<?xml version="1.0"?>
<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0"
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0 http://digital.lib.ecu.edu/tei/xsd/tei_P5.xsd">

  <teiHeader>
    <fileDesc>
      <titleStmt>
        <title>The History of Negro Suffrage in the South</title>
        <author>Stephen B. Weeks</author>
        <respStmt>
          <resp>Text encoded by</resp>
          <name>Justin Tew</name>
        </respStmt>
      </titleStmt>
      <publicationStmt>
        <distributor>East Carolina University. J. Y. Joyner
        Library</distributor>
        <address>
          <addrLine>Center for Digital Projects</addrLine>
          <addrLine>Joyner Library, East Carolina
          University</addrLine>
          <addrLine>East Fifth Street, Greenville NC 27858-4353
          USA</addrLine>
        </address>
        <date>2007</date>
      </publicationStmt>
      <notesStmt>
        <note type="job">j217</note>
      </notesStmt>
      <sourceDesc>
        <bibl></bibl>
      </sourceDesc>
    </fileDesc>
    <encodingDesc>
      <samplingDecl>
        <p>All quotation marks retained as data.</p>
        <p>All smart quotes have been converted into straight
        quotes.</p>
      </samplingDecl>
      <classDecl>
        <taxonomy xml:id="LCSH">
          <bibl>Library of Congress Subject Headings</bibl>
        </taxonomy>
      </classDecl>
    </encodingDesc>
    <profileDesc>
      <creation>
        <date></date>
      </creation>
      <langUsage xml:lang="en-US">
        <language ident="en-US" usage="100">English</language>
      </langUsage>
      <textClass>
        <keywords scheme="#LCSH">
          <list>
            <item></item>
          </list>
        </keywords>
      </textClass>
    </profileDesc>
  </teiHeader>
  <text type="jp2book">
    <body>
      <div>
        <pb facs="00010354_0001" n="Front Cover" />
        <head>THE HISTORY</head>
        <head>OF</head>
        <head>NEGRO SUFFRAGE</head>
        <head>IN THE SOUTH</head>
        <p>BY</p>
        <p>STEPHEN B. WEEKS</p>
        <p>Reprinted from POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY, Vol. IX.,
        No. 4</p>
        <p>BOSTON</p>
        <p>GINN &amp; COMPANY 1894</p>
        <pb facs="00010354_0002" n="671" />
        <head>THE HISTORY OF NEGRO SUFFRAGE IN THE</head>
        <head>SOUTH.</head>
        <note type="author" n="1">1</note>
        <head>I. Before the Revolution.</head>
        <p>As to race requirements for suffrage in colonial times,
        Dr. Cortlandt F. Bishop, in his History of Elections in the
        American Colonies, says that he knows of "no law that would
        prevent an Indian or a negro, if otherwise qualified, from
        voting in the northern colonies." So far as I have been
        able to learn, there were at first no laws disfranchising
        colored freemen in the South. Dr. Bishop even goes further
        and says that such laws were &#8220;of a comparatively late
        date."</p>
        <p>North Carolina seems to have been the first to
        disfranchise the negro. In the Manuscript Revisal of the
        Laws, made in 1715, we find it declared that "no negro,
        mullatto or Indians shall be capable of voting for members
        of Assembly."
        <note type="author" n="2">2</note>We can only approximate
        the date of the passage of this law. Burrington,
        <note type="author" n="1">3</note>in his comments on the
        Revisal, says that this was "an old law taken from one of
        the Lords Proprietors' original constitutions and hath
        undergone little alteration." He recommends that the act be
        repealed, as the people "assemble and chuse Burgesses on
        the day by the act appointed without any writ for it." The
        law was repealed by the king's order in 1734, probably in
        response to this recommendation. It was contrary, moreover,
        to the spirit of the colonial government; for the
        proprietors, in their instructions to the governor of
        Albemarle in 1667, had granted the ballot to all freemen.4
        An act of the year 1743 carried out the spirit</p>
        <p>~~~</p>
        <p>1 This paper was presented to the World's Congress
        Auxiliary on Government, at Chicago, in August, 1893. The
        writer wishes to express his thanks to Dr. C. Meriwether
        for valued criticisms and suggestions on the subject.</p>
        <p>2 Law printed in North Carolina Colonial Records, II,
        213, and quoted by Dr. Bishop, who calls attention to the
        fact that &#8220;Mustee," which is to be found in the
        original, is omitted in this reprint. The act stands 1o in
        the revisal of 1752.</p>
        <p>3 Col. Rec., III, 180, 4 Ibid., I, 165.</p>
        <pb facs="00010354_0003" n="i672" />
        <p>672 POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY. [Vol. IX.</p>
        <p>of this instruction and gave the suffrage to all
        freemen, but this was repealed before 1760. An election law
        of this latter year provided that all freeholders should
        vote, and defined a freeholder as a</p>
        <p>person who, bona fide, hath an estate real for his own
        life time, or the life of another, or any estate of greater
        dignity or of a sufficient number of acres in the county
        which by the law enables him to vote or be a candidate for
        such county.</p>
        <p>No other election law was passed by the colony. In
        theory, whatever may have been the practice, the free negro
        had after this the right to the ballot.</p>
        <p>South Carolina was the next to forbid the negro the
        ballot. As early as 1701 and 1703, complaints had been made
        from Berkeley County, that "free negroes were received and
        taken for as good electors as the best freeholders in the
        province," 
        <note type="author" n="1">1</note>but the law of 1704
        prescribed no qualifications save a freehold and a certain
        amount of property.
        <note type="author" n="2">2</note>The law of 1716 was the
        first to insert the word white.
        <note type="author" n="3">3</note>This was retained in the
        laws of 1721, 1745 and 1759,
        <note type="author" n="4">4</note>and was unchanged in the
        constitution of 1776. Though these earlier laws required
        that electors must be white, it was not till 1759 that the
        same qualification was expressly applied to the
        elected.</p>
        <p>In Virginia an act of 1705 had forbidden negroes,
        mulattoes and Indians to hold office. They were
        disfranchised for the first time in 1723.
        <note type="author" n="5">5</note>When this law was
        referred by the Board of Trade to Richard West for the
        consideration of its legal aspects, he replied: &#8220;I
        cannot see why one freeman should be used worse than
        another merely upon account of his complexion." 
        <note type="author" n="6">6</note>This law was probably
        repealed by proclamation after being in force ten years or
        more; for it is found in the revisal of 1733, but not in
        that of 1766.
        <note type="author" n="7">7</note>Another act
        disfranchising</p>
        <p>~~~</p>
        <p>1 See the petition of Jos. Boone in N. C. Col. Rec., I,
        639.</p>
        <p>2 Cooper, Statutes at Large of S.C., II, 249.</p>
        <p>3 Ibid., III, 3.</p>
        <p>4 Ibid., III, 136, 657; IV, 99.</p>
        <p>5 Hening, Statutes at Large of Va.,III, 250; MV, 133,
        134.</p>
        <p>6 Sumner's Works, X, 193.</p>
        <p>7 Hening quotes it from the ed. of 1733, p. 339.</p>
        <pb facs="00010354_0003" n="673" />
        <p>No.4.] NEGRO SUFFRAGE IN THE SOUTH. 673</p>
        <p>negroes, mulattoes and Indians, although free-holders,
        was passed in Virginia in 1762.
        <note type="author" n="1">1</note>Georgia disfranchised the
        negroes in 1761.
        <note type="author" n="2">2</note></p>
        <p>II. From the Revolution to the Civil War.</p>
        <p>Manhood suffrage was not the prerogative of white men in
        the South where the slaveholding aristocracy predominated.
        This aristocracy was to its own members a democracy of
        democracies; to the outsider it was an oligarchy. The
        struggle against the limitations which it imposed went on
        steadily. The evolution was the same in all the states.
        Virginia may be taken as a type.</p>
        <p>Under the earliest laws of Virginia, all freemen had a
        voice in affairs. This concerned first the daily matters of
        the hundreds, afterward the election of Burgesses. But in
        1655 the law was changed by the Commonwealth men, and
        suffrage was confined to "housekeepers, whether
        freeholders, leaseholders or otherwise tenants." This law
        was repealed in 1656, but in 1670 the king, by letter to
        the royal governor, and without consent of the Virginia
        Assembly, went back to the principle first applied by the
        liberal party in 1655. None but "freeholders and
        housekeepers " now had the suffrage, and the reason is
        plain: the persons who had served their time as indentured
        servants had little interest in the country and made
        disturbances at the elections 
        <note type="author" n="3">3</note>The act of Charles II
        gave the colony an aristocratic character.
        <note type="author" n="4">4</note>The principles thus
        embodied in the organic laws of the colony were not changed
        in 1776. The landholding aristocracy prided themselves on
        their superior power and privileges .
