THE FEDERAL ELECTIONS BILL
It was during the administration of President Harrison that another
effort was made to secure the enactment by Congress of the necessary
legislation for the effective enforcement of the war amendments to the
National Constitution,--a Federal Elections Bill. Mr. Lodge, of
Massachusetts, was the author of the bill. But the fact was soon
developed that there were so many Republicans in and out of Congress who
lacked the courage of their convictions that it would be impossible to
secure favorable action. In fact there were three classes of white men
at the South who claimed to be Republicans who used their influence to
defeat that contemplated legislation. The white men at the South who
acted with the Republican party at that time were divided into four
classes.
First, those who were Republicans from principle and conviction--because
they were firm believers in the principles, doctrines, and policies for
which the party stood, and were willing to remain with it in adversity
as well as in prosperity,--in defeat as well as in victory. This class,
I am pleased to say, while not the most noisy and demonstrative,
comprised over seventy-five per cent, of the white membership of the
party in that part of the country.
Second, a small but noisy and demonstrative group, comprising about
fifteen per cent of the remainder, who labored under the honest, but
erroneous, impression that the best and most effective way to build up a
strong Republican party at the South was to draw the color line in the
party. In other words, to organize a Republican party to be composed
exclusively of white men, to the entire exclusion of colored men. What
those men chiefly wanted,--or felt the need of for themselves and their
families,--was social recognition by the better element of the white
people of their respective localities. They were eager, therefore, to
bring about such a condition of things as would make it possible for
them to be known as Republicans without subjecting themselves and their
families to the risk of being socially ostracized by their white
Democratic neighbors. And then again those men believed then, and some
of them still believe or profess to believe, that southern Democrats
were and are honest and sincere in the declaration that the presence of
the colored men in the Republican party prevented southern white men
from coming into it. "Draw the race line against the colored
man,--organize a white Republican party,--and you will find that
thousands of white men who now act with the Democratic party will join
the Republicans." Some white Republicans believed that the men by whom
these declarations were made were honest and sincere,--and it may be
that some of them were,--but it appears not to have occurred to them
that if the votes of the colored men were suppressed the minority white
vote, unaided and unprotected, would be powerless to prevent the
application of methods which would nullify any organized effort on their
part. In other words, nothing short of an effective national law, to
protect the weak against the strong and the minority of the whites
against the aggressive assaults of the majority of that race, would
enable the minority of the whites to make their power and influence
effective and potential; and even then it could be effectively done only
in coöperation with the blacks. Then again, they seemed to have lost
sight of the fact,--or perhaps they did not know it to be a fact,--that
many leading southern Democrats are insincere in their declarations upon
the so-called race question. They keep that question before the public
for political and party reasons only, because they find it to be the
most effective weapon they can use to hold the white men in political
subjection. The effort, therefore, to build up a "white" Republican
party at the South has had a tendency, under existing circumstances, to
discourage a strong Republican organization in that section. But, even
if it were possible for such an organization to have a potential
existence, it could not be otherwise than ephemeral, because it would be
wholly out of harmony with the fundamental principles and doctrines of
the national organization whose name it had appropriated. It would be in
point of fact a misnomer and, therefore, wholly out of place as one of
the branches of the national organization which stands for, defends, and
advocates the civil and political equality of all American citizens,
without regard to race, color, nationality, or religion. Any
organization, therefore, claiming to be a branch of the Republican
party, but which had repudiated and denounced the fundamental and sacred
creed of that organization, would be looked upon by the public as a
close, selfish and local machine that was brought into existence to
serve the ends, and satisfy the selfish ambition of the promoters and
organizers of the corporation. Yet there were a few well-meaning and
honest white men in some of the Southern States who were disposed,
through a mistaken sense of political necessity, to give such a movement
the benefit of their countenance. But the movement has been a lamentable
failure in States where it has been tried, and it cannot be otherwise in
States where it may yet be tried. Men who were in sympathy with a
movement of this sort took a pronounced stand against the proposed
Federal Elections Bill, and used what influence they had to prevent its
passage; their idea being that, if passed, it would have a tendency to
prevent the accomplishment of the purposes they had in contemplation.
Third, a group that consisted of a still smaller number who were
Republicans for revenue only,--for the purpose of getting office. If an
office were in sight they would be quite demonstrative in their advocacy
of the Republican party and its principles; but if they were not
officially recognized, their activities would not only cease, but they
would soon be back into the fold of the Democracy. But should they be
officially recognized they would be good, faithful, and loyal
Republicans,--at least so far as words were concerned,--until they
ceased to be officials, when they would cease at the same time to be
Republicans. Men of this class were, of course, opposed to the proposed
legislation for the enforcement of the war amendments to the
Constitution.
