Facing the Facts
We are not now considering whether these things should or should not be; we are merely asserting that in the “Black Belt” they are. And they are for a definite, a fixed purpose. As in slavery days it was necessary in order to perpetuate the institution to make it a crime to teach a slave to read or write, in other words to elevate him so that he could realize his condition of slavery, so in the far South today in order to maintain the present servile condition of the negro it is necessary to put him under foot and to keep him under foot. Whippings, lynchings, burnings—these represent the color line in crimson; and the color line, as a recent writer points out, is but evidence “of an attempt based on intuitive choice to preserve those distinctive values which a racial group has come to regard as of the highest moment to itself.” The great industrial awakening in the South is made possible by this supposedly permanent settlement of the race issue, for the color line properly enforced need not interfere with business—at all.
Are the two races homogeneous? They are, undoubtedly. Some time about 1812 on the border line of two great Southern States there lived a Presbyterian preacher named John Chavis, “admired for his noble qualities as a gentleman, revered for his fervent piety as a Christian, respected for his eminent ability as a teacher and preacher.” He had been a student at Princeton under Dr. Witherspoon. Opening a classical school in an aristocratic Southern community, he was patronized by the best people and became the preceptor of future Senators, Governors, and financiers; this man was a negro, a free negro—“without any white blood in his veins.” About five feet seven inches in height, he was robust and corpulent, having a round, clean shaven face expressive of great benevolence. The pupils boarded in his home, and in their home he was a welcome guest. Because of the Nat Turner insurrection in 1832 he and other free negroes were forbidden by law to preach, and from that time until his death he was supported by a Southern Presbytery. This is an isolated case to be sure, but it is portentous.
Are not two races homogeneous which have lived together in peace for a hundred years, speaking the same language, worshipping the same God, having similar church affiliations, impelled by similar superstitions and prejudices, the weaker race imitating the stronger in customs, manners, and modes of thought? Anyway, if the races are not homogeneous, how comes it that there are so many mulattoes in the South? In 1910 one-fifth of the negro population was mulatto.
We are about to uncover another skeleton in the closet: sexual relations once existed in the South between white men and mulatto women, a condition which persisted until some time after the Civil War. During the period of slavery and up to about 1876 sexual relations between the races was frequent. Neither comment nor sense of shame was entailed by what went on among white youths and colored girls. Nor was it uncommon at that time for white men to keep negro women and to rear children. Many a colored woman was proud to be the plaything of the white man, whose passion she gratified without restraint or responsibility. Public sentiment did not condemn the practice. Before 1876 there was no public sentiment on the subject, neither was there race consciousness nor conflict; and the unhappy offspring could rise no higher than the color of the mother. Once a negro, always a negro.