Page 105 →Chapter 4 Politics

As John Ernest argues, the denial of citizenship rights and privileges was one of the challenges that galvanized Black abolitionists to create their own institutions and structures that would enhance and strengthen their struggles for real freedom and equality. These institutions symbolized their determination to resist a nation bent on eroding and subverting their humanity.⁵ Martin Delany was one of those who spearheaded this response and attempted to formulate a collective outrage in his seminal publication The Condition (1852).⁶ The book was fundamentally about affirming the claims of Blacks to citizenship rights and privileges. It was also about demonstrating how the denial and subversion of their claims had reduced Blacks to the status of “a nation within a nation.”⁷ Page 108 →Delany therefore made the attributes and challenges of citizenship the subject of his book. His definition of citizenship derived from certain fundamental convictions and beliefs about natural rights, and the very nature of American history and political culture. His political beliefs were also informed by what he characterized as the raison d’être of his life and struggle: securing for Blacks “unqualified equality [emphasis added] with the ruling class of their fellow citizens.”⁸ This preoccupation developed against the backdrop of Delany’s deep-rooted faith in, and optimism about, what he and others characterized as the essential goodness and progressive nature of American political culture. As he explained, “Equality of political rights was the genius of the American government [emphasis added] and, therefore, like all great principles, will take care of themselves, and must eventually prevail.”⁹ Delany and many of his contemporaries, including Frederick Douglass, were convinced that America was endowed with an inherently progressive political culture that unfortunately had been subverted and compromised through historical times by human machinations (slavery and racism). That political culture embodied a crucial defining element Delany referred to as the “genius of the American government”: equality of rights.¹⁰ This was the essential attribute at the core of American political culture that had been subverted by humans. In other words, humans created slavery and racism, which arrested the evolution of an otherwise progressive political culture. Left uncorrupted, Delany believed that this culture would have matured to where everyone would have achieved full and unrestricted rights of citizenship. The Black struggle in America, therefore, as Delany framed it, was fundamentally about seeking to recapture and actualize this “genius.”

One of the greatest challenges Delany and his fellow Blacks in Pennsylvania confronted in the 1830s and 1840s, even as they struggled to promote moral suasion, was that the state did not recognize Blacks as citizens. This was accomplished at a “Reform Convention” in 1837 with the insertion of the word “White” into the Third Article of the constitution, which effectively eliminated Blacks as citizens.¹¹ From the beginning, therefore, Pennsylvania Blacks focused on affirming their citizenship rights. At a convention in 1841 in Pittsburgh, Delany along with other prominent Blacks like John Vashon and Robert Peck petitioned the state legislature demanding an amendment to the state constitution that would “remove all restriction on account of color.”¹² Defending the citizenship rights of Blacks therefore was a major challenge Delany undertook upon arrival in Pennsylvania.

In his The Condition, Delany boldly affirmed the citizenship of Blacks, their indisputable and uncontestable claims to rights common to every American. He Page 109 →insisted that Blacks were as entitled to all the rights and privileges of American citizenship as Whites. It was the enactment of the Fugitive Slave Law (FSL) in 1850 that reinforced Delany’s resolve on Black citizenship or lack thereof. It also marked his gravitation toward emigration. Delany quickly realized the contradiction of simultaneously advocating citizenship and emigration. If Blacks were truly entitled to citizenship, then to embrace emigration would be tantamount to voluntarily surrendering that right. This was the position Frederick Douglass strongly defended. Delany’s advocacy of emigration and implicit abrogation of citizenship rights provoked widespread criticisms and denunciation. In response, and perhaps to better explain his position, Delany devoted much of The Condition to unequivocal affirmation of Black citizenship rights. In several of the chapters, he detailed evidence of how Blacks had fulfilled all the criteria for citizenship: natural right, patriotism, contributions to the nation, services, etc.¹³ Having established the legitimate considerations for Black citizenship, Delany then addressed the other crucial reality: that Blacks would never be given the opportunity to exercise citizenship rights. He referred to the FSL as evidence of a national resolve to deny citizenship rights to Blacks. Delany was careful to stress that fulfilling the conditions for citizenship did not necessarily confer the rights and privileges. The nation seemed resolved to prevent Blacks from attaining this goal. Consequently, in the last sections of the book, Delany made a strong case for emigration.¹⁴ In 1854, as leader of the emigration movement, he would deliver his four-hour long Presidential address before the convention in Cleveland, Ohio, titled “Political Destiny of the Colored Race on the American Continent.”¹⁵ In this address, Delany reminded his audience of the challenges that impeded the realization of citizenship rights and privileges. The thrust of the address was to strengthen the case for emigration. Delany would further deal what could be characterized as the coup de grâce on integration in his 1855 address titled “Political Aspect of the Colored People of the United States.”¹⁶ In this speech, he reviewed the constitutions of the various states (slaveholding and free) and noticed a national trend: widespread and deep resolve to deny Blacks the exercise of full citizenship.

In all three documents: The Condition, “Political Destiny,” and “Political Aspect” Delany emphasized one central theme: what he discerned as a “nationalizing” ethos. Regardless of the sectional divide over slavery, he observed a pervasive and shared resolve, across the nation, to restrict Blacks access to the full benefits of citizenship and to keep them permanently as second class subjects, “a nation within a nation.”¹⁷ In fact, Delany had taken up this challenge of what Ernest Allen describes as “one of several paradoxes inherent to the ‘second-class’ status Page 110 →of the Afro-American freedmen” as early as 1847 when he posed the question: “In what manner may I be treasonous to a country which I am not allowed to call mine?”¹⁸ The paradox Delany referred to pertained to the demand for civic loyalty on the part of Blacks (implicit acknowledgment of their citizenship), while refusing them access to the rights and privileges. This begs the question: what did it mean to be an American?¹⁹ The answer was simple: being able to exercise the birthright of inalienable freedoms—speech, press, assembly. There was no room for ambiguity; one was either a full citizen or not.²⁰ This was the question Delany attempted to advance legislative and constitutional answers to in the three documents. Collectively, they underscored the unjustness of the American system. Delany stressed that Blacks in the United States had historically either been completely denied all the constitutionally and legally recognized attributes of citizenship, or, in some places, invested with less-than-full citizenship.²¹

Delany insisted that Blacks had indeed attained and satisfied every conceivable condition upon which Whites based their claims to citizenship, and much more. As he proclaimed, “We are Americans, having a birthright citizenship—natural claims upon the country—claims common to all others of our fellow citizens—natural rights which may, by virtue of unjust laws, be obstructed but never can be annulled.”²² The doctrine of “birthright citizenship,” according to Martha Jones, represented affirmation by Blacks of “an unassailable belonging.”²³ This sense of belonging had long existed but was suppressed by hopes and optimism inspired by moral suasion. Delany revived this in the 1850s reiterating Black belonging in both cultural and historical terms; in their patriotism, industry, contributions, and services.²⁴ Aside from natural rights that Delany said were “as immovably fixed as the decrees of the living God,” he also invoked constitutional justification for Blacks’ claim to equality and citizenship.²⁵ He contended that “all free nations” established and secured through “constitutional provisions, the fundamental claims of citizenship.”²⁶ In the United States, as in any other such nations, the fundamental basis of claim to citizenship was never in doubt. Delany explained that the “legitimate requirement” for anyone claiming “protection and full enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of an unqualified freeman” is that such person “shall have made contributions and investment in the country. Where there is no investment there can be but little interest.”²⁷ Based on the above principle, Delany then insisted that Blacks were entitled to citizenship.²⁸

It should be noted that Delany was not alone in advocating “birthright citizenship.” Though his emigration call might have provoked dissenting views, the notion of birthright citizenship was one that other Black leaders, even his Page 111 →ideological opponents, embraced. As Martha Jones argued at the 1853 National Convention in Rochester, New York, Frederick Douglass was part of a committee that issued an address that described Blacks “not as alien nor as exiles” but as “American citizens asserting their rights on their own native soil.”²⁹ Blacks invoked the language of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to bolster their claim to citizenship. By claiming birthright citizenship, therefore, Delany tapped into, and reflected, a consensus among Black leaders even as they disagreed on strategies.³⁰

Aside from birthright citizenship, Delany also argued that Blacks possessed the legitimate requirements, and met all conditions and criteria for citizenship, political equality and the enjoyment of “all the rights and privileges of an unqualified freeman” through their contributions to, and services for, the country.³¹ He contended that it was the ability to invest in, and contribute to, the nation that distinguished a free person and “a citizen of unrestrained rights” who could then be “entrusted fundamentally with the most sacred rights of the country,” since there was now a correspondence between their interests and the nation’s.³² Delany described this correspondence as “the simple but great principle of primitive government” and thus the basis of citizenship in all free countries; and Blacks had satisfied this condition.³³ Blacks fulfilled this condition through their contributions and investments in the country, their sacrifices for the country, and their patriotism, as well as the unbounded love of country they demonstrated.³⁴ Yet, despite satisfying these conditions, Delany lamented that Blacks were denied due political rights. National political developments seemed to nurture a subversive culture of political segregation that entrenched and bolstered White supremacy.³⁵

