The National Negro Convention, 1848
By HOWARD H. BELL*
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 1848, a small
but determined group of men
gathered at Cleveland, Ohio, to discuss
the peculiar problems facing
them and to lay plans for improving
their position in the land of
their birth. They were mainly men of
the Old Northwest, but there
were also representatives from Canada,
where the escaped slave
was finding a haven of refuge in ever
increasing numbers.1 They
were carpenters, editors, barbers,
tailors, self-made men of the
rank and file, men who had endured the
self-disciplining hard-
ships of the frontier era and who had
been significantly influenced
by the general American optimism of the
1840's.
Though drawn largely from the area
mentioned, these men had
come together to represent the free
Negro of the entire North,
and they had assembled with more than
the usual degree of con-
fidence that the days of their
second-class citizenship were drawing
to a close. The belief that slavery and
second-class citizenship
could be challenged successfully had in
the previous decade been
demonstrated by the action of England
and France in the emancipa-
tion of their remaining slaves. This
historical corroboration of their
belief was supplemented favorably by
changes in the contemporary
scene. Steamers on the Great Lakes were
beginning to allow cabin
accommodations to Negroes. Certain
hotels in Cleveland accorded
the convention delegates every
consideration and respect.2 Sympathy
for the enslaved was making slow but
steady progress in the North.
Third-party movements had for almost a
decade championed
abolition of slavery or at least
restriction of slavery to its current
limits. Even in the face of probable
acquisition of Mexican territory
* Howard H. Bell is associate professor
of history at Texas Southern University.
1 Pennsylvania Freeman (Philadelphia) September 21, 1848.
2 North Star (Rochester, N. Y.), September 15, 1848.
358 THE OHIO
HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
contiguous to the South there had been
a not unreasonable belief
that the institution of slavery would
be crushed between the
abolitionists of the North and those of
Mexico.3 And there was
contagion in the enthusiasm of
Frederick Douglass, escaped slave,
author, editor, and abolitionist
orator, who, taking note of the
current liberal revolutions in Europe,
had just written exuberantly:
The world is in commotion--subjects are
shaking down kingdoms, and
asserting their rights as citizens--the
right of self-government. Serfs are,
with manly bearing, repelling the daring
tyranny of their assumptive
lordlings; and bondmen--yea slaves . . .
have risen up in the majesty of
manhood, [and] dashed into fragments . . . [the]
scourge and curse of the
human family--slavery.4
This self-confidence, bolstered as it
was by external observable
changes, was further reinforced by
changes in the Negro himself.
He manifested a newly independent spirit
and a new awareness of
his own strength--and with reason. He
could now boast of many
years of organized effort at
self-betterment. He had demonstrated
his ability to speak and write
effectively for the various reform
measures of an era which had more than
its share of reform move-
ments jostling each other for attention.
He displayed a new
political awareness and a recognition of
the value of his vote. In
closely contested political campaigns in
strategic states, where the
Whig and Democratic parties sometimes
drew near-equal support,
the Negro vote might easily hold the
balance of power, and the
Negro knew it.
An incident not without significance in
this respect occurred while
Douglass and a few companions were en
route to the convention
on one of the lake steamers. Always in
demand as an antislavery
speaker, Douglass had consented to make
an impromptu speech.
In so doing he accused the South of
immorality in holding human
beings in bondage. This and similar
accusations aroused the resent-
ment of a slaveholder who happened to be
on board, but the gentle-
man from the South refused to discuss
the matter with a "nigger."
3 Henry
Highland Garnet, The Past and the Present Condition, and the Destiny of
the Colored Race: A Discourse
Delivered at the Fifteenth Anniversary of the Female
Benevolent Society of Troy, N. Y.,
Feb. 14, 1848 (Troy, N. Y., 1848),
22-23.
4 North Star, August 11, 1848.
THE NEGRO CONVENTION OF 1848 359
Not to be outdone, Douglass replied
that since his own father was
a white man the slaveholder could
converse with that part of him
which was white.5 This was a bold position,
even for Douglass,
and it is more than probable that
neither earlier nor later would
he have been so forthright in his
comments except when surrounded
by people of his own beliefs.
As the convention got under way on
September 6, 1848, Douglass
was reported to be presiding with
"dignity and ability," and the
public meetings, some of which were
held in the courthouse, were
well attended.6 It was
decided that all colored persons present
would be accorded membership. Douglass,
only about ten years re-
moved from slavery but already an
international figure, was chosen
president. John Jones, a Chicago tailor
with a reputation for out-
spoken defense of Negro rights in
Illinois, was made vice president.
