Benedict College Mystery Solved, Part 1

This blogpost is preceded by

• "Timmerman attacks, Spring 1957"
•  "Timmerman attacks, Spring 1958"
• "Timmerman attacks: Allen University and Benedict College"
• "Timmerman attacks: the Benedict professors"
• "Timmerman attacks: the Allen University professors"
• Timmerman Attacks: Hoffman Update"
• "What was Forrest O. Wiggins up to?"
• "What's in an FBI record?"

Horace B. Davis in 1953
University of Kansas City, the Kangaroo Yearbook (1954), Ancestory.com, pg. 56

The mystery of why South Carolina Governor George Bell Timmerman Jr. attacked the HBCUs Allen and Benedict may be solved! One of the dismissed Benedict professors Horace Davis wrote an autobiography Liberalism is Not Enough that discusses his time in South Carolina. His account suggests that the governor's attacks have a rather obscure origin: Horace's opposition to a Supreme Court Justice appointment. Moreover, the issue had nothing to do with South Carolina. Rather, it was related to his time in Missouri.

Horace and his wife Marion were academics from the east coast. (They'd met as graduate students in the economics department at Columbia University.) However, they had unusual career trajectories. Both were very politically active and involved with the labor movement. While both had taught both at the college and high school level, Horace had also spent considerable time working for the labor movement. He even worked as a steelworker for a period. Of the college professors in South Carolina, Horace and Marion appears to have been only ones that were actual card-carrying Communists. (KCU officials claimed Horace had been a Communist since 1929, but I've had a hard time tracking down the specifics.)

In 1947, after several years of working in labor, Horace decided to return to academics and accepted a faculty position at Kansas City University (now University of Missouri–Kansas City) in Kansas City, Missouri. Starting in the late 1940s, tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union began to rise, and university professors who were supportive of Communism began to be regarded with suspicion. Horace became concerned that he might lose his job because of his past political activity.

Horace's fears were realized in 1953, after he'd been at KCU for six years. In June of that year, he was subpoenaed to appear before the Senate Internal Security (SIS) subcommittee. This subcommittee was charged with investigating Communist activities, and it was essentially the Senate equivalent of the more familiar House Un-American Activities Committee. At the time, SIS was headed by Indiana Senator William E. Jenner, a staunch supporter of McCarthyism. 

When Horace appeared before the subcommittee, most subcommittee members weren't present. Of the nine senators, only Jenner was in attendance. He was joined by two staffers, Chief Counsel Robert Morris and Director of Research Benjamin Mandel. 

Horace was very combative at the subcommittee hearing. His testimony began with Senator Jenner asking him to state his name. Horace responded by explaining why he thought the subcommittee was operating illegally. Horace never ended up stating his name, and this set the tone for the hearing. After answering some questions about his current employment (that he was an associate professor at KCU and was teaching two classes, one with ten students and one with eighteen), Chief Counsel Morris asked Horace if he had been faculty at Columbia University. Horace refused to answer the question, citing his fifth amendment right (against bearing witness against himself) and his first amendment right (to the freedom of assembly). He proceeded to refuse to answer all further questions except a question about where he'd obtained his college degrees. 

Most of the subcommittee's questions were about whether he'd been involved in alleged Communist activities ("Were you active in the Workers Alliance of the United States?"). Earlier, the subcommittee had met with Horace in executive session, so presumably they expected him to refuse to answer their questions and were asking them to get them into the public record. 

Horace continued to challenge the subcommittee after his testimony. Later in the hearing, when the subcommittee was questioning another professor, Horace passed out a written abstract of his testimony (about the illegality of the subcommittee) to people in attendance. When the hearing was over, Horace told reporters that the subcommittee's activities was nothing other than an illegitimate attempt to control education.

Senator William E. Jenner
From Wikipedia

Horace's testimony attracted the attention of the KCU trustees. A month after the hearing the University President's Advisory Council recommended to the trustees that Davis be investigated. Later that month Horace was asked to meet with trustees. 

