THE POSITION OF THE SOUTHERN WHITE.
In the Southern States, and especially in the States which constitute
the Black Belt, the Race Question has in recent years assumed far more
serious proportions than is generally supposed. It has, in fact, assumed
the proportions of a species of guerilla race war. Few people, even in
America, thoroughly realise this. The leading newspapers of the country
pay surprisingly little attention to occurrences outside the district in
which they find the majority of their readers. There is, so far as I am
aware, no neutral journal which busies itself exclusively with the
problem, and, consequently, Americans and foreigners alike are without
any mirror in which they may periodically see reflected all the aspects
and all the incidents of the situation. To keep up with the history of
the Race Question the student must read, not the great newspapers of New
York, Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago, or New Orleans, but rather the
little county newspapers of the South—newspapers the very names of which
are scarcely known in the North and wholly unknown in Europe. And even
these rural newspapers must be read with discretion and discrimination,
for all of them are partisans. Some make a point of dwelling at length
upon accounts of outrages committed by negroes, and of almost ignoring
accounts of outrages committed by whites; others—they are, it is true,
in the minority—follow the opposite plan. A few only are fair; a few
only would care to print so free a confession as the following, which I
take from the Augusta (Georgia) _Chronicle_, of Jan. 5th, 1890:—
“Laws are powerless either to prevent the commission of crime or to
punish criminals, unless public sentiment forbids the one and commands
the other. Where there is little regard for human life, and we fear
this is the case in many portions of our country, the courts are often
to blame for not hanging those who slay their fellow-men. Is it not a
fact that it is almost impossible to convict a man of the crime of
murder who has any social position or means to defend himself?
Fortunately, crimes of this sort do not often occur; but, if they did,
public sentiment is so demoralised that the courts would fail of
conviction. This is true as to white men who kill their equals. If a
negro kills a white man, he is pretty sure either to be lynched or
hung. But if a white man slays a negro, he is in no danger of being
lynched, and as to his being hung for the crime there is not much
probability.”
To understand, therefore, both sides of the question, and to fully
appreciate the seriousness of the situation, one must be a far more
omnivorous devourer of newspapers than the ordinary citizen of Great
Britain or of America has time to be. I have had exceptional
opportunities. While I was in the country I met the leading men of both
sides, and had thrust upon me the newspapers, big and little, of both
parties. Nay, many people who for years have made a study of the subject
were so good as to place their notes and their volumes of illustrative
newspaper clippings at my disposal. Thus I may pretend to have secured
the broadest and most far-reaching view of the difficulties amid which
the South stands; and I cannot hide from myself the conclusion that, as
between the races, the situation throughout the Black Belt is veritably,
as I have said, one of active though unprofessed guerilla warfare. In
the last chapter I gave a number of examples, selected almost at hazard
from a far larger number which I might have cited, of the manner in
which this warfare is being waged by the whites against the blacks. In
this I shall give examples, similarly selected to a great extent, of the
manner in which this warfare is being waged by the blacks against the
whites. I have, I think, amply demonstrated the existence of hostility
on the white side. What I shall quote now may, in the opinion of many,
provide good excuse for the existence of that hostility; but I would
submit that it also proves the inherent and unconquerable mutual
antipathy of the races and their hopeless unsuitability for life side by
side and upon a level of approximate equality. The antipathy is not
between individual blacks and whites. It is rather such an antipathy as
used to exist between Turks and Slavs in the Balkan provinces in the
days of the Bulgarian atrocities, although that antipathy was religious
as well as racial and political.
And here let me say at once, deliberately and without hesitation, that
if the racial crimes and outrages which are of daily occurrence in the
Southern States were taking place in a semi-civilised part of Europe,
and were only half as well advertised as the events in Bulgaria were,
the public sentiment of Europe would at once insist upon, and would
within six months secure, reform, even at the cost of war. Such a
situation as sullies the South is a disgrace to the fair name of
Anglo-Saxon civilisation. It is not for me to attempt to apportion the
blame. Doubtless there are grave faults on both sides. As an
unprejudiced observer, I can merely declare generally that the condition
of affairs is not only a scandal so far as the United States are
concerned, but also a matter of which all civilised humanity has cause
to be ashamed.