Along with birthright citizenship, Delany also adduced what Tommie Shelby describes as democratic citizenship, which underlined a person’s right to not just equal protection of the law, but as well being able to ascend to positions of honor and public trust.³⁶ Citizenship therefore also entailed not just “the right to vote for membership of the dominant group but, on possession of the requisite merit, having a fair opportunity to occupy positions of authority.”³⁷ Tied to democratic citizenship was also the right of “self-government.”³⁸ Delany insisted that “true political freedom requires that each adult citizen form an indispensable part of the sovereign authority of the republic.”³⁹ He concluded therefore that in order for freedom to be meaningful, Blacks

must necessarily be their own rulers; that is, each individual must, in himself, embody the essential ingredient—so to speak—of sovereign principle Page 112 →which composes the true basis of his liberty [emphasis in original]. This principle; when not exercised by himself, may, at his pleasure, be delegated to another—his true representative.⁴⁰

Delany also introduced, as a subset of democratic citizenship, the principle of “inherent sovereignty.” The ability to vote (“right of suffrage”) did not necessarily fulfil “the right of citizenship.” Suffrage, when truly enforced and exercised, also implied “acknowledged sovereignty,” a principle Delany characterized as “the true basis of his liberty.”⁴¹ Fundamentally, this means that Blacks possessed the unqualified rights, just like Whites, to vote (exercise of sovereignty) and to be directly involved in the political decision-making process or to be able to delegate such responsibility to their elected representatives. The ability to fully exercise this right constituted “inherent sovereignty.”⁴²

Furthermore, Delany defined a free person, politically, as a citizen with “unrestricted rights,” one who was able to ascend to the highest position and who was “invested with the highest privileges” including the “most sacred rights of the country” largely because such persons had invested in, and had vested interests in, the country. The interests of the people and those of the nation had to correspond. In other words, the progressive nature of American political culture notwithstanding, citizenship was not automatic, but the consequences of fulfilling certain fundamental ideals embedded within the political culture. Based on the above, Delany proceeded to establish the claims of Blacks to citizenship. From slavery (as laborers) to fighting the nation’s battles (Revolution and War of 1812), Blacks had hazarded and sacrificed their lives and thus demonstrated unconditional love for the country. This love, which he described as amor patria (love of country), was “the first requisition and highest attribute of every citizen.”⁴³ In essence, all those who so voluntarily risked personal safety for the nation are “patriots of the purest character.”⁴⁴ Blacks had accomplished and demonstrated all the above as well as in private domains: trade, commerce, business, literary and professional attainments, education, and artistic and cultural contributions.⁴⁵ However, despite these conditions and accomplishments, certain historical circumstances had conspired, and continue to conspire, to deny to Blacks the full benefits and advantages of American citizenship they so deserved.

Delany and leading Blacks focused on remedying this situation. However, he did not believe that the establishment was solely responsible for the Black predicament. Blacks shared some culpability. Though America possessed inherently “progressive” political culture, the full maturation and thus actualization of the culture also depended on whether or not everyone who aspired for the Page 113 →benefits fulfilled a certain fundamental ideal embedded within the culture. On this crucial consideration, Delany faulted Blacks. He found Blacks grossly negligent and derelict. According to Delany, Americans were bound by a contractual and existential obligation deeply rooted in the nation’s spirit. The strange fact about this contract was that it was neither written down, nor verbally discussed and mutually agreed upon.⁴⁶ Nonetheless, its core value established for Americans what needed to be done in order for the nation’s ideals to materialize (i.e., genius of the government). As Delany framed it, “By the regulations of society, there is no equality of persons, where there is no equality of attainments [emphasis added].”⁴⁷ The contract therefore mandated, implicitly if not explicitly, that everyone should seek and accumulate wealth (attainments). Fulfilling this principle would, Delany opined, unleash that “genius of the American government” (equality) [emphasis added].

The development of America and equitable distribution of her economic, social, and political resources, therefore, depended on whether or not everyone abided by this core ethos of the national contract. Delany concluded that Blacks had failed to maintain their part of the national contract (more on this later). Given the above predicament and reality of political inequality and marginalization, Delany argued that the fundamental question Blacks needed to address and seek to answer is: “What then is the remedy, for our degradation and oppression? This appears now to be the only remaining question—the means of successful elevation in this our native land?”⁴⁸ The answer Delany offered, reflective of his faith in the system during the antebellum period, underscored that Blacks would be the architects of their own salvation. In the spirit of the Protestant Work Ethics, and the promise inherent in the “American Dream,” there was a pervasive conviction among leading Blacks that through hard work, industry, economy, thrift, and moral reform Blacks would dismantle the walls of racism and activate that subverted, dormant, but never obliterated “genius” deeply embedded in American political culture.

Much of Delany’s political thought and convictions in the early phase therefore reflected his faith in the ideology of moral suasion propagated and defended by leading Blacks, most notably, the Reverend Lewis Woodson and William Whipper, and adopted as a philosophy for the Black abolitionist movement. Woodson and Whipper were two of the highly respected and economically successful members of an emerging Pennsylvania Black middle class as well as founding members of the Black abolitionist movement in early nineteenth-century Pennsylvania. Whipper was one of the wealthiest businessmen in Pennsylvania. He owned a fleet of streetcars and operated a lucrative lumber business in Columbia Page 114 →as well as a free labor and temperance store in Philadelphia.⁴⁹ Woodson, on the other hand, owned several barbershops in Philadelphia.⁵⁰ They both helped transform Pittsburgh into a bourgeoning hub of antislavery activism. By the beginning of the nineteenth century, the city had a thriving Black community, the vast majority of whom had relocated from other northern and southern states. It was here that Delany gained exposure to the debates about strategies for the emerging Black abolitionist movement spearheaded by Reverend Woodson and William Whipper.⁵¹ Their ideas and writings influenced the exchanges among leading Blacks about the efficacy of moral suasion as abolitionist philosophy. They published extensively on the subject in the columns of the Colored American in the 1830s and 1840s. They suggested that any person of upright character who also was hardworking could succeed in America, regardless of race, and in spite of the history.⁵² Prejudice would decline and disappear, they reasoned, as Blacks attained material and moral developments. The crux of their arguments was that the challenges Blacks confronted did not emanate from systemic or structural deficiencies. Rather, they attributed these to individual failures and shortcomings, challenges that could be remedied through self-efforts.⁵³

As argued earlier, moral suasion defined the contours of the Black abolitionist movement from the founding of the American Moral Reform Society in 1835 through 1850.⁵⁴ It taught Blacks to be hopeful and optimistic; to believe in the promises and prospects of the American Dream. More significantly, it also envisioned America as a democratic nation endowed with a progressive political culture which could and would, appearance notwithstanding, ultimately attain perfectibility where everyone, regardless of race and previous condition would be, and feel, accepted and validated.⁵⁵ It implied that by becoming more productive and morally upright, Blacks would appeal favorably to the moral conscience of the nation. Advocates believed that the pursuit of moral reform was vital to “the promotion of harmony and accord in society” and would result in “effecting the total abolition of slavery” and the “destruction of vice universally.”⁵⁶ When Blacks successfully reformed those vices Whites had used as excuses for slavery and racism, America would activate and universalize those inherent, but as yet untapped, progressive and democratic values. Moral suasion, therefore, underscored faith in the redemptive nature of American national conscience—a conscience that, moral suasionists reasoned, could be “persuaded” by exhibitions of attributes that challenged and contradicted prevailing and dominant notions of Black inferiority.⁵⁷ Since moral suasion ascribed the challenges Blacks confronted to individual failures and deficiencies, it taught Blacks not to look to, or depend on, the state or the system for succor but to turn inward to themselves Page 115 →for the wherewithal for meaningfully changing their condition. In one of their declarations, referred to in an earlier chapter, delegates at the Second Negro National Convention in 1832 in Philadelphia expressed Blacks’ faith in both the redemptive character of American political culture and their (i.e., Blacks’) ability to effect change. They envisioned “final redemption” from their trials and tribulations “in the moral strength of this nation.”⁵⁸

Delany imbibed this optimism and hope and became actively involved in organizing moral suasion efforts among Pittsburgh youth. By the early 1840s, he had attained the maturity as well as the resources that enabled him to carve a distinct path in the reform efforts in Pennsylvania. In 1843, he founded a newspaper, the Pittsburgh Mystery, which became a means of unravelling what he described as the “Mystery” of the Black condition.⁵⁹ Consistent with Delany’s convictions, the Mystery dedicated its pages to condemning slavery and highlighting strategies that would help Blacks improve their condition.⁶⁰ In 1847, as indicated earlier, Delany joined Frederick Douglass as coeditor of the North Star.⁶¹ The founding of the North Star signaled the onset of a more aggressive and independent Black abolitionist movement. Hitherto, Douglass had been closely associated with William Lloyd Garrison’s American Anti-Slavery Society.⁶² As roving lecturer, Delany traveled to Black communities in the Midwest and Northeast to deliver antislavery lectures and promote moral suasion. Their partnership lasted two years (1847–1849) and opened the first chapter in Delany’s abolitionist activism. In his lectures, Delany introduced the concept “Political Economy” (PE) as his strategy for transforming the Black condition in America.⁶³

What Delany observed in the communities he encountered during his lecture tours of Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York, Michigan, and Delaware convinced him that Blacks had the capacity to change their condition, and thus change America. He proposed PE, which he defined as “Knowledge of the Wealthy of Nations,” or simply, “How to Make Money.” This was crucial for Black advancement in America.⁶⁴ Like the broader moral suasion ideology, PE stressed Black responsibility and self-efforts. Delany’s PE also reflected the prevailing reformist culture of early nineteenth-century America. He seemed to be tapping into the broader national reform impulses and movements as well as the optimistic outlook of Jacksonian America. Surrounded by a plethora of reform initiatives (peace, abolition, women’s rights, temperance, and moral reform, etc.) Delany, like other leading Blacks, responded with optimism, envisioning Blacks as agents of change able to reform America for the good of everyone.⁶⁵ Before such change could occur, however, Delany insisted that there had to be candid acknowledgment of the primal cause of the glaring racial disparity. Based on his Page 116 →PE and consistent with moral suasion, Delany did not attribute the disparity solely to systemic deficiency but to the failure of Blacks to fulfil their part of the national contract.

