With the facts concerning the earlier experiences of these Congressmen
in public life a matter of record, attention may now be centered upon
the second aspect of the question of their capacity for public
service--namely, that of their reactions to the great public questions
of their day. Perhaps this topic may be most properly treated first by
determining what were the problems of greatest public moment during
the period in which these men were in Congress. From the year
1871--the period of service of the first Negro in Congress--throughout
the first year of the administration of Rutherford B. Hayes, there
were brought prominently before the public mind the questions of
reconstruction, economic, social, and political, in the North and West
as well as in the South. The exploitation of the public domain in the
West, the development of transcontinental railroads and other means of
communication, the plea for sound money, the economic regeneration of
the South, the proper adjustment of the social relations between the
two races living in that section, and the readjustment of political
control in the former Confederate States were the great issues upon
which, during this period, the attention of the nation was focused.
In the solution of some of these problems the Negro was intimately
involved. What was to be his place in the scheme of social adjustment
in the South? What part was he to play in the economic regeneration of
that section? How and to what extent should he maintain the political
power delegated to him by the war amendments? Indeed, of utmost
importance to the Negro was the proper solution of three perplexing
problems: first, to secure to themselves the civil rights so freely
exercised by other groups in the nation; second, to obtain national
funds to aid education; third, to determine whether their former
masters should be relieved of their political disabilities. It was to
the solution of these problems, therefore, that the Negro Congressmen
of that period especially addressed themselves.
The problem of civil rights, however, did not immediately take
precedence. With the passage by Congress, in 1875, of a measure known
as the Civil Rights Bill, which was supplementary to measures of the
same sort previously enacted, the Negroes of the country were accorded
the rights granted by the Constitution to all other citizens of the
United States. The subsequent approval of this bill by the president,
and the well-known policy toward the Southern States then adopted,
served to remove from the fore of American politics the various issues
arising from the larger problems of the social and political
reconstruction of the South.
Economic questions then had more opportunity for consideration. A new
era in the nation's development was ushered in, and with it came new
issues and new policies. The question of the exploitation of the
public domain in the West and that of transcontinental railway
construction had long been before the nation and still remained, but
in lieu of the others of the earlier period, there arose also such
questions as the free coinage of silver, the bimetallic monetary
standard, tariff for protection or for revenue only, and the Chinese
immigration. Despite the new character of the great problems before
the public forum, and of the consequent relegation to a minor position
of national importance the problems of reconstruction in the South,
the issues of peculiar interest to the Negro were not so aptly
settled. Indeed, it is to the discredit of the Supreme Court of the
United States that in all cases coming before that body in which there
was at issue a right granted by the Constitution to the freedmen,
efforts were made to evade the real issue, or to interpret the laws so
as to contravene the intent of the framers of the Constitution.[44] To
urge the protection of the Negro in his exercise of the rights and
privileges granted by the Constitution, to secure the enactment of
laws with the purpose to secure to him a greater measure of
opportunity for social advancement, to oppose the enactment of laws
proposing to retard such progress, to stimulate a healthy public
opinion favorable to the Negro's cause, to protest against every
injustice, great or small, meted out to him, became, as never before,
the imperative duties of the Negro members of Congress. Whatever other
time and energy remained might be directed towards the solution of the
other important issues before the public, but for the most part, the
Negro Congressmen were of necessity compelled to defend those
interests peculiar to the freedmen. The petitions which these
Congressmen presented, the resolutions which they offered, the
amendments which they proposed, the bills which they introduced or
supported, and the issues which they discussed or debated, will enable
one to ascertain to what extent these men viewed aright the needs of
their constituents and of the nation. Because of the constitutional
right of all citizens to petition Congress for a redress of
grievances, however, Congressmen have, in general, considered it a
duty to present to Congress the petitions of their constituents,
whatever their nature may be. An examination of these, therefore, does
not always assist in the effort to determine the interests of a
statesman. The sole justification for their consideration in this case
is the fact that they have formed, in many instances, the basis of the
resolutions, motions and bills which were subsequently introduced.