It was my good fortune in the course of my tour to meet, and to confer
very intimately with, the anonymous author of the most remarkable book
that has yet appeared upon the Race Question. I mean “An Appeal to
Pharaoh,” a volume published in the winter of 1889 in New York by
Messrs. Fords, Howard, and Hulbert. To this volume I must make further
allusion when I come to consider the difficult, but inevitable,
problem—what is to be done? At present I mention it incidentally for the
reason that I am anxious to repeat here something that its writer said
to me, and for the reason that all who have read the work will, I am
sure, extend due deference to any opinion expressed by so competent and
unbiased an authority. My friend knows the South as few know it, and he
has for the negro a genuine and kindly regard; yet, said he, “if the
option were offered me of taking my wife and family into one of the
black country districts of the South, or into a jungle full of wild
beasts, and if I were obliged to leave them without proper protection, I
would unhesitatingly choose the jungle.” I did not ask why. I knew that
it was because no white woman is safe, from hour to hour, in those black
country districts. It was because the race war on the black man’s side
is waged largely, though not exclusively, against the whites who are
least capable of self-protection, and whose safety is held most precious
by those to whom they are near and dear. I am bound to produce evidence
concerning this awful phase of the struggle; and, unfortunately, there
is evidence in plenty ready to my hand. “Lynched for the usual crime” is
a stereotyped heading in many scores of Southern newspapers. Nor, as a
rule, is the brutality of the negro’s act much less conspicuous than the
speed and cruelty with which the victim is avenged. On both sides it is
a terrible and almost unparalleled state of affairs. I will restrict
myself to the recital at length of one case only:—
“Louisville, Kentucky, September 2nd, 1889.—The _Courier Journal_ has
a special from Somerset, Kentucky, which states that news has reached
there of a brutal outrage committed upon the twelve-year-old daughter
of William Oates, a prominent and wealthy farmer residing a few miles
from Montecello. Mr. Oates has two daughters, aged respectively twelve
and fourteen years. Mr. and Mrs. Oates left home on business, and left
the two young girls in charge of the house. Mr. Oates had in his
employ a negro boy about grown. Knowing that the old folks were away,
he entered the house, and, after locking the door upon the two girls,
assaulted the younger. The elder girl escaped from the room, and,
going to a neighbour’s house, gave the alarm. A posse was organised
and started in pursuit. The negro was caught in the woods and tied to
a stake. A rail pen was then built around him, coal oil was poured
over him and upon the rails, matches were applied, and the negro was
burnt to death.”
Similar outrages are, practically, of every-day occurrence. All of them
do not get into the newspapers. Many families, unwilling to publish
their disgrace and misfortune, bear their trouble in silence. Many of
the criminals, too, are never caught: but here is proof of the
commonness of such crimes as the above. All the cases alluded to took
place during 1890, and, as will be seen, within a very short period, and
all were chronicled in the newspapers.
On October 30th, near Valdosta, Lowndes County, Georgia, a negro, named
Lowe, assaulted a Miss Hardee. He was arrested, but taken from the
officers the same night by a mob of whites, tied to a tree, and shot to
death.
On November 1st, eight miles from Columbia, South Carolina, and a mile
and a half from the Winnsboro Road, a negro attempted to assault and
then murdered Miss Florence Hornsby, aged sixteen. A youth named Hagood
was arrested for the crime. Six years before, this youth’s father had
been lynched near Woodward’s store, at Rockton, for assaulting a lady of
Fairfield County.
On November 3rd, in Twigg’s County, Georgia, a Miss Howell, aged
seventeen, was assaulted by a negro named Owen Jones, who, having been
caught and having confessed, was hung by citizens on a tree on the road
from Hawkinsville to Allentown, fifty shots being then fired into his
body.
On November 6th, Mrs. J. G. Bailey, of Arlington, Tennessee, was killed
by a negro, who escaped, pursued by a posse of citizens intent upon
lynching him.
On the night of November 8th, at Annapolis, Maryland, threats were made
to lynch a coloured man named Forbes, who was in custody there for
having assaulted a white girl. Revolvers were freely drawn, and a
serious riot between whites and blacks was only prevented by the calling
out of the Governor’s Guards.
On November 17th, a negro named Henry Smith, who a few days before had
assaulted one Mrs. Calhoun, was lynched near Chin’s Trestle, Alabama.
Another negro was lynched near Hillman, Alabama, on the same day.