During his lecture tours, Delany observed widespread poverty among Blacks, which he depicted as symptomatic of the failure to adhere to the dictates of the national contract. They had shirked their national obligation. This contrasted with the economic opulence and political dominance of Whites whom he characterized as a people with an aggressive impulse for higher attainments. These poverty-stricken Blacks seemed stymied by what Delany characterized as a pervasive and debilitating providential worldview propagated by several of the leading Black churches. This worldview complicated the moral suasion/PE emphasis on higher attainments and encouraged Blacks instead to prioritize heavenly inheritance.⁶⁶ As stated earlier, several of the churches discouraged their congregations from the pursuits of material and secular well-being; thereby constraining the people’s drive for self-determination.⁶⁷ This worldview, according to Delany, left Whites unchallenged in the quest for, and accumulation of, material wealth. In essence, while Blacks surrendered to providential determinism, Whites sought material attainments which enabled them to fulfil their part of the national contract. Delany was unsparing in denunciation of Blacks for lackadaisical response to moral suasion and thus, found both justification and explanation for Black subordination in their seeming reluctance to seek material prosperity. To escape their present condition, therefore, Blacks had to eliminate the glaring social and economic disparities. There was just one viable strategy for accomplishing this: wealth accumulation and mastering “How to Make Money.” He believed that visible displays of Black economic progress would indisputably dispel all doubts about Black capacity for industry and independent initiatives and establish their qualifications for all the rights and privileges accorded other Americans. Delany explained at length how industry and economic empowerment would transform the Black condition:

You can scarcely imagine the effect it would have over the pro-slavery feeling in this slave holding country, if, in addition to the few business men we have, there were in New York city, Philadelphia, Boston, even Baltimore, Richmond, Norfolk, Washington city, and all other ports of entry where colored men are permitted to trade, and Buffalo (which has one colored mercantile house), Cleveland, Detroit (which has another), Milwaukee, Chicago, Cincinnati, and Pittsburgh, and many other places, but one shipping house, wholesale or retail store, the proprietor or proprietors of Page 117 →which were colored men, and one extensive mechanic of any description and trade. Such indisputable evidence as this of the enterprise and industry of the colored man, compared with that of the White, would not admit of controversy. It would bear with it truths as evident as self-existence—truths placed beyond the shadow of a doubt.⁶⁸

Delany adduced a compelling argument for developing Black economic power as the foundation for progress. He emphasized that Blacks could justify demands for equality only if they became economically empowered. The quest for “higher attainments” therefore mandated, Delany argued, deemphasizing political rights, and prioritizing instead the pursuits of material wealth (fulfilling the national contract).⁶⁹ To reiterate this point, Delany reminded Blacks that they “live in society among men, conducted by men, governed by rules and regulations [emphasis added].” One of the regulations, and possibly the most important for Blacks in America, mandated wealth-accumulation.⁷⁰

In his antislavery lectures, therefore, Delany urged Black communities to explore avenues of wealth creation. It was simply not enough to “moralize much about equality,” or to claim to be “as good as our neighbors, and everybody else,” he emphasized.⁷¹ While this might be a reasonable ethical claim, Delany insisted that it would not make a compelling political argument. Such moral arguments alone would not change a political system or culture. Blacks had to move beyond reliance on moral arguments to activating their human agency. They ought to become as driven and as this-worldly as Whites.⁷² Delany repeatedly reminded Blacks of the core term of the national contract: “there is no equality of persons where there is not an equality of attainments.”⁷³ Though he stressed the need for “equality of attainments,” Delany was quick to clarify that this did not necessarily mean that everyone would actually achieve equal attainments. There would be no absolute equality of attainments. Rather, he meant to underscore that if the pursuit of “attainments” was necessary for the elevation of Whites, then such pursuits should be “necessary for the elevation of the colored man.”⁷⁴ The problem with Delany’s contract theory and PE is the assumption that everyone had equal capacity to seek and accumulate wealth. There was no consideration of how the history of the country had contributed to the inequities and racial imbalances. Neither Delany nor his moral suasion mentors could feign ignorance of this history. In fact, they were living witnesses to the history, and many, like Reverend Woodson, had been drawn to Pennsylvania to escape, or minimize, the debilitating effects of the history. One can only speculate on why they chose to deemphasize the history. Perhaps this was due to their faith in the redemptive power of that “genius of Page 118 →American government.” Undoubtedly, the conviction that America possessed an inherently progressive culture led many Blacks to believe that someday it would attain perfection, the glaring injustices notwithstanding. They placed their hopes for the future on an ideal whose veracity was very much questionable.

By the early 1850s, Delany observed and reported evidence of a significant shift in Black responses to moral suasion and PE. The opposition of several Black churches to material possessions notwithstanding, Blacks increasingly became more self-deterministic and this-worldly. In The Condition cited earlier, Delany devoted several chapters to highlighting successful Black enterprises, evidence of a growing Black middle class, and a widening Black economic resource base. He drew attention to numerous examples of Black economic progress and development across several states—evidence that Blacks were adhering to the core principle of the national contract. This was indisputable evidence of Blacks’ capacity for industry and self-improvement.⁷⁵ Unfortunately, visible manifestations of Black accomplishments, or, to invoke Delany’s language, these “truths as evident as self-existence” did not confirm the moral suasionist faith in the malleability and perfectibility of the American political culture. Instead, they exposed the fallacy of the reasoning. Black economic success did little to dent what Delany now perceived and experienced as a frozen wall of American racism.⁷⁶ Instead of acknowledgment and validation, Black economic achievements provoked racial intolerance and violence.

In the 1840s, in Pennsylvania, New York, Rhode Island, Ohio, Illinois, and New England, White mobs attacked and destroyed Black institutions and symbols of economic progress. In fact, according to one authority, Philadelphia in the antebellum period was “the race riot capital of the country, if not the world.”⁷⁷ In several of the so-called free states, legislations were introduced designed either to keep free Blacks out or stymie their drive for self-improvement. There was thus a certain ironic twist to these race riots. As noted earlier, a contemporary observer described them as prime examples “of Whites denouncing Blacks for their degradation while simultaneously destroying those institutions which sought to eradicate that degradation.”⁷⁸ Similarly, in their “Appeal to the Voters of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,” delegates at the “Colored Citizens Convention” held in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, in December 1848 cited earlier expressed disillusionment with the seemingly impregnable racial wall obstructing their path to progress. Their lengthy and poignant declaration is worth quoting:

The barrier that deprives us of the rights which you enjoy finds no palliative in merit—no consolation in piety—no hope in intellectual and moral Page 119 →pursuits—no reward in industry and enterprise … we may exhaust the midnight lamps in the prosecution of study, and be denied the privilege of the forum—we embellish the nation’s literature by our pursuits in science—the preceptors of a Newton in Astronomy—the dictators of philosophy to a Locke or a Bacon—the masters of a Montesquieu or a Blackstone on civil and international law—or could we equal the founder of Christianity in the purity of our lives … yet with all these exalted virtues we could not possess the privileges you enjoy … because we are not ‘White.’⁷⁹

As suggested, Delany shared this conclusion which contradicted the optimism of moral suasion. It had become evident that however hard Blacks struggled, they would never achieve meaningful change in America. Denouncing America as irredeemably racist, he urged Blacks to emigrate and seek their destinies in an external and independent African/Black nationality.

