WHAT CONSTITUTES "NEGRO DOMINATION"
It is claimed that in States, districts, and counties, in which the
colored people are in the majority, the suppression of the colored vote
is necessary to prevent "Negro Domination,"--to prevent the ascendency
of the blacks over the whites in the administration of the State and
local governments.
This claim is based upon the assumption that if the black vote were not
suppressed in all such States, districts, and counties, black men would
be supported and elected to office because they were black, and white
men would be opposed and defeated because they were white.
Taking Mississippi for purposes of illustration, it will be seen that
there has never been the slightest ground for such an apprehension. No
colored man in that State ever occupied a judicial position above that
of Justice of the Peace and very few aspired to that position. Of seven
State officers only one, that of Secretary of State, was filled by a
colored man, until 1873, when colored men were elected to three of the
seven offices,--Lieutenant-Governor, Secretary of State, and State
Superintendent of Education. Of the two United States Senators and the
seven members of the lower house of Congress not more than one colored
man occupied a seat in each house at the same time. Of the thirty-five
members of the State Senate, and of the one hundred and fifteen members
of the House,--which composed the total membership of the State
Legislature prior to 1874,--there were never more than about seven
colored men in the Senate and forty in the lower house. Of the
ninety-seven members that composed the Constitutional Convention of 1868
but seventeen were colored men. The composition of the lower house of
the State Legislature that was elected in 1871 was as follows:
Total membership, one hundred and fifteen. Republicans, sixty-six;
Democrats, forty-nine. Colored members, thirty-eight. White members,
seventy-seven. White majority, thirty-nine.
Of the sixty-six Republicans thirty-eight were colored and twenty-eight,
white. There was a slight increase in the colored membership as a result
of the election of 1873, but the colored men never at any time had
control of the State Government nor of any branch or department thereof,
nor even that of any county or municipality. Out of seventy-two counties
in the State at that time, electing on an average twenty-eight officers
to a county, it is safe to assert that not over five out of one hundred
of such officers were colored men. The State; district, county, and
municipal governments were not only in control of white men, but white
men who were to the manor born, or who were known as old citizens of the
State--those who had lived in the State many years before the War of the
Rebellion. There was, therefore, never a time when that class of white
men known as Carpet-baggers had absolute control of the State
Government, or that of any district, county or municipality, or any
branch or department thereof. There was never, therefore, any ground for
the alleged apprehension of negro domination as a result of a free,
fair, and honest election in any one of the Southern or Reconstructed
States.
And this brings us to a consideration of the question, What is meant by
"Negro Domination?" The answer that the average reader would give to
that question would be that it means the actual, physical domination of
the blacks over the whites. But, according to a high Democratic
authority, that would be an incorrect answer. The definition given by
that authority I have every reason to believe is the correct one, the
generally accepted one. The authority referred to is the late Associate
Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of Mississippi, H.H. Chalmers,
who, in an article in the _North American Review_ about March, 1881,
explained and defined what is meant or understood by the term "Negro
Domination."
According to Judge Chalmers' definition, in order to constitute "Negro
Domination" it does not necessarily follow that negroes must be elected
to office, but that in all elections in which white men may be divided,
if the negro vote should be sufficiently decisive to be potential in
determining the result, the white man or men that would be elected
through the aid of negro votes would represent "Negro Domination." In
other words, we would have "Negro Domination" whenever the will of a
majority of the whites would be defeated through the votes of colored
men. If this is the correct definition of that term,--and it is, no
doubt, the generally accepted one,--then the friends and advocates of
manhood suffrage will not deny that we have had in the past "Negro
Domination," nationally as well as locally, and that we may have it in
the future.
