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, heknowsnot 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 nowcalledfree?And if itwashate, 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.7Progress 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 ½ 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. Libertyisperilous, 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 areefin 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 inGiles 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?8There 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. Itis foolishthen todemandthe concession of social equality; but it is quite ascowardlyto 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, andin 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. Throughprivate 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.Theybar 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 eventhinkof 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 arenotthe 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 suggestedevensuch 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 manwho works, the man whowants 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 bemorethan 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.
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, heknowsnot 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 nowcalledfree?And if itwashate, 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.7Progress 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 ½ 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. Libertyisperilous, 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 areefin 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 inGiles 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?8There 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. Itis foolishthen todemandthe concession of social equality; but it is quite ascowardlyto 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, andin 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. Throughprivate 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.Theybar 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 eventhinkof 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 arenotthe 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 suggestedevensuch 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 manwho works, the man whowants 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 bemorethan 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.
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, heknowsnot why;He thinks he was not made to die;And Thou hast made him,—Thou art just.
Thou wilt not leave us in the dust;Thou madest man, heknowsnot why;He thinks he was not made to die;And Thou hast made him,—Thou art just.
Thou wilt not leave us in the dust;
Thou madest man, heknowsnot 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 nowcalledfree?
And if itwashate, 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
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.7Progress 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?
Per cent. of illiteracy.
Colored population in 1860 4,441,830.
Of this about 9 per cent. (488,070) was free—perhaps ½ of this was literate, i.e., about 5 per cent. of the whole.
Equal 95 per cent. or higher.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. Libertyisperilous, 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 areefin 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.'"
"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 inGiles 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."
"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 inGiles 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?8There 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. Itis foolishthen todemandthe concession of social equality; but it is quite ascowardlyto 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.
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, andin 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. Throughprivate 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.Theybar 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 eventhinkof 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 arenotthe 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 suggestedevensuch 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 manwho works, the man whowants 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 bemorethan 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.