tes. 
 Book 
 
 COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT 
 
South Side Views. 
 
 DR. WHEDON AND THE FATHERS. 
 
 —ALSO,- 
 
 DR. HAYGOOD'S "OUR BROTHER IN BLACK. 
 
 By Rev. W. J. Scott, 
 
 NORTH GEORGIA CONFERENCE. 
 
 COXS-Z-2SIC3-IIX SECTJ-ISBX). FEBICE SO CEXTTS. 
 
 ATLANTA, GEORGIA: 
 
 Jas. p. Harrison & Co., Pkintees and PoBLiSHEKa. 
 
 1883. 
 
aw^iV 'Mc rijijor; 
 
 r^MHii !"/■.•! :ii! 
 
 ^AH\?AVI1 M(( 
 
 ,./lJ/v,lcJ /a >l.i 1 1 i 
 
 JU' (^aiJ(JJYAll MG 
 
 ,TToo8 .L .W .vaR yS 
 
 c:z!:5:fTrc;3C 'r~5:-s.~5r"r:-'^cc 
 
South Side Views. 
 
 DR. WHEDON AND THE FATHERS. 
 
 -ALSO,- 
 
 DR. HAYGOOD'S "OUR BROTHER IN BLACK. 
 
 / 
 
 By Rev. W. J. Scott, 
 
 NORTH GEORGIA CONFERENCE. 
 
 OCT 6 1883 f] 
 
 r'^vo^w- 
 
 ATLANTA, GEORGIA: 
 
 Jas. p. Harbison & Co., Printers and Publishers. 
 
 1883. 
 
/^^/.^ 
 
Preface. 
 
 A word of explaaatiori niiy be due the reader. The reply to Dr. 
 Whedon was prompted not so much by his rule attack on myself, 
 as by his reckless and ruffianly defamation of the South. 
 
 Both parts of my Review, of "Our Brother in Black" are sent 
 forth on their merits. We offer no apology for their publication. 
 This or something of like sort is a necessity of the times. 
 
 All that is precious and peerless in our characteristic civilization 
 is more or less directly involved in these discussions. In fifty years, 
 said Napoleon, " P^urope will be Republican or Cossack." It is 
 virtually true, as every thoughtful mind that looks beneath the 
 surface of political affairs will acknowledge, that the former alterna- 
 tive is close at hand. 
 
 Fifty years hence either the Greek or Asiatic type of government 
 and civilization will be fully established and entrenched on this con- 
 tinent. 
 
 With the South these are pre-eminently vital questions. Her sons, 
 perforce, must choose between the traditions of the fathers and a 
 puritanical dogmatism — that threatens not her existence merely, 
 but menaces her with the unspeakably greater calamity of Mexican 
 and Sou h American mongrelism. 
 
 THE AUTHOR. 
 
 Carrolltox, Ga. 
 
r-: 
 
 BISHOP J. 0. ANDREW. 
 
 Life and Letters of James Os//ood Andrew. By Rev. G. G. Smith, A. M. 
 Southern Methodist Publishing House, Nashville, Tenn. J. W. Burke 
 & Co., Macon, Ga. 
 
 Hero-worship is the inspiration of all biographical excel- 
 lence. This fact explains the singular literary paradox of 
 the Eighteenth century that James Boswell, confessedly the 
 prince of toadies, was likewise the very paragon of bio- 
 graphers. When George Smith, about twelve months ago, 
 read us a number of manuscript pages from his forthcoming 
 Life of Bishop Andrew, we at once recognized his aptitude 
 for the work he had undertaken. When, besides this, we 
 ascertained that his general plan was similar to that of 
 Carlyle in his Life of Cromwell, and also of Trevellyan in 
 his Life of Macaulay, we then and there prophesied the 
 success which he has clearly achieved. 
 
 His ardent love and boundless admiration for Bishop 
 Andrew, were the primary conditions of his success. But 
 apart from these merely personal considerations, his theme 
 was one of the best in the entire range of Methodist Bio- 
 graphy. 
 
 It is true that Bishop Andrew stood on the border line of 
 the heroic age of American Methodism when he donned his 
 Episcopal robes. The romance of Episcopacy had ceased 
 with Asbury and McKendree. But notwithstanding this, 
 Andrew was of the same heroic mould and mettle with these 
 illustrious men. 
 
 We had met him at Annual Conferences and admiredhim 
 greatly, both as a presiding officer and preacher. But in 
 1862, while occupying the Wesley Chapel parsonage in At- 
 
6 
 
 lanta, he was our honored guest for nearly a week. " No 
 man," says the French proverb, "is a hero to his I'alef de 
 chamhre.'' The Bishop at least was an exception. We saw 
 him en deshabille. Despite the disparity of age he unbosomed 
 himself to us as a brother. Now and then, without undue 
 self-assertion, he volunteered words of fatherly counsel. 
 Yet, in these graver and more thoughtful moods, there was 
 no Sir Oracle dogmatism. For our entertainment he occa- 
 sionally fought over the battles of his ministerial life, and 
 modestly showed us how hard fought fields were won. And 
 as Desdemona was charmed by Othello's recital of his travels, 
 history, and "the battle sieges, fortunes he had pas.'^ed," so 
 we were deeply fascinated by his vmpretentious narrative of 
 the experiences and adventures of a long and eventful itiner- 
 ant career. 
 
