THE TRUTH ABOUT
LYNCHING and THE
NEGRO IN THE SOUTH

THE NEALE PUBLISHING COMPANY

440 FOURTH AVENUE, NEW YORK

MCMXVIII

In the preparation of these pages an effort has been made to discover and present the truth in regard to the Negro in the South. The first three chapters need not be considered an attempt at justification of lynching nor an effort at palliation of the disorder, but rather as a setting forth of the facts, conditions, and extenuating circumstances in such connection. The purpose of the other four chapters is to throw light upon the mental, moral, and material condition of the Negro.

W. H. C.

Reids Grove, Md.,
January 30, 1918.

It is generally supposed that the custom or practice of lynching in this country had its origin in the method of punishment used by a Virginian farmer named Lynch, who during the Revolutionary War sought in this way to maintain order in his community or section,—hence, Lynch’s Law, and Lynch law, from which comes the word “lynching.”

In the beginning, however, the term seldom, if ever, conveyed the meaning “to put to death”; nor does it appear that Negroes were lynched even so often as whites. The methods of punishment in the majority of cases consisted of riding the victim on a rail, beating or whipping him, and often of giving him a coat of tar and feathers.

Moreover, it does not appear that lynching in [10]any form was very common in the early history of the country. Indeed, in 1839 a writer in the Southern Literary Messenger[10:1] began a brief article on the subject with the following:

Newspapers, periodicals, and other literature of the time show,—as the years pass,—an interesting change in the meaning of the term Lynch law. As the practice of lynching increased, the methods of the executors of this law became more severe, and it grew more often to mean “a putting to death.” Possibly the change in meaning was partly due to the fact that lynching came to be a favorite means of punishment for abolitionists, their Negro dupes, and for both Negroes and whites who might be found guilty of unusual or shocking crimes.

The change from the mild to the severer meaning of the term was gradual. From 1830 to 1840 [11]it seldom meant “to put to death”; from 1850 to 1860 it very often had that meaning, and by 1870, or 1875,—this became the almost exclusive interpretation of “lynching,” even as at present.

The “New English Dictionary” defines Lynch law as “the practice of inflicting summary punishment upon an offender, by a self-constituted court armed with no legal authority; it is now limited to the summary execution of one charged with some flagrant offense.” So this is about the sense (unless otherwise indicated) in which I shall use the expression “Lynch law,” or “lynching,” in these pages.

In seeking a cause for the great increase of lynching, whether in its milder or severer form, from about 1830, I think one need not hesitate to give first place to the Anti-Slavery agitation; and the Southampton Slave Insurrection is also to be considered as contributory.

When, about 1830, the Anti-Slavery agitation began to attract some attention there were a number of anti-slavery societies in the South. These, however, soon broke up as those formed in the North became unreasonable. The net effect of the societies in the North was to produce distrust and even hatred at the South. It could hardly have been otherwise, for the Northern anti-slavery propagandists during the whole period of such [12]agitation seemed to have regard for neither law nor common sense. Nothing better could have been expected from them, however, as, for the most part, the abolitionists were poor, misguided men and women. Instead of adopting persuasive methods and of showing a fair and conciliatory spirit, they were dictatorial, inflammatory and menacing. And by whatever of higher law or Divine inspiration they may have claimed to be actuated, they failed to recognize the fact that they had to deal with human beings and human institutions.

Again, on whatever lofty plane of morality they professed to stand, their propaganda did not comprehend even ordinary honesty. Indeed, it appears as only another illustration,—for history affords so many instances,—of self-elected good men endeavoring to impose their own half-blind perception of the way of the Lord, or their own ideas of what constitutes righteousness on their open-eyed and superior fellow-men, and exerting themselves to the utmost of their ignorance in such efforts,—thus, as is usual in such cases, making hell on earth. Even the Kaiser claims to be the agent of the Lord.

William Lloyd Garrison, the leading exponent of the abolition movement, called the Constitution of the United States “An Agreement with [13]Death and a Covenant with Hell.” In the beginning his most earnest supporters were some pious old women, who doubtless with fair intelligence and good intentions, like many professed good people, let their emotions aided by their imagination get the better of their heads. They seemed to enjoy criticizing the South, with the occasional diversion of holding prayer-meetings for Negroes.

However, it was a long while (even in the North) before the abolition movement gained much headway. Garrison himself was treated with scarcely more consideration in the North than awaited those Apostles of anti-slavery that should go South, having persuaded themselves that they were called to preach the “gospel” of abolition in that benighted section. Indeed, once, in 1835, he hid himself in order to escape from a mob of some thousands of people,—including many of the leading citizens of Boston,—that had collected in front of his office. Some of the crowd found him and soon had a rope around his neck, but he was rescued by the mayor of the city. About two years later, however, a noted abolition editor, Rev. E. P. Lovejoy, was killed by a mob in Illinois.

In 1856 The Liberator made the following remarkable statement in regard to the treatment of abolitionists in the South:

[14]

This is evidently a great exaggeration. If it were alleged that over three hundred had been “lynched,” bearing in mind that during those years the word, more often than otherwise, meant giving the victim a coat of tar and feathers, and so on, it would not even then be in accord with what is indicated by better evidence. Books of travel and other literature of the time fail to show that any great number of abolitionists in the South met death by lynching during the period in question.

Indeed, a booklet, “The New Reign of Terror,” published early in 1860,—and in all probability compiled by Garrison himself,—is weighty evidence against the truth of this statement. According to The Liberator, the booklet gave “multiplied newspaper accounts of lynchings, murders, and mob raids of the Black Power of the Slave States within the past year [1859].” Although [15]this was a time of intense excitement throughout the South,—a time when a more bitter feeling was manifested against abolitionists than in any previous period, a careful examination of the “New Reign of Terror” failed to reveal more than one case in which an abolitionist was put to death by lynching.

There is much evidence of a law-abiding spirit in the South (especially in the eastern part) at the beginning of the Anti-Slavery agitation. Indeed, even when lynching was resorted to, it seems to have been done with great reluctance.

Another thing that had some effect on lynching was the Southampton Slave Insurrection, which occurred in 1831. About sixty white men, women, and children were murdered in cold blood by Negroes. However, not more than one of the fifty or more Negroes concerned in it was lynched. Instead, they were given a fair trial, and disposed of according to law. The Insurrection may have caused an increase in the lynching of Negroes by the fact that it begat a kind of fear and distrust of the blacks everywhere, caused them to be more carefully looked after, and more severely dealt with when refractory or guilty of crime.

This was no more than could be expected. In 1835 there were four great fires in the city of Charleston,—all supposed to have been the work [16]of slaves. Moreover, up to 1860 there were rumors of insurrections, and many minor insurrections did take place. The abolitionists, not without reason, were accused of trying to set the slaves against their masters and of fostering outbreaks of the bondmen.

Such things could hardly be considered lightly, for in many places the whites were practically at the mercy of the Negroes. A quotation from Murray,[16:3] an English traveler, may be interesting as it gives an example of the situation in many of the Slave States:

Could one reasonably expect that any man so situated would be inclined to be too ceremonious with any person, black or white, however innocent or saintlike his looks, who might be caught tampering with the Negroes and thereby jeopardize [17]the safety of his family and those of his neighbors as well? When one considers the exasperating circumstances, the wonder is not that there were so many lynchings but rather that there were so few, comparatively.

Some interesting lynchings occurred in 1835. They were widely commented upon at the time. One, the case of a mulatto from Pennsylvania, who was supposed to have some connection with the abolitionists, was burned at St. Louis for killing an officer who was trying to arrest him for some crime he had committed. The judge’s charge to the grand jury in reference to the matter is worth consideration as it indicates the attitude toward lynching shown at the time by those in authority:

The same year, 1835, two Negroes were burned near Mobile.[18:5] The circumstances were these:

Upon the failure of a certain little girl and her brother to return from school at the proper time a search was made and the body of the girl at last found. It appeared that she had been violated, then murdered, and her body hid in order to conceal the crime. Soon after this, two young ladies of Mobile were seized by two Negroes near the place where the body of the little girl was found. The young ladies escaped. At once suspicion pointed to these Negroes as the murderers of the children. They were arrested, tried by the court, and found guilty. The gentlemen of Mobile, it is said, then seized the Negroes, took them to the place of their crime, and burned them. For it was felt that the law did not furnish adequate means of punishment for such fiendish criminality.

Another noted instance of lynching took place at Vicksburg in the same year. This time it was not a Negro but whites that were lynched.

For many years the population of the Mississippi Valley had been increasing rapidly. The courts of law were so few, weak, or dilatory, that [19]the better citizens sometimes found it necessary to take the law into their own hands in order to insure for themselves protection. Such was the case at Vicksburg. Some gamblers had lately made this town their home and had established themselves at the low taverns to which they decoyed the young men of the vicinity. These, after being plundered and debauched, often cast their lot with the gamblers and became almost as desperate as their corrupters. After a while all restraint was thrown off, and the gamblers went about the streets even in the daytime armed with deadly weapons, and by their insults, drunkenness, and crimes, made themselves a terror to the inhabitants.

At length the people, having decided to put an end to such conditions, held a meeting and passed resolutions, giving the gamblers notice to leave within twenty-four hours. But, instead of doing so, they garrisoned themselves in a house. This the men of the town surrounded, and breaking open a door, they were fired upon from within, one of the most prominent men of the town being killed. This so enraged the people that they took the house by storm. Five of the gamblers were made prisoners. Then a procession, headed by the leading men of the town, led the gamblers to execution, hung them, and buried them together in a ditch.

[20] Featherstonhaugh, an English traveler, in writing of the Mississippi gamblers, says:

He also quotes a passage from a justification of the above lynching, which was drawn up by the people of Vicksburg, and is as follows:

Only a few days before the Vicksburg affair two white men and seven Negroes were lynched about forty miles from Vicksburg on the charge of attempting to organize an insurrection of slaves. Featherstonhaugh quotes the following account of it from a newspaper:

That such lynchings were exceptional in the South before about 1855, or even before the war, is shown by the fact that these cases were [22]mentioned by several different travelers and the papers of the time as well. I examined with more or less care books of travel too numerous to mention,—scores of them,—for the period between 1830 and 1860. Those travelers, especially, who visited the South between 1838 and 1854 are eloquently silent on the subject. I examined The Liberator[22:7] for 1839 and 1840, but found mention of only one Negro who was put to death by a mob. No State was given so I am not sure whether it was in the North or the South. However, it gave five instances of Negroes legally executed in the South; one for rape, one for arson, one for firing on two white men and threatening two others, and two for connection with an attempt at insurrection. Two more cases may be given: that of a Negro in New Orleans suspected of rape and murder, and one sentenced in Kentucky for rape upon two white women.

Again, a search of The Liberator for 1848 and 1849; Niles’ Register, July, 1845-January, 1849; The Vicksburg Sentinel, and The Augusta (Va.) Democrat, July, 1846-January, 1849, reveal but two lynchings: One a Negro “hung by a committee of citizens” at Bentonville, Arkansas; [23]the other, a white man named Yeoman, in Florida, for robbery. The latter was given both by Niles’ Register and a book of travel. However, one Negro was sentenced to death in the South for rape, and ten legally executed, the majority for murder.

As one might naturally expect, The Liberator for 1855 and 1856 shows several lynchings in the South. At least six Negroes were lynched in the South during these years,—two for rape (one of whom was burned) and four for murder (one of whom also was burned). Two of these criminals were lynched in Arkansas by a mob,—after being acquitted by the court,—led by the sons of their master, whom they had killed. Two white men were also lynched: one, in Texas, for stealing Negroes, and the other, in Missouri, for poisoning a spring. Moreover, eighteen Negroes were legally executed in the South: two for rape, and nearly all the others for murder. In addition, seven Negroes were mentioned as under sentence of death.

A quotation from Bancroft clearly shows that the number of lynchings in the South at this time hardly compares with the number in the West:

One does not need to go far in order to find the causes of the increase of lynching in the South after 1850, or for the disorder and commotion both North and South as well.

In 1850 the Fugitive Slave law was passed. The endeavor to enforce it gave great impetus to the abolition cause in the North; this reacted on the South. Indeed, many of the same men who were ready to hang Garrison in 1835, now became his earnest adherents. This great change in the feeling of the North opened the way for the enthusiastic reception of “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” when, in 1852, it was published in book form. The author of this book ingeniously made the isolated and exceptional incidents of slavery appear as the general condition of the institution; however, as for the chief character of the book, Uncle Tom, it is very doubtful whether the pure Negro race ever produced such an individual. Nevertheless, this piece of fiction was read by hundreds of thousands both in the North and in foreign countries as if it were “Gospel truth.”

