THE REVOLT OF THE COMMON MAN
Practically all the farmers in the South, like those of the West, were
chronically in debt, and after 1870 the general tendency of the prices
of agricultural products was downward. In spite of largely increased
acreage--partly, to be sure, because of it--the total returns from the
larger crops were hardly so great as had been received from a much
smaller cultivated area. The Southern farmer began to feel helpless and
hopeless. Though usually suspicious of every movement coming from the
North, he turned readily to the organization of the Patrons of
Husbandry, better known as the Grange. In fact, the hopeless apathy of
the Southern farmer observed by Oliver Hudson Kelley, an agent of the
Bureau of Agriculture, is said to have determined him to found the
order. In spite of the turmoil of Reconstruction, the organization
appeared in South Carolina and Mississippi in 1871. Tennessee.
Missouri, and Kentucky had already been invaded. During 1872 and 1873,
the order spread rapidly in all the States which may be called Southern.
The highest number reached was in the latter part of 1875 when more than
6400 local granges were reported in the States which had seceded; and in
Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia, and Missouri there were
nearly 4000 more. The total membership in the seceding States was more
than 210,000 and including the border States, over 355,000. Since
negroes were not admitted, the proportion of the total white
agricultural population in the Grange was perhaps as high in the South
as in any other part of the Union. In the years that followed, the order
underwent the same disintegration in the South as elsewhere.
As a class the Southern Grangers did not take an active part in
politics. The overshadowing question of the position of their States in
the Union and the desire to preserve white supremacy prevented any great
independent movement. In a few instances, men ran for Congress as
Independents or as Greenbackers, and in some cases they were elected;
but the Southern farmers were not yet ready to break away from the
organization which had delivered them from negro rule. There was not at
that time in the South the same opposition to railroads that prevailed
in the West. The need of railroads was felt so keenly that the practice
of baiting them had not become popular. Some railroad legislation was
passed, largely through Granger influence, but it was not yet radical.
Nevertheless the Granger movement was by no means without permanent
influence. It helped to develop class consciousness; it demonstrated
that the Western and the Southern farmer had some interests in common;
and it also implanted in people's minds the idea that legislation of an
economic character was desirable. Heretofore the Southern farmer, so far
as he had thought at all about the relation of the State to industry,
had been a believer in _laissez faire_. Now he began to consider whether
legislation might not be the remedy for poverty. Out of this serious
attention to the needs of the farmer other organizations were to arise
and to build upon the foundations laid by the Grange.
About 1875 there appeared in Texas and other States local organizations
of farmers, known as Farmers' Alliances, and in 1879 a Grand State
Alliance was formed in Texas. The purposes were similar to those set
forth by the Grange. In Arkansas appeared the Agricultural Wheel and
the Brothers of Freedom, which were soon consolidated. The Farmers'
Union of Louisiana and the Alliance of Texas were also united under the
name of the National Farmers' Alliance and Coöperative Union of America.
This was soon united with the Arkansas Wheel, which had crossed state
lines.
A session of the National Alliance was held at St. Louis in 1889 with
delegates present from every Southern State, except West Virginia, and
from some of the Middle Western States. The National Assembly of the
Knights of Labor was also held in St. Louis at this time, and a joint
declaration of beliefs was put forth. This platform called for the issue
of more paper money, abolition of national banks, free coinage of
silver, legislation to prevent trusts and corners, tariff reform,
government ownership of railroads, and restriction of public lands to
actual settlers.
The next year, the annual convention of the Alliance was held at Ocala,
Florida, and the Ocala platform was published. This meeting recommended
the so-called sub-treasury plan by which the Federal Government was to
construct warehouses for agricultural products. In these the farmer
might deposit his non-perishable agricultural products, and receive 80
per cent of their market value in greenbacks. Surely the Southern farmer
had shaken off much of his traditional conservatism in approving such a
demand as this! The explanation is not far to seek.
The high price of cotton in the years immediately following the War was
the economic salvation of the South. Whatever may have been the
difficulties in its production, the returns repaid the outlay and more.
