The following correspondence, which is appended to the "Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass," although published some time since, will be new and interesting to many of the readers of the North Star.

The writer thus introduces it to his readers:

"The following comments on my Narrative appeared very lately in the Delaware Republican, a newspaper published in the most northern of the slave States, and not very remote from that part of Maryland where my early days were spent. Although put forth as a refutation of my statements, under the unflattering title of "Falsehood refuted," I have great pleasure in presenting it to my readers. The writer's admissions are valuable as a confirmation of the main facts of my Narrative; while the denials are only such as might be expected from an apologist of slavery."

## To The Public-- Falsehood Refuted.

It is with considerable regret that I find myself measurably com-
pelled to appear before the public, but my attention has lately been
arrested by a pamphlet which has been freely circulated in Wilmington
and elsewhere, with the following superscription: Extracts from a
Narrative of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave, written by himself.

And although I am aware that no sensible, unprejudiced person will
credit such a ridiculous publication, which bears the glaring impress
of falsehood on every page, yet I deem it expedient that I should give
the public some information respecting the validity of this narrative,
because I was for many years a citizen of the section of country where
the scenes of the above mentioned narrative are laid; and am intimately
acquainted with most of the gentlemen whose characters are so shame-
fully traduced, and I am also aware, that the Narrative was not written
by the professed author, but from statements of this runaway slave,
some evil designed person or persons have composed this catalogue of
lies to excite the indignation of public opinion against the slave-

2

holders of the South; and have even attempted to plunge their venemous
fangs in the vitals of the church.

I shall, therefore, briefly notice some of the most glaring
falsehoods contained in the aforesaid Narrative, and give a true repre-
sentation of the character of those gentlemen, who have been censured
in such an uncharitable manner, as murdererS, hypocrites, and every-
thing else that is vile.

I indulge no animosity against the fabricators and circulators of
the Narrative, neither do I know them; but I positively declare the
whole to be a budget of falsehoods, from beginning to end.

I. The identity of the author.-- About eight years ago, I knew
this recreant slave by the name of Frederick Bailey, (instead of Doug-
lass.) He then lived with Mr. Edward Covey, and was an unlearned,
and rather an ordinary Negro, and am confident he was not capable of
writing the Narrative alluded to; for none but an educated man, and one
who had some knowledge of the rules of grammar, could write so correct-
ly. Although, to make the imposition at all credible, the composer
has labored to write it in as plain a style as possible; consequently,
the detection of the first falsehood proves the whole production to be
notoriously untrue.

Again: "It is a common custom in the part of Maryland from
which I ran away, to separate children from their mothers at a very
early age."

This also I know to be false. There is no such custom prevalent in
that section of the country; but, on the contrary, the children are
raised with their mothers, and generally live with them in the same
house, except in some few instances where the mother is hired out as a
cook or laborer in some other family.

The gentlemen whose names are so prominently set forth in the said
Narrative, are Col. Edward Lloyd, Capt. Anthony, Austin Gore,

3

Thomas Lamdin, (not Lanman,) Giles Hicks, Thomas Auld and Edwin Covey.
Most of these persons I am intimately acquainted with, and shall give
a brief sketch of their characters as follows:

Col. Edward Lloyd was one of the most wealthy and respectable planters in the State of Maryland. He was at one time the Governor of the State, and for several years a member of the Legislature. He owned several thousand acres of land, and between four and five hundred slaves. He died before I had much knowledge of him; but I know that he was a kind and charitable man, and in every respect an honorable and worthy citizen. Most of the same slaves are now owned by his three sons, and they manage their servants in the same manner as did their father; and I know there are no such barbarities committed on their plantations.

Could it be possible that charitable feeling men could murder human beings, with as little remorse of conscience, as the Narrative of this infamous libeller wishes to make us believe; and that the laws of Maryland, which operate alike upon black and white, bond or free, could permit such foul murders to pass unnoticed? No: it is impossible; and every sensible man knows that these false accusations are an ebullition of an unchristian prejudice.

Capt. Anthony and Giles Hicks, I know but little of. The accused murderer, Mr. Gore, is a respectable citizen, living near St. Michaels, and I believe a worthy member of the Methodist Episcopal Church; he was formerly an overseer for Col. Lloyd, and at this time, all who know him think him anything but a murderer.

