colored men have no rights in the United States which white men are
bound to respect; that the Courts had so decided; that Congress had so
enacted; that the people had so decreed.
There is not a spot in this wide country, not even by the altars of God,
nor in the shadow of the shafts that tell the imperishable fame and
glory of the heroes of the Revolution; no, nor in the old Philadelphia
Hall, where any colored man may dare to ask mercy of a white man. Let me
stand in that Hall and tell a United States marshal that my father was a
Revolutionary soldier; that he served under Lafayette, and fought
through the whole war, and that he fought for my freedom as much as for
his own; and he would sneer at me, and clutch me with his bloody
fingers, and say he has a _right_ to make me a slave! and when I appeal
to Congress, they say he has a right to make me a slave, and when I
appeal to your Honor, _your Honor_ says he has a right to make me a
slave. And if any man, white or black, seeks an investigation of that
claim, he makes himself amenable to the pains and penalties of the
Fugitive Slave Act, for BLACK MEN HAVE NO RIGHTS WHICH WHITE MEN ARE
BOUND TO RESPECT. (Great applause.) I, going to Wellington with the full
knowledge of all this, knew that if that man was taken to Columbus he
was hopelessly gone, no matter whether he had ever been in slavery
before or not. I knew that I was in the same situation myself, and that
by the decision of your Honor, if any man whatever were to claim me as
his slave and seize me, and my brother, being a lawyer, should seek to
get out a writ of _habeas corpus_ to expose the falsity of the claim, he
would be thrust into prison under one provision of the Fugitive Slave
Law, for interfering with the man claiming to be in pursuit of a
fugitive, and I, by the perjury of a solitary wretch, would by another
of its provisions be helplessly doomed to lifelong bondage, without the
possibility of escape.
Some may say that there is no danger of free persons being seized and
carried off as slaves. No one need labor under such a delusion. Sir,
_four_ of the eight persons who were first carried back under the act of
1850 were afterwards proved to be _free men_. They were free persons,
but wholly at the mercy of the oath of one man. And but last Sabbath
afternoon a letter came to me from a gentleman in St. Louis informing me
that a young lady, who was formerly under my instructions at Columbus, a
free person, is now lying in jail at that place, claimed as the slave of
some wretch who never saw her before, and waiting for testimony of
relatives at Columbus to establish her freedom. I could stand here by
the hour and relate such instances. In the very nature of the case, they
must be constantly occurring. A letter was not long since found upon the
person of a counterfeiter, when arrested, addressed to him by some
Southern gentleman, in which the writer says:
"Go among the niggers, find out their marks and scars; make good
descriptions and send to me, and I'll find masters for 'em."
That is the way men are carried _back_ to slavery.
But in view of all the facts, I say that, if ever again a man is seized
near me, and is about to be carried southward as a slave before any
legal investigation has been had, I shall hold it to be my duty, as I
held it that day, to secure for him, if possible, a legal inquiry into
the character of the claim by which he is held. And I go farther; I say
that if it is adjudged illegal to procure even such an investigation,
then we are thrown back upon those last defenses of our rights which
cannot be taken from us, and which God gave us that we need not be
slaves. I ask your Honor, while I say this, to place yourself in my
situation, and you will say with me that, if your brother, if your
friend, if your wife, if your child, had been seized by men who claimed
them as fugitives, and the law of the land forbade you to ask any
investigation, and precluded the possibility of any legal protection or
redress--then you will say with me that you would not only demand the
protection of the law, but you would call in your neighbors and your
friends, and would ask them to say with you, that, these, your friends,
_could not_ be taken into slavery.
And now, I thank you for this leniency, this indulgence, in giving a man
unjustly condemned, by a tribunal before which he is declared to have no
rights, the privilege of speaking in his own behalf. I know that it will
do nothing toward mitigating your sentence, but it is a privilege to be
allowed to speak, and I thank you for it. I shall submit to the penalty,
be it what it may. But I stand up here to say that if for doing what I
did on that day at Wellington, I am to go to jail for six months, and
pay a fine of a thousand dollars, according to the Fugitive Slave Law,
and if such is the protection the laws of this country afford me, I must
take upon myself the responsibility of self-protection; when I come to
be claimed by some perjured wretch as his slave, I shall never be taken
into slavery. And in that trying hour, I would have others do to me, as
I would call upon my friends to help me; as I would call upon you, your
Honor, to help me, as I would call upon you (to the District Attorney)
to help me, and upon you (to Judge Bliss), and you (his counsel) _so
help me God_! I stand here to say that I will do all I can for any man
thus seized and held, though the inevitable penalty of six months'
imprisonment and one thousand dollars fine for each offense hang over
me! We have all a common humanity, and that humanity will, if rightly
exercised, compel us to aid each other when our rights are invaded. The
man who can see a fellow man wronged and outraged without assisting him
must have lost all the manly feelings of his nature. You would all
assist any man under such circumstances; your manhood would require it;
and no matter what the laws might be, you would honor yourself for doing
it, while your friends and your children to all generations would honor
you for doing it, and every good and honest man would say you had done
_right_! (Great and prolonged applause, in spite of the efforts of the
Court and marshal.)
