greater mistake than when she endeavors to coerce her husband with
other weapons than those of love and affection. Those weapons are a
sure "pull," if he has anything human left in him. Forbear mutual
upbraidings. In writing letters during temporary separation let
nothing contrary to love and sincere affection be expressed; such
letters from a wife have a most powerful emotional effect, sometimes
little understood by those who write them. It is the mother who molds
the character and destiny of the child as to the exteriors; therefore
let calmness, peace, affection, and firmness rule her conduct toward
her children. Children are great imitators; whether they have scolding
or peaceful mothers, they are generally sure to learn from the example
set before them, and thus the consequent joy or sorrow is transferred
to other families. Therefore let mothers take heed to their conduct.
It is not possible to exercise judgment and prudence too much before
entering on the married life. Be sure that the affections on both
sides are so perfectly intertwined around each other that the two, as
it were, form one mind. This requires time and a thorough mutual
knowledge on both sides. Marry into your religion and into a blood and
temperament different from your own. Bend your whole form, and
especially avoid everlastingly dishing up any unsuccessful past action
that was done from a good motive and with the best intentions at the
time. Let nothing foreign to the spirit of love and mutual affections
intervene to cause distance between husband and wife. To this end let
self-denial and reciprocal unselfishness rule over each. Avoid
habitual fault-finding, scolding, etc., as you would perdition itself.
Many men tremble as they cross their threshold into the presence of
scolding wives. Let husband and wife cultivate habits of sobriety, and
specially avoid drunkenness in every form. What a dreadful spectacle
it is to see a husband transformed into a demon, tottering homeward to
a broken-hearted wife, whose noble, self-sacrificing devotion to him
seems to partake more of the nature of heaven than of earth! Never
part, even for a journey, without kind and endearing words; and as a
kiss symbolizes union from interior affection, do not dispense with it
on such occasions, repeating it when you return. In one word, let love
rule supreme.
In all your dealings with women take a lesson from the cooing dove.
Speak softly, deal gently, kindly, and considerately with her in every
way. Let every husband and every wife cherish for each other the
heavenly flame of affection, and let no rude, harsh, or embittered
expression on either side chill the sacred fire. If every adoration of
the creature may hope for pardon, surely the worship rendered by man
to a kind, pure, affectionate, and loving wife--Heaven's best
gift--may invoke forgiveness. What countless millions of women have
sacrificed health, strength, and life in attendance on sick and dying
husbands, children, and strangers! How many have perished by rushing
through fire and water to save their children, and starve themselves
that they might live! In how many hospitals has she proven herself an
angel of mercy, and her sweet voice uttered words of comfort and
cheer! Therefore let woman have her full rights, even that of voting,
if she desires it, for a good woman's influence will ever be used for
a good purpose; but let woman act toward man as indicated in the above
advice for man to act toward woman, and she would be all but
omnipotent; for man, in a manner, would move heaven and earth to serve
her, and would do unspeakably more for her than can ever be done by
all the fussy croakers, old maids, and woman's rights associations and
lectures in creation. Love in the family is the one thing needful to
regenerate the earth and cause the wilderness to become as Eden and
the desert to blossom as the rose. Reversed, love and discord have
broken more hearts, caused more sorrow, estrangement, and downright
death than war, pestilence, and all other causes combined. It palsies
energy and ambition, engenders gloom and despair, and transforms
manhood into an icicle. Statistics prove that the married live longer,
on the average, by several years than the unmarried, a most
satisfactory proof that the married state is pre-eminently the life
designed for man. Therefore let all interested do their utmost to make
it the happiest. (The Budget.)
INTEMPERANCE.
BY MRS. M. A. M'CURDY, ROME, GA.
Intemperance has so rapidly grown to be the crowning curse of all
nations and has taken so deep root in the heart of many influential
countrymen as to cause the impediments that are thrown in the pathway
of those who try to promote the cause of "God, home, and native land"
to appear to be legions.
