But I come to a stronger position. I rest my denial not merely upon
general principles but upon well-known facts. I reject the charge
brought against the Negro as a class, because all through the late war,
while the slave-masters of the South were absent from their homes, in
the field of rebellion, with bullets in their pockets, treason in their
hearts, broad blades in their bloody hands, seeking the life of the
nation, with the vile purpose of perpetuating the enslavement of the
Negro, their wives, their daughters, their sisters and their mothers
were left in the absolute custody of these same Negroes, and during all
those long four years of terrible conflict, when the Negro had every
opportunity to commit the abominable crime now alleged against him,
there was never a single instance of such crime reported or charged
against him. He was never accused of assault, insult, or an attempt to
commit an assault upon any white woman in the whole South. A fact like
this, though negative, speaks volumes, and ought to have some weight
with the American people on the present question.
Then, again, on general principles, I do not believe the charge,
because it implies an improbable change, if not an impossible change
in the mental and moral character and composition of the Negro. It
implies a radical change wholly inconsistent with the well-known facts
of human nature. It is a contradiction to human experience. History
does not present an example of a transformation in the character of any
class of men so extreme, so unnatural and so complete as is implied in
this charge. The change is too great and the period for it too brief.
Instances may be cited where men fall like stars from heaven, but such
is not the usual experience with the masses. Decline in the moral
character of such is not sudden, but gradual. The downward steps are
marked at first by slow degrees and by increasing momentum, going from
bad to worse as they proceed. Time is an element in such changes, and I
contend that the Negroes of the South have not had time to experience
this great change and reach this lower depth of infamy. On the
contrary, in point of fact, they have been, and still are, improving
and ascending to higher and still higher levels of moral and social
worth.
EXCUSES FOR LYNCHING--DELICACY OF SUBJECT; POSSIBILITY OF CRIMINAL’S
ESCAPE FROM JUSTICE.
Again I utterly deny the charge on the fundamental ground that those
who bring the charge do not and dare not give the Negro a chance to
be heard in his own defence. He is not allowed to show the deceptive
conditions out of which the charge has originated. He is not allowed to
vindicate his own character from blame, or to criminate the character
and motives of his accusers. Even the mobocrats themselves admit that
it would be fatal to their purpose to have the character of the Negro’s
accusers brought into court. They pretend to a delicate regard for
the feelings of the parties alleged to have been assaulted. They are
too modest to have them brought into court. They are, therefore, for
lynching and against giving a fair trial to the accused. This excuse,
it is needless to say, is contemptible and hypocritical. It is not
only mock modesty, but mob modesty. Men who can collect hundreds and
thousands of their kind, if we believe them, thirsting for vengeance,
and can spread before them in the tempest and whirlwind of vulgar
passion, the most disgusting details of crime, connecting the names
of women with the same, should not be allowed to shelter themselves
under any pretence of modesty. Such a pretence is absurd and shameless
upon the face of it. Who does not know that the modesty of womanhood
is always and in every such case an object for special protection in
a court of law? On the other hand, who does not know that a lawless
mob, composed in part of the basest men, can have no such respect for
the modesty of women, as has a court of law. No woman need be ashamed
to confront one who has insulted or assaulted her in any court of law.
Besides, innocence does not hesitate to come to the rescue of justice,
and need not even in this case.
Again, I do not believe it, and deny it because if the evidence were
deemed sufficient to bring the accused to the scaffold by a verdict of
an impartial jury, there could be and would be no objection to having
the alleged offender tried in conformity to due process of law.
The only excuse for lynch law, which has a shadow of support in it is,
that the criminal would probably otherwise be allowed to escape the
punishment due to his crime. But this excuse is not employed by the
lynchers, though it is sometimes so employed by those who apologise for
the lynchers. But for it there is no foundation whatever, in a country
like the South, where public opinion, the laws, the courts, the juries,
the advocates, are all against the Negro, especially one alleged to be
guilty of the crime now charged. That such an one would be permitted
to escape condign punishment, is not only untenable but an insult
to common sense. The chances are that not even an innocent Negro so
charged would be allowed to escape.