Judge Willson remarked: Mr. Langston, you do the Court injustice in
supposing the remarks were called out as a mere idle form, or would not
get a respectful consideration from the Court.
It is not the duty of the Court to make the laws--that is left to other
tribunals; but our duty, under an official oath, is to administer the
laws, good or bad, as we find them.
I find many mitigating circumstances in your case, and the sentence will
therefore be, that you pay a fine of one hundred dollars and the costs
of suit, and be imprisoned in jail for twenty days, and it shall be the
duty of the Marshal to see the imprisonment carried out in this or some
other county jail in this district.
YOUNG MEN, TO THE FRONT!
BY HON. RICHARD T. GREENER, LL. D.
RICHARD T. GREENER, _as far as is known, was the first Negro to be
graduated from Harvard University with the degree of Bachelor of Arts.
He received the degree of LL.D. both from Howard University and from
Liberia College, Monrovia, of which he was the dean for some time. In
1897 he was appointed United States Consul to Vladivostok, and served
through the Russian-Japanese War. While in this official capacity he was
decorated by the Chinese Government with the order of the "Double
Dragon," the only Negro ever so honored._
The adage which was once so common, if not so thoroughly axiomatic as to
gain universal credence--"Old men for council and young men for
war"--assumes additional notoriety to-day, when the old men are
quarreling in the council chamber and the young men are kept outside the
door. While the young men are willing to allow much to the school of
experience, many of them are the followers of Locke, and believe in the
doctrine of innate ideas. They believe, to continue the comparison, that
experience and wisdom do not always spring from length of years, nor
does ignorance appertain to youth as a necessity. They dare assert that,
as there are those who would never be men, lived they to be as old as
Methuselah, so there are some whose minds are as well filled, whose
judgments are as mature at twenty-five and eight, and their energy as
decisive as though they were in their tenth lustrum. Conscious of this
fact, it is the absurdity of folly for the young colored men of the
country to sit idly by and see the grandest opportunities slipping away,
the best cases lost by default because of the lack of energy displayed
by many of our so-called leaders who have been longer on the field. With
some very few exceptions, honorable as they are rare, they have done
well for their day and generation; but with regard to the needs and
policy of the Negroes of the present hour they are as innocent as babes.
Men for the most part of excellent temper and good working capacity,
they lack that which is the handmaid and often the indispensable
auxiliary of knowledge and all effective work--judgment. Unconscious
puppets often, they dance to unseen music, moved themselves by hidden
wires.
The convention was the favorite resort of the leading Negro of ten years
ago. He convened and resolved, resolved and unconvened--read his own
speeches, was delighted with his own frothy rhetoric, and really
imagined himself a great man. He talked eloquently then, it must be
granted, because he spoke of his wrongs; but when the war overturned the
edifice of slavery "Othello's occupation" was "gone," indeed. The number
who have survived and held their own under the new order of things may
be counted upon one hand. They survive through that grand old law so
much combated but ever true--the survival of the fittest. They alone
give character and reputation to the Negro. They make for him a fame
which begets respect where his wrongs only excited pity. The field is
comparatively clear now some of the older hacks have fallen by the way
or lie spavined at the roadside. The question is, Will the young men of
color throughout the country resolve to begin now to take part in public
affairs, asserting their claim wherever it is denied, maintaining it
wherever contested, and show that the young may be safe in counsel as
well as good for war?
There are some who arrogate to themselves wisdom because of their years,
just as some equally absurd people think they are wise because they
never went to a high school or an academy--men, Heaven save the mark!
who pride themselves on having never slaked their thirst at the fount of
knowledge. It is not our purpose to disparage age. We remember what
Cicero has written, so delightfully, of its pleasures; what Cephalus and
Socrates thought of it in the Republic. We look "toward sunset" with
reverence and respect; but it is with a reverence that makes us
conscious of our own duty. The young men are now studying, working,
some, alas! idling away their time who ought to be the active, earnest
men in the next Presidential campaign; young men who are to control the
destinies of the race. Many of them are of marked ability and decidedly
energetic in character. Not so fluent, perhaps, as their fathers, they
are more thoughtful. They are found throughout the country. We feel
that, if like Roderick Dhu, we should put the whistle to our lips and
blow a stirring blast, they would spring up in every part of the country
ready with voice, pen, or muscle to do their share in any honorable
work. In spirit we do this, as young men ourselves, willing to blow a
blast which, would that the young men of the country would hear and
heed! Young men, to the front! Young men, rouse yourselves! Take the
opportunities; make them where they are denied! "Quit you like men; be
strong."
