What the Black Man Wants

Image: Photograph of Frederick Douglass (1866) New-York Historical Society Museum & Library. https://digitalcollections.nyhistory.org/islandora/object/islandora%3A13670#page/3/mode/1up
Race and Civl Rights
Of Douglass’s various arguments in favor of suffrage for newly emancipated men, which seem most compelling, and why? Why did he regard suffrage as an imperative of national honor to enfranchise the freedmen? What ill effects did he believe blacks’ continued disfranchisement would produce? What did Douglass mean when he advised people in positions of power to “do nothing” with the freed people, but to “leave [them] alone”?
In calling for suffrage rights and decrying the consequences of denying them, Douglass suggested that laws should be framed with an eye toward their morally formative effects on those on whom they operate. In what ways does this suggestion inform, or fail to inform, the arguments in the rest of the documents in this collection? How, for instance, does his suggestion about stigma compare or contrast with the Supreme Court’s treatments of that issue in Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education?

No related resources


As the Civil War neared its end, Frederick Douglass had already lived one of the most remarkable lives in U.S. history. Born into slavery in 1818, he achieved literacy largely by his own determined effort, escaped from bondage as a twenty-year-old, and rose thereafter to become the greatest of all advocates for the abolition of slavery. In the present selection, Douglass spoke before the annual meeting of the American Anti-Slavery Society. Anticipating slavery’s final abolition by law (in the Thirteenth Amendment), he urged his antislavery colleagues not to cease their efforts but to redouble them. Genuine liberty for those soon to be emancipated, he maintained, would be secured only by their enfranchisement. In a similar spirit, he admonished sympathetic northern whites to refrain from demeaning paternalism in their solicitude for the newly freed-people’s well-being.

—Peter C. Myers

Source: George L. Stearns, Frederick Douglass, Wendall Phillips, and William D Kelley, The Equality of All Men before the Law, 1865; Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/item/mfd.22014/. Annotations in brackets are in the original text.

. . .I have had but one idea for the last three years to present to the American people, and the phraseology in which I clothe it is the old abolition phraseology. I am for the “immediate, unconditional, and universal” enfranchisement of the black man, in every state in the Union. [Loud applause.] Without this, his liberty is a mockery; without this, you might as well almost retain the old name of slavery for his condition; for in fact, if he is not the slave of the individual master, he is the slave of society, and holds his liberty as a privilege, not as a right. He is at the mercy of the mob, and has no means of protecting himself. . . .

It may be asked, “Why do you want it? Some men have got along very well without it. Women have not this right.” Shall we justify one wrong by another?. . .I hold that women, as well as men, have the right to vote [applause], and my heart and my voice go with the movement to extend suffrage to woman; but that question rests upon another basis than that on which our right rests. We may be asked, I say, why we want it. I will tell you why we want it. We want it because it is our right, first of all. No class of men can, without insulting their own nature, be content with any deprivation of their rights. We want it again, as a means for educating our race. Men are so constituted that they derive their conviction of their own possibilities largely from the estimate formed of them by others. If nothing is expected of a people, that people will find it difficult to contradict that expectation. By depriving us of suffrage, you affirm our incapacity to form an intelligent judgment respecting public men and public measures; you declare before the world that we are unfit to exercise the elective franchise, and by this means lead us to undervalue ourselves, to put a low estimate upon ourselves, and to feel that we have no possibilities like other men. Again, I want the elective franchise, for one, as a colored man, because ours is a peculiar government, based upon a peculiar idea, and that idea is universal suffrage. If I were in a monarchial government, or an autocratic or aristocratic government, where the few bore rule and the many were subject, there would be no special stigma resting upon me, because I did not exercise the elective franchise. It would do me no great violence. . . . [But] here where universal suffrage is the rule, where that is the fundamental idea of the government, to rule us out is to make us an exception, to brand us with the stigma of inferiority, and to invite to our heads the missiles of those about us; therefore, I want the franchise for the black man.

