Frederick Douglass: “Our National Capital” Lecture

Explanation and Analysis of the Document

Following the Civil War, Douglass rejoiced in the end of slavery and was optimistic that the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing the institution marked a new beginning that would bring equal rights and racial equality to the United States. A strong supporter of the Republican Party as the vehicle for such change, Douglass moved his family to Washington, D.C., in 1872, hoping to take an active part in the progress of his race. Taking up the editor's pen at the Washington weekly, the New National Era, in 1870, Douglass urged African Americans to practice self-reliance, to build their own culture, and to accumulate property. He took his own advice to heart, purchasing a large home in the Anacostia neighborhood of the District of Columbia.

As Reconstruction came to a close following the disputed presidential election of 1876, some African Americans began to question the Republican Party's commitment to racial equality. Douglass was not one of those critics, and his continued loyalty to the party of Lincoln led some to label him as a political “yes man.” This criticism intensified in 1877, when President Rutherford B. Hayes appointed Douglass federal marshal for the District of Columbia. However, soon after his senate confirmation Douglass delivered an address at the Douglass Institute in Baltimore that was so controversial that citizens of the national capital circulated a petition demanding that President Hayes remove Douglass from his post as marshal. The speech was excerpted from an unpublished lecture Douglass had delivered in Washington the year before, but this time parts of the speech appeared in the Baltimore press and were reprinted in the Washington National Republican and the New York Times. Douglass clearly had no intention of lowering his voice on behalf of equality for African Americans. He was also highly critical of those who sought political favors from those holding influence in Washington.

The excerpt shows that Douglass's lecture was particularly critical of office seekers and the members of Congress who pandered to them. Demonstrating that he had not lost his independence of opinion or his willingness to speak his mind, Douglass argues that it was virtually impossible for a man to be elected to Congress without owing a debt to office or favor seekers. These, he maintains, followed the congressman, asking him to assist in finding the political creditor a civil service post or other position tied to the government. But, according to Douglass, anyone connected to the administration was liable to be beset with favor seekers. Douglass's own experience was mainly with African American office hunters who believed that his connection with the Hayes administration gave him the needed influence to secure a post. He was principally angry with whites who approached him seeking favors and proclaiming their ties to the antebellum antislavery movement.

The racist nature of the national capital also figured prominently in Douglass's address. In a voice that must have been dripping with irony, he maintains that the legacy of slavery in Washington left a residuum that he labeled the “black boy.” Douglass asserts that African American men, whether young or old, were often called “boy” and relegated to demeaning forms of service work. Especially humiliating was the post–Civil War appearance of wrought-iron hitching posts for horses depicting the image of a young black boy. Douglass believed that the image contributed to the continued subservience of African Americans and demonstrated that although slavery had been officially abolished, attitudes toward blacks had changed little following the war. In opposition to the menial labor performed by African Americans in Washington, Douglass claims that the white clerks in the city's many government departments and offices did very little work. He states that once a young man gained a clerkship or other position in a government office, he worked no more than six hours per day and was “seldom fitted for anything else in life.”

Publication of the most controversial sections of the speech allowed Douglass's words to resonate unpleasantly around the country. Many in Washington had embraced the compromise ending the enforcement of Reconstruction and were looking toward regional reconciliation between North and South. Yet here was Douglass, a minor federal appointee but also the most famous civil rights activist of his age, loudly condemning Washington for its political corruption and racist behavior. The general press consensus suggested that the critique was particularly stinging because it was delivered by Douglass. Had a white man offered the same words of condemnation, little attention would have been paid to them. Following the speech, Washington businessmen and lawyers began a petition drive for his removal as marshal. Fortunately for Douglass, President Hayes refused to comply.