A[bram] Pryne to Frederick Douglass, October 4, 1858

REPLY TO WM. J. WATKINS.

MR. EDITOR:—I notice a letter in the last issue of your paper, from your late able and efficient associate editor, Wm. J. Watkins, to which I feel disposed to say a few words in reply.

With the motives which govern Mr. Watkins in his present position, I have nothing to do, farther than to express the hope that they are such as ought to govern such a clear-headed and faithful friend of the African race, as he has hertofore shown himself to be. But his ACTS, and the reasons which he puts forth in support of them, are proper subjects of criticism. He says, with great emphasis that he supports Mr. Morgan instead of Mr. Smith, because an an independent man, he "SEES FIT TO DO SO." Such a reason, or rather such a substitute for a reason, is not quite worthy of so able a reasoner as Mr. Watkins, James Buchanan and S. A. Douglas could, with equal emphasis, give the same subsitute for a reason for their course. No man has a right to set up his mere WILL as a reason for his public course. We all sustain such relations to God and man as to come under much higher laws than our own will. Individuality can never be a just please for unfaithfulness to social obligations; and when this is the prominent and emphatic reason for our course, it should excite as strong suspicion in our own minds, that we are beyond the sanctions of higher and better reasons.

Mr. Watkins goes on to say that by supporting Morgan he can sooner strike a death blow to the Democratic party. I do not believe this to be true, but if it were true, it is not a sufficient reason for his present course. He ought to aim a death blow at Slavery, as well as at the Democratic party. Of what use is it to kill the Democratic party, and puts it offices, patronage, and power into the hands of another party which makes no practical issue with the Slave Power? The crime of the Democratic party is its support of slavery. But the Republican party, which Mr. Watkins supports, declares that is has no intention to abolish slavery. How much moral discrimination does an Abolitionist show, by choosing between two parties, one of which supports slavery, while the other declares it has no intention to abolish slavery? In the struggle for the freedom of four millions of slaves, the Democratic party is active for slavery. The Republican part utterly refuses to interfere at all in behalf of these four millions of slaves.— Gerrit Smith and his friends alone demand the freedom of these slaves, and yet Mr. W. insists that we shall have full faith in his regard for the slave, while he seeks to kill the Democratic party, which is active for slavery, and the Gerrit Smith party, which alone demands the abolition of slavery, and joins the Republican party, which has over and over again declared that it would not interfere between the slaves and their masters. Does he not make a monstrous demand

upon our faith in him?

What is the difference between the party Mr. Watkins seeks to kill, and the party which he joins, and for which he is ready to sacrifice Gerrit Smith? Is there any essential difference so far as he and his people are concerned? Let us see. The Democratic party supports the Fugitive Slave Act. The Republican party does not oppose that act, nor even demand its repeal. Mr. Morgan, if elected Governor, would not interfere to save Mr. Watkins himself from slavery, if some Southern villain should come up and swear that he was his slave. And yet Mr. Watkins stumps the State for Mr. Morgan, who would not interfere, and against Mr. Smith the only candidate for Governor who would interfere!

The Democratic party supports the Dred Scott decision, " that black men have no rights which white men are bound to respect." The Republiccan party fires off speeches against this decision in the North, but contemptuously refuses to interfere with its enforcement against the 4,000,000 slaves, stripped of every right, and "murdered all the day long" in the South—nay, flaunts its pledge not to interfere, in the very face of Mr. W., while he stumps the State in favor of that party, and against Gerrit Smith, the only man who practically opposes the application of the Dred Scott decision to the slave.— How does Mr. Watkins preserve his self-respect while thus engaged? He cannot do it by falling back upon his "individuality." Cain tried that, and most signally failed. The Democratic part is opposed to the right of suffrage being exercised by the colored man. The Republican part in this State, so far as its acts are a test, is equally opposed to free suffrage for the African. Here again Gerrit Smith is the only candidate true to the colored man. Here again Mr. Watkins opposes him for a party false to the rights of his people.

The Democratic party is in favor of slavery extension. The Republican party in Congress voted to permit slavery to go into Kansas, provided that a majority of the people of Kansas were willing to have it there. The vote on the Crittenden Amendment, brought the Republican party on the platform of Squatter Sovereignty, invented by Douglas, and Mr. Watkins now stumps the State in favor of a squatter sovereignty party.

The Democratic party is in favor of free rum selling. The Republican party is not opposed to free rum selling. Mr. Watkins wants to kill the former, and inaugurate the latter into power, at the same time killing Gerrit Smith, the only temperance candidate. But Mr. Watkins says Mr. Smith cannot be elected, and therefore he will vote for Mr. Morgan. I said vote for Mr. Morgan. Perhaps I am mistaken; perhaps Mr. Watkins, being a colored man, cannot vote. If so, he must feel very proud of his "individuality" in supporting a party by his eloquence which has never yet taken ground in favor of his right to vote! Is it not a little singular that he should boast of his "individuality" in one paragraph, and then give us a reason for ignoring his long professed principles, the fact that

on a count of heads, the numbers were against him? The only reason why Gerrit Smith cannot be elected, is because there are too many just such men as Mr. Watkins among Abolitionists, who graduate their principles to the chance of gaining numbers. The Democrats can give the same reason for not voting for Morgan. He is not likely to be elected, and this logic would land us in the bosom of the Democratic party— yea, in the bosom of the devil himself, who is certainly in the party which always has ruled this nation, and largely in the majority. But my letter, though unfinished, is growing too long, and must be brought to a close.

MARION, Oct. 4th, 1858.

A. PRYNE.