While petitions of varying natures were presented by all of these
legislators, three classes, particularly, claimed the attention of
practically every one of them. These petitions sought the relief
either of an individual or of an institution suffering from some
misfortune of the war, made application for a pension, or requested
the adjustment of a claim. Of greater significance, however, were the
petitions which, while not so generally popular, led often to the
introduction of legislative measures. Conspicuous among these were
those seeking to remove the political disabilities of former
secessionists, those praying that undesirable laws or privileges be
abrogated, those advocating the passage of bills, those praying an
investigation of the political methods used in certain States, those
directing attention to conditions which merited legislative enactment,
those praying an appropriation by Congress for the construction of
public buildings, the promotion of public works, and the making of
local improvements, and those endorsing movements for the good of the
body politic.
One of the first problems of reconstruction that claimed the attention
of the Negro Congressmen arose from the measures proposing to grant
amnesty to the former Confederates who, by a provision of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, had
been declared ineligible to vote and to hold office. In reference to
this matter, Jefferson F. Long, a representative from Georgia to the
Forty-first Congress, spoke in a manner reflecting the attitude of
many of the Negro Congressmen who were to follow him. His forceful
protest maintained that any modification of the test oath as then
administered, having the purpose to bring about a general removal of
political disabilities, would effect the subjugation of the loyal men
of the South to the disloyal. It would, moreover, appear to the Ku
Klux Klan to be an indorsement of their campaign of lawlessness,
depredation, and crime, fostered and abetted by the men whose
political disabilities it was then being sought to remove.[45]
Speaking on the enforcement act, on which he stated first his own
position and later that of the Republican Party in his State, Revels,
the Senator from Mississippi, said: "I am in favor of removing the
disabilities of those upon whom they are imposed in the South just as
fast as they give evidence of having become loyal and of being loyal.
If you can find one man in the South who gives evidence of the
fact that he has ceased to renounce the laws of Congress as
unconstitutional, has ceased to oppose them, and respects them and
favors the carrying of them out, I am in favor of removing his
disabilities; and if you can find one hundred men that the same is
true of, I am in favor of removing their disabilities. If you can find
a whole State that this is true of, I am in favor of removing the
disabilities of all its people."[46]
Revels at that time had reasonable grounds for supporting amnesty, but
conditions soon changed. Speaking in the 42nd Congress as it regarded
the enforcement of the 14th Amendment, Rainey felt that too much
amnesty had led to the murderous activities of the disloyal after they
had reached the point of acquiescing. He said:[47] "If the
Constitution which we uphold and support as the fundamental law of
the United States is inadequate to afford security to life, liberty,
and property--if, I say, this inadequacy is proven, then its work is
done, then it should no longer be recognized as the magna charta of a
great and free people; the sooner it is set aside the better for the
liberties of the nation." Another member of the 42nd Congress, Robert
C. De Large of South Carolina, while speaking on the bill for the
removal of political disabilities, made it quite clear that he would
not support the bill unless the gentlemen for it would support a
measure to protect the loyal people of the South.[48]
Notable among the speeches on the question of amnesty was that made by
Elliott protesting against a bill to this effect by Beck of Kentucky.
Contending that the men now seeking relief were responsible for the
crimes perpetrated against the loyal men of the South, Elliott
maintained that the passage of the bill would be nothing less than the
paying of a premium on disloyalty and treason at the expense of those
who had remained loyal. Pointing out the cause of their
disfranchisement, he demanded in the name of the "law-abiding people
of his constituency, whites as well as Negroes," the rejection of this
bill and the protection of those whose "only offense was their
adherence to the principles of freedom and justice."[49] That the
proposed bill was defeated[50] was perhaps in some measure due to his
masterful arraignment of its purposes.
Contemporaneous with the question of amnesty, and lasting throughout
the thirty years during which Negroes served in Congress, the problem
of securing civil rights for the freedmen or of protecting them in the
exercise of such rights demanded, to a greater extent than any other,
the energy and efforts of the Negro Congressmen. Indeed, but few of
the men of this group failed during their careers in Congress to
register their opinions on this all-absorbing matter.
