registering and voting: Idiots, insane persons, and paupers;
persons who, prior to the adoption of this Constitution, were
disqualified from voting, by conviction of crime, either within
or without this State, and whose disabilities shall not have
been removed, persons convicted after the adoption of this
Constitution, either within or without this State, of treason,
or of any felony, bribery, petit larceny, etc."
The intention of these acts needs no showing. They have three points in
common: (a) Some device enabling all the white voters to evade the force
of the disfranchising clauses; (b) The limiting clauses themselves which
deprive a majority of the colored voters of their franchise; (c) The
reservation of sufficient discretionary power in boards of registrars to
enable them to give full effect to the acknowledged purpose of the
framers of the constitutions. I know of no lesson they can teach us,
except how to do the things we ought not to do. In some cases, by
knowing the way down, one may, by reversing the steps taken, regain the
lost height. But it is not so here; our fall, like our rise, has been
too sudden. We have been thrown from a window, and before we could
understand our position, legislated out of a back gate. Only by superior
chicane can we repair the second injury, only by superior force repair
the first--unless there be justice in the heart of the nation. It
behooves us then to study carefully the state of public opinion in the
country, which underlies these laws, and gives them whatever stability
they possess.
There is, of course, a series of events leading up to this radical
change in the institutions of the Republic, a history beginning before
the formation of the Union itself. The first part was African slavery.
Religious, moral and economic forces had acted upon serfdom, the more
common sort of slavery in Europe, and aided by the resulting increase of
vigor among the serfs themselves, had disintegrated it. But these forces
either did not act upon the trade in Negro slaves, when profits to be
obtained from that traffic filled the minds of merchants, or were
helpless to stop it. The New World was not, like the Old, overcrowded,
but in need of laborers--and the slaves were blacks. Tropical South
America, the West Indies, and the hot belt of the United States absorbed
hundreds of thousands of Negro slaves. All the forces above enumerated
set to work again after a time and slavery once more began to
disintegrate. In this country it had become firmly rooted in the
Southern states, where the same American people who had fought in '76
for the freedom of two million white men, women and children fought as
stubbornly to keep in slavery four million black men, women and
children. But victory was again to crown the cause of freedom, and by
the will of the victors, forced forward by the unbroken spirit of
resistance of the conquered, these four millions of slaves were declared
possessed of freedom, civil rights and political privileges.
Said Lord Shaftesbury to Charles the Second, when called on for his
resignation as Lord Chancellor, "It is only to lay aside the gown and
take up the sword." The South, defeated in arms, reversed the process,
and laying down the musket, put on the gown of the law-maker, and began
to accomplish by legislation, the reenslavement of the millions set
free. Hampered in this, for a time by the armies and the northern civil
officers, who obtained power largely by the suffrage of the colored
people, and by the colored voters themselves, the Southern men waited
for the withdrawal of the Union armies--an event hastened by outcry at
home--and then taking out the side-arms, which the generous terms of
surrender had permitted them to retain, they rapidly dispersed the
opposing force, and took the reins of government again into their own
hands. With musket in one hand to retain political power, and pen in the
other to undo the Reconstruction legislation, they soon deprived the
black millions of all their transitory political and civil rights. It is
hard to see that anything remained to be done. Emancipation laws and
proclamations to the contrary, the Negro seemed safely penned. But moral
and economic forces were still at work, and the end was not yet reached.
The South could no longer close its eyes to the want of prosperity. In
1890, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi and
Louisiana, in spite of their 262,175 square miles and abundant
resources, had but 8,346,667 people and 288,405,107 dollars worth of
manufactured products. An equal territory in the States of the North,
namely; Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Ohio and
Illinois with 260,823 square miles had 25,074,143 people and
6,484,643,842 dollars worth of manufactured products--which is to say,
the Southern states had but one-third of the population, and
one-twenty-second of the manufactures of the same area North. The South
wanting prosperity began to seek ways of obtaining it. This led to the
consideration of obstacles: and first among these was the large and
economically inefficient colored population. It must be made, for want
of other labor, productive, a contributory agent to the new industrial
prosperity of the South--and not the less, cut off from any sort of
control, even of the industries, which by its labor must mainly be built
up. The problem was a difficult one, yet such as the South felt itself
able to solve. And many in the North stood ready to help.
In 1890, however, came troubles so serious as to require a diversion of
attention from economical to political problems. The Republican party
pledge to secure for all citizens 'a free ballot and a fair count' was
yet unredeemed; and in that year a debate broke out in Congress over the
fulfilling of its promise, with an Elections bill as the means.
Simultaneously, the Populist movement was growing to threatening
proportions. Before this, the cry had been that the Negro by sheer
numbers could dominate, if not prevented from doing so. But now there
presented itself a new and more threatening danger. "In any state where
the whites divide," said Mr. Tillman in the Senate in 1900, "and they
have divided in every Southern State except mine and Mississippi--into
Populists and Democrats--the Negro has been the balance of power." The
Populist movement died, but this phantasm once evoked, of a black man
poised at the centre of the party see-saw, continued to hover at the
beck of its creators until again wanted. The occasion, this time a
lasting one, has been found in the balance of the Republican and the
Democratic parties in the "border" states. So in Maryland, for a while,
a "doubtful" state, where the colored population is but one-fifth of the
whole, a disfranchising law is justified, apparently, by the danger to
good government of allowing the Republican party to obtain control.
Again, in the county and town election contests, even in the Southern
states where the Democratic party is in entire possession of the State
government, this compact(?) and mobile(?) army of black voters occupies
a position of such strategical importance that unless they be dislodged
by the most radical method their mastery must be forever
acknowledged(?). Now, to conclude, since a dozen colored voters might
hold the balance of power in town or county, the bitter irony of the
situation is overwhelming.[1] The South is simply driven by its own
irrefutable(?) logic to total disfranchisement of the Negro, there being
no safe stopping point short of the practical exclusion of the colored
inhabitants of a dozen or more states from any part in the making or
administering of the laws, national, state or municipal under which they
live(!). All this the South, impelled by her honest desire(!) for good
government, and resolutely turning her back upon past methods of fraud
and violence,(!) means to accomplish legally--provided Congress and the
Supreme Court throw over her naked but unalterable will the broad mantle
of legality.
[1] In West Virginia there are, on the Census basis (958,800 = whole
population, less 43,499-colored population = 915,301-white
population, divided by 3.6 = ratio of white population, generally
to white males of voting age.) 254,250 white voters; and (43,499 =
colored population, divided by 4.3-ratio of colored population to
colored male adults = 10,116 colored voters, of whom 32.3 per cent.
are illiterate, = 3267 illiterate colored men,) but 3,267
illiterate colored voters, or about one eightieth of the electorate
(257,517 divided by 3,267): yet, even though the national ticket
threatened to be hurt by it, it was impossible to stifle the cry
for disfranchisement of ignorant black voters as the paramount
issue of the West Virginia democratic campaign of 1904.
We are reminded of the story of the princess, who wandering in rags,
came to a palace and begged accommodation there befitting one of royal
blood. The old queen, not sure that she was a princess, determined to
test her veracity in this way: She lay a pea upon the floor and piled
upon it a dozen feather-beds. If she felt the pea, it was plain that she
was a true princess. Morning came none too soon for the unhappy lady,
who confessed to the queen having spent a miserable night, something
hard in her bed having bruised her till she was black and blue. No
longer could the queen doubt that she was a real princess, for who else
could have been so delicate. And she was forthwith married to the heir
apparent to the throne. So the South acts on the belief that if she be
absolutely intolerant of the slightest degree of political power in the
hands of colored men, that the North must see in the very violence of
her antipathy, the hopelessness of any other solution.
This happily settled, the South after fifteen years of uncertainty,
hopes to be able to turn her attention to material problems. But though
the Caesars may rob February of days to enrich July and August, the
seasons remain unchanged. The economic and moral laws of the universe
remain in operation and give assurance that no solution can be more than
temporary in which the Negro is dealt with falsely and unjustly.
Meantime what had been the course of the Republican party, which, by its
own declaration "had reconstructed the Union with freedom instead of
slavery as its corner-stone?" Listen to the reading of the suffrage
planks in the platforms of ten presidential campaigns:--
[1868.]