Horace met with the trustees, along with university administrators, in early August. At the meeting, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees explained to Horace that no charges had been filed against him, but they wanted to discuss his SIS testimony with him. Horace responded by reading a prepared statement about academic freedom. The chairman then directly asked Horace if he'd been a member of the Communist Party or otherwise had supported Communist activities. He also asked whether Horace had been a college faculty member during the period from 1941 to 1946. (The chairman was likely trying to get Horace to admit that he'd been faculty at the School for Democracy, a school SIS had identified as a "Communist school.") Horace refunds to answer the questions. Six days later Horace was presented with charges that were proposed as the basis for terminating his employment. 

The charges against Horace were as follows:

1. that he had failed to disclose "pertinent information in regard to [his] prior teaching experience" when he applied to KCU.
2. that he refused to answer the trustees' questions.

A hearing on the charges was held in December. At the hearing, university counsel explained that the first charge related to Horace's employment at the School for Democracy. Horace had taught there part-time in spring 1942, but in his KCU job application, he had not disclosed this. Instead, he described his employment during this period as "work as Research Director of three different national unions" and "staff on two civic organizations." University counsel then proceeded to spend the first two days of the hearing describing how the school was "Communist-created" and served as a "[adjunct] of the Communist Party."

At the hearing, university counsel also elaborated on second charge. He explained that Horace's refusal itself was not grounds for termination, but it established that Horace had "commitments which render him unfit to continue in a position of educational trust." Upon being asked to clarify the nature of those commitments, counsel stated that he would prove Horace was a Communist.

Horace responded to the university's charges by reading a prepared statement. In his statement, he denied (1) engaging in any conspiracy against the government, (2) having any commitment that would interfere with his duties, and (3) engaging in propaganda in the classroom. He further explained that he was refusing to answer questions on general principle. 

Most of the hearing was spent with university general counsel submitting evidence to establish that Horace was a Communist. Horace's lawyer asked for a four-week continuance of the hearing in order to address the allegation. The request was denied. Horace's lawyer proceeded to present evidence demonstrating Horace's fitness as a teacher. For example, one of his former students testified that Davis taught subjects objectively and fairly. Predictably, the hearing tribunal was unconvinced. They unanimously recommended his dismissal. 

The university announced its decision in mid-December. A university official explained the decision to reporters as follows:

No member of this institution may refuse to state his position on a matter of such fundamental importance [i.e. membership in the Communist party] not only to this academic body but to all of American society. Dr. Davis has therefore disqualified himself for further membership in the faculty of the University of Kansas City.

Horace tried to challenge the trustee's decision in court. He filed a lawsuit claiming that KCU, certain trustees, and Senator Jenner had conspired to keep him from speaking out on political issues by removing from his professorship. He claimed his removal was wrongful and asked the court to order the university to either reinstate him or pay him for damages. The university responded by filing a motion to discuss the complaint on the technical grounds (that Horace had failed state a claim upon which relief could be granted).

Horace's case was greatly weakened by his lack of legal resources. He received help from Fyke Farmer, a lawyer based in Nashville, Tennesse. However, Farmer was not a member of the Missouri bar, so he could not practice law in the state, and Horace ended up representing himself. In filing the suit, Horace appears to have made basic legal errors. For example, in his lawsuit, he asked the court to give him a judgement for full damages, but he neglected to specify the amount of money this amounted to.

It is unclear why Horace didn't receive better legal representation. He may have found it difficult to find a lawyer willing to represent him. At the time, lawyers who represented alleged Communists sometimes faced serious professional and social repercussions. Fyke Farmer was very active in leftist politics, and he may have simply been the only lawyer Horace found willing to represent him. 

Horace's lawsuit attracted a great deal of public attention, but as a matter of law, it was easy to resolve because of the sloppy legal work Horace had done. The suit came before Charles E. Whittaker's U.S. District Court in spring 1955. In considering KCU's motion to dismiss, Judge Whittaker considered the issue of whether Horace's dismissal had been proper. He observed that Horace was tenured and thus could be dismissed for "adequate cause." Horace had been presented with formal charges that his refusals constituted cause for dismissal, and he'd been given a hearing prior to his dismissal. Judge Whittaker concluded that KCU had shown "adequate cause" and sustained KCU's motion to dismiss. 