There are, however, other reasons, not derived from any consideration merely of our rights, but arising out of the conditions of the South, and of the country—considerations which have already been referred to by Mr. Phillips1—considerations which must arrest the attention of statesmen. I believe that when the tall heads of this rebellion shall have been swept down, as they will be swept down, when the Davises and Toombses and Stephenses,2 and others who are leading this rebellion shall have been blotted out, there will be this rank undergrowth of treason, to which reference has been made, growing up there, and interfering with, and thwarting the quiet operation of the federal government in those states. You will see those traitors, handing down, from sire to son, the same malignant spirit which they have manifested, and which they are now exhibiting, with malicious hearts, broad blades, and bloody hands in the field, against our sons and brothers. . . .That enmity will not die out in a year, will not die out in an age. The federal government will be looked upon in those states precisely as the governments of Austria and France are looked upon in Italy at the present moment. They will endeavor to circumvent, they will endeavor to destroy, the peaceful operation of this government. Now, where will you find the strength to counterbalance this spirit, if you do not find it in the Negroes of the South? They are your friends, and have always been your friends. They were your friends even when the government did not regard them as such. They comprehended the genius of this war before you did. It is a significant fact, it is a marvelous fact, it seems almost to imply a direct interposition of Providence, that this war, which began in the interest of slavery on both sides, bids fair to end in the interest of liberty on both sides. [Applause.] It was begun, I say, in the interest of slavery on both sides. The South was fighting to take slavery out of the Union,3 and the North fighting to keep it in the Union; the South fighting to get it beyond the limits of the United States Constitution, and the North fighting to retain it within those limits; the South fighting for new guarantees, and the North fighting for the old guarantees—both despising the Negro, both insulting the Negro. Yet, the Negro, apparently endowed with wisdom from on high, saw more clearly the end from the beginning than we did. When Seward4 said the status of no man in the country would be changed by the war, the Negro did not believe him. [Applause.] When our generals sent their underlings in shoulder-straps to hunt the flying Negro back from our lines into the jaws of slavery, from which he had escaped, the Negroes thought that a mistake had been made, and that the intentions of the government had not been rightly understood by our officers in shoulder-straps, and they continued to come into our lines, threading their way through bogs and fens, over briars and thorns, fording streams, swimming rivers, bringing us tidings as to the safe path to march, and pointing out the dangers that threatened us. They are our only friends in the South, and we should be true to them in this their trialhour, and see to it that they have the elective franchise. . . .

. . .I hold that the American people are bound, not only in self-defense, to extend this right to the freedmen of the South, but they are bound by their love of country, and by all their regard for the future safety of those Southern states, to do this—to do it as a measure essential to the preservation of peace there. But I will not dwell upon this. I put it to the American sense of honor. The honor of a nation is an important thing. It is said in the Scriptures, “What
doth it profit a man if he gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”5 It may be said, also, What doth it profit a nation if it gain the whole world, but lose its honor? I hold that the American government has taken upon itself a solemn obligation of honor, to see that this war—let it be long or let it be short, let it cost much or let it cost little—that this war shall not cease until every freedman at the South has the right to vote. [Applause.] It has bound itself to it. What have you asked the black men of the South, the black men of the whole country, to do? Why, you have asked them to incur the deadly enmity of their masters, in order to befriend you and to befriend this government. You have asked us to call down, not only upon ourselves, but upon our children’s children, the deadly hate of the entire southern people. You have called upon us to turn our backs upon our masters, to abandon their cause and espouse yours; to turn against the South and in favor of the North; to shoot down the Confederacy and uphold the flag—the American flag. You have called upon us to expose ourselves to all the subtle machinations of their malignity for all time. And now, what do you propose to do when you come to make peace? To reward your enemies, and trample in the dust your friends?. . . Do you mean to give your enemies the right to vote, and take it away from your friends? Is that wise policy? Is that honorable?. . .There is something too mean in looking upon the Negro, when you are in trouble, as a citizen, and when you are free from trouble, as an alien. When this nation was in trouble, in its early struggles, it looked upon the Negro as a citizen. In 1776 he was a citizen. At the time of the formation of the Constitution the Negro had the right to vote in eleven states out of the old thirteen. In your trouble you have made us citizens. In 1812 General Jackson6 addressed us as citizens—“fellow citizens.” He wanted us to fight. We were citizens then! And now, when you come to frame a conscription bill, the Negro is a citizen again. He has been a citizen just three times in the history of this government, and it has always been in time of trouble. In time of trouble we are citizens. Shall we be citizens in war, and aliens in peace? Would that be just?