Thomas Lamdin, who, it is said, (in the Narrative,) boasted so frequently of his murders, is at this time an honest, school teacher in the District where I formerly lived; and all the harm that can be said of him is, that he is too good-natured and harmless to injure any person but himself.

4

Capt. Thomas Auld, whose hypocritical meanness is so strongly depicted in the aforesaid Narrative, was for many years a respectable merchant in the town of St. Michaels, and an honorable and worthy member of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and only notable for his integrity and irreproachable Christian character. He is now retired from the turmoil of a mercantile life, and engaged in the worthy occupation of tilling the soil, little dreaming of the foul accusations that are circulated against him.

Edward Covey, the renowned Negro breaker, is also a plain, honest farmer, and a tried and faithful member of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Mr. Covey lived for several years on a farm adjoining my father's, at which time this runaway Negro lived with him, and I am well aware that no such bloody tragedy as is recorded in that lying Narrative ever occurred on Mr. Covey's farm. All that can be said of Mr. Covey is, that he is a good Christian, and a hard working man, and makes every one around him work, and treats them well. By his honest industry, he has purchased a fine farm, and is now reaping the reward of his labor.

Such are the characteristics of the men whom the imposers of this dirty Narrative have so uncharitably traduced, and by blending these false accusations with the Methodist religion of the South, they wish to lacerate her already bleeding wounds.

I was raised among slaves, and have also owned them, and am well aware that the slaves live better and fare better in many respects than the free blacks. Yet, I am positively opposed to slavery, for I know it is a great evil; but the evil falls not upon the slave, but on the owner.

Intrigue and false accusations will never liberate the slaves of the South; but, on the contrary, every such attempt will only forge for them new and stronger fetters. Let the tender-hearted philanthropist

5

of the North speak truth and love towards their Southern brethren, and
make a liberal application of their gold for the removing of the blacks
from the country, and their chance for success will be more flattering.

I have given a true representation of the persons connected with
the aforesaid Narrative, and I respectfully submit the facts to the
judgment of an impartial public.

A. C. C. Thompson,

No. IOI Market street,

Wilmington, Del.

Reply to Mr. A. C. C. Thompson.

To the Editor of the Liberator:

Dear Friend:-- For the sake of our righteous cause, I
was delighted to see by an extract copied into the Liberator of 12th of
December, 1845, from the Delaware Republican, that Mr. A. C. C. Thomp-
son, No. IOI Market street, Wilmington, has undertaken to invalidate my
testimony against the slaveholders, whose names I have made prominent
in the Narrative of my experience while in slavery.

Slaveholders and slave traders never betray greater indiscretion
than when they venture to defend themselves, or their system of plunder
in any other community than a slaveholding one.-- Slavery has its own
standard of morality, humanity, justice, and Christianity. Tried by
that standard, it is a system of the greatest kindness to the slave--
sanctioned by the purest morality-- in perfect agreement with justice--
and, of course, not inconsistent with Christianity. But, tried by any
other, it is doomed to condemnation. The naked relation of master and
slave is one of those monsters of darkness, to whom the light of truth
is death. The wise ones among the slaveholders know this, and they
studiously avoid doing anything, which, in their judgment, tends to
elicit truth. They seem fully to understand, that their safety is in

6

their silence. They may have learned this wisdom from Junius, who counselled his opponent, Sir William Draper, when defending Lord Granby, never to attract attention to a character, which would only pass without condemnation, when it passed without observation.

I am now almost too far away to answer this attempted refutation by Mr. Thompson. I fear his article will be forgotten before you get my reply. I however, think the whole thing worth reviving, as it is seldom we have so good a case for dissection. In any country but the United States, I might hope to get a hearing through the columns of the paper in which I was attacked. But this would be inconsistent with American usage and magnanimity. It would be folly to expect such a hearing. They might possible advertise me as a runaway slave, and share the reward of my apprehension; but on no other condition would they allow my reply a place in their columns.

In this, however, I may judge the 'Republican' harshly. It may be that, having admitted Mr. Thompson's article, the editor will think it but fair-- Negro though I am-- to allow my reply an insertion.