Judge Whittaker could have justified his decision on the formal grounds that KCU had properly followed their procedure for dismissing a tenured professor. However, he chose to go further and issued a full-throated defense of anti-communism. In his judgement, he not only dismissed the lawsuit, but he praised KCU for firing Horace:

[Horace B. Davis] had a lawful right ... to refuse to answer. But he did not have a constitutional right to remain a public-school teacher. And the refusal of a teacher in a most intimate position to mould the minds of the youth of the country to answer to the responsible officials of the school whether he is a member of a found and declared conspiracy by a godless group to overthrow our government by force, constitutes "adequate cause" for the dismissal of such a teacher. The public will not stand, and they ought not to stand, for such reticence or refusals to answer by the teachers in their schools. And the University officials would have been derelict in their duties had they not asked plaintiff. . . whether he . . . ever had been a member of the Communist Party, ... and would have been derelict in their duties, and would have destroyed the University, had they not dismissed him.

Judge Charles E. Whittaker
From Wikipedia

Horace could have appealed Judge Whittaker's motion to dismiss his lawsuit, but he took no further legal actions. By fall 1955, Horace had moved to Columbia, South Carolina to work at Benedict College.

While Horace did not take further legal action, he would later take political action against his treatment by Judge Whittaker. It was this political activity that would cause major problems, not only for Horace but also for Benedict and Allen.

Marian Rubins Davis in 1920

Smith College, Class Book (1920), pg. 80.

Hoffman's speech "History and Political Science – The Foundation of Freedom"

Edwin D. Hoffman in 1960
University of North Carolina at Pembroke Yearbook The Indianhead [1960]

The following text is a March 14, 1958 "Chapel Address" that Edwin D. Hoffman delivered at Allen University in Columbia, SC. Hoffman had moved to Allen in 1954. That year the U.S. Supreme Court announced its Brown v. Board of Education decision desegregating education. When the decision was announced, Hoffman was teaching at Long Island University in New York City. He left New York to teach at Allen because he thought teaching at a southern HBCU was a good way to get involved in the nascent civil rights movement.

Hoffman delivered his speech during a difficult time for Allen. The state government had been pressuring the university to dismiss Hoffman and two other faculty members. The governor had publicly accused the faculty members of being Communist workers in his annual address, and Board of Education (which was controlled by the governor) was withholding teaching certification of Allen graduates until the faculty were dismissed. The university president responded to this by vacillating between trying to force the faculty out and defending their continued employment. 

At the time of his speech, Hoffman had been fighting to retain his position for about a year, and he'd been in the public spotlight for a month-and-a-half. In delivering his speech, Hoffman appears to have been trying to rally the university community to continue to their resistance to the governor's attacks.

The object of this talk is to increase your interest in the social sciences.  Most particularly in history and political science.  I hope to show the study of these subjects equips you to meet the problems we face today and how the mind is stimulated to the point of passionate concern for great ideals.

In the social science we deal with the real world.  We face up to real problems with frankness and boldness.

I intend to speak frankly – to call a spade a spade

Last September the State Board of Education took from Allen students the right to teach in the South Carolina public schools.

In January, Governor Timmerman attacked Allen for employing three professors.

In February bills were introduced in the General Assembly establish a legislative committee to investigate so-called "communist activities" in education.

Those are the facts – frankly stated. I could have made vague reference to "troubled times" and "ill winds" and "difficulties we are now going through." But that is not the method of the social scientist. If you want to understand problems – if you want people to help you solve problems – you put them right out on the table in the clearest possible manner.

How can history and political science help us to understand and meet such problems?

Let us begin by labeling the problems for what they are. These are problems in civil liberties. We must speak of such basic democratic rights as freedom of speech, academic freedom, due process of law and equal protection of the laws. We speak of the rights of man, the inalienable rights, to use the words of Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. The question we must ask is whether the State of South Carolina is not doing violence to our constitutional liberties, and if it is abusing our democratic liberties, what must be our attitude and action.

Living in South Carolina, we are accustomed to think more in terms of civil rights than civil liberties. We want an end to Jim Crow and our efforts have been centered on achieving equality of opportunity. Equal pay for Negro teachers, an end to the white primary, and school integration have been the big campaigns in recent South Carolina history.

We sometimes forget that question[s] like freedom of speech are intimately tied to the winning of such rights. Yet it is a glaring fact that one of the biggest problems that the NAACP faces is the denial of freedom of speech. I need only mention how unfree Negro teachers feel in the public schools of South Carolina today.