 At this time he gave us at our own urgent request a min- 
 ute account of that most notable event of his life, his virtual 
 deposition by the General Conference of 1844. 
 
 He interspersed the general history with vivid sketches 
 of the leaders of both sections, with occasional side glimpses 
 that revealed the true inwardness of the grand conflict. 
 There was, however, neither in word or manner, the slightest 
 exhibition of unseemly temper. But it was evident that 
 the wounds inflicted by some envious Casca. or some be- 
 loved Brutus, were not j'et fully cicatrized. 
 
 Henceforth we deeply venerated the man and were ever- 
 more jealous of his fame. While therefore we place Brother 
 Smith's life far above the average of similar publications, 
 we are constrained to notice some errors and defects that 
 mar its beauty and excellence. These, we trust, will be 
 corrected in a subsequent edition. 
 
 The first occurs in one of the initial chapters in which he 
 unnecessarily muddles the Revolutionary History of Geor- 
 gia. Having correctly traced the lineage of Bishop Andrew 
 in the paternal line to the original Dorchester colonists, 
 who, after various nomadic movements, finally settled within 
 the present limits of Liberty county, Ga., he says, with 
 seeming gusto that, when the fires of the Revolution were 
 
kindled, " the Puritan blood was the first to boil." *These 
 colonists from which have sprung a goodly number of our 
 best Georgia families were not in any just sense Puritans. 
 They were simply non-conformists, with a Presbyterian 
 creed and Congregational discipline. There was a broad 
 distinction betAveen the Presbyterian and Puritan factions, 
 both religiously and politically, during the Cromwellian 
 era. The former might be styled the Girondists, and the 
 latter the Jacobins of that gigantic struggle. Fairfax, one 
 of the foremost champions of Parliament, and many others, 
 had no cordial sympathy with that wretched fanaticism 
 which began its career with a regicide, and ended with a 
 Dictatorship under the alias of a Protectorate. But whether 
 these colonists were Puritan or otherwise, they did not 
 merit the preeminence which Brother Smith assigns them. 
 
 Gov. Wright's letter, so often relied upon to establish that 
 fact, fails to show that they were at all in advance of the 
 Scotch settlement at Darien, in Georgia. The Mclntoshes 
 and their compatriots were hereditary enemies of the Han- 
 over dynasty. Hundreds of their kindred were out in 1715 
 and 1745, in defense of the principles of the old crown and 
 covenant party of Scotland These were the same principles 
 for which their remote ancestors fought Cromwell at Doon 
 and Dunbar. 
 
 The Midway colonists, under the leadership of Screven 
 and Lyman Hall, manifested a disposition to act indepen- 
 dently of the other parishes of the Province. But when the 
 tug of war came, Lachlan Mcintosh commanded the first 
 regiment of troops, and Joseph Habersham, of Savannah, 
 Georgia, was the acknowledged head of the Revolutionary 
 movement in the colony. If St. John's parish contributed 
 two hundred barrels of rice to the suffering Bostonians, the 
 Savannah Whigs, by a timely capture, furnished the gun- 
 powder with which the battle of Bunker's Hill was fought. 
 
 *That the Midway Church was essentially Presbyterian is probable 
 from the fact, that three white churches, all Presbyterian, have been 
 since formed from it — at Walthourville, Dor'^.hester and Flemington. It 
 is true that a colored Presbyterian Church occupies the old building, and 
 a colored Congregational Church is found in the county. 
 
8 
 
 The whole question as to the comparative patriotism of 
 Puritan and Cavalier was adjudged by Edmund Burke in 
 the House of Commons. In the course of a memorable 
 debate on the American Crisis, he stated that the Southern 
 Colonies were more ardently and stubbornly attached to 
 liberty than those to the Northward. Furthermore, let it 
 be proclaimed in Boston and published in the streets of 
 Philadelphia, that Burke attributed this to the fact that, 
 like Greece and Rome, they were slave-holding communities. 
 
 Another ea-ror that we note is the statement that the 
 Bishop's meeting which was appointed to be held in Atlanta 
 in April, 1862, failed to convene at the designated time and 
 place. As this meeting was a sort of missing link in the 
 series of General Conferences, it may be well to publish in 
 this connection a synopsis of its proceedings. 
 
 On April 10th, 1862, an infijrmal meeting of the Bishops, 
 Board of Missions, etc., was held in the parlor of Joseph 
 Winship, on Peachtree street, Atlanta. There were present, 
 Bishops Andrew, Pierce and Early. Bishop Paine wrote 
 regretting his inability to be present ; Bishops Soule and 
 JCavanaugh sent no written communications, but did send 
 oral messages to the body. Besides the bishops, Drs. Mc- 
 Tyiere, McFerrin and Houston, and Joseph Wheeless, Esq. 
 Also present by invitation. Revs. W. J. Parks, W. J. Scott 
 and G G. N. MacDonell, who were requested to take part in 
 the deliberations of the meeting. This, it will be remem- 
 bered, was shortly after the downfall of Forts Henry and 
 Donelson, and the dear-bought victory at Shiloh. The 
 political and ecclesiastical outlook was ui. promising, if not 
 discouraging. Amongst other business transacted was the 
 apportionment of the Episcopal salarif^s to certain specified 
 Conferences. South Carolina, Georgia and Florida were to 
 provide for Bishop Pierce, and in like manner were the 
 other bishops to be provided for in the different Conferences. 
 It was declared to be inexpedient in the existing state of 
 affairs to hold a General Conference earlier than May, 1863. 
 Dr. McFerrin, Missionary Secretary, made a laconic and 
 •characteristic report : " No money, in hand, no debts except 
 outstanding drafts against the Secretary." 
 