The quantity was less than the world demanded. Not until 1870-71 did the
production approach that of the crops before the War. Then, with the
increase in production and general financial stringency came a sharp
decrease in price. Between 1880 and 1890 the price was not much above
the cost of production, and after 1890 the price fell still lower. When
middling cotton brought less than seven cents a pound in New York, the
small producer got little more than five cents for his bale or two. The
price of wheat and corn was correspondingly low, if the farmer had a
surplus to sell at harvest time. If he bought Western corn or flour in
the spring on credit, the price he paid included shrinkage, storage,
freight, and the exorbitant profit of the merchant. The low price
received by the Western producer had been much increased before the
cereals reached the Southern consumer. The Southern farmer was
consequently becoming desperate and was threatening revolt against the
established order.
While Southern delegates joined the Western Alliance in the organization
of the People's party in 1891 and 1892, the majority of the members in
the South chose an easier way of attaining their object: they entered
the Democratic primaries and conventions and captured them. In State
after State, men in sympathy with the farmers were chosen to office,
often over old leaders who had been supposed to have life tenure of
their positions. In some cases these leaders retained their offices, if
not their influence, by subscribing to the demands of the Alliance.
Perhaps some could do this without reservation; others, Senators
particularly, justified themselves on the theory that a legislature had
the right to speak for the State and instruct those chosen to represent
it.
The feeling of the farmer that he was being oppressed threatened to
develop into an obsession. His hatred of "money-power," "trusts,"
"corners," and the "hirelings of Wall Street" found expression in his
opposition to the local lawyers and merchants, and, in fact, to the
residents of the towns in general. The idea began to grow up that any
one living in a town was necessarily an enemy to the farmer. The
prevalent agricultural point of view came to be that only the farmer was
a wealth producer, and that all others were parasites who sat in the
shade while he worked in the sun and who lived upon the products of his
labor. This bitterness the farmer extended to the old political leaders
whom he had regarded with veneration in the past. These old Confederate
soldiers, he believed, had allowed him to be robbed.
The state Democratic Convention of Georgia in 1890 pledged all
candidates for office to support the demands of the Farmers' Alliance,
including the sub-treasury "or some better system." Senator John B.
Gordon, however, refused to pledge himself and was reëlected
nevertheless. The leader of the Alliance was nominated and elected
governor. In Alabama, Reuben F. Kolb, the Commissioner of Agriculture,
almost obtained the Democratic nomination for governor. Two years later,
he again entered the primary and, declaring that he had been cheated out
of the nomination, ran independently as the candidate of the
Jeffersonian Democracy. On the face of the returns, the regular
candidate was elected, but Kolb pointed out the fact that the
Democratic majorities came from the black counties, while the white
counties had given a majority for him. Again in 1894 Kolb entered the
race for governor and again declared that he had been counted out, as he
had not only the Jeffersonian Democracy behind him but also the
endorsement of the Republicans and the Populists.
Undoubtedly the controlling influence in Democratic councils in some of
the Southern States had been exercised by a very small element in the
population. A few men, almost a "Family Compact" either held the
important offices themselves, or decided who should hold them, and fixed
the party policy so far as it had a policy other than the maintenance of
white supremacy. The governments were generally honest, economical, and
cheap. The leaders, partly because they themselves believed in limiting
the function of government and partly because they believed that the
voters would oppose any extension, had prevented any constructive
legislation. Events showed that they had misunderstood their people.
When the revolt came, the farmer legislators showed themselves willing
to vote money liberally for education and for other purposes which were
once considered outside the sphere of government.
South Carolina furnished the most striking example of this revolt. In
that State the families which had governed before the War continued the
direction of affairs. By a rather unusual compromise, the large western
population of the State had been balanced against the greater wealth of
the east. Consequently there was overrepresentation of the east after
the negro had been deprived of the ballot. It was charged--and with some
show of truth--that a small group of men clustering around Charleston
exercised an entirely disproportionate share of influence in party
management. The farmers, with a growing class consciousness, began to
resent this injustice and found a leader ready and anxious to direct
them.