The emigration phase (1850–1863), enabled Delany to rethink, and thus gain a better understanding of, the racial dynamics of America. Emigration also became the lens through which he reexamined the failed and flawed moral suasion/PE paradigm. As earlier highlighted, the 1850 Fugitive Slave law (FSL) was the precipitating factor. Among other provisions, the law authorized federal support for the apprehension and return of fugitives.⁸⁰ Delany presented this as evidence, for anyone still in doubt, of the imminent “nationalization” of slavery; a message to Blacks that they had no future in America. According to him, Blacks had become, and would remain, “a nation within a nation.”⁸¹ Comparing their status to that of Poles in Russia, Hungarians in Austria, Scotch, Irish, and Welsh in the United Kingdom, Delany described Blacks as “a people who although forming a part and parcel of the population, yet … by the deprivation of political equality with others, no part, and if any, but a restricted part of the body politic of such nation.”⁸² In fact, Delany contended that the very assertion of White superiority also constituted a denial and deprivation of Blacks’ capacity for self-government.⁸³ Blacks would have to demonstrate this capacity in an external location. Delany had also lost complete confidence in White abolitionists whom he suspected of harboring deep racial bigotry despite their public liberal posturing. He concluded therefore that the nation seemed unified by a consensual perception of Blacks as inferior. He became deeply distrustful of White abolitionists. On the possible nationalization of slavery, he warned:

The so-called free state, by their acts, are now virtually saying to the south, ‘YOU SHALL NOT emancipate; your BLACKS MUST BE SLAVES; and should they come North, there is no refuge for them’. I shall not Page 120 →be surprised to see, at no distant day, a solemn convention called by the Whites in the North, to deliberate on the propriety of changing the whole policy to that of slave states. This will be the remedy to prevent dissolution; AND IT WILL COME, MARK THAT! Anything on the part of the American people to SAVE THE UNION. Mark me—the nonslaveholding states will become slave states [emphasis in original].⁸⁴

Delany was convinced that Blacks confronted clear and unambiguous racial choice. There was no middle ground. In response, he proclaimed what could be regarded as the nineteenth-century antecedent of William E. B. Du Bois’s twentieth-century “Color line” dictum:

It would be duplicity longer to disguise the fact that the great issue, sooner or later, upon which must be disputed the world’s destiny, will be a question of Black and White, and very individual will be called upon for his identity with one or the other.⁸⁵

As Delany interpreted, this “Us vs. Them” binary embodied an existential reality for Blacks. The plain and simple fact was that Blacks were not perceived as politically coequal of Whites “but alien to the laws and political privileges of the country. These are truths—fixed facts.”⁸⁶ He argued that the FSL struck at the very core of Black existence in America. It constituted a blatant violation of the constitutional rights of Blacks, further relegating them beneath Whites.⁸⁷ It also obliterated a fundamental dynamic of their struggles: the conviction that hard work and contribution to national development (the contract) would yield positive change. On the basis of what Delany witnessed and publicized toward the end of his travels, Blacks had indisputably established legitimate claims for, in his words, “protection and full enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of an unqualified freeman.”⁸⁸ They had invested in, sacrificed for, and contributed to building, the nation. Consequently, they had earned the right of “freeman in the political sense,” that is, “a citizen of unrestricted rights … being eligible to the highest position.”⁸⁹ Unfortunately, the FSL destroyed everything by subverting “the most prominent provisions of the Constitution of the United States … that every person shall be secure in their person and property; that no person may be deprived of liberty without due process of law.”⁹⁰

The FSL “degraded” Blacks and made them “liable at any time, in any place, and under all circumstances, to be arrested” and re-enslaved.⁹¹ It confirmed, for Delany, the truism of what he characterized as “a great principle of political economy,” which states that “no people can be free who themselves do not Page 121 →constitute an essential part of the ruling element of the country in which they live [emphasis in original].”⁹² The language and intent of the law clearly did not regard Blacks as full-fledged Americans, let alone constituents of the nation’s “ruling element.” Instead, Blacks had become, in Delany’s words, “Slaves in the midst of freedom.”⁹³ Given this reality, he suggested the development of a distinct national identity as the next logical goal for Blacks. “The claims of no people … are respected by any nation,” he argued, “until they are presented in a national capacity.”⁹⁴ In other words, Blacks had to establish an independent Black/African nationality before their cries and tribulations would command serious attention.

Delany’s analysis and experience of American political culture had convinced him that by the early 1850s that culture had morphed into a culture of inequality. The embodied “genius” (i.e., equality) had been subverted and compromised. But this was not a uniquely American development. Delany regarded this culture of inequality as a global phenomenon. Inequality (social, political, religious) was global. In all countries and all ages, according to Delany, there had been privileged groups that had oppressed and deprived others of equality and political and social rights—an unjust system of exploitation in which a particular group “due to circumstances” and peculiar positions (i.e., Blacks) were marginalized and excluded from the body polity.⁹⁵ This was the status of Blacks in America as a result of America being “unfaithful to her professed principles of republican equality,” and thus subverting an essentially progressive political culture, while also denying the natural rights of Blacks.⁹⁶ The FSL constituted the ultimate signification of Black betrayal. It violated the most important provisions of the constitution: the guarantee of “personal security,” protection of property, and the promise of due process.⁹⁷ The FSL essentially excluded Blacks from the body politic. They became aliens denied protection of the law and political privileges.⁹⁸

The discrepancy between the contributions of Blacks to the making of the nation, their existential sacrifices, and unconditional love and the denial of their equality and political right and the subversion of the broader American political culture compelled Delany to spearhead emigration and the search for an external and independent Black nationality in the second half of the nineteenth century. Between 1853 and 1860, Delany gradually turned his attention to emigration and the search for an independent Black nationality. He would lead the 1854 National Emigration Convention in Cleveland, Ohio, after which he embarked on an exploratory journey to the west coast of Africa, visiting Liberia and Nigeria in search of location for the nationality.

Delany returned to the United States in 1860 fully committed to raising awareness of, and resources for, emigration. The onset of the Civil War and subsequent Reconstruction reforms, however, compelled rethinking and revision of his political ideas. Though he had given up on the country and had dismissed the prospect of any meaningful change within, it was difficult for Delany to ignore the growing sectional divide over slavery. He could not ignore the fact that a crisis was brewing over, slavery, the magnitude of which, he reasoned, could be consequential to the future of Blacks. He had argued profusely in the late 1850s that nationalization of slavery was imminent and that slavery would cease to be sectional. Ongoing events belied this prediction. The nation was not unified on slavery, and “nationalization” of slavery did not seem imminent. This compelled Delany to reverse course and embrace the Civil War and the cause of integration. Joining forces with Black leaders like Frederick Douglass and Henry H. Garnet, Delany urged President Abraham Lincoln to make emancipation a war strategy. In this respect, Delany advanced what Maurice Wallace describes as a “masculinist” construction of citizenship. He sought to convince the government that enlisting Blacks was “one of the measures in which the claims of the Black man may be officially recognized, without seemingly infringing upon those of other citizens.”⁹⁹ In other words, Blacks’ claim to citizenship “stood to be settled by the wide visibility of Black men in uniform.” Delany thus drew a correlation between nationhood, citizenship and masculinity.¹⁰⁰ Ultimately, they were successful. After prolonged deliberation and hesitation, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation freeing slaves of the rebellious states effective January 1863. In 1865, Lincoln also approved Delany’s commissioning as a combat major in the Union army, becoming the first Black so appointed. For the duration of the war, Delany assisted with raising several Colored regiments. Subsequently, the reforms of the Civil War and Reconstruction, especially the various Constitutional Amendments (Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth), affected a revolution in American political culture, finally undoing and reversing the tradition of subversion of the political culture and bringing the culture much closer to activating its “genius.”

The Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves of the rebellious territories; the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery and the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) extended citizenship and promise of equal protection of the law to Blacks. These developments convinced Delany that Blacks had now become “part of the Page 123 →ruling element” of the nation, a goal that seemed far-fetched less than a decade ago.¹⁰¹ Further ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870 which guaranteed to Blacks unrestricted right to vote and participate in the political process reinforced his growing optimism. Collectively, he concluded that the reforms had finally created opportunity for the American political culture to develop and evolve toward actualizing the embedded “genius.” It was this heightened sense of optimism that birthed the political conservatism that defined Delany’s thoughts during this period. The reforms fractured his seemingly impregnable late-1850s Black nationality wall. He developed renewed hope in America. In fact, had death struck in 1870, Delany most certainly would have died a happy man. He’d just witnessed a transformation of revolutionary proportions. Less than a decade and half ago, he had given up all hope and had predicted the imminent “nationalization” of slavery and denounced America as irredeemably racist. He’d been proven wrong. Slavery did not become a national institution. Instead, there had been a civil war, in the aftermath of which, the nation had made significant concessions to Blacks. Given these developments, Delany concluded that Blacks, now enfranchised and empowered politically, ought to tread the political landscape with caution, while their political choices and decisions should be guided by the practical demands of their situations rather than ideology, party loyalty, or historical precedent.

Delany’s conservative convictions led him to oppose and attempt to contain Black political aspirations. Early in the Reconstruction period, while Black leaders agitated for immediate and increased political rights, Delany voiced restraint and caution. For instance, soon after the assassination of President Lincoln, a delegation of Black leaders including Frederick Douglass approached his successor President Andrew Johnson to demand immediate political reforms and the expansion of Black political rights and privileges.¹⁰² In a letter to the delegation, Delany counseled moderation and gradualism. He implored the delegates to “Be mild … be respectful and deferential.” He closed the letter with “Be patient in your misery, Be meek in your despair; Be patient, O be patient! Suffer on, suffer on!”¹⁰³ To his critics, Delany seemed opposed to radically upstaging the existing culture of political inequality. Fundamentally, his call for gradualism derived from a concern that Blacks would and could destabilize the political climate and culture through what he deemed reckless, premature, and ill-timed political demands. He urged Blacks instead to cultivate a culture of goodwill toward the defeated, angry, and politically humbled Southern Whites. This overture, Delany hoped, would reassure Southern Whites that Black aspirations would not undermine the fundamentals of Southern culture and worldview.

