J[ohn] Sella Martin to Frederick Douglass, October 22, 1858

OUR BUFFALO CORRESPONDENCE.

[For Frederick Douglass' Paper.]

FRIEND DOUGLASS—Friend Watkins says, in refuting the imputations of "The Hour and the Man," in regard to his being sold, (which imputation I do not believe,) "And to vote for him, (Gerrit Smith,) and cry out "principle, principle, and suffer the enemy to gain aid and comfort from my vote, would be suicidal in the extreme." "Abstract principles," he continues, "without the machinery to crystalize them into practical life, are of but little value."

What does our friend mean by abstract principles crystalized? Does he mean that under the melting or freezing apparatus of the Republican party, the simple element of Abolitionism is to be fused or congealed into a conglomerate, the predominant ingredient of which will be a flinty substance, that strikes an angry fire whenever the steel of negro equality comes in contact with it. If he means this, (and I see no other meaning,) he is welcome to his machinery, his labors and their results. Has not our friend W. left the principles of concrete right for the sake of the abstract principles, or I should any expediency of party, which, instead of being crystalized are held in useless solution by the low standard of political popularity?

But to drop metaphors from the premises that he lays down, and the conclusions at which he arrives, there never can be any efficient concert of action on the part of Abolitionists. Instead of making a party by advocating and adhering to the principles of its organization, he would have us abandon it by affiliating with other parties, the inevitable result of which affiliation must be destructive to the principles which we profess to cherish. Our friend W. reminds me of the horticulturist who digs up a thriving tree on his own premises to plant in another man's orchard, because he sees a larger tree than his own, of the same age, inconsiderate of the fact that the superabundance of sap may have given, it a larger but pithy trunk, which its shrivelled roots are indicative of its premature decay.

I know of nothing more calculated to create disrespect for our principles than our own abandonment of them. To what does Mr. Watkins' denunciations of slavery amount, withering though they may be? What strength is there in his claims for manhood, irrespective of complexion, though supported by the eloquence of Watkins, when he rejects a man who declares himself unqualifiedly in their favor, for a party who may make their respect of manhood conditional upon the man-dishonoring and God-defying institutions of bondage in Georgia, and the exclusion of free men from Kansas and Oregon, because they are black? Let us carry this out a little further. The Pope gives us some kind of religion, but denies us the reading of the Bible—[illegible] the Republican party give white man freedom in Kansas and Oregon, but won't let black men go there.

But Luther wishes to read the Bible and to let the people read—i.e. Radical Abolitionists wish negroes to go to Oregon, or any where else that other citizens go in this country. Luther asks the people to unite with him, but we say

he can do nothing and no work for the Pope. No, thank God they did not; but, believing in their righteousness, small in number through they were, the originators and heroes of the Reformation brought faggot after faggot until the sacreligious and superstitious superstructure of Popery was well nigh destroyed by the general conflagration of popular indignation, declaring by their earnestness that if the Pope and they ever came to terms, the Pope must come on their ground. It is said that the Republican party candidates are popular enough to be elected, if the Radical Abolitionists will support them. Then, if they ever mean to do any thing in favor of the latter's principles, I see no reason why they may not as well do it now as at any other time. But it is objected that our radical views would jeopardize their success. Very well; this only proves what I have already asserted, viz. that they care nothing for our principles.

A few months ago, Mr. Watkins was very forcible and happy in a lecture that I heard him deliver, in exposing the short-comings of the Republican party. Then there was no man that we could support. But now that we have a man who challenges Mr. Watkins' love and respect, and that love and respect for him and the cause, seems to have the anomalous effect of making Mr. W. desert both him and it.

Now, Mr. Editor, Mr. Watkins was wrong three months ago, or he is wrong now, and for myself I had rather believe that he is now, for his own and the cause's sake—for if it has taken him five years to learn that Abolitionism is wrong, I think it will take him the same length of time to learn that Republicanism is right. I don't like to risk the judgment of a man who denounced a party for five years, and then learned to love it in three weeks.

I am glad to say, friend Douglass, that the colored people of Buffalo agree with these opinions. In our Convention of the 21st and 22d of September, we passed strong resolutions in support of Gerrit Smith. We had some eloquent addresses, full of fat things. George Weir, Jr., Benj. Taylor, Wm. Qualls, A.D. Thompson, Rev. Mr. Adams, and nearly all of our prominent colored citizens gave their voice, and promised their vote for Hon. Gerrit Smith.—Altogether, we had a glorious time in the Convention, the full proceedings of which will be sent to your paper by the Secretary.

I regret very much (and so do all our citizens) that the Troy Convention so injured the cause of Abolitionism in this State. They seemed to forget that in leaving (instead of repairing) the old liberty engine, for one of the Republican build, that though the speed was faster, the chances for breaking their necks was greatly augmented.

YOURS, &c.

J. SELLA MARTIN.

BUFFALO, Oct. 22, 1858.