Chapter IV: The Criminality of the Negro

The present criminal status of the Negro,—and his criminal record since the Civil War as well,—should cause every member of the race in America to hang his head in shame.

Yet, may it not be that, after all, the Negro is, to a large extent, an irresponsible creature of circumstances, and that his crimes are upon the heads of those who unwisely placed him in a position that he was unable to occupy,—except with injury to all concerned?

Scholars hold that the average citizen of the ancient Athenian Democracy, the greatest of ancient democracies, was as intelligent as the average member of the British Parliament, or of the American Congress. The Negro, however, with all his barbarism and ignorance, totally unrelated to the white man in origin, character, and race, directly after his emancipation, was made a full-fledged citizen in the greatest of modern democracies. The fact is appalling.

Stupidity unsurpassed, unless by the pacifist visionaries of the present day who seek to usher in the millennium by proclamation,—peace treaties, world federations, or leagues to enforce peace. Human nature cannot be changed overnight by edict. When the sun fails to rise wars will cease. It is to be hoped that enough sanity yet remains in the American people to save them from such nonsensical vagaries of sentimental dreamers.

But the Negro, son of a wild and tropical race, content for thousands of years to roam the jungles of Africa, supplied by bountiful nature with all his heart’s desire, failing thus to develop any controlling trait of character, or mental stamina, and although civilizations rose and fell beside him, it meant nothing to him. And even now in the midst of American civilization he is moved to action, mainly, by the gusts of primitive emotion and passion. This is the creature that was expected to take an equal share in the government of the most enlightened and progressive people that the world has ever known.

“Who sows to the wind shall reap the whirlwind.” So to-day all other domestic problems or questions pale before—“What shall be done about the Negro? The mob acts upon it, conventions of learned sociologists discuss it. Every superficial thinker has a solution of the problem,—ready made, but never in good working order. The Negro is such a problem in our society mainly, no doubt, because he represents the chief criminal element,—how criminal, let statistics, by way of comparison, declare:

In the Northern and Western States in 1910, _one_ white person was in a penal institution for every 982 of the white population, and _one_ Negro for every 123 of the Negro population; while in the South, the ratio was _one_ to every 2014 for the white, and _one_ Negro to every 308 of the Negro population. Thus in the North Negroes had eight times their proportion in prison, and in the South six and one-half times. That Negro crime is on the increase is evidenced by the fact that in 1890 the Negroes had hardly six times their proportion in prison in the North, and hardly five times their share in the South.

In this connection statistical tables should be helpful and interesting as well. Table I gives a comparative showing of whites and Negroes in some State penitentiaries. Instead of giving the number of prisoners on hand at a certain time, some prison reports give the number received and discharged during a certain period of time while a few give both. In Table II is given the number of prisoners received by the penitentiaries of a few States during a specified time.

TABLE I

Times the
Number of
Negroes to
State Population in 1910 Number in Penitentiary Whites,
--------------------- ---------------------- Year 1910,
White Negro Year White Negro or Thereabouts
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
{ 1902 201 525 }
Alabama 1,228,833 908,882 { 1910 416 1,976 } 7-
{ 1914 357 2,252 }

{ 1905 291 1,989 }
{ 1910 248 2,300 }
Georgia 1,431,802 1,176,987 { 1914 380 2,692 } 11
{ 1916 412 3,170 }

{ 1901 107 928 }
Mississippi 786,111 1,009,487 { 1913 156 1,552 } 7+
{ 1915 145 1,336 }

{ 1906 354 586 }
Maryland 1,062,639 232,250 { 1910 369 663 } 8-
{ 1915 402 682 }

{ 1910 532 1,236 }
Tennessee 1,711,432 473,088 { 1912 613 1,297 } 8-
{ 1914 651 1,208 }

Arkansas 1,131,026 442,891 { 1906 244 603 } 8-
{ 1912 213 643 }

Texas 3,204,848 690,049 { 1908 1,094 1,987 } 8+
{ 1910 1,119 2,095 }

{ 1904 249 1,143 }
Louisiana 941,086 713,894 { 1910 382 1,663 } 5+
{ 1915 382 1,663 }

