page_0002

to bide your time. A bitter contest, I fear, is before us—but when pride,
prejudice—and narrow views of political economy are on one side—and
humanity—civilization and sound Statesmanship are on the other—there
is no reason to doubt as to which will finally prevail. In this discussion
you have the advantage which comes of fixed principles. While others
are entangled in the meshes of temporary expediency—and hesitate—you
can go forward untousled. I send you this line simply to remind you that
now as in time past I follow your every important step with <the> eager
earnest eye—of a friend. a grateful friend—

I have not been able to see with you the Cuban question^{3In October 1868, a group of Cuban planters initiated a revolution for independence from Spain. In the United States, debates emerged over the role the country should play in the conflict. Some believed the United States should recognize the rebels as belligerents, while others deemed the conflict a civil war and called for neutrality. While Sumner and Douglass sympathized with the Cuban rebels, they differed about what action to take. Sumner, along with Grant’s secretary of state, Hamilton Fish, pushed the president to issue a proclamation of neutrality, not only to protect American commerce but also to avoid a war with Spain. Douglass advocated a more aggressive approach. For example, he called for money to be raised to publish the Constitution of the Republic of Cuba, which would proclaim the abolition of slavery, and supported the calling of a national colored convention to aid the rebel cause. Ultimately, the United States declared its neutrality, and after a ten-year struggle, Spain thwarted the rebellion. Douglass Papers, ser. 1, 4: 204n; Quarles, Frederick Douglass, 284–85; Herbert Donald, Charles Sumner and the Rights of Man (New York, 1970), 395, 416–19; Kenneth E. Hendrickson, The Spanish-American War (Westport, Conn., 2003), 5; Merline Pitre, “Frederick Douglass and American Diplomacy in the Caribbean,” Journal of Black Studies, 13: 458 (June 1983).}—yet I trust
your understanding of its relations and bearings rather than my own.

I have to thank you for several important documents of late—and
among them, I was especially pleased to find a copy of the eulogies pronounced upon the late Senator Fessenden.^{4Samuel Fessenden (1784–1869), lawyer and abolitionist, was born in Fryeburg, Maine. He graduated from Dartmouth College in 1806, gained admission to the Maine bar in 1809, and married Deborah Chandler in 1813. He served in the Massachusetts state senate in 1818–19. Along with his son and later U.S. senator William Pitt Fessenden, he moved to Portland, Maine, in 1822. Fessenden served with the Massachusetts militia for fourteen years and rose to the rank of major general. He represented Portland in the state legislature from 1825 to 1826, following the separation of Maine from Massachusetts, and practiced law in Maine for forty years. An active philanthropist, Fessenden became involved with the American Anti-Slavery Society and was the Liberty party’s candidate for governor and congress in 1847. Douglass saw Fessenden speak at least once in Portland, and Fessenden was nearly always present for Douglass’s orations there. Douglass was also welcomed into Fessenden’s home not long after his escape from bondage. Douglass to Francis Fessenden, 10 October 1881, Fessenden Family Mss., MeB; ACAB, 2: 443.} I see not how you could have
spoken more tenderly of him. Your tribute to his memory, is a tribute to
your own magnanimity. To his friends it must have <been> touching and
grateful indeed—for they know how easily a man of different mould—
might have remained silent—or spoken in other tones of the grandly
gifted but often ill tempered senator.

Dont acknowledge this note. I value your time

Truly yours Always

FREDK DOUG LASS

ALS: Charles Sumner Correspondence, MH-H. Another text in General Correspondence File,
reel 2, frames 561–63L, FD Papers, DLC.