The horrors of intemperance have never been fully portrayed. No pencil
is black enough to paint the picture and do it full justice. No tongue
is eloquent enough to tell the sad, sad story in all its details. It
has so spread itself as to compel us to style it a wide and verily a
withering curse. It is the parent of many physical disorders, that
begin with bleared eyes, a blistered tongue, general derangement of
the stomach, paralysis of the nerves, and hardening of the liver; and
to so great an extent it poisons the blood as to cause coagulation of
the brain. All of which, as a natural consequence, induce and
aggravate many diseases, ending with causing to be dug a myriad of
premature graves.
Intemperance is a mental curse, and it clouds the judgment, dethrones
reason, promotes ignorance to the extent that to approach the
unenlightened upon the subject of temperance is the means of incurring
the displeasure of many, and in numerous instances causes vile
epithets to be applied to those who are advocates of the cause of
temperance.
[Illustration: MRS. M. A. M'CURDY, ROME, GA.]
Another great and startling reason why all persons should abstain from
the use of intoxicating liquors is that it is a mental curse, because
it produces imbecility and transforms its unhappy victims into maniacs
and fools. Intemperance or the use of alcoholic liquors brings a curse
upon the morals of all nations, and thereby proves to be a moral
curse. It weakens the will and so influences the passions as to hush
the voice of conscience and prepare the way for every vice and crime.
Then, with all that, let us briefly review a few of the attendant
miseries of intemperance that are about us like a swarm of locusts
coming as a plague: In the slimy trail of this alcoholic serpent can
be found everything that is dark and dreadful--yea, everything that is
ruinous. In it can be found men without manhood, women without
womanhood, infancy without hope, want and woe, rage and wretchedness,
disease and death; and, furthermore, in the trail of this venomous
serpent can be found broken vows and broken hearts, bad manners and
bad morals, bad words and bad actions, bad parents and bad children, a
bad beginning and a bad end. Then surely intemperance is the crowning
curse of American society; and as such the traffic is, as has been
often said, a gigantic crime. It came and continues to be an unwelcome
intruder. It erects in our midst distilleries or dramshops. Everywhere
we need the church and schoolhouse, these being uplifting and
elevating forces, while the distilleries and dramshops are mediums
through which distress and want, sorrow and death, are brought into
our midst in an inconceivably short time, carrying to untimely graves
and everlasting woe hundreds--yea, thousands--who otherwise might be
saved.
The traffic is a temptation and a snare, a man trap and a woman trap,
luring ever its victims to death and damnation. No wonder that Lord
Chesterfield, in words as eloquent as they were burning, should say of
rumsellers: "Let us crush out these artists in human slaughter who
have reconciled their countrymen to sickness and ruin and spread over
the pitfalls of debauchery such baits as men cannot resist." And his
suggestions continue to be repeated, serving as a nucleus to which
many cling and receive strength for present and future action. Yet
there is room for more, as the battle is fierce and will possibly be
long.
The traffic is a monster of cruelty. It has ever been one of tears and
groans and blood, in vice, crime, and misery; ever conscienceless,
unprincipled, and as cruel as the grave, while the trafficker is
rarely ever moved by widows' woes, though they swell into rivers of
tears. His heart seems to be incased in stone, while he applies his
infamous trade and hoards his unhallowed wealth, regardless alike of
the claims of God and the cries of his murdered victims.
For heartless cruelty and desolating results, the highway robber is
not to be compared with the vender of alcoholic beverages, because the
robber simply demands your money or your life, while the liquor seller
demands your money and your life; and there being more than half a
million of them, they seem to be determined to rule the remaining
faction of sixty millions with worse than a rod of iron, even proving
insolent and defiant to the last degree. Sitting supreme in our
national Congress and walking with a swing of conscious triumph up and
down our legislative halls, monarchs of all they survey, succeeding in
every effort made to muzzle ministers, bribe lawmakers, control
officers and business men of our country, and place the nation in
great peril. The traffic is an intolerable burden to the state, a
burden on every back, a blight on every industry, sapping the
heartblood out of all concerned. Think of $900,000,000 as a direct
annual drink bill, and an equal sum to cover the sad consequence.