Page 124 →Delany reasoned that such “conservative” concession would guarantee reciprocity from Whites that in turn would afford Blacks the space within which to exercise and enjoy the more crucial economic rights and privileges. In fact, by the mid-1870s, Delany had abandoned any pretense of “radicalism” and focused more intensely on appeasing the alienated and angry state conservatives. He began to openly court the goodwill of the state Democratic Party—the party of former slave-owners—those who had fought the Civil War vigorously and passionately to defend and preserve slavery.¹⁰⁴ Why this shift to a “conservative” position for someone who less than five years earlier was on the camp of the radicals? Why this switch in national political allegiance from radicalism to conservatism? Had Blacks achieved “unqualified equality”? Definitely not, and Delany knew that the political and constitutional reforms notwithstanding, Blacks were far from achieving the goal of “unqualified equality” with Whites. There was however a possible explanation for Delany’s willingness to ignore or deemphasize this reality in favor of compromise. This was due largely to his experiences of, and responses to, the political exigencies of post-Civil War and Reconstruction South Carolina.

After the war, Delany settled in South Carolina, first as field agent of the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, and after the demise of the Bureau in 1868, he became actively involved in local and state politics. Like many other Blacks, at the onset of Reconstruction, Delany joined the Republican Party—the party of so-called “Radicals.” Envisioning himself as someone with much to offer the newly enfranchised Blacks, he wrote a series of essays on citizenship and responsibility titled: On National Polity (1870).¹⁰⁵ Blacks needed such information, he felt, given centuries of enslavement, during which they were denied access to education and, ipso facto, knowledge and experiences that would have prepared them adequately for the responsibilities of freedom. Delany became convinced that the American political culture had evolved “an impartial and truly national government” in contrast to the previous (pre-Civil War) practice of slavery, hierarchy, and privilege. Blacks were now enfranchised. However, in order for the newly enfranchised Blacks to fully exercise their rights and privileges under the new dispensation they had to possess informed understanding of what Delany characterized as the “elementary lessons” on political principles, theories on the nature and function of national government, and knowledge of key political documents such as the Constitution.¹⁰⁶ He proceeded to expatiate on these principles in On National Polity.

On citizenship, Delany invoked the Roman legal definition of a citizen as someone unrestrained, who possessed inviolable power of political Page 125 →representation.¹⁰⁷ Blacks had long been denied this fundamental citizenship condition in several states. They had only been allowed limited and restricted political rights in some states such as New York and Pennsylvania. They were denied the franchise and thus the rights of representation under the old system.¹⁰⁸ This changed with emancipation, Reconstruction reforms, and Constitutional amendments. These reforms eradicated, in Delany’s words, “all legal disabilities and unjust laws,” transforming Blacks finally into becoming integral to the “ruling element” of the nation.¹⁰⁹ However, effective and functional political integration and participation required political education, knowledge of how to successfully engage others, as well as clarity on political theory and principles. It was precisely with a view to providing the newly enfranchised, but uninformed, Black electorate such education that Delany wrote and published On National Polity.¹¹⁰

Delany considered Blacks deficient in knowledge that was crucial for a population just emerging from slavery and entrusted with political responsibilities. And what precisely were the tenets of political education and knowledge Delany deemed essential for the newly enfranchised Blacks? He did not clearly answer this question. However, he expressed concern that, due to ignorance and inexperience, Blacks were likely to be seduced by the defeat of the former slaveholding class, and reversal in roles, into assuming a complacent and triumphalist disposition that would render them oblivious to the fragile and ephemeral nature of their new political status. Living in South Carolina, Delany was aware of the seething resentment and anguish of local Whites over the enfranchisement of Blacks. He was astute enough to know that such resentment was not necessarily local. The former slaveholding class may have been defeated and politically humbled, but the culture of the South, and indeed the entire nation, was not necessarily fully supportive of opening and broadening the social and political spaces to accommodate Blacks. Consequently, Delany urged Blacks to be conciliatory and accommodating and to avoid provocative radical demands and policies.

Delany reminded Blacks of the magnitude of the transformation they had just experienced, stressing that no people could be considered truly free “who do not themselves constitute an essential part of the ruling element of the country in which they live.”¹¹¹ In essence, real freedom came only when people are “their own rulers” and when each individual is “in himself an essential element of the sovereign power which composes the true basis of his liberty. This right, when not exercised by himself, may, at his pleasure, be delegated to another; his true representative.”¹¹² Here, Delany adduced two political doctrines. First was the doctrine of individual sovereignty, and second, that of political representation. Page 126 →For anyone to be truly free in the political sense, he/she had to attain two fundamental conditions: first, becoming part of the ruling element of the nation and thus in position to exercise, and have access to, without any restraints, all the rights, privileges, and obligations of citizenship, and second, when not able or willing to directly play those roles, he/she also had the power to delegate part of the responsibilities to others (his/her elected representatives). Delany concluded that Blacks had accomplished these conditions. They had not only become part of the “ruling element” of the nation that once enslaved them but also had been invested with the power of sovereignty, which they now exercised directly by contesting for political offices, or indirectly through their elected representatives.

Delany concluded therefore that Blacks had indeed become truly free. Nonetheless, he cautioned that this freedom also implied immense responsibilities. In addition to “having all the rights and privileges,” therefore, according to Delany, Blacks “also have all the responsibilities [emphasis added] belonging to society.”¹¹³ One fundamental responsibility derived from “the new life into which we have entered,” which required the possession of “such qualifications [emphasis added] as to fit us for the high, responsible, and arduous duty.”¹¹⁴ As he elaborated, Blacks “must possess attainments equal to the requirements of the positions” they sought. Otherwise, he affirmed, “we have no right to expect anything.”¹¹⁵ The “attainments” this time, unlike in the 1840s when Delany first broached the idea of “attainment,” were not material. Office-holding now required some other qualification besides material attainments. Delany did not elaborate on, or define, the nature of this qualification. Notwithstanding, he considered it reasonable to expect that only “qualified” Blacks assumed positions of responsibility. Freedom was not enough of a qualification for office-holding. There was however another practical reason Delany emphasized qualification. He seemed concerned that entrusting political responsibilities to those Blacks he considered inexperienced would expose them to the machinations of selfish Northern politicians who would exploit their ignorance and gullibility to solidify their political power and promote selfish economic and political agendas. Delany therefore wanted “qualified” Blacks in positions of authority—those he believed could be trusted to make strategic choices and forge alliances that would benefit the race. He contended that such strategic choices could and should include reconciling with their erstwhile oppressors.

Delany was undoubtedly troubled by the political climate in the South, especially in South Carolina, and the implications for Black political rights. He was not convinced that the reforms of the Reconstruction era had actually Page 127 →de-racialized the nation to the degree Blacks could freely assume and exercise their new status and responsibilities unfettered by previous conditions. Though Blacks were now part of the “ruling element,” the power dynamics remained fragile. It was clear to Delany that though the former slaveholding class had lost the war, and seemed politically humbled and subdued, it had not been completely neutralized. Delany had the foresight to realize that political change was not permanent. Consequently, he called for compromise with, and concessions to, the defeated and humbled former slaveholding class. He proposed certain political principles that he thought would, if adopted, be most beneficial to Blacks in the circumstance they found themselves sandwiched between a class of Northern politicians whose agenda he distrusted, and the former slaveholding class, who remained bitter and alienated: proportional representation (PR), minority representation (MR), accommodation, compromise, and utilitarianism.

On the 14th of August 1871, a frustrated Delany wrote a strongly worded letter to his long-time friend and now Republican Party stalwart Frederick Douglass. He was particularly troubled by the extent to which he believed Blacks were being exploited and misled by radical politicians for purely personal political gains.¹¹⁶ As corrective, he called for the adoption of a policy of racial representation: “Black leaders for Blacks.”¹¹⁷ He stressed the imperative of appointing only “qualified” Blacks to leadership positions who could be trusted to better articulate and promote the interests of the race. He was particularly distrustful of the political orientation of the Black political leadership in South Carolina. Black political leaders seemed ignorant, gullible, and easily manipulated by the radical republicans. Delany portrayed Black leaders as inexperienced and easily duped by radical republicans into endorsing policies that ultimately did not directly address the immediate needs and interests of Blacks. On the contrary, these policies only further alienated local Whites, the precise constituency whose goodwill Blacks needed. Delany therefore thought that the Black political leadership needed to be enlightened on appropriate policies that would secure those rights. He was also concerned that Blacks in leadership positions in South Carolina would use their demographic preponderance as a platform for monopolizing and abusing political power. To forestall this, he proposed minority representation (MR) to ensure that no one group, either within the state or nationally, used its majority status as justification for excluding or marginalizing others (in minority) from political participation. If implemented, Delany argued that his MR principle would both guarantee and secure minority rights while enhancing the political image of Blacks.¹¹⁸ Blacks would be seen as fair and considerate rather than power hungry, domineering, vengeful, and reckless.