Another thing that added to the excitement and helped the abolitionists was the Dred Scott Decision, [25]given in 1857. Then, in 1859, came “Helpers’ Impending Crisis,” a book of great influence. At last, in 1859, as if to “cap the climax,” the whole country was startled by John Brown’s Raid. After this, the greater part of the South, suddenly, became an extremely unhealthful place for both abolitionists and unruly, criminal, or insurrectionary Negroes.

“The New Reign of Terror,” mentioned above, published early in 1860, not many months after John Brown’s Raid, has the following, which indicates the then feeling in the South:

The Augusta Dispatch[25:9] warned the South against “strange loafing white men, and especially [26]the one-horse invalid preachers from the North,” for it said:

Indeed, in many Southern States there were rumors of Negro insurrections. In Mississippi, Georgia, and Alabama plots of Negro insurrections were discovered in 1860. In Texas, however, the greatest excitement prevailed. What was supposed to be a State-wide insurrection was discovered. Dallas and other towns were partly burned before it was checked.

The excited state of the public mind in some instances may have suspected plots of insurrection when none existed. However that may be, wherever and whenever such a plot was discovered, investigation nearly always pointed to the abolitionists as the instigators. Indeed, even when Negroes were insubordinate and refractory on a plantation, it was often found that they had been tampered with by abolitionists.

Occasionally, when such things were proved against an abolitionist beyond the possibility of a doubt, he would be immediately hanged to the [27]limb of some convenient tree. Several were so dealt with in connection with the insurrection in Texas. As a rule, however, when the proof was not so conclusive, a severe whipping, or a coat of tar and feathers, would be given him, and then he would be forcefully admonished to leave the South.

One cannot but reach the conclusion that the anti-slavery agitation was detrimental to the happiness and welfare of the slaves, and to the free Negroes as well. Of the latter there were in the slave States (by the fifties) something like 225,000. The majority of these were indolent, miserable, and often vicious. Finally some States passed laws giving them the option of leaving such State or of being sold into slavery.

Nearly everywhere more stringent regulations and laws[27:10] were made both for slaves and for free Negroes. The slaves were deprived of many former privileges, the enjoyment of which by the Negroes might be dangerous for the white people. They were more closely guarded and much more harshly dealt with when guilty of offenses or crimes. Indeed, three Negroes in as many States were burned in 1859 for the murder of their [28]masters,—one of these was burned before 1,500 or 2,000 people.

Nevertheless, it is quite evident that throughout the period from 1830 to 1860 the lynching of Negroes was sporadic,—and usually was resorted to only for exceptional reasons. Generally the law was allowed to take its course. However, it is also plain that after 1850 the law was relied on less and less, while the people more and more assumed the initiative in such matters as the excitement increased. What was true as regards the Negro was undoubtedly true also as regards the treatment of the abolitionists.

FOOTNOTES:

Beginning in 1885, The Chicago Daily Tribune[48:1] has kept a record of lynchings to the present time. Although statistics are to many very dry reading, nevertheless, to others, who are more impressed by facts than fancy, they are of the most intense interest. However that may be, here they [49]appear to be indispensable to any satisfactory consideration of the subject.

The following statistics which are based upon the records of The Chicago Daily Tribune are compiled by periods: excepting the last which is for four years, these periods were taken almost indiscriminately for two years together, beginning with 1885 and 1886:

LYNCHINGS AND LEGAL EXECUTIONS FOR 1885 AND 1886

In the United States there were 314: 159 whites, 149 Negroes, and 6 Chinamen; 62 in the North, 252 in the South. Of those lynched in the South, 144 were Negroes; nearly all the whites were lynched in the Southwest for horse-stealing and murder; the Negroes were lynched for the following causes: 51, rape; 65, murder; 12, incendiarism; 6, arson; 3, cattle and horse-stealing; 1, self-defense; 1, robbery; 1, threat of political exposures; 1, assault; 2 cutting levees; 1, cause not mentioned. There were also 191 legal executions in the country; 72 Negroes in the South, 63 for murder and 9 for rape.

[50]

LYNCHINGS AND LEGAL EXECUTIONS FOR THE YEARS 1892 AND 1893

The whole number for the country was 436: 309 Negroes, 110 whites, 5 Mexicans, and 8 Indians. 53 lynchings in the North. 287 Negroes in the South: 74, rape; 18, attempted rape; 5, alleged rape; 1, attempted rape—total, 88 for rape. 99, murder. Nearly all the remainder for murderous assault, alleged or complicity in murder, arson, etc. 231 legal executions. 127 of these were Negroes in the South: 118, murder; 6, rape; 3, arson. In the North, 9 Negroes were legally executed for murder.

LYNCHINGS AND LEGAL EXECUTIONS FOR 1901 AND 1902

Lynchings for the country, 231. 29, North; 202, South. 194 Negroes; 35 whites; 2 Indians; 1 Chinaman. 185 Negroes lynched in the South: 40, rape; 19, attempted rape—total, 59 for rape; 63, murder; 7, murderous assault; 4, complicity in murder; 3, suspected murder; 3, implicated in murder; 2, sheltering murderers; 1, attempted murder; 6, theft; 5, Negroes’ quarrel of profit sharing; 4, race prejudice; 1, making threats; 1, lawlessness; 1, mistaken identity; remainder, [51]causes not given. In the North, 9 Negroes were lynched, 5 for rape and 4 for murder. There were 262 legal executions, of which 162 were Negroes. Execution of Negroes in South: 128, murder; 14, rape; 4, attempted rape. In the North, 16 Negroes were executed for murder, nearly all in Pennsylvania.

LYNCHINGS AND LEGAL EXECUTIONS FOR 1906 AND 1907

For the United States, 132. 3, North; 129, South. Negroes lynched in the South, 129: 27, rape; 25, attempted rape; 2 rape and murder; 1, suspected rape—total, 55 for rape;[51:2] 32, murder; 13, murderous assault; 5, race riot; remainder, minor causes. There were also 189 legal executions. Of these 115 were Negroes in the South,—15 for rape and 100 for murder.

LYNCHINGS AND LEGAL EXECUTIONS FOR 1911-1914, INCLUSIVE

During these four years there were 235 lynchings in the United States. 11, North; 224, South. [52]In the North, 5 Negroes and 6 whites were lynched; in the South, 215 Negroes, 8 whites, and 1 Mexican. The causes for the lynching of Negroes in the South were as follows: 33, rape; 8, attempted rape; 2, alleged rape,—total, 43 for rape; 117, murder; 14, murderous assault; 3, complicity in murder; 1, suspicion of murder; 1, alleged murder; 5, arson; 5, race prejudice; 8, insulting white women; 11, by night riders in Kentucky; 1, refusal to pay note; 1, race troubles; 1, threat to kill; 1, assault and robbery; 1, horse-stealing; 1, annoying white women; remainder, cause not given. The number of legal executions in the whole country for the four years, were 381. Of these 136 were Negroes, 112 in the South, and 24 for murder in the North. In the South: 93, murder; 10, rape; 2, attempted rape; 1, burglary; 4, cause not given.

Now, adverting to the statistics for 1873-5,—not far removed from the beginning of the Negro-lynching disorder,—it is found that of the 44 Negroes lynched in the South during the three years, 30, or 70- per cent, were lynched for rape; while but 14, or 30+ per cent, were lynched for all other causes combined. Thus it is seen that at this time rape was practically the only cause for the lynching of Negroes in the South.

[53] Moreover, it is quite evident from the statistics above given, beginning with 1885, that rape has continued to be, if not the whole cause for the lynching of Negroes in the South, anyhow almost that, with other crimes as merely incidental:

The three pairs of years,—1885-6, 1901-2, and 1906-7,—show 165 Negroes lynched in the South for rape, 160 for murder, and 127 for all other causes. Here rape takes the lead. Adding to these figures the statistics for 1892-3, the numbers for the four pairs of year are: 259, murder; 253, rape; and 227, minor causes. Again, adding for the four years 1911-14, the result for the twelve years, is: 376, or 39+ per cent, murder; 296, or 31+ per cent, rape; and 282, or 29+ per cent, minor causes. This would seem to indicate that rape was not even the leading cause.

However, according to the statistics for the twelve years under consideration, 502, or 57+ per cent of the Negroes in the South who committed murder during these years were legally executed, and but 376, or 43- per cent were lynched; while for rape, only 60, or 16+ per cent were legally executed, and 296, or 84- per cent were lynched.[53:3] The proportion may be stated thus: [54]57:43::16:84=7+. This shows that a Negro is more than seven times as liable to be lynched in the South for rape than even for murder.

Indeed, the belief of the average white man of the South that lynching is the most effective way of dealing with the Negro for his crime against white women also seems to be borne out by the statistics: In 1892-3, 88 Negroes were lynched for rape; in 1901-2, 59; while for the four years 1911-14, only 43. That this great reduction in rape cases and lynchings was not due to legal executions is shown by the fact that during the same time but 36 Negroes were legally executed, only 12 of these being for the four years 1911-14. Thus as a consequence of a reduction in the crime of rape by Negroes is noted a great reduction in the lynching of Negroes,—from 287 in 1892-3; 185, 1901-2; 129, 1906-7; to 91 for 1913-14.

However, during 1915 and 1916, 104 Negroes were lynched in the South as compared with 91 for 1913 and 1914. The increased number lynched for rape is very marked: being only 13 for 1913 and 1914, but twice the number, or 26, for 1915 and 1916. During the former two years, also, 6 Negroes were legally hanged for rape as compared to 12 for the latter. The proportion remains the same: thus during 1913 and [55]1914, 19 Negroes in the South were put to death for rape as compared with 38 for 1915 and 1916.

Although the legal execution of 12 Negroes in the South for rape during 1915 and 1916 may show a tendency to allow the law to take its course in such cases, may not the above statistics also indicate that when for a few years but few lynchings occurred, especially for the crime of rape, that the effect of such immediate and fearful punishment—consisting of burning as it sometimes does—gradually fades from the mind of the Negro inclined to such crime, with a great increase of rape as a consequence?

Again, in extenuation of lynching, it is important to observe, that, as a result of most crimes against the body, such as murder, but little, if any, humiliation attaches. But it is quite different in rape cases. Not only is there often great physical injury, but also an unutterable humiliation. Our civilization teaches that one should hold certain personal rights and considerations even more dear than life itself. To have in mind such ideas and live up to them measures our reach above lower peoples. That this feeling or spirit should be encouraged, rather than risk its check, is not to be questioned. Therefore, the average Southern white man does not believe that the innocent rape victim of a Negro should be [56]obliged to endure further humiliation incident upon her appearance in a court of law.

In this connection, a set of resolutions published by those who lynched a Negro at Annapolis, Md., in 1875, are interesting. These resolutions, which set forth the causes of the act, were drawn up before the lynching took place and show serious consideration. I quote:[56:4]

Further comment on this lynching is unnecessary—unless indirectly: the Negro, child of Africa, but lately removed from the jungle, because of the necessity of the habitat of his origin, has had developed in him by nature, possibly, stronger sexual passion than is to be found in any other race.[58:5] But he is infinitely lacking in the high mental, moral, and emotional qualities that are especially characteristic of the Anglo-Saxon, and it is a grievous mistake to attribute such high qualities to him. When proper restraint is removed from the Negro he gets beyond bounds. The Anglo-Saxon, indeed, or members of that race, has a way of meeting extraordinary conditions with extraordinary means—hence lynching in order to hold in check the Negro in the South.

Indeed, a country occupied by two races so widely apart in origin, characteristics, and development as the whites and the Negroes of the Southern States—one race of the highest mental endowments and culture, the other of the lowest—one having a civilization that reaches back hundreds, if not thousands, of years, the other in the early dawn of civilization—might reasonably have two codes of law suited, as nearly as possible, to each race, respectively.