In reply to Mr. Thompson, I shall proceed as I usually do in preaching the slaveholder's sermon,-- dividing the subjects under two general heads, as follows:

1st, The statement of Mr. Thompson, in confirmation of the truth of my narrative.

2d, His denials of its truthfulness.

Under the first, I beg Mr. Thompson to accept my thanks for his free and unsolicited testimony, in regard to my identity. There now need be no doubt on that point, however much there might have been before. Your testimony, Mr. Thompson, has settled the question forever. I give you the fullest credit for the deed, saying nothing of the motive. But for you, sir, the pro-slavery people in the North might have persisted, with some show of reason, in representing me as

7

being an imposter-- a free Negro who had never been south of Mason and
Dixon's line, one whom the abolitionists, acting on the jesuitical
principle, that the end justifies the means, had educated and sent
forth to attract attention to their faltering cause. I am greatly
indebted to you, sir, for silencing those truly prejudicial insinuat-
tions. I wish I could make you understand the amount of service you
have done me. You have completely tripped up the heels of your pro-
slavery friends, and laid them flat at your feet. You have done a
piece of anti-slavery work, which no anti-slavery man could do. Our
cautious and truth-loving people in New England would never have be-
lieved this testimony, in proof of my identity, had it been born by an
abolitionist capable of bearing false witness intentionally, but such
people are thought fanatical, and to look at everything through a dis-
torted medium. They will believe you-- they will believe a slavehol-
der. They have, some how or other, imbibed (and I confess strangely
enough) the idea that persons such as yourself are dispassionate, im-
partial and disinterested, and therefore capable of giving a fair rep-
resentation of things connected with slavery. Now, under these cir-
cumstances, your testimony is of the utmost importance. It will serve
to give effect to the exposures of slavery, both at home and abroad.
I hope I shall not administer to your vanity when I tell you that you
seem to have been raised up for that purpose. I came to this land
with the highest testimonials from some of the most intelligent and
distinguished abolitionists in the United States, yet some have enter-
tained and expressed a doubt as to whether I have ever been a slave.
You may easily imagine the perplexing and embarrassing nature of my
situation, and how anxious I must have been to be relieved from it.
You, sir, have relieved me. I now stand before the American and British
people, endorsed by you as being just what I have ever represented my-
self to be-- an American slave.

8

You say, "I knew the recreant slave by the name of Frederick Bailey (instead of Douglass.") Yes, that was my name; and leaving out the term recreant, which savors a little of bitterness, your testimony is direct and perfect-- just what I have long wanted. But you are not yet satisfied. You seem determined to bear the most ample testimony in my favor. You say you knew me when I lived with Mr. Covey, and with most of the persons mentioned in my narrative, you are intimately acquainted. This is excellent. Then Mr. Edward Covey is not a creature of my imagination, but really did, and may yet exist.

You thus brush away the miserable insinuations of my northern pro-slavery enemies, that I have used fictitious, not real names. You say-- "Col. Lloyd was a wealthy planter. Mr. Gore was once an overseer for Col. Lloyd, but is now living near St. Michael's, is respected and (you) believe he is a member of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Mr. Thomas Auld is an honorable and worthy member of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Mr. Covey, too, is a member of the Methodist church and all that can be said of him is, that he is a good Christian, &c. &c." Do allow me, once more, to thank you, for this triumphant vindication of the truth of my statement; and to show you how highly I value your testimony, I will inform you that I am now publishing a second edition of my narrative in this country, having already disposed of the first. I will insert your article with my reply as an appendix to the edition now in progress. If you find any fault with my frequent thanks, you may find some excuse for me in the fact, that I have serious fears that you will be but poorly thanked by those whose characters you have felt it your duty to defend. I am almost certain they will regard you as running before you were sent, and as having spoken when you should have been silent. Under these trying circumstances, it is evidently the duty of those interested in your welfare to extend to you such words of consolation as may ease, if not remove, the pain of your

9

sad disappointment. But enough of this.