The guarantee by Congress of equal suffrage to all loyal men at the
South was demanded by every consideration of public safety, of
gratitude, and of justice, and must be maintained; while the question of
suffrage in all the loyal States properly belongs to the people of those
States.
The recent amendments to the National Constitution should be cordially
sustained because they are right, not merely tolerated because they are
law, and should be carried out according to their spirit by appropriate
legislation, the enforcement of which can safely be entrusted only to
the party that secured those amendments.
[1872.]
Complete liberty and exact equality in the enjoyment of all civil,
political and public rights should be established and effectually
maintained throughout the Union by efficient and appropriate State and
Federal legislation. Neither the law nor its administration should admit
any discrimination in respect of citizens by reason of race, creed,
color or previous condition of servitude.
[1876.]
The Republican party has preserved these governments to the hundredth
anniversary of the Nation's birth, and they are now embodiments of the
great truth spoken at its cradle--"that all men are created equal; that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among
which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that for the
attainment of these ends governments have been instituted among men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Until
these truths are cheerfully obeyed, or, if need be, vigorously enforced,
the work of the Republican party is unfinished.
The permanent pacification of the Southern section of the Union and the
complete protection of all its citizens in the free enjoyment of all
their rights is a duty to which the Republican party stands sacredly
pledged. The power to provide for the enforcement of the principles
embodied in the recent Constitutional Amendments is vested by those
amendments in the Congress of the United States, and we declare it to be
the solemn obligation of the legislative and executive departments of
the Government to put into immediate and vigorous exercise all their
constitutional powers for removing any just causes of discontent on the
part of any class, and for securing to every American citizen complete
liberty and exact equality in the exercise of all civil, political and
public rights. To this end we imperatively demand a Congress and a Chief
Executive whose courage and fidelity to these duties shall not falter
until these results are placed beyond dispute or recall.
[1880.]
The dangers of a "Solid South" can only be averted by a faithful
performance of every promise which the Nation has made to the citizen.
The execution of the laws, and the punishment of all those who violate
them, are the only safe methods by which an enduring peace can be
secured and genuine prosperity established throughout the South.
Whatever promises the Nation makes the Nation must perform. A Nation
cannot with safety relegate this duty to the States. The "Solid South"
must be divided by the peaceful agencies of the ballot, and all honest
opinions must there find free expression. To this end the honest voter
must be protected against terrorism, violence or fraud.
[1884.]
The perpetuity of our institutions rests upon the maintenance of a free
ballot, an honest count, and correct returns. We denounce the fraud and
violence practiced by the Democracy in Southern States, by which the
will of a voter is defeated, as dangerous to the preservation of free
institutions; and we solemnly arraign the Democratic party as being the
guilty recipient of fruits of such fraud and violence.
We extend to the Republicans of the South, regardless of their former
party affiliations, our cordial sympathy, and pledge to them our most
earnest efforts to promote the passage of such legislation as will
secure to every citizen, of whatever race and color, the full and
complete recognition, possession and exercise of all civil and political
rights.
[1888.]
We reaffirm our unswerving devotion to the national Constitution and to
the indissoluble union of the States; to the autonomy reserved to the
States under the Constitution; to the personal rights and liberties of
citizens in all the States and Territories in the Union, and especially
to the supreme and sovereign right of every lawful citizen, rich or
poor, native or foreign born, white or black, to cast one free ballot in
public elections and to have that ballot duly counted. We hold the free
and honest popular ballot and the just and equal representation of all
the people to be the foundation of our republican government, and demand
effective legislation to secure the integrity and purity of elections,
which are the fountains of all public authority.
[1892.]
We demand that every citizen of the United States shall be allowed to
cast one free and unrestricted ballot in all public elections, and that
such ballot shall be counted and returned as cast; that such laws shall
be enacted and enforced as will secure to every citizen, be he rich or
poor, native or foreign born, white or black, this sovereign right
guaranteed by the Constitution. The free and honest popular ballot, the
just and equal representation of all the people, as well as their just
and equal protection under the laws, are the foundation of our
Republican institutions, and the party will never relent its efforts
until the integrity of the ballot and the purity of elections shall be
fully guaranteed and protected in every State.
[1896.]
We demand that every citizen of the United States shall be allowed to
cast one free and unrestricted ballot, and that such ballot to be
counted and returned as cast.
[1900.]
It was the plain purpose of the fifteenth amendment to the Constitution
to prevent discrimination on account of race or color in regulating the
elective franchise. Devices of State governments, whether by statutory
or constitutional enactment, to avoid the purpose of this amendment are
revolutionary, and should be condemned.
[1904.]
We favor such Congressional action as shall determine whether by special
discriminations the elective franchise in any State has been
unconstitutionally limited, and, if such is the case, we demand that
representation in Congress and in the electoral colleges shall be
proportionally reduced as directed by the Constitution of the United
States.
From '68 till '96 there was posted on the bill-boards of the party, the
same declaration in favor of a free and unrestricted ballot, supported
by the unyielding determination of the party to protect this right. But
in that year there came a change. Perhaps it was that the mass of
unredeemed pledges fell of their own weight, and the time seemed
opportune to substitute a less weighty declaration; perhaps the party
only sought a more efficient means of accomplishing its unalterable
purpose. Whatever the cause, there began from this time, a diminuendo
which has grown fainter until in 1904 the 15th Amendment was heard no
more. To time, some say, must be left this task, too great for a
political party to perform. But there is grave danger in leaving to time
the execution of justice. The evil grows, the power of correcting it
diminishes. Early in its course injustice may be stopped, later perhaps
not at all. The future course of the party with regard 'to the supreme
and sovereign right of every lawful citizen, rich or poor, white or
black, to cast one free ballot in public elections and to have that
ballot duly counted,' is gravely complicated by the rapid and momentous
changes taking place in American society.
The gulf between the sections, which the Constitution merely bridged
proved so deep, because it grew out of differences in the social, if not
the moral natures of the inhabitants of the two parts of the country.
These types have been compared to those opposed in the English Civil
War, and hence called Puritan and Cavalier. But whatever the name, the
differential fact was this: in the North men and women did their own
work, while in the South others did their work for them. Until this
great economic and social difference, which made diverging ideals,
diverging habits, diverging tastes, ceased to be, real sympathy was
impossible. That gulf, which widened into bitter civil war, is now
closing; the two types are drawing nearer; the divorce between sections
is shifting around to a divorce between classes. Therefore it is that in
a part of the writing and ruling class, we feel that there is a
gravitating of morals southward.[2] The North, which spent millions in
lives and money to destroy Negro slavery in the South, seems engaged in
making white slaves at home. If the political and social position of the
white laborer in the North is declining, our chance of obtaining justice
through active Northern sympathy is greatly lessened. In this issue
which remains that of the comparative "hideousness" of the slave-holder
and the slave, every foot added to the social separation of the Northern
employer and employee is a stroke in the knell of political equality for
the Negro.
[2] "The Republican party in its work of imposing the sovereignty of
the United States upon eight millions of Asiatics, has changed its
views in regard to the political relation of races and has at last
virtually accepted the ideas of the South upon that subject. The
white men of the South need now have no further fear that the
Republican party, or Republican administrations, will ever again
give themselves over to the vain imagination of the political
equality of man."
--[Burgess--Reconstruction and the Constitution, page 298.]
It is a mistake, therefore, to assume that there is active in the
country a spirit of freedom strong enough to set us free; a power
employed in doing justice, strong enough to do justice to us. The
country is returning to the conditions existing before '61, even passing
these and returning to the conditions existing before 1776,--in
politics, because it is doing the same in _morals_. Moral betterment
requires that we put a deeper, broader and stronger foundation under the
old foundation of our lives; and this can only be done by removing each
day a bit of sand and filling in the space with stone. Days of
tremendous business activity, or national triumph are not likely to be
so spent.
We _must_ not make the mistake of assuming that there is power in the
nation to do us justice. "Not in a republic," some one may ask? No! Von
Holst says: "That virtue is the specific vital principle of republics is
a delusion. The historical course of development, natural circumstances,
material interests and political and social customs are the elements by
which, in all states without exception, the form of the state is in the
first place conditioned." Not after the pledges of the Constitution,
again it may be asked? No, the Constitution is an ideal, not a real body
of law. Von Holst wrote: "Polk had once stated that the nature of
American institutions offered the world ample security that the United
States would never pursue a policy of aggressive conquest.
