Number 3.
The
First Race Riot Recorded
in History
CHARLES SPENCER SMITH
One of the
Bishops of the African Methodist Episcopal Church
Published by
THE COMMISSION ON AFTER-WAR PROBLEMS
of the
AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH
JANUARY, 1920
COMMISSION ON AFTER-WAR PROBLEMS
AFRICAN METHODIST
EPISCOPAL CHURCH
Members of the Commission
Bishop C. S. Smith, Chairman,
35 East Alexandrine Avenue,
Detroit, Mich.
Prof. John R. Hawkins, Secretary,
1541 14th St., N. W.,
Washington, D. C.
Bishop W. D. Chappelle,
Columbia, S. C.
Bishop John Hurst,
Jacksonville, Florida
Bishop J. Albert Johnson,
Baltimore, Maryland
Bishop J. S. Flipper,
Atlanta, Georgia
Bishop W. H. Heard,
Jackson, Mississippi
Rev. R. R. Wright, Jr.,
Savannah, Georgia
Prof. A. S. Jackson,
Waco, Texas
NOTE
It is to be noted that the discourse, "First Race
Riot Recorded in History," is practically free of racial,
sectarian and sectional bias. It is not only the adroit
application of an archaic incident to the most serious
and menacing present-day problem in American life,
but is conservatively stated, and is couched in plain
and simple language. It is also a striking example of
mental poise and temperamental equanimity. It is a
forceful appeal to reason and to conscience. It is also
a potent plea for the supremacy of law.
It emphasizes the need of a better understanding
between the white and colored people in this country.
In conception, thought, spirit, tone, trend, intent
and expression, it is one hundred per cent American.
It is these worthy characteristics that led the Com¬
mission on After-War Problems of the African Method¬
ist Episcopal Church to adopt it as a part of its propa¬
ganda, and to authorize its publication.
For the Commission,
John R. Hawkins, Secretary.
The First Race Riot Recorded
in History
(A Discourse Delivered by Bishop C. S. Smith in Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church,
Detroit, Mich., Sunday, Nov. 30, 1919.)
And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went
out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens; and he spied an Egyptian
smiting an Hebrew, one of his brethren.
And he looked this way, and that way, and when he saw, that there was
no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand. Exodus 2:11-12.
Four Main Causes
From time immemorial the four main causes of bloodshed and strife
among men are tribalism, intra-racialism, religious fanaticism, and race antag¬
onism.
Tribalism
Tribalism is the oldest of the four, as it has also been the most far-reaching
in its results, and the greatest source of carnage and desolation. Tribalism
supplanted individualism. Individualism represented the activities of a single
person. Tribalism represents an aggregation of persons bound together by a
common dialect or language, and the desire for mutual protection. We have
only to bring into our thinking the American Indian to be furnished with a
concrete example of tribalism. Another example is that of the numerous
tribes in Africa. The Israelites endured a long and painful experience by
reason of their conflicts with the various tribes with whom they came in
contact in the land of Canaan.
Intra-Racialism
Intra-racialism, which may be regarded as another cause for strife and
bloodshed, has reference to conflicts between persons of the same race variety.
One of the earliest accounts of intra-racial strife was that between Saul and
David, both of whom were Israelites. The long-standing feuds between the
inhabitants of Northern and Southern China, though they are of the same race,
is another example of intra-racial antagonism. A very striking example of
intra-racial conflict is that known as the War of the Roses, which began in
England, in 1455, between two groups of people known as the House of York
and the House of Lancaster. The conflict lasted for thirty years, and was
waged for the possession of the English throne. All the participants were
English. Another example is that of the feuds between the Picts and Scots, or
Highlanders and Lowlanders, in Scotland. In this country we have had
numerous examples in the mountainous regions of certain states.
5
Religious Fanaticism
Religious fanaticism is responsible for taking a large toll of human life.
Mohammedanism stands out as the chief offender. By sword and fire it swept
on from victory to conquest, sparing neither age nor sex, but destroying all
who refused obedience to Allah.