Indeed, the issues of civil rights and civil liberties have always been intertwined in our history. Recall the threats to opponents of slavery made by William C. Preston, Senator from South Carolina, before the Civil War. "Let an Abolitionist come within the borders of South Carolina. If we catch him, and not standing all the governments on earth, including the Federal government, we will hang him." Surely here was a grave problem of free speech. 

What exactly is freedom of speech? We usually define it as the right of every man to say and write what he thinks. Many men have called it the queen of freedom. The great English poet, John Milton, said, "Above all liberties, give me liberty to know, utter, and to argue freely according to conscience."

We enjoy that freedom most moments of our lives. When we would talk about the weather, or about the date we had last night or the new shoes we plan to buy we are perfectly free to speak our minds. It is only when we would express unpopular views, when we would criticize the "powers that be," that our right to speak is challenged. If every South Carolina Negro were an Uncle Tom, if all of us here at Allen said only what the White Citizens Council would like to hear, no one would try to silence us. We would enjoy perfect freedom of speech. And what an empty freedom it would be!

Louis Blane, in Letter on England, tells a story of such a freedom. 

    "A sailor related that he was once on board a vessel with a passenger who had frequently made the same voyage. The passenger told the captain about a rock ahead which was hidden beneath the waves, but the captain would not listen to him. On his insisting on it, the captain had him thrown into the sea. The energetic measure out an end to all remonstrances, and nothing could be more touching than the unanimity which reigned an [sic on] board. Suddenly the vessel hit the reef and was wrecked. They had got rid of the giver of the warning, but the rock remained."

The rock remained! you may silence men, but the truth remains. And since we need know the truth to act with wisdom, we need the brave voices of dissent to dare always to point to the rock ahead. As an [sic a] historian I cannot help but remark that the independent, non-conforming mind has been one of the glories of human history.

Where would Christianity be without the non-conformity of Jesus and Paul? Where would Judaism be without its Moses and Jeremiah?

Where would science be without the dissent of Copernicus and Galileo?

Where would American democracy be without Roger Williams and Tom Paine, Frederick Douglass and John Brown?

Each os [sic of] these had to speak at the risk of displeasing the rulers of their day – and how much poorer the world would have been if they had not excercised [sic excercised] their right of free speech.

Freedom is not safety. It is the opportunity to say something meaningful.

In times like ours, in South Carolina today, it is our courage that shows we are alive. In the words of Edward Arlington Robinson "Because we move and breath, and say a few complacent words with tongues that are afraid to say our thoughts, we think we are alive. But we are dead."

It is because our forefathers would be alive, would know the truth, that freedom of speech was proclaimed in Article I of our Bill of Rights. That First Amendment, as we call it, erects a fence inside which man can talk. Lawmakers and government officials are told to stay outside that fence.

Unfortunately some men in authority feel impelled to climb over the fence, and even at times to break the fence down. They identify their own policies with truth and punish those who disagree with them. I suspect these men in power have no confidence in their own ideas, and seek to silence others because they fear they will not win in a fair and square debate. I say with Milton, "Let Truth and Falsehood grapple; who ever know [sic knew] Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter?"

I remarked that some men in authority feel impelled to silence those who disagree with them. Some, but not all. Listen to this quotation, as as [sic] you do, guess who might have said the words.

"Here in American we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels – men and women who dared to dissent from accepted doctrines. Without exhaustive debate, even heated debate, of ideas and programs, free government would weaken and wither. But if we allow ourselves to be persuaded that every individual or party that takes issue with our convictions is necessarily wicked and treasonable, then, indeed, we are approaching the end of freedom's road.

Is this the voice of some harried liberal or radical? No. The speaker is Dwight D. Eisenhower, President of the United States.

Sometimes we forget that democracy means that public officials are to be the people's servants and not the people's master. We allow government to be dominating and hesitate to challenge it when it goes beyond its powers. We would be better off if we kept in mind the injunction of Justice Black of the Supreme Court of the United States.

"Public Officials cannot be constitutionally vested with powers to select the ideas people can think about, censor the public views they can express, or choose persons or groups people can associate with. Public officials with such power are not public servants, they are public masters."

