Chapter XII: Section 23: "The following persons shall be excluded from (2)

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.

Then the Colored vote began to divide on Democratic candidates and was exceedingly effective, holding the balance of power, as it did, in choosing white Democratic governors, congressmen, state legislators, city and county officers. This went well for awhile, but white office-seekers soon began to fear this Colored balance of power. They wanted their certainty of a majority of the white vote to guarantee their office; so the Georgia legislature passed a law making it legal to have primaries to nominate candidates for office and also throwing such safeguards about the management of primaries as aimed to secure lawful practices on these occasions. Here was a perfectly harmless movement, apparently harmless. The next step was made by the Democratic party assembled in State Convention when it decided that candidates for state and county officers on the Democratic ticket should be nominated by a primary, but leaving the conduct of the primary to the community in which it might be held, provided this should not run counter to the primary law as passed by the State. Here too, was a perfectly fair and harmless provision, apparently fair and apparently harmless. But the way was then open for the primary to take on a local coloring. In communities where the colored vote was an embarrassment, the Democratic party there decided to have a _white_ primary. In one of these communities a colored man that I know went to vote at the primary. He was a "good Negro" a very good Negro, his goodness dating back to the time when the "Yankees" were about to confiscate his master's cotton and he claimed the cotton as his. Even this transaction did not enlarge his cranium, and after saving his master thousands of dollars and gradually amassing a fortune for himself, he still knew how to approach his former master from the kitchen door. Well, this good Negro went to cast his ballot. The courteous man at the polls said: "George, this is a Democratic primary." "Yes," said George, "but I am a Democrat." "Well," said the courteous gentleman, "but George, this is a _white_ primary." This colored man found himself without a Republican for whom he might vote, and was informed that the Democratic party was a close corporation so far as the Colored man was concerned. This is quite interesting when I tell you that white Republicans, avowedly Republicans, have not only been permitted but even requested to participate in the primaries of the Democratic and Populist parties.

The reason for the elasticity of the primary is quite evident, that is, why Colored people are allowed to take part in the primary in one community and not in another, or why they are allowed at one time to vote and at another time in that same community are not allowed to vote. The purpose is to have the Colored voters as a harmless balance of power between the Democrats and any other party that may show strength, that is, to have the Colored man to settle disputes among white people without becoming obstreperous because of this valuable assistance. There were some communities where the Populists used the Colored voter to defeat Democrats and others where the Democrats used this vote to defeat Populists. Of the State as a whole, it may be said that Populism was defeated by the Colored voters espousing the Democratic side. And be it said to the common sense and good reason of many Democrats that this fact is acknowledged and to an extent appreciated by the party now in power--to the extent at least of staving off any further disfranchisement measures thus far.

But the most flagrant high-handedness and palpable confession of purpose on the part of white people with reference to our citizenship rights is to be found in a state legislative enactment that looks to the municipal management of two Georgia towns where the Colored voters are so overwhelmingly in the majority that ordinary subterfuges would not fulfill the requirement. Darien and St. Mary's are two coast towns with a large Colored population. The mayor and aldermen are not elected by the voters in these towns; but, instead, these towns enjoy the unique distinction of being managed by officials appointed by the governor of the State. What is more simple; what more high-handed; what more un-Democratic and subversive of national principles of government than this?

Now let us ask the question: Can the Colored man cast his ballot in Georgia?

In the first place, any party of any race may hold a primary.

Second, any man of any party or race may vote in the _general_ election for any candidate he may wish.

Let us ask next, whether these ballots will be counted? That depends entirely upon whether the need is to count them or destroy them; or furthermore, to count them as ballots for some one for whom they were not cast. The election boards and the management at the polls are not bipartisan and the party in power may do what it chooses.

We raise the question now whether it is for our best interest economically to exercise the franchise? Do men vote to help their economic interests? Are not taxation and other fiscal policies settled by the ballot? May not property be enhanced or lessened in value by voters? Colored people have some real estate and securities, but their practical capital is their labor; yet they have not the least power, the real power, of influencing legislation in reference to a single labor measure that may arise, although in Georgia nearly half the population is colored and in the laboring class the colored people are in the majority. Now suppose, as white union labor in the South grows stronger, it should influence such legislation as would eliminate colored labor where it came into competition with white labor, the colored laborer would be politically powerless to resist this legislation. Now is this a mere idle dream when we reflect that within the past few months a Texas legislator introduced a bill to confine Colored labor to the farm whenever it was found in city and town communities to be competing with white labor.

