The Religious
Dimensions of Martin R. Delany’s Struggle
（マーティン・Ｒ・デラニーの闘争の宗教的次元）
Tunde Adeleke*
SUMMARY
IN JAPANESE：これまでの、マーティン・Ｒ・デラニー（1812-1885）の研究では、彼の思想形成において宗教が演じた役割が完全に無視されている状態である。その生涯を通じて、彼のアフリカ系アメリカ人闘争の思想に宗教が影響をおよぼしている。彼は黒人の宗教心の深さ、そして黒人教会の思想的影響の大きさに気付いていたので、彼は自分の闘争戦略を正当化するためそれを宗教で包んだ。彼はまた、黒人のアメリカ主流への統合を促すために宗教を使った。彼はキリスト教の諸段階―自由意志擁護主義、功利主義、世俗主義―が、有力な黒人教会において超俗的、摂理決定論的な姿勢が優勢だったために曖昧になっていることを明らかにした。黒人の地位向上、統合を促進するため、彼は、倹約、勤勉、物質主義を提唱した。彼は、物質主義とキリスト教の教条は矛盾しないとする彼の信念を正当化する淵源を聖書に求めた。そして、その世俗主義と物質主義の正当化によって、超世俗主義を善とし、世俗的、物質的傾向を禁じている黒人教会と対立関係に陥ることとなった。しかし、1850年の逃亡奴隷取締法の成立によって、多くの黒人たちは統合への夢を捨ててしまうに至った。デラニーは、この後の国外集団移住を唱える者、民族主義者の運動においても指導的役割を担った。彼は黒人に、自分たちの最終目標の実現のために方向転換をするよう促した。国外集団移住を正当化するため、彼は再び宗教に戻った。聖書を引用することによって、国外集団移住は、黒人の精神的向上への神聖不可侵の戦略であるとの彼の主張を強めようとした。しかしながら、彼の国外集団移住の宗教的説得はごく少数の黒人の心を動かしたに過ぎず、国外集団移住は大規模な社会運動になることはなかった。黒人の大多数は、アメリカ合衆国の中での社会的変化の可能性に期待を引き続き寄せていたのである。
Most critics describe
Martin R. Delany (1812-1885) as a leading black nationalist.[1] Underlining
his pioneering status, some have even tagged him “the father of black
nationalism.”[2] A few
disagree, insisting that there were black nationalists before him.[3] Many also
tie him closely to the Pan-Africanist tradition.[4] For most, he
epitomized black radicalism. All agree that it is inconceivable to discuss
black nationalism, in all its manifestations, without acknowledging Delany. He
espoused one of the contending ideologies of the nineteenth century black
struggle (i.e. Emigration), and spearheaded the movement to return free blacks
of “sterling worth” to Africa.
Studies of his career
emphasize his “radicalism,” “nationalism” and “Pan-Africanism.” A staunch
nationalist, Delany’s persistent struggle to attain perfect equality with
whites won the respect and admiration of his contemporaries. He became, in the
estimation of many, the quintessence of blackness.[5] He was
unquestionably a leading ideologue of the black struggle. Critics, however,
tend to discuss his political ideas in isolation from the religious foundation
upon which they developed. Religion shaped his philosophy of the black
struggle. It was the legitimizing force that gave his programs and strategies a
“radical” complexion of a very different sort from that emphasized and
applauded by most modern critics. Overwhelmed by the search for a radical and
instrumentalist history, critics ignored the religious and conservative
underpinnings of his programs. He has consequently been misrepresented as an
ideological rebel; a man perpetually at odds with his society.[6] This paper
addresses this historiographical problem and attempts to bridge the existing
intellectual lecuna. It highlights not only how religion shaped and defined his
twin ideologies—Integration and Emigration—but also how he actively used
religion to both advance classic American middle class values, and steer the
black struggle along the path of reconciliation with mainstream society.
Based on his upbringing,
Delany seemed destined for a career in the church. In spite of the experience
of slavery (perhaps because of it) his maternal grandparents remained devout
Christians. His mother Patti, received an orthodox Christian training, becoming
“a most exemplary Christian.”[7] She in turn
infused in her offspring a strong sense of moral values. In early youth Delany
espoused total abstinence, and throughout his life, avoided tobacco and liquor.[8] His
religious horizon broadened in the 1830s in Pittsburgh consequent upon his
membership of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, and the Pittsburgh Bible
Society. In 1832 he became secretary of the Temperance Society of Pittsburgh,
and also helped found the Pittsburgh Young Men’s Moral Reform Society.[9] He actively
participated in efforts to improve the material and moral conditions of blacks.
Through public lectures, and the medium of his short-lived paper, The Pittsburgh Mystery, he advanced the
cause of reform in Pennsylvania.
The need for blacks to
transcend the status of appendages and secondary partners of white abolitionists,
and assume a leadership and much more active role in the abolitionist movement
inspired the founding of The North Star in
1847. Its founder, Frederick Douglass, also sought a medium that would reach
out to, and educate, blacks. He solicited the assistance of Delany who became
co-editor and roving lecturer.