        <note type="author" n="5">5</note>But exclusion from a
        voice in the elections was not pleasant to the landless
        class of citizens,</p>
        <p>~~~</p>
        <p>1 Hening, VII, 517. 2 Bishop, op. cit., 52.</p>
        <p>3 Hening, M, 403, 411, 475; Cooke's Virginia,
        222-224.</p>
        <p>4 It is worthy of note, as an indication of the
        democratic character of Bacon and his followers, that the
        right of suffrage was restored to all freemen by them in
        1676, but their laws were repealed the next year. Hening,
        II, 356, 380.</p>
        <p>5 Debates in Va. Convention of 1829-30, p. 57.</p>
        <pb facs="00010354_0004" n="674" />
        <p>674 POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY. [VoL. IX.</p>
        <p>who were growing in numbers, wealth and influence. The
        convention of 1830 yielded to the pressure, and the new
        constitution extended the right of suffrage, though still
        with a property or tax qualification, to "white male
        citizens of the commonwealth."
        <note type="author" n="1">1</note>All the discussions of
        this clause of the constitution deal with &#8220;free white
        men." There is no reference to the right of free colored
        men to the franchise; they seem not to have been considered
        at all in this connection.
        <note type="author" n="2">2</note>The constitution of 1850
        cut out the tax qualification and thus established, with
        certain requirements for residence, white manhood suffrage.
        In 1864 a convention of representatives from those parts of
        Virginia which were then within the Union lines framed a
        constitution which gave the franchise to white male
        citizens only. Negroes never voted in Virginia in the
        period from the Revolution to the Civil War.</p>
        <p>This is not essentially different from the course of
        development in most of the other Southern states. Seven
        states besides Virginia &#8212; South Carolina, Florida,
        Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas,
        Arkansas&#8212;limited the ballot to white men clearly and
        distinctly. The same was true of Georgia, under the
        constitution of 1777. The constitution of 1789, however,
        gave the franchise to &#8220;citizens and inhabitants," and
        this remained the law until 1865; but it is clear that the
        expression was never intended to include the free negro.
        The Georgia Code of 1851 forbade emancipation; forbade free
        negroes to come into the state; required those who were
        already there to be registered annually; and gave the clerk
        power to refuse certificates of registration.
        <note type="author" n="3">3</note></p>
        <p>North Carolina, by the constitution of 1776, provided
        that every freeman with a freehold of fifty acres should
        vote for members of the state Senate, and that every
        freeman who had paid public taxes should vote for members
        of the House of Commons. The Tennessee constitution of
        1796, probably under the influence of the North Carolina
        provision, gave the</p>
        <p>~~~</p>
        <p>1 See Poore, Charters and Constitutions of the U. S.</p>
        <p>2 Debates, 42 et seq.</p>
        <p>3 A law which sold as slaves those who did not take out
        such certificates was repealed in 1824.</p>
        <pb facs="00010354_0004" n="675" />
        <p>No.4.] NEGRO SUFFRAGE IN THE SOUTH. 675</p>
        <p>ballot to all freeholders, but the constitution of 1834
        restricted suffrage to white men.
        <note type="author" n="1">1</note>This restriction no doubt
        had a reflex influence on North Carolina. We have seen that
        North Carolina had no law in 1776 establishing a color
        qualification for the ballot. But there is doubt as to
        whether or not the framers of the constitution of 1776
        intended to include free negroes as a part of the freemen
        of the state. Mr. Daniel said in the convention of 1835
        that the bill of rights was understood to apply only to
        free white men.
        <note type="author" n="2">2</note>Mr. Macon said that free
        negroes were never known to vote before the Revolution,
        that they were never considered citizens, and did not
        exercise the privilege until many years after .
        <note type="author" n="3">3</note>Mr. Gaston explained this
        as due to the fact that at the time of the Revolution there
        were very few free negroes, for there had been little
        emancipation. But, however this may have been, it is
        perfectly clear that they were considered citizens as early
        as 1778,
        <note type="author" n="4">4</note>and that they enjoyed the
        suffrage up to 1835, when the constitution was changed.
        Before 1835 the supreme court had declared them citizens.
        <note type="author" n="1">5</note>And later, in the case of
        the State vs. Manuel,
        <note type="author" n="6">6</note>which came up in 1838,
        Judge Gaston said:</p>
        <p>Slaves manumitted here become freemen, and therefore, if
        born within North Carolina, are citizens of North Carolina,
        and all free persons born within the state are born
        citizens of the state. . . . The constitution extended the
        elective franchise to every freeman who had arrived at the
        age of twenty-one and paid a public tax; and it is a matter
        of universal notoriety that under it free persons, without
        regard to color, claimed and exercised the franchise, until
        it was taken away from free men of color a few years since
        by our amended constitution.
        <note type="author" n="7">7</note></p>
        <p>~~~</p>
        <p>1 No man was excluded from the ballot for color if he
        was a competent witness against a white man. Unfortunately
        for us, the debates in this convention were never
        published. The arguments on this question would have been
        of great interest. There is nothing of service in the
        journal of the convention.</p>
        <p>2 Debates in Convention of 1835, p. 61. 2 Ibid.,
        65-69.</p>
        <p>4 Ibid., 352. 5 Ibid., 357. 6 4 Dev. &amp; Bat., 25.</p>
        <p>7 The same court said in 1844, in the case of The State
        vs. Newsom, that this important case in 1838 was considered
        "with an anxiety and care worthy of the principle
        involved." See use made of this in Sumner's Works, VIII,
        461, 462.</p>
        <pb facs="00010354_0005" n="676" />
        <p>676 POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY. [VoL. IX.</p>
        <p>So clearly established had the negro's right to vote
        become that many of the county clerks, in making their
        returns in 1833, failed to distinguish between black and
        white polls.
        <note type="author" n="1">l</note>But the right was not
        uniformly exercised. In a number of counties negroes had
        never voted. In general, however, they had been allowed the
        franchise, and their numbers were considerable. In Halifax
        County there were three hundred colored voters, in Hertford
        one hundred and fifty, in Chowan fifty, in Pasquotank
        seventy-five. In some counties they held the balance of
        power, and Mr. Daniel remarks that he found, after thirty
        years' observation, that they uniformly voted for men of
        character and talent.
        <note type="author" n="2">2</note>Their votes were eagerly
        sought for. "The opposing candidates, for the nonce
        oblivious of social distinction and intent only on catching
        votes, hobnobbed with the men and swung corners all with
        dusky damsels at election balls." 
        <note type="author" n="3">3</note></p>
        <p>The project to deprive the free negroes of the suffrage
        met with much opposition. This project was not the
        offspring of momentary caprice, but of a long pent-up
        feeling. In 1826 Bartlett Yancey had written Willie P.
        Mangum that there was hostility to free-negro suffrage in
        all the counties and in almost all the towns, and that this
        feeling was due largely to the work of colonization and
        abolition societies. But, on the other hand, it was urged
        in the North Carolina convention that some of those colored
        men, now to be disfranchised, had done service in the war
        of the Revolution. Some had taken the oath of allegiance.
        Some were freeholders, and these, with others, were
        taxpayers .
        <note type="author" n="4">4</note>They had been accustomed
        to exercise the</p>
        <p>~~~</p>
        <p>1 Debates in Convention of 1835, p. 30.</p>
        <p>2 Ibid., 61, 69, 8o, 353, 355. In Tennessee, Cave
        Johnson and John Bell said they were elected to Congress by
        the votes of colored persons (Sumner's Works, X, 192). 1n
        183o the free negro population of North Carolina was
        19,543; of Tennessee, 4555. The North Carolina counties
        with a free negro population of more than 400 were :
        Beaufort, with 487 ; Brunswick, 408 ; Craven, 1003 ;
        Cumberland, 686; Granville, 759; Halifax, 2079; Hertford,
        953; Northampton, 936; Orange, 619; Pasquotank, 1038;
        Robeson, 6o5; Wake, 833. Davidson, with 471, had the
        largest free negro population in Tennessee. Hawkins came
        next, with 386.</p>
        <p>3 Buxton, Reminiscences of the Bench and Fayetteville
        Bar.</p>
        <p>4 Debates, 61.</p>
        <pb facs="00010354_0005" n="6757" />
        <p>No.4.] NEGRO SUFFRAGE IN THE SOUTH. 677</p>
        <p>right, and deprivation would now be a hardship. They
        would be useful as a counterpoise to the slaves, should the
        latter plot rebellion: for when the authorities of San
        Domingo in 1791 put free negroes for meritorious services,
        on the same footing as white men, it produced the happiest
        effect; but when the French government deprived them of
        this equality a few years later, it had the effect of
        throwing them into the ranks of the slaves.
        <note type="author" n="1">l</note>The convention was quite
        evenly divided on the question, and the debates were very
        earnest. Various property limitations were suggested by way
        of compromise, but the out-come was the adoption of the
        provision excluding all negroes from the suffrage, by a
        vote of 66 to 61.</p>
        <p>This was the end of negro suffrage in North Carolina and
        in the South until the days of Reconstruction.</p>
        <p>It will be of interest to compare the conditions of
        suffrage in the North and West to see if these states were
        any more liberal than those in the South. Omitting the
        eleven Southern states under consideration, we can divide
        all the remaining states into three groups: (I) Those that
        never established a color qualification for the suffrage;
        (2) those that established such a qualification, but only
        at a relatively late date; (3) those which limited the
        suffrage to white men from the beginning.</p>
        <p>1. Maine, in 1820, and Rhode Island, in 1842, granted
        the suffrage to male citizens of the United States. There
        is no mention of color, but negroes might have been
        excluded, on the ground that they were not citizens; for in
        1833 Chief Justice Daggett, of Connecticut, charged that
        "slaves, free blacks and Indians" were not citizens within
        the meaning of section 2, article 4, of the federal
        constitution. This anticipated the Dred Scott decision.