Notwithstanding the commentary that he had himself given on this
proposition, it contained a kernel of significant truth. The nature of
their institutions forbade the United States to hold in violent
subjection, under the iron hand of conquest, a realm of the extent of
Mexico for any length of time. This would soon have become so perfectly
clear to the people that they would either have driven the originator
and guiding spirit of the war in shame and disgrace from his office and
dignity, and have reduced all these conditions of peace to the utmost
moderation, or they would have proceeded to a formal and complete
incorporation of Mexico with the Union." And before 1900, as a result of
the war with Spain, the impossible, the absolutely forbidden by the
nature of their institutions had been accomplished. How obscure the
vision of the historian! The Constitution is not written in the hearts
of the American people, but in the sky, where it is hidden every cloudy
day. And yet again, it will be asked: Not in the New World, not in
America? Justice demands a careful consideration of every case; it
cannot be machine-made; it cannot be wholesaled. The exact measure of
justice is hard to find, harder to administer; it cannot be had without
patient search, calm temper, righteousness, courage. I know not whether
America has time to seek the intricate path of justice, or patience and
courage to follow it when found. The cry 'forward' grows even louder,
more insistent, more passionate. Can the country safely put down the
brakes; dare it turn from its rapid way to material prosperity? But a
little greater momentum is needed and reactionaries will rise only to be
irresistibly swept aside. Doubts, weariness, exhaustion even will not
stop the rapidly revolving wheels. Only in the _wake_ of such frenzied
progress there will follow rest, the rest of death. Study the wreckage
in the South in the trail of slavery, black, and what is far worse,
white illiteracy, brutality, wretched sloth. Observe the turning of
defeat in the struggle into despair, then stagnation upon which forms a
film, a scum, a crust which becomes strong enough to defy efforts to
break it. So is brought about the stratification of society called
caste. Above, the upper world, ever turning to law and punishment to
crush those who threaten this floor, upon which they stand from beneath,
ever appealing to the prejudices of their class to persecute into
submission those whose sense of justice or generosity threatens the
crust from above. Beneath, the under world, sweating, spawning,
gathering from its own misery and the dregs of vice and luxury from
above poison, and shaping from its own eager thousands of ambitious
men,--yes, and after the boldest men of the class above, fangs, that it
may become all that revolution is wont to be.
In such a society is born the conqueror, man of destiny, as he seems. In
mountain, in desert or in slum, he may have his birth. Oftenest he is a
military, yet sometimes a spiritual conqueror. In the west of Europe,
two thousand years ago was born Julius Caesar; in the East, Jesus
Christ. From mountain, wilderness and slum, each drew his followers.
Caesar gathered the driftwood of the decaying Republic into an army, and
upon this bridge crossed the Rubicon and established empire. Christ,
too, gathered up the driftwood of decaying Rome and fashioned out of it
that noble band which is the inspiration of every true Church in the
Christian world. The classes you would disfranchise will become the
makers of a political slum. They are materials for working out the glory
or the ruin of the nation. Exclude them from the benefits, the
privileges of other classes and you invite criminality: from outcast to
outlaw is but one step. Include them, and who can measure the addition
to the sum of human happiness? In the answer to the question: what
forces are at work checking the too great increase of a people? what is
the principle of selection? what sort are disappearing, what sort
preserved?--may be read the country's destiny.
Outside of the slave states, equal participation in the government by
all citizens has been the foundation stone of the Republic. For a brief
moment slavery was dead, and all men were freemen. But slavery is alive
again, and if its growth is not resisted, will again be restored in all
but name. The words of Calhoun deserve to be called a prophecy.
"_Without political and social equality_," he said, "_to change the
condition of the African race would be but to change the form of
slavery."_ The South accepts the alternative and resolves that, whatever
the cost, political and social equality shall never be. The North must
yield; _she_ will not. While some are trusting to the finality of the
13th Amendment, others to industrial opportunity, others still to
political without social equality, the South with bull-dog tenacity
sticks to her resolution that there shall be none of these. But a year
ago Carl Schurz declared: "There will be a movement either in the
direction of reducing the Negro to a permanent condition of serfdom ...
or a movement in the direction of recognizing him as a citizen in the
true sense of the term. One or the other will prevail."
Are there reasons wanting why the nation should keep true to its
foundation principles? Granting that the pathway to freedom is now
harder to follow, should the forward movement be abandoned? How else
than by manfully pressing on to a broad humanity, can the Republic,
reconstructed with freedom as its corner-stone, remain? As the old cords
fail to hold together the more distant and divided political and ethnic
units of population, there must be woven new bonds of sympathy,--at
least, of toleration, else some must be hung with chains. There are
many, many reasons, rulers of the commonwealth, why the electorate
should not be reduced:--
Above all, it is selfish. "The continual and diligent elevation of that
lower mass which human society everywhere is constantly precipitating,"
to borrow the words of Cable, is incompatible with the _spirit_ of
restriction.
It is inequitable. For, again quoting from this author: "There is no
safe protection but self-protection: poverty needs at least as much
civil equipment, for self-protection as property needs: the right and
liberty to acquire intelligence, virtue and wealth are just as precious
as the right and liberty to maintain them, and need quite as much
self-protection."
It is subversive of the republican basis of the state,--tending as it
does to deposit more and more political power in the hands of fewer and
fewer men. From "all up" to "some down" in the matter of political
rights is a precipitous leap: but this step once taken, a gentle slope
succeeds. From many to fewer members of the privileged class, the mind
advances easily, with no intrusive principle to block the way. If a poll
tax of one dollar can be made a condition of voting regardless of
ability to pay it, then why not ten or twenty? If a poll tax, why not a
property tax, or wealth? If ability to interpret the Constitution, why
not a college education?
As restriction is practiced in the South, it breeds contempt for the
law:
And increasing unrest, for like a snowball it swells and gathers fresh
resistance as it goes:
And dishonesty, for the disfranchising laws are not being lived up to.
This is inherent, for the acquisition of the required knowledge or
wealth would defeat the very object of the law. It puts a premium upon
ignorance, for thereby the desired end of disfranchisement is
furthered:--And upon thriftlessness, for the same reason;--And upon
criminality and false charges of crime, since even this price must be
paid by those determined to work their will.
What evils of universal suffrage are equal to these? Can an appeal be
made in the name of minority rights by those who would themselves efface
minorities?[3] When slaves were escaping, they demanded that the
constitutional guarantees be fulfilled to the letter, clamored like
Shylock for the pound of flesh which the law allowed. Now, too, they
demand of the amendments as before of the clauses of the instrument
reserving power to the states, that they be construed by the
letter:--but with what a change of object,--no longer that the rights of
minorities may be respected but that they may be utterly suppressed.
[3] In two states, viz; Mississippi and South Carolina, the colored
people are in the majority. In the other four disfranchising
states, as well as all other Southern states, they are in the
minority. In the group of states disfranchising the colored voters,
viz; N. C., S. C., Va., Ala., Miss., and La., the
white population is
5,396,649 = 55 per cent.
colored " "
4,453,253 = 45 per cent.
total " "
9,849,902 = 100 per cent.
--BY THE 12TH CENSUS (1900.)
And if it be asserted that the superior must be allowed to rule, is
superiority to be proved by a fiat of brute force? Is mere armed
lawlessness the index of superior worth? When the nations agreed to fix
limits to the cruelties of war, did they thereby place a penalty upon
brains?
Finally, is it claimed that a free ballot signifies unlimited
corruption? Read the answer in England's purification of her politics: I
quote from Sir Thomas Erskine May:--
"Political morality may be elevated by extending liberties: but bribery
has everywhere been the vice of growing wealth." "The first election of
George the Third's reign was signalized by unusual excesses:" A seat in
Parliament was for sale, like an estate and they bought it without
hesitation or misgiving. "Nor were they regarded with much favor by the
leaders of parties; for men who had bought their seats,--and paid dearly
for them,--owed no allegiance to political patrons. "They sought
admission to Parliament, not so much with a view to a political career,
as to serve mere personal ends, to forward commercial speculations, to
extend their connections and to gratify their social aspirations. But
their independence and ambition well fitted them for the service of the
court.... They soon ranged themselves among the king's friends: and thus
the court policy,--which was otherwise subversive of freedom became
associated with parliamentary corruption. "When the return of members
was left to a small but independent body of electors, their individual
votes were secured by bribery: and where it rested with proprietors or
corporations, the seat was purchased outright." Gatton e. g. was sold
for L75,000. Of the 658 members of the House of Commons 487 were
returned by nomination ... not more than one third of the House were the
free choice of the limited bodies of electors then intrusted with the
franchise.... Representatives holding their seats by a general system of
corruption could scarcely fail to be themselves corrupt. What they had
bought, they were but too ready to sell. And how glittering the prizes
offered as the price of their services! Peerages, baronetcies, patronage
and court favor for the rich--places, pensions and bribes for the needy.