An appeal was made to the church for $6,000.00 for the 
 China Mission and $30,000.00 for general purposes. A reso- 
 lution was also agreed to providing for the consolidation of 
 the Christian and Southern Christian Advocates, under the 
 editorial control of Drs. McTyiere and Myers. The session 
 continued two days, Bishop Andrew, President, L. D. Hus- 
 ton, Secretary. These matters, however, are relatively of 
 minor significance. They were possibly the result of over- 
 sight, or of needless haste in preparing the book for the 
 press. 
 
 But we come to a graver defect that must materially dis- 
 count its value as a permanent contribution to Methodist 
 literature. 
 
 Brother Smith apologizes in his preface for any allusion 
 to the events of 1844 In the body of his work he is careful 
 to say that he shall refrain from any comments on the 
 transactions of that memorable General Conference. Why 
 this ominous silence in the biographer of James 0. Andrew ? 
 We shall not impugn the motive, but we will say he missed 
 his grandest opportunity. The General Conference of 1844 
 was the central event in the history of Bishop Andrew. It 
 was to him what the Synod of Dort was to Arminius, what 
 the Council of Constance was to John Huss and Jerome of 
 Prague. Never did the Bishop exhibit such sublime moral 
 courage as when, after a momentary weakness, he confronted 
 with the heroism of a martyr the ruthless majorit} arrayed 
 against him, and intent on overwhelming him with sheer 
 dint of numbers. This might well serve as a companion 
 piece to that of Luther as he stood face to face with Charles 
 V. in the Diet of Worms. 
 
 In that august assemblage of 1844 there were such mas- 
 ter spirits as Winans, of Mississippi, and Smith, of Virginia, 
 whose masterly arguments and mighty appeals smote upon 
 the ear of a continent like the ponderous blows of a trip- 
 hammer. There, too was the younger Pierce, his face aglow 
 with the light of genius, if not inspiration, as he exclaimed ; 
 " Let New England go." It was but little short of the thrill- 
 ing eloquence with which Cicero scourged the guilty Pro- 
 
10 
 
 consul of Sicily, or drove Cataline and his fellow conspirators 
 from the Senate Chamber. Indeed, New England had long 
 troubled our Methodist Israel, as she had been from the 
 beginning a rankling thorn in the national body politic. 
 
 There, too, was Capers, the founder of negro missions, and 
 glorious McFerrin and Henry Bidleman Bascom, and in the 
 back ground a noble constituency stretching from Mary- 
 land to Texas. 
 
 No comments for a scene like this? Why that picture 
 has an intrinsic value that can hardly be estimated. The 
 time may come when Macaulay's New Zealand artist shall 
 sit on the broken arches of London Bridge and sketch the 
 ruins of St. Paul's, and when New York, like might}'- 
 Babylon, shall be " a habit ition for dragons and a court for 
 owls;" for the ruins of empires are amongst the common 
 places of history, and the seats of commerce and wealth are 
 unstable and shifting as desert sands. All this may trans- 
 pire ere that scene shall fade from the canvass of history. 
 Indeed, all material grandeur is changeful as the imagery 
 of cloud-land, but truth outlasts the pyramids, for the eternal 
 years of God are her inheritance. 
 
 DeQuincy, a time-serving essayist, sneered at the action 
 of the Free Church of Scotland in 1843. A procession of 
 several hundred clergymen, headed by Thomas Chalmers, 
 going forth from St. Andrews Church, Edinburgh, for the 
 sake of Christ and the purity of His Church, was hardly a 
 spectacle for a clownish jest or a fiendish grimace. By this 
 act they abandoned all hope of political emolument or 
 ecclesiastical preferment. Very many of them were gray- 
 haired veterans who thereby surrendered the churches they 
 had founded and the comfortable manses they had builded. 
 The}^ went forth into a moral wilderness to lay anew the 
 foundations of a Church unpolluted with the stain of Eras- 
 tinianism, and unfettered by the chains of lay patronage. 
 Were they right? Let the records of its marvelous growth 
 during the forty intervening years answer the inquiry. 
 
 This Edinburgh picture in 1843 was duplicated in New 
 York in 1844. New England must be propitiated even if 
 