William H. Day, a rising young Ohio
leader later to be associated
with various newspaper efforts, became
the secretary. Other
prominent members included Martin R.
Delany, author, humani-
tarian, editor, doctor, and politician;
Henry Bibb, escaped slave and
later editor of a newspaper in Canada;
and John Malvin, who for a
time operated his own lake vessel out
of Cleveland and amassed a
sizable fortune in real estate. These
and others had come together
to discuss the problems common to the
Negro.7
The delegates accepted, without
controversy, Douglass' recently
established North Star as their
official organ and passed resolutions
favoring business education,
statistical studies on the Negro, fre-
quent state and national conventions,
antislavery affiliation, and
equality before the law regardless of
color.8 These matters were
easily agreed upon, but other
issues--women's rights, political
affiliation, and kinds of work which
might be considered honor-
able--were less easily settled and
received major attention.
It was understandable that occupations
would be of basic import-
ance to these self-made men of the West
who had had to pull
themselves up by the bootstraps.
Middle-class Americans of the
5 Ibid., September
15, 1848.
6 Daily True Democrat (Cleveland), September 7, 1848.
7 North Star, September 29, 1848.
8 The Liberator (Boston), October 20, 1848.
360
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
1840's looked upon farming as an
honorable occupation capable of
conferring many benefits upon those who
practiced it. Skilled labor,
though considered less desirable
because of city residence involved,
was also an acceptable means of gaining
a livelihood. Menial labor,
on the other hand, was to be shunned at
all costs by those capable
of better things.
It was the third category which
embraced most Negroes, and
some American leaders were beginning to
feel that Negroes made
insufficient effort to rise into the
skilled labor brackets. Horace
Greeley's New York Tribune, usually not unkind in its
attitude
toward Negroes, referred to their
remaining "pretty generally boot-
blacks, tavern waiters, clothes scourers,
etc., from seeming choice,"9
and Negro leaders themselves were often
highly critical of rank
and file failure to secure work
considered more acceptable. This
criticism had, by 1848, resulted in so
much prejudice against
menial occupations that the common man
was developing a sense
of inferiority about his work. Nor were
the utterances of certain
men at the convention calculated to
mitigate that inferiority or
make the common man proud of his work.
This was especially true
of a speech by Martin R. Delany, who
allowed his enthusiasm to
lead him into making statements which
he later found it difficult to
justify. He was challenged on the
convention floor,l0 and some
weeks later he was still trying,
unsuccessfully and in his own prolix
manner, to answer that challenge.11
Perhaps a closer approximation of
Delany's views may be found
in a work which he published only four
years later. He stated then
that it was a mockery to hope for
equality so long as the Negro
held to the menial tasks. "Let us
determine," he urged, "to equal
the whites among whom we live, not by
declarations . . . but by
actual proof in acting, doing, and
carrying out practically, the
measures of equality."12 In
supporting this admonition he con-
tended that generally, because most
Negroes were then in menial
positions, each felt that he was already as good as
his fellows and
9 New York Daily Tribune, August 25, 1843.
10 North Star, September 29,
1848.
11 Ibid., November 17, 1848.
12 Martin R. Delany,
The Condition, Elevation, Emigration and Destiny of the Col-
ored People of the United States,
Politically Considered (Philadelphia,
1852), 48.
THE NEGRO CONVENTION OF 1848 361
consequently had no incentive to rise
above the common level.13
Here we see a Delany not quite so
uncompromising as he was pic-
tured at the meeting in 1848 but still
a man vitally interested in
encouraging his people to cast off the
servile garments and to stand
as men who knew and valued their
position in a free America.
After much discussion, resolutions were
adopted at Cleveland
encouraging training in mechanical and
agricultural fields.14
Although some at the convention felt
that Delany and others had
gone much too far in their condemnation
of menial labor, there was
no denying that the majority of those
present were opposed to allow-
ing the more servile tasks to stand
uncondemned. Douglass and
others made an attempt to have all work
classified as honorable, but
they were voted down.l5 The
men of the West who had made
marked progress themselves were in no
mood to condone lesser
accomplishments in others. This
superior and uncompromising
attitude was to draw criticism from far
and wide.
If Delany cut something of a foolish
figure in his tirade against
menial occupations, he redeemed himself
in part by championing
the rights of women to participate in
the deliberations of the as-
sembly. By 1848 Negroes had had some
two decades of experience
in holding national or state meetings
designed to secure equality
before the law or recognition of other
rights and privileges. Al-
though in most cases women had not
participated, it would not be
correct to say that their rights had
not been considered or that no
progress had been made. In Philadelphia
a group known as the
American Moral Reform Society had
granted equality to women by
1839.16 Two years later a convention
representing the states of
Maine and New Hampshire had felt
impelled to grant women at
least partial status by making a point
of inviting them to partici-
pate.17 However, many other
state or national assemblies of the
period had not made a practice of
allowing women vocal par-
ticipation.