Kentucky 2,027,951 261,656 { 1911 603 729 } 9.4
{ 1915 674 726 }

{ 1904 419 52 }
Connecticut 1,098,897 15,174 { 1910 542 63 } 8.4
{ 1914 578 56 }

Kansas 1,634,352 54,030 { 1902 874 299 } 17-
{ 1914 508 269 }

New Jersey 2,445,894 89,760 { 1910 1,049 346 } 9
{ 1915 1,020 329 }

Ohio 4,654,897 111,452 { 1909 1,216 407 } 15-
{ 1911 1,110 417 }

{ 1904 149 5 }
Vermont 354,298 1,621 { 1910 147 8 } 12-
{ 1912 167 13 } 17-
{ 1914 212 13 }

TABLE II[76:1]

Times as
Many
Negroes as
Whites
Convicts Received at Committed
State Population in 1910 the Penitentiary During— in Proportion
-------------------- ---------------------------- to Population
White Negro Year White Negro of Each Race
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
{ Nov. 1, 1912 }
Arkansas 1,131,026 442,891 { to } 606 776 3.4
{ Oct. 31, 1914 }

{ Sept. 1, 1910 }
Alabama 1,228,832 908,882 { to } 587 2,414 6-
{ Aug. 31, 1914 }

{ July 1, 1908 }
N. Dakota 569,855 617 { to } 217 11 43
{ June 30, 1910 }

{ 1906 513 306 }
{ 1909 560 374 }
Missouri 3,124,932 157,452 { 1910 543 303 } 11+
{ 1912 660 389 }
{ 1914 803 378 }

{ Year Ending }
Maryland 1,062,639 232,250 { Nov. 30, 1910 } 129 199 7+

{ Sept. 1, 1908 }
Texas 3,204,848 690,049 { to } 835 1,251 7
{ Oct. 31, 1910 }

{ 1910 } 202 549 }
Louisiana 941,086 913,874 { 1915 } 257 654 } 4-

{ Year Ending } 402 145 }
{ Oct. 31, 1907 } }
Ohio 4,654,897 111,452 { } 14-
{ Year Ending } }
{ Oct. 31, 1910 } 504 169 }

{ Two Years }
W. Virginia 1,156,817 64,173 { Ending } 519 428 15
{ Sept. 30, 1908 }

For the Southern States considered, Table I shows that the number of Negro prisoners around 1910, varied according to the State from five plus times their proportion in Louisiana to eleven times in Georgia. While in the North, the number varied from eight times in Connecticut to seventeen minus times in Kansas. Thus showing that the Negro is everywhere many times more criminal than the white man, and that his criminality is more pronounced in the North than in the South.

That he is discriminated against by the court,—and otherwise,—is sometimes given as a reason for the great criminal showing of the Negro; that for the same kind of crime the Negro gets a much longer sentence than a white man, etc. This is hardly to be held as against the North, and that it is true to any appreciable extent in the South is doubtful, but hard to determine,—absolutely.

As Table I gives the number of prisoners on hand at a certain time and Table II the number committed to prison during a period of time,[77:2] other things being equal, it is clear that if the Negro is discriminated against through the length of sentence imposed on him by the court, it should be shown by a smaller number being sent to prison in proportion to the respective population of the two races in any State than is to be found on hand at a certain time. For instance, at the Maryland and the Texan penitentiaries, according to the above tables, in 1910 the numbers of Negroes on hand were, respectively, eight-minus times and eight-plus times their proportion, while those committed for the same year were seven-plus and seven, respectively. This would seem to indicate that in neither Maryland nor Texas was there but little, if any discrimination against the Negro. But a comparison of the statistics for Arkansas and Louisiana seems to show that the Negro is discriminated against in these States. However, upon further investigation it is found that ninety-one Negroes were sent to the Louisiana penitentiary in 1911 for murder and manslaughter, and thirty-two for shooting with intent to kill, as against thirty white men during the same year for these crimes. Again, in the Arkansas penitentiary in November, 1912, there were 213 white and 643 Negro prisoners. Of the whites but 50 had committed homicide, while 218 of the Negro prisoners were guilty of the crime.