[59] A mode of punishment that would be out of place as to the white man may be well suited to the Negro. Small-pox is not to be treated as chicken-pox. Barbarous criminals require barbarous laws. The innocent and law-abiding citizens of a State have rights as well as the criminals—at least, the right to protection from the criminals. But let some crafty scoundrel finally get in jail, and he will be flooded with letters of consolation and sympathy from sentimental women and soft-headed men.[59:6] And let some Negro brute, guilty of rape, suffer the punishment he so richly deserved at the hands of an outraged community, and one would think, if he considered the bitter censure from distant quarters, that the foundations of the government were being undermined, or that a poor lamb was set upon by a pack of howling wolves, thirsting for its blood, but not a word of commiseration for the family, or the victim, of the fiendish Negro’s unbridled bestiality.

Moreover, instead of a Negro’s being over-awed by the solemn deliberations of a court, rather, as he is the center of interest, he all but [60]enjoys it. For once in his life he finds himself in a position of prominence. It would be contrary to the Negro nature if he were not somewhat elated at being the object of so much attention. Even were this not the case, he has no such appreciation of his degradation as the white man feels under similar circumstances. Indeed, it would sometimes appear as almost a triumphal procession for him from the time he gets in jail until he reaches the gallows. The two quotations below may help to justify this idea:

The second one is taken from accounts of the execution at Denton, Md., of “Wish” Shepperd, colored, for the outrage of a fifteen-year-old white girl:[60:8]

[61]

Again, in connection with the lynching of Negroes in the South, one must not lose sight of the conditions that are peculiar to that section. The greater the number of Negroes in proportion to the whites in any State or community the easier it is for the Negro to commit crime and escape. And the Negro criminal does often escape. Seldom is it found that the Negro will aid in the detection of the Negro criminal, rather otherwise. Even the hope of escape is a wonderful encouragement to the criminally inclined.

Now, before the War, as is well known, the South was almost entirely an agricultural section. [62]It had but few cities and these were small. In the last thirty or forty years, however, it has been rapidly developing manufacturing industries. Some of the cities have become great industrial centers.

Nor is manufacturing confined at all to the large cities. Indeed, almost every town in some parts has a cotton mill or other establishment. As illustrations, I may mention Hickory, N. C., and La Grange, Ga. Hickory, with a population of about 5,000, has two large cotton mills; the Piedmont Wagon Shops, which employs hundreds of men; several furniture factories, saw mills, and other industrial interests. La Grange, a city of about 6,000, has ten cotton mills, one of which is valued at $1,000,000, and four of the others at $500,000, each. In the manufacture of cotton alone the South has increased from 316,000 bales in 1885 to 3,193,000 bales in 1915.

As a consequence the white people have largely been drawn to the towns and cities: the wealthier own and control the various business interests while the poorer ones contribute their help or labor. Few Negroes work in the factories, for the Negro seems to lack the qualities necessary: namely, punctuality, dependability, and a certain amount of mental alertness. So, in some parts of the South the whites are nearly all living in the towns [63]and cities, while the country districts are filled with Negroes. However, even in such places there are some whites in the country, and as is evident, in additional danger.

Moreover, the population of several Southern States is nearly half Negro, while in two,—South Carolina and Mississippi,—it is even more than half Negro, being 55+ per cent and 56+ per cent, respectively. Indeed, in 53 counties of the South the Negro population of each exceeds 75 per cent. In Tensas Parish, La., and Isoquena County, Miss., the Negro population is 91.5 per cent and 94.2 per cent, respectively. That is, in every 1,000 persons one meets in Isoquena County, Miss., 942 are Negroes and but 58, white. Such conditions should be readily appreciated. Is it any wonder that the white man thinks it necessary to strike terror into the soul of the possible or incipient Negro criminal by any method that may cause him to stand in fear of an immediate and dreadful death?

Further, the origin of a great part of these Negroes, especially those of the farther South, is, also, worthy of consideration.

During the operation of the internal slave trade, it was usually the most undesirable, unruly, and the criminally inclined Negroes of the border slave States that were sold to the States of the [64]farther South; nor should it be forgotten that between 1808 and 1860 the farther South received around 270,000 Negroes from outside the United States.[64:9] It seems likely that the greater part of these were barbarous Negroes, directly from Africa. It was these criminal and barbarous Negroes, along with their children and grand-children, who by the fortune of war, without home or master, were turned loose on the South.

Thus it is that the white woman is obliged to be constantly on her guard against the Negro,—otherwise rape cases would be multiplied.[64:10] An idea of the necessity of this and the hardship of it may be had from the following quotation:

As the world is to be made safe for democracy, so ought the South to be made free for white women. Is it not the business of the South to endeavor to make the South safe for white women by whatever method appears to be most effective? The women of the South should be just as free to go when, where, and as they please as women in other sections of the country and not be, as has been so aptly put by John Temple Graves, “prisoners to danger and fear”:

A few words now as to the minor causes of lynching. In reading the annual summary of lynchings given by the Chicago Tribune, one may get the impression that Negroes are often lynched for very trifling things. Investigation, however, is apt to show that back of any such lynching was something much more serious than what appears on the face. Many illustrations might be given but one may suffice: thirteen Negroes lynched in Arkansas, March 26, 1904, cause, race prejudice.[66:13] The following account of this affair is abbreviated from an Arkansas paper:[66:14]

[69] The above quotation is given merely as an example of a state of affairs so apt to exist in connection with what usually passes as trivial causes for lynching. May those at a distance from such conditions the better understand!

Thus far I have not discussed lynching in the North, nor do I purpose to do so; but a few words in passing seem pertinent. There is no basis for the assumption, which some seem innocently to hold, that the people of the North are inherently good and law-abiding, while those of the South are inherently wicked and lawless. Indeed, statistics would seem to indicate the opposite.[69:15] In 1910 over 750 persons to the 100,000 population were committed to prison in New England as against less than 450 in the South. I take it that the people of the North are neither better nor worse than those of the South. The same conditions in either section would produce about the same results. The statistics of lynching I gathered for the North were merely incidental. However, for 1901 and 1902, I find that nine Negroes were lynched in the North, four for murder and five for rape.

Further evidence that the people of the North will engage in lynching when necessity dictates may be had from the early history of California. [70]Vigilance committees for the protection of the better class of citizens against the disorderly and criminal elements, were organized without warrant of law. In writing of one of these committees H. H. Bancroft says that it was well represented by men of wealth, intelligence and industry, and that “the largest element comprised men from the Northeastern part of the United States.”[70:16]

Of remedies for lynching I have none. Of proposed remedies, I have only to say that those which seem in any way practicable might result in unmerited hardship to whites and an increase in rape cases as well. Any hope of escape or mitigation of punishment that even unintentionally may be held out to the criminal serves as a wonderful stimulant to crime. The positive knowledge on the part of those criminally inclined that punishment will be immediate, sure, and adequate, is the best deterrent. The Negro is a creature that lives in the present and even postponement of punishment robs it of much of its force. The law sanctions personal self-defense. The white man in lynching a Negro does it as an indirect act of self-defense against the Negro criminal as a race.

When the abnormally criminal Negro race (partly so, no doubt, because he is not yet [71]adjusted to his environment) puts himself in harmony with our civilization, if ever, through assimilating our culture and making our ideals its own, then may it be hoped that his crimes will be reduced to normal and lynching will cease, the cause being removed.

FOOTNOTES:

The present criminal status of the Negro,—and his criminal record since the Civil War as well,—should cause every member of the race in America to hang his head in shame.

Yet, may it not be that, after all, the Negro is, to a large extent, an irresponsible creature of circumstances, and that his crimes are upon the heads of those who unwisely placed him in a position that he was unable to occupy,—except with injury to all concerned?

Scholars hold that the average citizen of the ancient Athenian Democracy, the greatest of ancient democracies, was as intelligent as the average member of the British Parliament, or of the American Congress. The Negro, however, with all his barbarism and ignorance, totally unrelated to the white man in origin, character, and race, directly after his emancipation, was made a full-fledged citizen in the greatest of modern democracies. The fact is appalling.

[73] Stupidity unsurpassed, unless by the pacifist visionaries of the present day who seek to usher in the millennium by proclamation,—peace treaties, world federations, or leagues to enforce peace. Human nature cannot be changed overnight by edict. When the sun fails to rise wars will cease. It is to be hoped that enough sanity yet remains in the American people to save them from such nonsensical vagaries of sentimental dreamers.

But the Negro, son of a wild and tropical race, content for thousands of years to roam the jungles of Africa, supplied by bountiful nature with all his heart’s desire, failing thus to develop any controlling trait of character, or mental stamina, and although civilizations rose and fell beside him, it meant nothing to him. And even now in the midst of American civilization he is moved to action, mainly, by the gusts of primitive emotion and passion. This is the creature that was expected to take an equal share in the government of the most enlightened and progressive people that the world has ever known.

“Who sows to the wind shall reap the whirlwind.” So to-day all other domestic problems or questions pale before—“What shall be done about the Negro? The mob acts upon it, conventions of learned sociologists discuss it. Every superficial thinker has a solution of the problem,—ready [74]made, but never in good working order. The Negro is such a problem in our society mainly, no doubt, because he represents the chief criminal element,—how criminal, let statistics, by way of comparison, declare:

In the Northern and Western States in 1910, one white person was in a penal institution for every 982 of the white population, and one Negro for every 123 of the Negro population; while in the South, the ratio was one to every 2014 for the white, and one Negro to every 308 of the Negro population. Thus in the North Negroes had eight times their proportion in prison, and in the South six and one-half times. That Negro crime is on the increase is evidenced by the fact that in 1890 the Negroes had hardly six times their proportion in prison in the North, and hardly five times their share in the South.

In this connection statistical tables should be helpful and interesting as well. Table I gives a comparative showing of whites and Negroes in some State penitentiaries. Instead of giving the number of prisoners on hand at a certain time, some prison reports give the number received and discharged during a certain period of time while a few give both. In Table II is given the number of prisoners received by the penitentiaries of a few States during a specified time.

[75]

TABLE I

State	Population in 1910		Number in Penitentiary					Times the Number of Negroes to Whites, Year 1910, or Thereabouts
	White	Negro		Year	White	Negro
Alabama	1,228,833	908,882		1902	201	525		7-
				1910	416	1,976
				1914	357	2,252
Georgia	1,431,802	1,176,987		1905	291	1,989		11
				1910	248	2,300
				1914	380	2,692
				1916	412	3,170
Mississippi	786,111	1,009,487		1901	107	928		7+
				1913	156	1,552
				1915	145	1,336
Maryland	1,062,639	232,250		1906	354	586		8-
				1910	369	663
				1915	402	682
Tennessee	1,711,432	473,088		1910	532	1,236		8-
				1912	613	1,297
				1914	651	1,208
Arkansas	1,131,026	442,891		1906	244	603		8-
				1912	213	643
Texas	3,204,848	690,049		1908	1,094	1,987		8+
				1910	1,119	2,095
Louisiana	941,086	713,894		1904	249	1,143		5+
				1910	382	1,663
				1915	382	1,663
Kentucky	2,027,951	261,656		1911	603	729		9.4
				1915	674	726
Connecticut	1,098,897	15,174		1904	419	52		8.4
				1910	542	63
				1914	578	56
Kansas	1,634,352	54,030		1902	874	299		17-
				1914	508	269
New Jersey	2,445,894	89,760		1910	1,049	346		9
				1915	1,020	329
Ohio	4,654,897	111,452		1909	1,216	407		15-
				1911	1,110	417
Vermont	354,298	1,621		1904	149	5		12- 17-
				1910	147	8
				1912	167	13
				1914	212	13

[76]

TABLE II[76:1]

State	Population in 1910			Convicts Received at the Penitentiary During—					Times as Many Negroes as Whites Committed in Proportion to Population of Each Race
	White	Negro		Year		White	Negro
Arkansas	1,131,026	442,891		Nov. 1, 1912 to Oct. 31, 1914		606	776		3.4
Alabama	1,228,832	908,882		Sept. 1, 1910 to Aug. 31, 1914		587	2,414		6-
N. Dakota	569,855	617		July 1, 1908 to June 30, 1910		217	11		43
Missouri	3,124,932	157,452		1906		513	306		11+
				1909		560	374
				1910		543	303
				1912		660	389
				1914		803	378
Maryland	1,062,639	232,250		Year Ending Nov. 30, 1910		129	199		7+
Texas	3,204,848	690,049		Sept. 1, 1908 to Oct. 31, 1910		835	1,251		7
Louisiana	941,086	913,874		1910		202	549		4-
				1915		257	654
Ohio	4,654,897	111,452		Year Ending Oct. 31, 1907		402	145		14-
				Year Ending Oct. 31, 1910		504	169
W. Virginia	1,156,817	64,173		Two Years Ending Sept. 30, 1908		519	428		15

[77] For the Southern States considered, Table I shows that the number of Negro prisoners around 1910, varied according to the State from five plus times their proportion in Louisiana to eleven times in Georgia. While in the North, the number varied from eight times in Connecticut to seventeen minus times in Kansas. Thus showing that the Negro is everywhere many times more criminal than the white man, and that his criminality is more pronounced in the North than in the South.

