F. Douglass The Lincoln-Douglass relationship

Lincoln said Douglas was his friend. We know that. We also know from John Eaton that Douglass considered Lincoln a friend as well as being a remarkable man. It's their definition, Alan, not mine, that counts as to why they considered each other as friends.

I agree. They called each other friends and spoke so highly of each other. Their relationship went beyond just the amount of minutes they spent together. They became increasingly more aligned with each other and their meetings were certainly friendly and significant. Seems odd for someone today to say, "They weren't really friends!"
 
Lincoln said Douglas was his friend. We know that. We also know from John Eaton that Douglass considered Lincoln a friend as well as being a remarkable man. It's their definition, Alan, not mine, that counts as to why they considered each other as friends.

Well that's the thing. What was their definition? We don't know, they never defined it. My point is that being a friend means different things to different people, and without some objective standard to follow, who's to say what their "friendship" actually meant?

I'm just making it clear that these were "friends" who spent all of what, 12 hours in each other's presence, did not correspond with each other, did not frequent the same venues, and had no other personal relationship outside of their meetings of several hours. My suggestion to all is that facts should be kept in mind to evaluate exactly what their "friendship" was about.

I agree. They called each other friends and spoke so highly of each other. Their relationship went beyond just the amount of minutes they spent together. They became increasingly more aligned with each other and their meetings were certainly friendly and significant. Seems odd for someone today to say, "They weren't really friends!"

RE: Their relationship went beyond just the amount of minutes they spent together.

How so?

RE: They became increasingly more aligned with each other and their meetings were certainly friendly and significant.

I have had many meetings that caused me to be more aligned with the other meeting participants. The meetings were sometimes significant, and they were cause to make me friendlier with the other participants. But none of that made me their friends.

I don't discount that Lincoln/Douglass were friendly to each other, or that they used the term to describe their relationship. But these guys spent what - 12 hours total in each other's presence? I guess it was real easy to make friends back then...

I'm not meaning to be snarky, I'm just saying, let's step back and apply some objectivity to this. Or at least, make note that these self-professed friends had, in fact, very very very very little contact with each other, and that their relationship was not personal but business oriented, although they were clearly very friendly to each other in their face to face meetings.

- Alan
 
Last edited:
Alan, I'm not sure what "objective" really does here. If they felt that it was good enough to consider it "friendship", why do we need to come up with a more demanding definition? It's not as if whether it was "real friendship" can be defined except in regards to how they felt about each other.
 
Alan, I'm not sure what "objective" really does here. If they felt that it was good enough to consider it "friendship", why do we need to come up with a more demanding definition? It's not as if whether it was "real friendship" can be defined except in regards to how they felt about each other.

The question is, what does it mean to say that they were "friends?" If we have no idea what that means, then why even say it?

My point is that anybody can read anything into the term. Thus it becomes of limited value in determining the nature of their relationship.

I will say it again. It's fair to say that they claimed to be "friends." But let's keep in in mind that this relationship between them was extremely limited, not going beyond several hours of meetings, agreements on public policy, and warm feelings between each other in their meetings. Those facts tell us a lot more about the nature of their relationship than to say they were "friends."

- Alan
 
The question is, what does it mean to say that they were "friends?" If we have no idea what that means, then why even say it?

Because that's how they described their relationship? Because in talking about how they felt about each other, we have to actually acknowledge what they said and not what we think of their feelings?

My point is that anybody can read anything into the term. Thus it becomes of limited value in determining the nature of their relationship.

They considered the nature of their relationship to be "friends". Whether what they meant by that is the same as what I mean in referring to people who I talk with hours each day or not is important, yes, but that it might not be enough for me or you to consider a "friendship" has no more relevance than whether I would consider Lincoln's favorite food to be tasty or filling has any relevance to describing how Lincoln felt about it.

I will say it again. It's fair to say that they claimed to be "friends." But let's keep in in mind that this relationship between them was extremely limited, not going beyond several hours of meetings, agreements on public policy, and warm feelings between each other in their meetings. Those facts tell us a lot more about the nature of their relationship than to say they were "friends."

- Alan

Those facts should not be used as if they prove that they weren't actually friends either. If you want to say that when describing their relationship it should be noted that their friendship was primarily a matter of "several hours of meetings, agreements on public policy, and warm feelings between each other in their meetings" - then in absence of contradicting evidence I agree, but I see no point or value in saying that this means it couldn't be a matter of friendship as they saw it.
 