All that the government had to bestow they could command.... Another
instrument of corruption was found in the raising of money for the
public service. In March 1763, Lord Bute contracted a loan of three
millions and a half; and having distributed shares among his
friends,--the scrip immediately rose to a premium of 11 per cent....
Here the country sustained a loss of L385,000.... Stock jobbing became
the fashion; and many members of Parliament were notoriously concerned
in it. Again in 1781 ... a loan of L12,000,000 was contracted to defray
the cost of the disastrous American war.... Its terms were so favorable
that suddenly the scrip rose nearly 11 per cent. It was computed by Mr.
Fox that a profit of L900,000 would be derived from the loan; and by
others that half of the loan was subscribed for by members of the House
of Commons. Lord Rockingham said. "The loan was made merely for the
purpose of corrupting the Parliament to support a wicked, impolitic and
ruinous _war_.
Now as to the electorate. "In Scotland in 1831, the total number of
county voters did not exceed 2500; and the constituencies of the 66
boroughs amounted to 1440.... The county of Argyll, with a population of
100,000 had but 115 electors: Caithness with 36,000, contained 47 free
holders. Edinburgh and Glasgow, the two first cities of Scotland, had
each a constituency of 33 persons.... A great kingdom, with more than
two millions of people,--intelligent, instructed, industrious and
peaceable,--was virtually disfranchised.... According to a statement
made by the Duke of Richmond in 1780, not more than 6,000 men returned a
clear majority of the British House of Commons.... It was alleged in the
petition of the Society of the Friends of the People (presented in
1793.) that 84 individuals absolutely returned 157 members to Parliament
... and that a majority of the House were returned by 154 patrons....
"The glaring defects and vices of the representative system which have
now been exposed,--the restricted and unequal franchise, the bribery of
a limited electoral body, and the corruption of the representatives
themselves,--formed the strongest arguments for Parliamentary reform....
The theory of an equal representation, had in the course of ages, been
entirely subverted.... The Reform bill of 1832 supplied the cure. "It
was," says May, "a measure, at once bold, comprehensive, moderate and
constitutional. Popular: but not democratic:--it extended liberty,
without hazarding revolution. In 1850 the representation of the country
was reconstructed on a wider basis. Large classes had been admitted to
the franchise: and the House of Commons represented more freely the
interests and political sentiments of the people. The reformed
Parliament, accordingly, has been more liberal and progressive in its
policy than the Parliaments of old, more vigorous and active; more
susceptible to the influence of public opinion: and more secure in the
confidence of the people."
Here let us leave the history of English political corruption and the
remedy which was found in a fairer representation of the people. In
truth, we might well have left it sooner--if not altogether; for it is
likely to be said that all of this is nothing to the purpose. The South
has before her the practical problem of dealing with some millions of
Negroes, to the solution of which, the experience of the English people
furnishes no aid. Once more, then, we must consider the actual situation
in this country to-day.
The Negro problem has been stated: What does justice to the Negro
demand? Approaching our subject from this point of view, we may try to
conclude:--
1st. What justice _does_ demand; and
2nd. What the Negro must do to get it.
What, to begin with, is the answer of the South to the former? It is
familiar to us all and would seem to be the nearly unanimous voice of
the Southern people. The Negro, they say, is ignorant, lazy and vicious.
Slavery, so far as its effect on the slave is concerned, was a
beneficent institution, raising him from his previous savagery to a
plane of humble usefulness. There, however, his incurable inferiority
destines him forever to remain. This, the South insists she has settled
in wisdom and kindliness. The North, so runs her speech,
misunderstanding the South and the Negro, unjustly forced on the Civil
war, to compel her to change her domestic institutions. But that
attempt, foredoomed to failure, has resulted in nothing more than the
abolition of slavery, and a cruel loss of life and property, partly
compensated for by the consequent revelation of her boundless resources
of courage, loyalty and united resolve. Slavery, while a Southern
institution, was not a bond of perfect union; but upon the platform of
black inferiority and white domination, every Southern man has his foot
squarely planted. Her answer, therefore, to all criticism is to point
with pride to the solid South.
How often are we called upon to see with pain and wonder that opinions,
theories, even the mind itself is shaped by actions. Nature, aiming at
preservation of life, is quick to heal all possible wounds, to reconcile
warring impulses, to gloss and beautify deformities, and even to conceal
dangers and snares. She gives men language to justify their misdeeds,
teaches them how to embalm their errors in the secretion of their
intellects, and even preserves the lying epitaphs which they inscribe
over the remains of their vanity and pride. To change an opinion, it is
necessary commonly to change a course of action, and until the life of
the South changes, there seems no reasonable expectation that her
opinions will change. Disfranchisement is but a symptom of the diseased
Southern body politic, and who can tell whether the surgeon's knife will
not reach the sources of life itself in seeking for a cure.
Sufficient then to herself,--wholly insufficient, false, and cruel to
us, is this answer. If there were but these two parties to the cause,
there would be no need to consider it. There remains, however, the still
hesitating, ever-divided public opinion of the North--now the judge in
the Freedmen's case. It is fitting that in her court, our replication
should be boldly made. There we proclaim that the South is not doing
justice to colored men.
The Negroes, say Southern men, are ignorant, lazy, vicious,--a perpetual
menace to the rule and order of white men. Is this believable? Did God
so make the world that after three thousand years of progressive white
civilization;--in a country where there are sixty millions of white men,
entrenched in their possession of armies and navies, wealth, power and
endless resources of trained intellect;--that nine millions of colored
people, rich in nothing but their sufferings, threaten to put the bottom
on top? And if chance rules the world, and ignorance, laziness and vice
are as likely to prevail as knowledge, industry and virtue, we may as
well believe that ignorance and laziness and vice underlie white
civilization and supremacy. No, we may confidently answer: this is not
believable. Either these nine millions of colored people are not
ignorant, lazy and vicious, or there are no grounds for the fear that
they can for an hour put into danger the continuance of white
domination, even in the blackest portion of the black South.
There is indeed proof obtainable that they are neither ignorant, lazy
and vicious, nor a menace to rule and order. If they were near neighbors
of the brutes would the elaborate defensive preparations be necessary
which the South continues feverishly to make? Do the savages of Africa
enact disfranchising clauses to keep apes and monkeys out of their
political affairs? If ignorance so submerges the black man, why does not
the Massachusetts principle of protecting the ballot prevail in the
South? Why is it necessary to require the voter to read, yes, and
_interpret satisfactorily, any_ clause in the state constitution?[4] If
sloth curses the Negro with unfruitfulness, why require property to the
assessed value of $300? If the assessed value be two thirds of the real
value, this means that nearly $500; if one third, then nearly $1000 is
fixed as the minimum possession of the black voter. Does this precaution
point to shiftlessness? If viciousness be indelibly stamped upon his
nature, why not rely upon his disfranchisement for crime to eliminate
the colored voters? Are the white juries not to be trusted to condemn
the accused? Are the leased convicts not worth their cost of keeping? It
has been more than once said that 90,000 of the 90,000 colored people in
the District of Columbia are criminals. If the same proportion maintains
elsewhere, what more is needed to accomplish the desired end?
[4] The requirement that the voter be able to read (or write) _and_
interpret satisfactorily, in the Virginia registration requirement
before Jan. 1, 1904, is an advance upon the earlier clauses, which
left the alternative. I am not sure but that it reappears in the
Maryland law not yet in operation. It is an interesting fact that
it was _Senator Daniels of Virginia_ who once called the attention
of the Senate to the injustice done the South by Senator Spooner's
assertion that voters were, without alternative, required to
interpret passages from the Constitutions.
