Emancipation and Emigration / A Plan to Transfer the Freedmen of the South to the Government Lands of the West by The Principia Club

by Anonymous

NEGROES AND THEIR RIGHTS.

The recent Democratic Convention of Edgefield County, South Carolina,—the home of "Hamburg" Butler,—adopted the following resolution:—

"We regard the issues between the white and the colored people of this State, and of the entire South, as an antagonism of race, not a difference of political parties. This State and the United States were settled by the white race; the lands now belong to the white race; the white race are responsible for its government and civilization, and white supremacy is essential to our continued existence as a people. We are willing to accord to the colored race equal and exact justice, and we recognize all of their rights and privileges under the laws of this land."

Rightly interpreted this means—"We will give the niggers all their rights, but really they have no rights." That is the old doctrine of the Democratic party, which changes its principles only when the leopard changes its spots, and a more truthful declaration of its principles than is often presented. Some of the Southern Democrats, who just now are endeavoring to secure negro votes for their party, deprecate these declarations, and the resolution has given rise to some discussion in the South Carolina press.

The Spartansburg "Spartan" says:—

"Unfortunately there are too many who, thinking they can manipulate the negro vote, wish to bring it into the Democratic party. If this is done it will not only destroy the controlling influences of the white man and endanger his institutions and civilization, but will put the up country of South Carolina under the control of the low country, where the great negro vote lies."

The Charleston "News," taking a different view of the case, says:—

"If colored people are willing to become Democrats in good faith, it will require grave deliberation to determine whether it is not wiser to let them in, and give them a voice in the party, than to leave them outside as a bait for Independent Democrats. The Independent, not the colored Democrat, is the rock ahead in South Carolina politics."

The "News" is willing to allow negroes to act in the Democratic party, it seems, solely because the colored vote may thereby be controlled. It does not concede their right to vote, and to vote as they may choose, but it realizes that some of them will vote, notwithstanding the opposition of the Spartan school of Democracy, and seeking to have that vote controlled in the interests of the party, it is willing to have it understood by the negroes that they will find no obstacles in the way of their voting, if they unite with the Democratic party. The same end is sought by the "Spartan" and by the "News." The first-named wishes to secure the supremacy of a race by preventing the negroes from voting, while the "News" thinks it a better policy to adopt measures for the control of their votes. The "News" is no more friendly to the colored men than its contemporary, and the policy it proposes is as dangerous to their rights, as that of those who, in an outspoken manner, tell the negroes they are entitled to no political privileges.

Plain Talk.—The Providence "Journal" says: "The stipulations to which the Southern States solemnly pledged themselves, as the conditions of restoration to their forfeited rights in the Union, and to their readmission to a share in the government which they had attempted to overthrow, have been shamelessly violated. The negro is not permitted to vote unless he is frightened into voting the Democratic ticket. He has practically 'no rights which a white man is bound to respect.' In some of these States a sort of peonage has been established, which differs from slavery mainly in the exemption of the master from the care of the slave in sickness and old age, and in all of them disqualifying laws, and still more disqualifying practices under the laws, prevail. History presents no parallel to the forbearance shown by the conquering party in the rebellion, and none to the perfidy of the party that was overcome."

A leading paper in the State of Senator Gordon—the Columbus "Enquirer-Sun,"—thus favors the lynch law: "A good, able-bodied, healthy corpse, or even a slightly damaged one, dangling from the limb of a tree on a public highway, strikes more terror into the heart of a criminal, and creates more respect for the fiat of justice, than the inside of a thousand jails, or the presence of an army of judges and jurymen. There is an appalling grandeur, a horrifying sublimity in the spectacle of a ghastly, half-devoured human form suspended in mid-air, receiving alike unconsciously the refreshing drops of the nocturnal dew that gives life to the violets, or the glowing rays of the morning sun as it ascends the eastern horizon and beams smilingly down on a busy world."

Which is correct? Here is Representative Waddell of North Carolina, formerly a rebel general, telling an organization of Union veterans, that not one person in one hundred thousand in the South expects or desires compensation for property destroyed by the Union armies, and here is ex-editor Cheney of Lebanon, who has travelled through the South and sojourned in Florida, saying: "You meet with no man in the South who does not either earnestly assert the justice of these claims, or leave with you the impression that he hopes they will be paid, because such payment means more money and greater prosperity for the South. Even the negroes, when it comes to the test, will be found co-operating with their masters to secure compensation for their own freedom." We repeat our question, Which is correct?—Concord Monitor.