Two-thirds of this amount is expended by laboring men at the sacrifice
of personal comforts and family necessities. Then why, O why, will not
a greater number of our male relatives assist in striking every saloon
until they are all crushed into hopeless flinders? and why will not a
greater number of our women unite with those who are making efforts to
raise up many who have fallen through and by the use of intoxicating
liquors, and in many ways assist our husbands, brothers, and fathers
in laying plans that will in the near future annihilate the demon rum?
Last, but not least, the liquor traffic is a deadly foe to the Church.
Well and truly did Charles Buxton say that "the struggle of the
Church, school, and the library all united against the beer shop and
the gin place is but one development of the war between Heaven and
Hades." The traffic paralyzes the pulpit, hardens human hearts,
alienates men and women from the Church of God, and in so doing rises
like a mountain in the path of Christian civilization, and we agree
with Rev. A. A. Phelps in saying: "It is a terrible fact, sad enough
to make angels weep, that the two hundred thousand grogshops of this
nation are doing more to damn the people than all the Churches are
doing to save them." Then, in conclusion, let us rally to the cause of
temperance and apply the prohibition as to the deadly upas tree of
intemperance, taking God and his word for our guide, adopting our
Creator's philosophy, imitating his example, and thereby build on
those basic principles that underline the eternal throne, ever
remembering that there is work for all to do, and that in God's
universal system
None fall back or slip aside;
Each of all the mighty forces
Serves with dignity and pride.
There are evils we must strangle,
There are enemies we must fight,
Cruel foes most fierce and active
Keeping back the good and right.
We must all be up and at them
Meet them here and meet them there;
Brothers, fathers ever active,
Women diligent in prayer.
[Illustration: EDWARD SEABROOK, SAVANNAH, GA.
Steamship pilot, Atlantic Coast]
RACE NAME--WHAT SHALL IT BE?
OPINION OF H. C. C. ASTWOOD, CAMBRIDGEPORT, MASS.
The controversy going on regarding the particular term by which to
designate the race is important and of general interest. After reading
all that has been said upon the subject up to date, I must conclude
that the logic and the facts are with the "Colored American."
The word "Afro-American" is simply an individual fad of recent
construction, which has been generally used by some to designate the
race without stopping to think that it is really out of place and can
have no significance at all as far as the race is concerned in this
country. The word "African" or "Negro" may be applied in a general way
to the native-born African and his descendants or to the Negro of
Africa, because of the intense blackness of color, but the
"Afro-American" race does not now nor ever did exist. It is argued
that the German-American, the Irish-American, and the Anglo-American
are distinctly racial lines, and for that reason the "Afro-American"
must be applied to the race of African descent in America.
The conditions are not the same and the facts are against the
argument. Let us analyze the different thousands of German, Irish,
French, Dutch, and Italian nationalities who come to our shores
annually. They form a distinct nationality within themselves, and
as long as they retain their nationality they are German, French,
and so on; but as soon as they become naturalized they become
German-American, French-American, and so on; but their descendants
born here are not German-Americans or French-Americans or
Dutch-Americans; they are simply Americans, and nothing more. This is
not the condition of the colored race in this country. I am of the
opinion that it would be difficult to find a hundred native-born
Africans in the United States; hence nationality is extinct. The ten
millions of colored people in this country are native-born Americans,
who never have had any other nationality, and cannot, therefore, be
classed as anything else but Americans. If you wish to designate them
because of their color, you cannot use a false term. They are not
Africans nor Negroes, and there is no such a race as the Afro-American
race known in the world. The particular race cannot be known otherwise
than the "colored race," or, if you apply the nationality, the
"Colored American." I don't think that the matter admits of argument,
and the intelligent gathering of colored women who assembled in
Washington knew exactly what they were doing and applied the correct
term to themselves.
The editor of the "Colored American" is correct in the stand taken,
and is supported by the well-thinking colored people of the entire
country. The word "Afro-American" grew out of a freak at Chicago, and
is only generally used by the "Age" and a few others; and as far as
its application is concerned, it can never be acceptable, and will die
a natural death, without even a struggle to smother. I am sure that
this will elicit a storm of ridicule; but be this as it may, the word
"Afro" and the word "Negro" can never be forced upon an American,
regardless of his color, without his consent, and I stand ready to
maintain my position in the premises based upon sound reason and
common sense.