Early in the morning of November 18th, a negro named William Singleton
was lynched at Macon, Georgia, for an attempted assault upon the
daughter of the late Chief Justice Lumpkin. Singleton was hanged, and
two volleys of pistol-shots were fired into the body.
I might, if the topic were not so repulsive, cite hundreds of other
examples. What I have written is, I imagine, quite sufficient to show
that the situation of white women in many parts of the South is a very
perilous one. Nor is this all. Throughout the South, and even elsewhere,
the negro is as ready to kill the white man as the white man is to kill
him. I have mentioned in the last chapter a number of cases in which,
speaking generally, the whites were to blame. Here are some cases, all
of recent occurrence, in most of which the initiative seems to have
come, directly or indirectly, from the blacks, although the savagery
displayed was often about equal on both sides:—
On October 18th, 1890, at Winston, North Carolina, a white gentleman
named Silas Riggs was attacked in the street by a mob of negroes. He
took refuge in a bar-room. The negroes followed and “dared” him to come
out. A few whites who were in the room sallied forth, a fight ensued,
Mr. Riggs was killed, and several other people were badly wounded.
On October 21st–22nd, 1890, in Ware County, Georgia, a dispute
concerning land arose. Thomas Seers, one of the disputants, shot a
negro. The negroes retaliated, killing B. E. M‘Lendon, F. Seers, and T.
Seers, and wounding another white. The despatch announcing this to the
Charleston _World_ says:—“Much of the territory is covered with dense
pine forests, the working of which for turpentine employs large numbers
of both white and black. These are very illiterate, and there is much
race prejudice, which frequently leads to conflicts.”
“Opelika, Alabama, October 26th, 1890.—Bob Redding, the notorious negro
desperado, who has been sought for ten years, was shot and killed at
three o’clock this morning by Policeman Gibson.”
On October 27th, 1890, at the Jing-a-Ling Saloon, North College Street,
Nashville, Tennessee, a coloured man named Lee asked the bartender for a
tin of oysters, and was refused. He left, but returned with a stone,
which he attempted to throw. Before he could do so the white, whose name
was William Young, shot him dead.
On November 1st, 1890, at Greenville, South Carolina, a negro named Sam
Swinger struck with an axe a white man named P. M. Connelly, who died a
few days afterwards from his injuries.
On November 4th, 1890, near Lexington, Georgia, at a negro “hot supper,”
a negro, named Willis Collins, quarrelled with a white, named Wheless,
who shot him with a pistol.
On November 4th, 1890, election day, at Irwine, Estill County, Kentucky,
a white, named Dr. P. A. Lilly, brought up to the polls a negro, named
Charles White. John Wilson, Commissioner of Schools for the county,
challenged White’s right to vote. Upon this Lilly and Wilson quarrelled
and drew their pistols. Wilson was hit twice, but was still able to fire
twice, one of his bullets striking Lilly near the heart. Then William, a
brother of John Wilson, intervened, and took away Lilly’s pistol. Lilly,
however, drew a large knife and thrice stabbed John. A brother of Dr.
Lilly also intervened, but John Wilson, lying in his blood, fired at and
fatally wounded him, and, dragging himself across to where Dr. Lilly
lay, dashed out Lilly’s brains with his pistol. Several bystanders were
slightly wounded; the two Lillys and John Wilson died.
On November 8th, 1890, at Fairmount, near Marion, Indiana, on the
occasion of a Democratic _fête_, a negro named Tom Uttley interfered in
the proceedings. A white named W. H. Campbell defied him, and both drew
their pistols and fired simultaneously. Each had fired two harmless
shots, when a white named Con Paul flung a brick at the negro, who
turned and shot him dead. Another negro, named Rayser, came to the
assistance of Uttley, and was shot through the left leg and right arm.
Uttley fled, but was captured. In the _mêlée_, besides Paul and Rayser,
four men were seriously wounded.