Now, then, to the second part-- or your denials. You are confident I did not write the book; and the reason of your confidence is, that when you knew me, I was an unlearned and rather an ordinary Negro. Well, I have to admit I was rather an ordinary Negro when you knew me, and I do not claim to be a very extraordinary one now. But you knew me under very unfavorable circumstances. It was when I lived with Mr. Covey, the Negro breaker, and member of the Methodist Church. I had just been living with master Thomas Auld, where I had been reduced by hunger. Master Thomas did not allow me enough to eat. Well, when I lived with Mr. Covey, I was driven so hard, and whipped so often, that my soul was crushed and my spirits broken. I was a mere wreck. The degradation to which I was then subjected, as I now look back to it, seems more like a dream than a horrible reality. I can scarcely realize how I ever passed through it without losing all my moral and intellectual energies. I can easily understand that you sincerely doubt if I wrote the narrative; for if any one had told me, seven years ago, I should ever be able to write such an one, I should have doubted as strongly as you now do. You must not judge me now by what I then was-- a change of circumstances has made a surprising change in me. Frederick Douglass, the freeman, is a very different person from Frederick Bailey, the slave. I feel myself almost a new man-- freedom has given me new life. I fancy you would scarcely know me. I think I have altered very much in my general appearance, and know I have in my manners. You remember when I used to meet you on the road to St. Michael's or near Mr. Covey's lane gate, I hardly dared to lift my head and look up at you. If I should meet you now, amid the free hills of old Scotland, where the ancient "black Douglass" once met his foes, I presume I might summon sufficient fortitude to look you full in the face; and were you to attempt to make a slave of me, it is possible you

10

might find me almost as disagreeable a subject as was the Douglass to whom I have just referred. Of one thing, I am certain-- you would see a great change in me.

I trust I have now explained away your reason for thinking I did not write the narrative in question.

You next deny the existence of such cruelty in Maryland as I reveal in my narrative; and ask, with truly marvellous simplicity, "could it be possible that charitable feeling men could murder human beings with as little remorse as the narrative of this infamous libeller would make us believe; and that the laws of Maryland, which operate alike upon black and white, bond and free, could permit such foul murders to pass unnoticed?" "No", you say "it is impossible.". I am not to determine what charitable, feeling men can do; but to show what Maryland slaveholders actually do; their charitable feeling is to be determined by their deeds, and not their deeds by their charitable feeling.

The cowskin makes as deep a gash in my flesh, when wielded by a professed saint, as it does when wielded by an open sinner. The deadly musket does as much execution by Austin Gore, the Christian, as when the same is done by Beal Bondly, the infidel. The best way to ascertain what those charitable feeling men can do, will be to point you to the laws made by them, and which you say operate alike upon the white and black, the bond and free. By consulting the statute laws of Maryland, you will find the following:-- "Any slave for rambling in the night, or riding horses in the daytime without leave or running away, may be punished by whipping, cropping, branding in the cheek, or otherwise not rendering him unfit for labor."--p. 237. Then another,--

"Any slave convicted of petty treason, murder, or wilful burning of houses, may be sentenced to have his right hand cut off, to be hanged in the usual manner, the head severed from his body-- the body divided into four quarters, and the head and quarters set up in the most public

II

places, where such act was committed."-- page 190.

Now, Mr. Thompson, when you consider with what ease a slave may be convicted of any one or all of these crimes, how bloody and atrocious those laws appear. Yet, sir, they are but the breath of those pious and charitable feeling men, whom you would defend. I am sure I have recorded in my narrative, nothing so revoltingly cruel, murderous and infernal, as may be found in your own statute book.

You say that the laws of Maryland operate alike upon the white and black, the bond and free. If you mean by this, that the parties named are all equally protected by law, you perpetrate a falsehood as big as that told by President Polk in his inaugural address. It is a notorious fact even on this side of the Atlantic, that a black man cannot testify against a white man in any court in Maryland nor any other slave State. If you do not know this, you are rather to be pitied than censured. I will not say that the detection of this falsehood proves all you have said to be false-- for I wish to avail myself of your testimony, in regard to my identity,-- but I will say, you have made yourself very liable to suspicion.

I will close these remarks by saying, your positive opposition to slavery is explained, and will be well understood by anti-slavery men, when you say the evil of the system does not fall upon the slave, but the slaveholder. This is like saying that the evil of being burnt is not felt by the person burnt, but by him who kindles up the fire about him.

Frederick Douglass.

Perth, (Scotland,) 27th Jan., 1846.