11 
 
 Andrew's Episcopal head should fall. The same spirit that 
 pilloried and scourged the Quakers, and drove Roger Wil- 
 liams to Rhode Island and Providence plantations, that 
 massacred the Pequods and Narragansets, and sold the 
 miserable remnant into slavery in Barbadoes; the same 
 Massachusetts and Rhode Island -who, for mercenary purpo- 
 ses, helped to extend the African slave-trade twenty years 
 over the heads of Delaware and South Carolina. These 
 men, whose sires had waxed fat on the traffic in human 
 flesh, were now in hot pursuit of Bishop Andrew for the 
 sin of slave-holding, not by purchase, but by inheritance. 
 To this deep-mouthed baying of the Boston kennel there 
 was added the shrill cry of Tray, Blanche and Sweetheart 
 from the other hostile Conferences. Upon this accusation, 
 without the semblance of a trial, but by a simple resolution 
 of the body, he was suspended indefinitely from his Episco- 
 pal functions. In vain did the Southern minority protest 
 against this monstrous iniquity. The Moloch of anti-slavery 
 fanaticism must be appeased at the expense of justice and 
 every other cardinal virtue of Heathen and Christian 
 morality. It was done by the tyranny of a mob, or else the 
 ruling of a star-chamber tribunal. The majority may accept 
 either horn of the dilemma. After no little diplomatic 
 maneuvering, a formal separation was agreed upon, subject 
 to the ratification of the Southern Conferences. Even this 
 measure of pacification was repudiated by the succeeding 
 Northern General Conference. The Southern Church finally 
 secured her chartered rights, at the end of a tedious and 
 expensive litigation. But even a Supreme Court decision 
 could not curb the rapacity of the Northern Church. In 
 solemn council, our Church, from the Bishops downward, 
 were adjudged guilty of treason for defending against inva- 
 sion their altars and their fires. 
 
 Some of the Northern Bishops invoked the aid of military 
 satraps to eject us from our churches and parsonages. In 
 numerous localities we Avere stigmatized from our own pul- 
 pits as graceless reprobates and Christless rebels. The sober 
 second thought of the nation rebuked this prescriptive spirit. 
 
12 
 
 Failing in this scheme of military seizure, the}' sought 
 by means of missionary appropriations and intimidation to 
 disintegrate and absorb. To that policy they owe their 
 limited success in a few of the backwoods settlements of the 
 South. Another change has come over " the spirit of their 
 dream." Their only hope now is to compass their object by 
 organic union. This project, plausible as it may appear to 
 some, is a predestined failure. It at least, can only be con- 
 summated by the utter disruption of the Southern Church. 
 For right confident are we that an overwhelming majority 
 of the clergy and iaity of that church will never submit 
 their necks to the yoke of a Northern majority. 
 
 But to return to Bishop Andrew. This grand man " did 
 not lag superfluous on the stage," but labored with indomi- 
 table will to the utmost of his failing strength. His life- 
 work completed and rounded into beautiful symmetry, he 
 was ready for his chariot of fire. As Bacon sny s, "the sweetest 
 canticle is Nunc DimiUis to one who has obtained worthy 
 ends and expectations." This was true in an eminent 
 degree of him whose resplendent gifts and graces are so well 
 embalmed in the handsome memorial volume we have had 
 under review. 
 
 This much, therefore, but not by way of vindication, have 
 we thought due the memory of this illustrious servant of 
 God. Beneath the classic shades of his own beloved Oxford 
 he quietly awaits the resurrection of the just. 
 
 In some sort he was the last Bishop of the Asburyan type. 
 Nor would it be unbefitting, whatever the destiny of the 
 church he loved and served so long, to engrave on his monu- 
 ment the simple inscription; Bishop James 0. Andrew: 
 Ultimus Romanorum. 
 
DR. WHEDON'S STRICTURES. 
 
 Quarterly review of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, April, 1883. 
 (Macon Georgia.) 
 
 In the hands of the new editor, Dr. Hinton, our Quarterly 
 South attains a new and, we trust, a better era. We have 
 no longer in the editorship the politico-ecclesiastical bit- 
 terness of Dr. Bledsoe, nor the intense pro slavery section- 
 alism of Dr. Summers. The editor, though flinging in an 
 occasional sectional and obstructive utterance, reveals a 
 sj^mpathy with the Young South. In this Quarterly the 
 names of the authors are fairly given ; but as they are not, 
 Ave are sorry to say, given in the table of contents they 
 may often fail to appear in our synopsis. 
 
 We especially note in the present number the admirable 
 article on " Bushnell," by President Carlisle ; " Prohibition 
 and Temperance," by Walter B. Hill, Esq. ; and " Bishop 
 Andrew," by Rev. W. J. Scott. Mr. Hill's article is a pow- 
 erful document, and indicates that our Southern brethren 
 are marshaling rapidly and bravely in the temperance 
 cause. 
 
 The blemish of the number is the article on the venera- 
 ted Bishop. Its denunciations of the Abolitionists are 
 precisely parallel to the ravings of the rumsellers at the 
 temperance men. We give a specimen or so of its howls. 
 The first is the following historic untruth regarding the 
 Northern delegates in the General Conference of 1844 : 
 " These men whose sires had waxed fat on the traffic 
 of human flesh, were now in hot pursut of Bishop Andrew 
 for the sin of slave-holding, not by purchase, but by inheri- 
 tance. To this deep-mouthed baying of the Boston kennel, 
 
14: 
 
 there was added the shrill cry of Tray, Blanche, and Sweet- 
 heart from the other hostile conferences," p. 332. 
 