Well that's the thing. What was their definition? We don't know, they never defined it. My point is that being a friend means different things to different people, and without some objective standard to follow, who's to say what their "friendship" actually meant?

I'm just making it clear that these were "friends" who spent all of what, 12 hours in each other's presence, did not correspond with each other, did not frequent the same venues, and had no other personal relationship outside of their meetings of several hours. My suggestion to all is that facts should be kept in mind to evaluate exactly what their "friendship" was about.

I'm not aware of any minimum requirement for people to be able to call themselves "friends," other than they regard themselves as "friends." I don't know of any minimum time they had to have been face-to-face or any minimum amount of communication they have to have in order to be considered "friends." I'd say that those two say what their friendship actually meant.
 
Why don't we just say their relationship was friendly and leave it at that?

Their meeting was friendly and the way the spoke as equals was significant and I think they both appreciated that fact. A man born a slave sitting in the White House discussing the fate of Black Americans with the President. Think of how quickly that went from unthinkable to happening. Weren't these kind of the landing on the moon moments for the 19th Century? I think the cataclysmic importance the of the times they were in and their roles in what was happening probably amplified their experiences quite a bit. Friends are made fast in the front lines too.

Calling them "buddy-buddy" as someone did here may have distracted the conversation a bit and made the term "friends" seem like something other than what Douglass intended when he called Lincoln his friend. I'm fine with letting what he said stand as he said it.
 
That sounds reasonable to me.

- Alan
It's like most of this board -- we're mostly friendly, but I can count my "friends." Those I've met personally and chat buddies. There are many with whom I share a cordial relationship, but it's kinda distant. Not really friends, but friendly. Semantics.
 
I'm not aware of any minimum requirement for people to be able to call themselves "friends," other than they regard themselves as "friends." I don't know of any minimum time they had to have been face-to-face or any minimum amount of communication they have to have in order to be considered "friends." I'd say that those two say what their friendship actually meant.

The thing I keep asking is this: what does it mean to say that they were friends? And if we don't know what it means, then what value is there to using the term?

Nobody wants to answer those questions. Instead, the response is, well that was what they said. Fine, that is what they said. The question is, what are we of today to make of that?

People say a lot of things. The historian looks at that and says, what are we to make of it?

The problem with saying they were "friends" is that it could easily lead people to read things into their relationship that are not true.

This is a true story: I was speaking to a young lady who told me, Fred Douglass was one of Lincoln's "advisors." My response was, just because Douglass gave Lincoln advice in a couple of meetings, that doesn't make Douglass an advisor. I said that Lincoln met and got advice from hundreds of people during his time in office, I wouldn't say that he had hundreds of advisors. But she persisted with her interpretation, and so that was that.

Now… somebody could look at the statement that these two said they were friends and interpret that:
o Douglass and Lincoln spent hours together at a time, on a frequent basis
o Douglass and Lincoln corresponded with each other frequently
o Douglass and Lincoln constantly and frequently checked in with each other, to "see how they were doing," and making sure they were "OK"
o Douglass and Lincoln shared common interests in the arts, entertainment, sports, or other activities, which they spoke about with each other
o Douglass and Lincoln shared a deep and long term emotional and personal relationship

ALL of these are valid interpretations of the term "friend." But I see no evidence that ANY of these are true for the relationship between Douglass and Lincoln.

Hence my point: we need to qualify the statement that Lincoln and Douglass were friends such that people will not read things into their relationship things that are incorrect.

That's it.

- Alan
 
The thing I keep asking is this: what does it mean to say that they were friends? And if we don't know what it means, then what value is there to using the term?

Nobody wants to answer those questions. Instead, the response is, well that was what they said. Fine, that is what they said. The question is, what are we of today to make of that?

People say a lot of things. The historian looks at that and says, what are we to make of it?

The problem with saying they were "friends" is that it could easily lead people to read things into their relationship that are not true.

This is a true story: I was speaking to a young lady who told me, Fred Douglass was one of Lincoln's "advisors." My response was, just because Douglass gave Lincoln advice in a couple of meetings, that doesn't make Douglass an advisor. I said that Lincoln met and got advice from hundreds of people during his time in office, I wouldn't say that he had hundreds of advisors. But she persisted with her interpretation, and so that was that.