Delany assumed two major
responsibilities. First to expose and condemn the evils of slavery. Second, to
enlighten blacks on the most effective strategy of elevation. He upheld
capitalism as the most effective cure for the endemic poverty that plagued
blacks. A good capitalist education would, he believed, equip blacks with the
business acumen necessary to enhance their economic status. His lectures
focused on showing blacks how “to live in this world”.[10] He urged
them to become intelligent and efficient capitalist businessmen and women;
engaged in wealth-generating professions such as farming mechanics, and
wholesale and retail trading. Wealth, he insisted, was the passport to black
redemption, the “self-evident truth” that had the moral force to induce
positive changes.[11] A
demonstration of black industry and economic prowess “would not admit of
controversy, (but) would bear its truth as evident as self-existence” and wrest
long overdue concessions from whites.[12]
Delany’s strategy betrayed his subscription to the prevailing
abolitionist and middle class ideology conceived as moral suasion. Moral
suasionists rejected violence in favor of progress through an indirect appeal
to moral conscience and reason, convinced that an improvement in the moral and
material conditions of blacks was the “self-evident truth” capable of negating
the pro-slavery contention of black inferiority. The foundations of slavery and
racism thus weakened, whites would clearly perceive the irrationality of the
status quo and respond positively to the demand for change. These ideas also
underscored his faith in the tenets of mid-nineteenth century
thought-Protestantism, the Enlightenment and Romanticism. There was a strong
faith in the potency of industry, in the capacity of human beings to effect
change, and in their sensitivity to rational persuasion.
As Delany embarked on
his lecture tour of northern free black communities early in 1847, he had
little inkling of the opposition and obstacles ahead. At every stop, he sought
the endorsement and assistance of the black church. This was both necessary and
logical given the status of the church as;
The Alpha and Omega of
all things, their (i.e. blacks) only source of information, their acknowledged
public body, state legislature, common council, supreme court dictator and only
acknowledged adviser.[13]
Highly respected by blacks, and regarded as the only legitimate source of information worthy of consideration, the church became central to the success of his mission. He eagerly sought to channel his anti-slavery lectures, particularly his capitalist values, through the church, hoping in the process, to enhance their legitimacy and acceptability. Much to his chagrin, however, the response of several black churches to moral suasion was anything but enthusiastic.
Several of his requests
for permission to use church facilities for anti-slavery/moral suasion lectures
and meetings were turned down in Pennsylvania. There were about ninety-six
black churches in the suburbs of Pittsburgh and Allegheny, yet blacks in these
places manifested very little anti-slavery consciousness, due largely to the
opposition of the elders and their refusal to commit church facilities to
functions other than religious.[14] He was
denied access to the facilities of the African Methodist Episcopal church, and
the St. Mary Street Colored Presbyterian Church in Pittsburgh; the Wesleyan
Church in Allegheny; the Baptist Church and the Colored Presbyterian Church in
Philadelphia.[15] In Lancaster
and Harrisburg, church influence was so pronounced that some blacks even
expressed a desire to remain slaves, rather than embrace a doctrine (i.e. moral
suasion) that would jeopardize their prospect for heaven. In Harrisburg, for
instance, out of a black population of between 700 and 800, only an average of
50 attended his anti-slavery lectures.[16] There were a
few notable exceptions. Rev. M. M. Clark of the African Methodist Episcopal
Church in Pittsburgh and Rev. D. Stevens of the Wesleyan Church in Alleghany
both endorsed anti-slavery, and would willingly have opened their doors, but
for the stiff opposition of the “leading Christians of their churches.”[17] This was
equally true of Rev. B. F. Templeton, Pastor of the Colored Presbyterian Church
in Philadelphia, who would have opened his church door to anti-slavery but for
the opposition of the elders and trustees.[18]
He encountered mixed
reactions in Ohio. The two leading black churches in Hanover, the Methodist and
the Disciple, accused Delany of “infidelity,” and shut him out of their
premises. “It was enough for them to know that I was a moral suasion
abolitionist to ensure opposition” he reported back to Douglass.[19] The only
exception was the Colored Presbyterian Church, which hosted his meetings. In Chilicothe,
he held meetings in private homes because the leading churches—the AMEC, the
Baptist and the Methodist—opposed his mission.[20] He was
similarly denounced in Columbus, New Lisbon, and also in Springfield where the
dominance of pro-slavery influence induced in blacks a hostile response to
anti-slavery.[21] In
Cincinnati, however, the Fifth Street Congregational Church, the Union Baptist
Church and the Harrison Street Baptist Church, hosted his lectures. The
Universalist Church and the True Wesleyan Church, both in Dayton; and the
African Methodist Episcopal Church in Milton, all endorsed moral suasion and
provided facilities for his lectures.[22] An incident
in the Boyinston’s Church in Cincinnati illustrates the dilemma of several
black churches. An anti-slavery man, Rev. Boyinston, welcomed Delany to his
congregation. In spite of a slight illness, Delany delivered a powerful
denunciation of slavery, and urged blacks to strive for elevation through moral
suasion. Due to the tremendous interest the lecture generated, he sought and
got approval from the Reverend for two additional lectures, to which the
trustees of the church strongly objected on the ground that his earlier lecture
was anti-slavery and “too liberal.”[23]
In Wilmington, Delaware,
Delany deplored the dominance of “slavish characteristics” among blacks, and
the absence of any “zeal for the higher incentives of life.”[24] He secured,
however, the assistance and support of two “Liberal” Pastors, Revs. Abram Cole
of the Wesley Church and Smith of the Bethel Church.[25]
In Detroit, Michigan, he
had access to the facilities of the Baptist, the Presbyterian and the Episcopal
Churches. However, the largest and most influential colored church—the
Methodist—turned him away, the Pastor condemning “every manner of moral
improvement.”[26]
Though not all black
churches opposed moral suasion, those that did were sufficiently influential to
cause serious concern. In several counties in Pennsylvania and Ohio, it was
difficult, even where meeting venues were procured, to attract a large
turn-out. In some instances, the audience, according to Delany, betrayed
indifference and restlessness, disrupting the lectures by constantly “running
in and out”; exhibiting as well, a lack of sustained interest in anything but
religion.[27]
Church opposition to
moral suasion had long been a troubling phenomenon to black abolitionists.