 There was not, we may safely say, ever a New England 
 Methodist, or a New England Methodist's father or "sire," 
 who bought, held or sold a slave. If there were men in 
 New England who did hold slaves, how were the anti- 
 slavery men of New England responsible for their crim ; 
 any more than Mr. Scott is responsible for the rumselle s 
 in his state? The first war of the New England anti- 
 slavery men was against slavery and slave trade in their 
 own states, and they abolished both. If any of the slave 
 dealers or holders sold their slaves when emancipation was 
 accomplished, how were the abolitionists responsible for 
 that ? Surely Mr. Hill's mouth is not closed from denounc- 
 ing drunkenness in this Quarterly, because there are rum- 
 sellers and drunkards in his native seciion ? Mr. Hill 
 probably imagines that that is the reason why his mouth 
 should be wide open. And just so thought Northern 
 Abolitionists upon the slavery question. Howl the second 
 sounds as follows : " The Moloch of anti-slavery fanaticism 
 must be appeased at the expense of justice and ever}^ other 
 cardinal virtue of heathen and Christian morality. It 
 was done by the tyranny of a mob, or else by the ruling 
 of a star-chamber tribunal." p. 332. Rumsellers would say, 
 " the Moloch of total abstinence fanaticism." Why was 
 anti-slavery a " Moloch ! " Did it raise an auction block on 
 which human beings, sometimes handsome young mulatto 
 girls, were sacrificed to the highest bidder? Did it forbid 
 education of its victims, in order that they might be bru- 
 talized into total subjection to their oppressors ? Did it 
 ever keep a blood-hound to chase the footsteps of the help- 
 less fugitive? Did it ever subject its kidnapped victims 
 and their offspring to the driver's whip, lashing them to 
 toil, and then approjjriating the income? 0, no ! It sim- 
 jDly proclaimed liberty to the captive, asserted the rights 
 of humanity, maintained the truth of the first sentence of 
 our Declaration of Independence, and demanded the peace- 
 ful emancipation of four millions of native born Americans 
 
15 
 
 from the despotic system that "spared not man in its 
 cruelty, nor woman in its lust." No; it was that system, 
 the slave power which was the true Moloch, the Moloch 
 of which Mr. Scott is the imbecile worshipper and infa- 
 mous apologist. As for " mob," the mobs were all on the 
 other side. The so called " abolition mobs " were really 
 pro-slavery mobs, raised to crush the abolitionists. With 
 the exception of abolition rallies, made to rescue the inno- 
 cent fugitive from Southern slave-catchers and kidnappers, 
 there w'ere no real "abolition mobs." 
 
 Howl third is as follows: " In the course of a memora- 
 ble debate on the American Crisis, he (Edmund Burke) 
 stated that the Southern Colonies were more ardently and 
 stubbornly attached to liberty than those to the North- 
 ward. Furthermore, let it be proclaimed in Boston, and 
 published in the streets of Philadelphia, that Burke attribu- 
 ted this to the fact that, like Greece and Rome, they were 
 slave-holding communities." Very well. Let it be proclaimed 
 the world round, that the stone-holders w'ere earnest main- 
 tainers of freedom — for themiclves, and the still more earnest 
 maintainers of slavery ibr others. The}' were enthusiastic 
 champions for the freedom to bind the fetter and flourish 
 the whip upon their kidnapped victims. 
 
 Howl fourth (too prolix for our quotation) : parallels the 
 Secession of the Southern delegates from the General Confer- 
 ence of 1844, with the Secession of the Free Church of Scot- 
 land. The two unquestionably are a parallelism in that both 
 were Secessions, but they were contrasts in the causes for 
 which Secession took place. The former was for religious 
 freedom ; the latter was for secular slavery ; and the latter, 
 as some would say, finds a more suitable parallel in the 
 secession of the angels that kept not their first estate. 
 Next to the cruelty of Mr. Scott's onslaught on abolition- 
 ism, is that of his eulogy on the good Bishop ; and it is 
 agonizing to see that venerable man slavered over with 
 such an overflowing gush of relentless bombast. We trust 
 that this Quarterly will live long decades, and its bound 
 volumes be deposited in many a library ; and our worst 
 
16 
 
 wish for Mr. Scott is, that he may live to re-read his 
 tirade with shame and genuine repentance. Nevertheless, 
 in most cases, Bourbonism can only die with the Bourbon, 
 and, in such event, the disburdened world has good reason 
 to ejaculate a hearty "good riddance" to both. It is right 
 to say that in several pages added on the same subject by 
 the editor, we find a very different spirit, with the main 
 of which we agree, and see no demand for making an issue 
 where we differ. And here we note that so long as fierce 
 pro-slavery leaders like Scott issue their manifestoes in 
 the highest periodicals of the South, the Methodist Episco- 
 pal Church is needed there. And it is not only a negro 
 church we need there, but a body of white churches, Avho 
 will be a pillar of moral support for the advocates of the 
 New South. 
 
DR. WHEDON AND THE FATHERS. 
 
 A few months ago we prepared, by request, a brief review 
 of Smith's "Life and Letters of Bishop Andrew." 
 
 Oar single desire was to correct a few errors and, also, to 
 supply what we esteemed a capital defect in that otherwise 
 excellent biography. 
 
 We were well apprised that in some quarters our review 
 would encounter silent dissent or pronounced disfavor. It 
 was an emphatic utterance ill-adapted to "these piping 
 times of peace" and ecclesiastical fraternity. 
 
 We little dreamed, however, that we should provoke, to 
 such a degree, the direful wrath of Dr. Whedon, editor of 
 the Northern Methodist Quarterly. 
 
 It will be remembered that Snug, the Joiner, who under- 
 took the role of the lion in the "lamentable comedy" of Py- 
 romus and Thisby, was thoughtful enough to advertise the 
 audience that there was no possible danger, as he was in. 
 sober reality 
 
 Neither a lion fell, nor else a lion's dam. 
 