In March, 1890, the delegates of the Farmers' Association decided to
secure the nomination for governor for Benjamin R. Tillman, who had
devoted much of his time for four years to arousing the farmers. The
contest for the nomination was begun in May and, after a bitter
struggle, Tillman won easily in the convention in September. The
"straight outs," dazed and humiliated, ran an independent candidate.
Tillman and his followers accepted the challenge and the conflict took
form as a struggle between mass and class. The farmers' leader, though
not himself illiterate, obscure, or poor, raged up and down the State
frankly and brutally preaching class war. He held up Charleston as a
sink of iniquity, and he promised legislation to cleanse it. Perhaps a
majority of the whites really believed his charges and put faith in his
doctrines. If not, the fetish of party regularity drew the votes
necessary to make up the deficiency. Tillman had been regularly
nominated in a Democratic convention, and South Carolinians had been
trained to vote the party ticket. He was elected by a large majority.
At the end of Tillman's first term two years later, he was again a
candidate, and the convention which nominated him approved the Ocala
platform. Since the party machinery was in control of the Tillmanites,
the opposition adopted the name "Cleveland Democracy" and sought to undo
the revolution. The result was never doubtful. Tillman was reëlected by
an overwhelming majority, and on the expiration of his term was sent to
the United States Senate, which he shocked by his passionate utterances
as he had so often shocked his own State. The attitude of the educated
and cultivated part of the population of South Carolina toward Tillman
affords a parallel to that of Tory England toward Lloyd George twenty
years later. The parallel may be extended further. Tillman, in time,
modified some of his extreme opinions, won over many of his opponents,
and gained the respect of his colleagues just as Lloyd George has done;
and South Carolina grew to have pride in her sturdy fighter whose life
ended just as his fourth term in the Senate was almost done.
The election of Tillman as Governor and then as Senator was a real
revolution, for South Carolina had been long represented in the United
States Senate by Wade Hampton and Matthew C. Butler, both distinguished
soldiers and representatives of the old régime. Hampton, under whose
leadership the carpetbag government had been overthrown, had been a
popular idol. Both he and Butler had won the respect of their colleagues
in the Senate and had reflected credit upon their State. But such
services now availed nothing. Both they and others like them were swept
out, to be replaced by the partisans of the new order.
Nothing was omitted by the reformers to humiliate what had been the
ruling portion of the population. The liquor traffic was made a state
monopoly by the dispensary system modeled on the Gothenburg plan: no
liquor was sold to be drunk on the premises, and the amount allowed a
purchaser was limited. It was hoped the revenue thus received would
permit a considerable reduction in the tax rate. These hopes, however,
were not realized, and scandals concerning the purchasing agency kept
the State in a turmoil for years. Other legislation was more successful.
An agricultural and mechanical college for men was founded at the old
home of John C. Calhoun at Clemson. A normal and industrial college for
girls has also proved very successful. The appropriations to the state
university were reduced on the ground that it was an aristocratic
institution, but on the other hand funds for public schools were
increased.
Not all the members of the Alliance remained in the Democratic party.
Populist electors were nominated in every Southern State in 1892, except
in Louisiana, where a combined Republican and Populist ticket was named.
In no State did the new party secure a majority, but in Alabama,
Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas, the Populist vote was
large. In North Carolina, always inclined to independence, the combined
Republican and Populist vote was larger than that cast for Democratic
electors. It was obvious that Democratic supremacy was imperiled, if
the new party continued its amazing growth.
The politicians, Republican and Democratic, set out to win the
insurgents. Some shrewd political manipulators, scenting future profit
for themselves, had joined the new movement and were willing to trade.
During 1893, 1894, and 1895 the Republicans were generally successful.