Early in August 1840, leading black abolitionists in Philadelphia authorized a
committee to apply to some of the black churches for permission to use their
halls for an important anti-slavery meeting. All the requests were rejected. As
a last resort, the abolitionists turned to the Philadelphia Institute on
Lombard Street—a small place.[28] The
hostility of the black church to anti-slavery featured in the proceedings and
sharply divided the members. This incident promoted one concerned observer to
declare that a “battle line” had emerged between the black churches and the
anti-slavery movement.[29] Another
disturbed black Philadelphian, Geo W. Goines, lamented the fact that the
majority of black churches seemed to have “forgotten that this is a land of
slavery, —(and)—have closed their doors to the claims of suffering humanity.”[30]
Opposition to moral
suasion underlined the other-worldly character of ante-bellum black religion.
Many black churches espoused the notion that earthly injustice was a stepping
stone to the promised kingdom of God, and should, therefore, be accommodated
and endured, rather than confronted. They consequently objected to the
materialistic thrust of the moral suasionist philosophy, describing materialism
as a negation of the divine plan. The best strategy, therefore, was not direct
action a la moral suasion, but a strengthening of religious faith to
equip blacks with the mental, psychological and physical strength to endure
temporal injustice.[31]
Delany
traced the cause of opposition to moral suasion to the potency of three
biblical injuctions. The first one, “First, seek ye the kingdom of God and all
else will follow” supposedly originated from Christ who enjoined mankind to
accord priority to the search for the heavenly Kingdom. The second, “Stand
still and see the salvation of God” upheld the imminence of salvation. The
last, “Give us this day our daily bread” taught reliance upon providence,
through prayer for daily sustenance.[32] Remarkably,
the injunctions guaranteed virtually everything the anti-slavery movement
sought through moral suasion-freedom and material development. Moral suasion,
therefore, appeared superfluous, appropriating functions that rightly belonged
to providential determinism.
The ideological factor
(i.e. providential) alone does not adequately account for the conservatism of
several black churches. There was an equally compelling pragmatic
consideration. Delany’s moral suasionist drive occurred against the background
of the anti-black and anti-abolitionist riots of the Jacksonian epoch. The late
1820s and 1830s witnessed anti-abolitionist violence targeted at wealthy and
industrious blacks, and institutional frameworks for black industry and
elevation (e.g. the church, temperance and cooperative societies).[33] The
intensity of this violence, in such “free” black havens as New York, Ohio and
Pennsylvania must have turned many blacks, and black institutions, away from
anti-slavery to providential determinism. A leading opponent of moral suasion
in Philadelphia was the Rev. Stephen Gloucester whose “zealous opposition to
anti-slavery” was almost legendary.[34] Violence was
no fairy tale to him. A founding member of the American and Foreign Anti-Slavery
Society, Gloucester had come face-to-face with anti-black violence and had paid
severely. He and his congregation lost their brick church —the Second Colored
Presbyterian Church—in the two-day Moyamensing riot of 1842 in Philadelphia.[35]
Due to the nature of the
opposition, Delany made the relationship between religion and freedom the
leitmotif of his anti-slavery lectures. He criticized the slave-holders for
fashioning Christianity into a proslavery weapon for the perpetual enslavement
of blacks. Though useful and relevant to the interest of the “slaveocrats,”
other worldliness had sustained black poverty and inferiority, and therefore,
was detrimental to the struggle for freedom.[36] He was,
however, more critical of the black churches for adopting providential
determinism. Blacks had been informed that capitalism was evil and that it
unnecessarily and dangerously interfered with their “prospect for heaven.”
Delany denounced this idea as erroneous propaganda designed to keep blacks
completely out of business and guarantee whites a monopoly of economic, and, ipso
facto, political power.[37]
The visible priority
accorded providentialism was, in Delany’s estimation, a “great mistake”
resulting from a “misconception of the character and ways of the Deity.”[38] The attainment
of meaningful freedom and elevation was, therefore, contingent upon an informed
knowledge of God. Otherwise, blacks would forever sentence themselves to
inaction and poverty. While acknowledging the necessity of religion, Delany
lamented the fact that “susceptibility” to a pro-slavery religion had
dangerously stymied black initiatives. His critique of black religious
disposition is worth quoting at length;
The colored races are highly susceptible to religion; it is a constituent principle of their nature... But unfortunately for them, they carry it too far. They usually stand still—hope in God, and really expect him to do that for them, which it is necessary they should do for themselves,...... We must know God, that is understand his nature and purposes, in order to serve him; and to serve him well, is but to know him rightly. To depend for assistance upon God, is a duty and right; but to know when, how and what manner to obtain it, is the key to this great bulwark of strength, and depository of aid.[39]
He
assumed the task of revealing the “nature and purposes”, the hidden and
submerged side of God; the side that held the key to black elevation in this
world.