 Dr. Whedon, less considerate of weak nerves, withholds 
 any such assurance, and without an admonitory word, flies 
 at us with the snap and snarl of an enraged Tom cat. 
 
 With classic taste and Christian courtesy, he stigmatises 
 the writer as "an imbecile v orshipper, and infamous apolo- 
 gist" of the slave-power. 
 
 Perhaps it was Charles Lamb who, when similarly bera- 
 ted by an irate fish-woman, having exhausted his well filled 
 vocabulary of slang, to little purpose, at last, in sheer 
 desperation, cried out : You are an hypothenuse. The 
 sharp-tongued jade, supposing this mysterious epithet 
 to involve a yet grosser outrage, redoubled the fury and 
 
18 
 
 volubility of her assault, so that the great humorist at once 
 fled from the field. 
 
 If we were inclined to bandy opprobrious words, we might 
 retaliate in kind upon the Doctor for these fiery objur- 
 gations. 
 
 We may, in the progress of this discussion, occasionally 
 speak with befitting severity, but for the present, our only 
 response is this : You are a logarithim, and leave him to di- 
 gest that aspersion at his leisure. 
 
 We do not, indeed, propose that our antagonist shall di- 
 vert attention from the main question by invidious flings 
 ■or irrelevant issues. 
 
 First of all, he brands as an "historical untruth," our 
 :statement that the sires of those men who hounded Bishop 
 Andrew to his official degradation, "had waxed fat by the 
 "traffic in human flesh." On the contrary, he avers to quote 
 his own language : "There was not, we may safely say, ever 
 ■ a New England Methodist or a New England Methodist's 
 father, or "sire," who bought, held or sold a slave." 
 
 Can it be that the illustrious Whedon is so hardly pressed 
 iby our argument, that he resorts to a paltry verbal quibble, 
 ;to parry its force ? 
 
 We manifestly intended, and so he understood, to use the 
 word "sires," in its broadest sense ; we might say, substi- 
 'tuting fathers for sires, according to its Biblical import, as 
 •embracing not only immediate progenitors, but remoter an- 
 cestors as well. Nor even only the delegates actually voting, 
 but their constituency, whose will was clearly signified by 
 a flood of anti-slavery memorials then l3''ing on the Secreta- 
 ry's desk. Moreover, his denial itself, without reference to 
 his quibble or his special pleading, is purely gratuitous^ 
 and needs to be supported by aliunde testimony. 
 
 As this i a question of History not to be settled by reck- 
 less assertions on either side, we address ourself to its fur- 
 ther consideration. 
 
 We postulate in the outset, that the solid vote of the New 
 England Conferences, supplemented by their threats of se- 
 cession, was the chief obstacle to the peaceable adjustment 
 
19 
 
 of the controversy. These threats influenced Olin, and 
 many others of the Middle and Western Conferences, to 
 rally to the suppoj-t of the Finley resolution. This will 
 scarcely be questioned by any one familiar with the pro- 
 ceedings of the Conference. 
 
 While we do not acquit Baltimore, New York or Philadel- 
 phia of serious blame, we insist that New England counsels 
 are responsible for the shame and atrocity of this "deed 
 without a name." 
 
 Furthermore, we reiterate the charge that the ancestors 
 of these New England delegates, and of the societies whose 
 views they reflected, were doubly guilty of all the evil 
 which Dr. Whedon attributes to American slavery. 
 
 Is Dr. Whedon so grossly ignorant of history, or is he so 
 unfair in argument that he will gainsay these propositions? 
 By the terms of his own statement, therefore, he stands con- 
 victed of imbecility or infamy. 
 
 With equal truthfulness, he might deny the witch burn- 
 ings of the seventeenth century. With equal propriet}^ he 
 might attempt to whitewash Cotton Mather, the Pope of 
 the Puritans, a compound of Pecksnifl" and Torquemada, 
 who published a volume in defense of witch-burning that 
 Harvard Universitj'' endorsed, whence, it may be, came his 
 own Doctorate of Laws. 
 
 Whatever "the horrors of the middle passage," however 
 enormous the evils of African slavery, the controlling power 
 in the Conference of 1844 must bear forever a full share of 
 its odium. 
 
 Every New England State voted to extend the slave trade 
 from 1788 to 1808. This extension, against which thousands 
 of Southern men stoutly protested, was made largely in the 
 interest of the slave-traders of Boston and Newport. It was 
 to them a profitable commerce, and little did they concern 
 themselves about the right or wrong of the traffic. Why, 
 indeed, should they shrink from the African slave-trade, 
 when their Godly progenitors had enslaved or butchered, 
 more than two centuries before, the Indian tribes within 
 the limits of the Plymouth Colony. 
 
20 
 
 In what respect was that a greater crime than to violate the 
 solemn treaty stipulations with Massasoit, the Indian chief? 
 He had, at the peril of his own life, shielded them from sav- 
 age attacks, when they were shivering in log huts and pow- 
 erless for self-protection. And yet, with worse than Punic 
 faith, they suffered Alexander, his son and successoi, to rot 
 by piecemeal, in the filthy wards of a Boston prison. 
 
 Why should they turn pale, and swoon like a sick girl, 
 at the clanking of chains and the flourishes of an overseer's 
 whip, when, after the massacre or enslavement of the Pe- 
 quods, they sent the son of King Phillip to the Bermudas, 
 where, according to a Northern historian, he literally died 
 under the lash of a taskmaster. 
 