Remarking at length on the Georgia bill,[51] Senator Revels spoke out
fearlessly in the defense of his race. He defended the Negroes against
charges of antagonism and servile strife, lauded the conduct of Negro
soldiers in the Civil War and the part they played in saving the
Union. He called attention to the loyalty of the Negroes in protecting
the white women and their homes, with the knowledge that the masters
were engaged in the prosecution of a war the success of which would
have meant permanent bondage to the blacks. He asserted that the
Negroes bore toward their former masters no revengeful thoughts, no
hatreds, no animosities. He recounted the iniquities of the bill then
before the body, prayed the protection of those whose rights were
thereby threatened, and appealed to Congress to give to the
reconstructed State such direction and support as would best meet its
most imperative needs.
The discussion of the civil rights bill gave rise to one of Robert
Brown Elliott's greatest speeches.[52] Arising to defend the bill, he
proceeded to refute the proposition advanced by Beck of Kentucky and
supported by Stephens of Georgia, that Congress had no power to
legislate against a plain discrimination made by State laws or customs
against any person or class of persons within its limits. In reference
to the decision of the Slaughter House Cases of Louisiana, which the
gentlemen had advanced in support of their thesis, Elliott pointed out
the difference in principle between the issues there involved and
those at hand. In the former case the court held the act in question
to be "a legitimate and warrantable exercise of the police power of
the State in regulating the business of stock landing and slaughtering
in the city of New Orleans and the territory immediately contiguous."
In this case, however, the evils complained of comprehended "the
exclusion of certain classes of persons from public inns, from the
saloons and tables of the steamboat, from the sleeping-cars on
railways, and from the right of sepulchre in public burial-grounds."
The Supreme Court, Elliott contended, has recognized two classes of
citizenships, state and national, but nowhere is there denied to
Congress the power to prevent a denial of equality of rights, whether
those rights exist by virtue of citizenship of the United States or of
a State. It followed, therefore, that it is within the authority of
Congress to see that no State deny to one class of citizens or
persons, rights which are common to other citizens, unless it can be
shown to be for the good of all, or pursuant to the legitimate
exercise of its police power. Rejecting such classification of the
case at hand and pointing out from the decision of the Slaughter House
Cases the express recognition of Congress to pass such a bill as the
one then under discussion, he concluded that the Constitution
warranted the passage of the bill, the Supreme Court sanctioned it,
and justice demanded it.[53] Elliott submitted also a resolution
directing the Judiciary Committee to report a civil rights bill.[54]
The civil rights of the Negroes constituted the general theme of the
remarks made by Alonzo J. Ransier, a representative from South
Carolina in the Forty-third Congress. In the first instance he spoke
in refutation of the allegements of certain members of the opposition
to the effect that the mass of Negroes did not want civil rights.
Ransier sought mainly to show, by the presentation[55] of data in form
of resolutions from Negro bodies and conventions, the intense desire
of the race for civil rights. During the course of these remarks,
Ransier served notice of his intention to offer to the civil rights
bill an amendment to prevent the disqualification of competent
citizens for service as jurors in any court in the nation because of
"race, color, or previous condition of servitude." The amendment would
provide also for the repeal of all laws, statutes, and ordinances,
national or State, which were devised to discriminate against any
citizen on account of color by the use of the word "white."[56]
The civil rights of the Negro found nowhere a more ardent champion
than James T. Rapier, a representative from Alabama in the Forty-third
Congress. In a speech on the measure supplementary to the civil rights
bill, Rapier made a lucid analysis of the anomalous position then
occupied by the Negro in the United States. Pointing out that Negroes
were accorded political rights without the civil, he deplored the
whole situation and challenged the truth of the statement that America
is the asylum for the oppressed. Averring that the problem was
national in scope, he asserted the constitutional authority of
Congress to solve it. Denying the contentions of Alexander H.