If that is the correct definition then we are liable to have "Negro
Domination" not only in States, districts, and counties where the blacks
are in the majority, but in States, districts and counties where they
are few in numbers. If that is the correct definition of "Negro
Domination,"--to prevent which the negro vote should be
suppressed,--then the suppression of that vote is not only necessary in
States, districts, and counties in which the blacks are in the majority,
but in every State, district, and county in the Union; for it will not
be denied that the primary purpose of the ballot,--whether the voters be
white or colored, male or female,--is to make each vote decisive and
potential. If the vote of a colored man, or the vote of a white man,
determines the result of an election in which he participates, then the
very purpose for which he was given the right and privilege will have
been accomplished, whether the result, as we understand it, be wise or
unwise.
In this connection it cannot and will not be denied that the colored
vote has been decisive and potential in very many important National as
well as local and State elections. For instance, in the Presidential
election of 1868, General Grant, the Republican candidate, lost the
important and pivotal State of New York, a loss which would have
resulted in his defeat if the Southern States that took part in that
election had all voted against him. That they did not do so was due to
the votes of the colored men in those States. Therefore Grant's first
administration represented "Negro Domination."
Again, in 1876, Hayes was declared elected President by a majority of
one vote in the electoral college. This was made possible by the result
of the election in the States of Louisiana, South Carolina, and Florida,
about which there was much doubt and considerable dispute, and over
which there was a bitter controversy. But for the colored vote in those
States there would have been no doubt, no dispute, no controversy. The
defeat of Mr. Hayes and the election of Mr. Tilden would have been an
undisputed and an uncontested fact. Therefore, the Hayes administration
represented "Negro Domination."
Again, in 1880, General Garfield, the Republican candidate for
President, carried the State of New York by a plurality of about 20,000,
without which he could not have been elected. It will not be denied by
those who are well informed that if the colored men that voted for him
in that State at that time had voted against him, he would have lost the
State and, with it, the Presidency. Therefore, the Garfield-Arthur
administration represented "Negro Domination."
Again, in 1884, Mr. Cleveland, the Democratic candidate, carried the
doubtful but very important State of New York by the narrow margin of
1,147 plurality, which resulted in his election. It cannot and will not
be denied that even at that early date the number of colored men that
voted for Mr. Cleveland was far in excess of the plurality by which he
carried the State. Mr. Cleveland's first administration, therefore,
represented "Negro Domination." Mr. Cleveland did not hesitate to admit
and appreciate the fact that colored men contributed largely to his
success, hence he did not fail to give that element of his party
appropriate and satisfactory official recognition.
Again, in 1888, General Harrison, the Republican Presidential candidate,
carried the State of New York by a plurality of about 20,000, which
resulted in his election, which he would have lost but for the votes of
the colored men in that State. Therefore, Harrison's administration
represented "Negro Domination."
The same is true of important elections in a number of States, districts
and counties in which the colored vote proved to be potential and
decisive. But enough has been written to show the absurdity of the claim
that the suppression of the colored vote is necessary to prevent "Negro
Domination." So far as the State of Mississippi is concerned, in spite
of the favorable conditions, as shown above, the legitimate State
Government,--the one that represented the honestly expressed will of a
majority of the voters of the State,--was in the fall of 1875 overthrown
through the medium of a sanguinary revolution. The State Government was
virtually seized and taken possession of _vi et armis_. Why was this?
What was the excuse for it? What was the motive, the incentive that
caused it? It was not in the interest of good, efficient, and capable
government; for that we already had. It was not on account of
dishonesty, maladministration, misappropriation of public funds; for
every dollar of the public funds had been faithfully accounted for. It
was not on account of high taxes; for it had been shown that, while the
tax rate was quite high during the Alcorn administration, it had been
reduced under the Ames administration to a point considerably less than
it is now or than it has been for a number of years. It was not to
prevent "Negro Domination" and to make sure the ascendency of the whites
in the administration of the State and local governments; for that was
then the recognized and established order of things, from which there
was no apprehension of departure. Then, what was the cause of this
sudden and unexpected uprising? There must have been a strong, if not a
justifiable, reason for it. What was it? That question will be answered
in a subsequent chapter.