Most important of all, we must insist that our government allow the free encounter between truth and falsehood to go on unhampered in our schools and colleges. This is the meaning of the term academic freedom.

Do we have the right to insist that our schools be free? Do we have the right to tell the government of South Carolina, for example, to leave education alone?

The story of Galileo tells us that we must insit [sic insist] on freedom to study, to learn and to teach. This great scientist and professor – as a result of his scholarly research – was convinced that the earth moved around the sun. But the rulers of 1630 condemned his teaching as dangerous lies and threatened him with death unless he admitted he was wrong. They called him up before the investigating committee of his day, called the Inquisition, tortured him and forced him to confess his errors. So Galileo said the earth stood still.

In our day we still have the investigating committees that call teachers before them to force them to conform or lose their jobs. Indeed, some committees have sought to jail teachers who would not answer their questions. But today education has a firm ally in the United States Supreme Court. Let be quote briefly from the Supreme Court decision in the Sweezy case in 1957.

"The essentiality of freedom in the community of American Universities is almost self-evident. No one should underestimate the vital role in a democracy that is played by those who guide and train our youth. To impose any straitjacket upon the intellectual leaders in our colleges and universities would imperil the future of our nation. No field of education is so thoroughtly [sic thoroughly] comprehended by man that new discoveries cannot yet be made. Particularly is that true in the social sciences, where few, if any, principles are accepted as absolutes. Scholarship cannot function in an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust. Teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding, otherwise our civilization will stagnate and die."

Thus speaks the Supreme Court. There is the case for academic freedom. There are those in South Carolina who are terribly angry with the Supreme Court of late. It speaks for free speech, for academic freedom, and it has spoken for integration. But we at Allen respect the Court and praise its good judgement in our day. 

In 1954, before the Sweezy decision, Dr. Robert M. Hutchins, former president of the University of Chicago and then head of the Funds for Republic said, "The entire teaching profession of the United States is now intimidated." I suspect, as McCarthyism is gradually vanishing today, that Dr. Hutchins would not make as sweeping a statement now. And I trust that the spirist [sic spirit] of independence shown at Allen will further encourage teachers to stand on their own hind legs and be men

What does a scholar do when called before one of today's investigation committees? Must he prostrate himself before it as Galileo was forced to do? What are his obligations as citizen and teacher?

Let us start by saying that investigation is a proper stop in lawmaking and all of us should assist a legislature in getting the facts it needs to create intelligent laws.

But we must say, as the Supreme Court says, in its Watkins decision, that investigation is only justified as a stop in lawmaking. A committee no right to investigate in areas where it can make no law, and it has no right to investigate merely to expose the ideas and private lives of witnesses. The Supreme Court emphatically states that investigating committees may not encroach upon an individual's right to privacy nor abridge his liberty of speech.

The Court has also held that no man need be a witness against himself. He may properly plead the Fifth Amendment to our constitution. Keep in mind that the Fifth Amendment is for the innocent as well as the guilty and that every man is innocent until proven guilty. Indeed, some prominent Americans well known to be utterly innocent, have chosen to take the Fifth Amendment for the very purpose of protecting the civil liberties of all Americans. Dean Griswold of Harvard Law School calls the Fifth Amendment a good friend and an old friend of freedom – a shield for freedom of thought and "a hindrance to any government which might wish to prosecute for thoughts and opinions alone."

In the idea of freedom of speech is the right not to speak, the right to be silent. For how can a man hold whatever ideas he wishes, how can he save a free conscience, if government has the power to pry thoughts out of his mind. This, too, is the meaning of the Fifth Amendment. 

To really appreciate the value of the Fifth Amendment – to recognize it as a protector of men's liberties, it is helpful to recall the history of why it was put into our constitution. We go back to English history to the time the Stuart Kings and the persecution of men for their religious ideas.

The first men to refuse to answer the questions of investigating committees are Protestants – Puritans. Let us recall for a moment the ordeals of John Udall and John Lilburn in 17th century England.

Udall was a distinguished minister who was hounded to tell who wrote unsigned pamphlets criticizing the King's bishops.

"Will you take the oath" (to tell us all we want to know), he was asked when called before the Privy Council.

"I dare not take it" replied Udall.