Stephens, of Georgia, Rapier deplored the apparent inability of that
gentleman to comprehend the new order ushered in since the formerly
sat in Congress. Stephens, he said, maintained the ideals of the old
South. Thus, despite the decision of the war that national rights are
paramount to those of the States, Stephens urged that it is the
prerogative of the States to confer civil rights upon the Negro, and
contended that such action should be left to the States. He thereby
offered no constitutional objection to the bestowal of civil rights
upon the Negro, but advanced a principle, the acceptance of which
would forever preclude his enjoying them. To this proposition Rapier
could not assent. That the Negro was considered to possess no rights
under the Constitution, he maintained, was fully demonstrated by
Kentucky and other Southern States, in which they were denied the
privilege of testifying in court against a white man, were refused the
right to education by the destruction of their schools and the
visitation of violence upon their teachers, and were prevented by the
Ku Klux Klan from exercising their right of suffrage. Such actions, he
insisted, were in conflict with the contention that the States would
eventually confer upon Negroes civil rights. In conclusion he declared
that the Negro had earned all the rights that he then exercised as
well as those enjoyed by other citizens, that the current conditions
constituted a stricture on the fair name of America, and that the
solution of the problem lay in the immediate passage by Congress of
the Civil Rights Bill then being considered.[57]
Not unlike his colleagues, Richard H. Cain, a representative from
South Carolina to the Forty-third and Forty-fifth Congresses, gave to
the matter of civil rights much of his time and energy. Replying in
part to Vance of North Carolina, Cain denied that the Civil Rights
Bill, if passed, would be without the limits of the Constitution or
that it would enforce "social equality," maintaining that the
regulation of that condition was without the province of legislation.
Cain asserted that the Negroes of South Carolina did not enjoy, in
public places, all the "rights, privileges and immunities" accorded to
other citizens and showed that the admission of Negro students to the
University of South Carolina had not effected its destruction. He did
not believe that the passage of the bill would alienate from the
Negroes the white men of the South who were then friendly to them.
Cain reviewed, furthermore, the history of the part played by the
Negro in the economic and industrial development of the nation,
pointed out the importance of giving to him, in every State, the best
possible school facilities, asserted the right of the Negro by
statutory enactment to his full civil liberties, and insisted that in
the name of justice he should demand for himself all the rights,
privileges and immunities accorded to other citizens.[58] Conforming
in principle to the doctrine that he had pronounced, Cain introduced
before Congress a bill supplementary to the Civil Rights Act.[59]
Much of the energy of James E. O'Hara, a representative from North
Carolina, in the Forty-eighth and Forty-ninth Congresses, was directed
toward the protection of the Negro in the exercise of his civil
rights.[60] During the course of his remarks on the bill to regulate
interstate commerce, he offered an amendment to the effect that any
person or persons having purchased a ticket to be conveyed from one
State to another, or paid the required fare, should receive the same
treatment and be offered equal facilities and accommodation as are
furnished all other persons holding tickets of the same class, without
discrimination. In support of this amendment, he asserted the
constitutional right of Congress to regulate commerce between the
States, and that the action contemplated by his amendment came within
the scope of this constitutional power. Denying that it was class or
race legislation, he maintained that it was in line with the
enlightened point of view of the age. The amendment was passed.[61]
His opponents, however, were not sufficiently progressive to leave his
victory intact.
A defense of the civil rights of the Negro was brought prominently to
the fore in the Fifty-first Congress. In his remarks on the affairs of
South Carolina,[62] Thomas E. Miller, a representative from that
State, declared that the Negroes of South Carolina were suffering from
several distinct causes. Among these causes he named lynch law, the
petty system of theft which deprived them of the fruits of their daily
toil, and injustice in the courts in which they had no rights where
their interests and those of the whites conflicted. He demanded for
them trial by jury, pay for their work, and the assurance that their
lynchers would not become also their legislators. These
considerations, he maintained, were of invaluable importance to the
country. Miller, furthermore, deplored the action of the Governor of
his State, which refused State aid to Negro schools and caused to be
closed certain white colleges which had the courage to consider, in a
sane way, the so-called Negro problem.
In the Fifty-fifth and Fifty-sixth Congresses, the questions of the
protection of the Negroes in the exercise of their civil rights
demanded virtually the entire attention of George H. White, who was
at that time the sole Negro member of Congress. Among his many
protests of discrimination, appeals for just treatment, and discourses
on the upright character of his race, there were no speeches more
significant nor more prophetic than his arraignment of the apathetic
manner with which Congress had greeted his bill, designed "to give to
the federal government entire jurisdiction over all cases of lynching
and death by mob violence." If, he declared, the nation is to avoid
the state of anarchy and moral decay to which conditions were then
rapidly leading, there remained no alternative, save the enactment, by
some future Congress, of a law to constitute lynching a federal
offense.[63]