_Young men, to the front!_
THE CIVIL RIGHTS' BELL[6]
BY ROBERT BROWNE ELLIOT
_Representative from South Carolina_
[Note 6: Extracts from a speech delivered in the House of
Representatives, January 6, 1874.]
_Mr. Speaker:_
While I am sincerely grateful for this high mark of courtesy that has
been accorded to me by this House, it is a matter of regret to me that
it is necessary at this day that I should rise in the presence of an
American Congress to advocate a bill which simply asserts equal rights
and equal public privileges for all classes of American citizens. I
regret, sir, that the dark hue of my skin may lend a color to the
imputation that I am controlled by motives personal to myself in my
advocacy of this great measure of national justice. Sir, the motive that
impels me is restricted by no such narrow boundary, but is as broad as
your Constitution. I advocate it, sir, because it is right. The bill,
however, not only appeals to your justice, but it demands a response
from your gratitude.
In the events that led to the achievement of American independence the
Negro was not an inactive or unconcerned spectator. He bore his part
bravely upon many battlefields, although uncheered by that certain hope
of political elevation which victory would secure to the white man. The
tall granite shaft, which a grateful State has reared above its sons who
fell in defending Fort Griswold against the attack of Benedict Arnold,
bears the name of Jordan, Freeman, and other brave men of the African
race, who there cemented with their blood the corner-stone of the
Republic. In the State which I have the honor in part to represent
(South Carolina) the rifle of the black man rang out against the troops
of the British Crown in the darkest days of the American Revolution.
Said General Greene, who has been justly termed the "Washington of the
North," in a letter written by him to Alexander Hamilton, on the 10th of
January, 1781, from the vicinity of Camden, South Carolina: "There is no
such thing as national character or national sentiment. The inhabitants
are numerous, but they would be rather formidable abroad than at home.
There is a great spirit of enterprise among the black people, and those
that come out as volunteers are not a little formidable to the enemy."
At the battle of New Orleans under the immortal Jackson, a colored
regiment held the extreme right of the American line unflinchingly, and
drove back the British column that pressed upon them at the point of the
bayonet. So marked was their valor on that occasion that it evoked from
their great commander the warmest encomiums, as will be seen from his
dispatch announcing the brilliant victory.
As the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Beck), who seems to be the leading
exponent on this floor of the party that is arrayed against the
principle of this bill, has been pleased, in season and out of season,
to cast odium upon the Negro and to vaunt the chivalry of his State, I
may be pardoned for calling attention to another portion of the same
dispatch. Referring to the various regiments under his command, and
their conduct on that field which terminated the second war of American
Independence, General Jackson says. "At the very moment when the entire
discomfiture of the enemy was looked for with a confidence amounting to
certainty, the Kentucky reinforcements, in whom so much reliance had
been placed, ingloriously fled."
In quoting this indisputable piece of history, I do so only by way of
admonition and not to question the well-attested gallantly of the true
Kentuckian, and to the gentleman that it would be well that he should
not flaunt his heraldry so proudly while he bears this bar-sinister on
the military escutcheon of his State--a State which answered the call of
the Republic in 1861, when treason thundered at the very gates of the
Capital, by coldly declaring her neutrality in the impending struggle.
The Negro, true to that patriotism and love of country that have ever
marked and characterized his history on this continent, came to the aid
of the Government in its efforts to maintain the Constitution. To that
Government he now appeals; that Constitution he now invokes for
protection against outrage and unjust prejudices founded upon caste.
But, sir, we are told by the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Stephens) that Congress has no power under the Constitution to pass such
a law, and that the passage of such an act is in direct contravention
of the rights of the States. I cannot assent to any such proposition.
The Constitution of a free government ought always to be construed in
favor of human rights. Indeed, the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth
amendments, in positive words, invest Congress with the power to protect
the citizen in his civil and political rights. Now, sir, what are civil
rights? Rights natural, modified by civil society. Mr. Lieber says: "By
civil liberty is meant, not only the absence of individual restraint,
but liberty within the social system and political organism--a
combination of principles, and laws which acknowledge, protect, and
favor the dignity of man * * * civil liberty is the result of man's two
fold character as an individual and social being, so soon as both are
equally respected."[7]
[Note 7: Lieber on Civil Liberty, page 25.]
Alexander Hamilton, the right-hand man of Washington in the perilous
days of the then infant Republic; the great interpreter and expounder of
the Constitution, says: "Natural liberty is the gift of a beneficent
Creator to the whole human race; civil liberty is founded on it, civil
liberty is only natural liberty modified and secured by civil
society."[8]
[Note 8: Hamilton's History of the American Republic, Vol. I, page
70.]