"Then you must got to prison, and it will go hard with you, for you must remain there until you be glad to take it."

"God's will be done" said Udall. I had rather to go to prison with a good conscience than be at liberty with an ill one."

He went to prison – under sentence of death.

John Lilburn was no distinguished man. Rather he was a humble apprentice persecuted for refusing to name Protestants who had brought banned books into England from Holland. Like Udall he refused to tell the investigators what they wanted.

Lilburn was tied to the tail of a cart and whipped as he was dragged through the streets of London. He was put in the pillory and gagged when he spoke for freedom. He was put in jail, chained, and refused food for ten days. Thirty months latter [sic later] he was freed from jail when a new government came to power.

Americans know the story of Udall and Lilburn and other [sic others] like them. They were determined that such cruel treatment not happen in America. So they put the Fifth Amendment into our National Constitution. South Carolinians knew the stories too, and the same words are found in the South Carolina Constitution.

These are our liberties – these are our rights. Brave men established them at great risk. Today it still takes courage to exercise them. But when we lack that courage we become helpless tools of tyrants – we cease to be men and we betray our country's precious heritage of freedom.

A college student gets a sorry education when he does not learn of his rights and does not develop the will to defend them. In college they are learned most in the student of history and government. Come on in and learn. The water is fine. It is the fountain of freedom.

Text from a document in the William D. Workman, Jr. Papers at the South Carolina Political Collections Repository.

C. C. Scott Speech: Submission, Emigration, or What?

In 1907, C. C. Scott gave a speech at a "race conference" that was titled "Submission, Emigration, or What?" The text of the speech, which is reproduced below, was published in The State newspaper. Part of the text appears to be missing. Specifically, the section titled "Three Elements" appears to be missing text after paragraph two.

In the brief space of 15 minutes, the time allowed me for a discussion of this question, it will be impossible to say much that I desire to say; and yet I have no complaint to make on this score for the reasons that another speaker will discuss this same subject, and the committee on program doubtless felt that two speakers, each seeking 15 minutes on the same subject, would be apt to say more that will be helpful and beneficial, and at the same time will give opportunity for a larger representation throughout the State on the programme than one speaker would have done. This subject is a suggestive one. While it is not the one I would have selected as my theme for this occasion I cheerfully accepted it when I found it was the judgement of the committee that I should do so.

I feel that before proceeding to say anything bearing on the subject I ought to say that I have given it prayerful and careful consideration and have asked Him who knoweth our thoughts before we have framed them into words, to so direct what I shall say that nothing shall be uttered by me that shall have the slightest tinge of unkindness or malice or uncharitableness. The occasion that calls us together is too serious to allow any feelings of selfishness or spirit of resentment to enter our breasts, but should inspire each of us to say what he feels will meet the approval of his God.

Two things are suggested to me to discuss and the other or others I am, by implication, to suggest and discuss. They are 'Submission, Emigration, or What?'

In other words, Shall we submit to the conditions confronting us and overpowering us, sapping our manhood and womanhood and bringing us down to the verge of despair and desperation; or shall we take steps to indicate the wholesale emigration of our people; or what shall we do?

The first thing to consider is what are the conditions?

A Review of Causes

With the triumph of the Union forces and the fall of the Confederacy came the emancipation of nearly 4,000,000 of slaves, and in an incredibly short space of time all the male members of the slave population who were 21 years of age and over given the right of franchise. Prior to the Civil War, South Carolina, like every slave-holding state, was ruled by what may be properly termed an oligarchy.

The class of people designated as "poor whites" had but little to do with the government. The white people, too poor to own slaves, in many instances fared worse than many of the slaves. 

Among the wealthier class of slave owners, a sort of paternalism maintained on the plantations, which constituted their chief wealth, and some of the slaves enjoyed a degree of freedom that made their condition but a nominal slavery.

The close of the war found this slave-holding, property-owning class crushed in spirit, bankrupt, conquered, but not subdued.

They believed that slavery was a divine institution just as truly as do the Mormons believe that Mormonism is a divine institution. They felt and believed that the wrestling from them by force of arms this large mass of ignorant human beings whose value was estimated in the inventory with their other chattels, and placing them on a civil footing with themselves was a degradation they could not submit to.