In many States there was more or less cooperation in state and county
tickets, in spite of the disfavor with which the Republican party had
been regarded in the South. In North Carolina J.C. Pritchard, a regular
Republican, was elected to the United States Senate, to fill the
unexpired term of Senator Vance, but the Populist state chairman, Marion
Butler, cool, calculating, and shrewd, took the full term to succeed
Senator Ransom. The Democratic party had maintained control for twenty
years, and it was held responsible for all the ills from which the
farmer suffered. Then, too, some of the leaders of the new party felt
that they would have greater opportunities for preferment by coöperating
with a party in which the number of white voters was small.
The doctrine of free silver had been making converts among the
Democrats, however, and early in 1896 it was clear that a majority of the
Southern delegates to the national convention would favor a silver plank.
The action of the convention in nominating Bryan and Sewall is told in
another volume.[1] Bryan was also endorsed by the Populist convention, but
that convention refused to endorse Sewall and nominated Thomas E. Watson
for Vice-President. A majority of the Populist convention favored a strict
party fight, but the managers were shrewd, and the occasion manifestly
offered great opportunities for trading. In twenty-six States the electoral
tickets were divided between Democrats and Populists. Among these States
were Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, and North Carolina. But coöperation
with Republicans on local legislative and state tickets often occurred. In
North Carolina, a fusion legislature was elected, and a Republican was
chosen governor by the aid of Populist votes, though one faction of the
Populists nominated a separate ticket. The judicial and congressional
nominations were divided. The apparent inconsistency of voting for Bryan
for President and at the same time supporting Republicans who might be
expected to oppose him in Congress was accepted without flinching.
According to the bargain made two years before, when a Republican was
sent to the United States Senate for an unexpired term by the aid of the
Populist votes, Senator Pritchard was reëlected.
[Footnote 1: _The Agrarian Crusade,_ by Solon J. Buck (in _The
Chronicles of America_).]
The experience of North Carolina with fusion government was a reminder
of the Reconstruction days. The Republicans had dilated upon "local
self-government" and the Populists had swallowed the bait. The
Legislature changed the form of county government, by which the board of
county commissioners had been named by the justices of the peace, and
made the board elective. This turned over to the blacks counties in
which several of the largest towns in the State were situated. Negro
politicians were chosen to office, and lawlessness and violence
followed. In Wilmington there was an uprising of the whites, who took
possession of the city government by force. The Legislature was again
Democratic in 1898 and began to prepare an amendment which should
disfranchise a large proportion of the 125,000 negro voters of the
State. There was coöperation between the Republican and Populist
organizations again in 1900, but too many Populists had returned to
their former allegiance. The restrictive amendment, of which more will
be aid presently, was carried by an overwhelming majority at the special
election in the summer, and at the regular election in November the
Democratic ticket was chosen by an overwhelming majority.
The fusion of 1896 and the rising prices of agricultural products killed
the Populist party in the South, but the influence of the movement
remains to this day. It has had some effect in lessening political
intolerance, for those of the Populists who returned to the Democratic
party came back without apology, while others have since classed
themselves as Republicans. The Populist attitude toward public education
was on the whole friendly, and more money has since been demanded and
expended for public schools.
Perhaps the greatest effect of the Populist movement was the overthrow
of the old political organizations. In some States a few men had ruled
almost by common consent. They had exerted a great influence upon
legislation--not by use of the vulgar arts of the lobbyists, but by the
plea of party advantage or by the prophecy of party loss. They had given
their States clean government and cheap government, but nothing more. A
morbid fear of taxation, or rather of the effects of taxation upon the
people, was their greatest sin. The agrarian movement took them unawares.
They were unable to realize that between the South of 1890 and another,
older South, there was a great gap. They could not interpret the
half-coherent speech of the small farmer, who had come to feel that he had
been wronged and struck out blindly at those whom he had previously
trusted. New and unknown men appeared in Washington to take the place of
men whose character, ability, and length of service had made them
national figures. The governorship of the States went to men whose chief
qualifications seemed to be prominence in the affairs of the Alliance or
else bitter tongues.
Though the Populists, for the most part, returned to the Democratic
party, and the suffrage amendments, which will be mentioned presently,
made the possibility of Republican success extremely remote, the "old
guard" has never regained its former position. In all the Southern
States party control has been for years in the hands of the common man.