        <note type="author" n="2">2</note>There is no mention of
        color in the laws of Massachusetts, New Hampshire and
        Vermont. But New</p>
        <p>~~~</p>
        <p>1 Debates, 354.</p>
        <p>2 Hurd, Law of Freedom and Bondage, II, 46. John F.
        Denny, of Pennsylvania, in his Inquiry into the Political
        Grade of the Free Colored Population under the Constitution
        of the United States, elaborately sustains the same view.
        The supreme court of Tennessee decided in 1838 that negroes
        were not citizens under the United States constitution
        (Kent, II, 301). On the other hand, see decision of the
        North Carolina supreme court, ante.</p>
        <pb facs="00010354_0006" n="378" />
        <p>678 POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY. [VoL.IX.</p>
        <p>Hampshire found it necessary in 1857, and Vermont in
        1858, to enact that negroes should not be excluded from the
        ballot.</p>
        <p>2. Of the second group Delaware introduced the color
        qualification in 1792; Kentucky, in 1799; Maryland, in 1809
        and 1810; 
        <note type="author" n="1">1</note>Connecticut, in 1818; New
        Jersey, in 1820; and Pennsylvania, in 1838.</p>
        <p>The right of the negro to vote was disputed under the
        old constitution of Pennsylvania prior to 1838. It was held
        that &#8220;freeman " was used in a political sense, that
        it did not mean one who was free of condition merely, and
        that a negro could not be in Pennsylvania a freeman in this
        sense. The supreme court, in Hobbs vs. Fogg, in 1837,
        declared that a negro or a mulatto was not entitled to
        vote.
        <note type="author" n="2">2</note></p>
        <p>It is certain that negroes voted in the early years of
        Mary-land. Evidence was given in the Baltimore county court
        about 1810, that a certain free black of that county had
        voted and had been allowed to give evidence in a case in
        which white persons were concerned. We hear of a free black
        who was accustomed to vote in Baltimore and did not know of
        the amendment of 1810 until his vote was challenged. It is
        said that he thereupon addressed the crowd about the polls
        &#8220;in a strain of true and passionate eloquence." 
        <note type="author" n="3">3</note></p>
        <p>New York made an honest effort to help the negro to the
        ballot. There was no color line in the constitution of
        1777; but by a law enacted first in 181I and reenacted in
        1814, a negro, on offering to vote, had first to produce a
        certificate of freedom. The constitution of 1821 further
        differentiated between black and white electors, and
        enacted that no negro should vote unless he had been a
        citizen for three years, and had for a year possessed a
        freehold worth $250 above all encumbrances and had actually
        paid a tax on the same. In 1846, the question of equal
        suffrage for the two races was sub-</p>
        <p>~~~</p>
        <p>1 It was provided in 1783 in Maryland that no colored
        person freed after that date, nor the issue of such, should
        vote.</p>
        <p>2 Kent, II, 301. Chief justice Gibson, in delivering the
        opinion, credits the report of a decision in 1795, that
        negroes could not vote. Hurd, II, 70, 72.</p>
        <p>3 Brackett, The Negro in Maryland, 186.</p>
        <pb facs="00010354_0006" n="679" />
        <p>No.4.] NEGRO SUFFRAGE IN THE SOUTH. 679</p>
        <p>submitted to the people separately, in the shape of a
        constitutional amendment, and was rejected by 223,834 to
        85,306. It met the same fate in 1860, by 337,984 to
        197,503, and again in 1868, by 282,403 to 249,802.
        <note type="author" n="1">1</note></p>
        <p>3. None of the other states and territories that had
        organized governments in 1861 had ever granted the ballot
        to the negro. This includes California, Colorado, Illinois,
        Indiana,
        <note type="author" n="2">2</note>Iowa, Kansas, Michigan,
        Minnesota (which declares that " no member of this state
        shall be disfranchised" and then limits the ballot to
        "whites and persons of Indian or mixed white and Indian
        blood"), Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio,
        <note type="author" n="3">3</note>Oregon, Utah and
        Wisconsin.
        <note type="author" n="4">4</note></p>
        <p>From this survey of the North and West, it is evident
        that few of the states that fought for the Union were then
        willing to grant suffrage to the negro on equal terms with
        the whites. Five of the New England states had granted him
        the privilege in form. It was not perfect even here, for
        Chanceller Kent says in the sixth edition of his
        commentaries, published in 1848, &#8212; and this statement
        is quoted with approval by Chief Justice Taney in the Dred
        Scott case, &#8212; that in no part of the country except
        Maine did the negro, in point of fact, participate equally
        with the whites in the exercise of civil and political
        rights.
        <note type="author" n="5">5</note>The middle states had all
        ultimately withdrawn or restricted the right to vote. All
        the new Western states, including those where slavery was
        forbidden by the Ordinance of 1787, had refused the negro
        the suffrage. Some required negroes to be registered; one
        (Ohio) to give bond that they</p>
        <p>~~~</p>
        <p>1 Poore, 1334, 1343, 1350, 1353; Hurd, II, 54, 55.</p>
        <p>2 Illinois by the constitution of 1848, and Indiana by
        that of 1851, forbade free negroes to migrate to the state
        and forbade masters to carry slaves into the state for the
        purpose of freeing them. These sections had previously
        formed part of the statute law.</p>
        <p>3 The privilege was not denied to those that were more
        than half white. In 1859 a law was passed requiring judges
        to reject the offered vote of a person "who has a distinct
        and visible admixture of African blood."</p>
        <p>4 Hurd, II, 122. A decision of the supreme court of
        Wisconsin made in 1866, in the case of Gillespie vs.
        Palmer, held that the right of suffrage had been extended
        to negroes in that state by the vote of the people at the
        general election held Nov. 6, 1849. Poore, 2022, 2030.</p>
        <p>5 Dred Scott decision, 22; so in Kent, loth ed. (186o),
        11, 298.</p>
        <pb facs="00010354_0007" n="680" />
        <p>68o POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY. [VoL. IX.</p>
        <p>would not become a public charge; two (Indiana and
        Illinois) even forbade them to enter their borders and
        forbade masters to bring slaves there for the purpose of
        giving them freedom. Nor was this feeling of repugnance
        overcome by the war. In 1865 Connecticut gave a majority of
        6272 against negro suffrage; in 1867 Ohio voted it down by
        50,620, Kansas by 8923 and Minnesota by 1298.</p>
        <head>III. The Evolution of Negro Suffrage.</head>
        <p>White manhood suffrage was recognized in none of the
        original thirteen states in 1776. After the adoption of the
        Federal Constitution the tendency was steadily toward the
        extension of the franchise. But the South had not arrived
        at universal suffrage for white men in 1860. North Carolina
        (from 1854) and Georgia (from 1789) required the payment of
        taxes and Florida (from 1838) required military service, as
        prerequisites for voting. There was little thought of
        uniform suffrage for black and white in any part of the
        Union. Negro suffrage was one of the results of the war.
        The constitutional history of the Civil War is summarized
        in the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth amendments, in
        which may be traced the gradual growth of the sentiment of
        the nation concerning slavery and the political rights of
        the negro. The victory of the federal armies sealed the
        fate of slavery, and this was ex-pressed in the thirteenth
        amendment. The Republican victory in the elections of 1866
        led to the incorporation of impartial or negro suffrage in
        the Reconstruction Acts; and the victory of the same party
        in 1868 led to the incorporation of impartial suffrage in
        the constitution. The fourteenth amendment advanced the
        negro to the status of a citizen, but did nothing
        affirmatively to confer the suffrage upon him; it aided him
        negatively by imposing a penalty on his exclusion. Nor did
        the fifteenth amendment give him the right to vote; it
        merely invested the citizen of the United States with the
        right to be exempt from discrimination in the exercise of
        the elective</p>
        <pb facs="00010354_0007" n="681" />
        <p>No.4.] NEGRO SUFFRAGE IN THE SOUTH. 681 franchise, on
        account of his race, color or previous condition of
        servitude.
        <note type="author" n="1">1</note></p>
        <p>Negro suffrage formed no part of the policy of the
        Republican Party on the abolition of slavery in 1865. The
        leaders of the party declared at that time that negro
        suffrage was unwise and dangerous.
        <note type="author" n="2">2</note>In a speech at Richmond,
        Indiana, on September 29, 1865, Hon. Oliver P. Morton, in
        discussing the question, remarked that to say "men just
        emerged from slavery are qualified for the exercise of
        political power, is to make the strongest pro-slavery
        argument I ever heard. It is to pay the highest compliment
        to the institution of slavery."</p>
        <p>There was no negro suffrage in President Lincoln's plan
        of reconstruction. His theory was that the relations of the
        insurrectionary states to the federal government were
        simply suspended by the war; that the states were never out
        of the Union and were always subject to the constitution.