Moreover, one might naturally expect that the whites, on account of greater influence, would be much more likely to secure pardons. It is doubtful if the whites are thus favored to any large extent. Between November 1, 1910, and October 31, 1912, Arkansas granted pardons to 121 whites and 86 Negroes, while during the year ending November 30, 1911, Kentucky pardoned nine white men and eighteen Negroes. If statistics were available from all the States it might be rather conclusively demonstrated that the Negro is discriminated against but little by the courts.

In this connection it may be well also to note the fact that in Ohio fourteen-minus times as many as their proportion (according to Table II) were sent to the penitentiary; in West Virginia fifteen times, and in North Dakota forty-three times their proportion.

A comparison of the number of whites and Negroes arrested a year in some of the large cities is given in the following table:

TABLE III

White, Negro,
Population in 1910 Arrests One One
City ------------------ --------------------- Arrest Arrest
White Negro Year White Negro in in
Every Every
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
{ 1904 6,602 10,954 }
Atlanta 102,861 51,978 { 1909 6,241 11,925 } 16.5 4.5
{ 1915 6,369 10,954 }

{ 1905 21,713 12,323 }
Baltimore 473,387 85,098 { 1909 20,445 11,361 } 23+ 7.5
{ 1915 25,108 15,840 }

Buffalo 421,809 1,906 { 1911 23,983 236 }
{ 1915 30,711 385 } 18- 8+

{ 1907 53,349 4,653 }
Chicago 2,139,057 46,226 { 1909 62,864 4,852 } 34+ 10-
{ 1915 105,119 9,508 }

Charleston, { 1907 1,559 2,631 }
S. C. 27,803 31,069 { 1911 1,734 2,886 } 16+ 11-
{ 1913 2,487 3,185 }

{ 1909 10,887 775 }
Detroit 459,926 5,840 { 1910 13,726 976 } 33.5 6-
{ 1915 19,539 2,121 }

{ 1907 8,324 1,663 }
Omaha 119,580 4,516 { 1910 9,597 2,083 } 12.5 2+
{ 1915 13,091 2,211 }

Philadelphia 1,463,371 85,637 1910 71,825 9,507 20+ 9+

{ 1903 9,529 6,917 }
New Orleans 249,403 89,672 { 1910 15,035 10,052 } 16.7 9-
{ 1913 19,486 11,163 }

{ 1904 20,149 5,375 }
St Louis 645,478 44,541 { 1910 29,746 8,382 } 22- 5+
{ 1913 29,166 8,099 }

Providence, 218,623 5,703 { 1911 11,332 434 } 19.3+ 13+
R. I. { 1912 10,632 470 }

Richmond, { 1904 2,851 3,674 }
Va. 80,879 46,749 { 1907 4,356 5,246 } 22- 8-
{ 1910 3,710 5,893 }

Wilmington, { 1908 3,175 963 }
Del. 78,309 9,162 { 1910 2,933 955 } 26+ 9.6
{ 1911 2,896 979 }

Washington, { 1908 15,985 17,430 }
D. C. 236,128 94,941 { 1910 16,371 17,632 } 14.3 5.3+
{ 1915 17,415 17,716 }

Table III shows that for the cities given, one white person to twenty-one-plus of the white population was arrested during 1910 or thereabouts, but _one_ to eight-minus of the Negro. In the cities of the North one to twenty-three whites were arrested and _one_ to six Negroes; in the South excluding Wilmington, Del., and Washington, _one_ to twenty whites and _one_ to eight for the Negroes. In Detroit: _one_ for every two plus Negroes were arrested.

In this connection, it would seem that a comparison of the jail population of a Northern and a Southern State might be of interest. For this purpose Alabama and Connecticut were selected. In 1910, Alabama had a white population of 1,228,832 and 908,282 Negroes while Connecticut had 1,098,897 whites and 15,174 Negroes.[81:3]

In both Alabama and Connecticut the ratio of whites and Negroes sent to jail during the fiscal year ending September 30, 1914, was about the same, _one_ white to four Negroes.[81:4] However, in Alabama _one_ white person to 216 of the white population as against _one_ to 54 of the Negro, while in Connecticut, _one_ white person to 100, and _one_ Negro to 20 was put in jail.