* * * * *
OPINION OF T. M'CANTS STEWART, NEW YORK CITY.
I invariably use the term "Afro-American" to designate our race
residing in the United States. No stronger article has come under my
eyes than the one which recently appeared from the pen of Prof.
DuBois, showing that our term "Afro-American" can only be adhered to
as an ark of refuge from the term "Negro," which is too apt to be
written with a small "n" and too frequently with two "g's."
We are seeking by our term to designate a race, not a locality, and
therein lies the difficulty. If a person should refer to Lobengula's
son as an African, he would be correct, so far as fixing his habitat;
but if an inquirer should be as great an interrogation point as Li
Hung Chang, and should desire to know more about Lobengula, he would
properly ask: "But to which one of the African races does he belong?"
And the answer would be: "He is a Negro." Now if Lobengula should come
to reside in the United States, he could be properly called an
"Afro-American" (but this is a very indefinite designation), meaning a
native of Africa residing in America. To be strictly accurate, we
would call him a Negro Afro-American. We have Italo-American,
Franco-American, German-American, Russo-American, Spanish-American,
but each of the terms covers an individual who is of foreign birth.
These terms are not applied to the children of immigrants; at any
rate, these children do not so describe themselves. Even where there
is amalgamation between any two of these race varieties, no name is
sought to cover the mixture of blood. These children call themselves
Americans, and if you press for a blood analysis, you will be told
that they are Americans of English and French descent, or some other
descent, and if you ask for the name of their race, they will say: "We
are Caucasians."
There goes an Italo-American. He is an Italian (born in Italy) who now
resides in America. That is the limit of this term. If two or more
distinct races were inhabiting Italy, that would be a very indefinite
term; but as only one race covers that land, the term is definite.
There goes an Afro-American. When such a man is pointed out he should
be a native of Africa residing in America; but the term as applied to
him does not convey conclusive information to the scientist. He
desires to know something more definite; and if the person is of black
complexion and woolly hair, we say that he is a Negro Afro-American.
No escape from this logic. But if one should say, "I am not a Negro; I
have the blood of both races in my veins. What will you call me?" I
answer: "Why, you are an American." If you push me for a scientific
term to fix your blood relationship to other American race varieties,
and if you spring from the blood of a black and the blood of a white
person, I would call you a "Negro-American," since your blood is a
mixture of that of those Africans called Negroes and that of the white
Americans; but if, like the great Bishop Payne, the blood of three
races (including the Indian) courses through your veins, then you are
a Negro Indo-American.
It is difficult for us to get a scientific name. We are a
mixed-blooded animal; we have no distinct race, no race name. The only
people who have any right to establish race names and define them are
the ethnologists. They have the human race divided into several
distinct classes. If there is no houseroom in any class for the man of
several different bloods, then we must get a new name. But certain
principles must guide us. We cannot escape them without incurring the
censure of such scientific minds as Prof. DuBois.
While I agree with Prof. DuBois that our term "Afro-American" lacks
precision and is somewhat high sounding, yet I prefer it, because it
rids us of the word "nigger," and it has within itself an element of
dignity and solidity which helps to promote aspiration in ourselves
and to command respectful mention from others. And I think that the
name is growing in use. I find it in a late standard dictionary and I
notice that public speakers and writers in our best American
publications are using it. But, although I rejoice in the fact, I
cannot stand against the logic of the scholar who argues that the term
cannot be defended upon scientific principles.
* * * * *
OPINION OF P. BUTLER THOMPKINS, NEW YORK.
In the last edition of the "Age" Prof. DuBois argues at considerable
length why we should be called "Negroes," and not "Afro-Americans." I
read his article with much interest, because the Professor advanced
the best reasons why we should be called "Afro-Americans." He admits
that the term "colored" is a misnomer, and therefore meaningless.
The term "Negro" was not broad enough even to include all the
inhabitants of Africa. All three of the great races were, from days
immemorial, represented in Africa; but these were not then, nor are
they now, known as "Negroes," but "Africans," subdivided into families
and tribes. Those families that were known as true Negroes dwell
between the Tropic of Cancer on the north and the equator on the
south, and between the Nile (extremely north) and the Atlantic Ocean.