Now… somebody could look at the statement that these two said they were friends and interpret that:
o Douglass and Lincoln spent hours together at a time, on a frequent basis
o Douglass and Lincoln corresponded with each other frequently
o Douglass and Lincoln constantly and frequently checked in with each other, to "see how they were doing," and making sure they were "OK"
o Douglass and Lincoln shared common interests in the arts, entertainment, sports, or other activities, which they spoke about with each other
o Douglass and Lincoln shared a deep and long term emotional and personal relationship

ALL of these are valid interpretations of the term "friend." But I see no evidence that ANY of these are true for the relationship between Douglass and Lincoln.

Hence my point: we need to qualify the statement that Lincoln and Douglass were friends such that people will not read things into their relationship things that are incorrect.

That's it.

- Alan

They considered themselves to be friends. They apparently felt they knew each other enough to call each other friends. Friends feel a bond of mutual affection of some type between themselves. Apparently Lincoln and Douglass felt that bond. It means nothing more than they considered each other to be friends.
 
They considered themselves to be friends. They apparently felt they knew each other enough to call each other friends. Friends feel a bond of mutual affection of some type between themselves. Apparently Lincoln and Douglass felt that bond. It means nothing more than they considered each other to be friends.

Cash, my friend, you have the last word.

- Alan
 
As I recall, Lincoln and Douglass met 2-3 times in person. I don't think they had a correspondence/pen pal relationship, where they wrote to each other frequently.

I believe they met face-to-face three times. Once in 1862 or '63, when Douglass pressed Lincoln on the subject of enlisting African American soldiers; once in 1864, when Lincoln feared he would lose the election and wanted Douglass to do everything he could through his contacts to get escaping slaves into northern territory, where they would be safe in the event of a negotiated treaty recognizing the Confederacy; and in March 1865 when Douglass was ushered briefly in and out of the White House inaugural ball by a mutual (white) friend to congratulate the president on his re-election.

Their relationship was very much a function of their respective roles in public life, both created and constrained by them.
 
Last edited:
I believe they met face-to-face three times. Once in 1862 or '63, when Douglass pressed Lincoln on the subject of enlisting African American soldiers; once in 1864, when Lincoln feared he would lose the election and wanted Douglass to do everything he could through his contacts to get escaping slaves into northern territory, where they would be safe in the event of a negotiated treaty recognizing the Confederacy; and in March 1865 when Douglass was ushered briefly in and out of the White House inaugural ball by a mutual (white) friend to congratulate the president on his re-election.

Their relationship was very much a function of their respective roles in public life, both created and constrained by them.
FYI,

Before my old laptop died several months ago, I was doing some research for my blog about African Americans who spoke or met or otherwise had direct contact with Lincoln, either for business or ceremonial reasons. I lost my notes with my dead hard drive, but I recall Lincoln had as many as a 6-12 such meetings or encounters, maybe more. He met with Douglass; met with Martin Delaney, who was commissioned an officer in the US Army; met with Abraham Galloway and a contingent of black men from North Carolina; he spoke with a black pastor (last name Payne, perhaps) about the Washington, DC Emancipation Act; he met briefly with Sojourner Truth; he met with 2 so-called "black creoles" from Louisiana to discuss reconstruction and black suffrage; he met a group of free blacks from Baltimore who gave him a Bible.

This level of contact was unprecedented. Over half of the first fifteen presidents were slaveholders at one time or another. Negroes, 90% of whom were enslaved in 1860, had very little political power. By those meetings, Lincoln became the first president, I think, to "recognize"African Americans as a kind of constituent group.

- Alan
 
Last edited:
This level of contact was unprecedented. Over half of the first fifteen presidents were slaveholders at one time or another. Negroes, 90% of whom were enslaved in 1860, had very little political power. By those meetings, Lincoln became the first president, I think, to "recognize"African Americans as a kind of constituent group.
So much for the simplistic nonsense we hear from defenders of slaveholders who insist that "Lincoln hated black people."
 
FYI,

Before my old laptop died several months ago, I was doing some research for my blog about African Americans who spoke or met or otherwise had direct contact with Lincoln, either for business or ceremonial reasons. I lost my notes with my dead hard drive, but I recall Lincoln had as many as a 6-12 meetings or encounters, maybe more. He met with Douglass; met with Martin Delaney, who was commissioned an officer; met with Abraham Galloway and a contingent of black men from North Carolina; he spoke with a black pastor (last name Payne, perhaps) about the Washington, DC Emancipation Act; he met briefly with Sojourner Truth; he met with 2 so-called "black creoles" from Louisiana to discuss reconstruction and black suffrage; he met a group of free blacks from Baltimore who gave him a Bible.