        His business was simply to restore civil authority in them
        as soon as they ceased to fight. His theory left the
        question of suffrage entirely in the hands of those who
        were entitled to vote at the date of secession, and this
        was the view of his cabinet. To this policy President
        Johnson succeeded. President Lincoln a short while before
        his death had caused a bill to be prepared for the
        reconstruction of North Carolina. This identical bill was
        read in the first cabinet meeting after his death and was
        the basis of all of President Johnson's work.
        <note type="author" n="3">3</note></p>
        <p>There was no negro suffrage in the Davis-Wade plan of
        reconstruction. It had always been a part of the Sumner and
        Stevens plans; but these men were in advance of their
        party. The sentiment of Congress, however, growing in
        opposition to the presidential and the Davis-Wade plans,
        became steadily stronger in its approval of
        &#8220;impartial suffrage " as a condition of the
        reconstruction and reorganization of government in the
        Southern states. In 1867 Stevens said:</p>
        <p>~~~</p>
        <p>1 So the Supreme Court. Cf. 92 U. S. 214.</p>
        <p>2 See North American Review, cxxiii, 267.</p>
        <p>3 For the identity of the views of Lincoln and Johnson
        on this subject, cf. McCulloch, Men and Measures of Half a
        Century, 378 et seq.</p>
        <pb facs="00010354_0008" n="682" />
        <p>682 POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY. [Vol.. IX.</p>
        <p>White union men are in a minority in each of those
        states. With them the blacks would act in a body, form a
        majority, control the states and protect themselves. It
        would insure the ascendency of the Union Party.</p>
        <p>Sumner favored negro suffrage not only in the South but
        in other parts of the Union as well, and he avowed as
        frankly as Stevens the motives actuating him. He writes
        from the Senate chamber, April 20, 1867, to the editor of
        the Independent:</p>
        <p>You wish to have the North "reconstructed," so at least
        that it shall cease to deny the elective franchise on
        account of color. But you postpone the day by insisting on
        the preliminary of a constitutional amendment. I know your
        vows to the good cause; but ask you to make haste. We
        cannot wait. . . . This question must be settled forthwith:
        in other words, it must be settled before the presidential
        election, which is at hand. Our colored fellow-citizens at
        the South are already electors. They will vote at the
        presidential election. But why should they vote at the
        South, and not at the North? The rule of justice is the
        same for both. Their votes are needed at the North as well
        as at the South. There are Northern states where their
        votes can make the good cause safe beyond question. There
        are other states where their votes will be like the last
        preponderant weight in the nicely balanced scales. Let our
        colored fellow-citizens vote in Maryland, and that state,
        now so severely tried, will be fixed for human rights
        forever. Let them vote in Pennsylvania, and you will give
        more than 20,000 votes to the Republican cause. Let them
        vote in New York, and the scales which hang so doubtful
        will incline to the Republican cause. It will be the same
        in Connecticut. . . . Enfranchisement, which is the
        corollary and complement of emancipation, must be a
        national act, also proceeding from the national government,
        and applicable to all the states.
        <note type="author" n="1">1</note></p>
        <p>These views were clear-cut and to the point, but in 1865
        the party was not yet ready to accept them. At the meeting
        of Congress in December of that year, Mr. Stevens
        introduced and had passed by both House and Senate a
        resolution</p>
        <p>~~~</p>
        <p>1 Works, IX, 356. See also his letter in the same strain
        of October 29, 1865. Ibid., IX, 5oo. The letter to Sumner
        from the negroes of Wilmington, N. C., April 29, 1865, is
        the first public expression of their interest in the
        suffrage.</p>
        <pb facs="00010354_0008" n="683" />
        <p>No.4.] NEGRO SUFFRAGE IN THE SOUTH. 683</p>
        <p>to provide for a joint committee of fifteen to report on
        the condition of "the states which formed the so-called
        Con-federate States of America," and it was later agreed
        that no members should be admitted to Congress from the
        late insurrectionary states until the report of this
        committee had been finally acted on.
        <note type="author" n="1">1</note>I This gave time for the
        growth of the sentiment favoring negro suffrage, and the
        fourteenth amendment soon became an essential element in
        the plan of reconstruction by Congress. The first section
        was to overturn the still binding principle of the decision
        in the Dred Scott case, that negroes, even though
        emancipated, could never become citizens of the United
        States. Its other sections were intended to make it to the
        interest of the Southern states to allow the right of
        suffrage to the negro, and to encourage them to do so. The
        negro was made a citizen and was guaranteed the same rights
        as the white citizens, but the right to vote was not
        expressly granted to him. This amendment was passed by the
        Senate June 8, 1866, by a vote of 33 to 11, and by the
        House, June 13, by a vote of 138 to 36. It was rejected by
        Delaware, Kentucky and Maryland, was not acted on by
        California, and was rejected by Alabama, Arkansas, Florida,
        Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South
        Carolina, Texas and Virginia, at their legislative sessions
        between November 9, 1866, and February 6, 1867.</p>
        <p>Had the Southern states acted more prudently here, it is
        possible that many of the evils which followed might have
        been avoided in part, and negro suffrage itself might have
        been introduced not abruptly, but by degrees. But it was
        not natural for them to act otherwise than as they did, and
        the rejection of the amendment showed the utter
        impossibility of getting the ratification of the necessary
        three-fourths of the states so long as the Southern states
        remained in statu quo. It forced Congress to choose between
        the presidential policy and negro suffrage.</p>
        <p>In February, 1867, an official effort, endorsed by the
        president, was made to induce the Southern legislatures to
        propose</p>
        <p>~~~</p>
        <p>1 See Henry Wilson, History of Reconstruction.</p>
        <pb facs="00010354_0009" n="684" />
        <p>684 POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY [VoL.IX.</p>
        <p>an amendment of their own. The plan included the
        amendment of the constitution of each state by giving the
        suffrage to all male citizens who could read and write and
        who owned taxable property worth $250. The amendment was
        offered in the legislatures of North Carolina and Alabama.
        Their refusal to consider it put an end to the effort.
        Besides this, the Vagrancy Laws and Black Codes had
        irritated many honest Northern men, who did not understand
        the situation and thought that an effort was making to
        reenslave the negro. The rank and file of the party were
        now fast coming to the position which Stevens and Sumner
        had long held.</p>
        <p>Congress then went on with the work of reconstruction.
        December 13, 1866, Stevens had introduced a bill to
        reconstruct the government of North Carolina in which
        suffrage was given to males able to read and write. This
        never became law; but instead a general Reconstruction Act
        was passed, March 2, 1867. It declared the government of
        the Southern states provisional only until, among other
        conditions, the fourteenth amendment should be ratified,
        and new constitutions should be adopted, framed by "
        delegates elected by the male citizens of said state,
        twenty-one years old and upward, of whatever race, color or
        previous condition." Under this act Alabama in 1867, and
        North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida,
        Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas and Arkansas in 1868, held
        conventions chosen in accordance with the terms of the
        Reconstruction Act. These conventions, where, for the first
        time in the history of the Southern states, negroes sat in
        the same legislative halls with white men, framed
        constitutions providing for impartial suffrage and ratified
        the fourteenth amendment. It was proclaimed July 28,
        1868.</p>
        <p>The fourteenth amendment had only sought to stimulate
        the states to grant the suffrage to the negro. The
        fifteenth amendment deprived the states of the power to
        deny him the suffrage. It was proposed by Congress February
        26, 1869 ; passed the Senate by a vote of 39 to 13, and the
        House by 144 to 44; was not acted on by Tennessee; was
        rejected by California, Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, New
        Jersey, Oregon, and</p>
        <pb facs="00010354_0009" n="685" />
        <p>No.4.] NEGRO SUFFRAGE IN THE SOUTH. 685 by New York,
        which first ratified and then rescinded her ratification;
        was finally ratified by twenty-nine states; and</p>
        <p>was declared in force March 30, 1870.
        <note type="author" n="1">1</note>Negro suffrage thus
        became a part of the organic law of the nation. President
        Grant, in announcing its ratification to Congress, spoke of
        it as "a measure which makes at once four millions of
        people voters." This, however, was not the case; the negro
        had been a voter in the South since 1867. His voting had
        been made a prerequisite to the readmission of the late
        insurrectionary states into the Union. His ballot had
        helped to choose the legislators who voted to adopt the
        fourteenth and fifteenth amendments. He was permitted
        (strangely enough) to assist in making the very law under
        which he was to exercise the right of suffrage!</p>
        <p>Justice Hunt, in the case of United States vs. Reese,
        has given what may be termed the personal reasons for the
        existence of the fifteenth amendment : (1) That the
        franchise would benefit the colored race by giving them
        importance, securing to them respect, protecting them
        against unfriendly action or legislation ; and (2) that its
        exercise would be to them an educational process of the
        highest importance, not only inciting them to prepare
        themselves for the duties of citizenship, but accustoming
        them to the practical performance of such duties .
