It was hardly a debate that followed. It was an arraignment which culminated when Mr. Smalls, after approving the punishment which lynch law has meted out to the worst offenders of his race, said:
“If the same rule were applied on the other side and white men were treated likewise, I fear this Convention would have to be adjourned for lack of a quorum.”
The “burst of laughter” which followed this threw an interesting light on the morals and manners of South Carolina. It showed the state of civilization depicted in “Tom Jones.” A Convention composed entirely of Squire Westerns would have met such an impeachment in a precisely similar way. Having satisfied their sense of humor the delegates killed the amendment and passed the mixed marriages article.
This seizure of a parliamentary advantage in so sudden and effective a manner as to cause the majority leader to abandon his forces and leave them to expose their moral nakedness to the world was more than equal to Mr. Blaine’s rout of the Rebel Brigadiers in the famous Amnesty Debate. For those gentry managed to fan and sponge Ben Hill into the ring again, and these remained “out of time.”
And in no one other way could the Negroes have so convincingly proved to the world their right to the ballot than by this victory of black mind over white matter. It is now made plain, as it was made plain by the first laws passed by the unreconstructed Legislature of the same State after the war, that the fear of Negro domination is not born so much of a regard for the numbers as for the developed intellectual ability of the blacks. It is not Negro ignorance, but Negro intelligence, that is feared.
Editorial from the News and Courier, the Leading Democratic Paper of Charleston, S. C., Nov. 23, 1895.
The troublesome matter of miscegenation was settled finally by the adoption of the provision that “the marriage of a white person with a Negro or mulatto, or person who shall have one-eighth of Negro blood, shall be unlawful and void” hereafter. The provision would have been strengthened and improved by the adoption of Gen. Smalls’ proposed addition to it that “any white person who lives and cohabits with such persons should be disqualified from holding office of emolument or trust in this State, and the offspring of such living or cohabiting shall bear the name of the father,” but the Convention rejected the addition by the largest vote recorded recently. Its action was a mistake. The addition was a proper corollary to the section adopted, and should have been extended to disqualify from voting, as well as holding office, the class of offenders at which it was aimed. Of the two offences—miscegenation within the marriage bond and miscegenation without it—the latter is the greater social evil. It should have been treated accordingly. The action of the Convention in this instance and its action of the preceding day in reducing the age of consent to the limits of childhood will inevitably be construed together to the injury and reproach to the State. Both decisions should not stand. Taken together they offer a premium for a condition of affairs which is condemned alike by every dictate of sound morals and of the public sentiment of the State. Miscegenation is contrary to the law of nature.