Led by ignorant and
gullible pastors/elders, many black churches, according to him, adapted certain
“egregious errors” (i.e. the divine injunctions) from the slaveholders.[40] These
churches, in consequence, discouraged the acquisition of wealth, and imposed
upon their congregations a complacent and fatalistic disposition vis-à-vis
earthly problems, thereby giving whites a solid platform upon which to
consolidate their economic and political dominance.[41] The divine
injunctions were, he opined, instructions meant for the disciples of Christ
during the apostolic age, and designed to strengthen their faith and facilitate
their task of spreading the gospel. They had long outlived their purpose and
had become anachronistic in the context of the nineteenth century black
struggle.[42]
In several anti-slavery
lectures and publications he advanced a secular conception of black problems,
in contrast to the religious definition upheld by advocates of providentialism.[43]
Paradoxically, his secularism endorsed a certain degree of providentialism. He
identified three divine laws for the resolution of human problems—the Physical,
Moral and Spiritual each with distinct and fixed spheres. Spiritual law (i.e.
Prayer) dealt with spiritual problems. Physical and Moral laws, whose basic
components included thrift, industry, moral reform and materialism (in essence,
moral suasion), are linked and pertained to temporal affairs—slavery and
racism.[44]
By tracing all three
laws to one divine origin, he successfully linked hitherto divorced
spiritualism and secularism and cautioned blacks against conceiving the two as
necessarily antagonistic. He adduced two justifications for the compatibility
of religion and materialism. First, that God created the earth and its
resources for utilitarian purposes, and intended man to possess “it’s
productions and enjoy them.” Second, that it was impossible to fulfill God’s
commandment to assist the poor and needy without the acquisition of wealth.[45] He further
upheld the condition and life-style of whites as evidence of God’s approbation
of materialism. Unencumbered by religion, whites consolidated their affluence
and dominance through wealth-accumulation, while blacks, blindly glued to
religion, languished in poverty and degradation. If God had outlawed
materialism, he reasoned, the fate of whites (given their evil social system;
slavery; their greed and acquisitive instincts and their irreligious
life-style) would have been miserably different. The prevailing “objectionable
relationship,” at least, would have been reversed, placing the religious and
non-capitalist blacks in positions of economic and political dominance.[46] Emphasizing
this issue, he wrote: “There are no people more religious in this country, than
the colored people, and none so poor and miserable as they. That prosperity and
wealth, smiles upon the efforts of wicked white men, whom we know to utter the
name of God with curses, instead of praises.”[47] God, he
further argued, had entrusted upon humanity (irrespective of religious
disposition) a divine responsibility to exploit and appropriate the resources
of the world. The development of an individual, or that of a wider entity like
society, therefore, depended on the degree of accumulation. The nature of
society itself, especially in relation to such cherished values such as freedom
and equality, was also contingent upon accumulation.
Nations and the
individuals composing them function, according to Delany, in conformity with
certain fixed natural laws. The most pervasive of these laws is the desire for “higher
incentives” (i.e. ambition).[48] A group,
therefore, advances in accordance with the level of the ambition of its
members. He applied this “higher incentive” principle to the “objectionable
relation” between blacks and whites. The materialistic inclinations of whites,
ensured their economic and political exaltation over blacks, whose propensity
for “higher incentive” is circumscribed by a dubious providential deterministic
religion. To redress this imbalance, Delany impressed on blacks the absolute
and universal character of his law of equal attainments—“There is no equality
of persons where there is not an equality of attainment.”[49] This law is
further proof of God’s endorsement of capitalism. Blacks must, therefore,
become capitalistic in order to justify any claims of equality with whites.[50] To remain
inactive and subordinated in the United States, with hands tied to providential
determinism, is not to surrender to whites a monopoly of the resources common
to humanity and “further despoil us of every right possession sacred to our
existence” but worse still, to confront the “disgrace and ordeal of almighty
displeasure.”[51]
He thus underlined a
certain duality to Christianity that the providential posture of several black
churches blurred-spiritualism and secularism—and urged a reconciliation, rather
than, a divorce of the two. Black economic elevation and integration into
mainstream society was inconceivable without a balance of these two forces.
Blinded and misled by pro-slavery misrepresentations of Christianity, blacks,
he surmised, accorded priority to one (spiritualism) at the expense of the other
(secularism). He thus blamed the continued subordination of blacks on the
prioritization of spiritualism and its wrongful application (as antidote) to
fundamentally secular problems.[52] He
admonished black churches to abandon a unilineal and mono-functional posture
and assume both spiritual and temporal responsibilities for, “the well-being of
man, while upon earth is to God of as much importance as his welfare in heaven.”[53] It is only
when Christians advance social justice that the Kingdom of God “which is
ministers desire to establish, be made fully and effectually manifest among
men.”[54]
Given a choice, Delany
would prioritize temporal matters. Dismissing the divine injunctions, he
offered blacks two equally compelling divine precepts—“Now is the
accepted time,” “Today is the day of salvation,”—emphasizing a temporal
dimension to redemption.[55] He
persistently hammered on the relationship of Christianity to social justice. In
fact, the two are inseparable in his thought—to embrace the cause of social
justice is to advance the cause of Christianity;
There never
was a professing Christian whose religion stood, who was converted without
conviction. Conviction can only come by reflection—indeed it is reflection
itself. Bring the mind to bear upon particular wrongs and you thus prepare it
far the reception of the truth. Man must first be made sensible to wrongs
before he can have a proper conception of right.[56]
Delany adduced a
conception of religion that challenged the traditional orthodoxy of the black
church. He strongly objected to the use of Christianity to justify and sustain
a status quo of black subordination. He urged blacks to embrace a
utilitarian conception of religion that fastened their minds upon the problems
of temporal existence. His projection of Christianity as a libertarian and
utilitarian religion negated the spirit of providential determinism. Though he
instilled in blacks an awareness of the evils of slavery and racism, and
awakened them from a lethargic and fatalistic disposition, he failed to win the
black churches completely away from other-worldliness.