That he is discriminated against by the court,—and otherwise,—is sometimes given as a reason for the great criminal showing of the Negro; that for the same kind of crime the Negro gets a much longer sentence than a white man, etc. This is hardly to be held as against the North, and that it is true to any appreciable extent in the South is doubtful, but hard to determine,—absolutely.

As Table I gives the number of prisoners on hand at a certain time and Table II the number committed to prison during a period of time,[77:2] other things being equal, it is clear that if the Negro is discriminated against through the length of sentence imposed on him by the court, it should be shown by a smaller number being sent to prison [78]in proportion to the respective population of the two races in any State than is to be found on hand at a certain time. For instance, at the Maryland and the Texan penitentiaries, according to the above tables, in 1910 the numbers of Negroes on hand were, respectively, eight-minus times and eight-plus times their proportion, while those committed for the same year were seven-plus and seven, respectively. This would seem to indicate that in neither Maryland nor Texas was there but little, if any discrimination against the Negro. But a comparison of the statistics for Arkansas and Louisiana seems to show that the Negro is discriminated against in these States. However, upon further investigation it is found that ninety-one Negroes were sent to the Louisiana penitentiary in 1911 for murder and manslaughter, and thirty-two for shooting with intent to kill, as against thirty white men during the same year for these crimes. Again, in the Arkansas penitentiary in November, 1912, there were 213 white and 643 Negro prisoners. Of the whites but 50 had committed homicide, while 218 of the Negro prisoners were guilty of the crime.

Moreover, one might naturally expect that the whites, on account of greater influence, would be much more likely to secure pardons. It is doubtful if the whites are thus favored to any large [79]extent. Between November 1, 1910, and October 31, 1912, Arkansas granted pardons to 121 whites and 86 Negroes, while during the year ending November 30, 1911, Kentucky pardoned nine white men and eighteen Negroes. If statistics were available from all the States it might be rather conclusively demonstrated that the Negro is discriminated against but little by the courts.

In this connection it may be well also to note the fact that in Ohio fourteen-minus times as many as their proportion (according to Table II) were sent to the penitentiary; in West Virginia fifteen times, and in North Dakota forty-three times their proportion.

A comparison of the number of whites and Negroes arrested a year in some of the large cities is given in the following table:

TABLE III

City	Population in 1910			Arrests				White, One Arrest in Every	Negro, One Arrest in Every
	White	Negro		Year	White	Negro
Atlanta	102,861	51,978		1904	6,602	10,954		16.5	4.5
				1909	6,241	11,925
				1915	6,369	10,954
Baltimore	473,387	85,0988		1905	21,713	12,323		23+	7.5
				1909	20,445	11,361
				1915	25,108	15,840
Buffalo	421,809	1,906		1911	23,983	236		18-	8+
				1915	30,711	385
Chicago	2,139,057	46,226		1907	53,349	4,653		34+	10-
				1909	62,864	4,852
				1915	105,119	9,508
Charleston, S. C.	27,803	31,069		1907	1,559	2,631		16+	11-
				1911	1,734	2,886
				1913	2,487	3,185
[80]Detroit	459,926	5,840		1909	10,887	775		33.5	6-
				1910	13,726	976
				1915	19,539	2,121
Omaha	119,580	4,516		1907	8,324	1,663		12.5	2+
				1910	9,597	2,083
				1915	13,091	2,211
Philadelphia	1,463,371	85,637		1910	71,825	9,507		20+	9+
New Orleans	249,403	89,672		1903	9,529	6,917		16.7	9-
				1910	15,035	10,052
				1913	19,486	11,163
St Louis	645,478	44,541		1904	20,149	5,375		22-	5+
				1910	29,746	8,382
				1913	29,166	8,099
Providence, R. I.	218,623	5,703		1911	11,332	434		19.3+	13+
				1912	10,632	470
Richmond, Va.	80,879	46,749		1904	2,851	3,674		22-	8-
				1907	4,356	5,246
				1910	3,710	5,893
Wilmington, Del.	78,309	9,162		1908	3,175	963		26+	9.6
				1910	2,933	955
				1911	2,896	979
Washington, D. C.	236,128	94,941		1908	15,985	17,430		14.3	5.3+
				1910	16,371	17,632
				1915	17,415	17,716

Table III shows that for the cities given, one white person to twenty-one-plus of the white population was arrested during 1910 or thereabouts, but one to eight-minus of the Negro. In the cities of the North one to twenty-three whites were arrested and one to six Negroes; in the South excluding Wilmington, Del., and Washington, one to twenty whites and one to eight for the Negroes. In Detroit: one for every two plus Negroes were arrested.

[81] In this connection, it would seem that a comparison of the jail population of a Northern and a Southern State might be of interest. For this purpose Alabama and Connecticut were selected. In 1910, Alabama had a white population of 1,228,832 and 908,282 Negroes while Connecticut had 1,098,897 whites and 15,174 Negroes.[81:3]

In both Alabama and Connecticut the ratio of whites and Negroes sent to jail during the fiscal year ending September 30, 1914, was about the same, one white to four Negroes.[81:4] However, in Alabama one white person to 216 of the white population as against one to 54 of the Negro, while in Connecticut, one white person to 100, and one Negro to 20 was put in jail.

Again, the four counties of Connecticut embracing the large cities of the State, and having nearly all the Negro population, sent to jail one white to 92 of the white population, and one Negro to 24 of the Negro, or nearly four times their proportion.[81:5] But in the other four counties with an [82]aggregate of 187,058 whites and 1,661 Negroes the ratio was one to 174 for the whites, and one to 64 for the Negroes or hardly three times as many.

Now, taking the three counties of Alabama in which the cities of Montgomery, Mobile, and Birmingham are located, with an aggregate population of 207,295 whites and 182,211 Negroes, one white person to 90 was sent to jail and one Negro to 21, or nearly four and one-half times as many.

Moreover, twenty-two counties with no towns of more than 1000 population each, and having a total population of 293,187 whites and 274,533 Negroes one white to 523 was sent to jail and one Negro to 141, or nearly four Negroes to one white.

Also, in fourteen counties with cities of 1000 to 10,000 population, and a total population of 205,844 whites, and 207,966 Negroes, the races being almost equal in numbers, one white to 400, and one Negro to 75 were sent to jail, or six times the Negro’s share.

[83] Furthermore, six counties consisting almost wholly of white people, having a total population of 119,496 whites and 5,670 Negroes,—had in jail one white to 363 and one Negro to 27, or twelve Negroes to one white person.

Moreover, eight counties of Alabama, with an aggregate population of 41,323 white and 185,222 Negroes, about four and one-half times as many Negroes as whites, one white to 689 were sent to jail and one Negro to 156, or about four and one-half times as many.

In studying the jail statistics of Alabama, whether cities or counties, it soon becomes evident that the criminality of the Negro increases as his proportion to the whole population decreases; in other words, the fewer the Negroes in a given population the more criminal they appear. An examination of Tables I, II, and III will show that this is not only true of Alabama, but true, with scarcely an exception, both North and South. Negro crime seemingly increases in the cities and in the North and the West. So does the crime of the white man increase, although not to the same extent.

In general, the denser the population the more likely is friction to occur, or collisions among its [84]units. But this is not an adequate explanation for the increase of Negro crime. Nor can it be accounted for except in small part, by attributing it to the more complex social environment of the cities and of the North. However, it is not to be doubted that the unstable character of the Negro is easily influenced by the temptations incident to city life. More important, no doubt, is the assumption that where Negroes are few in comparison with the whites, they are more tempted to commit acts of thievery, robbery, and burglary. Again, in the cities, officers of the law are on the watch, consequently more apt to detect and catch a criminal; also, where the Negroes are few they are likely to be held more strictly to the white man’s standard of conduct. However, in some parts of the South, a white man sometimes may be arrested when for the same act a Negro would hardly be bothered. The idea seems to obtain that for certain things allowance must be made for the ignorance of the Negro, but no excuse is made for the white man.

Again, a great deal of the friction between the two races in the South is caused by the resistance of Negro criminals to officers of the law. Not only so, but relatives, friends and other Negroes as well often attempt to shield the Negro criminal [85]in order that he may escape detection and arrest. This is not exceptional but rather of frequent occurrence. It is one of the ways in which the black man shows himself to be an enemy of law and order. He does not seem to realize the attitude in which he places his race in acting thus. Now, where the Negroes form a large part or the greater part of the population, it is much easier for him to aid Negro criminals, and it is often effectively done. But where there are but few Negroes in the population, it is to that extent more difficult for the Negro criminal to escape detection and arrest. These seem to be the main reasons why Negroes appear more criminal where there are but few in the population.

In addition to statistics, a few newspaper clippings may aid one more fully to appreciate Negro criminality.[85:7] It is hardly probable that anywhere in the United States has the Negro, on the whole, had better advantages than in Maryland, Virginia, and Delaware, especially is this true of the Eastern Shore of Maryland. For this reason the following are the more significant:

[86]

RESISTING OFFICERS, ETC.

A Negro in Chestertown, Md., being tried on three charges of arson, attacks the officers of the court:

[88]

[89]

NEGROES AT PICNICS AND ON EXCURSIONS

NEGROES AT CAMP MEETING

Both these accounts were in the same issue of the Cambridge (Md.) Record, but the camps were in adjoining counties.

Indeed, Negro camp meetings and bush meetings had become so numerous,—occupied such a large part of the Negroes’ time during summer, caused so much lawlessness among them; and consequently so much expense to the whites, that the Maryland Legislature in 1916 passed a law evidently directed against them, which in part is as follows:

[94] In about the same spirit and for the same purpose, the reduction of Negro crime, a few years ago, the city of Mobile, Alabama, passed an ordinance, an account of which is taken from a Baltimore periodical:[94:23]

NEGRO IMMORALITY

In connection with Negro criminality it seems pertinent to say something of Negro immorality. Two of the Negro’s most prominent characteristics are the utter lack of chastity and complete ignorance of veracity.

The Negro’s sexual laxity, considered so immoral or even criminal in the white man’s civilization, may have been all but a virtue in the [95]habitat of his origin. There nature developed in him intense sexual passions to offset his high death rate. Then, too, the economic influences which fostered a family life among other peoples were mostly lacking in tropical Africa as nature provided abundantly without effort on the part of man.

Although the regulations adopted by masters for the control of the Negroes during slavery times may have served as a check upon their natural sexual propensities, however, since emancipation they have been under no such restraint and as a consequence they have possibly almost reverted to what must have been their primitive promiscuity. Huffman says that in 1894 more than one-fourth of the colored births in the city of Washington were illegitimate. Many prominent Negroes admit that above ninety per cent of both sexes are unchaste. A negro may be a pillar in the church and at the same time the father of a dozen illegitimate children by as many mothers.

Another Negro failing is lying. One can believe neither layman nor minister, neither criminal nor saint among them. One may occasionally find a truthful Negro,—just as he may find a virtuous or an honest one. Undoubtedly both honest and truthful was the Negro,—an elder in the church,—who refused to partake of the Lord’s Supper, [96]because, as he said, the flour the bread was made of had been stolen.

Some benevolently-inclined men and many religious zealots thought that religion and education was the “Open Sesame” by means of which the “salvation” of the Negro was to come. So they sent him money to build churches and to found great schools. Many, however, are now finding that though the Negro may have religion he has no morality; and that too often his education makes him unwilling to do what he can do and wish to do that for which he is unfitted or for which there is no demand. At present who can tell whether he is going forward or backward. Some one has said that there is going on side by side in the Negro people a minimum of progress with a maximum of regress.

However, the Negro takes great pride in his church, and in his way is intensely religious. The late Booker T. Washington said:

It is, indeed, likely that more than one-half of the male Negro adults are actual members of church, while not more than one in four or five [97]white male adults have such connection. Notwithstanding such a showing, religion does not seem to have any controlling influence over the life and character of the Negro.