I ask my friends who are apologizing for not insisting upon this right, where can the black man look, in this country, for the assertion of his right, if he may not look to the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society?. . . We look naturally to this platform for the assertion of all our rights, and for this one especially. I understand the antislavery societies of this country to be based on two principles—first, the freedom of the blacks of this country; and, second, the levation of them. Let me not be misunderstood here. I am not asking for sympathy at the hands of abolitionists, sympathy at the hands of any. I think the American people are disposed often to be generous rather than just. I look over this country at the present time, and I see Educational Societies, Sanitary Commissions, Freedmen’s Associations, and the like—all verygood: but in regard to the colored people there is always more that is benevolent, I perceive, than just, manifested toward us. What I ask for the Negro is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice. [Applause.] The American people have always been anxious to know what they shall do with us. General Banks7 was distressed with solicitude as to what he should do with the Negro. Everybody has asked the question, and they learned to ask it early of the abolitionists, “What shall we do with the Negro?” I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are worm eaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature’s plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone! If you see him on his way to school, let him alone, don’t disturb him! If you see him going to the dinner table at a hotel, let him go! If you see him going to the ballot box, let him alone, don’t disturb him! [Applause.] If you see him going into a workshop, just let him alone—your interference is doing him a positive injury. General Banks’ “preparation” is of a piece with this attempt to prop up the Negro.8 Let him fall if he cannot stand alone! If the Negro cannot live by the line of eternal justice, so beautifully pictured to you in the illustration used by Mr. Phillips, the fault will not be yours, it will be his who made the Negro, and established that line for his government. [Applause.] Let him live or die by that. If you will only untie his hands, and give him a chance, I think he will live. He will work as readily for himself as the white man. A great many delusions have been swept away by this war. One was that the Negro would not work; he has proved his ability to work. Another was that the Negro would not fight; that he possessed only the most sheepish attributes of humanity; was a perfect lamb, or an “Uncle Tom,” disposed to take off his coat whenever required, fold his hands, and be whipped by anybody who wanted to whip him. But the war has proved that there is a great deal of human nature in the Negro, and that “he will fight,” as Mr. Quincy,9 our president, said, in earlier days than these, “when there is a reasonable probability of his whipping anybody.” [Laughter and applause.]

  1. 1. Douglass refers to abolitionist Wendell Phillips (1811–1884), a colleague of Douglass’s early mentor William Lloyd Garrison (1805-1879).
  2. 2. Jefferson F. Davis (1808–1889) was president of the Confederate States of America; Robert A. Toombs (1810–1885) was CSA secretary of state; Alexander H. Stephens (1812–1883) was CSA vice president.
  3. 3. Douglass did not mean that the South was fighting to abolish slavery; he meant that the rebel states were fighting to make slavery more secure by seceding and forming their own union.
  4. 4. William H. Seward (1801–1872) was secretary of state in the Lincoln administration.
  5. 5. Matthew 16:26; Mark 8:3.
  6. 6. Andrew Jackson was Tennessee militia general in the War of 1812. In 1828 he was elected seventh president of the United States.
  7. 7. Nathaniel P. Banks (1816–1894) was a Union army general during the Civil War. He served as commander of Union-occupied territory in Louisiana from 1862 to 1864.
  8. 8. A reference to work and other programs Banks established to deal with former slaves who left plantations in Louisiana.
  9. 9. John Quincy Adams (1767–1848) was the sixth president of the United States.
Teacher Programs

Conversation-based seminars for collegial PD, one-day and multi-day seminars, graduate credit seminars (MA degree), online and in-person.

Our Core Document Collection allows students to read history in the words of those who made it. Available in hard copy and for download.