Again, the four counties of Connecticut embracing the large cities of the State, and having nearly all the Negro population, sent to jail _one_ white to 92 of the white population, and _one_ Negro to 24 of the Negro, or nearly four times their proportion.[81:5] But in the other four counties with an aggregate of 187,058 whites and 1,661 Negroes the ratio was _one_ to 174 for the whites, and _one_ to 64 for the Negroes or hardly three times as many.

Now, taking the three counties of Alabama in which the cities of Montgomery, Mobile, and Birmingham are located, with an aggregate population of 207,295 whites and 182,211 Negroes, _one_ white person to 90 was sent to jail and _one_ Negro to 21, or nearly four and one-half times as many.

Moreover, twenty-two counties with no towns of more than 1000 population each, and having a total population of 293,187 whites and 274,533 Negroes _one_ white to 523 was sent to jail and _one_ Negro to 141, or nearly four Negroes to one white.

Also, in fourteen counties with cities of 1000 to 10,000 population, and a total population of 205,844 whites, and 207,966 Negroes, the races being almost equal in numbers, _one_ white to 400, and _one_ Negro to 75 were sent to jail, or six times the Negro’s share.

Furthermore, six counties consisting almost wholly of white people, having a total population of 119,496 whites and 5,670 Negroes,—had in jail _one_ white to 363 and _one_ Negro to 27, or twelve Negroes to _one_ white person.

Moreover, eight counties of Alabama, with an aggregate population of 41,323 white and 185,222 Negroes, about four and one-half times as many Negroes as whites, _one_ white to 689 were sent to jail and _one_ Negro to 156, or about four and one-half times as many.

In studying the jail statistics of Alabama, whether cities or counties, it soon becomes evident that the criminality of the Negro increases as his proportion to the whole population decreases; in other words, the fewer the Negroes in a given population the more criminal they appear. An examination of Tables I, II, and III will show that this is not only true of Alabama, but true, with scarcely an exception, both North and South. Negro crime seemingly increases in the cities and in the North and the West. So does the crime of the white man increase, although not to the same extent.

* * * * *

In general, the denser the population the more likely is friction to occur, or collisions among its units. But this is not an adequate explanation for the increase of Negro crime. Nor can it be accounted for except in small part, by attributing it to the more complex social environment of the cities and of the North. However, it is not to be doubted that the unstable character of the Negro is easily influenced by the temptations incident to city life. More important, no doubt, is the assumption that where Negroes are few in comparison with the whites, they are more tempted to commit acts of thievery, robbery, and burglary. Again, in the cities, officers of the law are on the watch, consequently more apt to detect and catch a criminal; also, where the Negroes are few they are likely to be held more strictly to the white man’s standard of conduct. However, in some parts of the South, a white man sometimes may be arrested when for the same act a Negro would hardly be bothered. The idea seems to obtain that for certain things allowance must be made for the ignorance of the Negro, but no excuse is made for the white man.

Again, a great deal of the friction between the two races in the South is caused by the resistance of Negro criminals to officers of the law. Not only so, but relatives, friends and other Negroes as well often attempt to shield the Negro criminal in order that he may escape detection and arrest. This is not exceptional but rather of frequent occurrence. It is one of the ways in which the black man shows himself to be an enemy of law and order. He does not seem to realize the attitude in which he places his race in acting thus. Now, where the Negroes form a large part or the greater part of the population, it is much easier for him to aid Negro criminals, and it is often effectively done. But where there are but few Negroes in the population, it is to that extent more difficult for the Negro criminal to escape detection and arrest. These seem to be the main reasons why Negroes appear more criminal where there are but few in the population.

In addition to statistics, a few newspaper clippings may aid one more fully to appreciate Negro criminality.[85:7] It is hardly probable that anywhere in the United States has the Negro, on the whole, had better advantages than in Maryland, Virginia, and Delaware, especially is this true of the Eastern Shore of Maryland. For this reason the following are the more significant:

RESISTING OFFICERS, ETC.