This level of contact was unprecedented. Over half of the first fifteen presidents were slaveholders at one time or another. Negroes, 90% of whom were enslaved in 1860, had very little political power. By those meetings, Lincoln became the first president, I think, to "recognize"African Americans as a kind of constituent group.

- Alan

Apologies for delving into it again but I think this speaks to what Douglass meant by calling Lincoln a "friend."
 
Apologies for delving into it again but I think this speaks to what Douglass meant by calling Lincoln a "friend."
Douglass' views on Lincoln were very complex. The following are excerpts from his oration to the memory of Lincoln at the unveiling of the Emancipation Monument in Washington, DC.

Douglass says that Lincoln was the black man's "friend" and "liberator," and that "the name of Abraham Lincoln was near and dear to our hearts in the darkest and most perilous hours of the Republic." But he also says Lincoln was "preeminently the white man's President, entirely devoted to the welfare of white men," that "the race to which we belong were not the special objects of his consideration," and that "truth compels me to admit, even here in the presence of the monument we have erected to his memory, Abraham Lincoln was not, in the fullest sense of the word, either our man or our model. In his interests, in his associations, in his habits of thought, and in his prejudices, he was a white man."

I think this comment from that speech sums it up: "Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined."

Douglass understood that Lincoln was a man, a white man, of his times. But that is why Douglass was ultimately thankful for Lincoln, enough to see Lincoln as a hero for African Americans. Because despite the his own prejudices, and those of the nation, Lincoln found cause to condemn slavery as evil, and to use the war as a means to destroy slavery. Lincoln was a man of his times who rose above his times, to do something revolutionary. Douglass, and African Americans, were "appreciators of his benefits."

These excerpts from the Douglass speech are very long, almost ridiculously long. But it has a lot to offer us about how Douglass saw Lincoln:
*******

Fellow-citizens, in what we have said and done today, and in what we may say and do hereafter, we disclaim everything like arrogance and assumption. We claim for ourselves no superior devotion to the character, history, and memory of the illustrious name whose monument we have here dedicated today. We fully comprehend the relation of Abraham Lincoln both to ourselves and to the white people of the United States.

Truth is proper and beautiful at all times and in all places, and it is never more proper and beautiful in any case than when speaking of a great public man whose example is likely to be commended for honor and imitation long after his departure to the solemn shades, the silent continents of eternity. It must be admitted, truth compels me to admit, even here in the presence of the monument we have erected to his memory, Abraham Lincoln was not, in the fullest sense of the word, either our man or our model. In his interests, in his associations, in his habits of thought, and in his prejudices, he was a white man.

He was preeminently the white man's President, entirely devoted to the welfare of white men. He was ready and willing at any time during the first years of his administration to deny, postpone, and sacrifice the rights of humanity in the colored people to promote the welfare of the white people of this country. In all his education and feeling he was an American of the Americans. He came into the Presidential chair upon one principle alone, namely, opposition to the extension of slavery. His arguments in furtherance of this policy had their motive and mainspring in his patriotic devotion to the interests of his own race.

To protect, defend, and perpetuate slavery in the states where it existed Abraham Lincoln was not less ready than any other President to draw the sword of the nation. He was ready to execute all the supposed guarantees of the United States Constitution in favor of the slave system anywhere inside the slave states. He was willing to pursue, recapture, and send back the fugitive slave to his master, and to suppress a slave rising for liberty, though his guilty master were already in arms against the Government. The race to which we belong were not the special objects of his consideration. Knowing this, I concede to you, my white fellow-citizens, a pre-eminence in this worship at once full and supreme.

First, midst, and last, you and yours (white Americans) were the objects of his deepest affection and his most earnest solicitude. You are the children of Abraham Lincoln. We are at best only his step-children; children by adoption, children by forces of circumstances and necessity. To you it especially belongs to sound his praises, to preserve and perpetuate his memory, to multiply his statues, to hang his pictures high upon your walls, and commend his example, for to you he was a great and glorious friend and benefactor. Instead of supplanting you at his altar, we would exhort you to build high his monuments; let them be of the most costly material, of the most cunning workmanship; let their forms be symmetrical, beautiful, and perfect, let their bases be upon solid rocks, and their summits lean against the unchanging blue, overhanging sky, and let them endure forever!

But while in the abundance of your wealth, and in the fullness of your just and patriotic devotion, you do all this, we entreat you to despise not the humble offering we this day unveil to view; for while Abraham Lincoln saved for you a country, he delivered us from a bondage, according to Jefferson, one hour of which was worse than ages of the oppression your fathers rose in rebellion to oppose.