        <note type="author" n="2">2</note>To these reasons Judge
        Cooley adds what he calls public grounds : (I) That unless
        the ballot had been given to the freedmen, the government
        of the Southern states must for a considerable time have
        been in the hands of those lately in rebellion, who might
        be expected not to cooperate in government heartily with
        those from whom they had tried to break away ; and (2) that
        the existence in a political community of a great body of
        citizens against</p>
        <p>~~~</p>
        <p>1 It is by no means true to say that this amendment was
        repudiated by the whole body of the Southern whites. In
        1869 the white people of Mississippi voted unanimously in
        favor of its ratification; for they believed that when the
        negro was once made a free man, a property-holder and a
        taxpayer, he could not be excluded from the remaining
        privilege and duty of a citizen, the right and obligation
        to vote. L. Q. C. Lamar, in North American Review, cxxviii,
        231.</p>
        <p>2 92 U, S. 214, 217.</p>
        <pb facs="00010354_0010" n="686" />
        <p>686 POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY. [VoL. IX.</p>
        <p>whom the laws discriminate in a particular which makes
        the discrimination a stigma and a disgrace, must always be
        an occasion of discontent, disorder and danger.
        <note type="author" n="1">l</note></p>
        <head>IV. Negro Rule and its Results.</head>
        <p>When the war ended and the negro and his quondam master
        returned to their old homes, there was in most cases a
        quiet acquiescence in the new order of things. The negro,
        thanks to two hundred and fifty years of servitude, was
        docile, and was not in many cases disposed to put himself
        forward beyond the sphere in which he had been accustomed
        to move. His greatest ambition was manifested in his new
        desire for churches and schools. So natural and proper did
        this seem, that the old planter, on reorganizing his
        estate, was willing to assume in the contract the
        obligation to maintain these institutions. But this
        fraternal relation was changed upon the acquisition of the
        ballot by the negro. The national Congress might make these
        freedmen voters, but it could not make them intelligent
        voters. They became the prey of adventurers. Agents of the
        Freed-man's Bureau, military officers, retired soldiers
        from negro regiments, small traders in articles of negro
        luxury, &#8212; all that class of adventurers who are
        summed up in the meaning word "carpet-bagger," began to
        swarm over the South. The Union League and the Loyal League
        were organized, and the cry of "forty acres and a mule" was
        abroad in the land. From pulpit and platform, from press
        and teacher's desk the negro was taught to hate his late
        master as the worst enemy of his race.</p>
        <p>The natural and inevitable results were soon apparent.
        The negroes hung together as one man and were completely
        subservient to the will of the demagogue, "carpetbagger" or
        "scallawag," as the case might be. The Southern whites had
        been disfranchised; the adventurers then got the big
        offices; the negroes got the little ones. In November,
        1874, there were in South Carolina alone two hundred negro
        trial justices who</p>
        <p>~~~</p>
        <p>1 Principles of Constitutional Law, 264, 265.</p>
        <pb facs="00010354_0010" n="687" />
        <p>No.4.] NEGRO SUFFRAGE IN THE SOUTH. 687</p>
        <p>could neither read nor write. There were negro school
        commissioners equally ignorant at a thousand a year; while
        negro juries, deciding delicate points of legal evidence,
        settled questions involving the lives and property of their
        late masters. Property, which had to bear the burden of
        taxation, had no voice; for the colored man had no property
        and the business of the carpet-bagger was office-holding.
        Taxes were levied ruinously; money was appropriated with a
        lavish hand. The history of one state is the history of
        all.</p>
        <p>The public debt of Alabama was increased between 1868
        and 1874 from $8,356,083.51 to $25,503,593.30. A large part
        of this went for illegitimate expenses of the legislature;
        much more was in the form of help to railroads; much went
        into the hands of legislators and officers; little was
        returned to the people in any form. In 1871 the Louisiana
        legislature made an over-issue of state warrants to the
        extent of $200,000; some of these were sold at two and a
        half cents on the dollar and redeemed at par. In 1873 the
        tax levy in New Orleans was three per cent, and four and a
        half years of Republican rule cost Louisiana 106 millions.
        Clark County, Arkansas, was left with a debt of $300,000
        and $500 worth of improvements to show for it ; Chicot
        County spent $400,000 with nothing in return ; and Pulaski
        County a million. County and school scrip was worth ten to
        thirty cents on the dollar, and state scrip with five per
        cent interest brought only twenty-five cents. The debt of
        Tennessee for railroads and turnpikes was increased by
        $16,000,000, and these bonds with six per cent interest
        were sold at from seventeen to forty cents on the dollar;
        state bonds were practically valueless. In Nashville, when
        there was no currency in the treasury, checks were drawn,
        often in the name of fictitious persons, made payable to
        bearer, and sold by the ring to note-shavers for what they
        would bring. Warrants on the Texas treasury brought
        forty-five cents. In 1869 the state tax on real estate in
        Mississippi was ten cents on the hundred; in 1874 it was
        $1.40. In 1860 the expenses of the Florida legislature were
        $17,000; in 1869 they were $67,000. Bonds to the amount of
        $4,000,000,</p>
        <pb facs="00010354_0011" n="688" />
        <p>688 POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY. [VoL.IX.</p>
        <p>which this state issued to subsidize railroads, were
        marketed at fifty cents. The debt of Georgia was increased
        $13,000,000 during the two years of Governor Bullock. In
        1868 the legislature of North Carolina in less than four
        months authorized the issue of more than $25,000,000 in
        bonds, principally for railroads ; $14,000,000 were issued.
        and sold at from nine to forty-five cents on the dollar;
        but not a mile of road was built. The counties began to
        exploit their credit in the same way, and some of the
        wealthier had their scrip hawked about at ten cents on the
        dollar.
        <note type="author" n="1">1</note></p>
        <p>But it was in South Carolina that this flood of iniquity
        reached its highest. Mr. James S. Pike, a Republican and an
        original Abolitionist, writing the history of
        reconstruction in South Carolina from what he saw and heard
        in the South Carolina legislature in February and March,
        1873, divides the frauds committed, or in operation, into
        eight classes: (1) Those relating to the state debt ; (2)
        frauds in the purchase of lands for the freedmen ; (3)
        railroad frauds ; (4) election frauds ; (5) frauds
        practiced in the redemption of the notes of the Bank of
        South Carolina ; (6) census fraud ; (7) fraud in furnishing
        the legislative chamber ; (8) general legislative
        corruption. The seventh and eighth classes seem to have
        been among the most fruitful sources of evil. The joint
        investigating committee appointed in 1877 found that almost
        everything used by civilized man had been charged up to the
        state, under the expansive term "supplies." The vouchers
        for these supplies include English tapestry, Brussels
        carpeting, English velvet door mats, English oilcloths,
        French velvets, silk damask, Irish linens,
        billiard-tablecloths, woolen blankets, ladies' hoods,
        ribbons, crepe, scissors, skirt braid and pins,
        toothbrushes, hooks and eyes, boulevard skirts, bustles,
        chignons, palpitators, garters, chemises, parasols, gold
        watches and chains, gold jewelry, diamond rings, diamond
        pins, knives and forks, pocket pistols, horses, mules,
        harness, buggies and carriages. Senator Hampton says that
        this is hardly a tenth part of the list.
        <note type="author" n="2">2</note></p>
        <p>~~~</p>
        <p>1 Why the Solid South? passim.</p>
        <p>2 Wade Hampton in The Forum, June, 1888.</p>
        <pb facs="00010354_0011" n="689" />
        <p>No.4.] NEGRO SUFFRAGE IN THE SOUTH. 689</p>
        <p>The negro did not inaugurate this regime. In the first
        place, after he obtained the ballot, he was deserted in
        many cases by his late master, who should have been his
        guide and friend. He was thus left to learn the lesson of
        political life the best he could. It was at this juncture
        that the adventurers came in. They were in most cases
        unidentified with the community in interest, habit or
        sympathy. They found the negro adrift, captured him, used
        him for their own purposes and divided the spoils with
        him.</p>
        <p>In some cases the negro himself began to revolt from
        this new slavery to men "who exercised power without right
        or merit, and amassed wealth without labor," who controlled
        his vote in the interest of a single party, and taught him
        that to scratch a name on that party's ticket was a sin
        little short of damnation. Hon. H. R. Revels, who
        represented Mississippi in the Senate of the United States,
        wrote President Grant:</p>
        <p>Since reconstruction, the masses of my people have been,
        as it were, enslaved in mind to unprincipled adventurers,
        who, caring nothing for the country, were willing to stoop
        to anything, no matter how infamous, to secure power to
        themselves and perpetuate it. My people are naturally
        Republicans, but, as they grow older in freedom, so do they
        grow in wisdom. A great portion of them have learned that
        they are being used as mere tools, and, as in the late
        elections [in Mississippi], not being able to correct the
        existing evil among themselves, they determined by casting
        their ballots against these unprincipled adventurers to
        overthrow them.