A Theology of
Emigration: 1850-1860:
By the end of the 1840s
the failure of moral suasion as reform strategy was evident. Black efforts at
self-improvement (educational, moral and economic) paradoxically, reinforced
white resentments and induced further anti-black violence. Increasingly, blacks
began to experiment with immediatist and politically militant strategies. The
passage of the Fugitive Slave Law in 1850 effected a coup de grace on moral
suasion. Though aimed at the apprehension of fugitives, it threatened free
blacks with re-enslavement. More significantly, many blacks interpreted the law
as an ominous sign of the impending nationalization of slavery. It shattered
their integrationist dream. Delany was among the most disillusioned.
Jettisoning moral suasion, he embraced emigration, and in 1852 launched the
emigrationist movement with the publication of The Condition, Elevation,
Emigration and Destiny of the colored People of the United States
(Philadelphia; 1852). The book is a massive testimony to the industrial and
commercial capacities of blacks, and their contributions to the development of
America. He presented a strong case for black citizenship and integration.
While strongly emphasizing black compatibility with, and entitlement to, all
the rights and privileges of American citizenship, he underscored the
hopelessness of the situation. The Fugitive Law foreshadowed the doom of the
integrationist dream. All indications, he argued, suggested the strengthening
and intensification of slavery and racism. He depicted the country as a closed
society whose stability and survival depended on black subordination. Though
slavery was sectional, racism was national, and very soon, he predicted,
slavery would become national. To avoid this imminent disaster, he urged blacks
to emigrate. The development of an externally situated, and economically
powerful black nation, would, he believed, undermine slavery and racism
worldwide.[57]
Publication of The
Condition immediately drew a storm of protest from blacks. Emigration came
under attack in several black state conventions. Many equated emigration with
the obnoxious colonization scheme of the pro-slavery American Colonization
Society. For blacks to embrace emigration, Frederick Douglass professed “is to
stab their own cause. Is to concede a point which every black man must die
rather than yield—that is, that the prejudice and maladministration toward us
are invincible to truths, invincible to continued and virtuous efforts for
their over-throw.”[58] Many agreed.
Even in what had become Delany’s adopted state—Pennsylvania—blacks moved to “remain
and fight” in the United States for as long as one black remained in bondage.
Emigration, they emphasized, was tantamount to abandoning the slaves and
strengthening the knot of bondage.[59] Meeting at a
National Convention in Rochester, New York, in July 1853, blacks rejected all
schemes of repatriation, resolving to “plant our trees on American soil, and
repose beneath their shade.” Instead of emigration, delegates endorsed
cultural-pluralistic strategies.[60]
Though The Condition
formally launched the emigrationist debate/movement, emigration as a strategy
had been a component of black liberation thought from time immemorial. It was,
however, the emergence of the pro-slavery colonization movement in 1816/1817
that paradoxically undermined emigration, since blacks conceived the two as
synonyms. Delany was well aware of this negative perception of emigration long
before he published his book. Moreover, as a Pittsburgh agent of Henry Bibb’s Voice
of the Fugitive, he attended an antislavery convention in Toronto, Canada
in 185l, where he and three United States delegates rejected a resolution that
urged American blacks to emigrate to Canada on the ground that it was “impolitic
and contrary to our professed policy—of opposing the infamous Fugitive Slave
Law and the scheme of Colonization.”[61]
This awareness of the
depth of opposition to emigration undoubtedly influenced his treatment of the
subject in The Condition. It definitely dictated his choice of religion
as the medium through which to propagate emigration. Since emigration as a
political solution, appeared unpopular, perhaps emigration as a
religious solution would appeal favorably to the religiously-minded black
community.