The Crusades, which began in 1095, and engaged the energies of Europe
for two centuries, lit up the West and cast their glow and smoke over the
fair fields of the Orient. This was caused by rivalry between Christianity and
Mohammedanism for the possession of Jerusalem. There was also the fear
that Moslem arms might again flash upon the field of Europe for the extension
of Islamism. Millions of lives were needlessly sacrificed, and millions of money
unprofitably spent. The Crusades, although in themselves great evils, promoted
national intercourse, commerce and industry. It was during this period that
the two great military and religious orders, the Knights of Jerusalem and the
Knights Templars, were instituted.
The greatest conflict of the seventeenth century was the Thirty Years War,
which enlisted the Protestant states of Germany, Holland, England, Sweden and
Denmark on the one side, and the Catholic powers of Germany, the League,
Poland, Italy, Belgium and Spain on the other. This war was terminated in
1648 by the treaty of Westphalia. Religious fanaticism has kindled the fires
of internecine strife and martyrdom in many lands. It has frequently shocked
the heart of humanity to the core, and the wake of its march is marked by the
dregs of seven vials of wrath.
Race Antagonism
The present-day popular term for antagonism between white and black
people in this country is race riot. The least friction between them is heralded
in large headlines by newspapers as a race riot.
The word riot has two meanings—general and legal. The general meaning
is uproar, tumult, noisy revelry; disturbance of the public peace by more than
three persons. The legal definition, according to Blackstone Commentaries,
page 146, is where three or more persons actually do an unlawful act with or
without a common cause or quarrel.
The initial expression of race antagonism is set forth in the text, and is a
record of the first race riot in the history of mankind, if we accept the legal
definition. The participants were two Hebrews and an Egyptian. The scene
of the riot was some unknown locality in Egypt—presumably away from a main
thoroughfare of travel. But few details of the affair are given. The primal
cause is passed by in silence. An Egyptian and a Hebrew had gotten into an
altercation. It was a personal encounter, in which the Egyptian was about to
prove the victor. As he was in the act of delivering a mortal blow, a Hebrew
by the name of Moses hurried to the assistance of his countryman, and together
they slew the Egyptian.
e
As interesting as it is, it is not my purpose to attempt to depict the life
of Moses. He was about forty years of age when he became particeps crim'mis
in the slaying of his fellowman. It was not murder, as the act was committed
without premeditation or malice aforethought. Was there any justifying
ground for this unlawful deed? None that was apparent. It certainly could
not have been justified on the ground of self-defense, as Moses was the aggres¬
sor. Shall we not say that it was due to race instinct? Thus it seems to me.
Then, again, Moses had witnessed much of the rigor and severity of the conduct
of the Egyptian taskmasters toward his oppressed brethren. It is possible
that early in life Moses had secretly gained knowledge of his racial identity.
This, together with the nobility of his nature, made him strongly compassion¬
ate toward his brethren. Hence, when he saw an Egyptian assailing one of
them, he rushed impulsively to his aid.
He took a precautionary step, however, which claims our attention. That
is, before attacking the Egyptian he looked carefully around to see if other
Egyptians were in sight. He was not disposed to take any risk. He wanted
to occupy the best vantage ground possible. He had sized up the situation
sufficiently to warrant him in reaching the conclusion that while the Egyptian
might be able to gain the mastery over one Hebrew, he might not be able to
gain it over the combined resistance of two. His "looking this way, and that
way," to make sure that there were no other Egyptians in sight before joining
in the conflict, evidenced timidity, and that he was mindful of the law of self-
preservation. As great as was his compassion for his kinsman, he, seemingly,
was not disposed to hastily put his own life in jeopardy by going to his rescue.
He must first know that the odds were in his favor. And, by the way, appar¬
ently, the evolution and attrition of time have not wrought any marked change
in this trait of human nature.
In this country whenever the white people in any community or locality
adjudge that a Negro should be punished, other than by due process of law,
the plan of attack always includes a superiority of numbers in their favor. In
almost every instance it is the many against the one. It is seldom an equal
struggle. In the great majority of cases it is not a contest between man and
man, but between an armed mob and a defenseless individual. It is but fair
to say that, as it relates to the incident under discussion, Moses betrayed
cowardice, as do most persons who before joining in a conflict assure them¬
selves that there is but scant possibility of receiving personal injury. The
truly heroic who, without consideration of personal safety, or without hesitancy,
will under all circumstances risk their lives for their fellows are exceedingly
few. It would seem as though, in many respects, the course of human nature
has run unchanged from the creation of sentient beings until now.