The men he chooses to office are those who understand his psychology and
can speak his language. Real primary elections were common in the South
years before they were introduced elsewhere, and the man who is the
choice of the majority in the Democratic primary wins.
Some of the men chosen to high office in the State and nation are men of
ability and high character, who recall the best traditions of Southern
statesmanship; others are parochial and mediocre; and some are blatant
demagogues who bring discredit upon their State and their section and
who cannot be restrained from "talking for Buncombe."
The election of a Democratic President in 1884 had stirred the
smoldering distrust of the South on the part of the North. The
well-known fact that the negro vote in the South did not have the
influence its numbers warranted aroused the North to demand a Federal
elections law, which was voiced by bills introduced by Senator Hoar of
Massachusetts and by Henry Cabot Lodge, then a member of the House of
Representatives. Lodge's bill, which was passed by the House in 1890,
permitted Federal officials to supervise and control congressional
elections. This so-called "Force Bill" was bitterly opposed by the
Southerners and was finally defeated in the Senate by the aid of the
votes of the silver Senators from the West, but the escape was so narrow
that it set Southerners to finding another way of suppressing the negro
vote than by force or fraud. Later the division of the white vote by the
Populist party also endangered white supremacy in the South.
In this same year (1890) Mississippi framed a new constitution, which
required as a prerequisite for voting a residence of two years in the
State and one year in the district or town. A poll tax of two
dollars--to be increased to three at the discretion of the county
commissioners--was levied on all able-bodied men between twenty-one and
sixty. This tax, and all other taxes due for the two previous years,
must be paid before the 1st of February of the election year. All these
provisions, though applying equally to all the population, greatly
lessened the negro vote. Negroes are notoriously migratory, and a large
proportion never remain two years in the same place. The poll tax could
not be collected by legal process, and to pay the tax for two years,
four dollars or more, eight months in advance of an election, seemed to
the average negro to be rank extravagance. Moreover, few politicians are
reckless enough to arrange for the payment of poll taxes in exchange for
the promised delivery of votes eight months away, when half the would-be
voters might be in another county, or even in another State. To clinch
the matter, the constitution further provided that after 1892, in
addition to the qualifications mentioned above, a person desiring to
vote must be able to read any section of the constitution, "or he shall be
able to understand the same when read to him, or give a reasonable
interpretation thereof." Even when fairly administered, this section
operated to disfranchise more negroes than whites, for fewer can read and
fewer can understand a legal instrument. But it is obvious that the
opportunities for discrimination are great: a simple section can be read to
an illiterate white, while a more difficult section, filled with
technicalities, may be read to a negro applicant; and the phrase "a
reasonable interpretation" may mean one thing in the case of a negro and
quite another where a white man is concerned. It is perhaps not
surprising that only 5123 Republican votes were reported in 1896, and
hardly more, in 1912, were cast for Taft and Roosevelt together.
South Carolina followed the lead of Mississippi a little more frankly in
1895, by adopting suffrage amendments which provided for two years'
residence in the State, one year in the county, and the payment of a
poll tax six months before the election. Up to 1898 any person who could
read any section of the constitution, or could understand and explain it
when read by the registration officer, could have his name placed upon a
permanent roll and could vote thereafter, provided he satisfied the
other requirements already mentioned. After January 1, 1898, every one
presenting himself for registration had to be able to read and write any
section of the constitution, or else must have paid taxes the preceding
year on property assessed at three hundred dollars or over. The list of
disqualifying crimes is long, including those of which negroes are most
commonly found guilty, such as larceny, false pretence, bigamy, adultery,
wife-beating, and receiving stolen goods. To insure the complexion of the
permanent roll, the registration was conducted in each county by a board of
"three discreet persons" appointed by the Governor, by and with the advice
and consent of the Senate.