Yet disfranchisement for ignorance, for thriftlessness, and vice all
together are acknowledged to be insufficient, and resort must be had
again to manipulation, juggling, and confessed dishonesty. Rev. Edgar
Gardiner Murphy, Executive Secretary of the Southern Education Board, a
distinguished witness, testifying against interest, says: "The
instrument of discrimination has been found in the discretionary powers
lodged in the board of registrars, by which worthy Negro men, fairly
meeting every test of suffrage have been excluded from registration."(?)
Where the fact is so freely admitted, proof seems wasted, yet abundant
corroboration may easily be had[5].
[5] The following clipping from the Baltimore American, I cannot
refrain from reading:--
"In the recent election the democratic judges of election in many
of the counties proved that they were unable even to count ballots
properly marked, and when it came to putting a reasonable
interpretation on the intention of a voter they were either wholly
ignorant or wholly dishonest. It is perfectly safe to say that not
one-third of the democratic judges who served at the Maryland
election of last week could themselves give an intelligent
interpretation of any section in the Constitution. Many of them do
not even know what the Constitution is, and the man who suggested
that they would take it to be a new kind of drink did not overshoot
the mark. Fine professors of constitutional history these men would
make!"
The fact as well as the extent of disfranchisement is revealed by the
statistical summaries:--
*STATISTICAL SUMMARIES*
_TABLE_ 1
----------------------------------------
ADULT MALE OR COLORED VOTING
POPULATION, 1900, ESTIMATED AT 1 IN
4.3.
----------------------------------------
Virginia 660,722 / 46,122.
4.3 =
----------------------------------------
Nor. Car. 624,469 / 127,114.
4.3 =
----------------------------------------
South Car. 782,321 / 152,860.
4.3 =
----------------------------------------
Alabama 827,307 / 181,471.
4.3 =
----------------------------------------
Mississippi 907,630 / 197,936.
4.3 =
----------------------------------------
Louisiana 650,804 / 147,348.
4.3 =
----------------------------------------
Total 4,453,251.
----------------------------------------
_TABLE_ 2
------------------------------------------------------
CENSUS OF NEGROES BEFORE PASSAGE OF REVISED
CONSTITUTIONS.
------------------------------------------------------
Virginia 1900 115,865 (T.Al.)
------------------------------------------------------
Nor. Car. " 133,081 "
------------------------------------------------------
South Car. 1892 13,384 "
------------------------------------------------------
Alabama 1900 55,512 Pres.
------------------------------------------------------
Mississippi 1888 30,096
------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana 1888 30,701
------------------------------------------------------
_TABLE_ 3
------------------------------------------------------
CENSUS OF NEGROES AFTER PASSAGE OF REVISED
CONSTITUTIONS.
------------------------------------------------------
Virginia 1904 47,880 (W. Al.)
------------------------------------------------------
Nor. Car. " 82,442 "
------------------------------------------------------
So. Car. 1900 3,579 Pres. (T.)
------------------------------------------------------
So. Car. 1904 2,554 Pres. (W.
Al.)
------------------------------------------------------
Alabama 1904 22,472 (W. Al.)
------------------------------------------------------
Miss. 1900 5,753 Pres. (T.
Al.)
------------------------------------------------------
Miss. 1904 3,189 Pres. (W.
Al.)
------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana 1900 14,234 Pres. (T.
Al.)
------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana 1904 5,205 Pres. (W.
Al.)
------------------------------------------------------
_TABLE_ 4
----------------------------------------------------
REGISTRATION OF COLORED VOTERS. (Newspaper
estimate.)
----------------------------------------------------
State Literate _Registered_
----------------------------------------------------
Virginia equal 69,358
----------------------------------------------------
North Carolina 59,625 _"Less than
6,000"_
----------------------------------------------------
South Carolina 69,242
----------------------------------------------------
Alabama 73,474 _"Hardly
2,500"_
----------------------------------------------------
Mississippi 92,605
----------------------------------------------------
Louisiana 57,086 _"1,147"_
----------------------------------------------------
_TABLE_ 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------
REPUBLICAN VOTE IN THE SIX STATES; VOTE AFTER DISFRANCHISEMENT
SCORED. (World Almanac of 1904.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
YEAR VA. NORTH SOUTH ALA. MISS. LA.
CAR. CAR.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1872 93,468 94,783 72,290 90,272 82,175 59,975
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1876 76,093 108,419 92,081 68,230 52,605 75,315
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1880 83,639 115,874 58,071 56,178 34,854 38,016
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1884 139,356 125,068 21,733 59,144 43,509 46,347
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1888 150,438 134,784 13,736 57,197 30,096 30,701
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1892 113,217 100,846 13,384 9,197 1,406 26,563
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1900 115,865 133,081 3,579 55,512 5,753 14,234
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1904 47,880 82,442 2,554 22,472 3,189 5,205
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1872, 1876, Va., N.C., S.C., Ala. (Tribune Almanac of 1896.)
1872, Louisiana (World Almanac.)
1892, Louisiana (Republican and Populists.)
1892, N.C.; 1900, 1904 (Due to Populists.)
Every fresh barrier erected in the South simply publishes to the world
the weakness and inefficiency of those already raised. Each time
dishonest methods are newly justified, and violent declarations,
applauded, fresh evidence is given that these Southern men cannot on its
merits win their case. The policy of white domination is stripped to
unblushing nakedness, and confident of the fear of those who remained
for two hundred years enslaved, the South narrows the issue to one of
physical courage, inviting the Negro to wrest from her the power, which
stands between him and justice, freedom, happiness. _It is not then in
the ignorance, laziness, and vice of the Negro, that the white South
trusts, for the continuance of her policy, but in his defencelessness._
_To these Southern men, we can make but one reply. Unmistakably our
courage is the issue._ But before considering how best to treat their
sinister challenge, let us answer to the Republican party the question:
What does justice to the Negro demand? Our reply is simple,--the
fulfillment of the promise, which was treasured up in the hearts of four
million men as they passed through the doors of slavery into the light
of freedom;--the promise, which they have left to their children as
their one priceless inheritance: "The guarantee by Congress of equal
suffrage to all loyal men at the South was demanded by every
consideration of public safety, of gratitude and of justice, and must be
maintained"--this was the promise of the Republican party in 1868. The
freedman appeals to the creator of his political rights, as Tennyson to
the Creator of his being:--
Thou wilt not leave us in the dust;
Thou madest man, he _knows_ not why;
He thinks he was not made to die;
And Thou hast made him,--Thou art just.
Is it then fair to leave to us the vindication of the Reconstruction
policy against men of the South, the North and even influential members
of the party's own councils? Must we meet the charge that the Republican
party was moved by revenge and folly, and prove that there was no other
way to secure the foundation of freedom, which hundreds of thousands had
died to win? Were those terrible years of death a mere night over the
gaming table, with two haggard players, 'breaking even' at dawn? Is it
left to us to rescue from their own sons the fame of the heroes of the
war against slavery and restore the honorable inscriptions recorded on
their tombs? When men talk of 'the greatest error of Reconstruction,'
has the murder of Lincoln no claim to the place? Does not John Wilkes
Booth better merit derisive canonizing than "Saint" John Brown? If it
was irony for the "Reconstruction" legislatures to impose heavy taxes
upon a people who had just emerged from a ruinous war and by bonded
indebtedness extend the obligation to future generations, was it not
also irony to punish and re-enslave by vagrancy laws the men who without
an acre or a dollar were now _called_ free?
And if it _was_ hate, and revenge, and folly, which brought about the
'War Amendments,' can they be honorably withdrawn now? Is there no
doctrine in law, which forbids one's renouncing an act after he has
profited by it? But could the elections have been won and the policies
maintained without the aid of the colored voter? Is there need of a
statute of limitations to stop a political party from withdrawing the
promises upon which it has encouraged millions of trusting people to
build for forty years? Can it be honestly claimed that three-fourths of
the States of the Union gave the ballot to the slave just out of the
slave pen, with the implied condition that if he failed to prove himself
able from the outset to resist temptation to childish indulgence and
childish dishonesty, seduced as he was by the Northern men whom
gratitude bade him trust and follow, he should lose it forever? Is this
the Eden where we met our "fall?" A sober Anglo-Saxon definition of
justice is given by Sidgwick: "Justice is realized (1) in the observance
of law, and contracts, and definite understandings, and in the
enforcement of such penalties for the violation of these as have been
legally determined and announced; and (2) in the fulfilment of natural
and normal expectations." That the nation's laws will be upheld is the
first requirement of justice.[6]
[6] Here is an instance of a President's devotion to existing laws:
*With the Confederate government fully installed two weeks
before*,--Lincoln said in his inaugural address, that "he had no
purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of
slavery." Is a manual needed in the United States to tell for what
purposes and under what circumstances the law will be enforced?