These were divided into three classes--viz., true "Negroes,"
"Negroids," and the "Negrillos." What say we of that other part of the
great Hamitic family not known as "Negroes?" Were all of the slaves
deported to America from that particular territory? If not, can we say
that they were all Negroes? Nay, but they were all Africans.
The Professor next hastens into the middle of his subject. "Where does
'Afro-American' come in?" he asks; and then replies: "Awkwardly." In
reply, let me say that nothing is "awkward" that is right; the user
may be awkward. Says he: "It may not be so objectionable when applied
to some national gathering." We have in America one great national
gathering of Afro-Americans numbering some ten million or more. The
Professor knows very well that it is not fair to argue from the
general to the particular. The "Old Auntie in Hackensack" is not the
subject. She is a member of the Afro-American family. Children
generally take the name of their parents by birth or by adoption.
Don't refuse to call a thing by its right name because it is
"awkward," for the name is not "awkward," but the tongue that handles
it. We have a similar case in God's Word. The Gileadites took the
passage of Jordan and adopted a distinct watchword by which everyone
of their number could be known. The Ephraimites, who desired to pass
over the river, were required to say the word "Shibboleth," which, if
said properly, would signify that they were Gileadites. The
Ephraimites could not pronounce it correctly, so they could not pass
over, but were slain. This word "Shibboleth" was "awkward" to the
Ephraimites; but not to the Gileadites, because they had trained
themselves to say it. So must we train ourselves to say the right
name, "Afro-American."
In the second place, the Professor objects to the appellation
"Afro-American" because, says he: "The adjectives 'Irish' or 'German'
or 'Swedish,' which are sometimes used to designate certain classes,
refer always to race rather than to country, and never to either of
the great world divisions." This may be true in a sense, but we beg to
offer an alternative. There were many of us brought from those
families or tribes in Africa which were not known as "Negroes," for
the Negroes, as we have shown, were only a remnant of the great
African, or Hamitic, race.
In the third place the Professor objects to the term "Afro-American"
because, says he: "This name would seek to separate us from our
kindred in the land of our fathers." This kind of reasoning is what we
call _reductio ad absurdum_, for just the reverse of what he says is
true. To say "Afro-American" is to reunite us to our forefathers, both
by blood and language. It tells, whence we came and where we are.
There is no other term in language, thought, or reason that fits in
and at the same time covers the ground so completely as
"Afro-American." "Let us be Negroes, let us be one in blood," says he.
We can't be what we are not. How can we be one in blood when our blood
has been crossed a thousand times?
But we all can be Afro-Americans, because we all were of Africa and
now are of America. In other words, our forefathers were Africans by
birth and became Americans by adoption. We are Africans by descent and
Americans both by birth and adoption. This addition, Africans plus
Americans, equals Afro-Americans. We conclude, therefore, that the
term "Negro," although honorable and significant, is too narrow to be
adopted as a national appellation. We need a name that will include
every man that came from Africa, regardless of the section or
territory from which he came, and that name is "African." We want a
name that will include every American citizen who has a drop of Negro
blood in his or her veins, let them be as white as snow or as black as
soot, and that name is "Afro-American."
THE NATION'S DUTY TO THE NEGRO.
BY BISHOP PETTY, NORTH CAROLINA.
THE NEGRO AS A SLAVE.
In order to define the duty of the nation to the Negro we must first
notice the relationship existing between the Negro and the nation. For
two hundred and seventy-six years we have inhabited this country, and,
whether as slaves or as freemen, I say here, without fear of
successful contradiction, that we have done more to enhance the wealth
of this country, in proportion to our numbers, than any other race in
America. The Negro as a slave was docile and obedient. He was harmless
to his master--yea, one white woman was not afraid to live alone on
her farm with a hundred Negro men as her servants. They frequently did
so, and were never harmed, notwithstanding the number of Negroes who
have been lynched since under the accusation of unbecoming conduct. In
other words, he made a good slave, if such a thing as a good slave be
possible.
THE NEGRO AS A COMMON LABORER.