He quickly established
the historicity of emigration. It was not an aberration, but the natural and
divinely sanctioned reaction of all oppressed people.[62] To prove its
divine character, Delany referred to several biblical migrations—the movement
of Dido and followers from Tyre to Mauritania, and the exodus of the Israelites
from Egypt. He then reminded blacks of a more recent migration of another
religious group, the Puritans, who left the old for the new world.[63] Emigration
was, therefore historical, legitimate and divine. He underlined the link
between capitalism and religion, and demonstrated how emigration (divinely
sanctioned) would advance the capitalist goal of the black middle class. The
ultimate end of emigration was, therefore, not only detrimental to the interest
of blacks, but also contrary to God’s wish. To further reassure skeptics, he
announced that the relocation site had carefully been selected and set aside by
God. The “finger of God” had set the entire American Continent as a place
refuge for freedom-seeking emigrants, and had specifically set aside Central
and South America and the West Indies for blacks.[64] He
represented the conducive sub-tropical climate, the rich natural resources and
the preponderance of people of color (constituting the ruling element)
as divinely conditioned factors that made these parts of the world ideal for
the resettlement of free blacks.[65] According to
him; “God has, as certain as he has ever designed anything, has designed this
great portion of the new world for us, the colored races.”[66] In a
picturesque depiction of divine approval, he declared: “Heaven’s pathway stands
unobstructed, which will lead us into a paradise of bliss. Let us go on and
possess this land and the God of Israel will be our God.”[67]
To strengthen the
emigrationist appeal, he added a messianic/missionary factor. Emigration would
enable blacks concomitantly to advance themselves and execute a divine
function. It was the first step in the fulfillment of a divine promise that “a
prince (i.e. power) shall come out of Egypt (from among the African race) and
Ethiopia stretch forth (from all parts of the world) her hands unto God.”[68] The movement
of blacks out of the United States was, therefore, a prelude to the redemption
of mankind. Free blacks thus had a divine responsibility entrusted upon them as
the “instrumentalities” for the redemption of the world. Refusal to execute the
divine responsibility embedded in emigration would result in God dispossessing
blacks of whatever little they had and withdrawing his “divine care and
protection.”[69] Or, as
Delany poignantly proclaimed, “as certain as we stubborn our heart, and stiffen
our necks against it (i.e. emigration), his (i.e. God’s) protecting arm and
fostering care will be withdrawn from us.”[70]
His sermons, however,
appealed to very few blacks. Emigration remained a minority movement. The
majority of blacks endorsed a cultural pluralistic approach to promoting
integration. Many objected to a racialist definition of the problem, insisting
that Condition not Race was the factor and that a change in the Condition
of blacks through “economy, amassing riches, educating our children, and being
temperate” (not emigration) would accelerate integration.[71]
Perhaps the most vicious
attack against emigration, and more significantly, against Delany, occurred at
a state convention of colored citizens of Illinois. Delegates accused him of
advocating “a spirit of disunion which, if encouraged, will prove fatal to our
hopes and aspirations as a people.”[72]
Delany denied the
charges, and reaffirmed his contention that blacks had no choice in the United
States, and that the nation was inching toward nationalizing slavery.[73]
Proceeding with his
emigration plan, he summoned his followers to a National Convention in
Cleveland, Ohio, in August 1854, where he read a lengthy presentation
justifying his scheme.[74] Again, he
strongly appealed to religion. Stressing the imperialistic disposition of
whites, he urged blacks to “make an issue, create an event, and establish for
ourselves a position,” through emigration to the West Indies, Central and South
America.[75] Emigration
was indispensable to the redemption and “effective elevation” of blacks, and to
the “pursuit of our legitimate claims to inherent rights, bequeathed to us by
the will of heaven—the endowment of God, our common parent.”[76]
Delegates at Cleveland,
particularly the originators of the scheme, perceived themselves as
commissioned by God to head the movement for the national regeneration of
blacks, and therefore, accountable to him “who will surely require the blood of
our people at our hands, if they perish in their national bondage.”[77] They defined
a cause-effect relationship between oppression and emigration—the former
usually inducing the latter. An oppressed minority must perforce emigrate as a
prelude to “entering upon a higher spiritual life and development.”[78] Emigration
becomes a purifying and redeeming process. One of them referred to the biblical
experience of “the ancient people of God (i.e. Israelites)—(who) after being
ground down to dust under the despotism of Egypt, received their new birth by
removal,” as proof of both the divine and redeeming qualities of emigration.[79] The added
burden of accountability thrusted a responsibility of immense magnitude upon
the emigrationists—to convince the race to emigrate.
Demographic factors also
bore the stamp of divine approval. Delany estimated the population of people of
“pure European extraction” in the West Indies, Central and South America at
3,495,714 in contrast to a colored population of 20,974,286.[80] This
preponderance of number made the colored race “the ruling element, as
they ever must be, of those countries.”[81] He,
therefore, exhorted blacks to regard “this most fortunate, heaven-designed (and
fixed) state and condition of things” as proof of God’s desire to elevate them
through emigration. Consequently, persistent refusal to emigrate would result
in the “universal possessions and control by whites of every habitable portion
of the earth,” thus strengthening their strangle hold on blacks.[82]
Emigration was also an
avenue for the assertion of black “physiological superiority” over white.
According to Delany, God had endowed blacks with “natural properties” that
allowed them to survive in all climatic conditions temperate, cold and hot—unlike
whites, whose adaptability is restricted to temperate and cold environments.[83] A logical
implication of this divinely conditioned “superiority” is the flexibility and
mobility it induces whenever conditions in any particular environment turned
unbearable—as with the North American situation. By emigrating to sub-tropical
west Indies, South and Central America, therefore, blacks would simply be
utilizing an option made available by God through their “physiological
superiority.” “The creator has indisputably adapted us for the denizens of
EVERY soil,” he told blacks; “all that is left for us to do is to MAKE
ourselves the LORDS of terrestrial creation.”[84] Again, his
divine rendition of emigration won few converts. A state council of the colored
citizens of Massachusetts expressed the feelings of other blacks when it
equated emigration with colonization and voiced “a strong and unqualified
condemnation” of both movements.[85]
His use of religion to justify
two contradictory goals—integration and emigration—is fascinating. To advance
integration, he situated “the Kingdom of God” temporally (here in the United
States) attainable through the pursuit of materialism. To render capitalism
more acceptable to blacks, he clothed it in divine robes. When this failed, he
externalized the divine kingdom, realizable this time, through divinely
sanctioned and directed emigration. His religious appeals failed in both
respects.
In the earlier phase,
his religion was a component of the moral suasionist crusade. He used religion
to effect a convergence of interests and aspirations between blacks and whites,
and render integration mutually acceptable and legitimate. When moral suasion
collapsed in the late 1840s, it pulled every auxiliary component along.