Nevertheless, the Negro enjoys his religion, for he is an emotional animal. It is the emotional element in religion that appeals to him and makes his face to shine. The promise of never-ending pleasure in a world to come may be but faintly comprehended by him, but the fear of a far off punishment deters him but little from crime. He is the optimist of the human race, and lives in the eternal present. He has no sorrows from the past, and no care except for the immediate future. He keeps without effort or intention two injunctions of Scripture: “Visit the sick,” and “have no care for to-morrow.”

He goes to camp meetings or revivals, sings, prays, and shouts until the small hours of the night. He may think he thus pays the Lord His due, even though the next day, if he works at all, he sleeps on the plow-handle, or with half-closed eyes cuts up the tobacco or the cotton.

However, he may be free from the painful necessity to work the next day, if his wife or mother should have just returned from a white neighbor with an “apronful,” even if he did not visit some [98]tempting smoke-house or hen-roost on the way home from his religious revelry.

How can Negro criminality and immorality be lessened? The answer is not easy, and what follows is merely suggestive. Up to the present, what little the Negro has accomplished, in most part has been due to the white blood he has received, or to white direction and sympathy. The Negro is woefully lacking in initiative and persistence. He would be greatly benefited by some sort of probationary oversight. If the Filipinos are not fit for self-government collectively, much less the Negro individually. A great part of them are no more fit to profit by their freedom than so many children. Nothing so promotes health of body and strength of character as regular and persistent industry. To the Negro should be preached the “gospel of salvation” through work. Somehow get him to work six days in the week, instead of working two and loafing four, as many now do. Industrial schools such as Hampton and Tuskegee meet a great need but they touch but few.

If the States had the power to train or even to enforce habits of industry and thrift upon the shiftless, idle, and vicious Negroes it would undoubtedly result in measureless benefit to both white and black. Liberty should not be made [99]a “fetish.” If the Negro has rights that should not be abridged, so have the white people rights and lives that should not be endangered. The law-abiding many have the right to protection from the criminal few—actual or incipient. With the adoption of some such scheme the Negro might gradually cease to be a menace to the white race.

Again, so often the Negro leaders of the Negro race are merely blind leaders of the blind,—entirely lacking in breadth of view, often discouraging in their race what they should encourage and encouraging what they should discourage as the following quotation may indicate:

Such talk as this serves to promote Negro crime. If instead of Negro leaders writing articles for magazines and Negro papers, in sermons in Negro churches, and in addresses before [100]Negro conventions denouncing the whites for protecting themselves against Negro crime in their own way, could realize that it is not so much the black skin as what sort of man the black skin covers, that counts, would demonstrate to their black brothers that they themselves are the sinners rather than the sinned against, that they are the transgressors rather than otherwise, they might accomplish much toward lessening Negro crime. If such leaders would use their influence to the utmost to make their race as law-abiding as the whites, and should bring it about, it is hardly likely that then they would need to complain that their race is imposed upon. But if they were, at least, there would be more force in their complaint. But so long as the Negro race commits its present amount of crime, the complaint against unfair treatment is more than childish.

FOOTNOTES:

It is hardly to be questioned that since the Civil War the white man and the Negro have been drawing farther and farther apart. Religious teachers, political adventurers, and fortune hunters gave the first great impetus to the movement. The teachers, however, misguided, may have been sincere in their efforts to benefit the Negro; but the carpet-baggers had in mind only personal aggrandizement.

This political separation of the Negroes from the Southern whites was the entering wedge that split asunder the ties that had bound the two races together. Otherwise the Negroes might have divided with the whites between two or more political parties. This would have resulted greatly to their advantage for each party would have bid for their vote.

Upon the passing of the carpet-bag administrations, however, the Negroes lost most of their political importance. Since then it has been further [102]reduced until it is now almost a negligible quantity.

During the Reconstruction period, the attitude of the Negroes served to alienate their former masters, who undoubtedly would have otherwise been their best friends. Between most of the Negroes and the poor whites of the South, there had always existed a feeling of mutual dislike if not contempt. After the War great numbers of the latter secured wealth and influence. Their dislike of the Negro, however, has increased rather than abated.

Thus, the Negroes began to feel the lack of that sympathy, consideration, and direction from the whites to which they had been accustomed. Therefore, whether consciously or unconsciously, they turned to leaders of their own color more readily, and this has gradually developed a feeling of race solidarity. However, this should not be an unmixed evil.

Again, in many parts of the South, the industrial development of the past thirty years has furthered segregation in that section by drawing the whites to the towns and cities. But Negroes have also turned to the cities in great numbers notwithstanding the fact that the industrial enterprises of the cities usually hold out but little if any inducements to such migration. This has given rise to [103]the agitation for the segregation of the races in the cities whether voluntary or by legal enactment. While this is more pronounced in the South it has also spread to the North and West.

One of the most noteworthy examples of voluntary segregation is to be found in New York City:

Indeed, in many parts of the country the Negroes have separated themselves from the whites by founding small communities of their own. In almost any state, villages and towns populated and governed almost exclusively by Negroes may be found. A few of the more important are: Buxton, Iowa, 1000 whites and 4000 Negroes; [104]Brooklyn, Illinois, 1600 Negroes; Balor, Oklahoma, 3000; Plateau, Alabama, 1500; Mound Bayou, Mississippi, 700.[104:2]

In addition, there are almost an unlimited number of what may be termed Negro settlements scattered over the country. Such is Petersburg, on a railroad two miles from Hurlock, Maryland, which may serve as an example. It consists of about twenty-five houses and lots or little farms, altogether embracing about one hundred acres. These are mostly owned by the Negroes who live on them. They bought these little tracts several years ago when the land was considered almost worthless as it was so sandy and poor. The men till their lots and occasionally work by the day for some of the surrounding white farmers. In season, the women and children and some of the men as well go elsewhere to pick berries. In the late summer all have employment at home for about two months furnished by a white cannery, near. Altogether it seems to be a very contented community. Each Negro is his own boss and can work when it suits him and stop when he pleases. To make such a living as satisfies him he need work scarcely half of his time. This just suits Negro inclinations and consequently Petersburg is a little paradise for the Negro.

[105] However, the segregation of the Negro is not yet universal. In some towns and cities as well both North and South they are more or less scattered. In the City of Washington they are found practically everywhere. In most cities they occupy the most undesirable parts—such as any low muddy places or narrow alleys. In some small cities of the South, while there may be a well defined Negro section, nearly every well-to-do family has a Negro servant family in the back yard. La Grange, Georgia, is an example.

But in the greater number of towns and cities the Negro section and the white section have been clearly defined for years. Cambridge, Maryland,—a city of about 5000 whites and 2000 Negroes,—is of that sort. All the Negroes live in the Southwest section except two or three families that live in a kind of alley near the bridge which connects East Cambridge with the main part of the city. One sees but few Negroes on any white street, not even on the main business street except Saturdays when they do their shopping. But on the street just west of the main business street and parallel with it, the business street of the Negro section, only a few whites are ever to be seen but it is always black with Negroes. Here are Negro grocery stores, a drug store, barber shops, theater, schools, and churches. Very [106]few mulattoes are in evidence for the Negroes are nearly all of pure blood. One never hears of any serious trouble between the Negroes and whites of Cambridge for they live in comparative harmony with one another. At East New Market in the same county, a railroad separates the white from the Negro section of the town, while at Vienna, eleven miles distant, the Negro section is several hundred yards from the white part of the town.

Although Negroes constitute about one-third of the population of the Eastern Shore of Maryland, they have not become sufficiently numerous as farmers as to cause much injury to farm land or to farming interests, whether by careless and indifferent farming or by making the country districts undesirable to white people as places of residence. Most of the Negroes in the country districts are used by the white farmers as farm hands. Negroes are seldom able to rent the better grade farms while those owned by them are usually small and poor. As a consequence most of the land on the Eastern Shore is in a high state of cultivation and the farmers prosperous and contented.

In most parts of the farther South, however, except Texas and Oklahoma, and the Piedmont and mountain sections, the whites have allowed the [107]Negroes to gain such a foothold in the country districts that they are now the greatest obstacles to agricultural progress. The South is just beginning to realize the true condition of things.

Indeed, already in North Carolina an agitation has begun for the segregation of the Negro in the rural districts. If this could be accomplished in all parts of the South it would be a wonderful boon to that section. Not only would it to a great extent free the white women from fear of attack by Negroes but this would serve to attract to the South thrifty and ambitious farmers from other parts of the country. A more satisfactory social life could be developed in the rural districts. Adequate schools and churches could better be maintained, not only for the white race but for the Negroes as well. As a consequence both races would be benefited.

With the exception of the establishment in the South of separate schools for the whites and the Negroes, only in comparatively recent years has segregation been brought about by law. More than twenty years ago, however, a few Southern States had laws providing for segregation in railroad travel and now almost every Southern State has such a law. In some, Maryland for example, the law also applies to passenger steamboats. A certain section of the boat is given to the Negroes. [108]Both races have now become so accustomed to these laws that they are generally taken as a matter of course.

Lately many Southern cities have passed ordinances extending the principle of segregation in travel, to street cars. Mobile, Alabama, however, as early as 1902 had such an ordinance in force. As it was one of the first, and but slightly different from those in force in other cities, the main part is quoted here, as follows:

The conductor is also given the authority of police officer to enforce the law.

The form of segregation which is receiving most attention in the South at present, however, is the effort of various cities,—great and small,—to provide by law, for (as nearly as possible) distinct residential sections for the two races. This question was first agitated in Baltimore in 1809. A segregation law was passed but it was soon pronounced invalid by the courts. In 1911, another such ordinance was put in force but it, too, was declared void, first by the Criminal Court of Baltimore, and later by the Maryland Court of Appeals. The latter Court, however, maintained that the city has the right to pass a segregation law. I quote the following words of the court:

Very soon after this, another ordinance was passed. It has now been in operation about four years (1917). However, the Maryland Court of Appeals is holding a case sub curia, awaiting a decision of the United States Supreme Court in a case testing the validity of the segregation law of Louisville.[110:4a]

In 1912 the Virginia Legislature enacted a law for the purpose, it seems, of encouraging the cities and towns of that State to segregate the whites and the Negroes. Richmond, however, had already passed a segregation ordinance in 1911. It is as follows:

Some of the principal reasons for the demand for the segregation of the two races in towns and cities are given in the Preamble to the Virginia law of 1912 as follows:

The effect upon public order of the “close proximity” of the two races may best be shown by the following quotations:

[114]

Indeed, objections are often made to the location of Negro churches, schools or Y. M. C. A.’s in or near white neighborhoods. The following newspaper headings may be sufficient to indicate the situation:

Nor is this attitude toward the Negro confined to the South. If the North had as many Negroes in proportion to its population as the South, the feeling there would be just as acute. The following quotations so indicate:

[116]

[118]

A few such Negro leaders as Dr. Bowles, just mentioned, seem to appreciate the advantages of segregation for the Negro, and for both races. Others, however, object to segregation because to their minds, it is a denial of social equality with the white race, or that they are deprived of the best living conditions. If the Negro had the proper race pride he would welcome the opportunity to live among his own race. He would delight in the companionship of those of his kind. Among the Negroes would develop grades of society as among white people. Indeed, already in Baltimore Druid Hill Avenue and other streets have become a sort of aristocratic section for the Negroes. Those who have money have the opportunity to live among their own race in the best manner possible.

Other races are so proud of their traditional grandeur or present attainments as to claim [119]superiority and exclusiveness. But the Negro has such little race pride that were it possible every Negro man would have a white wife and every Negro woman a white husband. Many Negro leaders are so lacking in race esteem as to seize every opportunity to force themselves into the society of other races. And although they possess a strong sense of their rights they are usually found unmindful of attendant obligations.

The great mass of Negroes, however, soon accommodate themselves to segregation regulations, whether for schools, railways, or for the residential sections of cities and seem to care but little about the question of equality. It is only when stirred up by the unwise of their own race, or by some sentimental, if well-meaning, but shallow-thinking whites, who have lived far removed from association with Negroes, that they manifest much interest in such matters.

In association among races, unless there is some strong cementing influence to counteract it, friction is likely to occur between them in proportion to racial difference. And so long as racial antipathy shall exist—and practical minded men see no signs of an end of it in the near future—regulations for the promotion of harmony should be encouraged by both whites and blacks.