It would seem that either of these constitutions would serve to reduce
the negro vote sufficiently, while allowing practically all white men to
vote. Large discretion, however, is lodged in the officers of election,
and Democratic control in these matters is safe only so long as the
white men stick together. Louisiana went a step further in 1898 and
introduced the famous "grandfather clause" into her constitution. Other
requirements were similar to those already mentioned. Two years'
residence in the State, one year in the parish, and six months in the
precinct were preliminary conditions; in addition the applicant must be
able to read and write in English or his mother tongue, or he must be the
owner of property assessed for three hundred dollars or more.
This general requirement of literacy or ownership of property was
waived, however, in case of foreigners naturalized before January 1,
1898, who had lived in the State five years, and in the case of men who
had voted in any State before 1867, or of sons or grandsons of such
persons. These could be placed upon a permanent roll to be made up
before September 1, 1898, and should have the right to vote upon
complying with the residence and poll tax requirements. Practically all
white persons of native stock either voted in some State in 1867 or were
descended from some one who had so voted. Few negroes in any State, and
none in the South, were voters in that year. It is obvious that suffrage
was open to white but barred to negro illiterates. Apparently the only
whites debarred under this clause were the illiterate and indigent sons
of foreign-born fathers.
North Carolina adopted a new suffrage article in 1900 which is much
simpler than those just described. It requires two years' residence in
the State, one in the county, and the payment of poll tax before the 1st
of May in the election year. A uniform educational qualification is laid
down, but the "permanent roll" is also included. No "male person who was
on January 1, 1867, or at any other time prior thereto, entitled to vote
under the laws of any State in the United States, wherein he then resided,
and no lineal descendant of any such person shall be denied the right to
register and vote at any election in the State by reason of his failure to
possess the educational qualifications herein prescribed: _Provided_ he
shall have registered in accordance with the terms of this section prior to
December 1, 1908." In other words, any white illiterate thirteen years old
or over when the amendment was adopted would not be deprived of his vote
because of the lack of educational qualifications. No other State had given
so long a time as this.
The "grandfather clause" here was shrewdly drawn. Free negroes voted in
North Carolina until 1835, and under the terms of the clause any negro
who could prove descent from a negro voter could not be debarred because
of illiteracy. Negroes voted in a few States in 1867, and they or their
descendants were exempt from the educational test. Of course the number
of these was negligible, and the clause accomplished precisely what it was
intended to do--that is, it disfranchised a large proportion of the negroes
and yet allowed the whites to vote. The extension of the time of
registration until 1908, eight years after the amendment was adopted and
six after it went into effect, made the disfranchisement of any
considerable number of whites impossible.
Alabama followed in 1901, combining the South Carolina and the Louisiana
plans and including the usual residence and poll tax requirements, as
well as the permanent roll. This was to be made up before December 20,
1902, and included soldiers of the United States, or of the State of
Alabama in any war, soldiers of the Confederate States, their lawful
descendants, and "men of good character who understood the duties and
obligations of citizenship under a republican form of government." After
the permanent roll has been made up, the applicant for registration must
be able to read and write and must have worked the greater part of the
twelve months next preceding, or he or his wife must own forty acres of
land or real estate or personal property assessed at not less than three
hundred dollars. A long list of disqualifying crimes was added,
including wife-beating and conviction for vagrancy. As if this were not
enough, after 1903 an applicant for registration might be required to state
where he had lived during the preceding five years, the name or names by
which known, and the names of his employers. Refusal to answer was made a
bar to registration, and wilful misstatement was regarded as perjury.
Oklahoma adopted its disfranchising amendment in 1910, without valid
reason so far as any one outside the State could see, as the proportion
of negroes was very small. An attempt was made permanently to
disfranchise the illiterate negro by the "grandfather clause," while
allowing illiterate white voters to vote forever. Other States allowed a
limited time in which to register on a permanent roll, after which all
illiterates were to be disfranchised. Oklahoma sought to keep suffrage
permanently open to illiterate whites, while closing it to illiterate
negroes. This amendment was declared unconstitutional by the United
States Supreme Court in June, 1915, on the ground that a State cannot
reëstablish conditions existing before the ratification of the Fifteenth
Amendment, even though the disfranchising amendment contained no
"express words of exclusion" but "inherently brings that result into
existence."[1] What the Court will do with other similar constitutional
amendments when they are brought before it is not so certain. All differ
somewhat, and it is possible that the Court may let the whole or a part
of some of them stand. If not, it is probable that straight educational
and property qualifications will be substituted. In fact, if the Court
disapproves the permanent roll but allows the remainder to stand,
educational and property qualifications will prevail in several States.