13 Ibid., 200-201.
14 North Star, September 29,
1848.
15 Ibid.
16 National Reformer (September 1839), 140-143.
17 Minutes of the First Colored
Convention, Held in the City of Portland, Octo-
ber 6-[9], 1841 (Portland, Me., 1842), 7.
362
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
At the Cleveland National Convention
women were present, but
the business committee was not ready to
grant equality, nor was it
even willing to allow women a share in
the affairs of the assembly.
It was at this point that Delany came
forward with a resolution in
favor of inviting women to take part.
Still hoping to avoid the
problem, the convention voted at first
to postpone action indefinitely.
Later, after some prodding by a Mrs.
Sanford, with support from
Douglass and others, the embarrassed
convention compromised by
stipulating that women might be
included by implication under the
general classification of
"persons" invited to attend.l8 A year later
a state convention in Ohio (1849),
confronted with a revolt of the
women, reluctantly allowed them full
participation.19 In Maine
and New Hampshire the women were, in
1849, still being invited
to participate.20 And
Frederick Douglass, in writing of the Rochester
National Convention in 1853, reported
that one lady delegate was
present "and strange to say we had
the good sense to make no fuss
about it."21
Nevertheless, a woman was expelled from the New
York State Convention of 1855, and for
no other reason than her
sex.22 Progress continued to
be slow, and the status of women in
the Negro convention movement was still
uncertain when the Civil
War brought an end to the old order.
Considerable gain had been
made, however, and within this movement
the Cleveland Conven-
tion of 1848, though not enthusiastic,
was the first of the national
conventions to recognize women as
having any right to participate.
Although labor discussions and some
recognition of the rights of
women were interesting aspects of the
Cleveland National Con-
vention, the primary interest of the
participants centered in the
political situation, for it was during
the presidential campaign of
18 North Star, September 29, 1848. See also Anti-Slavery Bugle (Salem,
Ohio),
October 13, 1848, and The Liberator, October
13, 1848.
19 Minutes and Address of the State
Convention of the Colored Citizens of Ohio,
Convened at Columbus, January 10th,
11th, 12th and 13th, 1849 (Oberlin,
1849),
14-15.
20 Minutes of the Eighth Anniversary of Maine and New Hampshire
Historical and
Agricultural Society, Held in the
Colored Congregational Church, Portland, Septem-
ber 4th, 5th, and 6th, 1849 (Portland, Me., 1849), 4, 7.
21 Douglass to Gerrit Smith, July 15, 1853. Gerrit Smith Miller
Collection, Syra-
cuse University, Syracuse, New York.
22 Troy (New
York) Daily Times, September 6, 1855.
THE NEGRO CONVENTION OF 1848 363
1848 that the meeting occurred. This
group felt keenly about the
matter of extension of slavery to the
territories--a question which
had been running high ever since the
United States had become
involved in war with Mexico two years
earlier. Negroes had
opposed the admission of Texas to the
Union because it would
mean more slave territory; they had
favored the Wilmot Proviso
because it was designed to hold slavery
within its current bounds;
they were now prepared to stand with
any group which they felt
most likely to strike a telling blow
against the hated institution of
slavery. But there was no unanimity on
what group to support.
Douglass himself was still following
the Garrisonian tradition in
considering the United States
Constitution a proslavery document;
he would not participate in the sins of
the nation by voting under
such a document. He looked to the
breakup of the Union and the
establishment of a republic in the
North which would have nothing
to do with slavery.23
Samuel R. Ward, sometime minister,
editor, politician, and
emigrationist (not at the Cleveland
convention), believed in using
the ballot, but he insisted that only
Gerrit Smith and his Liberty
League deserved the support of Negro
voters--for only Gerrit
Smith of all the presidential hopefuls
was openly opposed to
slavery and all that it meant.24 For
Ward and his handful of
followers there were no halfway
measures where human rights
were concerned. Better no bread at all
than be satisfied with half
a loaf. Other Negroes would vote for
the Louisiana slaveholder
and Mexican War hero, Zachary Taylor,
nominated by the Whigs,
who dared not draft a platform for fear
of becoming involved in
the growing controversy over extension
of slavery. Lewis Cass of
Michigan, standard-bearer for the
Democrats, would command
some support from Negroes, even though
it was well known that
the Democratic party would, if it
dared, insert a plank in its plat-
form stating that congress had no
authority to interfere with slavery
in the territories (and therefore no
authority to restrict slavery to its
current bounds).
