LETTER TO HON. ANDREW D. WHITE, PRESIDENT OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY, AUGUST
10, 1872.
WASHINGTON, August 10, 1872.
MY DEAR SIR,--I am surprised by a statement purporting to proceed
from you, which I find under the telegraphic head, to the effect that
I have misrepresented facts with regard to Frederick Douglass.
In making this allegation you defend the Commissioners to San
Domingo, and allege that Mr. Douglass was well treated by them.
I have never said the contrary, nor have I ever alluded to the
treatment he received from them. Not a word or hint can be found on
the subject in anything written or spoken by me.
My allusion was to the exclusion of Mr. Douglass from the common
table of the mail-packet on the Potomac, almost within sight of the
Executive Mansion, simply on account of color,--and I added, that the
President, on whose invitation he had joined the Commission, never
uttered a word in rebuke of this exclusion, and when entertaining
the returned Commissioners at dinner carefully omitted Mr. Douglass,
who was in Washington at the time, and thus repeated the indignity.
On this you are represented as remarking, that General Sigel was
also omitted, but that, in fact, Mr. Douglass and General Sigel had
already left for their homes (forgetting that Mr. Douglass continued
in Washington); and you do not allow yourself to doubt, that, had
they been in town, they would have been included in the invitation.
Your apology clearly shows your opinion that they ought to have
been invited; but please not to forget that there was a reason for
inviting Mr. Douglass that did not exist in the case of General
Sigel. The General was white, and he had suffered no indignity on
board a mail-packet which it was in the power of the President to
rebuke by example.
But you are mistaken in the facts, as appears by the newspapers of
the time. The Commissioners reached Washington on the evening of
March 27th. They were entertained at dinner by the President March
30th. On the day before the dinner Mr. Douglass presided at the
Convention to nominate a Delegate to Congress from the District of
Columbia, and on taking the chair made a speech. Mr. Chipman was
nominated against Mr. Douglass, who made another speech thanking his
supporters for their votes. To gratify the friends of Mr. Douglass,
there was an understanding that he should succeed Mr. Chipman as
Secretary of the District. These things show that Mr. Douglass was
not only in Washington, but conspicuously so, presiding at a public
Convention, and being voted for as a candidate for Congress.
But we are not left to inference. Mr. A. M. Green, of Washington, who
at the Convention nominated Mr. Douglass for Congress, assures us
that he did not leave town till some days later. Mr. Green further
states, in a note dated August 10th, now before me, that about
this time he and another friend called on Mr. Douglass, in relation
to his appointment by the President as Secretary of the District;
that Mr. Douglass, while thanking them for their earnestness in
his behalf, assured them that he had no hope of success; that he
had “new evidence of the conservative character or tendency of the
Administration, which warranted him in the opinion that we could not
succeed”; and Mr. Green says that Mr. Douglass added these words:
“I was not only neglected without any rebuke for the offence from
the President, but the Commissioners have been invited to dine with
the President, and the same spirit of neglect has been exhibited in
that respect also.” Mr. Green adds, that recently, while on the way
to the National Colored Convention at New Orleans, Mr. Douglass, in
conversation with Mr. Downing and himself, “referred in a complaining
spirit to this circumstance.”
I have also before me a note, dated August 10th, from Mr. Wormley, so
well known for his excellent hotel in Washington, who says that he
asked Mr. Douglass, shortly after his return, if he dined with the
President and the Commissioners, to which he answered, “No, and for
the good reason that I was not invited”; and then he added, “It is
no use to deny it, but I feel it sorely.” This was at Mr. Douglass’s
office. On another occasion, at his son’s house, referring to the
same thing, he said to Mr. Wormley, “I felt it keenly.”
Mr. Gray, recently of the Legislative Council of the District,
nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, now a School
Trustee, assures me that Mr. Douglass spoke to him of his omission
by the President with the same feeling that he exhibited to Mr.
Green and Mr. Wormley. These witnesses are all colored, but even
without the new law nobody would question their testimony. I add my
own acquaintance with the case. At my house, Mr. Douglass, while
speaking not unkindly, said that he felt the President’s neglect in
not inviting him to dine, which was more noticeable, as he had gone
to San Domingo at the express invitation of the President, and on his
return was insulted on board the Potomac mail-packet. He added, that
an invitation from the President would have been a proper rebuke to
those who had insulted him.
I will add, that it is a matter of common notoriety that Mr. Douglass
did not disguise his feelings on account of this Presidential
incident.
Such are the facts and the evidence. I think that you will see, my
dear Sir, that, if there is any misstatement, or, as you express it,
“perversion of facts,” it is not on my part.
Faithfully yours,