        <note type="author" n="1">1</note></p>
        <p>It was largely because of the lack of education and
        political experience that the negro thus became the tool
        and instrument of all sorts of frauds. Then began in the
        South the era of the theft of ballot-boxes, stuffing of
        ballot-boxes, certification, exchanging, removing of polls
        to unknown or unfrequented places, counting out, doctoring,
        repeating, erasing names from registration books, illegal
        arrests before the day of election and throwing out
        returns. Whatever lessons the Democrats may have learned
        later in these matters, their teaching came from the early
        reconstruction days. These things were unknown</p>
        <p>~~~</p>
        <p>1 See T. A. Hendricks in North American Review, cxxviii,
        343.</p>
        <pb facs="00010354_0012" n="690" />
        <p>690 POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY. [VoL. IX.</p>
        <p>before the war. The reconstructionist was hoist by his
        own petard.</p>
        <p>The adventurers sowed the seeds of their own destruction
        in another way. They fused the white elements into a single
        body. The old antithesis of Whiggery and Democracy was
        still strong in the South; the opposition between original
        secessionist and unionist had not disappeared, and the
        lines of division were clear until the pressure of
        reconstruction was felt. Then old enmities were lost in the
        struggle against the new enemy. White men have made the
        South "solid," not for Democracy, but against the negro.
        Southern men are Democrats because an ethnic whip is
        continually cracked over their shoulders. During the
        campaign of 1888 a negro paper of Goldsboro, N. C., said
        that any negro who voted the Democratic ticket should be
        struck thirty lashes. "In the name of high heaven, how many
        lashes does the white man who votes the Republican ticket
        deserve?&#8221; was the Democratic answer.</p>
        <head>V. The Present Status of Negro Suffrage.</head>
        <p>The year 1876 marks the end of reconstruction. Virginia,
        North Carolina, Georgia and Tennessee were redeemed from
        negro rule in 1870; Texas in 1873; Alabama and Arkansas in
        1874; Mississippi in 1875; and the centennial year of
        American independence saw order restored in South Carolina,
        Florida and Louisiana. Since then these states have been
        Democratic. We have now to see what action has been taken
        by them in the matter of limiting the franchise.</p>
        <p>There have been in most of the Southern states two
        constitutions since the war. The first set were the work of
        the reconstructionists; the latter were the work of the
        native whites. The first gave the suffrage to all adult
        males except such as were disfranchised for crime or
        because of mental incapacity ; but many classes of
        Confederates were disfranchised by a stringent test oath,
        and the votes of those who could take the oath were often
        thrown out in the unceremonious fashion already referred
        to. The constitution of Georgia</p>
        <pb facs="00010354_0012" n="691" />
        <p>No.4.] NEGRO SUFFRAGE IN THE SOUTH. 691</p>
        <p>refused the suffrage to any one who had not paid his
        taxes, and the constitution of Florida provided for an
        educational qualification after 1880. On the other hand,
        the Mississippi constitution of 1868 forbade that any
        property or educational qualification for suffrage should
        be demanded of her citizens prior to 1885. Alabama,
        Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North
        Carolina and South Carolina required a registration of
        voters of some kind, but very lax, and of little
        importance. No registration was required in Texas; nor did
        Arkansas and Texas require it under their revised
        constitutions of 1874 and 1876 respectively.</p>
        <p>Various miscellaneous provisions which have been made
        from time to time in different states regulating the
        ballot, but which can in no wise be construed as a
        limitation on the right of the negro, are omitted from
        consideration here. That a practical limitation may be the
        result of legislation to which, on the face of it, no
        possible odium can attach, may be seen in the working of
        the rule by which all the Southern states &#8212; probably
        most of the United States&#8212;disfranchise persons guilty
        of infamous crimes. This term covers anything from murder
        to petit larceny. In the North Carolina gubernatorial
        election in 1888, the majority for Fowle, the Democratic
        candidate, was only 14,450 over Dockery, his Republican
        opponent. We have no exact figures of the numbers
        disfranchised as criminals in North Carolina, but we can
        approximate it from a publication of the Democratic state
        executive committee in 1888. This publication contains
        lists of ex-convicts from fifty-eight of the ninety-six
        counties. In nine of these fifty-eight the color of the
        ex-convicts is not specified. In the other forty-nine there
        are registered 2969 colored ex-convicts. If we assume that
        this represents half of the convict population of color,
        the number of colored voters is diminished between five and
        six thousand. This is obviously an important fact in a
        close state, where the white vote is slightly in the
        majority, but which might, for temporary causes, be in
        danger of falling under negro rule. The law in this case is
        doubtless abused at times in the interest of the ruling
        race.</p>
        <pb facs="00010354_0013" n="692" />
        <p>692 POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY. [VoL. IX.</p>
        <p>The methods through which it is sought legally to
        nullify and restrict the negro vote may be classified under
        four principal divisions: 1. By centralization; 2. By the
        requirement that taxes be paid before voting; 3. By great
        complexity in the election laws, which serves indirectly as
        an educational test; 4. By an express educational
        qualification.</p>
        <p>I. In North Carolina negro majorities are overcome by
        centralization. The state as a whole is safely Democratic.
        Accordingly the legislature elects the justices of the
        peace for all the counties, and these justices in turn
        elect the boards of county commissioners. The other county
        officers are chosen by the electors. This system is
        anything but democratic, but it results in keeping the
        county funds entirely in the hands of the more conservative
        and better element of the population. It is displeasing to
        the western counties, where there is a large white
        majority, but they bear it for the sake of preserving the
        eastern part of the state from a return of reconstruction
        conditions. There is a somewhat similar plan of local
        government in Louisiana.</p>
        <p>2. Six states have tried the requirement of taxes. In
        Virginia a constitutional amendment in 1876 required the
        payment of a poll tax as a prerequisite to voting, but this
        was repealed in 1881-82. It was found to stimulate
        wholesale bribery in elections. That party which had the
        most money could pay the most capitation taxes and secure
        the most votes. Through the aid of rich Republicans in the
        North the taxes of the negroes were more generally paid
        than those of the whites.</p>
        <p>Arkansas adopted an amendment to her constitution in
        1892 requiring a poll-tax receipt as a prerequisite to
        voting. This has simplified the matter in that state. The
        law works well, and the negro vote is said to be
        practically eliminated. How it would be if the whites
        should be divided, as in South Carolina, yet remains to be
        seen. A poll tax was also required in Florida under the
        constitution of 1885, and in Mississippi under that of
        1890.</p>
        <p>The experience of Tennessee in the matter of negro
        suffrage and the tax requirement has been varied. The
        strong minority</p>
        <pb facs="00010354_0013" n="693" />
        <p>No.4., NEGRO SUFFRAGE IN THE SOUTH. 693</p>
        <p>which opposed negro suffrage in the convention of 1870,
        though they failed in their main purpose, nevertheless
        succeeded in securing a requirement of poll tax. But this
        proved unsatisfactory. In 1871 a law was passed under which
        no proof of payment for the year 1872 was to be required.
        In 1873 the tax requirement was repealed entirely. At the
        extra session of 1890 the poll tax qualification was again
        enacted, and in 1891 this law was so amended that the
        original poll-tax receipt, or a duly certified duplicate,
        or an affidavit that the voter had paid his poll tax and
        the receipt "is lost or misplaced," was required as
        preliminary to voting. This law also bars out the person
        who disposes of his receipt for any valuable
        consideration.</p>
        <p>Georgia seems to have been more successful in the
        requirement of taxes than any other state. This was put
        into the constitution in 1789, and has been uniformly
        maintained since then. In 1887 Senator Colquitt said in The
        Forum that the tax qualification had operated with
        important effect on the colored voters, and that the number
        of defaulting colored tax-payers was becoming larger each
        year.</p>
        <p>3. The method most in favor in the South for limiting
        the negro vote is through intricate registration and
        election laws. These vary in different states, and have
        been changed from time to time in the same state. They may
        be divided roughly into two classes, as the so-called
        Australian system prevails or not. Some form of this system
        obtains in Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee and
        Virginia. It does not obtain in Florida, Georgia,
        Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina and Texas. The
        laws of these latter states represent the older ideas, are
        less successful and less just than the others, and little
        can be said in their defense. But, as we have already seen,
        North Carolina partly escapes from the trouble by
        centralization; Georgia and Florida have a tax requirement;
        there is hardly a negro problem in Texas, except in a few
        of the eastern counties ; and Louisiana is now striving for
        a new law requiring both taxes and education. It is in
        South Carolina, and to a less extent in Florida and
        Virginia, that registration is depended on to solve the
        difficulty.</p>
        <pb facs="00010354_0014" n="694" />
        <p>694 POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY. [VoL. IX.</p>
        <p>Under the present law in Florida the books for
        registration must be closed on the second Saturday in
        September. Each elector, on being registered, is furnished
        with a certificate, numbered in each district
        consecutively. This must "contain a statement of the full
        name, age, color, height, occupation, place of residence
        and date of registration as entered in the registration
        books, which certificate shall be signed by the
        registration officer." No person is allowed to vote save in
        the district in which he is registered,</p>
        <p>nor shall any person whose name does not appear upon the
        registration books be allowed to vote unless he produces
        and exhibits his certificate of registration to the
        managers of election ; and he shall not then be allowed to
        vote unless the certificate of registration which he
        exhibits shall satisfactorily identify him to the managers
        of the election.</p>
        <p>Certificates can be renewed when defaced by surrendering
        the old, or when lost, by establishing proof of loss. To do
        this the voter must state the "facts of his former
        registration and of such loss, and that he has not sold,
        bartered or parted with his certificate for any pecuniary
        or other valuable consideration." If an elector removes
        from one residence to another in the same district, or from
        one district to another in the same county, he is to notify
        the supervisor of registration, surrender his certificate
        and receive a certificate of transfer of registration, and
        without this certificate of transfer he cannot vote. If an
        excess of votes is found, the excess over the registered
        number of voters is to be taken out and destroyed.</p>
        <p>In South Carolina, where the evil of negro numbers is
        greatest, the laws are most complex. Under the statutes of
        1882 there is for each office a special ballot, the size
        and character of which are minutely prescribed. There are
        eight ballot boxes, and the office for which each is
        intended is written on it; these names are to be read aloud
        to the elector, at his request, by the managers; no one
        else can speak to him while he is in the polling room; the
        ballot must be inserted by his own hand, and no ballot is
        counted if found in the wrong box. If more ballots are
        found in the box than there are names on</p>
        <pb facs="00010354_0014" n="695" />
        <p>No.4.] NEGRO SUFFRAGE IN THE SOUTH. 695</p>
        <p>the poll list, the ballots are returned to the box,
        thoroughly mixed together, and one of the managers or the
        clerk withdraws from the box and immediately destroys the
        excess of the ballots over the number of voters.