[Footnote 1: Guinn _vs._ United States, 238 U.S., 347.]
All these plans for disfranchisement have accomplished the desired
results up to the present time. The negro vote has been greatly reduced
and elections are decided by the votes of white men. In some States,
negroes who could easily pass the tests no longer take the trouble to go
to the polls. The number of white voters also grows smaller. Some fail
to pay the poll tax, and others stay away from the polls because, as a
rule, the result has been decided in the primary elections. Since a
Democratic nomination is practically equivalent to election, many voters
who have taken part in the primaries neglect to vote on election day.
Only in North Carolina is there evidence of the growth of a strong
Republican opposition. In 1908, Taft received over 114,000 votes, and
the Republican candidate for governor 107,000. In 1916 Hughes received
120,000 votes as against 168,000 for Wilson.
What was done with the negro when he was thus rendered politically
helpless? Was there an attempt to take from him other things than the
ballot? The answer must be in the affirmative. Men advocated segregation
in common carriers, in public places, and even in places of residences.
An attempt to confine appropriations for negro schools to the amount of
taxes directly paid by the negroes has been made; men have sought office
on a platform of practical serfdom for the negro. But although some few
have achieved temporary successes--at least they have been
elected--their programs have not been carried out. The "Jim Crow" car is
common and the negro schools do not get appropriations equal to those of
the whites, but little else has been done. In fact, evidences of a
reaction in favor of the negro soon became apparent. The late Governor
Charles B. Aycock of North Carolina at the beginning of this century won
his triumphs on a platform of justice for the negro.
The question of the liquor traffic began to engage the attention of the
Southern people very soon after the end of Reconstruction. The great
problem was the sale of liquor in the unpoliced country districts, and
especially to negroes. By special legislative acts forbidding the sale
of liquor within a given number of miles of a church or a school a large
part of the South was made dry. Local option acts continued the
restrictive work until the sale of liquor outside of the larger
incorporated towns became rare. In some States, acts applying to the
whole State forbade the sale outside of towns. By concentrating their
efforts upon the towns, the anti-saloon forces made a large number of
them dry also, but there was so much illicit sale that employers often
found that Monday was a wasted day.
State wide prohibition began in 1907 with Oklahoma and Georgia, and
State after State followed until, in 1914, ten States were wholly dry,
and in large areas of the other Southern States the sale of intoxicants
was forbidden through local option. Southern members of Congress urged
the submission of the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution,
forbidding manufacture or sale of intoxicants in the nation. Every
Southern State promptly ratified the Amendment when it was submitted by
Congress.
Unfortunately many negroes when deprived of alcohol began to use drugs,
such as cocaine, and the effect morally and physically was worse than that
of liquor. The "coke fiend" became a familiar sight in the police courts of
Southern cities, and the underground traffic in the drug is still a
serious problem. The new Federal law has helped to control the evil, but
both cocaine and alcohol are still sold to negroes, sometimes by pedlars of
their own race, sometimes by unscrupulous white men. The consumption of
both is less, however, than before the restrictive legislation. The South
has traveled far from its old opposition to sumptuary laws. Like State
Rights, this principle is only invoked when convenient. Starting largely as
a movement to keep whiskey from the negro and, to a somewhat less extent,
from the white laborer, prohibition has become popular. On the whole it
has worked well in the South though "moonshining" is undoubtedly
increasing. The enormous price eagerly paid for whiskey in the
"bone-dry" States has led to a revival of the illicit distillery, which
had been almost stamped out.