 It is a legitimate inference, from their colonial history, that 
 if climatic conditions had been favorable to the growth of 
 cotton, and the increase of negroes, and if, furthermore, the 
 slave trade had continued twenty years longer, New Eng- 
 land would have been as intensely pro-slavery as South 
 Carolina, and Boston as much of a slave market as Charles- 
 ton or even Constantinople. 
 
 In all soberness, as all fair-minded men will allow, both 
 sections were confederates in this trafl&c. The North did 
 the kidnapping, and we purchased their captives for a 
 money value. So likewise, when afterwards, for economical 
 reasons solely, they passed prospective emancipation Acts, 
 they sold the South large numbers of these slaves for a like 
 consideration. In a word, according to "the Declaration of 
 Independence," the corner-stone of Dr. Whedon's political 
 creed, they were both alike, guilty. It frequently happens 
 in like cases, that the greatest scoundrel of the gang turns 
 informer or State's evidence, but it is a thing without pre- 
 cedent, that he is bold or bad enough to deny all complicity 
 with the criminal transaction. This, unfortunately for Dr, 
 Whedon and his friends, is their relation to the case at bar. 
 
 It is time to ask if the descendants of these men were in 
 any wise proper parties to gnash their teeth at Bishop An- 
 drew, who never bought or sold a slave, and who was not, 
 indeed, a slaveholder, except by statutory constraint. Be- 
 
21 
 
 hind all this lies the paramount question, what constitu- 
 tional or disciplinary right had the Northern majority to 
 make slave-holding a disqualification for the Episcopacy? 
 Did not the wisest men, who voted for the Finley resolu- 
 tion, Olin, Durbin and Bangs, acknowledge that there was 
 no constitutional disability in the case of Bishop Andrew ? 
 We respectfully challenge Dr. Whedon to point out the sec- 
 tion or page of the Discipline that forbids a slave-holder to 
 exercise Episcopal functions. We are quite sure he will not 
 even attempt it. But we have not yet probed this rotten- 
 ness to the bottom. If he had been thrice guilty, he was 
 clearly entitled to a trial in due form. "A decent respect 
 for the opinions of mankind," at least a '^decent respect" for 
 the principles of Magna Charta, which underlie all civil 
 and ecclesiastical jurisprudence, would have secured him 
 the semblance of justice. This was refused, and to hide the 
 infamy of the refusal, a new theor}'- of the Episcopacy was 
 concocted that made our Bishops the mere creatures of the 
 General Conference — like a book editor or a Missionar}^ Sec- 
 retary. 
 
 According to Lord King's View of the Primitive church, a 
 book heartily endorsed by Mr. Wesley, a Bishop was primus 
 inter pares. But according to the General Conference of '44 
 he had no rights that a partisan majority was bound to re- 
 gard. His official position was at the mercy of a simple ma- 
 jority vote, so that he was not only not first amongst 
 equals, but less than the least of either, clergy or laity. 
 
 The English vocabular3% with its 140,000 words, affords 
 no terms adequate to the characterization of this affair. It 
 deserves mentioning, that the Protestant Episcopal House 
 of Bishops, when engaged in the trial of Bishop Onderdonk, 
 accused of flagrant immoralities, had charges and specifica- 
 tions duly prepared, and spent weeks in a careful investiga- 
 tion. Our General Conference, with no crime, alleged, upon 
 the shallow pretext of expediency, evermore the "tyrant's 
 plea," by a simple resolution, sought to consign Bishop An- 
 drew to everlasting infamy. And this, too, in hot haste, 
 against the urgent request of the Bench of Bishops for a 
 
22 
 
 postponement to the next General Conference. By this 
 judgment, worthy of a Jeffries, they unfrocked Andrew and 
 constrained Soule, the noblest Roman of them all, to leave 
 his kindred and native land, rather than be privy to such 
 an outrage, on all law, civil and ecclesiastical. Was the 
 writer too severe in denouncing this procedure as "the ty- 
 ranny of a mob, or else the ruling of a star chamber tribu- 
 nal ?'"' 
 
 Is it out of place for a writer in a Southern Review to 
 refer to these matters in discussing the life of Bishop An- 
 drew ? 
 
 Will another century condone the treason of Benedict Ar- 
 nold ? If so, then probably a millenium may wipe out this 
 "damned spot" from the Journal of the General Conference. 
 And yet, once in every quadrennium. Northern delegates 
 visit our General Conferences, with words of kindly greet- 
 ing, but with no confession of this flagrant wrong. Here is 
 an opportunity for the "ingenuous repentance" to which 
 Dr. Whedon exhorts us. Will he henceforth turn his hos- 
 tatory appeals in that direction ? 
 
 When Dr. Whedon is so ready to defend the action of the 
 majority in the General Conference of '44, we are not sur- 
 prised that he enters the lists as the champion of Abolition- 
 ism. He prepares the way for this by a most virulent attack 
 on what he styles the slave-power. He indulges in the 
 usual rhodamontade about "auction-blocks," kidnapping, 
 blood hounds, etc., for which he fails to acknowledge his in- 
 debtedness to Exeter Hall and Uncle Tom's Cabin. 
 