It would be almost as reasonable to expect an [120]idiot and a genius to find a common ground of association as to expect it of a white man and a Negro. For in both races there is a failure to recognize that consciousness of kind which is the basis of all pleasant association. Indeed, even the subdivisions of the white race show a strong preference each for those of his own division. An Italian prefers to associate with an Italian; a German, with Germans; and a Jew, with Jews.

So, in the last analysis, the most potent reason for the segregation of the whites and the Negroes is their unlikeness. For they are antipodal in the extreme: the nadir and zenith of peoples. This dissimilarity cannot be removed by soap and water, time, charity, education, or culture. After all these it will yet remain.

Another reason for segregation is the criminality and immorality of the Negro race. Even if it would benefit a few Negroes or satisfy their vanity to travel with whites or to live on the same street with them is little reason why the comfort, property values, health and morals of the whites should be endangered thereby. The better elements of society have rights as well as the worst and the majority should receive consideration as well as the minority. It is in strict accord with sound ethical principles that laws should aim to level up rather than to level down.

[121] Again, the susceptibility of the Negro to disease is another very potent reason for segregation laws. The Negro’s manner of living since his emancipation—irregular in every way, sometimes half-starved—together with their immoral habits, have so weakened the constitutions of a great part of them that they easily become victims to disease.

According to the Washington Post (March 3, 1917) of 20,000 Negroes who had lately arrived in Philadelphia from the South 1000 were ill with pneumonia and tuberculosis, of whom 700 were said to be dying.

The “Negro Year Book” for 1914-15 makes the statement that 450,000 Negroes in the South are seriously ill all the time, and that 600,000 of the present Negro population will die of tuberculosis. When one recalls that thirty-five years ago tuberculosis among Negroes was scarcely heard of, he may the better appreciate the full force of the above statement in regard to tuberculosis among Negroes.

In a letter calling a conference in Baltimore to consider better housing conditions for the Negro, Mayor Preston said:

The Health Department, in a bulletin issued about the same time, showed that the death-rate per thousand of the Negro population of Baltimore was 33.96, while that of the white population was but 16.91. What is true of Baltimore is more or less true elsewhere.

It is needless to consider other reasons for segregation laws, the three given; viz., to lessen friction, to check criminality and immorality, and to prevent the spread of disease, are sufficient warrant for segregation laws of whatever kind.

FOOTNOTES:

The statement sometimes made that in 1865 the Negro was a landless and penniless race is far from the truth. Some slaves had property that they had secured through opportunities given them by their owners. No doubt free Negroes secured at least a small share of the public domain. Many slaves upon being given freedom by benevolent masters, were also given money or property at the same time.

Cases of this sort were frequent during slavery times. Several such instances are given in the Staunton (Va.) Democrat during 1846-1848. Such cases as the following were not uncommon:

[124] These were two items in an inventory of the estate Phillip B. Saddler returned to the Orphans’ Court of Baltimore in 1860.

Even The Liberator mentions some cases of the kind. For example:

A man in Kentucky willed to his slaves, whom he made free, horses, wagons, farming implements, and $4,000. Another, also in Kentucky, freed a Negro family of four, purchased an excellent farm for them, paying fifty dollars an acre, and in addition gave them a wagon, a pair of mules and a quantity of provisions. These are given merely as examples of what was constantly taking place.[124:2]

Indeed, there were many rich free Negroes in the South at the time of the Civil War. Although there is abundant evidence that the free Negroes, as a rule, were an indolent, thriftless, and even vicious class, some of them, no doubt on account of the reënforcement of white blood in their veins, were industrious and prosperous.

At Charleston, S. C., alone in 1860, there were 355 free Negroes who paid taxes.[124:3] Of these 226 owned real estate valued at $1,000 or more, each. [125]Some of them had $10,000 to $40,000 worth of property. Altogether they had almost $1,000,000 worth.

In Louisiana also, as might be expected, there were many wealthy free Negroes. Most of these were descended from the French and the Spanish planters and their Negro slaves. One free Negro family of Louisiana was said to be the richest Negro family in the United States before the War, having property valued at several hundred thousand dollars.[125:4] Frederick Law Olmsted, who traveled through the State about 1855, was told that some of the free Negroes owned property worth $400,000 or $500,000, which included some of the best sugar and cotton plantations. Indeed, all over the country might have been found free Negroes with more or less property. The greater part of it, no doubt, had been given them by white masters or white relatives.

In reference to the amount of property held by Negroes at the time of the Civil War, William H. Thomas, a Negro writer, says:

In 1860, there were in the neighborhood of 250,000 free Negroes in the South and around 225,000 in the North. Then, if the free Negroes of the South had nearly $40,000,000 it would seem a fair estimate that in both sections the free Negroes had at least $60,000,000. Taking this for granted, as money at six per cent compounded, annually, doubles every twelve and one-half years, the $60,000,000 at interest until the present (1917) would have amounted to about $960,000,000. If the 10,000,000 Negroes of the country at present had as large amount of property in proportion, as the less than 500,000 free Negroes of 1860, they would be worth more than $1,200,000,000.

However, in 1903, it was estimated by a committee of the American Economic Association that all the taxable property in the United States owned by Negroes in 1900 amounted to only $300,000,000. The $60,000,000 at six per cent would have amounted to about $400,000,000 by that time.

In 1913, in an address before the Negro Business [127]League which met in Philadelphia, Booker T. Washington said that Negroes pay taxes on $700,000,000 worth of property. Many other students of the Negro question both black and white have placed about the same estimate upon Negro holdings. Even if true, the amount would be about $200,000,000 less than the $60,000,000 at interest to the same time.

Now, assuming that Negroes actually owned $700,000,000 worth of property in 1913, what does it signify? The value of all property in the United States is now estimated at almost $250,000,000,000. Now, suppose that it was $210,000,000,000 in 1913, this would be just three hundred times the estimated value of Negro property at the time. In other words, 10,000,000 negroes owned one three-hundredth as much as 90,000,000 whites. Thus one white man on an average would have as much as thirty-two Negroes.

Even were it true that the Negro race began with nothing after the War, likely thousands of white men who became millionaires had just such a start. One such white man, especially, is, no doubt, worth as much as the 10,000,000 Negroes claim to be, even though he has given to charity almost half as much more.

Indeed, the $700,000,000 in question is but little [128]more than two-thirds as much as the whites in the United States, according to the Chicago Tribune,[128:5] gave to charity during 1916. Again, the $700,000,000 lacks nearly $200,000,000 of being equal to the taxable basis of Baltimore. It would be difficult to secure statistics in reference to the matter, but there could be little doubt that the first immigrants to the United States after the Civil War, including the descendents of such to the number of 10,000,000,—immigrants who came with practically nothing, no money in the majority of instances and ignorant,—now are worth many times $700,000,000.

The $700,000,000 may also be considered from another point of view: The “Negro Year Book,” 1913 credits the Negro with $700,000,000 worth of property and speaks glowingly about the increase of the previous ten years. The statement is made that farm land and buildings owned by the Negro increased from $69,639,426 in 1900 to $273,506,665 in 1910, and that during the same period the total value of Negro farm property, including live stock, and implements and machinery increased from $177,408,688 to $492,898,216.

Now, the Census shows that in 1900 Negroes [129]owned 13,770,801 acres of land entire and 2,205,297 acres in part. If their share of the land owned in part were half, then, the Negroes had in possession 14,873,449 acres. In 1910, they owned 15,961,506 acres entire and 3,114,957 acres in part. Allowing them the same share of that held in part as for 1900, gives them in 1910, 17,518,984 acres. However, only about two-fifths of the land owned by Negroes is arable, the larger part being woodland, swamp, rough and stony land, much of which is almost valueless.

According to the “Negro Year Book,” Negro farm land and buildings increased in value from $7.98 an acre in 1900 to $17.40 an acre in 1910.[129:6] If this is true; the value of the Negro lands and buildings in 1900 was $118,690,124 instead of $69,639,426; and in 1910, $304,830,032 instead of $273,506,665.

[130] Again, Negroes operated in 1910, 893,370 farms while but 241,221 of these were owned or partly owned by them. An idea of the value of the farm stock on these farms, and the Negroes’ lack of thrift as well, may be had from a statement made before the Negro Conference at Tuskegee Institute in 1915:

According to the Census, however, on farms operated by Negroes, farm implements and machinery increased from $18,859,757 in 1900 to $34,178,052 by 1910, while live stock increased in value from $84,936,215 to $184,896,771. Adding to these amounts for 1910 the above sum of $304,830,032 for Negro lands and buildings a total of $523,904,855 is obtained for 1910 instead of $492,898,216, which is the Negro Year [131]Book estimate.[131:8] So here credit may be given the Negro for the larger amount.

Again, according to the Census of 1910, Negroes owned around 220,000 homes other than farm homes. No estimate as to their value is given. Although $400 each is undoubtedly a high valuation they may be roughly estimated at that. This amounts to $88,000,000. Booker T. Washington claimed for Negroes just before his death, 43,000 business interests.[131:9] The observation of the writer is that Negro business interests average much less than $1000 each. Indeed, great numbers not more than $100 or $200 each. However, if they average $1000 each they amount to $43,000,000.

By adding the three items: $523,904,855, the [132]value of Negro farm property; $88,000,000, Negro-owned homes other than farm homes; and $43,000,000, the value of the Negro business interests; a grand total of $654,904,855 is obtained. Thus it would appear that in 1913 Negroes might have had around $700,000,000 worth of property in their possession.

Naturally the next question that comes to mind is this: How much does the Negro owe?

Scarcely without exception the white man is his creditor, consequently what the Negro owes is to be subtracted from the amount of his possessions.

According to the Census of 1910, something like 65,000 Negro farms and 50,000 Negro-owned homes have mortgages or similar encumbrances against them. It is unlikely that this is true to any large extent except as regards the more valuable Negro properties. If the average farm mortgage is $500 and the average home mortgage $300 both together will amount to $47,500,000. It is reasonable to suppose also that the 43,000 business interests owe at least $15,000,000.

Again, while more than 150,000 Negro farms and about as many more Negro homes were reported by the census as free of encumbrance, nevertheless, it is not unlikely that they owe a large amount of money in notes, bills, etc. Nor need it be forgotten that often Negro tenants owe their [133]landlords fully as much as the entire value of such tenant’s personal property.[133:10] Many Negroes in one way or another owe about as much as they are worth. This is undoubtedly true of some white men, also, but the point is, what Negroes owe they owe to white men. A well-to-do farmer told the writer a few years ago that he held various kinds of small claims to the amount of more than $4000 against the Negroes of his community. So, $50,000,000 should not be an excessive estimate for such Negro liabilities.

By adding these various items; $47,500,000 in mortgages and liens against Negro farms and homes; $15,000,000 against Negro business interests; and $50,000,000 against Negro farm owners, home owners, tenants, etc., gives a grand total of $112,500,000. Subtracting this from $654,904,855, which was found to be the value of Negro property, leaves $542,404,855 as the value of Negro property when debts are paid.

Again, in regard to the statement above that Negro farm property increased in value from $222,485,096 in 1900 to $523,904,855 in 1910 one may need to be reminded that live stock and land about doubled in money value during this [134]time and that by 1913 they had more than doubled. This was due mainly to the wonderful increase in the output of gold mines thus making money cheaper. With this depreciation in the value of money the Negro, of course, had nothing to do.

Except for this, it is unlikely that the $222,485,096 the valuation of Negro farm property in 1900 would have increased to more than $265,000,000 in 1910 instead of $523,904,855. For during the time the Negro added but 2,645,535 acres which may be valued at $21,000,000. The remaining $23,000,000 being sufficient to allow for the improvement of the land, if any, and any actual increase of cattle and farm machinery. Now, subtracting $265,000,000 from $523,904,855 leaves $258,904,855 which was due to rise in price rather than to effort on the part of the Negro. Again, subtracting the $258,904,855 from $542,404,855, the value of all Negro property after their debts were paid, leaves $283,500,000 which, except for the circumstances over which the Negro had no influence, would have been the actual wealth of the Negro about 1913, instead of $700,000,000 as claimed.