It cannot, I think, be necessary to say much more in order to prove the
existence in the United States of race prejudice of a very dangerous and
inflammable sort. The Southern white may be as well off, as regards the
negro, as he deserves to be; but, nevertheless, his position and the
position of his womankind are not enviable; and it tends to—nay, a large
body of the negroes intend that it shall—become worse. Here is what
appeared in August, 1889, in a newspaper called the _Independent_, which
was published in Selma, Alabama, under the editorship of a negro
preacher, named Bryan:—
“Were you (the whites) to leave this Southland, in twenty years it
would be one of the grandest sections of the globe. We would show you
mossback-crackers how to run a country. You would never see convicts,
half-starved, depriving honest working-men of an honest living. It is
only a matter of time when throughout this whole State affairs will be
changed, and, I hope, to your sorrow. We were never destined to be
always servants, but, like all other races, will and must have our
day. You now have yours. You have had your revolutionary and civil
wars, and we here predict that at no very distant day we will have our
war, and we hope, as God intends, that we will be strong enough to
wipe you out of existence, or hardly leave enough of you to tell the
story.”
And yet the armchair theorists of the North say:—“All is well; the race
question in the South may now safely be left to settle itself.” It will
never settle itself, unless by wholesale bloodshed.
One must have lived in the South to appreciate the ever-widening gap
that exists between the races. One must have lived in the South to
appreciate the strength of the passions that lie half slumbering there,
but are always ready to awake. Here, by way of partial illustration, is
a summary of a speech which was made in September, 1889, in the Georgia
Senate by Senator Gibbs, in favour of the repeal of the law prohibiting
emigration agents from working in the State, his idea being to
facilitate coloured emigration. Senator Gibbs claimed that the State
would not be ruined by the loss of a race of people who, in their
emancipated condition, were unfit for labourers. The free negro, he
said, was worthless as a labourer. Emancipated, he became useless and
lapsed into barbarous Voodooism. He quoted figures to sustain the
position that freedom had destroyed the negroes’ usefulness.
Notwithstanding the great increase of blacks since the war, production
had in Georgia suffered a loss of nearly one-half. This, to him, denoted
the great demoralisation which had overtaken negro labour, and accounted
for the enormous class of vagabond negroes whose presence in the State
was a “continual menace to property, to peace, and to virtue.” It was
highly necessary, he maintained, to get rid of this dangerous criminal
element. The lives of Southern women were actually circumscribed and
bound in, for fear of assault at the hands of these scoundrels. Unless
something should be done to relieve the strain which owed its existence
to the presence of these wretches, the time would come, before long,
when the white people would rise as one man and demand emigration or
extermination. “It has only been a short time since,” said he, “that one
of the villains having suffered as he deserved at East Point, the
negroes formed a plot to burn that town and kill the citizens. Nothing
was said about that; but as soon as the whites rose to defend
themselves, and castigated some of the plotters, the cry of ‘Outrage!’
was heard from one end of the land to the other. ‘Outrage on innocent
negroes,’ to discourage them in their lawlessness! I care not what
course the courts may take; when the white men strike for home and
fireside I am with them. There is not room in this country for both the
negro and the Yankee. Vast sums have been expended to educate negroes,
who have never done and will never do the State the least good. On the
contrary, they are always ready, at the call of the carpetbagger and his
base Southern ally, to do her all the harm in their power.”
These extracts give no notion of the violence of the speaker’s language,
but only of the tone of his speech, which admirably represented the
blind intolerance of that section of Southern whites that refuses to see
any good whatever in the negro, and that seems not even to recognise his
humanity.
The very carelessness of the negroes on the subject of the white man’s
most cherished creeds and principles has more than once gone near to
provoke a dreadful outbreak. The article already cited from the Selma
_Independent_ narrowly escaped doing so, although it contained only
vulgar threats. More dangerous was an article that was printed in
August, 1887, in another negro paper, the Montgomery _Herald_. “Every
day or so,” it said brutally, “we read of the lynching of some negro for
outraging some white woman. Why is it that white women attract negro men
more than in former days? There was a time when such a thing was unheard
of. There is a secret to this thing, and we greatly suspect it is the
growing appreciation of the white Juliet for the coloured Romeo as he
becomes more and more intelligent and refined. If something is not done
to break up these lynchings it will be so that after a while they will
lynch every coloured man that looks at a white woman with a twinkle in
his eye.”
The writer of that article, like many of his race, did not, one may
charitably hope, realise the attitude of the Southern white women
towards the negroes. If he did realise it, and if he knew that no
Southern white for an instant admits the social equality of the races,
he was guilty of something very much like playing with gunpowder. Surely
the prevailing sentiment of the whites on the subject of social equality
is sufficiently indicated by the existence in many States of laws
forbidding mixed marriages, and by the existence in all of unwritten
laws which oust the white makers of mixed unions from society, even of
the humblest and least conventional character. The white man is blamable
enough, but not the white woman. There was much truth in a speech of Dr.