Emigration is often misconceived as a radical movement. Delany built his
emigrationist platform upon a religious foundation that has been submerged
beneath the misguided conception of nineteenth century black nationalism,
especially its separatist aspect, as a militant, countervailing cultural
phenomenon. Though he used religion to justify emigration, Delany was careful
to emphasize the pervasive power of a ubiquitous God, whose universal law—fixed
and immutable—governed humanity, irrespective of geographical or physiological
differences. He did not urge emigration en masse. His constituency was the free
black community of “sterling Worth”; the resourceful and wealthy few who, he
hoped, would develop the economic and moral force of a foreign land—the
external equivalent of more suasion—that would induce recognition, respect, and
win long over-due concessions of freedom and equality. The Central focus of his
emigrationist scheme was not change in Africa, Central and South America and
the West Indies per se, but how that change would influence further
changes in an external environment—the United States. Emigration enabled him to
externalize the geo-political setting for the advancement of integration in the
United States. However, the narrowness of the emigrationist call, and more
significantly, its correspondence with colonization became problematic. First,
it was difficult to demonstrate to blacks, beyond verbal promises, how the
departure of a minority, and their activities elsewhere would induce positive
reforms within the United States. Second, it was even more difficult to
convince blacks that God sanctioned emigration—a scheme deemed synonymous with
the dreaded and pernicious pro-slavery colonization movement. Most blacks
conceived of emigration as colonization with a black face, and refused to
believe that God sanctioned such a “pro-slavery scheme.”
Delany’s alienation from
the mainstream black struggle notwithstanding, his ideas attest to his prudence
and foresightedness. He was certainly a child of his time. A significant
paradox of his theology was its dualistic function—it served both
integrationist and emigrationist purposes. His use of religion to advance
capitalistic goals underlined his subscription (along with other middle class
blacks) to the dominant Protestant work ethics. But he was also ahead of his
time. His utilitarian and secular definition of religion—the contention that
religion is only meaningful and relevant to the extent that it addresses
secular problems—was revolutionary in the context of the nineteenth-century
black struggle. He can legitimately be counted among the primogenitors of
liberation theology.
* Professor, Department of History, Loyola University, LA.
[1] Howard H. Bell, “Negro Nationalism: A Factor in Emigration Projects, 1858-1861,” Journal of Negro History, XLVII, 1 (1962) pp. 42-53. See also his “Negro Nationalism in the 1850s,” The Journal of Negro Education, XXXV, 1 (1966) pp. 100-104. Theodore Draper, The Rediscovery of Black Nationalism, (New York: Viking Press, 1970). Sterling Stuckey, The Ideological Origins of Black Nationalism, (Boston: Beacon Press, 1972). Floyd J. Miller, The Search for a Black Nationality: Black Emigration and Colonization, 1787-1863, (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1975). Alphonso Pinckney, Red, Black and Green: Black Nationalism in the United States, (London: Cambridge University Press, 1976). Wilson J. Moses, The Golden Age of Black Nationalism, 1850-1925 (Archon Books, 1978). Bill McAdoo, Pre-Civil War Black Nationalism, (New York: The David Walker, 1983). Kwando M. Kinshasha, Emigration vs. Assimilation, (Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Co. 1988).
[2] Theodore Draper, “The Father of Black American Nationalism,” New York Times Review of Books, March 12, 1970.
[3] Floyd J. Miller, “The Father of Black Nationalism: Another Contender,” Civil War History, December 17, 1971.
[4] Cyril Griffith, The African Dream: Martin R. Delany and the Emergence of Pan-Africanist Thought, (University Park: Penn. State University Press, 1975). S. E. Anderson, “Revolutionary Black Nationalism is Pan-African,” The Black Scholar, March 1971. Robert Weisbord, “The Back-to-Africa Idea,” History Today, January 18, 1968. George Shepperson, “Notes on Negro American Influence on the Emergence of African Nationalism,” Journal of African History, 1, 2, 1960.
[5] “Address to M. R. Delany,” The North Star, June 2, 1848. See also, “Dr. M. R. Delany,” Douglass’s Monthly, August 1862.
[6] Victor Ullman, Martin R. Delany: The Beginning of Black Nationalism, (Boston: Beacon Press, 1971). Harold Cruse, The Crisis of the Negro Intellectual, (New York: William Morrow and Co. 1967). Vincent Harding, There is a River: The Black Struggle for Freedom in America, (New York: Vintage Books, 1983).
[7] Frank Rollin, Life and Public Services of Martin R. Delany, (Boston: Lee and Shepard, 1868), p. 25.
[8] Ibid., p. 24.
[9] Victor Ullman, op. cit., pp. 26-27. See also Dorothy Sterling, The Making of an Afro-American: Martin R. Delany, 1812-1885, (New York: Doubleday, 1971), pp. 42-43.
[10] M. R. Delany, “Domestic Economy,” The North Star, March 23, 1849; p. 2. April 13, 1849; p. 2. See also his The Condition, Elevation, Emigration and Destiny of the Colored People of the United States, (New York: Amo Press and The New York Times, 1968), p. 195.
[11] Ibid. See also his “Political Economy,” Ibid., March 1849, p. 2. Also May 6, 1848, p. 2; April 7, 1848, p. 3; October 6, 1849, p. 2; January 2, 1848, p. 3.
[12] Ibid., Dec. 15, 1848, p. 2.
[13] Ibid., Feb. 16, 1849. For more on the preeminence of the church see his “Domestic Economy,” op. cit.; and also The Condition, op. cit., Chapter IV.
[14] The North Star, Feb. 18, 1949.
[15] Ibid., See also November 5, 1848.
[16] Ibid., December 1, 1848, February 16, 1849.