Of this amount, no doubt, quite a large part was given to individual Negroes by whites for one reason or another. I have already adverted to the fact that during slavery times Negroes often [135]received both money and property from kind-hearted masters, along with their freedom. How much has been given them since emancipation would be hard to determine. Only a short while ago, indeed, the New York Tribune mentioned a white woman who had left her Negro maid $12,000 in cash, and other valuables in addition.[135:11]

Moreover, it has been estimated, that of the $28,496,946, the value of plant equipment and endowment of Negro private schools, five-sixths was contributed by whites and only one-sixth by Negroes.[135:12] During the years 1912 and 1913 white people gave nearly $2,000,000 towards Negro education.[135:13] Nor does there appear to be any falling off in the white man’s gifts to Negro schools. In the early part of the year 1917, the Rockefeller Foundation appropriated to American schools and colleges $575,200, of which $197,000, several times their share, was given to Negro schools.[135:14] In addition, Federal and State institutions for the higher education of the Negro have an income about $1,000,000 and property valued at $6,000,000.[135:15] Nor is this all, no doubt, Southern whites [136]have contributed several times as much to Negro education by taxation as has been given otherwise.

Again, the amount of money and lands that the Negro secured during the reconstruction period might be an interesting subject for investigation. The Negro legislator had the same privilege as the white one to sell his vote and influence. Nor could there be little doubt that he failed to use the opportunity. The following story is credited to Senator Z. B. Vance of North Carolina:[136:16]

During the Reconstruction period taxes became so oppressive that thousands and thousands of farms and plantations were sold at auction for taxes. In some places land became almost valueless. It is hardly to be doubted that many Negroes who got easy money through politics at this time failed to use some of it in the purchase of land.

[137] Now, what is the reason for the poverty of the Negro? Indeed, from the foregoing it must appear that poverty is a more appropriate word to use in such connection than wealth. The answer is not far to seek. It is the natural result of the Negro character, disposition, and training. The following letter is suggestive:

A Negro who worked in the strawberry section of Delaware told the writer a few years ago that although he usually worked in the daytime he roved about every night. It happened that once, when he had been carousing as usual on the night before, that he was put to harrowing strawberries. [138]About three o’clock in the afternoon the overseer came along and found that he was harrowing up the strawberries from one end of the row to the other,—he was so sleepy. The overseer simply told him to put his horse in the stable and go to bed, which he did. As he got some sleep, when night came he was out again for a great part of the night; and so on.

As a laborer, the Negro is not so satisfactory as formerly. The old-time Negro, trained in slavery to work, has about passed away and his successor is far less efficient and faithful to duty. Lately, large numbers of Negro laborers have shown a tendency to leave the farms for work on railroads, in sawmills, and in the cities, large numbers migrating to the cities of the North. They like to work in crowds and this often results in making more work for the police.

From the good wages Negro laborers have received for several years, many of the more far-sighted have saved enough to buy little homes. A few of the more ambitious may continue to save, but far the greater part are then perfectly satisfied and settle down to a life of ease and contentment. By raising a hog or two, a few chickens, some garden vegetables, and, with a day’s work now and then, they pass their time in a way suited to their indifferent nature.

[139] A concrete example may be of interest. A pure Negro, about thirty-five years of age, a few years ago, purchased about half an acre of land on the bank of a “branch” near a small village in Maryland. For a few dollars he bought an old discarded house about one hundred and fifty yards away, and with the aid of neighbors moved it on his lot. It is doubtful if both the lot, and the house (after being moved and repaired) cost him more than one hundred dollars.

This Negro has been living in it for years and seems perfectly contented. His family consists of himself, wife and three daughters eleven to seventeen years of age. The surrounding country is one of the best tomato growing sections in the United States and during about six weeks of the tomato season tomato pickers are in great demand and make good wages. During this time the Negro man and his family usually work hard; for they pick by the basket and make in the neighborhood of two hundred dollars. This is practically their year’s work. The remainder of the year they do but little. They have a garden, pigs, and chickens. It would be an easy matter for this family to get ahead in the world; but they prefer the easy life of comparative idleness,—for this was their incentive to secure a home.

This is also one of the main reasons, no doubt, [140]for the great increase in Negro tenant farmers, especially that of share tenants. The latter class increased about thirty-six per cent between 1900 and 1910. Many of these seldom work a full day at a time. As they usually put off cultivating a crop to the last moment, if a wet season happens to set in, it is soon greatly damaged by a growth of grass. As a tenant farmer, the Negro realizes that he is more independent, his time is his own, and that he can usually work when he pleases. A great part of his time is given to various Negro recreations,—such as visiting, riding and driving, crap-shooting, preaching, attending revivals, and camp-meetings.

So the cause of the Negro’s failure to secure a reasonable share of wealth is not lack of opportunity,—for (at least, in the South) he has every opportunity that he could wish in order to do so,—but rather to his racial traits or characteristics,—some of which are: a happy-go-lucky disposition, indolence, shiftlessness, laziness, indifference, lack of mental stamina and ambition, and strong criminal tendencies.

FOOTNOTES:

Many solutions of the Negro problem have been proposed. Men so gifted with imagination that they do not find it necessary to consider either logic or facts, over and again, in a single speech or magazine article, have solved it to their individual satisfaction. Such proposed solutions are usually no less preposterous than visionary. With these I have nothing to do. As elsewhere in this study, so also here, I consider only what seems to have a firm basis of fact.

However, in passing, I may be pardoned, if I have the temerity to suggest the following, which, although seemingly fanciful, yet may have sufficient ground in reason as to merit some consideration: If about 100,000 square miles of territory on the Gulf of Mexico, embracing, say, Louisiana east of the Mississippi River, excepting New Orleans,—the southern part of Mississippi and Alabama, the part of Florida south of Alabama, and a small part of southwest Georgia, were set apart as a State or States to which all the Negroes in [142]other parts of the country be encouraged or obliged to migrate, it might result in great good to both races.

Something like half the population of this section are Negroes, while the whites that are here are mostly in the towns and cities. The area suggested is more than that of New York and Pennsylvania combined. There would be room for all Negroes in the country for generations to come. As the Negro states would be members of the Union, with representatives and senators in Congress, the Negroes would have an opportunity under the Federal Government to develop a political and social world of their own removed from the overshadowing presence of the white man. If the Negro showed himself unable to develop the power of local self-government under such an arrangement, his case would be absolutely hopeless. However, there are so many difficulties in the way and so many objections that might be made that no one need either hope or fear that any such thing will ever be undertaken.

But somewhat more in keeping with common sense and prevalent ideas is the proposal that Negroes be encouraged to distribute themselves equally over the country; thus relieving the South of its burden of Negro population. If such an equalization of the Negro population could be [143]carried out, the Negro then being everywhere few in numbers to the whites, could the better be held to the white man’s standard of conduct. Not only so, but the Negro would have an opportunity to absorb the white man’s civilization more quickly, if ever. In addition, the race question would cease to be sectional, and laws mutually advantageous to both races could then be passed.

Before going further, even at the risk of digressing,—for it is a matter of justice to the Negro,—it should be said in favor of the Negro that even though he is the most alien race among us, no question as to his patriotism is ever raised. He has fought in all our great wars and has shown himself patriotic to the core.

A day or two after President Wilson had made his German War address before Congress, the writer happened by the Star bulletin board in Washington, and noticed a German talking to a big burly Negro against war with Germany. He pointed to the bulletin board and told him not to believe anything he saw there for it was all lies made in London. The Negro seemed to listen in a half-disgusted sort of way, but as he started off he was understood to say:

“I wish I was with some colored soldiers in Europe. We would show the Germans how to fight.”

[144] The Negro has no kindred country to look to, so he is undivided in his allegiance. This cannot be said of all other races among us,—not of the Japanese and Chinese who seek admission at our Pacific shores. Like the Negro they cannot be assimilated by our people. In numbers, however, they would constitute a much more dangerous element to our welfare and safety than the Negro. Japan is almost abreast of our civilization and the western nations are doing their best to train China to be an antagonist worthy of their steel, should she ever have cause to cross swords with them. Large numbers of Chinese and Japanese would not only add to our race problems but would increase our chances for friction with their home governments. In addition they might constitute a reverse army of the enemy in our midst in case of war. But no such danger need be feared from the presence of the Negro.

I have just adverted to the fact that the yellow race and the black are not easily assimilated with the white race. It may be well that it is so. To the normal white man amalgamation with these races is almost unthinkable. Nevertheless, there are a few misguided individuals who surely have either a mental or a moral twist who persist in joining together that which nature has put asunder.

[145] A few years ago, a minister sent the following telegram to the Governor of California:[145:1]

It is not the ungodly that cause the suffering in the world so much as the bigoted if well-intentioned fools. Self-elected good people can usually be counted on to cause a lot of mischief. If those who set themselves up as leaders and ethical teachers would but first make sure that they were possessed of at least a fair amount of common sense!

In a recent Methodist Conference at Roanoke, Virginia, the statement was made that the records of some churches in Massachusetts show that in the previous year “17 per cent of the marriages were those in which Negro men married white women or white men married Negro women.”[145:2] This is the more remarkable when account is taken of the very small Negro population of that State.

It is even sometimes asserted that the Negro would bring to the white race some qualities which would tend toward the development of a more perfect man. But such an idea has no basis in fact. The following quotation is to the point:

[146]

It is said that an investigation of 2200 Negro authors showed that nearly all of them come from the mixed stock.[146:4] How many of these would take [147]first, second, or even third rank in the literary world? It is needless to answer. Indeed, Negroes and mulattoes have been toilers in the United States for generations but who ever heard of an important labor saving instrument invented by them? The same abilities or characteristics which would make a white man only locally important would make a Negro or a mulatto famous. There were thousands upon thousands of white men intellectually and otherwise superior to Booker T. Washington who gained but little recognition, but because he was a negro, or rather mulatto, Washington’s abilities stood out in striking relief. Mulattoes ought to furnish the leaders of the Negro race for the best white blood runs in the veins of some of them. Although mulattoes may furnish the Negro leaders, there can be no doubt that they also furnish far beyond their share of the vicious and the criminal elements of the race as well.

It may be pertinent in this connection, however, to observe that in the South the two races have been gradually drawing apart, amalgamation or miscegenation is becoming more and more repugnant, the conditions which favored it do not obtain to anything like the extent as formerly, as a consequence the mixing between the whites and the blacks is rapidly lessening. Although the census shows an increase in the number of mulattoes [148]from decade to decade, the increase is mainly due to the mixing of mulattoes with pure Negroes.

Some students of the subject, who seemingly are more familiar with the conditions in the North and the border States than with those of the farther South, sometimes estimate from one-third to one-half of the Negroes in the United States to be mulattoes. This, I am confident, is a mistake. I was reared in a border State, have spent some time in the North as well as in several Southern States, and have been in many of the leading cities of the South. My observation leads me to believe that the Census, in this respect, is more nearly correct than any other source of information.

The Agents of the Census, in 1910, were instructed to “report as ‘black’ all persons who were evidently full blood Negroes and as ‘mulattoes’ all other persons having some proportion or perceptible trace of Negro blood.” Accordingly in a population of 9,928,000 Negroes in the United States there were found to be 2,050,000 mulattoes, 20.9 per cent, or a little more than one-fifth.

By geographic divisions the percentage of mulattoes among the Negroes was as follows: New England, 33.4 per cent; Middle Atlantic States, 19.6; East North Central, 33.2; West North Central, 28.7; South Atlantic, 20.8; East South [149]Central, 19.1; West South Central, 20.1; Mountain, 28.6; and Pacific States, 34.7.

Of the Northern States, Michigan took first place, with 47 per cent of mulattoes among her Negroes. Maine was next, with 45.9; and Wisconsin third, with 39.4. Those with the smallest percentage were Wyoming, 13.1 per cent; New Jersey, 15.8; and Pennsylvania, 19.2. The Southern States having the largest percentage were, Virginia, 33.2 per cent; West Virginia, 32.5; and Missouri, 28.4 per cent. A large number of States in the South had a small percentage of mulattoes among their Negroes: Maryland, 18.6 per cent; Georgia, 17.3; Mississippi, 16.9; Alabama, 16.7; South Carolina, 16.1; Florida, 16.0; Delaware, 11.9; and the Eastern Shore of Maryland which borders Delaware on two sides, had only 11.1 per cent, or one mulatto to every nine Negroes; thus the Eastern Shore has the distinction of having fewer mulattoes in proportion to its Negro population than any other section. It is therefore evident that in the North the proportion of mulattoes among the Negroes is from about one-fifth to almost one-half; while in the South the proportion ranges from above one-eighth to about one-third. In the States where the bulk of the Negro population is found it is only about one-sixth. With slight exceptions, it seems to be true [150]that the fewer to the white population the more mulattoes there are in proportion to the number of the Negroes.