But yet again are we brought back to the ignorance, shiftlessness and
criminality of the Negro. Their fathers, so say these wiser Northern
sons, could not know of these evils, which to them have been revealed.
No, they could not: had their lives been spared till now there had been
no such evils to reveal. Under freedom's blaze ignorance was sucked up
as the stagnant waters from a pool. With nearly the entire number of
slaves illiterate, with no schools yet built, and only those large
hearted teachers to face the enormous educational work whose
ministrations to the needy were their only pay, more was done in the
years just after the liberation of the slaves, to remove, their
ignorance, than twenty-five thousand teachers in hundreds of schools
have done in the last decade since.[7] Progress in earning and saving
corresponded. And there was little increase of crime. A few years more
of the sunlight and who doubts that these charges could never have been
brought against us! And by whom are we charged with being criminal?
Surely not by the South?
[7] Per cent. of illiteracy.
Colored population in 1860 4,441,830.
Of this about 9 per cent. (488,070) was free--perhaps 1/2 of this
was literate, i.e., about 5 per cent. of the whole.
Equal 95 per cent. or higher.
Colored population above 10 years in 1870 equal whole population,
4,880,009, less 28.7 per cent. equals under 10 leaving 3,464,806.
Above 10, unable to write, 2,789,689.
Equal 80 per cent.
Colored population above 10 years in 1880 4,601,207. Above 10,
unable to write, 3,220,878.
Equal 70 per cent.
Colored population above 10 years in 1890 5,328,972. Above 10,
unable to write, 3,042,668.
Equal 57.1 per cent.
Colored population above 10 years in 1900 6,415,581. Above 10,
unable to write, 2,853,194.
Equal 44.5 per cent.
Is it credible that our millions lived under the benign influence of
slavery, almost without crime and continued even after the Emancipation
Act to live peacefully and honestly:--and then, upon the passage of the
14th Amendment dropped suddenly from this moral zenith? Such sudden
transformations are not natural: either slavery made the criminality of
the African: or held it in a grip barely strong enough to prevent its
issue in acts of violence: or, else this record of crime is false. One
of these three explanations, we cannot choose but accept. The South at
least, cannot admit the first, for slavery, they declared, even before
God at His Altar, to be a benign institution; neither can they admit the
second, for it, too, is inconsistent with the gentleness and benignity
of slavery. But will they admit the third? "Nine tenths of the illicit
gains," says James Bryce, speaking of Reconstruction, "went to the
whites." Into like parts, Woodrow Wilson divides the responsibility and
the discredit. "Negroes," he writes, constituted the majority of their
electorates, but political power gave them no advantage of their own.
Adventurers swarmed out of the North, to cozen, beguile and use them....
They gained the confidence of the Negroes, obtained for themselves the
more lucrative offices, and lived upon the public treasury, public
contracts and their easy control of affairs. For the Negroes there was
nothing but occasional allotments of abandoned or forfeited land, the
pay of petty offices, a per-diem allowance as members of the
conventions, and the state legislatures, which their new masters made
business for, or the wages of servants in the various offices of
administration. Their ignorance and credulity made them easy dupes. A
petty favor, a slender stipend, a trifling perquisite, a bit of poor
land, a piece of money satisfied, or silenced them." This is the record
of crime until the quickly passing day of freedom was ended. And if
crime has increased since, so presently will ignorance increase and
idleness unless their growth is checked by the restoration of freedom
and justice and hope. Punishment will fail to stop the growth of
idleness, vice and crime, as it has always failed, and if brutal
punishments are next resorted to when milder ones have failed, one
sickens at the prospect. Can Southern, abetted by Northern men strew the
earth with the seeds of accursed slavery, bastardy and treason, secret
conspiracy, callous, sneering fraud and the brutality of the mob, and
think to stop by lynching the harvest of black duplicity, bred of fear,
and black criminality, bred of misery and hate,--when they have gathered
enough of the fruits to make an exhibit of Negro vice? The departure of
lynching waits for two events: the breeding of the animal out the most
wretched Negroes until they find greater satisfaction in something
higher than sensuality and revenge; and the breeding of savage cruelty
out of the white man until he can find pleasure in something more humane
than torture by fire. As our counsellors bid us turn our attention to
the dark side of our life, we bid them turn theirs from it. Your boasted
civilization on its under side is but a progress from rape to adultery,
from brute to devil. The savage honors the brute and tortures the devil;
the civilized man tortures or crushes the brute and honors the devil.
There is a pitcher plant of California, which is so described: Above a
funnel shaped stem, it flaunts a crimson banner. The hood of the flower
is transparent, so that the wary are caught even in their efforts to
flee. From the mouth downwards the walls exude intoxicating sweets but
multitudinous hairs, all pointing downward, lower the victim farther
with every struggle. At its bottom a charnel heap, poisoning the air.
Such plants flourish amidst civilization, and millions are their
victims, who debauch their appetites until their intellects shrink to
the size of their already shrunken consciences, and they are helpless to
do anything but die. Liberty _is_ perilous, a very 'valley of the shadow
of death,' but the history of every nation which has lived and died
teaches us that the danger of a false step is even greater near the end
of the journey than at the beginning. Egypt, Assyria, Judea, Greece,
Rome--the history of every nation is a light-house marking a _reef_ in
the harbor of humanity.
When Cain had killed Abel, he hid the body, and when God called,
replied, "Am I my brother's keeper?" A chill foreboding comes over us
with these Northern doubts of the wisdom of Reconstruction, and we
cannot refrain from wondering if the North still retains the sense of
duty of 61; if the North can do, can even will to do justice. And here
let us turn from our first question: What does justice to the Negro
demand? To the second: What can the Negro do to get justice? My end has
been reached if there is felt more than before the need of answering the
latter question.
Underlying the civil laws of the nation are certain high ideals. The
fidelity of the nation to these is measured by the quality and the force
of public opinion. Just as long therefore as the republic endures, the
executive, legislative and judicial powers will obey the people's will.
To this oracle the rulers have again appealed, and its answer has been
an expression of renewed and increased confidence in the Republican
party. The hour of the new administration has almost come, and the
message may be now on its way to the country that the party pledges are
to be redeemed. It may be that there are brighter days before us; but
if, as in the past, we stand on no securer footing than two men
wrestling on a steep and icy hill-side, where both roll over and over,
and there is no chance between throwing and being thrown,--then it
matters not whether we appeal to President, or Congress, or Supreme
Court; to the 14th or 15th amendment, for the righting of our wrongs.
Congress is empowered to enforce the 14th and 15th amendments by
appropriate legislation. Such legislation has been enacted and by one
President, at least, enforced. But, now, it is held that it must be
shown that the amendments are being violated, and this cannot be done
until the Supreme Court fully interprets them. What a mockery it has all
become! Insolently, sneeringly, the violators of the plain intent of the
law rise from their seats in Congress and demand how far they are going
to be obliged to walk around these Amendments instead of kicking them
aside. By law, or by force, colored men are being deprived of the right
to hold office; by law or by force excluded from the jury; by law or by
force sent into slavery for crimes of which they were convicted by these
juries from which they are excluded; by law or by force, they are being
disfranchised. The alternative is clear. Southern men do not evade it.
The revised Constitutions stand boldly for disqualification by law.
Southern Congressmen in debate as boldly proclaim the force. More
cautiously Mr. Murphy testifies to the same effect, denying that "the
abuse of discretionary power by the registrars of elections,--an abuse
which the State permits, but which the State does not necessitate or
prescribe, brings the State within reach of the penalties of the
Constitution."
