To obtain additional strength with which to withstand the flood of ignorance and incompetence let loose or about to break loose, they accepted the leadership of the poor white Andrew Johnson, despite the repugnance they felt for him, as keen and lively as any Englishman ever felt for Joe Chamberlain or Lloyd George or Ramsay McDonald. They did more. As far as legislation could affect it, they extended social equality to the least darkened of the dark race by which they were surrounded. The political principle, upon which they sought to adjust themselves to the changed condition, was based apparently upon the thought that if all the Southern whites and that proportion of the Colored population constituting about one-tenth, reasonably the most elevated in the minds of the theorists, from the fact that they closest approached the whites in physical texture, united, such union must strengthen the rulers even as it weakened the ruled. Dr. DuBois therefore is quite wrong when he intimates with some generosity, that the Black Codes were framed under hasty excitement, in declaring:
“To be sure it was not a time to look for calm, cool, thoughtful action on the part of the white South.”[328]
No, whatever may eventually be found to be the character of the Black Codes of the beaten South, they bear upon their faces the imprint of cool, calm, thoughtful action. Even the most cursory consideration of them will disclose that they were framed more for the irresponsible freedman than the freedmen in general; for instance, if the freedman owned a farm or had a permit, the possession of gun, pistol or sword, otherwise forbidden, was not denied. On the other hand the inhibition of the right of sale or barter of domestic produce did not apply to the Negro generally; but to the servant under contract with a master engaged in husbandry, and not even then, if the servant had written evidence from such master, or from a person authorized by him, or from a District Judge, whose oath specifically required him to do what was required by law “without prejudice for or against color.”[329] In addition the servant was given the right to—
“Depart from the master’s service for an insufficient supply of wholesome food; for an unauthorized battery upon his own person or one of his family, not committed in defense of the person, family, guests or agents of the master, nor to prevent a crime or aggravated misdemeanor.”[330]
The law went further. It gave the servant the right of departure coupled with the right to recover wages due for service rendered up to the time of his departure, for any—
“invasion of the conjugal rights of the servant, or his (employer’s) failure to pay wages when due.”[331]
And not even the death of the master terminated the contract, without the assent of the servant, for the enforcement of which the servant had a lien as high as rent. And when wrongfully discharged the servant was entitled to recover wages for the whole period of service, according to the contract.[332]
That the master was given the right to administer corporal punishment to the servant under some conditions cannot be denied; but the phraseology of the South Carolina Act is:
“The master may moderately correct servants who have made contracts and are under eighteen years of age”—[333] but it also commanded:
“It shall also be his duty to protect his servant from violence by others in his presence.”[334]