Fellow-citizens, ours is no new-born zeal and devotion — merely a thing of this moment. The name of Abraham Lincoln was near and dear to our hearts in the darkest and most perilous hours of the Republic. We were no more ashamed of him when shrouded in clouds of darkness, of doubt, and defeat than when we saw him crowned with victory, honor, and glory. Our faith in him was often taxed and strained to the uttermost, but it never failed.

When he tarried long in the mountain; when he strangely told us that we were the cause of the war; when he still more strangely told us that we were to leave the land in which we were born; when he refused to employ our arms in defense of the Union; when, after accepting our services as colored soldiers, he refused to retaliate our murder and torture as colored prisoners; when he told us he would save the Union if he could with slavery; when he revoked the Proclamation of Emancipation of General Fremont; when he refused to remove the popular commander of the Army of the Potomac, in the days of its inaction and defeat, who was more zealous in his efforts to protect slavery than to suppress rebellion; when we saw all this, and more, we were at times grieved, stunned, and greatly bewildered; but our hearts believed while they ached and bled. Nor was this, even at that time, a blind and unreasoning superstition. Despite the mist and haze that surrounded him; despite the tumult, the hurry, and confusion of the hour, we were able to take a comprehensive view of Abraham Lincoln, and to make reasonable allowance for the circumstances of his position.

We saw him, measured him, and estimated him; not by stray utterances to injudicious and tedious delegations, who often tried his patience; not by isolated facts torn from their connection; not by any partial and imperfect glimpses, caught at inopportune moments; but by a broad survey, in the light of the stern logic of great events, and in view of that divinity which shapes our ends, rough hew them how we will, we came to the conclusion that the hour and the man of our redemption had somehow met in the person of Abraham Lincoln. It mattered little to us what language he might employ on special occasions; it mattered little to us, when we fully knew him, whether he was swift or slow in his movements; it was enough for us that Abraham Lincoln was at the head of a great movement, and was in living and earnest sympathy with that movement, which, in the nature of things, must go on until slavery should be utterly and forever abolished in the United States.

When, therefore, it shall be asked what we have to do with the memory of Abraham Lincoln, or what Abraham Lincoln had to do with us, the answer is ready, full, and complete. Though he loved Caesar less than Rome, though the Union was more to him than our freedom or our future, under his wise and beneficent rule we saw ourselves gradually lifted from the depths of slavery to the heights of liberty and manhood;

• under his wise and beneficent rule, and by measures approved and vigorously pressed by him, we saw that the handwriting of ages, in the form of prejudice and proscription, was rapidly fading away from the face of our whole country;

• under his rule, and in due time, about as soon after all as the country could tolerate the strange spectacle, we saw our brave sons and brothers laying off the rags of bondage, and being clothed all over in the blue uniforms of the soldiers of the United States;

• under his rule we saw two hundred thousand of our dark and dusky people responding to the call of Abraham Lincoln, and with muskets on their shoulders, and eagles on their buttons, timing their high footsteps to liberty and union under the national flag;

• under his rule we saw the independence of the black republic of Haiti, the special object of slave-holding aversion and horror, fully recognized, and her minister, a colored gentleman, duly received here in the city of Washington;

• under his rule we saw the internal slave-trade, which so long disgraced the nation, abolished, and slavery abolished in the District of Columbia;

• under his rule we saw for the first time the law enforced against the foreign slave trade, and the first slave-trader hanged like any other pirate or murderer;

• under his rule, assisted by the greatest captain of our age, and his inspiration, we saw the Confederate States, based upon the idea that our race must be slaves, and slaves forever, battered to pieces and scattered to the four winds;

• under his rule, and in the fullness of time, we saw Abraham Lincoln, after giving the slave-holders three months' grace in which to save their hateful slave system, penning the immortal paper, which, though special in its language, was general in its principles and effect, making slavery forever impossible in the United States.

Though we waited long, we saw all this and more.

Can any colored man, or any white man friendly to the freedom of all men, ever forget the night which followed the first day of January, 1863, when the world was to see if Abraham Lincoln would prove to be as good as his word? I shall never forget that memorable night, when in a distant city I waited and watched at a public meeting, with three thousand others not less anxious than myself, for the word of deliverance which we have heard read today.