Moses did not allow the passion of anger to entirely suppress his humane
feeling. He saw to it that the slain body of the Egyptian was buried. He did
not mutilate or dismember it, nor did he drag it through the streets bound
to his chariot wheels, exposed to public gaze, and then burn it. Perhaps in
7
those early times, in the infancy of mankind, the swarthy Egyptians had
evolved a civilization of such a high state as to preclude the possibility of
making bonfires of human bodies. At least, let us hope so.
Moreover, there may have been embodied in their philosophy a truism
which in after years found its counterpart in the saying of Paul to the Gala-
tians, "Be not deceived, God is not mocked, for whatsoever a man soweth that
shall he reap." Their physiologists and psychologists may have, in the inter¬
est of race conservation, warned the people against making it possible for
women in a state of maternity to witness the mutilating and burning of human
forms, or lifeless bodies dangling in the air. Likewise that it should not be
possible for men to commit such fiendish acts lest they sow dragon teeth, and
be responsible for bringing into being progeny predisposed to violence and
bloodthirstiness. Let the bloodthirsty lynchers in this country take warning
lest their sins be visited on their children and their children's children unto
the third and fourth generation. Let them beware lest in feeding the sour
grapes of savagery to their children they so sharpen the edges of their lust
for blood as, in the course of time, to cause them to gnaw at the very vitals
of their own peaceful existence, and turn and rend themselves.
It is to be noticed that Moses, perhaps by reason of fear, and perhaps
because he was conscience-smitten, fled into the wilderness. He did not seek
to satisfy his conscience by pleading race superiority and contemptuously
asserting—only an Egyptian!
I am speaking now of Moses, the man, and not of Moses, who, forty years
afterwards, became Moses, the lawgiver, and received from Jehovah on Mount
Sinai's smoking summit the command, "Thou shalt not kill." Most biblical
commentators seek to justify Moses' participation in the first race riot by
claiming that it was of providential ordering as it completely severed his
personal and official relationship with the Egyptians, and by his flight into the
wilderness put himself in a receptive mood for the training and discipline
necessary to fit him for the leadership of Israel. A gratuitous assumption,
indeed! Jehovah did not then, and does not now, place the stamp of approval
on violence and bloodshed.
"The slaying of the Egyptian is not to be attributed to a divine inspiration
which Moses would not have omitted to mention, but it is to be judged with
reference to the provocation, the impetuosity of Moses' national character,
perhaps also by his habits developed by his training at the court of Pharaoh."
This is the opinion of a very learned biblical commentator, of liberal tendencies,
with whose view I, in part, agree. However, in my opinion, there is a more
cogent reason.
In all probability, it was on account of the inhuman conduct of Egyptian
taskmasters toward the enslaved Hebrews, of which Moses was a frequent
witness, which led him to secretly nourish a feeling of hatred towards all
Egyptians. On the other hand, it is possible that the Egyptians looked down
8
with scorn and contempt upon those whom they oppressed. Hence, when
Egyptians and Hebrews clashed it was like the impact of powerful antagonistic
forces. This but intensified the struggle. Dominated by a sense of race
superiority, the oppressor would feel as if he were eternally disgraced should
the oppressed perchance prove the victor or even an equal contender. Cer¬
tainly, the thought of a slave overcoming the master must have been repugnant
to Egyptian sensibilities. That the Hebrews should have hated the Egyptians
is readily understood. Why the Egyptians should have hated the Hebrews is
perhaps difficult to understand. I venture this explanation. One of the unac¬
countable traits of human nature is that we come to hate those whom we have
wronged. Who of us has ever repeatedly wronged one of our fellows and after¬
wards had the courage to look him squarely in the face? The dominant dispo¬
sition is to avoid his presence.
Evidently, there was mutual hatred between the Egyptians and the He¬
brews. If the moral right of slavery had divided the Egyptians as it divided
the people of this country, and civil war had ensued, it is doubtful if the
Hebrews would have gone on tilling the fields that their masters might have
food to sustain them while battling to perpetuate their enslavement as did
the slaves in this country. It is also doubtful if they would have held the
homes of their masters inviolable, a course of action which won high praise
for the oppressed during the existence of slavery in this country. There is
not a Confederate veteran of the Civil War so lacking in appreciation and
gratitude as to withhold a meed of praise from the ex-slaves for their fidelity
and loyalty to the homes and families of their masters while they were engaged
in an effort to rivet more firmly the shackles of their servitude.
