Following the color line : $b An account of Negro citizenship in the American democracy
History
Following the color line : $b An account of Negro citizenship in the American democracy
African Americans; United States -- Race relations
"Justly proud of our race, we refuse to amalgamate with the Negro, but the
Negro is an American citizen, and is protected as such by guarantees of
the Constitution that are as irrepealable almost as the Bill of Rights
itself. Nor, if such a thing as repealing these guarantees were possible,
would it be wise for the South. Suppose we admit the oft-reiterated
proposition that no two races so distinct as the Caucasian and the Negro
can live together on terms of perfect equality; yet it is equally true
that without some access to the ballot, present or prospective, some
participation in the government, no inferior race in an elective republic
could long protect itself against reduction to slavery in many of its
substantial forms--and God knows the South wants no more of that curse."
Men of the type of Mr. Fleming are far in the minority in the South; they
are so few as yet as to count, politically speaking, for little or
nothing. But the fact that they are there, that they are not afraid to
speak out, even though it ruins them politically, is significant and
hopeful.
_Ante-bellum Aggression_
Now it is this way with a party having only one issue: when attacked, it
can only become more and more violent and vociferous upon that issue. And
this is what we discover in the South: an increasing bitterness of leaders
like Tillman and Vardaman, for they know that their own existence and that
of the party which they represent depends upon keeping the Negro issue
prominent. The very fact that they are violent is significant: it shows
that they recognise powerful and growing new elements in the South, which,
though not yet apparent politically, are getting hold of the people.
In other words, the present group of autocratic leaders is seeking at any
length to defend itself. And its work is not only defensive, it is also
offensive. It must be. The institution of slavery might have lasted many
years longer if the Southern leaders had been content with the slave
territory they already held. But they were not so content. They tried to
extend slavery to the new territories of the Union, and it was this
aggression that was the chief immediate cause of the Civil War. It was the
struggle over Missouri and Kansas, and the policy of the country regarding
the new West, whether it should be admitted slave or free, which
precipitated hostilities.
"Continual aggression," John Hay once said, "is the necessity of a false
position." The ante-bellum Southern leaders saw that they must either
extend their institution or else face its ultimate extinction.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account