If not by law then the Constitution is nullified by force, and it
becomes the duty of Congress to maintain it. But is Congress so near the
performance of this obligation that we can profitably advise as to the
method? Shall we say that candidates for Congress, by force or fraud
elected, shall be refused their seats or that an election bill shall be
passed, guaranteeing just laws; or that the penalty clause of the 14th
Amendment shall be first enforced? At least, we had better wait until
the House has reversed the policy outlined by its Committee on
Elections, whose concluding words in the Dantzler-Lever case follow:--
"However desirable it may be for a legislative body to retain
control of the decision as to the election and qualification of
its members, it is quite certain that a legislative body is not
the ideal body to pass judicially upon the constitutionality of
the enactments of other bodies. We have in this country a proper
forum for the decision of constitutional and other judicial
questions. If any citizen of South Carolina who was entitled to
vote under the constitution of that State in 1868 is now
deprived by the provisions of the present constitution, he has
the right to tender himself for registration and for voting, and
in case his right is denied, to bring suit in a proper court for
the purpose of enforcing his right or recovering damages for its
denial.
"That suit can be carried by him, if necessary, to the Supreme
Court of the United States. If the United States Supreme Court
shall declare in such case that the "fundamental conditions" in
the reconstruction acts were valid and constitutional and that
the State constitutions are in violation of those acts, and
hence invalid and unconstitutional every state will be compelled
to immediately bow in submission to the decision. The decision
of the Supreme Court would be binding and would be a positive
declaration of the law of the land which could not be denied or
challenged.
"On the contrary, the decision of the House of Representatives
upon this grave judicial question would not be considered as
binding or effective in any case except the one acted upon or as
a precedent for future action in the House itself.
"A majority of the Committee on Elections No. v doubt the
propriety in any event of denying these Southern States
representation in the House of Representatives pending a final
settlement of the whole question in proper proceedings by the
Supreme Court of the United States. Some of the members of the
committee believe the "fundamental conditions" set forth in the
reconstruction acts to be valid and the constitutions and
election laws of these States to be in conflict with such
conditions, and hence to be invalid.
"Some of the members of the committee believe the "fundamental
conditions" set forth in the reconstruction acts to be invalid
and the constitutions and election laws of the States claimed to
be in conflict with such conditions to be valid. Some members of
the committee have formed no opinion and express no belief upon
the subject.
"Your Committee on Elections No. i therefore respectively
recommend the adoption of the following resolution:
"'_Resolved_. That Alexander D. Dantzler was not elected a
member of the Fifty-eighth Congress from the Seventh
Congressional district of South Carolina, and is not entitled to
a seat therein.'"
If not by force then the Constitution is nullified by law, and the
Supreme Court must be looked to to maintain its vigor. Turning to the
Supreme Court, what do we find to be its answer? In the following words,
the Court concludes in the case of Giles vs Teasley, (the 4th Alabama
case) decided Feb. 23d, 1904:--(from this decision Justice Harlan
dissented.)
"It is apparent that the thing complained of, so far as it
involves rights secured under the Federal Constitution, is the
action of the State of Alabama in the adoption and enforcing of
a constitution with the purpose of excluding from the exercise
of the right of suffrage the Negro voters of the State, in
violation of the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States. The great difficulty of reaching the political
action of a State through remedies afforded in the courts, State
or Federal, was suggested by this court in _Giles v. Harris,
supra_.
"In reaching the conclusion that the present writs of error must
be dismissed the court is not unmindful of the gravity of the
statements of the complainant charging violation of a
constitutional amendment which is a part of the supreme law of
the land; but the right of this court to review the decisions of
the highest court of a State has long been well settled, and is
circumscribed by the rules established by law. We are of opinion
that plaintiffs in error have not brought the cases within the
statute giving to this court the right of review."
Far be it from me to imply that the Supreme Court will never decide the
State constitutional clauses to be in violation of the national
constitution; but as Von Holst has said: "The wit of man is not equal to
the task in the shaping of political life of inventing forms which may
not be employed as weapons against their own legitimate substance or
contents." The law, it might be added, without strong-siding conscience,
is a mere magician's handkerchief, and surely we can no longer think of
ante-election promises embodied in the Republican party platform as
binding obligations.
To those who ask: how long shall men wait for justice? I can only
answer: Wait we must, but we need not idly wait. Our future is largely
our own to make. Our radius of activity is slowly enlarging. Our daily
question: what shall we do? settles into a demand for a defined policy.
A bitter and perplexed,--What shall I do?--we are coming to find "worse
than worst necessity." Mere agitation, we know will not suffice. The
country is not floating upon a rising tide of indignation at the
unjustness of our treatment, as it was fifty years ago. And even if the
doing of justice hung upon the casting of a die, I do not know why the
throw should be the higher for violent shaking of the box. Some sort of
planning of our future and united effort of at least a few to realize
their plans is indispensable.
Resolved, therefore, that we strive for all happiness whatsoever, which
may be fairly won. A good name and a level glance from those around us
are essentials of happiness. If that is social equality, then, resolved
that we strive for social equality. "This," says Cable, "is a fool's
dream." If so let us not shrink along with Christ, to be called fools.
Once past slavery there is no insuperable barrier between us and
freedom. Where is this line between civil and private rights? Is not the
path from one to the other continuous? Workshops and offices, public
conveyances, the theatre, hotels and restaurants, apartment-houses, the
boarding table, barber-shops and bath rooms, the public school and
college, the scientific society, the church, the alumni dinner, the
church sociable--in city, town and village:--what are these but the way
to the home?[8] There is an upward slope from slavery, where a man is a
thing, to freedom, where a man is a man. Millions, the better part of
mankind, live and die on the hill-side; but all push on, as long as hope
and manhood survive. That those above should acknowledge the brotherhood
of those below and descend to help them is not to be generally expected;
for that requires such love of their fellows as few possess. It _is
foolish_ then to _demand_ the concession of social equality; but it is
quite as _cowardly_ to give up obtaining it, as long as an upward way
exists. That the path is open is proved by the cry of those who hate us:
Turn the hill-side into a precipice,--slavery is the only alternative to
equality; build an unscalable wall of caste founded upon the color of
the skin, the lowest white man by law and force raised higher than the
highest black. Yes, the first of all our resolutions must be this one,
to strive for social equality.
[8] That public conveyances come within the social sphere is asserted
by Burgess: Reconstruction and the Constitution pp. 150----
"During the winter and spring of 1867-8 the work of these
conventions went on under the greatest extravagance and
incompetence of every kind. (The constitutions which came from them
provided for complete equality in civil rights, and *in some cases,
in advantages of a social character, such as equal privileges in
public conveyances etc."*)
Not only, however, our indomitable instinct, but an urgent reason makes
this our foremost consideration. National responsibilities, great civic
or industrial responsibilities we are as yet cut off from. Through
_private relations then we must educate ourselves to the realization,
that only through the just performance of duties can true rights be
won_. As we perform our trust over a few things will we perform our
trust over many. Already we are reminded that our claims as individuals
are mixed with those of the mass of our people. In vain we urge our
greater culture or refinement, we are judged by the average of our race.
In our own interest then, if not from a higher motive, we must turn to
the lifting of our fellows. Our solidarity is already great: let us hold
to it and increase it. Far from being a curse it is a people's greatest
blessing. Yet we are losing it; our fellow sympathy and active
helpfulness are not as great as were our fathers'. This is of crucial
importance, since our best chance of winning friends among the women and
poor of the other race is by justice to the women and poor of our own.
And it is the women and the poor of the other race that we need most to
win: for it were hard to say which is the greater obstacle to our
progress, those left behind among the race ahead, or those left behind
among our own. We must face sex inequality and class inequality among
ourselves, _lest we bitterly denounce others' injustice when the same
spirit of uncharitableness is deep buried in our own natures_.
Why is there such intense emphasis placed upon this issue of social
equality? Largely because it arouses the jealousy of the white woman and
the white poor. She, with her heart full of fear and distrust, is the
first to shut the door upon the stranger. The next step after being a
slave is wanting one; and she, who has been for untold ages in forced
servitude to man clings jealously to that social order which provides a
place for another more to be pitied than she. She, it is who holds the
keys of the home, and with them, of church, school, restaurant, theatre
and car.
And with women are joined the poor. _They_ bar our way to industrial
employment; they stand guard over the polls. Why? Because they have
learned uncharitableness in the school of bitter experience; because
they, who have themselves never known aught but inequality, cannot even
_think_ of an even balance between men. _Of little avail, then, the
wisdom and bounty of the few enlightened, when the serried ranks of the
masses bar our upward way_.... As each occasion of hardship or slight
works upon them,--high prices made by monopoly, failure of strikes, the
miseries of war, unequal laws, the scorn of the rich and
well-born,--they turn and empty the full reservoir of their discontent,
through the ever open vent of race hatred upon any that are weaker than
they. And ever and again the crafty among the ruling class, discovering
this means of averting danger to themselves make haste to profit by it.