A prominent Negro is credited with having recently made the observation
that he had "never known the colored people to have more intense feeling
toward the white people than at the present." Are we to infer from this that
the slaves possessed the virtue of patience and forgiveness in a larger degree
than do their children? Did the old Negro love white people while the new
Negro hates them? To this question there can be but one answer. No! The
new Negro does not hate any element of the white people in this country.
What he does hate, and that with bitter hatred, are the wrongs from which he
suffers. He hates injustice, oppression, discriminatory laws and practices,
unequal opportunity in the field of industrial and economic endeavor, and taxa¬
tion without representation. These are the things which he hates, and God
grant that he may hate them so long as they exist
The Crux of the Subject
It has come to pass in this country that whenever a race riot is featured
in a newspaper it means a clash between whites and blacks. It is not so
understood when there is friction between Greeks and Italians, Poles and Hun¬
garians, or two groups of persons of different nationalities. Race riots in this
country are not, therefore, based on nationalism, but on racialism. Mankind
o
is divided into five great races. Of these the Caucasian and the African con¬
stitute two. All white people are classified as Caucasians and all black people,
who have short, kinky hair, as Africans. By reason of amalgamation there is
a very large element of mixed bloods among the blacks in this country, though
all are classed as Negroes.
In delivering this my first message after rounding out fifty years as a
servant of the people, in the capacity of teacher, minister, legislator, editor,
publisher, and bishop, I would not be true to you nor to myself should I fail to
aver that, in my opinion, America is confronted with the most stupendous and
perplexing problem that ever formed a part of the burden of any people. Here
are ninety millions of people representing one of the five great race varieties
and twelve millions representing another. These two groups not only differ in
complexion and texture of hair, but in ancestry, tradition and history. Then,
the past relationship of master and slave must be taken as a factor in the
equation in trying to figure out a possible solution of the problem. There is
no precedent in history to guide us. Never before in the annals of time have
ninety millions of the Caucasian race and twelve millions of people of African
descent occupied the same territory. Can such a harmonious relationship be
established as shall secure to both groups equal opportunity for educational,
industrial, economic and political advancement? This is the only way that
the problem can be satisfactorily solved, and America be made safe for democ¬
racy.
All things considered, the two races have gotten along fairly well during
the period in which liberty has reigned throughout the United States. At times
there are signs which seemingly indicate that we are approaching the parting
of the ways. This is the one thing to be avoided. There is far more to be
gained by our walking together in agreement than by our walking apart in
disagreement. Race riots, based on difference of complexion and texture of
hair, are the violent expression of the pent-up fury of rancor and hate, and
arouse all the latent savagery in man. I know of but one path which will lead
to permanent peace and mutual understanding between the races and that is
not only to recognize the genius of democracy, but to reduce it to a practical
working basis. To make character, fitness and efficiency the standard of
excellency and not the complexion of skin and the texture of hair. Dissipate
the unreasoning and unreasonable feeling cherished by not a few that the most
illiterate, indolent, degraded white man is the superior of the most intelligent,
industrious and worthy black man.
Added to this, let there be the determination on the part of both races to
exercise patience and forbearance to the limit. Let the give-and-take policy
have sway for a time. Let the newspapers cease to magnify a mere personal
altercation between a white man and a black man as a race riot. Let it be
borne in mind that it is possible for a white man to black his face and don a
wig and, in this disguise, personate a Negro, and commit the most heinous
offense for which an innocent Negro may be made to suffer. It is an estab-
10
lished fact that this has been done. Let punishment for all wrong-doing be
meted out according to judicial procedure.
It cannot be truly said that America is safe for democracy so long as mob
law prevails. It cannot be said that righteousness has exalted any people who
delight in making bonfires of human bodies. The Christian religion is at stake.
The three most potent agencies which can act in its defense are the press, the
pulpit and the bar. Will these prove true to their mission or will they falter
and fail? The hour has come when "he who dallies is a dastard and he who
doubts is damned."
May the God of our fathers incline our hearts to seek the true, the noble
and the good; and may His kingdom come and His will be done on earth as it
is in heaven.
1 L