Three Elements

The close of the war brought to the surface three political and social elements, the governing class of whites, the poor whites and the negro freedman. Much has been said and written about this mistake made by the national government in giving the ballot to the negro. I believe the day will come when the consensus of opinion will be that the real mistake was in so soon giving the South, the entire South, irrespective of class, color,  or condition, the right to take part in the affairs of government. History makes but little mention of it, but it was nevertheless a fact that that there was, at the close of the Civil War, a respectable number of negroes of intelligence and property worth, and they, with others of their race, waited on their former masters and political rulers and requested them to take the reigns of government under the new order of things but their overtures were spurned and their requests treated with scorn. Instead they gave them the black code, which discriminated between whites and blacks as citizens and even in the courts of justice and put the former slaves practically into a condition of second slavery. This compelled congress and the president to provide for the State a military government.

The next attempt on our part was to nominate and elect to office some of the best and most liberal Southern white men in the State but many declined to serve, and the few who were farseeing enough to realize that that was the only salvation for the South were hounded and ostracized until they were either driven from the State or out of politics. Then pandemonium reigned, and the disgraceful conduct of the political crew composed for the most of a few of the wealthier Southern whites, some of the Southern poor whites, and white and colored carpetbaggers and ignorant negroes gave pal- [text omitted?]

forcible overthrow and practical suppression of the Republican Party throughout the South. 

Promise was made at that time by the most respectable element of the Southern whites to give equal and exact justice to the negroes if they would join them in overthrowing the then dominant party. This promise has never been kept.

The Negro's Rights

Step by step nearly every right of the negro, civil and political, has been either abridged or completely wrested from him.

He is denied the right to vote. He is practically denied the right to sit on a jury. He is denied fair treatment by the railway and steamboat companies. In fact, he is not even given decent treatment by any of the common carriers. The jim crow car is, as a matter of fact, not a separate car for negroes, but a car for all classes of white men and the low-bred negroes to lounge in and to smoke in, for the transportation of poor unfortunates of both races who are from time to time sent to the lunatic asylum, and for transportation of the chain-gang and the penitentiary convicts, while their waiting rooms are the resting places for not only the white and colored railway employees, but for any and every tramp and street loafer.

Sad and extensive experiences have convinced me that, as a rule, an appeal to the conductors or agents is more apt to provoke an insult than to obtain redress. The negro is not even allowed his pro rata share of the funds he pays into the treasury for the education of his children, and if surprised when he sees men of the South who are presumed to know better proclaim to the public that the white South is burdened with the education of the black South. In some instances, he is not even allowed to have teachers of his own race to instruct his children. The negro is the South's chief assert in trade. Take him out of the South and you will bankrupt it. And yet he is the South's scapegoat. Blatant politicians whose chief stock in trade is abuse of the negro, say the South does not want him and does not need him; and yet this same class of politicians enact laws to prevent his leaving, and punish by imprisonment and fines men who have the temerity to undertake to transport him elsewhere. As a tenant on the farm he has done surprisingly well under most adverse conditions, but has not been a success in the line of accumulating or acquiring property for himself or building up the land of the landlord. Under him the farm lands are becoming poorer, and between him and the landlord, the relation is becoming more strained.

Crime among negroes is on the increase. Laws especially framed and enacted for his punishment, disfranchisement and degradation are being enacted and punishment for his offenses are gradually becoming more severe.

Lynchings and other inhuman and unlawful treatment of negroes has become an epidemic.

Such, briefly and in part, is his condition.

Emigrate? No!

Shall we emigrate? No.

Emigrate where? Emigrate how? Emigrate when? Emigrate why, or for what?

When some practical business statesman who understands the situation shall suggest for our consideration some feasible plan for our emigration it will then be in order for us to consume the time in considering it. Shall we submit to our present conditions? Well might we quote Hamlet's soliloquy: "To be or not to be; that is the question: whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take up arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing end them?"

Submit? No!

Again I ask, "Shall be [we?] submit?" I answer a thousand times no.

If not submission, then what?

Aye, there's the rub.

A few things seem clear to my mind.

