The Negroes, say Southern men, are ignorant, lazy, vicious,—a perpetual menace to the rule and order of white men. Is this believable? Did God so make the world that after three thousand years of progressive white civilization;—in a country where there are sixty millions of white men, entrenched in their possession of armies and navies, wealth, power and endless resources of trained intellect;—that nine millions of colored people, rich in nothing but their sufferings, threaten to put the bottom on top? And if chance rules the world, and ignorance, laziness and vice are as likely to prevail as knowledge, industry and virtue, we may as well believe that ignorance and laziness and vice underlie white civilization and supremacy. No, we may confidently answer: this is not believable. Either these nine millions of colored people are not ignorant, lazy and vicious, or there are no grounds for the fear that they can for an hour put into danger the continuance of white domination, even in the blackest portion of the black South. There is indeed proof obtainable that they are neither ignorant, lazy and vicious, nor a menace to rule and order. If they were near neighbors of the brutes would the elaborate defensive preparations be necessary which the South continues feverishly to make? Do the savages of Africa enact disfranchising clauses to keep apes and monkeys out of their political affairs? If ignorance so submerges the black man, why does not the Massachusetts principle of protecting the ballot prevail in the South? Why is it necessary to require the voter to read, yes, and _interpret satisfactorily, any_ clause in the state constitution?⁴ If sloth curses the Negro with unfruitfulness, why require property to the assessed value of $300? If the assessed value be two thirds of the real value, this means that nearly $500; if one third, then nearly $1000 is fixed as the minimum possession of the black voter. Does this precaution point to shiftlessness? If viciousness be indelibly stamped upon his nature, why not rely upon his disfranchisement for crime to eliminate the colored voters? Are the white juries not to be trusted to condemn the accused? Are the leased convicts not worth their cost of keeping? It has been more than once said that 90,000 of the 90,000 colored people in the District of Columbia are criminals. If the same proportion maintains elsewhere, what more is needed to accomplish the desired end?