23 North Star, September 1, 1848.
24 Ibid.
364
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
But there was another possibility in
1848. Disgruntled Demo-
crats, "conscience Whigs,"
and Liberty party remnants met at
Buffalo, New York, in August 1848 and
drafted a platform for
the Free Soil party with Martin Van
Buren as their presidential
candidate. Negroes were attracted to
the new party because it
promised to keep the institution of
slavery within its current
bounds. But Ward remained unconvinced
of the real designs of the
Free Soil party because it had not
incorporated into its platform a
plank calling for "equal and
inalienable rights of all men." He
further challenged the integrity of the
Free Soilers because they had
not come out openly for a modification
of the discriminatory pre-
emption act of 1841, and he was less
than fully convinced that
Van Buren was ready to champion
elimination of slavery in the
District of Columbia.25
Nevertheless, there was a strong
predilection of the Cleveland
National Conventioners to support the
Free Soil party with its
catching slogan of "Free Soil,
Free Speech, Free Labor, and Free
Men." The first effort to give
voice to this predilection came as the
seventh in a series of resolutions.
Here the convention held piously
to the avowal that their action was to
be construed as entirely moral
(persuasive, argumentative,
educational) but that it (the conven-
tion) recognized the responsibility of
keeping "our brethren" aware
of the political situation. And with
that duty to disseminate know-
ledge went the duty to advise on
procedure. From this stand they
passed to the consideration of the
eighth resolution which suggested
refusal to support any political party
which was not committed to
equal rights and privileges for all.
Here it was more difficult to get
agreement, for William H. Topp and
others argued that such a
stand would eliminate support not only
for the two major parties
but also for the Free Soil party and
its Buffalo platform.26 This
interpretation was in keeping with that
which Samuel R. Ward had
placed on the Free Soil platform when
he condemned the party
for its failure to incorporate a
guarantee of equal rights for all.
But Henry Bibb and others contended
that the Free Soil party
25 Ibid.
26 Ibid., September
29, 1848.
THE NEGRO CONVENTION OF 1848 365
stood for entire equality, and this
opinion prevailed to the extent
that the eighth resolution was adopted
with the general under-
standing that the Free Soil party would
not be included in the
proscription.
The attention of the convention was
then diverted to individual
rights, the overthrow of slavery, and
the encouragement of temper-
ance. But the political problem would
not down, and the thirteenth
resolution was proposed, evidently in
an effort to satisfy those who
were loath to depart from the
Garrisonian tradition:
Resolved, That while we heartily engage
in recommending to our
people the Free Soil movement, and the
support of the Buffalo Con-
vention, nevertheless we claim and are
determined to maintain the higher
standard and more liberal views which
have heretofore characterized us
as abolitionists.27
But this fence-straddling failed to
satisfy the group. Some felt that
it was in conflict with the eighth
resolution, which was then modi-
fied to recommend support for only
those persons or parties tending
to enhance the liberty of Negroes. That
done, the new number
eight was accepted, along with number
thirteen, but with Douglass
and several others registering a
dissent against the latter.
Once again the attention of the
convention was diverted to con-
sideration of the plight of the slaves
and the means necessary "to
obtain their liberty." And once
again their attention returned to the
political situation and the Free Soil
party. Two resolutions recom-
mending Negro support of Free Soil
candidates and hailing the
Free Soil party as of great moment to
the people of the United
States were rejected. But the preamble,
as amended at the suggestion
of John Jones of Chicago, was added to
the thirteenth resolution
and adopted by the convention. That
preamble recognized the
moral and political guilt of American
slavery, the dereliction by
the two main political parties of the
cause of justice, and the claim
of the Buffalo Convention, with its
slogan of "Free Soil, Free
Speech, Free Labor, and Free Men,"
as "calculated to increase the
interest now felt in behalf of the
down-trodden and oppressed of
27 Ibid.
366
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
this land."28 Thus by
indirection the convention had finally man-
aged to place itself rather firmly but
cautiously behind the Free
Soil party.
Although the Cleveland convention was
in session only three
days, its actions were widely heralded.