Page 128 →Furthermore, with Blacks in the majority in South Carolina, and active in the state legislature, Delany felt compelled to remind the Black political leadership of the fluidity and fragility of the political landscape. Though the former slaveholders had lost the war, the likelihood of their political resurgence should not be discounted. Delany reiterated the imperative for MR in a letter to Black State Chief Justice Jonathan Wright. Alarmed by increased White immigration into South Carolina, Delany warned Blacks of the demographic implication. He predicted that within five years, Blacks would become the minority. In essence, the political rights Blacks now exercised could be compromised and possibly eradicated when Whites assumed the majority. As he informed Justice Wright,

having prospectively lost the popular preponderance and consequent certainty of representation in all departments of government, local, state and national, our only hope and chance of its future security is in the principle of CUMULATIVE VOTING which secures MINORITY representation as well as majority. Let our legislature be wise enough now, while it is in the power of our race to do so, to take such measures as to secure, by constitutional enactment, the right of minority representation, which, while it immediately secures to the Whites of the state, irrespective of party, a pro rata representation, or representation in proportion to numbers, it secures to the Black race the same ratio of representation in counties where Whites have the majority, and when they shall preponderate in the state, which they most assuredly will, at no distant day [emphasis in original].¹¹⁹

The adoption of MR principle, therefore, would allow for participation of the minority (i.e., Whites) in politics in proportion to their population size. It would reassure local Whites, especially conservative defenders of the ancien régime that their needs and interests were not in jeopardy. Delany considered this gesture of political accommodation logical in a fluid political context where roles were easily reversible. The current minority could someday become the majority and vice versa. Thus, despite being the majority and part of the “ruling element” in South Carolina, Delany believed that Blacks stood more to gain by advancing politics of accommodation toward, and concessions to, local Whites. He hoped that they (Whites) too would reciprocate when inevitably they attained demographic and political preponderance.¹²⁰ He also advocated nationwide application of the corollary principle of proportional representation (PR) since, according to his estimation, Blacks constituted one-sixth of the American population, they were entitled to executive appointments and congressional representation in proportion to the percentage.¹²¹

Page 129 →The political principles Delany proposed and defended resonated with the state conservatives some of whom were quick to commend him publicly and amplify his ideas. For example, on Delany’s call for MR, a representative of the state conservatives, echoing Delany, had this dire and ominous warning to Blacks:

Negro supremacy in South Carolina has not been an unmixed blessing, and when Whites obtain the numerical superiority, as they shortly will from immigration, they are not likely to be more liberal in policy than the Blacks have been. Unless the Blacks now permit the Whites their proportionate participation in affairs, they are certainly in their turn to be entirely excluded, and the relations of the two races will thus be always disturbed.¹²²

Delany proposed both PR and MR primarily for parity and political equity. He also wanted to reassure the entire nation, and South Carolinians in particular, that Blacks were not seeking political dominance over and above what their population size merited. In numerous writings and speeches, Delany warned of the imminent return to power of South Carolina conservatives and advised Blacks to respond proactively by deemphasizing and disengaging from radical policies and politics. They should instead court and secure the goodwill of the resurging conservatives. He now saw the interests of Blacks better served through reconciliation and affiliation with the conservatives. In the letter to Frederick Douglass, Delany expressed his growing frustration with radical politics. Angrily denouncing radical republicanism, he concluded that radicalism had only misled Blacks, fed them unrealistic expectations and aspirations, exploited their ignorance and gullibility, and further alienated them from the very constituents, he believed, were key to their future development.¹²³

By 1873, no longer able to contain his frustrations with radicalism and the Republican Party, Delany veered in the direction of the state conservatives and Democratic Party. Based on his ideas and commentaries, it was becoming clear to perceptive observers that Delany’s days as a Republican were numbered. In 1874, he joined a coalition of moderate Republicans and some Democrats to launch the Independent Republican Movement (IRM), created as a means of wresting political control from the ruling Radical Republican Party. The IRM nominated John T. Green, an ex-Confederate officer, for governor and Martin Delany for lieutenant governor. The Green-Delany ticket failed miserably in the ensuing election, and the entire movement collapsed, compelling Delany, politically bruised and humiliated, to return, like the proverbial prodigal son, to a hostile Radical Republican Party fold.¹²⁴ Predictably, his return and stay would be short-lived. In 1875, Delany formally renounced radical republicanism, joined Page 130 →the Democratic Party, and became the public face of racial reconciliation, compromise, and accommodation. He did not perceive conservatism as necessarily negative and evil. Judging by the conciliatory tone of the public utterances of leading state Democrats, Delany believed that conservatism now held the future for Blacks and afforded greater opportunities for elevation and eventual empowerment. In their campaign platform and speeches, the Democrats pledged to respect and protect those rights Blacks had won since the end of the war. This was reassuring to Delany, and he urged Blacks to give the state conservatives and conservatism a chance.

From 1875 through the end of radical Reconstruction, Delany was a vocal and public advocate of the conservative option. He actively campaigned for the Democratic Party in the crucial 1876 election. He called on Blacks to give the Democrats a chance; to believe in the Party’s campaign pledges to respect and protect their rights and freedom if elected.¹²⁵ Not surprisingly, the mainstream Black political leadership did not respond kindly to Delany’s ideas, and from the very beginning, he found himself deep in hot water. His speeches and campaign activities on behalf of the Democratic Party ruffled feathers and led to bitter opposition and condemnation and, on one occasion, a violent attempt on his life.¹²⁶ The radical Black political leadership rejected and repudiated Delany’s ideas and, at every opportunity, he was politically obstructed, intimidated, and victimized. His public repudiation of radicalism in the campaigns leading up to the Compromise of 1876 was considered by many the ultimate act of political betrayal of fellow Blacks, for which he was further ostracized.¹²⁷ The vast majority of Blacks in South Carolina did not share Delany’s faith in the Democratic Party. They had difficulty believing that those who fought a bloody Civil War to protect and preserve slavery could, in so short a time, have abandoned that worldview. They would be proven right.

Delany was undoubtedly an astute observer of the political scene in South Carolina. His advocacy of minority representation echoed a persistent demand of the state conservatives since the onset of radical Reconstruction. Minority representation had featured in the resolutions of the State Conservative Taxpayers Convention of 1871 in Columbia. South Carolina conservatives and ex-Confederates had persistently called for minority representation since the reforms of the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.¹²⁸ As noted earlier, Delany had hoped that the adoption of MR by Blacks would resonate with the state conservatives who would reciprocate when they assumed political dominance. He was mistaken. South Carolina state conservatives had a fundamentally different understanding of the utility of MR. For them it was a Page 131 →strategic means of infiltrating and ultimately undermining Radical Reconstruction. Though they dangled “reciprocity” in their pronouncements, it was just all a red herring, as Delany would soon discover.

Delany’s political philosophy clearly underscored a utilitarian and perhaps even cynical approach to political ideologies and movements. He believed that political affiliations should not serve as wedges or fences. Rather, they exist to promote the interests of members. Black political affiliation, therefore, should be dictated by this pivotal utilitarian consideration. Delany was convinced that what matters the most in politics was not, and should not be, the ideology. He wanted Blacks to focus more on and prioritize their aspirations and interests; in the pursuit of those aspirations, no strategy should be rejected for purely political or ideological reason, even if it entailed associating and cooperating with erstwhile oppressors and enemies. In this respect, the definition and meaning of an ideology in popular imagination became less significant. What was more relevant, in Delany’s views, was its capacity to advance the goals and aspirations of Blacks at any given moment. Therefore, an ideology with negative experiential attributes could potentially yield positive results. The futuristic potentials should trump past negative attributes. Though at some point, in the early years of Reconstruction, Republican Party “radicalism” had coincided with Black aspirations, by the mid-1870s, Delany concluded that the party had become a negative and potentially destructive force. In contrast, conservatism, exemplified by the Democratic Party, and historically associated with slavery and racism had, by the mid-1870s, based on its electoral platform and pledges, become the more promising political party for Blacks.¹²⁹

Furthermore, Delany considered an assessment of the dynamics of power fundamental to political affiliation and ideology. He contended that Black leaders should not be guided solely by ideology, be it radical or conservative, but by determination of the dynamics of power. The choice should be the one position or ideology that was both empowering and had the capacity to advance the cause. Even then, one’s loyalty to this option terminated when the power dynamics changed. Delany believed that individuals should be free to switch between ideological positions based on their determination of the power dynamics. A Black leader should never be found enslaved to an ideology of powerlessness and vulnerability. For Delany, no one should be held hostage to a political ideology, principle, or affiliation that could prove detrimental and destructive to one’s existential interests. This meant, therefore, that if one’s affiliation, informed by utilitarian consideration, became threatening, destructive, and disadvantageous, it was prudent and justifiable to explore other options.¹³⁰