Fulton’s on the subject of “The Negro’s Redemption,” which I once
listened to, although, I think, he ought not to have mentioned black
women in his remarks. The chief sinners—if sinners they can be called in
such connection—are the coloured, as distinct from the pure negro, women
of the South. Dr. Fulton declared that the social relations of the
whites and blacks in the South were on the same level to-day as when
slavery existed; even men high in religious circles ran no risk of
ostracisation when it became known they were the fathers of children by
coloured concubines.
And while the armchair theorist of the North is easy in his mind with
regard to the race question, concerning which he knows practically
nothing, the Southern white man, who ought to know all the dangers of
the situation, is, I am obliged to admit, strangely indifferent to them.
His idea seems to be, “There are dangers in the future; but the present
situation will probably last as long as I live, and so I have no need to
greatly worry myself about it. I do not fear the negro; I do not believe
in his power of organisation; and if he were to rise we could crush him
into resignation.” He seems to be unmindful of the fact that the
existence of the Black Belt in the South paralyses his material progress
and fetters his whole action as a citizen. Capital does not go Southward
in search of an investment, or, if it go, it goes seldom, and it goes
with hesitation. It has no confidence in a country which may any day
fall again under the rule of a black majority, and may then drift back
into the anarchy of the Reconstruction period. And, although the white
man does not personally fear the negro, he so much fears him corporately
that all his political principles and leanings have vanished in face of
the one great question, Shall the white rule or the black?
The Southern whites form to-day one political party. Their point of
union is not the tariff, not civil service reform, not the pension
system, but simply and solely the one question. The penalty is that now
for years past one party has been continuously in power throughout the
Solid South, and that it has had practically no opposition. This is an
unwholesome state of public affairs; it would be undesirable anywhere.
In America it is particularly dangerous, for it tends to corrupt. The
Southern State Governments are, it must be admitted, better and purer
than, in the circumstances, might be reasonably expected; but every
intelligent Southerner sees and feels the bad influence.
The South, however, has a choice of two evils, and she has chosen the
least. She is not responsible for the situation. She can only make the
best of it. An illustration of what I mean was afforded during the 1890
elections in South Carolina. The two candidates for Governor were
Haskell and Tillman. Haskell is an honoured veteran of the war, a tried
statesman, a general favourite, and an upright and courteous gentleman.
Tillman’s experience of arms is confined to participation in a race
riot; he is new to politics; he is the favourite only of the lower and
least reputable class of whites; and his election utterances betray him
as glaringly deficient in tact and gravely lacking in conventional
politeness. Both are Democrats. It was Tillman’s fortune, thanks to the
influence of the Farmers’ Alliance, to be the nominee of the Democratic
Convention; and on that point the whole contest turned. All the best men
in the State wanted Haskell, and did not want Tillman; but Haskell had
been offered Republican support, and so, rather than vote for Haskell,
the best men either abstained or voted for Tillman. It would never do,
they felt, to allow Haskell to come into power on a wave which was
partially composed of negro and Republican votes. Party discipline,
therefore, prevailed over personal preference, and the worse man won.
But for the presence of a negro majority in South Carolina, Haskell
would no doubt have been elected. How true it is, as Jefferson said,
that American institutions are founded on jealousy and distrust, and not
on confidence!
Yet, although the white resents the presence of the black, and forbids
the black to fully exercise such rights as the Federal Government has
conferred upon him, the white is, withal, more dependent to-day upon the
negro than the negro is upon the white. There can be no question that
the sudden removal to-morrow of every white man from the Black Belt
would cause far less inconvenience to the negroes than the sudden
removal of every black and coloured man would cause to the whites. The
needs of the negro are small, and he can supply most of them by his own
exertion. The needs of the white man are relatively large, and he has
been for generations accustomed to have most of them supplied to him by
the exertion of the negro—first as slave, and, for the last quarter of a
century, as very lightly paid freedman. The result is that in certain
spheres of labour the negro is supreme throughout the South. He has no
white rivals, for the reason that the wages which content him would be
scorned by the lowest and poorest white in the country. His
disappearance, therefore, would leave those particular spheres—the
cottonfield, the plantations, the domestic servants’ department, and
many more—absolutely empty. In a word, without the negro, or without, at
least, some substitute for the negro, the Southern white would for a
time be in danger of starving.
