bad that this should be so. Our cause is retarded by it, and we protest against it, and every thing leading to the like diversion from the good work, which all know ought to be done, and which requires all the energies we possess to do it.

We are not shooting in the air. A controversy, which looks more than threatening, between WM. GOODELL and GERRIT SMITH- men who have worked together in the anti-slavery cause during more than a quarter of a century, and whom no Abolitionist ever expected to see separated this side of the grave- are now actually engaged in controversy, which, though polite and respectful in terms, is bitter and reproachful in the elements upon which it feeds, and must sow the seeds of estrangement not only between themselves, but between their mutual friends, who have been accustomed to look up to them for counsel and example. We say, brethren, have an end to this controversy. No one doubts the orthodoxy of WM. GOODELL. No one can doubt the Abolitionism of GERRIT SMITH.-The honesty and ability of both men are beyond question. They are both Abolitionists, and agree in all the leading doctrines of the Abolition creed. We love them both. We honor them both. Grateful tears have filled our eyes when thinking of the great words and deeds which they have for years persistently brought to the service of our enslaved people. We should rejoice to see them reunited, and if not united, at least agreed to differ. Nevertheless, we cannot ignore the controversy, nor push aside the duty of expressing our opinion in regard to it. The question is forced upon us; and painful as is the duty it imposes, we shall not shrink from looking it squarely in the face and taking our ground.  

We were among the small band of Abolitionists, at Syracuse, who took part in the unanimous nomination of GERRIT SMITH as a candidate for the Presidency, to be supported at the ballot box, and everywhere, as a sound and trustworthy man, fit for the place for which he was named. We thought then, and think still, that we acted wisely as to the measure and the man. No man was ever nominated better known to those who nominated him. No man ever more fully represented or embodied in himself the principles and policy of those by whom he was nominated. He may be properly called the author of the leading ideas and doctrines that distinguish the Radical Abolition party.-The unconstitutionality and illegality of slavery, and the power of the Federal Government over the slave system, are his long settled and everywhere asserted views. He holds all the needful doctrines, and is in favor of the application of them to the national abolition of slavery. This is what we want, and all we want. The idea and the man are alike acceptable. 

But our friend WM. GOODELL, who has heretofore been one of Mr. SMITH'S strongest and ablest supporters, has now come to the conclusion that Mr. SMITH is no longer fit to receive his vote and support, and regards his nomination, as DANIEL WEBSTER said of ZACHARIAH TAYLOR, a nomination not fit to be made. 

The reasons of Mr. GOODELL for withholding his vote and support from Mr. SMITH, we publish elsewhere in our present number.-We have read them with care, and we doubt not our respected readers will do the same, and they can also form their own opinion of their soundness, as we have done. 

To our mind, whatever may be thought of them as sharp criticisms upon some of Mr. SMITH'S opinions and frames of mind, they fall far short of justifying any genuine singlehearted Abolitionist in refusing to Mr. SMITH his vote and cordial support, for the high office to which he has been fairly and unanimously nominated by an honest Convention of Radical Abolitionists. 

On reading Mr. GOODELL'S strictures, we could but raise the inquiry: If GERRIT SMITH, with his blameless life, persistent philanthropy, and his uncompromising Abolitionism, is not fit to receive the vote and support of the Abolitionists of this country, where shall we look for another? Who in this land could we nominate, freer from objection on the score of abolition faithfulness? We are free to say, that looking over the whole field, we know of none with claims to surpass his. 

When a man refuses to vote and support another for any political office, a valid foundation for such refusal cannot be found any where short of the unfitness of the candidate for the place. He must be incompetent from some cause, moral or otherwise, to fulfill the duties which the office imposes. This unfitness may be found either in the principles and doctrines of the man, or in his dishonesty.-He may be a good man, with bad political principles, or he may be a weak man, and mentally incapable of carrying out any principles consistently, good or bad. In either case we may properly refuse him our vote and support. He is not fit for the place, and therefore any party would disgrace itself, even though it had no hope of electing him, by holding such a man up to the country for such an office. Our candidate is not expected to agree with us in respect to the relative excellence of Homeopathy as against Allopathy, or Hydropathy as against Thomsonianism--for the duties of the office to which we would elect him does not require him either to decide upon medical or theological questions.-The business imposed upon the civil ruler by the American Constitution and by the Radical Abolition party, is to establish justice, and protect and secure the rights and liberties of the people. 

Now, the question before us is: Has Mr. GOODELL, or any body else, demonstrated the unfitness of Mr. SMITH to discharge the high duties imposed by the Constitution of the United States, or by the abolition platform of the men who have put him in nomination?- Has he alleged against him a single fault that ought to deprive him of the vote and the cordial and zealous support of any man who honestly and earnestly wishes to see American slavery abolished by means of the Federal Government? Has he exposed any thing either in Mr. SMITH'S principles or in his policy, in his life or in his spirit, which ought to deprive him of the respect and the confidence of any body, or that upon his election to the office of President, would be likely to prevent his doing all that any other man in his place could do to bring the slave system to a peaceful and speedy termination? If he has not done this, and we think he has not, he has not given any good reason for refusing to vote for, and otherwise to support his old and long tried friend for the office to which he is nominated.