Then there is another side that really has its argument, effective, though perhaps not very logical. The fact that we are, as a people, laborers and not capitalists, makes us, as any other people similarly placed would be, under obligation to the capitalist who, in our case, are white. The point is made that to enter politics against the wishes of this people would raise such antagonism as to lower our earning power. Hence we are told to keep out of politics until we get a better money basis. Here we stand between two difficulties, staying out of politics might jeopard our earning and entering politics might jeopard our earnings. Many honest and thoughtful white and colored men stand on both sides of this question.

Now, is it educationally best for us to vote? This question requires some amplifying. Do we mean what educational value comes from this training in citizenship? If so, then certainly the value is great. There was a time when we knew conditions in our state and town, but so little influence does a Colored man have in politics now that I do not even know the name of the alderman in my ward, although I am a registered voter, have paid my poll tax and voted for President Roosevelt. I know of nothing more benumbing to us as citizens than this deprivation. Men who are philosophic may consider matters that are not of material concern, but the average person does not load his mind and spend his time with things that, for one reason or another, have no concern for him. Any discussion as to the fitness and honesty of municipal and state candidates hardly touches me, as I know I cannot lift a finger to promote the interests of any one of them. I have no voice.

There is another position from which this question may be viewed and that is whether the advantages from schools would be lessened or increased from participation in politics. It is quite evident that without the ballot any people are suppliant and must beg rather than make a manly demand. But, assuming that the lack of the ballot has become a condition with us, would a demand or threat about our ballot result in a counter threat that if we forced the issue, we should not only be denied our ballot, but that for our arrogance the appropriation for Colored public schools would be cut down and we should receive only what we paid in as our share of the school tax? This too, is no dream; but has actually been considered by colored men as a possible reason for not causing such antagonism as would arise from Colored men endeavoring to enter aggressively into politics again.

What now about fears for disfranchisement such as has been compassed by the revised constitutions in many Southern states? Some one may say that there is no difference between constitutional disfranchisement and that _quasi_ disfranchisement effective for all practical purposes such as we have spoken of as now obtaining in Georgia. There is a tremendous difference. If a wave of civic righteousness should sweep over those states still without constitutional disfranchisement, the primaries would be a very slight embarrassment to those willing to do right by all races alike; while in the states possessing constitutional disfranchisement, the reactionaries would have such means of stopping fair play and honest elections free for all, that they could easily check the purpose of the fair-minded citizens for a long while.

Now, do we really have to fear disfranchisement? I say disfranchisement must at all times be feared and be guarded against as far as it lies within our power in an honorable and manly way to hold it off. Just at the time North Carolina and Maryland seemed most secure to us we found ourselves deprived of our rights; and it may be safely stated that whenever on a specific occasion the Colored vote exerts the balance of power over any considerable area, there disfranchisement may be feared. We need to fear disfranchisement because it is founded upon the spirit of injustice and that same spirit fosters it. So palpable is this, that the South bewails the fact. Governor Warfield in speaking about the repeal of the Fifteenth amendment says: "The privilege to vote could then be bestowed without respect to the expedient of unwise constitutional amendments that strain the conscience of our best people and arouse criticism." Yet the repeal of the Fifteenth amendment would not relieve those apostles of disfranchisement of the odium of violating the spirit of truly American democracy and of setting at naught that mighty decision on human rights that was rendered by the bloody arbitrament of war--Disfranchisement of whatever sort, if designed to embarrass a citizen because of his race, must always "strain the conscience of our best people."

Does Georgia show any signs of the disfranchising spirit? We fear it does. The State Legislature now expects some measure of this sort at each session, and in recent years has not been disappointed, although good sense has thus far triumphed. Then again men in high places, congressmen and at least one of our U. S. Senators from Georgia have begun to say some things that may easily be construed as an advocacy of disfranchisement. It occurs to me that the marked difference between the condition in my boyhood and to-day is this: then the opposition was to Republicans, to-day it is to Negroes. It is not a party line, but a race line.