Indeed, may it not be true that the much larger proportional number of mulattoes among the Negroes of the North in no small measure accounts for the greater proportional amount of crime among the Negroes of the North? So it would appear that the amalgamation or miscegenation of the whites and the Negroes is not a leveling up but rather a leveling down process; at best nothing otherwise than building up the Negro by lowering the white. So no greater nor more fearful calamity could befall the white race in America than that the Negro should lose his identity through being absorbed by this great division of the Anglo-Saxon race.

Again, many optimistic white men have thought that the Negro could be raised to the white man’s level by means of the training and culture that comes through the study of books. To these education for the Negro has been a watchword. To a large extent Southern whites have been in sympathy with the education of the Negro. Indeed, many years ago, contrary to what one not familiar with the South might suppose, a prominent man in North Carolina in seeking a congressional nomination on a platform hostile to Negro education [151]failed even to carry his home county. And efforts to restrict the amount appropriated to Negro schools to the part of the school taxes paid by Negroes have failed.

Since 1870 the South has spent on Negro education around $230,000,000 and is now appropriating for that purpose near $10,000,000, annually. It is doubtful if the Negro contributes in taxes even half the amount spent on his public schools. In 1912, according to the Educational Report of that State, North Carolina spent $436,480.08 for Negro teachers and Negro school buildings, of which the Negro contributed in taxes for schools $190,378.81, or a little more than two-fifths. Texas spends not far from $2,000,000 a year on Negro schools, and Georgia about $850,000. The District of Columbia, indeed, spends more per capita on Negro pupils than on whites. However, this is a notable exception.

There are also more than six hundred private and denominational schools of secondary and college grade in the United States for the higher education of the Negro. The property of these is valued at about $28,500,000.[151:5] From 1865 to 1917 about $65,000,000 has been contributed to Negro education in the South through various religious and philanthropic organizations.

[152] But notwithstanding the fact that the illiteracy of the Negro race had been reduced by 1910 to about thirty-three per cent, there is a widespread feeling of disappointment in Negro education. Not that it has made the Negro more criminal as has sometimes been said, however, this is not yet well determined, but rather that it has failed to make him a greater producer, or to aid him to adjust himself to economic conditions. Instead of firing him with the desire to do more and better work, too often he quits it altogether.

As a teacher or a preacher the Negro has a wide field for his race needs him and the State and the Church pay him. But as a doctor, lawyer, or other professional, poverty and pauperism (the condition of the greater part of the Negro race) militate against them. In addition, the Negro has not yet sufficient confidence in the professional skill of those of his own race as to cause him to employ them exclusively.

There is a growing conviction in the South that the first aim of Negro education should be to fit the Negro for the opportunities of his social and industrial environment. Also that it should endeavor to strengthen his will power, in order that he may overcome his constitutional inertia; and that it should give him a knowledge of sanitary living, thus preventing disease.

[153] In the South Carolina Public School Report for 1915, the State Superintendent of Schools has this to say:

Such schools as Hampton Institute and Tuskegee have fairly well demonstrated that industrial education is at least a good thing for the Negro. In these and other such schools thousands have been given an inspiration for a higher plane of living. Indeed, it is claimed that very seldom is any graduate of these two schools convicted of crime:[153:6] The influence of Tuskegee on the Negro in a material way may be appreciated by the statement that in 1881 when the school was opened in [154]Macon County, Alabama, not more than fifty or sixty Negroes in the county owned land, but in 1910, 503 Negroes in the county owned 61,689 acres, “probably the largest amount of land owned by the Negroes of any county in the United States.”[154:7]

If a few Negro industrial schools make such a good showing, then why not multiply the number? Indeed, it is yet too early for either the Negro or his friends to indulge in too much optimism in regard to the matter. For while it may be true in general that whatever is done in behalf of a lower element in a society benefits the whole society, at the same time, it needs to be borne in mind that to the extent that it is done to the cost or by the neglect of a more homogeneous and wholesome element in the society or if it in any way militates against such element it is a questionable proceeding.

What if the industrial education of the Negro should be found to conflict with the interests of the white laborer or skilled worker? Does any one suppose that it is the purpose of the South so to educate the Negro (or even allow him to be so educated) as to enable him to take the bread from the white man’s mouth? And does any one suppose that the laboring white man of the arrogant [155]and aggressive Anglo-Saxon race will stand tamely by with folded arms while there is danger of its being done?

This is the central point of the whole situation. But in the South the contest between these two conflicting interests is not yet, as the demand for labor skilled or unskilled is too great. The Negro has had and can have all the work he wants and more for the asking; indeed, often his labor is anxiously solicited. How long this will continue no one knows, positively. However, when the population of the country reaches 150,000,000 or 200,000,000 then labor will likely be as plentiful here as it is now in Europe. Then, the labor of the Negro will hardly be solicited, rather otherwise. The white man’s sympathetic attitude toward the Negroes’ many shortcomings is fast passing. When the Negro is required to measure up to the white man’s standard and is found wanting, what remains for him?

Furthermore, the Negro might as well get fully in mind that, although the white man sometimes may win without merit (yet often fails to win even though deserving to do so), for the Negro himself, even though merit may not win, without it he will have absolutely no show. He must be not only as well adapted to an occupation, or qualified for it, as a white man but better.

[156] Until lately those especially interested in the welfare of the Negro might have entertained the hope that he would hold his place in his customary occupations or even make them in great part his very own. This would have been a kind of segregation to occupation analogous to his segregation as regards residence and at least as advantageous to him. But in hardly more than one occupation is such the case. As a porter he seems to have the field practically to himself, and as hod-carrier he is in demand. But as a barber he has fast been losing ground. The Negro as a waiter takes more pride in his occupation and is more polite and obliging than the white man of the waiter class but he is even being displaced in this work. Even as a farm laborer, for which service he has been trained for generations, he is losing his grip. “Too slow, unreliable, inefficient” are some of the counts against him.

The idea that prevails outside the South that Negroes do practically all the work on Southern farms is far from the truth. More than half of the cotton crop is raised by white labor,—in Texas, three-fourths or more. Even in sugar and rice fields white labor is getting common.[156:8] Often, indeed, a farmer will not employ a Negro if he can get a white man.

[157] Indeed, the Negro farm laborer and the Negro farmer are the greatest stumbling-blocks in the way of the agricultural development of the South. Were it possible to remove from the South at least three-fourths of these and replace them with whites whether native or foreign there can be no doubt that the production of Southern farms would be wonderfully increased. It is an injury to the South and to society as a whole that the Negro has under his control even as much land as at present. When his “slipshod” farming gives place to more scientific and businesslike methods there will be more farm products for distribution.

The inefficiency of the Negro as a farmer is strikingly shown by a study of the conditions in several Mississippi counties:

Such a poor showing for the Negro almost persuades one that he deserves to be supplanted by whites in farm work and in farming, even if he should not be. At present the South holds out unequaled attractions in the way of climate, rich soil, and cheap lands, to those of other sections of the country who may be seeking farm homes. And there can be little doubt that with the passing of the free public lands the tide of immigration in the near future will set in that direction, in spite of the presence of the Negro. Then what will become of the Negro when he shall have to compete with the thrifty hard-working Poles, Bohemians, and native Americans from the North and the West? Will he be simply pushed aside and left to gravitate to a still lower level? Nothing will save him unless he soon wonderfully changes in habits and disposition. So the Negro may as well look forward to the time when he will be [159]supplanted in these occupations to which he thinks himself so well adapted and in which he thinks himself so well fortified,—those of farm laborer and farmer.

Finally, may not the unquestioned physical deterioration of the Negro since his emancipation as shown by his susceptibility to disease together with his high death rate portend the ultimate practical extinction of the race in the United States? During slavery times the Negro was fairly well fed and usually worked according to set regulations. Evidently such food and training had no little to do with developing a sound body, and disciplined his mind to some extent as well.[159:10]

According to De Bow, the mortality of the free Negroes before the War was a hundred per cent greater than that of the slaves. It even appears that the death of the Negroes in the South at that time was less than that of the whites. In Charleston, S. C., the average death-rate from 1822 to 1861 was 25.98 a thousand for whites and 24.05 [160]for Negroes. About the same was true of some other cities. From 1865 to 1894, however, the average death-rate at Charleston was 26.77 a thousand for whites and 43.29 for Negroes.[160:11] No doubt the slight increase of the death rate among the whites was due to the rapid increase among the Negroes as the whites necessarily came more or less in contact with the Negroes.

Indeed, very significant in this connection, is the statement made in the “Negro Year Book” (1914-15) that an average of 450,000 Negroes in the South are seriously ill all the time, and that 600,000 of the present population will die of tuberculosis.

The Census shows that both pneumonia and tuberculosis are diseases very fatal to Negroes. And strange as it may now seem, in slavery times Negroes were thought to be practically immune from tuberculosis. Indeed, it is said that, about 1882-3, there was exhibited at a clinic in Charleston, S. C., what was supposed to have been the second case of tuberculosis ever found among Negroes.[160:12] This is very remarkable, if true.

In each city of the following list of twelve is given the number of times more deaths that [161]occurred from tuberculosis among Negroes in 1910, according to the Census, than among whites: Providence, 1.82; Richmond, 2.05; Boston, 2.46; Atlanta, 2.48; New York, 2.64; New Orleans, 2.70; Memphis, 2.80; Philadelphia 3.00; Baltimore, 3.14; Washington, 3.34; Charleston, S. C., 3.55. It may be noticed that more than three and one-half times as many Negroes as whites died of tuberculosis in Charleston. The comparative statistics for pneumonia differ not very much from those of tuberculosis.

However, the ratio of death-rate from combined causes is much lower than this. The average death rate a thousand in eight Northern States in 1910 was 21.9 for Negroes and 15.1 for whites; while the average for two Southern States was 23.7 for Negroes and 15.2 for whites. In ten Northern cities it was 23.64 for Negroes and 15.99 for whites; for the same number of cities in the South it was 30.60 for Negroes and 17.22 for whites.[161:13] Again, in thirty-three Northern cities the death rate among Negroes was 25.1 a [162]thousand and 15.7 among whites, while in twenty-four Southern cities the death-rate was 29.6 for Negroes and 16.9 for whites. For the fifty-seven cities together, 27.8 for Negroes and 15.9 for whites.[162:14] Thus, it is seen that the death rate among Negroes is not far from twice as great as among whites, but contrary to the general impression it is less in the North than in the South.

Moreover, statistics show that the Negro is not increasing in this country as fast in proportion as is the white man. Indeed, he seems to be falling behind in his own percentage of increase. Between 1890 and 1900 his increase was 1,345,318 but from 1900 to 1910 it was only 993,769. Again, the percentage of Negroes in the population of the country decreased from 19.03 per cent in 1810 to 10.69 per cent in 1910, and from 14.13 per cent in 1860 to 10.69 per cent in 1910. In other words, while the whites increased nearly three and one-half (3.4) times between 1860 and 1910, the Negro increased only two and two-tenths (2.2) times.

That this difference between the increase of the two races was not due to the immigration of whites is shown by the fact that from 1800 to 1840 when there was scarcely any immigration of whites the population of the country increased more than [163]three and a fifth (3.21) times, while from 1870 to 1910, an equal number of years, when immigration was almost at its height, the increase was only a little more than two and a third (2.38) times. Again, during the fifty years, 1790 to 1840, it increased four and a third (4.34) times; also, between 1810 and 1860 it increased in the same ratio (4.34); while for the fifty years from 1860 to 1910 it increased only something more than two and three-fourths (2.86) times.

Indeed, it is said that “the Southern States, which have received practically no immigrants since the Civil War, have increased their population as rapidly as the Northern States; that is, the increase of population among the Southern whites has been equal to the Northern increase assisted by immigration.”[163:15]

While these facts may not be sufficient evidence that the Negro will finally become extinct in this country, nevertheless, it is impossible for one to escape the conclusion that as the years go by the members of his race will become fewer and fewer in proportion to the whole population. As this comes about the Negro will gradually cease to be such a problem, as at present.

FOOTNOTES: