Kitabı oku: «Shadow and Light», sayfa 10
CHAPTER XV
At the Arkansas State election in 1876 I was selected as Presidential elector, receiving the highest vote on the Republican ticket. The national election of that year was followed by the memorable canvass of the contested vote for Rutherford B. Hayes, which was ultimately settled by a commission appointed under the Compromise Bill, which was passed by Congress in January, 1877, Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina declaring for Hayes. That the compromise was the result of an agreement that the United States troops should by withdrawn from Southern soil cannot be doubted, and for so doing he was bitterly criticised and denounced by many of his party, resulting, as it did, in the transfer of those States in the South from Republican, by continuous and unblushing disfranchisement, to Democratic rule.
President Hayes, not unlike many of historic fame, may have been "born before his time;" that his action in removing U. S. troops was immature, a continuation and increase of intimidation and violence abundantly proved. At what period of their remaining on Southern soil would have been a fitting time for removal, is an enigma hard to elucidate. Their retention ultimately rested with the sentiment and judgment of the nation. In the South the menace of their presence was galling and increasing in intensity. The North was daily growing averse to the bivouac of troops over a people who swore that they were on terms of "peace with all the world and the rest of mankind." Would compulsion soften animosity? Hayes was undoubtedly honest and sincere, but not of that class of epoch-making men who anchor on the right, await and buffet the advancing storm. Conciliation coyed as gently as loving dove his mate, while within easy reach glistened the jewel "President" of a fraternized Republic.
There are possibly men who would have spurned the enchantress. But an array of figures and ability to enumerate would not be sorely taxed in finding the number. I was among those at that period who saw the inutility of depending on physical force to extract justice and lawful methods from an unwilling constituency; that the reaction from a forced compulsion in the moral world was as evident and unfailing under the conditions as from compression in the physical. I was hopeful of good results, and so expressed myself in an interview with the President. He replied that he was "sincere in his policy, and should adhere to it unless it seemed impracticable that the policy of force and musket had been tried in the South and had failed and public sentiment now demanded a change." We had and have the change, and it would have been a bright jewel in the autonomy of many of the Southern States had it been more liberal and righteous.
History, as a record of the lower to a higher status of civilization increases in intensity and value as it records superior conditions, and the degree of unrest and earnestness of appeal for the abrogation of oppression is indicative of the appreciation and fitness for the rights of citizenship.
It should be remembered that as it became men dowered with the proud title of American Citizen, the Negro has not been remiss in stating his grievances and appealing for justice. To have done less would have banished sympathy and invited contempt. In Arkansas and some other Southern States there is a growing demand for the forms of law and the maintenance of order, and, while not attaining the zenith of accomplishment, it will be observable when contrasted with the lawlessness depicted in the following resolutions of a convention of colored men held in Little Rock August 29, 1883. They contain views and convictions I there presented, the equity of which 'tis fondly hoped have not been lost by lapse of time:
"Be it resolved, That this convention of colored men of the State of Arkansas have still to complain that violence and injustice to their race still exists to an alarming extent. In most cases the perpetrators go unwhipped of justice. That when they are arraigned the law is administered with such laxity and partiality that the escape of the criminal is both easy and possible. In no instance is the penalty of the law enforced against a white man for the murder of a Negro, however palpable the case may be; whilst in most instances the bare accusation of a Negro committing a homicide upon a white man is sufficient for law, with all its forms, to be ruthlessly set aside and the doctrine of lynch, swift and certain to be enforced.
"Case after case is chronicled by the press of Negroes hung by infuriated mobs without trial to determine their guilt or innocence. The farcical proceedings at law in their inefficiency of prosecution, the selection and manipulation of jurors, and the character of public sentiment have had painful illustration in several cases, and but recently of Johnson, the colored man murdered in this, the capital county of the State. The homicide of this man, a servant at a picnic, of a Christian society of white people, and in their presence, without provocation, was universally admitted. Notwithstanding, a jury of twelve men, with almost indecent haste, finds the murderer not guilty. A verdict fit to shock the sense of every friend of right and justice. Robinson, a white man, for killing a colored man because his victim asked for the return of money loaned, received but two years in the penitentiary. Burril Lindsey, a colored farmer, who had homesteaded land in Van Buren County and had commenced cultivation, was waited upon and told he must leave; that they would have no "niggers" in the settlement. They came back at midnight and broke down his door. One of the mob, lying dead on the threshold was Burril Lindsey's response. The press of our city – to their honor be it noted – said he did the proper thing. Respectable men in the neighborhood who knew Lindsey said the same. But yet, after being harrassed by threats and legal persecution for months, a jury found him guilty of an assault with intent to kill, and six years in the penitentiary at hard labor is the penalty for defending his home.
"Homicide has no local habitation; it is the accident of every community, in every nation, and the justice and impartiality with which the law is administered is the measure of their humanity and civilization. But here we have the spectacle of the press, pulpit, and rostrum of the State, with exceptions scarcely to be noted, either entirely dumb or a mere passing allusion, more often in commendation than censure. We are positive in our confidence that those, and only those who expose and denounce and lay bare this conduct, and thereby create a sentiment that will lessen this evil, are the only true friends to the State's moral as well as its material progress. That the attempt to deny and evade responsibility does not meet the issue in the minds of thoughtful men, who believe that no life is safe where the humblest is unprotected.
"We insist that value of the colored brother as a tiller of the soil, the increasing thrift and economy conceded in securing homes and taxable property, their favorable comparison (by fair judgment) with any other classes as to their moral and law-abiding character, should at least merit justice in the courts, and we ask for him consideration and fair settlement for labor. For where could superiority and nobility of character be better displayed than by generous treatment to the former bondsmen. That the better element of the Democratic party do not favor this lawlessness we are continually assured. But the ugly fact stands out in bold relief that they are unable or unwilling, with forces of wealth and intelligence, to create a healthier sentiment. To them, and just men everywhere, we appeal to assist in bringing the moral power of denunciation against this great wrong, that impartial justice shall be the law for every citizen of the Commonwealth; and that the president and secretary be empowered to sign a petition in behalf and as the earnest request of this convention for presentation to his Excellency the Governor, asking executive clemency in the pardon of Burril Lindsey, now incarcerated in the penitentiary, under a sentence of six years."
The Governor was graciously pleased to pardon him, but for personal safety he was compelled to abandon his homestead and leave the State.
For some time a general unrest among the colored people on account of violence had permeated the South, and thousands of the most substantial planters had already settled in Kansas, Indiana, and other Western States to enjoy legal protection hitherto denied them. Upon the question of Negro emigration the white South were divided. The planters and leading politicians were adverse. The planter for the reason that he could not supplant him by more efficient and tractable labor; the politician for fear of reducing Congressional representation, each regardless of the conditions creating his discontent. A minority respectable in numbers and prominent for standing, approved of his removal, alleging that the movement would be mutually beneficial, that it would induce white immigration, relieve the congested overproduction of the staples of the Southern States, introduce a higher class of industries, and simplify the so-called problem by removing the bugbear of Negro domination by means unobjectionable.
Of this class of opinion the "Nashville American," of the State of Tennessee, was a fair exponent. In its issue of May 9, 1879, it had this to say: "We rather rejoiced at a movement which will bring about a better understanding and teach both races a lesson they ought to learn. To the Negro it is simply a question as to whether he will be better off there or here. If there, he ought to go; if here, he ought to stay; and this simple economic proposition will settle it."
This, the sentiment of the best Southern thought, encountered an adverse which, while unwilling to grant the Negro the right of an American citizen, maltreated and imprisoned immigrant agents; desiring his retention in a specious of serfdom. Such being the conditions existing at the time of the meeting of the Nashville Conference in 1879, induced it by resolution to request Senator Windom, Chairman of the National Executive Committee, to appoint a committee to visit the Western States to ascertain what inducement they offered for immigration.
In pursuance whereof I received the following, containing words of wisdom warranting their insertion here:
"United States Senate,"Washington, D. C., Jan. 10, 1879.
"My Dear Sir: In compliance with the resolution of the Nashville Convention requesting me, as Chairman of the National Executive Committee, to appoint a committee of three to visit Western States and Territories and report, not later than the 1st of November, upon the health, climate, and productions of said States and Territories, I have the honor to designate you as one of the number of said committee. In doing so I may add that the duty involves great labor and responsibility on your part and requires the exercise of that sound discretion for which you are noted among your friends. The exodus of the colored people involves the greatest consequences to themselves and should only be undertaken after the most careful inquiry and preparation. If judiciously guided and regulated, I am thoroughly convinced that it will result in great good. If not so regulated, it may cause incalculable suffering to the colored race, and work great injury to the industrial interest of the South. If the Negro can have fair treatment as a citizen and a man in his present home, he will probably not care to remove. If he cannot obtain such treatment there, it is his right and duty to secure it by every means in his power, and no one has the right to say he may not change his residence at his own will and pleasure.
"Your proposed inquiry will contribute much to inform and control the action of those who may desire to emigrate and your discretion gives the best assurance that no rash action will be advisable. I regret the committee has no funds at command to pay your necessary traveling expenses.
"Hon. James P. Rapier, Member of Congress, of Montgomery, Alabama, I have also designated as a member of said committee, but I am not sufficiently advised to name the third member.
"Very respectfully yours,
(Signed.) "WM. WINDOM,
"Chairman.
"Mifflin W. Gibbs, Little Rock, Ark."
It often happens that distance lends enchantment to the view; that while contending with hardship, disappointment, and earnest toil, we are apt to imagine that at some far locality, amid new surroundings, there abides a reign of contentment and happiness, where labor has its highest rewards and where there is a minimum of those trials inseparable from human existence. The gratification of this migratory impulse has in many instances proved disastrous, the yielding to which should be only indulged after every possible effort has been made to remove local obstacles by uprightness, softening animosities, and by industry accumulate wealth. But emigrants have been illustrious as nation builders, their indomitable spirit blessing mankind and leaving impress on the scroll of time. The bump on the head of the Negro that the phrenologists call "inhabitiveness" is very prominent; he is not naturally migratory – "content to bear the ills he has, than fly to those he knows not of." Hence there appeared reason, if not entire "method in his madness."
In all movements of like character there are always conflicting rumors and reports as to success or failure of the benefit or loss of the venture, and this was no exception. Colored immigrants to the number of 10,000 had left the South during a brief period, and the wildest rumors circulated as to reception and success of these forerunners, and, as bad news is ever alert, much was heard that was discouraging and demanded investigation; hence the action of the Nashville Conference referred to. In pursuance of our appointment, J. T. Rapier and myself, in August, 1879, went to Topeka, Kan., and from there, chiefly by wagon travel, visited different colonies of the immigrants. Kansas had received seven or eight thousand. At Topeka we found nearly 100 at immigrant camp receiving rations, some sick, others looking for work; the balance had settled on lands or had found work as laborers. At Dunlop we found a colony of 300 families settled upon 20,000 acres of land. In Wabunsee County 230 families had settled on their land, while in Lawrence and other counties hundreds had found work. Mechanics receiving $2 to $2.25 per day and farm hands $13 to $15 per month and board. We found women in great demand for house servants from $6 to $8 per month.
In our interviews with the colonists we found the list and nature of their grievances were the same as have impelled men in all ages to endeavor to better their condition, and should five or ten thousand, for a period, annually leave the South and settle in Western States and Territories, the effect would be mutually beneficial to whites and blacks alike. In Emporia we found the colony in a very prosperous state. Out of 120 families one-half owned their houses and land on which they lived. We remained twenty days in Kansas and had not opportunity to visit Indiana and other States that had received immigrants. But the information we received, with few exceptions, was similar to that of those visited. There had been suffering and destitution in some localities during the past winter; that was to be expected, as many had come wholly unprepared and without that push and ready adaptation to the status of a new country.
We made an extended report to Senator Windom, which contained data as to the success and prosperity of the many and advice to the moneyless to avoid the suffering which might lie in wait.
CHAPTER XVI
In 1877 I was appointed by the President Register of the United States Land Office for the Little Rock District of Arkansas. The State was blessed with a valuable patrimony, by having at the time of its admission into the Union an extensive area of agricultural, besides thousands of acres of swamp, school and other lands, under State control and disposition. The United States Government had reserved many millions of acres, which under its homestead law became available for applicants for 40, 80, or 160 acres. No economy of the Government has been more fruitful in substantial blessing upon the industrious poor than throwing open these lands for entrance and ownership of homes by the payment of a nominal fee for recording and proof of actual settlement thereon.
The renowned and lamented Robert J. Ingersoll, once, while extolling the benignity and patriotic effect of the homestead law, said: "Who do you suppose would take up arms to defend a boarding house?" The opportunity to enjoy the ownership of a home strongly appeals, not alone to our avarice, but to the instincts of our nature. For here is located the citadel of our hopes and fears, our joys and griefs; here congregated are ties the most sacred, and a love devoted. It is the ever-burning light, the steady heat-giving impulse, and inspiration to deeds of domestic utility or of noble daring. For its protection the heart leaps and the arm strikes. Hence, for domestic felicity, or national autonomy, the home is an experience, and for liberty a conservator. Having these convictions during my 12 years' service in the Land Office as Register and afterwards as Receiver of Public Moneys, I was earnest in my endeavor to have the poor of all classes enter these lands. On the political stump at every election, while having as my mission the political ascendancy of my party, I always felt it a duty to dwell impressively upon that theme. Upon asking all those living on their own lands to hold up their hands, the gleam of pride on the countenances of many of my colored auditors as, standing tiptoe, with hands at arms' length, was shared by me, and a stimulus to the luke-warm, for on subsequent visits I would find an increase of holdings.
For the Negro ownership of land and home is not only an important factor, in his domestic life, for as taxpayer, there is a mutuality of interest between himself and other members of the body politic, business and trade seek him, it impels reverence for the law, and protection of the public peace. His own liability to outrage becomes small. His character for credit increases in the ratio of his holdings, and while manhood suffrage is the professed but often disavowed legacy for all born beneath the flag, his rights of citizenship are more often accorded.
While in the Land Service of the United States there were many examples of heroic conduct by colored settlers worthy of the highest praise. Many of them, emigrants from other Southern States, seeking better conditions, and arriving with barely sufficient to pay entrance fee, and nothing to sustain them in their fight with nature to clear their heavily-wooded land and fit it for cultivation. Hiring to others for brief spells, as necessity compelled them, to obtain small stocks of food and tools, five years after entrance, when they proved up their holdings and got their deeds, found them in comfortable log or frame houses of two or more rooms; sheds, with a cow, calves, swine, and poultry, and ten or more acres under cultivation, according to the number and availability of labor in their families. And, best of all, better than the mere knowledge of success, themselves crowned with that pride of great achievement ever and only the result of rigid self-denial and incessant toil.
In the National Republican Convention held at Chicago, June, 1880, was a contest that will be ever memorable as pertaining to a third term for the Presidency.
Landing at San Francisco, September, 1879, from his tour of two years around the world, and the honored guest of the crowned heads of Europe, General Grant's travel through the States was a continued ovation. On his arrival at Little Rock, Ark., citizens from all over the State hastened to do him honor, culminating with a banquet at the Capitol Hotel. The gathering was democratic in the best sense of that word, political lines were erased, Republicans and Democrats vieing with each other in giving the distinguished man a fitting reception. Nor were social lines adhered to, the writer being a guest and responding to the toast "The Possibilities of American Citizenship."
At the Arkansas Republican State Convention in 1880 I was elected a delegate to the National Convention of June 2 of that year. As a memento I highly prize my bronze medal proclaiming me as one of the historic "306" that never surrendered – compact and erect, "with every gun shotted and every banner flying," went down with General Grant in an unsuccessful effort to nominate him for a third term. It was there that Roscoe Conkling made the nominating speech in behalf of the General that will live in history, stirring the hearts of the immense audience to a climax of patriotic fervor. When he said, "Should you ask from whence he comes, the answer it shall be, He comes from Appomattox and the famous apple tree."
The fiat of the Convention was an illustration of the ephemeral character of cotemporary popular acclaim. Ambitious rivalry, the anticipations of envy, the bitterness of disappointed office seekers during two former Administrations, the honest belief of the timid that a third term for one soever trustworthy presaged and paved the way to an imperial monarchy; the mistakes unavoidable from misplaced confidence, happening in the career of all men and inseparable in the administration of government – all these elements, although incongruous in their nature and make-up, when they conspire are a formidable factor, and as such accomplished his defeat. Though dead, Ulysses Grant still lives on; the attributes of his personal nobility as a man, his patriotism as a citizen of the Republic, his ability and clear perspective as a statesman, his genius as a warrior, his magnanimity and kindness to a chivalrous, heroic but fallen foe, will ever typify his greatness in civic virtues and valiant deeds.
The manner of General Grant's defeat was peculiar. The name of James A. Garfield, the successful nominee, and in political parlance the "dark horse" (undoubtedly foreplanned but kept in the shade), was suddenly sprung upon the Convention and amid a whirlwind of excitement quickly received adherents from the opposition which increased in volume at each successive balloting, until the climax was reached that gave General Garfield the coveted prize. For some time there was much bitterness, and interchange of compliments more emphatic than polite. Within the party charges of infidelity to promises were rife. But the second sober thought of a wise conservatism, which is ever evidence and measure of a people's civilization, tempered strife and assuaged the pangs of disappointment. He was handsomely supported and elected, and on the 4th of March, 1881, was inaugurated as President, amid acclaim, with promise of a successful Administration. But upon what a slender thread do human plans rely! Scarcely had five months elapsed when President Garfield was assassinated by Charles Guiteau, a man of no repute, and emblems of sorrow drooped throughout the nation. This national calamity necessitated the second inauguration of a President during the year 1881. The then Vice-President, Chester A. Arthur, was duly installed September 30 of that year. His execution of the duties of that high office, assumed under conditions intricate and most trying, disarmed criticism by its wisdom and ability.
When a prospective candidate for re-election in 1884 the press of New York, having solicited expressions of fitness from delegates to the last National Convention, I was pleased with the opportunity to make this small contribution.
Little Rock, Ark., Aug. 1, 1884.
Dear Sir:
"I but voice the sentiment of the country when I say that I consider the Administration of President Arthur has been signalized by its justice, eminent statesmanship and wise discretion."
Such was the tenor of mention, but much more pronounced, by men of the party, and Mr. Arthur's nomination previous to the assembling of the next Presidential Convention seemed a foregone conclusion.
Nothing I can write will fittingly describe the personnel of James G. Blaine, who was to be the prime feature of the Convention on nomination day. As a man in the field of statesmanship and in intensity of devotion, he was more idolized than any since his prototype, Henry Clay. With political erudition was blended an eloquence inspiring and fascinating; a nobility of character often displayed as the champion of the weak; a disputant adept in all the mazes of analysis, denunciation, or sarcasm, he had created antipathy as bitter as his affections were unyielding. While Speaker of the House, with his counterpart in eloquence, Roscoe Conkling, he had many tilts. One of the most noted and probably far-reaching in impeding his Presidential aspirations, was his defense of General Fry, whom Conkling sought to have impeached, but who was successfully vindicated and afterwards promoted by the War Department. During the struggle Conkling hurled a javelin of taunt and invective, incisive, but thought to be unjust, inducing a response said to have been terrific in its onslaught, confounding the speaker and raising excitement in the House to the highest pitch. I transcribe an epitome of the speech, which will be seen to have bristled with galling ridicule: "As to the gentleman's cruel sarcasm, I hope he will not be too severe. The contempt of that large-minded gentleman is so wilting, his haughty disdain, his grandiloquent swell, his majestic supereminent, overpowering turkey-gobbler strut, has been so crushing to myself and all the members of this House that I know it was an act of the greatest temerity for me to enter upon a controversy with him." Then, quoting ironically a newspaper comparison of Mr. Conkling and Henry Winter Davis, ascribing qualities held by them in common, he proceeded: "The resemblance is great, and it has given his strut additional pomposity. The resemblance is great, it is striking – Hyperion to a satyr; Thersites to Hercules; mud to marble; dunghill to diamond; a singed cat to a Bengal tiger; a whining puppy to a roaring lion. Shade of the mighty Davis, forgive the almost profanation of that jocose satire!"
But James G. Blaine, that master of diplomacy and magnetic fame, with an astute following inspired and wild with gilded promises; the nominating speech of Robert J. Ingersoll, prince of orators, lauding the nominee as "like a mailed warrior, like a plumed knight" – all these forces contributed to turn the tide from Arthur and give him the nomination. I was one of a lonely three of the Arkansas delegation that stood by the State's instructions and voted for Arthur, nine of the delegation voting for Blaine. For obeying the State and not the after conclusion of the delegation, in my next race for a delegate I was "left at the stand."
My failure reminded me of the boy – a humble imitator of the great George Washington – who hacked to death a choice tree. When asked who did it, jolly, gushing and truthful, said, "I did it, pap." The old man seized and gathered him, stopping the whipping occasionally to get breath and wipe off the perspiration, would remark: "And had der imperdence to confess it." The boy, when finally released, between sobs sought solace by saying, "I will never tell the truth again as long as I live." I did not conclude that one should be false to an implied promise with instructions received, but I was impressed with the conviction that it is unwise to trammel a delegation with decisive instructions. A general expression of the feeling or bias of the State Convention is proper, but so much can happen during the interim to change conditions that ultimate action should be largely left to the judgment and integrity of the delegation.
The manner of choosing a President is entirely different from that designed by the founders of the republic. The selection of candidates by an organized party was not anticipated. It was intended that men of high character should be chosen by the citizens of each State as electors, and they should select the men they deemed most fit to be President, and the selection thereafter ratified by the vote of the people. An elector now is but the mouthpiece of his party; no matter what may be his individual judgment, he dare not disregard its fiat. The result of the national election was the defeat of Mr. Blaine and the election of the Democratic candidate, Grover Cleveland. Mr. Cleveland had an independent personality and the courage of his convictions. Affable and cordial in his intercourse with Afro-Americans, and to those of his political household was prodigal in the bestowal of appointments. The effect of this was that many colored men, leaders of thought and race action, not seeing an increase of oppression, so freely predicted in the event of a Democratic President, advocated a division of the colored vote, with a view of harmonizing feeling and mutual benefit. A welcoming of that approach in the South may be deferred, but will yet be solicited, despite its present disloyalty to the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments to the Constitution.