Now the white primary has not done all that was claimed for it. In the first place it has not purified elections. Far from doing away with the purchase and sale of votes, it has, by lowering the supply, relatively increased the demand and brought up the price to a really fancy figure. In the second place it has failed to do that for which it was ostensibly introduced especially to do, namely; to put into office those men most eminently fitted by ability and character to administer the office to which they might be chosen. On the contrary, primary elections have been questioned on the ground of fraud; and the mayor of one very prominent Georgia city has been arrested for drunkenness. Then why is the primary kept? Well, the "fixers" for instance, can more easily fix things. With the Colored man's vote eliminated, the work becomes simplified and even though the amount of money spent illegally may now be more than the total amount in the days when colored as well as white were in the market yet those interested in "fixing" elections can now work with more assurance; and promises may more easily be carried out in the matter of delivering the goods.

For instance, I know of a city election where the voters in one ward were so evenly divided and the candidates had calculated their strength so accurately, that one candidate felt safe in buying three white votes at the rate of one hundred ten dollars. Large corporations may now operate easily in state and city; and some of the most flagrant cases of political jobbery that have been charged against Reconstruction rule are easily equalled by the bare-faced graft and bribery by which large business interests win their way through the assistance of white voters.

What are the possibilities of white aspirants bolting the primary? It is my impression that they are fewer than they were twenty years ago. Judge Gartrell once ran independently against Alexander Stephens for Governor and Judge Emory Speer in his younger days ran on an independent ticket; but such a step on the part of a candidate means outlawry for life. Speer was read into the Republican party, Thomas Watson into the Populist; and since the exile of such giants, the small fry find it easy to be good and not to lift their heads in rebellion, no matter what rascality has compassed their defeat at the Primary. No. It is my impression that the primary is more firmly established to-day than when it was first started. White unity has become white slavery; and while the yoke galls, the white aspirant prefers the yoke to extermination.

But, suppose there should be a general Democratic "rough house" and the colored vote should be called in to quell the disturbance, the Colored voter would have no guarantee that such would mean his return to political standing. On the contrary, it might, as in several states, cause the passage of constitutional disfranchisement that would make his last state worse than the former. Our status is truly unenviable, and the ground on which we stand is exceedingly uncertain.

I desire now to treat more fully what has already been touched upon: Why do the Republicans not nominate candidates for state, county and city offices and make a general canvass? There are two classes of Colored men, those who think the party should and those who think it should not. Unfortunately each of these classes makes severe charges against the other with reference to this matter. I much prefer to accept the explanations of both as honest. The following are at least some of the reasons for not making a canvass: first, it is difficult to get desirable men to accept the nomination; second, it would be still more difficult to secure sufficient funds to pay the ordinary and perfectly legitimate expenses of a campaign; third, the injustice of the party in power would make a fair election an impossibility. Hence a candidate would be doomed to defeat from the moment of his nomination and the fact that he and the party would know this, would make the campaign lifeless, futile and perfunctory. Fourth, the prominence of Colored people in politics and the extra trouble to which they would put the ascendant party might result in still further curtailment of the few rights still left to us.

To all of this the side that clamors or appears to clamor for a ticket says: You assume too much, you see ghosts. Yet supposing the worst, it is far better to keep Colored voters organized for several reasons: first, because the organization gives a valuable training in citizenship that cannot be gained by standing aloof and waiting for better things; second, because if an opening should come suddenly, the Colored people would be better able to decide quickly and intelligently where to throw their strength solidly on one side or another for their own best interests and the interests of the government; thirdly, because a show of opposition to existing political injustice and repression would relieve us of the charge of indifference to our condition and would strengthen the courage of those who might champion our cause--our efficient, powerful champions, who have grown doubtful about our real manhood. I believe in the honesty of both these classes of colored men; and it is exceedingly difficult for a man, living in the midst of these conditions and knowing the temperament, attitude and unlimited power of the white people, to say which one of these two courses is the more rational and helpful to pursue.

