The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll, Vol. 11 (of 12): Dresden Edition—Miscellany — John Shaqi
The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll, Vol. 11 (of 12): Dresden Edition—MiscellanyIngersoll, Robert Green
Religion
The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll, Vol. 11 (of 12): Dresden Edition—Miscellany
Ingersoll, Robert Green
Free thought
I have been told by one who heard the decision when it was read from the
bench, that the following phrase was in the opinion:
"_There are certain physiological differences of race that cannot be
ignored_."
That phrase is a lamp, in the light of which the whole decision should
be read.
Suppose that in one of the Southern States, the negroes being in a
decided majority and having entire control, had drawn the color line,
had insisted that:
"There were certain physiological differences between the races that
could not be ignored," and had refused to allow white people to enter
their hotels, to ride in the best cars, or to occupy the aristocratic
portion of a theatre; and suppose that a white man, thrust from the
hotels, denied the entrance to cars, had brought his suit in the Federal
Court. Does any one believe that the Supreme Court would have intimated
to that man that "there is only a social question involved,--a question
with which the Constitution and laws have nothing to do, and that he
must depend for his remedy upon the authors of the injury"? Would a
white man, under such circumstances, feel that he was in a condition of
involuntary servitude? Would he feel that he was treated like an
underling, like a menial, like a serf? Would he feel that he was under
the protection of the laws, shielded like other men by the Constitution?
Of course, the argument of color is just as strong on one side as on the
other. The white man says to the black, "You are not my equal because
you are black;" and the black man can with the same propriety, reply,
"You are not my equal because you are white." The difference is just as
great in the one case as in the other. The pretext that this question
involves, in the remotest degree, a social question, is cruel, shallow,
and absurd.
The Supreme Court, some time ago, held that the 4th Section of the Civil
Rights Act was constitutional. That section declares that:
"No citizen possessing all other qualifications which are or maybe
prescribed by law, shall be disqualified for service as grand or petit
juror in any court of the United States or of any State, on account of
color or previous condition of servitude."
It also provides that:
"If any officer or other person charged with any duty in the selection
or summoning of jurors, shall exclude, or fail to summon, any citizen
in the case aforesaid, he shall, on conviction, be guilty of misdemeanor
and be fined not more than five hundred dollars."
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account