“John E. Goode, a Negro, blew off the top of his head at
Bedford City this morning in _preference_ to _appearing_ as a
witness against Thomas W. Preston, the Negro murderer of M.
D. Custy, a saloon-keeper. . . . Goode was present when the
murder was committed. A Negro family named Davis, relatives
of Preston, are said to have threatened Goode’s life, if he
testified.”[86:8]

A Negro in Chestertown, Md., being tried on three charges of arson, attacks the officers of the court:

“Pointing to the Negro, State’s Attorney Vickers intimated that
he had set fire to the beautiful buildings on the grounds of
the Washington College near Chestertown. Suddenly the Negro
made a leap for the States Attorney, but was stopped by Deputy
Sheriff Brown. The enraged Negro turned and struck the deputy
sheriff a stunning blow under the chin. . . . It required seven
men to quiet the Negro.”[86:9]

* * * * *

“John Carter, the Negro who shot Policeman Elizabeth Faber and
Patrolman George W. Popp on October 17 on the Edmondson Avenue
bridge when they attempted to arrest him died in the city jail
at 3.10 o’clock yesterday morning.”[87:10]

* * * * *

“The final decision in the Brownsville incident is closed
finally and the verdict will give entire satisfaction to
everybody except Hon. Joseph Foraker of Ohio; the Negro
soldiers who shot up the Texas town and their _comrades who
concealed_ the guilt of the bloodthirsty marauders.”[87:11]

* * * * *

“Negro soldiers of the Twenty-fourth United States Infantry
had planned a riot of bloodshed among the white residents of
Houston (Texas) August 23, two days before the deadly attack
which cost the lives of 15 Houston citizens last month,
according to the report of the Civilian board of inquiry which
reported to the Houston City Council to-night. . . .

“The committee says that the undisputed and convincing
testimony of witnesses proves that the Negro soldiers went
forth to slay the white population indiscriminately: that no
Negro was hurt or molested by them, not one Negro house was
fired into, and that the Negroes were warned beforehand . . .
to stay off the streets.”[87:12]

* * * * *

“The police of the Northwestern district are looking for about
25 Negroes who late Saturday night attempted to break down the
front door of the boarding house conducted by Miss Mary Ashten
at 906 McCulloh street.”[88:13]

* * * * *

“Centerville, Md., Jan. 7. The Rev. J. D. Jackson, colored,
pastor of Bethel-African Methodist Episcopal Church, was
arrested and placed in jail here to-day charged with
housebreaking and burglary.”[88:14]

* * * * *

“Middletown, Del.—The Rev. Aaron Gibbs, a Negro preacher, is
being held in $500 bail for court for alleged theft of 280
pounds of meat from the farm of Daniel Ford, near this place.
The meat was recovered at the home of Gibbs by Chief of Police,
Lee Cochran.” . . .

“Another Negro, Arthur Brewington, wanted for theft of meat and
chickens held the whole Smyrna police force at bay for hours,
until his ammunition gave out. He then retreated escaping from
the force into a deep swamp five miles away.”[88:15]

* * * * *

“Seaford, Del., July 3.—Negroes who live in and around
Bridgeville attempted to take the town last night. . . . About
10 o’clock at night the Negroes began firing among themselves,
and Bridgeville being without police protection, was at the
mercy of their revolvers, which were being fired in rapid
succession. The town seemed to be alive with brawling blacks,
and several fights were started in different parts of the town.
At the railroad station a large crowd collected and fired shots
in every direction. At a colored church another crowd got
together, firing desperately among themselves. The citizens
being utterly helpless stayed in their houses behind locked
doors.”[89:16]

NEGROES AT PICNICS AND ON EXCURSIONS

“Federalsburg, Md., Aug. 14. John Henry Lake, a Hurlock Negro,
was killed and Frank Dickerson wounded, perhaps fatally, at a
celebration by Negroes last night.”[89:17]

* * * * *

“Gettysburg, Pa., Sept. 11.—Clara Brown, of Baltimore, colored,
was shot in a brawl here in the course of an excursion and
picnic. Her condition is critical. Three other persons were
also injured. The picnickers had a gay frolic. It is charged
that fifty of them attacked a policeman, and one of them robbed
Robert King of Hunterstown of $35. There were about 7240
excursionists. Gettysburg has made a protest.”[90:18]

* * * * *

“Roanoke, Va., March 29.—Drunken Negroes took charge of an
excursion train between this city and Winston-Salem last night
and as a consequence Sidney Wood of Winston-Salem is dead at
Martinsville, and two-score other Negroes are more or less
wounded. Knives, razors, and pistols played prominent parts
in the melee. . . . The train was stopped several times by
Negroes pulling the bell cord, and the train was cut in two
several times, leaving a number of coaches behind with a second
section following. . . . The three coaches which were cut off
were filled with white people. . . . When the train reached
Bassetts, in Henry County, every Negro in two coaches was
apparently in a fight. The screams of the terror-stricken women
added to the excitement.”[90:19]