The negro's, in fact the whole South's, greatest enemy is the politician. The influence that has dominated the South during the past 16 years has been a gall of bitterness to the negro, and as blighting a curse to the morals of the South as a heavy frost to the soil in midsummer. It has sown dragons' teeth and the time of reaping seems at hand. Permit me to suggest a few things. I feel that each race may do towards relieving the tension and improving conditions for I verily believe that a few more outbreaks will bring about results that will be distressful and surprising to both races. God forbid that any further outbreaks take place. But let us as negroes be frank and outspoken and manly, and say that in the event of such outbreaks we do not intend to submit to have our persons and premises searched without due process of law, in some instances by the mob in military uniform, and our wives and children beaten and outraged with impunity and our and their bodies kicked about the streets without hazarding our lives in their protection. Much can be done by us who are gathered here, and other like us to improve existing conditions.

The Alternative

Let us resolve, as many of us have resolved, to be even more temperate in speech and action, especially in times of intense excitement. Let us preachers say nothing from our pulpits or in private to our membership about white people that we do not think it would be wise or proper to say to their faces. Let us cultivate and inculcate in our people a greater spirit of friendliness for Southern white people. This does not mean a spirit of servility or toadyism or hypocrisy. Some white people like the negro of cringing looks and humble mien, showing his teeth and bowing and scraping, with hat in hand, and proclaiming that the Southern white man is his best friend, and all such twaddle, but others, and most of them, generally size up that class of negroes and may use them but will never trust and respect them.

Let us cultivate the spirit of the golden rule, not only in our dealings with our own race, but also with our white neighbors. The rule will solve the South's problems. That rule will solve the nation's problem. That rule will solve all human problems.

Let us have more faith in and respect for one another. Wise or unwise it may be, but I make it a point not to vilify or abuse a man of my race, prominent or lowly, to a white man. I feel that if the intelligent white people take the intelligent negroes at the estimate they and others of their race have put upon one another in public print and speech and in private conversation they will conclude that our preachers are a class of adulterers, our women a class of prostitutes, and that we are generally a race of degenerates and reprobates. Let us talk one another up. Let us forever quit our denominational controversies and abuses. And then again we must arise our standard of morality. Do not misunderstand me. I say we must.

A man chided me recently for saying in public that the white people are our superiors, mentally, morally, intellectually and financially. And they are. God did not make them so, but a thousand years of training did it. We have had but a little more than 40 and have been heavily handicapped but we have had Jehovah's pillar of cloud by day and His pillar of fire by night. Sometimes I have also felt that we have found our Moses and sometimes I have felt that I have been mistaken. Perhaps he has not yet come down from the mountain, and perhaps he has. We have certainly had too many Aarons along certain lines. Then again let us not only encourage but seek to have among us, in our churches and Sunday schools, in our school commencements and anniversaries and Emancipation day celebrations our best white people. Let us command rather than demand their respect. Seek their cooperation and moral support in saving our boys and girls from lives of sin. Seek their help in our efforts to establish and maintain law and order leagues, and in other matters that pertain to our moral and spiritual welfare, and let us show proper appreciation and gratitude. Let us help our people to more fully appreciate the fact that it is far better and more honorable, enumerative and satisfactory to have our children be the servants of decent, respectable white people in their homes than to serve on chaingangs and in prisons. Let is also train and encourage one another to feel and believe that it is not dishonorable or humiliating to be the servants or one another, but that we ought to feel special pride in serving one another.

I have read somewhere that there is a Jewish proverb that says "He who fails to give his child a trade teaches him to steal." The negro is woefully neglecting this essential part of his child's training, and the result is an increasing number of street loafers, tramps and criminals. Compel our children to learn trades.

Seek and if possible secure the moral support of the best white people in your community. You will find them valuable friends in time of need. Remember, character is your greatest asset, and that everybody can possess it. Let organized effort be made in each community to keep our women, especially our young women, off the streets at night. Above all, let us remember: "There is a divinity that shapes our ends rough hew them as we may be." If God made us to be inferior to our white brethren and fixed our capacities and capabilities within certain bounds we can never go beyond them; and if, on the other hand,  He has made of one all nations of the earth, giving each individual member capacities and capabilities limited only by circumstances and environments, it will only be a question of time when conditions will change and development will expand and enlarge until the negro, freed from baneful influences and unfavorable environments, will develop in culture and character til he shall arrive at the fullness of the stature of a man.