[17] Ibid., November 17, 1848, July 13, 1849.
[18] Ibid., Also February 18, 1848.
[19] Ibid., April 14, 1848.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Ibid., April 28, 1848, June 7, 1848.
[22] Ibid., June 7, 1848.
[23] Ibid., May 26, 1848.
[24] Ibid., June 5, 1849.
[25] Ibid., January 16, 1849.
[26] Ibid., July 24, 1848.
[27] Ibid., December 1, 1848, February 16, 1849.
[28] Ibid., August 25, 1848.
[29] Ibid.
[30] Ibid., February 25, 1848.
[31] See Delany’s reports, Ibid., February 18, April 20, August 4, 1848, March 16, 28, and April 27, 1849. For more on the other-worldly character of ante-bellum black theology see Carter G. Woodson, The History of the Negro Church, 2nd ed., (Washington, 1945). E. Franklin Frazier, The Negro Church in America, New York 1964. Joseph R. Washington, Black Religion: The Negro and Christianity in the United States, (Boston, 1964).
[32] Martin R. Delany, “Domestic Economy,” The North Star, March 23, April 13, 20, 1849.
[33] Leonard L. Richards, “Gentlemen of Property and Standing”: Anti-Abolitionist Mobs in Jacksonian America, (London: Oxford Press, 1970). Elizabeth Getten, “Violence in Philadelphia in the 1840s and 1850s,” Pennsylvania History 4, October 1969.
[34] The North Star, April 13, 1849, p. 2.
[35] Adam Dewey Simmons, “Ideologies and Programs of the Negro Anti-Slavery Movement, 1830-1861,” Ph. D. dissertation, Northwestern University, 1983, p. 34.
[36] The Condition, op. cit., pp. 37-38.
[37] The North Star, April 13, 1849, p. 2.
[38] The Condition, op. cit., pp. 37-38.
[39] Ibid.
[40] The North Star, March 23, 1849, April 27, 1849.
[41] The Condition, op. cit., Chapt. V. See also, “Domestic Economy,” op. cit.
[42] “Domestic Economy,” Ibid.
[43] Ibid.
[44] The North Star, March 23, 1849.
[45] “Domestic Economy,” Ibid.
[46] The Condition, op. cit., Chapts. IV, V. also “Domestic Economy,” The North Star, April 13, 1849.
[47] The Condition, Ibid., p. 39.
[48] Ibid., Chapt. IV & V. also The North Star, March 16, 1849.
[49] The Condition, Ibid., p. 42.
[50] Ibid., Chapt. V, also pp. 171-173, The North Star, December 15, 1848, May 26, 1848 “Domestic Economy” Ibid., April 13, 1849.
[51] Ibid., See also M. R. Delany, “Political Destiny of the Colored Race on the American Continent” in Frank Rollin, op. cit., p. 337.
[52] The Condition, op. cit., Capt. IV. “Domestic Economy,” op. cit.
[53] The North Star, February 6, November 27, 1848.
[54] Ibid., July 13, 1849.
[55] “Domestic Economy,” The North Star, April 20, 1849.
[56] Ibid. July 13, 1849.
[57] The Condition, op. cit., Chapt. XVI, “Political Destiny,” op. cit., p. 360, also “Letter from Mr. Delany,” The Frederick Douglass’s Paper, April 11, 1853.
[58] Philip S. Foner (Ed.), The Life and Writings of Frederick Douglass, Vol. 5 (supplementary), (New York: International Publishers, 1975), p. 202.
[59] “Convention of Colored Persons in Pennsylvania,” The Pennsylvania Freeman, October 23, 1852.
[60] “Proceedings of the Colored National Convention, held in Rochester, July 6-8, 1853” in Howard H. Bell (Ed.), Proceedings of the National Negro Conventions, 1830-1864, (New York: Amo Press and The New York Times, 1969), p. 39.
[61] Voice of the Fugitive, July 30, 1851, p. 2, August 13, 1851, p. 2, September 24, 1851, p. 2.
[62] The Condition, op. cit., Chapt. XVII.
[63] Ibid.
[64] Ibid., pp. 172-173, also Chapt. XXI, “Political Destiny,” op. cit., p. 353.
[65] The Condition, Ibid., Chapt. XXI.
[66] Ibid., p. 183.
[67] Ibid., p. 208.
[68] “M. R. Delany to Dr. James McCune Smith (Important Movement),” The Weekly Anglo-African, January 4, 1862.
[69] The Condition, op. cit., p. 183, “Political Destiny,” op. cit., p. 337.
[70] Ibid.
[71] “Proceedings of he First Convention of the Colored Citizens of the state of Illinois, Chicago, October 6-8. 1853,” Philip S. Foner & George Walker (eds.) Proceedings of the Black Stale Conventions, 1840-1865, Vol. 2, (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1974).
[72] Ibid.
[73] M. R. Delany, “Illinois Convention,” Frederick Douglass’s Paper, November 18, 1853, p. 1.
[74] “Political Destiny,” op. cit.
[75] Ibid., p. 338.
[76] Ibid.
[77] The Provincial Freeman, June 7, 1856.
[78] Ibid.
[79] Ibid.
[80] “Political Destiny,” op. cit., p. 342.
[81] Ibid.
[82] Ibid., p. 337.
[83] The Condition, op. cit., p. 214.
[84] Ibid.
[85] “State Council of the Colored People of Massachusetts Convention, January 2, 1854,” in Foner and Walker (eds.), op. cit., p. 93.