NEGROES AT CAMP MEETING

“Smyrna, Del., Aug. 9.—As has been the case yearly for a dozen
years there was a fatal shooting affray at the Negro camp
meeting at Friendship last night. Howard Hollis, a Negro of
Clayton, Del., was shot in both legs during the fight. . . . It
is not known who shot Hollis as bullets were flying thick and
fast during the melee.”[91:20]

* * * * *

“Federalsburg, Md., Sept. 6.—Officers are scouring lower
Caroline County to-day for four Negroes who last night shot up
a Negro campmeeting at Mount Hope, near this town.”[91:21]

* * * * *

“Deputy Sheriff Bruce C. Dean, yesterday afternoon shot and
killed a Negro named Smith at what is known as Henry’s Cross
Roads [near Cambridge, Md., negro] campmeeting. . . . There has
always been more or less disorder; in fact, it is generally
known that fights, cutting affrays, and a general disregard for
the law exists.”[91:22] The Negro who was killed shot at the
deputy Sheriff when he tried to arrest him.

* * * * *

“Salisbury, Md., Aug. 23.—A riot occurred last night at the
Negro campmeeting, on the west side of the county, and Asbury
Waters, 19 years old, was killed, and Clinton Gosless was shot
through his jaw-bone and his chin carried away by a bullet.

“Just at the height of the services one of the local
preachers, was raising his hands in prayer, a colored woman
slipped into the kneeling crowd and pulled a pistol from her
dress folds and fired a bullet into his heart. Waters pitched
forward and died instantly. . . . Immediately after, Sallie
Milburn whipped a pistol from her pocket and blazed away at
Clinton Gosless, the bullet entering his jaw. Gosless is in a
very serious condition with little hope of his recovery.”

Both these accounts were in the same issue of the _Cambridge_ (Md.) _Record_, but the camps were in adjoining counties.

Indeed, Negro camp meetings and bush meetings had become so numerous,—occupied such a large part of the Negroes’ time during summer, caused so much lawlessness among them; and consequently so much expense to the whites, that the Maryland Legislature in 1916 passed a law evidently directed against them, which in part is as follows:

“It shall be unlawful for any person, persons, association or
organization of any kind whatever to hold any camp meeting or
bush meeting within the limits of Talbot, Caroline, Dorchester,
Somerset, Kent, and Worcester Counties without first making
application in writing at least fifteen days prior to the
date of such camp meeting or bush meeting therein. That such
application for a permit as aforesaid, shall be accompanied
by a petition in writing signed by at least twenty-five tax
payers, each of whom shall reside within three miles of the
place where such camp meeting is to be held, and each petition
shall have annexed thereto as a part thereof an affidavit to
the effect that each of the said petitioners are bona fide tax
payers and of their residences within three miles of said place
of such proposed meeting. And whenever the County Commissioners
of any of the respective counties shall have any reasonable
grounds that any lawlessness or disorder will occur, at said
camp meeting or bush meeting, they shall refuse to grant such
permit, and if, after issuing any permit to hold any camp
meeting or bush meeting there shall be lawlessness or disorder
reported to said County Commissioners, it shall be the duty
of said officials to investigate or have investigated by the
Sheriff or other officer of said county, the matter, and upon
proof of said lawlessness or disorder they shall forthwith
revoke said permit and it shall be the duty of the Sheriff,
or other officer of the respective Counties to enforce the
provisions of this act.”

In about the same spirit and for the same purpose, the reduction of Negro crime, a few years ago, the city of Mobile, Alabama, passed an ordinance, an account of which is taken from a Baltimore periodical:[94:23]

“The police department of Mobile, Ala., has established a
curfew law for Negroes. Commencing on the night of July 21, the
law provides that all Negroes must be in bed at their homes by
ten o’clock or be subject to arrest. Any caught wandering at
large after that hour will be locked up. This action is taken
because there is said to be an epidemic of hold-ups perpetrated
by the Negroes. If such a law was enforced in Baltimore it
would decrease the alley fights ninety-five per cent.”

