NEGRO SUFFRAGE: ATTEMPT TO ABRIDGE THE RIGHT. THE LOWLY NEED ITS
PROTECTION.
But now a word on the question of Negro suffrage. It has come to be
fashionable of late to ascribe much of the trouble at the South to
ignorant Negro suffrage. That great measure recommended by General
Grant and adopted by the loyal nation, is now denounced as a blunder
and a failure. The proposition now is, therefore, to find some way to
abridge and limit this right by imposing upon it an educational or some
other qualification. Among those who take this view of the question are
Mr. John J. Ingalls and Mr. John M. Langston, one white and the other
colored. They are both distinguished leaders; the one is the leader
of the whites and the other is the leader of the blacks. They are
both eloquent, both able, and both wrong. Though they are both Johns,
neither of them is to my mind a “St. John,” and not even a “John the
Baptist.” They have taken up an idea which they seem to think quite
new, but which in reality is as old as despotism, and about as narrow
and selfish as despotism. It has been heard and answered a thousand
times over. It is the argument of the crowned heads and privileged
classes of the world. It is as good against our Republican form of
government as it is against the Negro. The wonder is that its votaries
do not see its consequences. It does away with that noble and just idea
of Abraham Lincoln that our government should be a government of the
people, by the people and for the people and for _all_ the people.
These gentlemen are very learned, very eloquent and very able, but I
cannot follow them in this effort to restrict voting to the educated
classes. Much learning has made them mad. Education is great but
manhood is greater. The one is the principle, the other the accident.
Man was not made as an attribute to education, but education as an
attribute to man. I say to these gentlemen, first protect the man and
you will thereby protect education. Do not make illiteracy a bar to the
ballot, but make the ballot a bar to illiteracy. Take the ballot from
the Negro and you take from him the means and motives that make for
education. Those who are already educated and are vested with political
power have thereby an advantage which they are not likely to divide
with the Negro, especially when they have a fixed purpose to make
this entirely a white man’s government. I cannot, therefore, follow
these gentlemen in a path so dangerous to the Negro. I would not make
suffrage more exclusive but more inclusive. I would not have it embrace
only the élite, but I would have it include the lowly. I would not
only include the men, but would gladly include the women, and make our
government in reality, as in name, a government by the people, of the
people, and for the whole people.
But, manifestly, it is all nonsense to make suffrage to the coloured
people, the cause of the failure of good government in the Southern
states. On the contrary it is the lawless limitation of suffrage that
makes the trouble.
Much thoughtless speech is heard about the ignorance of the Negro in
the South. But plainly enough, it is not the ignorance of the Negro
but the malevolence of his accusers, which is the real cause of
Southern disorder. It is easy to show that the illiteracy of the Negro
has no part or lot in the disturbances there. They who contend for
disfranchisement on this ground, know, and know very well, that there
is no truth whatever in their contention. To make out their case, they
must show that some oppressive and hurtful measure has been imposed
upon the country by Negro voters. But they cannot show any such thing
and they know it.
The Negro has never set up a separate party, never adopted a Negro
platform, never proclaimed or adopted a separate policy for himself or
for the country. His assailants know this and know that he has never
acted apart from the whole American people. They know that he has
never sought to lead, but has always been content to follow. They know
that he has not made his ignorance the rule of his political conduct,
but he has been guided by the rule of white men. They know that he
simply kept pace with the average intelligence of his age and country.
They know that he has gone steadily along in the line of his politics
with the most enlightened citizens of the country and that he has never
gone faster or farther. They know that he has always voted with one or
the other of the two great political parties. They know that if the
votes of these parties have been guided by intelligence and patriotism,
the same must be said of the vote of the Negro. Knowing all this, they
ought to know also, that it is a shame and an outrage upon common
sense and fair dealing to hold him or his suffrage responsible for
any disorder that may reign in the Southern States. Yet while any lie
may be safely told against the Negro and will be credited by popular
prejudice, this lie will find eloquent tongues, bold and shameless
enough to tell it.
It is true that the Negro once voted solidly for the candidates of the
republican party; but what if he did? He then only voted with John
Mercer Langston, John J. Ingalls, John Sherman, General Harrison,
Senator Hoar, Henry Cabot Lodge and Governor McKinley and many of the
most intelligent statesmen and noblest patriots of whom this country
can boast. The charge against him at this time is, therefore, utterly
groundless and is used for fraud, violence and persecution.
The proposition to disfranchise the coloured voter of the South in
order to solve the race problem, I therefore denounce as a false and
cowardly proposition, utterly unworthy of an honest and grateful
nation. It is a proposition to sacrifice friends in order to conciliate
enemies; to surrender the constitution for the lack of moral courage to
execute its provisions. It is a proclamation of the helplessness of the
Nation to protect its own citizens. It says to the coloured citizen,
“We cannot protect you, we therefore propose to join your oppressors.
Your suffrage has been rendered a failure by violence, and we now
propose to make it a failure by law.”
Than this, there was never a surrender more dishonorable, more
ungrateful, or more cowardly. Any statesman, black or white, who
dares to support such a scheme by any concession, deserves no worse
punishment than to be allowed to stay at home, deprived of all
legislative trusts until he repents. Even then he should only be
received on probation.