The Negro and the elective franchise. A series of papers and a sermon

by Archibald Henry Grimké; Charles C. Cook; Francis J. Grimké; John Hope; John L. Love; Kelly Miller

There is another position from which this question may be viewed and that is whether the advantages from schools would be lessened or increased from participation in politics. It is quite evident that without the ballot any people are suppliant and must beg rather than make a manly demand. But, assuming that the lack of the ballot has become a condition with us, would a demand or threat about our ballot result in a counter threat that if we forced the issue, we should not only be denied our ballot, but that for our arrogance the appropriation for Colored public schools would be cut down and we should receive only what we paid in as our share of the school tax? This too, is no dream; but has actually been considered by colored men as a possible reason for not causing such antagonism as would arise from Colored men endeavoring to enter aggressively into politics again.

What now about fears for disfranchisement such as has been compassed by the revised constitutions in many Southern states? Some one may say that there is no difference between constitutional disfranchisement and that quasi disfranchisement effective for all practical purposes such as we have spoken of as now obtaining in Georgia. There is a tremendous difference. If a wave of civic righteousness should sweep over those states still without constitutional disfranchisement, the primaries would be a very slight embarrassment to those willing to do right by all races alike; while in the states possessing constitutional disfranchisement, the reactionaries would have such means of stopping fair play and honest elections free for all, that they could easily check the purpose of the fair-minded citizens for a long while.

Now, do we really have to fear disfranchisement? I say disfranchisement must at all times be feared and be guarded against as far as it lies within our power in an honorable and manly way to hold it off. Just at the time North Carolina and Maryland seemed most secure to us we found ourselves deprived of our rights; and it may be safely stated that whenever on a specific occasion the Colored vote exerts the balance of power over any considerable area, there disfranchisement may be feared. We need to fear disfranchisement because it is founded upon the spirit of injustice and that same spirit fosters it. So palpable is this, that the South bewails the fact. Governor Warfield in speaking about the repeal of the Fifteenth amendment says: "The privilege to vote could then be bestowed without respect to the expedient of unwise constitutional amendments that strain the conscience of our best people and arouse criticism." Yet the repeal of the Fifteenth amendment would not relieve those apostles of disfranchisement of the odium of violating the spirit of truly American democracy and of setting at naught that mighty decision on human rights that was rendered by the bloody arbitrament of war—Disfranchisement of whatever sort, if designed to embarrass a citizen because of his race, must always "strain the conscience of our best people."

Does Georgia show any signs of the disfranchising spirit? We fear it does. The State Legislature now expects some measure of this sort at each session, and in recent years has not been disappointed, although good sense has thus far triumphed. Then again men in high places, congressmen and at least one of our U. S. Senators from Georgia have begun to say some things that may easily be construed as an advocacy of disfranchisement. It occurs to me that the marked difference between the condition in my boyhood and to-day is this: then the opposition was to Republicans, to-day it is to Negroes. It is not a party line, but a race line.

Now the white primary has not done all that was claimed for it. In the first place it has not purified elections. Far from doing away with the purchase and sale of votes, it has, by lowering the supply, relatively increased the demand and brought up the price to a really fancy figure. In the second place it has failed to do that for which it was ostensibly introduced especially to do, namely; to put into office those men most eminently fitted by ability and character to administer the office to which they might be chosen. On the contrary, primary elections have been questioned on the ground of fraud; and the mayor of one very prominent Georgia city has been arrested for drunkenness. Then why is the primary kept? Well, the "fixers" for instance, can more easily fix things. With the Colored man's vote eliminated, the work becomes simplified and even though the amount of money spent illegally may now be more than the total amount in the days when colored as well as white were in the market yet those interested in "fixing" elections can now work with more assurance; and promises may more easily be carried out in the matter of delivering the goods.

For instance, I know of a city election where the voters in one ward were so evenly divided and the candidates had calculated their strength so accurately, that one candidate felt safe in buying three white votes at the rate of one hundred ten dollars. Large corporations may now operate easily in state and city; and some of the most flagrant cases of political jobbery that have been charged against Reconstruction rule are easily equalled by the bare-faced graft and bribery by which large business interests win their way through the assistance of white voters.

What are the possibilities of white aspirants bolting the primary? It is my impression that they are fewer than they were twenty years ago. Judge Gartrell once ran independently against Alexander Stephens for Governor and Judge Emory Speer in his younger days ran on an independent ticket; but such a step on the part of a candidate means outlawry for life. Speer was read into the Republican party, Thomas Watson into the Populist; and since the exile of such giants, the small fry find it easy to be good and not to lift their heads in rebellion, no matter what rascality has compassed their defeat at the Primary. No. It is my impression that the primary is more firmly established to-day than when it was first started. White unity has become white slavery; and while the yoke galls, the white aspirant prefers the yoke to extermination.

But, suppose there should be a general Democratic "rough house" and the colored vote should be called in to quell the disturbance, the Colored voter would have no guarantee that such would mean his return to political standing. On the contrary, it might, as in several states, cause the passage of constitutional disfranchisement that would make his last state worse than the former. Our status is truly unenviable, and the ground on which we stand is exceedingly uncertain.

I desire now to treat more fully what has already been touched upon: Why do the Republicans not nominate candidates for state, county and city offices and make a general canvass? There are two classes of Colored men, those who think the party should and those who think it should not. Unfortunately each of these classes makes severe charges against the other with reference to this matter. I much prefer to accept the explanations of both as honest. The following are at least some of the reasons for not making a canvass: first, it is difficult to get desirable men to accept the nomination; second, it would be still more difficult to secure sufficient funds to pay the ordinary and perfectly legitimate expenses of a campaign; third, the injustice of the party in power would make a fair election an impossibility. Hence a candidate would be doomed to defeat from the moment of his nomination and the fact that he and the party would know this, would make the campaign lifeless, futile and perfunctory. Fourth, the prominence of Colored people in politics and the extra trouble to which they would put the ascendant party might result in still further curtailment of the few rights still left to us.

To all of this the side that clamors or appears to clamor for a ticket says: You assume too much, you see ghosts. Yet supposing the worst, it is far better to keep Colored voters organized for several reasons: first, because the organization gives a valuable training in citizenship that cannot be gained by standing aloof and waiting for better things; second, because if an opening should come suddenly, the Colored people would be better able to decide quickly and intelligently where to throw their strength solidly on one side or another for their own best interests and the interests of the government; thirdly, because a show of opposition to existing political injustice and repression would relieve us of the charge of indifference to our condition and would strengthen the courage of those who might champion our cause—our efficient, powerful champions, who have grown doubtful about our real manhood. I believe in the honesty of both these classes of colored men; and it is exceedingly difficult for a man, living in the midst of these conditions and knowing the temperament, attitude and unlimited power of the white people, to say which one of these two courses is the more rational and helpful to pursue.