Let me not be here understood to mean that upon the whole the South is
unsuitable as the white man’s home. It is, on the contrary, a fit home
and, in most parts, a healthy one for him. The death-rate per thousand
inhabitants in the eight most distinctively Southern States is given in
the 1880 census report as follows: Alabama, 14·20; Arkansas, 18·46;
Florida, 11·72; Georgia, 13·97; Louisiana, 15·44; Mississippi, 12·89;
North Carolina, 15·39; and South Carolina, 15·80. These are the swampy,
malarial States, commonly accounted most pestilential in climate.
Compare their death-rates with those of eight other States commonly
accounted salubrious in climate: Indiana, 15·78; Kansas, 15·22;
Massachusetts, 18·59; New Hampshire, 16·09; New Jersey, 16·33; New York,
17·38; Rhode Island, 17; and Illinois, 14·63. The comparison is not
unfavourable to the South; and it must be borne in mind that the
death-rates given for the Southern States named include negroes as well
as whites, a fact which enormously swells the average, for the reason
that the negro death-rate is much higher than the white, and in many
cases more than doubles it.
The fact that the menial work of the South is done by the negro,
combined with the fact that the black race is despised by the white, is
responsible for the existence in the South of a class of whites such as
is met with nowhere else in the United States; I mean the poor and idle
and unashamed class. These people will not undertake menial work as we
understand it. They believe that, if they did so, they would _ipso
facto_ place themselves on a level with the negroes.
The upshot is that the Southern white man is, as a rule, either a
“boss,” (that is, an employer of labour) or a “loafer.” The “boss” is
generally a good citizen; the “loafer” is uniformly a bad one, but he
seems to be a necessary product of the situation. The presence of the
negro has created him, and he is a very dangerous factor in the race
problem. He is the man who preys upon the community, white as well as
black. He deems it more worthy of his white manhood to be a gambler, a
corrupt political adventurer, a haunter of low saloons, a braggart and a
swaggerer, than to work for a poor but honest living. And even the white
man who is not a “loafer,” but a “boss,” is often enough a very small
“boss” indeed—the farmer of a few thin and infertile acres—a citizen who
is only a “boss” because, for race reasons, he is too proud to accept
employment. In one of the North-Western States he would naturally be a
“farm-hand,” and would be much better off than he is, as his own master,
in Georgia or Mississippi.
The result of this condition of affairs is that in the Black Belt wealth
is less equally divided than it is elsewhere. There is the small class
of white capitalists, there is the larger class of poor whites, and
there is the still larger class of negroes, most of whom live literally
from hand to mouth. The war is, of course, partially responsible for a
certain amount of white poverty; but the main cause is, as I have said,
the presence of the negro; and upon poverty and false pride follows
ignorance. There is more white ignorance in the South than in any other
part of the States. The average percentage of white illiteracy among
people of ten years old and upwards in the Northern States in 1880 was
5·2; and it varied from 3·5 in Nebraska, 3·6 in Oregon, 3·7 in Kansas,
and 3·8 in Iowa, to 7·0 in Indiana and 10·9—a wholly exceptional
figure—in Rhode Island. But the average percentage of white illiteracy
among people of ten years old and upwards in the States of the Black
Belt in 1880 was 22·2, the percentage in the individual States
being—Mississippi, 16·3; Virginia, 18·2; Louisiana, 18·4; Florida, 19·9;
South Carolina, 21·9; Georgia, 22·9; Alabama, 24·7; and North Carolina,
31·5. And this comparison, significant as it is, does not show the whole
extent of Southern white illiteracy, for the figures above given refer
not merely to the native, but also to the foreign-born population.
Putting aside the latter, one finds that while the average native white
illiteracy in the North was but 3·2 per cent., that in the South was
24·7 per cent. Thus, of every four native-born whites in the Black Belt,
three only even pretended to be able to read and write. The proportion
of native white illiterates in the whole North was no more than one in
thirty-one. In Massachusetts it was considerably less than one in a
hundred. So much for the demoralising influence of the situation upon
the white man. I have now to review some of the suggested solutions to
the race problem.