An address to the Negroes
of the United States was signed by a
committee consisting of
Frederick Douglass, Henry Bibb, William
H. Day, D. H. Jenkins,
and A. H. Francis. The address was
moderate in tone, but it bore
directly home the need for meeting the
challenge of the age. Ad-
mitting that progress had been slow to
date, the committee pointed
to encouraging signs of a brighter
future. Such matters as the
freeing of slaves by the English and
French in the preceding decade,
revolutions in Europe in 1848, the
increasing educational status of
Negroes in the United States--all were
considered harbingers of a
better day. It was acknowledged that
the destiny of the free Negro
in the land of his birth was inexorably
bound to that of the slave,
and antislavery affiliation was
therefore a matter of utmost import-
ance. Such affiliation should be on an
integrated basis whenever
possible, but in any event it must be
carried on. The Negro must
also strive to increase his efficiency
in the various trades. He must
make the white population as dependent
on him as he was on
them. He must become an entrepreneur as
well as a caretaker. He
must save his money and use it wisely.
He must use the press for
elevation of the race just as it had
been used to degrade him.29
With the presidential election so close
at hand, more than usual
attention could be expected from friend
and foe alike. The situa-
tion was aggravated by the fact that
the convention had so effec-
tively, if gingerly, aligned the Negro
with the Free Soil party. One
of the leading newspapers in the nation
printed the address of the
convention, then attacked it with all
the derisive wit of which the
editor, James Gordon Bennett, was such
a master.30 It was a bitter
pill for Bennett, arch Democrat that he
was, to see free Negroes
28 Ibid.
29 Ibid., September 22, 1848. See also National Anti-Slavery
Standard (New York),
October 5, 1848; The Liberator, October
27, 1848; Anti-Slavery Bugle, October 20,
1848.
30 This was the New York Herald. Bennett was known for factual
reporting, but
his bias in the editorial column was
sometimes pronounced.
THE NEGRO CONVENTION OF 1848 367
effectively championing the principles
of the Free Soil party. He
portrayed Douglass as head of the black
wing of the Free Soil
party, which he depicted as having
different ambitions from that of
the white wing.31 Using the
convention's emphasis upon labor as a
point of departure, Bennett held that
Negroes "are determined
hereafter to abandon shaving beards,
blacking boots, and carrying
trunks." From that he passed to
the danger of intermarriage grow-
ing out of social equality, and warned,
"A revolution is threatened
by the new movement, therefore, not
only political, but social, per-
sonal, extending from the crown of the
head to the sole of the
foot, and including boots, breeches,
and beards."32
Bennett's indictment was probably as
severe as any and possibly
more telling than most because of his
incisive wit. One Cleveland
editor tried a similarly derogatory
approach but, lacking the wit to
make it effective, received a withering
rebuke from another local
source for his pains: "No sensible
man who witnessed the decorum
and ability manifested by the
convention will smile at such stuff."33
Criticism was also forthcoming from at
least one Negro editor,
Thomas Van Rensselaer of The Ram's
Horn, who was something
of a Garrisonian at the time, and who
may have disapproved of the
political alignment taken at Cleveland.
Douglass, in noticing the
criticism, used the most effective
rebuttal at his disposal when he
wrote editorially, "Blow away
brother, you will do some good--
though not so much as you might with a
little regard for truth."34
But if there was criticism from some
sources, there was com-
mendation from others. One abolitionist
paper, though unfavorable
to political alignment, was incensed at
Bennett's derogatory ap-
proach.35 Another noted the
work of the convention sympathetically
and threw in gratuitous advice about
getting onto the farm, and
about voting only for those devoted to
the freedom of the slave.36
One of the colonizationist periodicals
was glad to see the manly
31 New York Herald, as quoted in The Liberator,
October 27, 1848.
32 New York Herald, as quoted in the North Star, November 10, 1848.
33 Daily True Democrat, September 11, 1848. It was
the Cleveland Plain Dealer
which made the attack on the Negro
convention.
34 North Star, September 15, 1848.
35 The Liberator, October 27, 1848.
36 Lynn (Massachusetts) Pioneer, as quoted in the North
Star, October 20, 1848.
368
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
stand taken at Cleveland and
volunteered that everything desired
by the Negro could be found in Africa.37
A Cleveland newspaper
described the proceedings as
"temperate, decorous, and harmon-
ious."38 And one Philadelphia
abolitionist paper had perhaps the
best word of all when it said that the
"convention was marked by
an elevation of sentiment, a warm
philanthropy, an ardent love of
freedom, an earnestness of purpose, a
brilliance of talent, and a
dignity of deportment, which would have
done discredit to no
deliberative assembly ever held in this
country."39
37 The Colonization Herald (Philadelphia),
as quoted in the North Star, October 20,
1848.
38 Cleveland Herald, September 7, 1848.
39 Pennsylvania Freeman, September 21, 1848.