The Klan Unmasked

by W. J. Simmons

During nearly the whole of the nineteenth century our American people played up hill and down dale with a very dangerous political doctrine. I refer to the theory of unrestricted suffrage. Probably a majority of our people actually came to believe that because a man (or a woman) had arrived at the age of twenty-one, that was reason enough for granting him the right to vote. This individual might be illiterate. He might be mentally undeveloped, perhaps an imbecile. If our imaginary voter were deaf, dumb and blind, besides being halt, he could still be carried to the polls and his vote registered and counted.

Only recently have any considerable number of our people come to take a practical view of this thing. At last we are beginning to see that this, like any other good principle of life, may be driven to excess. One may work too hard or think too much. Even the most exalted virtues may be overdone. So it is with the principles of democracy. Having succeeded with a large measure of democracy, by the time our government was put into operation, we did not lack those who were prepared to see it carried to fanatical and dangerous extremes. So the spoils system has been long defended as being a necessary attribute of democracy. Politicians discovered that votes might be secured through disclaiming all breeding, culture, and even denouncing efficiency in office. Instead of trying to make of our democratic system a sound and reasonable way of conducting public business, our people fell to advocating certain democratic political and social theories with a sort of religious frenzy.

So it was with universal suffrage. A corrupt government at Washington would never have been permitted to enfranchise the Negroes directly after their emancipation had it not been for the wide acceptance among our people of this false theory of the suffrage. If "everybody should vote," then, indeed, how could the freed Negro be denied this "inherent and inalienable right."

Of course, as a matter of fact, the vote has always been denied to certain groups and classes. To begin with, the young people under twenty-one years of age, in the eyes of the law, "infants," were disfranchised. These had no "inherent and inalienable" right to vote, because of their immaturity. Until recently women were not allowed to vote on the basis that the franchise would interfere with the performance of domestic duties. Paupers and criminals are also disfranchised.

However, it is quite true that heretofore our theory of the suffrage has been that any adult male could vote unless specific cause were shown why he should be disfranchised. Right here we must reverse our approach to the subject. The burden of proof should be upon the other side. Our prospective voter should be made to show indisputable reason for enfranchisement, instead of being permitted to vote unless cause for disfranchisement can be shown. In other words, the ballot must be considered a privilege and not an "inherent and inalienable right."

This brings us to the question of the standards to be enforced. No doubt this is a very difficult matter to decide. A very large proportion of our people are quite likely averse to any change. That the wind is blowing in the right direction is indicated, however, by a general tendency to raise the standards of the suffrage. Thus, in the State of New York, in the last election (1921) an amendment to the State Constitution was passed requiring that a prospective citizen and voter should read and write in English. What is needed is an amendment not only to the various state constitutions, but to the national constitution. In preparation for such a drastic and far-reaching step, the national mind should be prepared by the widest possible discussion of the problem.

The suggestion that I am to make here I wish to be understood as purely tentative. I realize fully that the whole discussion is just beginning.

Hardly anybody will deny that reading, writing and speaking the English language with facility should be required of every voter. Without the ready use of English it is impossible for foreigner or native born to keep himself sufficiently acquainted with affairs to vote intelligently. This requirement would disfranchise a considerable portion of our native born whites, and a much larger portion of our Negro and immigrant population. It is not too much to say that the graver danger of the ignorant voter would be abolished by this measure,—that is, if the measure were properly drawn and strictly enforced, and at the same time would guarantee absolute and complete rights of all under a real intelligent democracy.

But the literacy test is not enough. Government to-day is intricate and the duties of the voter are most varied and difficult. Very few Americans will hold it necessary to so restrict the suffrage that only a minority will be qualified to take part. But any American intellectually fitted to discuss this problem will presently come to hold, I believe, that the standards may well be raised. They should be so high that our more backward young people in the schools must be forced to strive diligently in order to fit themselves to attain this great privilege and responsibility.

It would be simple enough, in connection with our public school system, to establish boards of examination to pass upon prospective candidates. A majority of these boards should have had experience as school-teachers. They should have in hand the matter of providing facilities for educational preparation on the part of the student, young or old, who might wish to continue his school work in order to qualify for the use of the ballot.