Nor shall I ever forget the outburst of joy and thanksgiving that rent the air when the lightning brought to us the emancipation proclamation. In that happy hour we forgot all delay, and forgot all tardiness, forgot that the President had bribed the rebels to lay down their arms by a promise to withhold the bolt which would smite the slave-system with destruction; and we were thenceforward willing to allow the President all the latitude of time, phraseology, and every honorable device that statesmanship might require for the achievement of a great and beneficent measure of liberty and progress.

I have said that President Lincoln was a white man, and shared the prejudices common to his countrymen towards the colored race. Looking back to his times and to the condition of his country, we are compelled to admit that this unfriendly feeling on his part may be safely set down as one element of his wonderful success in organizing the loyal American people for the tremendous conflict before them, and bringing them safely through that conflict. His great mission was to accomplish two things: first, to save his country from dismemberment and ruin; and, second, to free his country from the great crime of slavery. To do one or the other, or both, he must have the earnest sympathy and the powerful cooperation of his loyal fellow-countrymen. Without this primary and essential condition to success his efforts must have been vain and utterly fruitless. Had he put the abolition of slavery before the salvation of the Union, he would have inevitably driven from him a powerful class of the American people and rendered resistance to rebellion impossible.

Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined.

Though Mr. Lincoln shared the prejudices of his white fellow-countrymen against the Negro, it is hardly necessary to say that in his heart of hearts he loathed and hated slavery. The man who could say, "Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war shall soon pass away, yet if God wills it continue till all the wealth piled by two hundred years of bondage shall have been wasted, and each drop of blood drawn by the lash shall have been paid for by one drawn by the sword, the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether," gives all needed proof of his feeling on the subject of slavery. He was willing, while the South was loyal, that it should have its pound of flesh, because he thought that it was so nominated in the bond; but farther than this no earthly power could make him go.

...Few great public men have ever been the victims of fiercer denunciation than Abraham Lincoln was during his administration. He was often wounded in the house of his friends. Reproaches came thick and fast upon him from within and from without, and from opposite quarters. He was assailed by Abolitionists; he was assailed by slave-holders; he was assailed by the men who were for peace at any price; he was assailed by those who were for a more vigorous prosecution of the war; he was assailed for not making the war an abolition war; and he was bitterly assailed for making the war an abolition war.

But now behold the change: the judgment of the present hour is, that taking him for all in all, measuring the tremendous magnitude of the work before him, considering the necessary means to ends, and surveying the end from the beginning, infinite wisdom has seldom sent any man into the world better fitted for his mission than Abraham Lincoln.

His birth, his training, and his natural endowments, both mental and physical, were strongly in his favor. Born and reared among the lowly, a stranger to wealth and luxury, compelled to grapple single-handed with the flintiest hardships of life, from tender youth to sturdy manhood, he grew strong in the manly and heroic qualities demanded by the great mission to which he was called by the votes of his countrymen. The hard condition of his early life, which would have depressed and broken down weaker men, only gave greater life, vigor, and buoyancy to the heroic spirit of Abraham Lincoln. He was ready for any kind and any quality of work.

Fellow-citizens, I end, as I began, with congratulations. We have done a good work for our race today. In doing honor to the memory of our friend and liberator, we have been doing highest honors to ourselves and those who come after us; we have been fastening ourselves to a name and fame imperishable and immortal; we have also been defending ourselves from a blighting scandal. When now it shall be said that the colored man is soulless, that he has no appreciation of benefits or benefactors; when the foul reproach of ingratitude is hurled at us, and it is attempted to scourge us beyond the range of human brotherhood, we may calmly point to the monument we have this day erected to the memory of Abraham Lincoln.

Source: Frederick Douglass: Selected Speeches and Writings, ed. Philip S. Foner (Chicago: Lawrence Hill, 1999), 616-624.

- Alan
 
Last edited:

Learn About Us
►About CivilWarTalk
►Contact the Webmaster
►Meet the Staff
►Link to CivilWarTalk
Join Our Community
►Register
►Browse Forums
►View Today's Discussions
►Search the Forum
Get Help
►FAQ
►Student Guide
►Forum Rules & Etiquette
►Copyright / DMCA

     Contact Us CivilwarTalk on Facebook CivilWarTalk on YouTube CivilWarTalk on Twitter RSS Feed

Bringing the American Civil War and More to Life.
© 1999 - , CIVILWARTALK, LLC - Site Version 10.0

SlaveryTalk.com - SecessionTalk.com - CivilWarTalk.com - ReconstructionTalk.com
Back
Top