Page 132 →In Delany’s judgment, therefore, in order for a political party to command and deserve the loyalty of its members, such a party should not only provide material benefits but also ensure their protection. This was his assessment of the political realities of the mid-1870s, by which time, as some historians and political critics concluded, radical republicanism was radical in name only. Political dynamics and power relations had changed in the South. Martin Delany insisted that radical republicanism had failed in its overarching goal—the nurturing of an atmosphere of reconciliation between Blacks and Southern Whites. Nationwide, angry and alienated Southern conservatives were on the political offensive and with a vengeful disposition toward Blacks. The zeal with which the federal government had once defended Black rights had dissipated. This bore ominous consequences for Blacks. Given this development, therefore, Delany considered it prudent for Blacks to switch political allegiance. Republican Party “radicalism” had ceased to be a positive force.¹³¹

Along with PR and MR, Delany also advocated politics of compromise and reconciliation. He reasoned that for Blacks to maximize the chances of benefiting from their new status, they had to be willing to reach out to, and find common ground with, the old political class (their former oppressors). He had no doubt that Blacks stood to gain more through compromise than a policy that embittered and alienated this group. Regardless of the reassuring presence of Northern politicians, Delany insisted that the future of Blacks still very much depended on the dynamics of their relationship with local Whites. He was sensitive to the fact that the political changes brought by the Civil War and Reconstruction were most difficult and challenging for local Whites, given the fact that for centuries, they had been accustomed to regarding Blacks as property and excluded from positions of political responsibilities. Furthermore, Delany reminded Blacks that the political reforms, however real, could not magically eradicate the gaps and shortcomings created by centuries of enslavement. In other words, it was difficult to transform overnight a relationship that, for almost three hundred years, was defined by inequality and subordination.¹³² He believed, and rightly so, that the sudden change and reversals that came with the Civil War and Reconstruction would be most challenging for local Whites who were accustomed to owning Blacks as property. Consequently, Delany contended that it would help if Blacks who occupied positions of authority were not perceived as vengeful, domineering, and power hungry.

The main thrust of Delany’s argument, therefore, was that Blacks should not construe becoming part of the “ruling element” to mean that they had achieved absolute equality in all fields. Though he encouraged Blacks to cherish and Page 133 →appreciate the enormity of the political transformation that had occurred, he also stressed that the system was far from perfect. The transformation of Blacks from slaves to citizens, however revolutionary, did not obliterate racial inequality. The system remained imperfect, and he urged Blacks to acknowledge and accept this imperfection, especially since they too were fundamentally ill-equipped and ill-prepared for the political roles they had been entrusted. In essence, Delany wanted Blacks to understand the limits of their political power. He considered it imprudent to disregard the interests of the former slaveholding class. Blacks had to be open to making concessions that could possibly give precedence to Whites, which could include Blacks voluntarily sacrificing some of their rights, or even, embracing policies that potentially could erode or circumscribe those rights. As Delany explained it, the decisions and choices Black politicians made should be informed by the critical awareness that Whites, “in conceding rights to us … had no intention of surrendering their own.”¹³³ This awareness was vital. Consequently, while exercising their political rights, Blacks should, in Delany’s words, “take care not to interfere with the rights of others.” Underlining this particular point, Delany warned fellow Blacks, “we must not in finding room for ourselves undertake to elbow the White people out of their own places.”¹³⁴

Delany strongly defended accommodation and compromise, strategies that could require Blacks to concede “first rank and … the first and choice places” to Whites who, in his words, “gave us what we now possess and who first brought us here.”¹³⁵ This is quite a stunning concession to White privilege and preeminence from someone who, in an earlier epoch, had vehemently contested any hints of such concessions. What had changed? In the aftermath of the Civil War and Reconstruction, now persuaded that Blacks no longer constituted “a nation within a nation,” but an essential part of the “ruling element,” Delany became more focused on political stability and orderly race relations, conditions that he felt would be jeopardized if Blacks projected a triumphalist and vengeful disposition toward local Whites. Delany believed that Blacks needed to be reminded of their history and how far the nation had progressed. In his judgment, regardless of how liberated Blacks felt, and despite emancipation, their decisions and political choices should be balanced against the fact that slavery and its legacies cast ominous shadow over the country. In other words, Blacks had not completely triumphed over slavery.

The last political idea Delany proposed, deriving from, and closely related to, the previous two, was the doctrine of utilitarian politics. He described politics as “intended for the benefits of the people.”¹³⁶ Politics was not only about resource allocation (Who gets what?) but also about the dynamics of power. For Blacks, Page 134 →this was existential. Politics was, above all else, about survival. The fundamental question, as Delany framed it was: what political arrangements would secure and enhance the survival of Blacks? This touched on something very crucial in the postbellum period: party affiliation. For Blacks, it was presumed, a priori, that their natural political affiliation would be the Republican Party—the party of Lincoln, of emancipation, and of freedom. In essence, historical precedent and ideological loyalty dictated or predetermined the Republican as the logical Party for Blacks. Delany would challenge this reasoning. He believed that the choice should be determined by something more utilitarian and demonstrably enriching. The choice of political affiliation should be determined not by ideological loyalty, old party alliance, or even historical precedent but by practical determination of how that relationship would advance and enrich Blacks’ current situation. A political organization/party could justify its members’ unwavering loyalty only if it extended some benefits to them. But benefits alone would not solidify such loyalty unless the party also maintained a favorable image in the community. Put differently, the correlation of forces in the society must be in the party’s favor. If the odds were against it, “get away as fast as you can,” Delany advised.¹³⁷ Speaking at a Black-Republican Party Fourth of July rally in Charleston, Delany stressed, “I want you to stick to them (i.e., Republicans) until you find the odds too heavy against them, then get away as fast as you can.”¹³⁸ Delany’s position was that Blacks should determine what party they endorsed and remained loyal to by how much benefit they derived as well as whether or not such relationship safeguarded their political and physical survival. The party had to offer something tangible, material, and existential. Whenever a political party seemed in conflict with, or about to jeopardize, Black interests, and everything appeared at odds with, or against, that party, Delany counselled abandoning such affiliation.

Throughout his career, true to his convictions, Delany frequently switched political allegiances and affiliations, vacillating between radical and conservative options, and each time, his conviction, his determination of what best advanced the interests of Blacks, informed his choices. It should be noted, however, that Delany’s espousal of mainstream conservative values was a strategic means of securing a space for Blacks which, he hoped, would enable them eventually to destabilize and obliterate the entire structure of inequality. In essence, he sought a radical end through a conservative strategy. Delany’s political philosophy had no room for irreconcilable zero-sum positions. He believed that the astute politician had to be willing to embrace, and experiment with, diverse, even conflicting options and groups and had to be open to working with anyone with the Page 135 →potential to help achieve positive results, even erstwhile enemies. He stressed the fluidity of politics and the fact that changing circumstances could dictate reconciliation, and even developing common ground, with those with whom one had once bitterly disagreed.

It should be noted at this juncture that the political fluidity Delany emphasized, the pragmatism he espoused, and the seemingly ambivalent choices he made were not unique nor isolated. It has been established that such pragmatism/ambivalence was a widespread trait among nineteenth-century Black leaders. There were other Black leaders who, like Delany, often flip-flopped and compromised with erstwhile ideological opponents. One such was Delany’s own fellow “militant nationalist” Henry McNeal Turner, who was “famous for his blistering radical condemnation of the racism of American society.” Yet, “he always expressed a surprising sympathy with both the social and political views of Southern White conservatives.” According to Peter Eisenstadt,

After 1880 Turner generally voted Democratic, and he was the first of a series of Black nationalists and separatists—including Marcus Garvey, Elijah Mohammed, and Louis Farrakhan—to seek a quixotic common ground with White segregationists. Turner’s ambiguous attitude toward the South and southern democrats was characteristic of southern Black leaders of his generation.¹³⁹

This ambiguity, or more appropriately pragmatism, was central to Delany’s political thought. He had no permanent political opponents. His choices were informed by his determination of whether or not they would advance what he, at that critical moment, considered (based on his conscience and reason) were in the best interests of Blacks. Consequently, while the goals Delany pursued remained fairly constant: freedom, justice, equality; the shifting political contexts dictated reassessment and realignment of political strategies. A shrewd political leader, therefore, had to know when it was strategic to switch between radical and conservative alternatives, and at times, the situation could dictate juggling both ideologies, each reinforcing the other.

Although Delany seemed to embrace conservative ideas and coalitions, his ultimate goal was to destabilize the system. His conservatism embodied radical intents. In this regard, Delany’s support of South Carolina Democrats in the late 1870s was not, in his judgment, to uphold their right to subordinate Blacks ad infinitum. It derived from a realistic assessment of emerging realignment of political power relations in the entire South—a realignment which a correspondent of the New York Times reported raised “other questions … which do not Page 136 →leave old party lines clear…. Republicans are found acting with Democrats and vice versa.”¹⁴⁰ Given this development, Delany concluded that Blacks were better served by deemphasizing radicalism, an ideology that no longer was actively and effectively supportive and nurturing of their rights and privileges. Like future conservatives such as Booker T. Washington, Delany might have been naïve in reposing so much faith in accommodation as a means of radically transforming the status quo of inequality. His choice of a conservative approach, at any given moment, derived from a strong conviction that it was the best option for advancing the cause of freedom and equality.

