Without boasting in advance, but relying upon the goodness of my
cause, I will say here I am ready to confront ex-Governor Chamberlain,
Bishop Fitzgerald, Bishop Haygood and good Miss Frances Willard and
all others, singly or altogether, who bring this charge against the
coloured people as a class.
But I want however, to be clearly understood at the outset. I do not
pretend that Negroes are saints and angels. I do not deny that they are
capable of committing the crime imputed to them, but utterly deny that
they are any more addicted to the commission of that crime than is true
of any other variety of the human family. In entering upon my argument,
I may be allowed to say again what should be taken for granted at the
start, that I am not a defender of any man guilty of this atrocious
crime, but a defender of the coloured people as a class.
In answer, then, to the terrible indictment thus read, and speaking for
the coloured people as a class, I venture in their name and in their
stead, here and now, to plead “not guilty,” and shall submit my case
with confidence of acquittal by good men and women, North and South,
before whom we are, as a class, now being tried. In daring to do this I
know that the moral atmosphere about me is not favourable to my cause.
The sentiment left by slavery is still with us, and the moral vision of
the American people is still darkened by its presence.
It is the misfortune of the coloured people of this country that the
sins of the few are visited more or less upon the many. In respect to
the offenders, I am with General Grant and every other honest man. My
motto is, “Let no guilty man escape.” But while I say this, and mean to
say it strongly, I am also here to say, let no guilty man be condemned
and killed by the mob, or crushed under the weight of a charge of which
he is not guilty.
I need not be told that the cause I have undertaken to support is not
to be maintained by any mere confident assertions or general denials,
however strongly worded. If I had no better ground to stand upon than
this, I would at once leave the field of controversy and give up the
coloured man’s cause to his accusers. I am also aware that I am here
to do in some measure what the masters of logic say is impossible to
be done. I know that I cannot prove a negative; there is one thing
that I can and will do. I will call in question the affirmative. I can
and will show that there are sound reasons for doubting and denying
this horrible charge of rape as the special and peculiar crime of the
coloured people of the South. I doubt it, and deny it with all my soul.
My doubt and denial are based upon three fundamental grounds.
The first ground is, the well-established and well-tested character
of the Negro on the very point upon which he is now so violently and
persistently accused. I contend that his whole history in bondage and
out of bondage contradicts and gives the lie to the allegation. My
second ground for doubt and denial is based upon what I know of the
character and antecedents of the men and women who bring this charge
against him. My third ground is the palpable unfitness of the mob to
testify and which is the main witness in the case.
I therefore affirm that a fierce and frenzied mob is not and ought not
to be deemed a competent witness against any man accused of any crime
whatever, and especially the crime now in question. The ease with which
a mob can be collected, the slight causes by which it can be set in
motion, and the element of which it is composed, deprives its testimony
of the qualities necessary to sound judgment and that which should
inspire confidence and command belief. Blinded by its own fury, it is
moved by impulses utterly unfavourable to a clear perception of facts
and the ability to make an impartial statement of the simple truth.
At the outset, I challenge the credibility of the mob, and as the mob
is the main witness in the case against the Negro I appeal from the
judgment of the mob to the judgment of law-abiding men, in support of
my challenge. I lay special emphasis on the fact that it is the mob
and the mob only that the country has recognised and accepted as its
accredited witness against the Negro. The mob is its law, its judge,
jury and executioner. I need not argue this point further. Its truth
is borne upon its face.
But I go further. I dare not only to impeach the mob, I impeach and
discredit the veracity of men generally, whether mobocrats or otherwise
who sympathise with lynch law, whenever or wherever the acts of
coloured men are in question. It seems impossible for such men to judge
a coloured man fairly. I hold that men who openly and deliberately
nullify the laws and violate the provisions of the Constitution of
their country, which they have solemnly sworn to support and execute,
are not entitled to unqualified belief in any case, and certainly not
in the case of the Negro. I apply to them the legal maxim, “False in
one, false in all.” Especially do I apply this maxim when the conduct
of the Negro is in question.
Again I question the Negro’s accusers on another important ground;
I have no confidence in the veracity of men who publicly justify
themselves in cheating the Negro out of his constitutional right to
vote. The men who do this, either by false returns, or by taking
advantage of the Negro’s illiteracy, or by surrounding the ballot box
with obstacles and sinuosities intended to bewilder him and defeat his
rightful exercise of the elective franchise, are men who should not be
believed on oath. That this is done and approved in Southern States is
notorious. It has been openly defended by so-called honest men inside
and outside of Congress.
I met this shameless defence of crime face to face at the late Chicago
Auxiliary Congress, during the World’s Columbian Exposition, in a
solemn paper by Prof. Weeks, of North Carolina, who boldly advocated
this kind of fraud as necessary and justifiable in order to secure
Anglo-Saxon supremacy, and in doing so, as I believe, he voiced the
moral sentiment of Southern men generally.
Now, men who openly defraud the Negro of his vote by all manner of
artifice, who justify it and boast of it in the face of the world’s
civilization, as was done by Prof. Weeks at Chicago, I hardly need
say that such men are not to be depended upon for truth in any case
where the rights of the Negro are involved. Their testimony in the
case of any other people than the Negro would be instantly and utterly
discredited, and why not the same in this case? Every honest man will
see that this point is well taken. It has for its support common
sense, common honesty, and the best sentiment of mankind. On the other
hand, it has nothing to oppose it but a vulgar, popular prejudice
against the coloured people of our country, a prejudice which we all
know strikes men with moral blindness and renders them incapable of
seeing any distinction between right and wrong where coloured people
are concerned.