_Question_. What do you think of the recent opinion of the Supreme
Court touching the rights of the colored man?
_Answer_. I think it is all wrong. The intention of the framers
of the amendment, by virtue of which the law was passed, was that
no distinction should be made in inns, in hotels, cars, or in
theatres; in short, in public places, on account of color, race,
or previous condition. The object of the men who framed that
amendment to the Constitution was perfectly clear, perfectly well
known, perfectly understood. They intended to secure, by an
amendment to the fundamental law, what had been fought for by
hundreds of thousands of men. They knew that the institution of
slavery had cost rebellion; the also knew that the spirit of caste
was only slavery in another form. They intended to kill that
spirit. Their object was that the law, like the sun, should shine
upon all, and that no man keeping a hotel, no corporation running
cars, no person managing a theatre should make any distinction on
account of race or color. This amendment is above all praise. It
was the result of a moral exaltation, such as the world never before
had seen. There were years during the war, and after, when the
American people were simply sublime; when their generosity was
boundless; when they were willing to endure any hardship to make
this an absolutely free country.
This decision of the Supreme Court puts the best people of the
colored race at the mercy of the meanest portion of the white race.
It allows a contemptible white man to trample upon a good colored
man. I believe in drawing a line between good and bad, between
clean and unclean, but I do not believe in drawing a color line
which is as cruel as the lash of slavery.
I am willing to be on an equality in all hotels, in all cars, in
all theatres, with colored people. I make no distinction of race.
Those make the distinction who cannot afford not to. If nature
has made no distinction between me and some others, I do not ask
the aid of the Legislature. I am willing to associate with all
good, clean persons, irrespective of complexion.
This decision virtually gives away one of the great principles for
which the war was fought. It carries the doctrine of "State Rights"
to the Democratic extreme, and renders necessary either another
amendment or a new court.
I agree with Justice Harlan. He has taken a noble and patriotic
stand. Kentucky rebukes Massachusetts! I am waiting with some
impatience--impatient because I anticipate a pleasure--for his
dissenting opinion. Only a little while ago Justice Harlan took
a very noble stand on the Virginia Coupon cases, in which was
involved the right of a State to repudiate its debts. Now he has
taken a stand in favor of the civil rights of the colored man; and
in both instances I think he is right.
This decision may, after all, help the Republican party. A decision
of the Supreme Court aroused the indignation of the entire North,
and I hope the present decision will have a like effect. The good
people of this country will not be satisfied until every man beneath
the flag, without the slightest respect to his complexion, stands
on a perfect equality before the law with every other. Any government
that makes a distinction on account of color, is a disgrace to the
age in which we live. The idea that a man like Frederick Douglass
can be denied entrance to a car, that the doors of a hotel can be
shut in his face; that he may be prevented from entering a theatre;
the idea that there shall be some ignominious corner into which
such a man can be thrown simply by a decision of the Supreme Court!
This idea is simply absurd.
_Question_. What remains to be done now, and who is going to do it?
_Answer_. For a good while people have been saying that the
Republican party has outlived its usefulness; that there is very
little difference now between the parties; that there is hardly
enough left to talk about. This decision opens the whole question.
This decision says to the Republican party, "Your mission is not
yet ended. This is not a free country. Our flag does not protect
the rights of a human being." This decision is the tap of a drum.
The old veterans will fall into line. This decision gives the
issue for the next campaign, and it may be that the Supreme Court
has builded wiser than it knew. This is a greater question than
the tariff or free trade. It is a question of freedom, of human
rights, of the sacredness of humanity.
The real Americans, the real believers in Liberty, will give three
cheers for Judge Harlan.
One word more. The Government is bound to protect its citizens,
not only when they are away from home, but when they are under the
flag. In time of war the Government has a right to draft any
citizen; to put that citizen in the line of battle, and compel him
to fight for the nation. If the Government when imperiled has the
right to compel a citizen, whether white or black, to defend with
his blood the flag, that citizen, when imperiled, has the right to
demand protection from the Nation. The Nation cannot then say,
"You must appeal to your State." If the citizen must appeal to
the State for redress, then the citizen should defend the State
and not the General Government, and the doctrine of State Rights
then becomes complete.
--_The National Republican_, Washington, D. C., October 17, 1883.