Delany considered a “radical” posture in the early years of reconstruction prudent because Blacks had on their side the force and authority of the federal government, supporting and guaranteeing the exercise of their rights and privileges. This position of strength made radical republicanism a logical and realistic option. By the mid-1870s, however, that federal power and authority was disappearing, and Delany felt that radicalism was bereft of any positive attributes and thus had become disadvantageous. With the gradual dismantling of federal authority in the South in the late 1870s, Delany became convinced that Blacks would be powerless to confront their erstwhile enemies who had been angered by radical politics. This strategic calculation dictated his switch to the Democratic Party in the mid-1870s. In his opinion, the conservative option now offered Blacks a better chance. As indicated above, this utilitarianism was a defining attribute of Black political leadership during Reconstruction.¹⁴¹ It seems reasonable, therefore, to suggest that in Black American history, political ideologies (radicalism and conservatism) have not always been mutually exclusive, zero-sum entities. Delany personified political pragmatism, which embodied utilitarian construction of political ideology. He portrayed an astute Black politician as neither consistently conservative nor consistently radical. He/She is at times one and/or the other—someone who does not hesitate to embrace, and be publicly identified with, whichever option promised to advance the interests of Blacks. Today, such a leader would be deemed a charlatan, a political prostitute, or pimp. In Delany’s times, however, the ever-shifting terrain of Black political history rendered that leadership typology much more viable.

In post-Civil War South, therefore, Delany theorized that Blacks should not be constrained by past historical or ideological considerations in determining political affiliation. He proposed a utilitarian approach that prioritized what potentially Blacks would benefit from such relationship. This also called for vigilance. It was crucial for Blacks to be aware of the changing political and power dynamics. They should know when a political party was no longer in position Page 137 →to promote and defend their interests and when its power dynamics threatened their survival. Blacks should never blindly adhere to a political party but should retain the latitude of switching positions when their interests or survival were at stake. Under such circumstances, breaking with historical and ideological tradition seemed justifiable. This was the basis of Delany’s assessment of the Black-Radical Republican Party relationship in the South. Unlike many leading Blacks who supported the Republican Party due to historical obligation, Delany was initially drawn to the Party not primarily because of historical or ideological tradition, but because he felt that at the time, based on his assessment of prevailing political climate, it was the party better able to promote and defend the interests of Blacks. However, as radical Reconstruction progressed, he concluded that the Republican Party policies benefitted and enriched everyone but the newly enfranchised Blacks. Furthermore, he believed that Radical Reconstruction had nurtured a climate of racial resentment and animosity in the South. It was clear to Delany that not even the lofty rhetoric of radical republicanism could protect Blacks from the seething anger and avenging wrath of the defeated and politically humbled but resurging former slaveholding class.

The pragmatic and utilitarian nature of Delany’s political philosophy explained his disillusionment with radical republicanism, and decision to switch to the Democratic Party. In the mid-1870s, he changed party affiliation, and embraced the state conservatives and ex-Confederates. Subsequently, he became a prominent speaker and advocate for the Democratic Party in the crucial election of 1876. Being willing and able to reach out to, and find common cause with, former slaveholders was crucial. Even under the most difficult of circumstances, Delany offered Blacks what, in modern political discourse, is akin to the now discredited concept of political “bipartisanship”: the ability and willingness to reach out and function across a party, racial, and ideological divide. Though unpopular with leading Blacks and their Radical Republican allies, Delany’s ideas and political decisions reflected the dictates of his reason and conscience, and they found resonance among South Carolina conservatives. They amplified his ideas and invoked them to corroborate their own discredited and unpopular political views.

It could be argued that Delany’s political conservatism developed from what could be characterized as a self-derived relativist and psycho-rationalist political doctrine, the product of his conscience and reason. Nonetheless, this was not a zero-sum and exclusive doctrine. The dictates of Delany’s conscience and reason acknowledged the prudence of engaging with different, often contradictory (if not conflicting), positions and viewpoints when necessary. This meant being Page 138 →amenable to compromise with, and offer concessions to, political opponents, including erstwhile and known political enemies. Delany seemed to suggest that there were no permanent friends or enemies in politics but interests dictated by one’s conviction (conscience and reason). The problem with Delany’s reasoning, and the dictates of his conscience, however, was the assumption that such compromise and accommodation, in the context of post-Civil War South, would necessarily translate into tangible political gains for Blacks. This proved wrong. Though the Democrats (“Redeemers,” as they fondly and proudly self-identified) won the 1876 election and regained political power, the outcome was disastrous for Blacks. It dawned on Delany that he had gambled and lost. His political conservatism had not yielded the outcome and reciprocity he predicted. There would be no reciprocity from the ascendant and vengeful “redeemers.” Disappointed, frustrated, and desperate, Delany reverted to his old emigration scheme and immersed himself in a resurging Liberia Exodus movement in South Carolina. He appealed to the American Colonization Society for assistance. His appeal fell on deaf ears. In early 1885, his renewed “African Dream” squashed, a physically and psychologically broken Delany returned to the warmth and comfort of his wife and children in Xenia, Ohio, where he would die shortly thereafter.

During his brief political career, Delany switched political allegiances and ideological positions with a dizzying frequency that often left his supporters and detractors alike dazed, confused, disappointed, and, at times, angry. But he was unmoved. Despite oppositions and resentments, Delany remained steadfast in his political pragmatism. He switched positions and allegiances whenever he deemed it politically prudent. For Delany, radicalism and conservatism were not sacrosanct ideologies but flexible options for promoting the interests of Blacks. Those interests took precedence over the ideology and not the reverse. The individual, guided by his or her determination of what was in the best interest of the Black community, should freely experiment with either conservative or radical options. The astute and savvy Black leader must know when such pragmatism dictated switching ideological positions. There was a certain utilitarianism embedded in Delany’s conception of politics. Politics, for Delany, was fundamentally about benefits. In any given political situation or relationship or alliance, one should be guided by considerations of rewards and benefits. This was the theory undergirding his responses to post-Civil War and Reconstruction politics. He assessed every situation based on the needs and interests of the newly Page 139 →emancipated and enfranchised Black population, a group that he believed, due to inexperience and lack of education, was susceptible to being manipulated and exploited. For Delany, politics was of little benefit if not utilitarian. It was this utilitarianism that shaped the compromises and pragmatism that defined his political thought. It informed his willingness and readiness to switch political affiliations, to explore common ground with erstwhile opponents. Politics, for Delany, was always in the making—not a rigidly ideological and compartmentalized realm but a fluid process driven by utilitarian considerations. Politics was about reconciling seemingly irreconcilables, forging relationships and alliances with adversaries, and pursuing and exploring compromise for the interests and benefits of all.

Delany’s political thought suggested that he was concerned less with how others felt about his choices. He was more focused on whether those choices reflected his convictions about what he determined were in the best interest of Blacks. Put differently, the decisions and choices Delany made were dictated more by his conscience, guided by the light of his reason, and less by dogmatic allegiance to some radical or conservative ideology. Thus, his political thought was rooted in a pragmatism that allowed him the flexibility to make choices and decisions based not on blind allegiance to some dogma or political principles but on his determination of what would best further the interests of his constituency at any given political moment. Though Delany embraced, advocated and experimented with “radical” solutions and strategies, he was not averse to switching and adopting “conservative” solutions and strategies when he deemed it necessary. To reiterate, the ideological strategy/approaches mattered less. The goals were far more profound and consequential and thus dictated the strategies. Delany’s conservative strategies underscored both the complexity of Black conservatism and its mutually reinforcing relationship to radicalism. One, therefore, concurs with Peter Eisenstadt that “Black conservatism transcends the usual division of integrationists and nationalists. Those of conservative disposition can be found as much among militant nationalists as among committed assimilationists.” In fact, the central theme of the Eisenstadt’s volume (echoing August Meier) is the “ambivalence of southern conservatism and its tendency to vacillate between accommodation and radical nationalism.” Many of the “distinctive southern Black conservatives” including Turner and Delany tended “to alternate between phases of supine accommodationism and militant nationalism or emigrationism.”¹⁴²

At different times in his career, Delany has been tagged a conservative who compromised, and at times, a radical and an uncompromisingly militant leader. Page 140 →In truth, he exemplified all attributes, often combining and juggling them within contiguous historical contexts and struggles. He rejected any blind allegiance to an ideology or ideal, be it radical or conservative, and seemed opposed to an essentialist conception of political ideology as an absolute category which established boundaries and set values and goals deemed inviolable. Delany was not overly concerned about political labels, whether radical or conservative. He believed that goals trumped ideals and labels: one could be consistent on goals and yet flexible and pragmatic on ideology and strategies. This utilitarian ethos shaped the conservative phase of his career. For Delany, therefore, utilitarian consideration determined political group identity and affiliations. The crucial consideration was whether such affiliation would advance the people’s aspirations. As underlined in Howard Rabinowitz’s anthology, this utilitarianism characterized Black leadership in the nineteenth century, and Martin Delany was the perfect exemplar.¹⁴³ Being “conservative” or “radical” was often a utilitarian, rather than existential, choice. The underlying consideration was not the meaning of, or images embedded in, the ideology, but the possibilities and potentials for achieving the desired goals, which could be radical or moderate, or even conservative.