NEGRO IMMORALITY

In connection with Negro criminality it seems pertinent to say something of Negro immorality. Two of the Negro’s most prominent characteristics are the utter lack of chastity and complete ignorance of veracity.

The Negro’s sexual laxity, considered so immoral or even criminal in the white man’s civilization, may have been all but a virtue in the habitat of his origin. There nature developed in him intense sexual passions to offset his high death rate. Then, too, the economic influences which fostered a family life among other peoples were mostly lacking in tropical Africa as nature provided abundantly without effort on the part of man.

Although the regulations adopted by masters for the control of the Negroes during slavery times may have served as a check upon their natural sexual propensities, however, since emancipation they have been under no such restraint and as a consequence they have possibly almost reverted to what must have been their primitive promiscuity. Huffman says that in 1894 more than one-fourth of the colored births in the city of Washington were illegitimate. Many prominent Negroes admit that above ninety per cent of both sexes are unchaste. A negro may be a pillar in the church and at the same time the father of a dozen illegitimate children by as many mothers.

Another Negro failing is lying. One can believe neither layman nor minister, neither criminal nor saint among them. One may occasionally find a truthful Negro,—just as he may find a virtuous or an honest one. Undoubtedly both honest and truthful was the Negro,—an elder in the church,—who refused to partake of the Lord’s Supper, because, as he said, the flour the bread was made of had been stolen.

Some benevolently-inclined men and many religious zealots thought that religion and education was the “Open Sesame” by means of which the “salvation” of the Negro was to come. So they sent him money to build churches and to found great schools. Many, however, are now finding that though the Negro may have religion he has no morality; and that too often his education makes him unwilling to do what he can do and wish to do that for which he is unfitted or for which there is no demand. At present who can tell whether he is going forward or backward. Some one has said that there is going on side by side in the Negro people a minimum of progress with a maximum of regress.

However, the Negro takes great pride in his church, and in his way is intensely religious. The late Booker T. Washington said:

“Of these millions of black people there is only a very small
percentage that does not have formal or informal connection
with some church.”

It is, indeed, likely that more than one-half of the male Negro adults are actual members of church, while not more than _one_ in four or five white male adults have such connection. Notwithstanding such a showing, religion does not seem to have any controlling influence over the life and character of the Negro.

Nevertheless, the Negro enjoys his religion, for he is an emotional animal. It is the emotional element in religion that appeals to him and makes his face to shine. The promise of never-ending pleasure in a world to come may be but faintly comprehended by him, but the fear of a far off punishment deters him but little from crime. He is the optimist of the human race, and lives in the eternal present. He has no sorrows from the past, and no care except for the immediate future. He keeps without effort or intention two injunctions of Scripture: “Visit the sick,” and “have no care for to-morrow.”

He goes to camp meetings or revivals, sings, prays, and shouts until the small hours of the night. He may think he thus pays the Lord His due, even though the next day, if he works at all, he sleeps on the plow-handle, or with half-closed eyes cuts up the tobacco or the cotton.

However, he may be free from the painful necessity to work the next day, if his wife or mother should have just returned from a white neighbor with an “apronful,” even if he did not visit some tempting smoke-house or hen-roost on the way home from his religious revelry.

How can Negro criminality and immorality be lessened? The answer is not easy, and what follows is merely suggestive. Up to the present, what little the Negro has accomplished, in most part has been due to the white blood he has received, or to white direction and sympathy. The Negro is woefully lacking in initiative and persistence. He would be greatly benefited by some sort of probationary oversight. If the Filipinos are not fit for self-government collectively, much less the Negro individually. A great part of them are no more fit to profit by their freedom than so many children. Nothing so promotes health of body and strength of character as regular and persistent industry. To the Negro should be preached the “gospel of salvation” through work. Somehow get him to work six days in the week, instead of working two and loafing four, as many now do. Industrial schools such as Hampton and Tuskegee meet a great need but they touch but few.