The greater our show of progress,--the more active the resentment of
these classes of those above us becomes. Upon the removal of this
antagonism much of the welfare of the Republic as well as our own
depends, and I know of no other way to accomplish it than through
fairness to the women and poor of our own race. Then those just ahead
will see that they have no cause to fear that among us are to be found a
new set of masters to make fresh multitudes of slaves. We cannot, then,
afford to go on, confident that justice and wisdom will prevail; for the
best among ourselves know how difficult it is to be just and wise. Let
us who know the way to justice and can follow it, but strive to do so,
and others, and yet others will be drawn into the current until its
pressure becomes too great to resist.
Resolved, secondly, that we will continue to form party ties from
fundamental principle and not momentary prospect of advantage. Last of
all classes, can we afford to consider trimming our political sails to
catch a chance breeze. Before it can even be granted that we hold the
actual balance of power, this opportunism must have become our settled
policy,--else we are _not_ the most precarious body of voters. But
suppose we were able to bargain for our vote, how wise would it be to do
so? Can our voters afford to indulge in a prospect of profit to be
obtained from their franchise? No, beyond question, our position is yet
too insecure to warrant our driving a bargain with the Republican party,
backed by the threatened withdrawal of our ballots. For not only would
an artificial value, given to our vote because it was pivotal,--which,
to repeat, it could only be if it were the most precarious,--double its
venality, but the likelihood of our being put off with mere promises
would be increased. Would not the prize be made just tempting enough to
keep us vainly hoping? Would the rich with all their abundance do more
than "rub our chains with crumbs?" We have all to fight to keep up our
faith in the Republican party and its fidelity to the pledges of forty
years, but all our political funds are invested with it, and unless in
pursuit of some better principle than gratitude the time has not yet
come to withdraw them.
Resolved, thirdly, that we will contend for the political and social
rights we crave, by modern rules of war, using every protective means we
can, but scorning every dishonorable stratagem. Under the present stress
a line of division is appearing between those among us who believe in
open, and those who believe in secret methods of protection. In spite
however of the merciless fire we are subjected to by the press, which
makes any one a mark, who so much as strikes a match, we will resolutely
oppose secret bodies, secret measures, secret policies. Nothing so
quickly brings out all the cruelty of hatred as fear of secret danger.
Let not the awful power and unrebuked successes of Ku Klux Klan or white
caps mislead us. We must be free from the charge of having suggested
_even_ such means to those whom oppression has made desperate, but for
whom imitation would spell merciless revenge without even the check of
Northern censure. And another evil scarce less results: a premium is
hereby put upon treachery. Temptation is already too great to those
among us who might be induced to betray.
On the other hand, no reasonable precaution should be left untaken. Our
position is hardly yet so perilous that we need seek the mountains,
deserts or swamps for safety. Other protective measures however should
be sought. First among these, is organization, which, however is only
worthful when there is real community of interest and feeling. These it
will be hard to secure without neighborhood and common business
dealings. By such means too, we shall better come under the protection
of the common law, with its broad mantle spread over all contractual
relations. It is hard to get justice wholesale, harder still when one
cannot offer the market price. The earlier resolutions leading up to the
15th Amendment forbade restriction of the franchise on account of creed,
ignorance or poverty. These additions were laid aside before the passage
of the bill. The Civil Rights bill in its earlier stages required
equality in the public schools and the jury service. These failed first.
The best help--this cannot be said too often--is self-help.
Self-dependence will not only strengthen our own defenses, but it has a
value yet higher--it strengthens the Republic. Appealing as we now do to
central authority, embodied in the Republican party, we help
unconsciously to build up centralized power. This disadvantage of our
faithful adherence to that party must be confessed. By striving to
obtain land and independent businesses, and towards municipal political
privileges, we will increase our responsibilities, our interest in good
government and our stake in the democracy of America,--and by so doing
become sturdier defenders of the Republic. To the man _who works_, the
man who _wants and consumes_, in short to every man belong the common
benefits and privileges due to his common humanity; but if we mean to
secure these heights which in the United States only have yet been won,
we must win firm ground to stand on. The law is not grounded in such
principles, he who would fight for the rights of men, must be _more_
than a mere man to get standing in her courts.
By such protective measures we may so shield ourselves from attack, that
if any should wish to destroy us they must first destroy what they have
themselves built. This means much: but who so thoughtless as to suppose
that ownership of land and home, or business interests or even municipal
or other corporate franchises,--with the knowledge needed to maintain
them--are of themselves enough! Who so weak as to trust in mere
segregation, that if we only stay on our side of a high board fence we
will be let alone! What of Africa? What of China? What so absurd as
unguarded wealth? The day of high board fences is passing. While
segregation will supply certain opportunities, which we may profit by,
if we use them as stepping-stones to higher things, it can only do so,
if there is courage to defend what has been won. Without courage no man
can hope to keep anything another covets. _Somewhere in the foreground
of all our policies,--if we are true men and women,--must be the
determination to part with them only at a reasonable price._ Let common
sense, and scorn of dishonesty, or pretence, guide us in moulding them,
but then let us adhere to them. Let all be done in God's name, as does
the man who builds an altar, gathers wood, then cleanses himself from
all impurity before he approaches it to do sacrifice. When these steps
have been taken, we may appeal to the God of justice, and with the
confidence of him who dares ask, and receive an answering sign from
Heaven, strike for the right.
The Negro Vote in the States Whose Constitutions Have Not Been
Specifically Revised--_JOHN HOPE_
So much has been said about almost every phase of the so-called "Race
Problem," so many good things and so many bad things, that we are apt to
believe all has been said that can be said and to wish that if there is
anything that has not yet been said, it may remain unsaid. Certainly
little that is new can be said on the franchise until we have some new
developments. You will get nothing new from me. I am to speak on a
current topic that is as well known to you as to me. Yet it is sometimes
helpful to hear your own thoughts expressed by some one else. With this
possibility of doing a service, I apologize for having consented to
write on the subject of "Negro Suffrage in the States whose
Constitutions have not been Specifically Revised." But even here I feel
unable to speak about all these States and prefer to confine myself to
my own state, for of this I may speak with the assurance that comes from
contact.
The State of Georgia probably shows as little revulsion and reversion of
sentiment and law as any distinctly Southern state, except perhaps
Texas, since the Reconstruction period. Republican rule was short lived
and, while it remained, was less aggressive and revolutionary than in
other states. The population has been fairly evenly divided between the
two races with a majority always on the white side. The agrarian class
has been less powerful than in some Southern states and the ignorance of
both races has been rather mitigated and softened by centres of
information, towns and cities, less remotely distant from one another
than is the case in several other Southern states, railroads and
factories exerting a great influence in this respect. So Georgia may be
taken as a type of those states in which the best things have happened
or rather the worst things have not happened for Colored people.
Of course, in Reconstruction times Georgia Democrats did act harshly,
but my remarks rather have to do with the period after that. For
instance, more than thirty Colored Republicans were expelled from the
Georgia legislature and the state had to have a sort of second
reconstruction before it was finally recognized by the United States
Government.
Georgia had only one Republican governor, and sent to the National House
of Representatives at least one Colored Representative. But for many
years, even this has been a thing of the past. White men have held all
offices, occasionally having the monotony of complexion broken by a
Colored representative from Camden, McIntosh or Liberty county in the
state legislature.
The passing of the Republican party in the state as an aggressive
elective organization has been due to several causes, but so hidden and
studied have two of them been, so free from shotguns, leaving out, of
course, the Ku Klux and Patrollers of the '60's and '70's, that you
cannot lay your hands on these causes so easily as in some other states
where the change has been revolutionary and sudden rather than gradual.
You will notice that I say Republican party, for when the Colored vote
was most effective it was organized by the Republican party. One of the
causes of this passing of the Republican vote was intimidation at the
polls on election day, threats and intimidation before the day in
communities of Colored people, and official rascality in the counting of
ballots actually cast. Probably, as a result of these a third cause
came--the indifference of the state and municipal Republican
organizations to making a canvass for the state and city officers.