What have the Colored people lost through disfranchisement? They have lost the privilege of influencing legislation, since the legislator feels under no obligation to them. The "Jim Crow" car law, the separate tax bill and almost any other bill may be passed so far as pressure from Colored people is concerned. A very clear case is the public library in Atlanta which is supported by the taxes of all citizens, yet not a single Colored person may enter that library to read or borrow a book. Some months ago Mr. Carnegie offered the city ten thousand dollars for a library for the Colored people on the condition that the city furnish a lot and agree to appropriate one thousand dollars _per annum_ for the maintenance of the library. The whole matter has been tabled and the Colored people have no redress, since their mayor and aldermen were elected without the Colored vote. Do you suppose the city of Atlanta would have refused so paltry a favor, if its city council were dependent upon our vote?

Not only have we lost influence among the law makers but among those who interpret the law and administer justice. Neither judge nor jury has to consult the Colored man's wish. This independence of us makes the court a place of injustice as frequently as of justice, and policemen may be cruel with impunity.

Then too, the chain-gang with its revolting influences on men and women, boys and girls; the lack of Negro reformatories in some places where they do exist for white boys find much of their meaning in the fact that the Colored voter cannot make sentiment and bring things to pass through the ballot. We have had the "Jim Crow" law forced upon us, our public schools have become poorer in equipment and teaching force, and the salary of teachers has been lowered.

In a word, the loss of the franchise has changed our status to such a degree that we no longer demand, but beg and supplicate even for those fundamental needs, without which education and general improvement would be very doubtful.

Now are there some things to be effected that are regarded as of more vital interest to Colored people at present than the ballot? In the face of what has already been said, this seems almost an unnecessary question, since the ballot is no abstract thing, no merely academic theory, but a vital agent in the promotion of improvement and happiness. Yet as obvious as all this seems, when people have already lost the ballot they may ask this question: Are there some things to be effected that are of more vital interest to Colored people at present than the ballot?

I heard a sweet-spirited Colored man say at the conclusion of his remarks one day--he was a college president and is now in Heaven away from this turmoil--well I heard him say: "I have come to the conclusion that all we can do in this country is to take what the white man gives us." An eminent Colored preacher said recently in my hearing: "You can't drive these white folks, you must knuckle to them and you can get anything you want." Within the last two months an interesting white southern clergyman in his exhortation to Colored people to be good Negroes, told them not to get mad about "Jim Crow" cars and to be slow to urge their rights. Said he: "You Colored people are undertaking a heavy task when you attempt to reform the Anglo-Saxon." Now our present needs are numerous and vital, many growing out of the curtailment of privileges, a condition made possible through our lack of the ballot. Many Colored men believe that we can get these needs supplied most quickly and surely by begging and not resorting to a futile ballot; many, moreover, think that the voting would retard the granting of these much needed privileges. On the other hand, others say our condition grows steadily worse and our only redress, our only hope, is in the ballot.

Now what do I believe about all this? I believe that we ought to vote, and I vote on every public question when the privilege is accorded me. I believe that our leaders ought to give us the opportunity to vote and let us stand forth as men, whether successful or not, willing to do all within our power to be full-fledged citizens. Certainly our attitude ought never to allow the white people to say: the Negro cares nothing for the franchise and does not exercise it when he does have the opportunity. What are we waiting for? Not more education, I hope. And here I must remind you that one thing is much over-talked: the forwardness of the Colored child and the backwardness of the white child in the matter of getting an education. Colored children are not being fitted as are white for their responsibilities. A real intellectual awakening is going on among the whites of the South--more and better school houses, better teachers and longer school terms; and the white children are learning with avidity. The Colored children are getting poor school houses, poorer teachers, more poorly paid teachers and shorter school terms; and we cannot change this disparity by begging the state and city. Unless we force better things for ourselves by the ballot or go into our own pockets, the next generation of colored voters will be relatively less prepared for the educational qualification in comparison with the white voter than the Colored voters of to-day. Oh! you say: "Pessimist, looking on the dark side." Away with that contemptible sentimentality and aversion to ugly facts that make some of my people call a man a pessimist every time he lifts a warning voice. I know the white country school house and the Colored country school house. There is a tremendous difference.