Fourth, a group that consisted of an insignificantly small number of
white men who claimed to be national Republicans and local
Democrats,--that is, they claimed that they voted for the Republican
candidate for President every four years, but for Democrats in all other
elections. Of course they were against the proposed legislation. These
men succeeded in inducing some well-meaning Republican members of
Congress, like Senator Washburne, of Minnesota, for instance, to believe
that the passage of such a bill would have a tendency to prevent the
building up of a strong Republican organization at the South. Then
again, the free silver question was before the public at that time. The
Republican majority in the Senate was not large. Several of those who
had been elected as Republicans were free silver men. On that question
they were in harmony with a majority of the Democrats, and out of
harmony with the great majority of Republicans. The Free Silver
Republicans, therefore, were not inclined to support a measure that was
particularly offensive to their friends and allies on the silver
question. After a careful canvass of the Senate it was developed that
the Republican leaders could not safely count on the support of any one
of the Free Silver Republicans in their efforts to pass the bill, and,
since they had the balance of power, any further effort to pass it was
abandoned. It was then made plain to the friends and supporters of that
measure that no further attempt would be made in that direction for a
long time, if ever.
I wrote and had published in the Washington _Post_ a letter in which I
took strong grounds in favor of having the representation in
Congress,--from States where the colored men had been practically
disfranchised through an evasion of the Fifteenth Amendment,--reduced
in the manner prescribed by the Fourteenth Amendment. In that letter I
made an effort to answer every argument that had been made in opposition
to such a proposition. It had been argued by some fairly good lawyers,
for instance, that the subsequent ratification of the Fifteenth
Amendment had so modified the Fourteenth as to take away from Congress
this optional and discretionary power which had been previously
conferred upon it by the Fourteenth Amendment. I tried in that
letter,--and I think I succeeded,--to answer the argument on that point.
It was also said that if Congress were to take such a step it would
thereby give its sanction to the disfranchisement of the colored men in
the States where that had been done. This I think I succeeded in proving
was untrue and without foundation. The truth is that the only material
difference between the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments on this
particular point is that, subsequent to the ratification of the
Fourteenth and prior to the ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment, a
State could legally disfranchise white or colored men on account of race
or color, but, since the ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment, this
cannot be legally done. If, then, Congress had the constitutional right
under the Fourteenth Amendment to punish a State in the manner therein
prescribed, for doing what the State then had a legal and
constitutional right to do, I cannot see why Congress has not now the
same power and authority to inflict the same punishment upon the State
for doing or permitting to be done what it now has no legal and
constitutional right to do.
No State, in my opinion, should be allowed to take advantage of its own
wrongs, and thus, by a wrongful act, augment its own power and influence
in the government. To allow a majority of the white men in the State of
Mississippi, for instance, to appropriate to themselves through
questionable methods the representative strength of the colored
population of that State, excluding the latter from all participation in
the selection of the representatives in Congress, is a monstrous wrong,
the continuance of which should not be tolerated.
For every crime there must be a punishment; for every wrong there must
be a remedy, and for every grievance there must be a redress. That this
state of things is wrong and unjust, if not unlawful, no fair-minded
person will deny. It is not only wrong and unjust to the colored people
of the State, who are thus denied a voice in the government under which
they live and to support which they are taxed, but it also involves a
grave injustice to the States in which the laws are obeyed and the
National Constitution,--including the war amendments to the same,--is
respected and enforced. I am aware of the fact that it is claimed by
those who are responsible for what is here complained of that, while
the acts referred to may be an evasion if not a violation of the spirit
of the Constitution, yet, since they do not violate the letter of the
Constitution the complaining parties are without a remedy, and therefore
have no redress. This contention is not only weak in logic but unsound
in law, even as construed by the Supreme Court of the United States,
which tribunal seems to be the last to which an appeal can be
successfully made, having for its object the enforcement of the
Constitution and laws so far as they relate to the political and civil
rights of the colored Americans. That a State can do by indirection what
it cannot do directly, is denied even by the Supreme Court of the United
States.
That doctrine was clearly and distinctly set forth in a decision of the
Court rendered by Mr. Justice Strong, which was concurred in by a
majority of his associates. In that decision it was held that
affirmative State action is not necessary to constitute race
discrimination by the State. In other words, in order to constitute
affirmative State action in violation of the Constitutional mandate
against distinction and discrimination based on race or color, it is not
necessary that the State should pass a law for that purpose. The State,
the Court declared, acts through its agents, Legislative, Executive and
Judicial. Whenever an agent or representative of the State acts, his
acts are binding upon the State, and the effect is the same as if the
State had passed a law for that purpose. If a judge, for example, in the
selection of jurors to serve in his court should knowingly and
intentionally allow a particular race to be excluded from such service
on account of race or color, the effect would be the same as if the
State, through its Legislature, had passed a law for that purpose. The
colored men in the States complained of, have been disfranchised in
violation of the spirit if not the letter of the Constitution, either by
affirmative State action, or through and by the State's agents and
representatives. Their acts, therefore, constitute State action as fully
as if the Legislature had passed a law for that purpose.