* * * * *
Are we then, sir, with the amendments to our constitution staring us in
the face; with these grand truths of history before our eyes; with
innumerable wrongs daily inflicted upon five million citizens demanding
redress, to commit this question to the diversity of legislation? In the
words of Hamilton--"Is it the interest of the Government to sacrifice
individual rights to the preservation of the rights of an artificial
being called the States? There can be no truer principle than this, that
every individual of the community at large has an equal right to the
protection of Government. Can this be a free Government if partial
distinctions are tolerated or maintained?"
The rights contended for in this bill are among "the sacred rights of
mankind, which are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty
records; they are written as with a sunbeam in the whole volume of human
nature, by the hand of the Divinity itself, and can never be erased or
obscured by mortal power."
But the Slaughter-house cases!--The Slaughter-house cases!
The honorable gentleman from Kentucky, always swift to sustain the
failing and dishonored cause of proscription, rushes forward and flaunts
in our faces the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in
the Slaughter-house cases, and in that act he has been willingly aided
by the gentleman from Georgia. Hitherto, in the contests which have
marked the progress of the cause of equal civil rights, our opponents
have appealed sometimes to custom, sometimes to prejudice, more often to
pride of race, but they have never sought to shield themselves behind
the Supreme Court. But now for the first time, we are told that we are
barred by a decision of that court, from which there is no appeal. If
this be true we must stay our hands. The cause of equal civil rights
must pause at the command of a power whose edicts must be obeyed till
the fundamental law of our country is changed.
Has the honorable gentleman from Kentucky considered well the claim he
now advances? If it were not disrespectful I would ask, has he ever read
the decision which he now tells us is an insuperable barrier to the
adoption of this great measure of justice?
In the consideration of this subject, has not the judgment of the
gentleman from Georgia been warped by the ghost of the dead doctrines of
States-rights? Has he been altogether free from prejudices engendered by
long training in that school of politics that well-nigh destroyed this
Government?
Mr. Speaker, I venture to say here in the presence of the gentleman from
Kentucky, and the gentleman from Georgia, and in the presence of the
whole country, that there is not a line or word, not a thought or dictum
even, in the decision of the Supreme Court in the great Slaughter-house
cases, which casts a shadow of doubt on the right of Congress to pass
the pending bill, or to adopt such other legislation as it may judge
proper and necessary to secure perfect equality before the law to every
citizen of the Republic. Sir, I protest against the dishonor now cast
upon our Supreme Court by both the gentleman from Kentucky and the
gentleman from Georgia. In other days, when the whole country was bowing
beneath the yoke of slavery, when press, pulpit, platform, Congress and
courts felt the fatal power of the slave oligarchy, I remember a
decision of that court which no American now reads without shame and
humiliation. But those days are past; the Supreme Court of to-day is a
tribunal as true to freedom as any department of this Government, and I
am honored with the opportunity of repelling a deep disgrace which the
gentleman from Kentucky, backed and sustained as he is by the gentleman
from Georgia, seeks to put upon it.
* * * * *
The amendments in the Slaughter-house cases one and all, are thus
declared to have as their all-pervading design and ends the security of
the recently enslaved race, not only their nominal freedom, but their
complete protection from those who had formerly exercised unlimited
dominion over them. It is in this broad light that all these amendments
must be read, the purpose to secure the perfect equality before the law
of all citizens of the United States. What you give to one class you
must give to all, what you deny to one class you shall deny to all,
unless in the exercise of the common and universal police power of the
State, you find it needful to confer exclusive privileges on certain
citizens, to be held and exercised still for the common good of all.
Such are the doctrines of the Slaughter-house cases--doctrines worthy of
the Republic, worthy of the age, worthy of the great tribunal which thus
loftily and impressively enunciates them. Do they--I put it to any man,
be he lawyer or not; I put it to the gentleman from Georgia--do they
give color even to the claim that this Congress may not now legislate
against a plain discrimination made by State laws or State customs
against that very race for whose complete freedom and protection these
great amendments were elaborated and adopted? Is it pretended, I ask the
honorable gentleman from Kentucky or the honorable gentleman from
Georgia--is it pretended anywhere that the evils of which we complain,
our exclusion from the public inn, from the saloon and table of the
steamboat, from the sleeping-coach on the railway, from the right of
sepulture in the public burial-ground, are an exercise of the police
power of the State? Is such oppression and injustice nothing but the
exercise by the State of the right to make regulations for the health,
comfort, and security of all her citizens? Is it merely enacting that
one man shall so use his own as not to injure anothers? Is the colored
race to be assimilated to an unwholesome trade or to combustible
materials, to be interdicted, to be shut up within prescribed limits?
Let the gentleman from Kentucky or the gentleman from Georgia answer.
Let the country know to what extent even the audacious prejudice of the
gentleman from Kentucky will drive him, and how far even the gentleman
from Georgia will permit himself to be led captive by the unrighteous
teachings of a false political faith.