If the States had the power to train or even to enforce habits of industry and thrift upon the shiftless, idle, and vicious Negroes it would undoubtedly result in measureless benefit to both white and black. Liberty should not be made a “fetish.” If the Negro has rights that should not be abridged, so have the white people rights and _lives_ that should not be endangered. The law-abiding many have the right to protection from the criminal few—actual or incipient. With the adoption of some such scheme the Negro might gradually cease to be a menace to the white race.

Again, so often the Negro leaders of the Negro race are merely blind leaders of the blind,—entirely lacking in breadth of view, often discouraging in their race what they should encourage and encouraging what they should discourage as the following quotation may indicate:

“‘Make lynching a Federal crime, and stop turning the murderers
over to local authorities who are in sympathy with them,’
demanded Dr. W. T. Vernon, of Memphis, Tenn., before 15,000
Negroes, who were celebrating the twenty-fifth quadrennial
Conference of the African M. E. Church in Convention Hall,
Broad street and Allegheny Avenue, yesterday.”[99:24]

Such talk as this serves to promote Negro crime. If instead of Negro leaders writing articles for magazines and Negro papers, in sermons in Negro churches, and in addresses before Negro conventions denouncing the whites for protecting themselves against Negro crime in their own way, could realize that it is not so much the black skin as what sort of man the black skin covers, that counts, would demonstrate to their black brothers that they themselves are the sinners rather than the sinned against, that they are the transgressors rather than otherwise, they might accomplish much toward lessening Negro crime. If such leaders would use their influence to the utmost to make their race as law-abiding as the whites, and should bring it about, it is hardly likely that then they would need to complain that their race is imposed upon. But if they were, at least, there would be more force in their complaint. But so long as the Negro race commits its present amount of crime, the complaint against unfair treatment is more than childish.

FOOTNOTES:

[76:1] Both Tables I and II have reference to penetentiaries, no account being taken of other penal institutions. The calculations are based upon the census of 1910 and penitentiary reports of the same year, or thereabouts, but some prison statistics for other years are also given.

[77:2] Some State penitentiary reports give the number of prisoners on hand at a certain time, others simply those committed during a period of time, while a few reports give both items.

[81:3] My statistics are based on the census of 1910. The Special Report of the Prison Inspector of Alabama for the year ending September 30, 1914, and the returns of the county jails of Connecticut for the same period. As the white population of Connecticut increased about 225,000 during the previous decade, while the Negroes slightly decreased, I added 70,000 to the white population of 1910 to offset the increase of whites during the three or four years between 1910 and 1914. But as both races increased in Alabama I use the 1910 census for that State.

[81:4] In proportion to their respective population, of course.

[81:5] In order to avoid repetition, unless otherwise indicated, when one white to four Negroes or any such ratio is mentioned, the meaning is this: I divide the white population of the state by the white prisoners for the number of white people to each white prisoner, and divide the Negro population of the State for the number of Negroes to each Negro prisoner, and then divide the white prisoners by the Negro to get the ratio of Negro prisoners to the white.

[85:7] I made no effort to find these. I give here only a few of those taken from _Baltimore Sun_, _Baltimore American_, and refer mainly to Maryland, Virginia, and Delaware. What may be true in these States as regards Negro criminality, is likely to be found intensified farther south.

[86:8] _Baltimore Sun_, Jan. 6, 1910.

[86:9] _Baltimore News_, Oct. 20, 1916.

[87:10] _Baltimore Sun_, Aug. 4, 1915.

[87:11] _Ibid._, April 8, 1910.

[87:12] _Ibid._, Sept. 12, 1917.

[88:13] _Baltimore American_, Feb. 18, 1913.

[88:14] _Baltimore Sun_, Jan. 8, 1917.

[88:15] _Ibid._, Feb. 21, 1917.

[89:16] _Baltimore Weekly Herald_, July 8, 1909.

[89:17] _Baltimore Sun_, Aug. 15, 1914.

[90:18] _Cambridge_ (Md.) _Record_, Sept. 12, 1913.

[90:19] _Baltimore Sun_, March 30, 1910.

[91:20] _Baltimore Sun_, Aug. 10, 1915.

[91:21] _Ibid._, Sept. 7, 1915.

[91:22] _Cambridge_ (Md.) _Record_, Aug. 25, 1913.

[94:23] _Methodist Protestant_, July 28, 1909.

[99:24] _Philadelphia Record_, May 8, 1916.