        Registration is required and is confined to three days. The
        registration books are closed on the first day of July. A
        certificate of registration is also required, and the
        person can vote only when this certificate is produced. If
        the elector removes from one residence to another in the
        same precinct, he must surrender the old certificate and
        get a new one. This has to be done also when he removes
        from one precinct to another, or from one county to
        another. By a law passed in 1883, if a certificate is lost,
        it may be replaced, provided it has not been disposed of
        for any valuable consideration. In 1885, when a new law
        established some new polling places, changed the locality
        of the old ones, etc., the old certificates had to be
        surrendered and new ones obtained.</p>
        <p>It will be noticed that the complexities of these laws
        are enough to confuse a mind better trained than that of
        the average negro. To him they are, for the most part,
        beyond comprehension. It is said that as soon as the
        ignorant voters began to understand the arrangement of the
        boxes, the boxes were shuffled, and many votes were lost
        before the order was again unraveled. It will be seen,
        also, that the registration books are closed on the first
        of July, while the voter has to present his registration
        certificate on voting day. Now, a negro is not used to
        preserving papers; it frequently happens, therefore, that
        the certificates are lost or worn out, and they can be
        renewed only under certain limitations. It is said that in
        a certain section the negroes took their certificates to
        their preacher for safe keeping; he promised to put them
        into a box and preserve them until needed. He put them into
        the box, but a few days before election the Democrats hired
        him to go over to Georgia and take this box with him.
        Another story is told, but I am unable to vouch for its
        truth. Some years ago Barnum appeared in South Carolina
        with his circus. Under instruction from the Democrats he
        advertised that the admission</p>
        <pb facs="00010354_0015" n="696" />
        <p>696 POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY. [VoL. IX.</p>
        <p>fee was fifty cents or a registration certificate. The
        negroes, acting on the theory that a circus to-day is
        better than a vote next week, handed over their
        certificates and saw the show. When election day came, the
        fact that they had registered was disputed by no one, but
        they could not prove that the certificates had been lost,
        and hence they were legally disfranchised.</p>
        <p>The laws of Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee
        and, in part, Virginia, embody the best elements of the
        reform ballot law in the South. They all reproduce
        essential features of the Australian system and these
        provisions act more or less distinctly as an educational
        qualification.</p>
        <p>In 1893, Alabama enacted what is known as the Sayre
        Election Law. It was framed in answer to a demand that some
        method be devised by which the necessity of suppressing any
        part of the vote might be obviated; it disfranchises no
        one, and it is rather significant that the bitterest
        opposition to it has come from the Populists. It is modeled
        largely on the election laws which have been recently
        enacted in other Southern states. The' registration feature
        comes from Tennessee, while many parts are taken from the
        new Arkansas law. In Alabama registration can be made only
        in May, and within the precinct or ward where the vote is
        to be cast. There is one ticket for all candidates, and the
        names are arranged alphabetically, without distinction of
        party, under the respective offices. The voter enters the
        booth and marks his ballot without assistance; if unable to
        do this, he may call one of the managers of election to his
        aid. No time longer than five minutes is allowed for
        voting, and an ignorant voter can tell the assistant the
        way he wishes to vote only when all others have withdrawn
        from the polling place. In addition to this, the voter has
        in all cases to show his certificate of registration. The
        provision in regard to ignorant voters has been variously
        interpreted in different localities. In some cases the
        assistant is allowed to mark the ballot after the voter has
        expressed merely his party preference; in other cases the
        voter is required to name each person for whom he wishes to
        vote. The possibilities of the latter requirement as an
        intelligence test are obvious.</p>
        <pb facs="00010354_0015" n="697" />
        <p>No.4.] NEGRO SUFFRAGE IN THE SOUTH. 697</p>
        <p>The Arkansas law of 1891 is very much like that of
        Alabama, and was one of the originals on which the latter
        was based. It requires no registration, but a poll-tax
        receipt instead. The names of all candidates are printed on
        a general ticket without regard to party or alphabetical
        order, and these tickets are numbered as voted. They can be
        obtained only from the judges of election within the
        polling place. The voter is then required to retire to a
        booth, and is allowed five minutes to pre-pare his vote by
        scratching, erasing or crossing out all names not wanted.
        No one can help him to do this except the judges of
        election, who are of different political parties. If
        necessary, the ignorant voter can call two of these to his
        assistance, and they will prepare his ballot for him; but
        before he is allowed to tell them how he wishes to vote it
        is necessary that all electors, including those in the
        booths, retire from the polling room. In precincts where
        there are more than one hundred voters the races are
        required to vote alternately. It may happen that in large
        negro precincts some are excluded for lack of time, but in
        no other way can hardship come to the negro. Some ten or
        twelve counties in the southern and eastern part of the
        state gave considerable trouble because of their negro
        population. But this has been settled by the new law. An
        Arkansas official says that it "virtually lifts from us the
        black cloud of negro domination." And again he says: " The
        law works smoothly, quietly, satisfactorily, beautifully,
        and I pray God every Southern state may soon have one like
        it."</p>
        <p>Tennessee has made some advance toward the Australian
        ballot, but the results are limited because the law of 1890
        is made applicable only to counties with 70,000
        inhabitants, and to cities with 9000. The registration law
        of 1890 applies to counties with 70,000 inhabitants and to
        "towns, cities and civil districts&#8221; of 2500. The
        registration certificate must tell the name and color of
        the elector, the ward or district in which he resides and
        the election in which he is qualified to vote, and must be
        presented at the ballot box. The law when put into
        operation is not essentially different from those of
        Alabama and Arkansas, except that there is less provision
        for the ignorant voter.</p>
        <pb facs="00010354_0016" n="698" />
        <p>698 POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY. [VOL. IX.</p>
        <p>The registrar shall upon the demand of any voter . . .
        give to such voter a correct statement of the order in
        which the titles of the various offices to be filled stand
        upon the particular ballot furnished to such voter.</p>
        <p>With only this provision for aid at the polls, and with
        stringent tax and registration requirements, there is
        little chance for the ignorant man.</p>
        <p>To these three states we must add Virginia, which passed
        a new ballot law in March, 1894. The former Virginia law
        was bad, having come down from the reconstruction days of
        1869-70. The Walton Law, which went into effect July r,
        1894, provides for a blanket ballot, containing the names
        of all the candidates to be voted for, printed below the
        office they seek. Booths are provided, but no person can
        occupy one more than two and a half minutes if other voters
        are waiting. This law deals more tenderly with the ignorant
        voter than the Tennessee law. It provides that a special
        constable shall assist the ignorant voter by "reading the
        names and offices on the ballot, and pointing out to him
        the name or names he may wish to strike out, or otherwise
        aid him in preparing his ballot." From the educational
        standpoint this law is a failure, and the deficiency is
        only partly covered by the heavy requirements in the matter
        of registration when the voter changes his residence, and
        when the limits of registration precincts are changed or
        new ones made.</p>
        <p>4. The educational qualification, eo nomine, has been
        tried only to a limited extent. It was provided in the
        Florida constitution of 1868 that there should be such a
        qualification after 1880, but the provision was not carried
        out, and there is no mention of it in the constitution of
        1885. The reason for the general hesitation in making such
        a qualification is not far to seek. It would exclude many
        white Democrats, and the fear of the loss of votes has
        caused the party to hesitate. The only state to appeal
        directly and successfully to the intelligence test has been
        Mississippi. This state also makes use of the Australian
        ballot, but this phase is less important than the
        educational requirement. The experience of Mississippi
        during the</p>
        <pb facs="00010354_0016" n="699" />
        <p>No.4.] NEGRO SUFFRAGE IN THE SOUTH. 699</p>
        <p>reconstruction period was probably the stormiest of all
        the Southern states. This was because the negro population
        was largely in excess of the white, the census of 1870
        giving 444,201 blacks against 382,896 whites, and because
        the legislators were not as prudent as they might have been
        in the period just following the war. The state was finally
        reconstructed, and the constitution of 1868 provided that
        no property or educational qualification should be required
        previous to 1885. But notwithstanding these provisions, the
        white men of the state, by various means which cannot be
        enumerated here, some-times illegal and harsh, but
        necessary, as it was thought, to preserve state life,
        obtained control of affairs, and the negro vote was largely
        suppressed. As far as practicality was concerned there was
        no need of any change in the situation thus produced. But
        the people felt an earnest and growing desire to devise a
        legal and just system of eliminating the negro vote. The
        constitutional convention of 1890, called to settle this
        matter, labored under one disadvantage. By the terms of the
        Congressional act under which Mississippi was restored to
        normal relations with the Union it was provided that the
        state's constitution should</p>
        <p>never be so amended or changed as to deprive any citizen
        or class of citizens of the United States of the right to
        vote who are entitled to vote by the constitution herein
        recognized, except as a punishment for such crimes as are
        felonies at common law, whereof they shall have been duly
        convicted under laws equally applicable to all the
        inhabitants of said state.</p>
        <p>If this act was valid, if this condition remained
        binding, there could be no action in the matter at all. But
        the judiciary committee argued justly that no action of
        Congress can deprive one state of the equality it enjoys
        with other states under the Federal Constitution. They were
        then at liberty to act in the matter of establishing
        limitations.</p>
        <p>Many propositions were made, and very serious
        consideration was given to one which bestowed the franchise
        on women, subject to a property qualification in addition
        to the regular</p>
        <pb facs="00010354_0017" n="700" />
        <p>700 POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY. [VOL. IX.</p>
        <p>qualifications of men. But this was ultimately abandoned
        and an educational test was adopted in its place. The new
        constitution requires a residence of two years in the
        state, and one in the district, registration four months
        before the election, the payment of all taxes for the last
        two years, and further, that</p>
        <p>on and after the first day of January, A.D. 1892, every
        elector shall, in addition to the foregoing qualifications,
        be able to read any section of the constitution of this
        state; or he shall be able to understand the same when read
        to him, or give a reasonable interpretation thereof.</p>
        <p>There was but one negro in the convention. This was
        Isaiah Thornton Montgomery, of Bolivar County. He had
        expressed himself in favor of such an amendment as this
        while canvassing for election; he was elected by a negro
        constituency and can therefore be considered as
        representing their feelings on the question. He was a
        member of the committee on franchise. He favored the
        amendment while in committee; when it came before the house
        he delivered a remarkable speech in support of it,
        embodying an eloquent plea for peace and harmony between
        the races &#8212; a tender of the olive branch from the
        black man to the white. The amendment was passed and all
        parties have acquiesced in its enforcement. There is no
        longer a "negro problem&#8221; in Mississippi. The census
        of 1890 gives the state a white population of 544,851, and
        a negro population of 744,749. On the usual proportion of
        one in five, we have about 109,000 whites and 149,000
        negroes of voting age. Mr. Montgomery estimates that the
        law disfranchises two-thirds of the blacks and only
        one-eleventh of the whites. In practice the number of
        negroes disfranchised is much larger than this.</p>
        <p>The Mississippi law has proved itself, thus far, a
        success. It remains to be seen what the influence of such a
        law will be as a spur to the negro in the pursuit of an
        education. It is usually claimed that such laws drive him
        to greater efforts, while they do not have the same
        influence on the whites. But it is possible that this may
        be the ultimate solution of the</p>
        <pb facs="00010354_0017" n="701" />
        <p>No.4.] NEGRO SUFFRAGE IN THE SOUTH. 701</p>
        <p>Southern problem. The Southern states are slowly but
        surely forging ahead in matters of education. They are
        improving both the quantity and the quality of their
        schools. If the negro improves intellectually and becomes a
        better citizen, this will in itself bring relief from most
        of the evils which the Southern people have found in negro
        suffrage.</p>
        <p>The experience of Mississippi is also beginning to make
        itself felt in other states. Louisiana passed a single
        ballot law in 1882, under which registration was required,
        and the certificate of registration had to be produced
        before voting, as in South Carolina. Within the present
        year a committee has been appointed to revise the section
        of the state constitution concerning the qualifications of
        electors. This committee has adopted an amendment which,
        after stating the requirements in respect to age,
        residence, registration, etc., provides that the
        elector</p>
        <p>shall have paid his poll tax for the year next preceding
        the election; he shall be able to read the constitution of
        the state in his mother tongue, or shall be the bona fide
        owner of property, real or personal, located in this state
        and assessed to him for the year next preceding the
        election at a cash valuation of not less than $200.</p>
        <p>To summarize: the laws of Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi
        and Tennessee embody the principle of education, and have
        much to commend them. These, together with Virginia, have
        adopted an Australian ballot, although the educational
        feature has been left out of the Virginia law. Georgia,
        Florida, Arkansas, Mississippi and Tennessee require taxes.
        There is little in the laws of North and South Carolina,
        Louisiana and Texas to commend them. Louisiana is moving
        for a reform. This will probably come in North Carolina;
        for the present law is roundly denounced by Republicans and
        Populists, particularly the registration feature. South
        Carolina will be driven to a revision; for, having
        completely eliminated the negro from the problem, the
        whites are now trying the laws on each other. During the
        last campaign Senator Butler is reported to have said that
        if he should be defeated for reelection by Governor
        Tillman,</p>
        <pb facs="00010354_0018" n="702" />
        <p>702 POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY. [VOL. IX.</p>
        <p>he would contest the matter before the United States
        Senate on the ground that the registration laws of the
        state were unconstitutional, and that if a full vote could
        have been polled, his candidates would have been elected to
        the state legislature. The law cannot live long in the
        present political atmosphere of South Carolina. It is
        possible that revision and reform may come in some of the
        other states. The Southern people desire to relieve
        themselves from the necessity of using either force or
        fraud. They recognize that both weaken the moral sense and
        corrupt the body politic. They know that when the negro has
        been eliminated, as in South Carolina, the same machinery
        will be used by the party in power against the white
        opposition; that this is already being done, is alleged in
        South Carolina by the &#8220;Straight " Democrats, and in
        North Carolina and Alabama by the Populists.</p>
        <p>In seeking to employ the poll tax in escaping from their
        unpleasant situation, the Southern people have comfort in
        the opinion of Judge Cooley, when he says: "To demand the
        payment of a capitation tax is no denial of suffrage; it is
        demanding only the preliminary performance of public duty."
        
        <note type="author" n="1">1</note>The five Southern states
        are not alone in making such a demand. Delaware,
        Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, all require
        taxes. Nor is the requirement of an educational
        qualification a denial of suffrage; for "ability to read is
        something within the power of any man," and only makes him
        more able to fulfill his civic duties. On the other hand,
        unrestricted suffrage "robs intelligence and virtue of a
        natural right. Intelligence and virtue are disfranchised.
        Ignorance and intelligence, vice and virtue, are clothed
        with equal power"; and Wendell Phillips himself, when
        advocating negro suffrage in 1865, admitted the
        righteousness of property and educational qualifications.
        Connecticut set the example in this respect as long ago as
        1855, when it required all voters to be able to read the
        constitution and the statutes. This was the first
        requirement of the kind incorporated into a state
        constitution. Massachusetts made a similar requirement
        in</p>
        <p>~~~</p>
        <p>1 Principles of Constitutional Law, 263, 264.</p>
        <pb facs="00010354_0018" n="703" />
        <p>No.4.] NEGRO SUFFRAGE IN THE SOUTH. 703</p>
        <p>1857. The Missouri constitution of 1865 said all voters
        should be able to read and write after January 1, 1876.
        Maine adopted a similar amendment in November, 1892. In his
        message to Congress on December 7, 1875, President Grant
        urged the promotion of schools, and proposed that all
        voters who could not read and write after 1890 should be
        disfranchised. It is no unheard-of principle that has been
        adopted by Mississippi in 1890 and Louisiana in 1894.</p>
        <p>It would seem that reform is already coming in Alabama
        under the new law, although the cry of fraud is raised by
        the opposition; for the returns of late elections show that
        the Democratic majorities come no longer from the white but
        from the black counties, and so well recognized has this
        been that the counties of the black belt, while formerly
        all in one Congressional district, have now been
        distributed among seven of the nine districts of the state.
        This union of the negroes with the more influential and
        intelligent whites, if permanent, will profoundly modify
        the race question, and it gives the combination best able
        to solve this problem.</p>
        <p>STEPHEN B. WEEKS.</p>
        <p>BUREAU OF EDUCATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.</p>
      </div>
    </body>
  </text>
</TEI>