 We will not seek to disguise the fact that slavery as 
 it existed in the South had its attendant evils. These 
 evils were, however, greatly increased by the intermeddling 
 of Northern fanatics. Some of the most stringent pro- 
 visions of the Slave Code, notably that against the educa- 
 tion of negroes was a precautionary measure. But yet we 
 affirm that as a labor system, it was as eminently wise as it 
 was clearly patriarchal. 
 
 With all its drawbacks the condition of the antebellum 
 slave was physically better than the Irish peasant or the 
 
23 
 
 average New England factory operative. He was better 
 clothed, fed, lodged and less worked, and treated with 
 greater consideration by his owner. Yet more his condi- 
 tion whether morally or industrially was by immense odds 
 better than that of the Southern freedman, after nearly 
 twenty years have elapsed. Better even than that of the 
 Jamaica negro after fifty years of British emancipation. 
 
 In the former case, in numerous localities, he is relapsing 
 into barbarism. Refusing to labor, but subsisting by fishing 
 and hunting, with frequent raids on his white neighbor's 
 corn cribs and poultry roosts. In the latter case, in despite 
 of Parliamentary appropriations and the expenditure of 
 millions by the Church of England, the Presbyterians, 
 the Baptists, the Methodists in missionary work, he has 
 from necessity at last been stripped of» all vestige of politi- 
 cal power. A very late writer, Prof. Harrison, of Virginia, 
 speaking from personal observation, says that almost with- 
 out exception, they are lazy, improvident and nearly 
 idiotic. Moreover, both on the Island and in the South 
 Atlantic States, they are exhibiting in the matter of relig- 
 ion unmistakable tendencies to Vaudooism, or some other 
 species of devil worship. 
 
 These are some of the present results of emancipation. 
 But this dreadful slave power that frightens Dr. Whedon 
 from his propriet3\ Does not he know that this slave 
 power gave the country nearly a half century of unpar- 
 alled prosperity. The Federal Government confined to its 
 constitutional sphere and encroaching on no reserved 
 rights of the States, so that the states were indeed 
 
 Distinct as the billows, but one as the sea. 
 
 Has he forgotten that it acquired Louisiana, that added 
 600,000 square miles to the area of freedom ; that it secured 
 Florida a favorite winter resort for Northern invalids, and 
 gave us the control of the Gulf of Mexico; that it secured 
 Texas an empire in itself five times as large as all New 
 England ; that in spite of Northern opposition, it gave us 
 the silver mines of New Mexico, the gold mines of Call- 
 
24 
 
 fornia, and an ocean front on either side of this vast con- 
 tinent? 
 
 During the fifty years of Southern ascendancy, there was 
 as in the reign of Solomon, neither adversary nor evil 
 occurrent. Anti-slaverj'ism in less than twenty-five years 
 has broil ght forth a carnival of blood-shed and an amount 
 of oflficial corruption that the fathers of the Republic would 
 have shuddered to contemplate. 
 
 Having disposed of the slave power, he commends 
 abolitionism as a harmless craze, that is, guiltless of any 
 wrong doing. We quote his own Avords : " It anti-slavery, 
 fanaticism," simply proclaimed liberty to the captive, 
 asserted the rights of humanity, maintained the truth of 
 the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence, and 
 demanded the peaceful emancipation of four millions of 
 native Americans from that despotic system that " spared 
 not man in its cruelty, nor woman in its lust." Further 
 on he gives us another bit of such balderdash : " As for 
 mob," the mobs were all on the other side. The so called 
 abolition mobs were really pro-slavery mobs to crush the 
 abolitionist. With the exception of abolition rallies, made 
 to rescue the innocent fugitive from Southern slave catchers 
 and kidnappers, there were no real " abolition mobs." It 
 will be perceived that Dr. Whedon utterly denies the fact 
 of "abolition mobs." By such an assertion, he not only 
 contradicts the official records of the nation, but places 
 himself outside the pale of legitimate controversy. He 
 hopes to escape, however, by the adroit use of an eupheuism, 
 which is an improvement on the diplomatic skill of Talley- 
 rand. When Beauregard in obedience to peremptory 
 orders from a government as regularly constituted as the 
 first Continental Congress, saluted Fort Sumter with a 
 shower of shot and shell, he forsooth was a Traitor, 
 with a rattlesnake trill on the first R. When John Brown, 
 the Emissary of an abolition Junto, visited Harper's Ferry, 
 for the purpose of inaugurating an ijisurrection, involving 
 arson, murder, rape, and midnight forays on defenceless 
 homes, he was no traitor but a mart3'r— to be canonized in 
 
25 
 
 song and sermon ; to be glorified in a studied eulogy 
 by the Governor of Massachusetts, on it may be the identi- 
 cal spot where their pious forefathers furrowed with 
 an orthodox scourge the bleeding backs of non-resistant 
 Quakers. When Brown's two accomplices were de- 
 manded of Iowa and Ohio, under a plain provision of the 
 Constitution of the United States, the demand was in- 
 dignantly refused. Was this part and parcel of the " peace- 
 ful " programme of the abolitionist ? 
 
 What does Dr. Whedon think of the open and armed 
 resistance to the execution of the fugitive slave law in 
 the streets of Boston and Syracuse, and a score of Northern 
 cities and towns besides ? 
 
 Were these unlawful assemblages, abolition mobs accord- 
 ing to legal construction, or were they simply " abolition 
 rallies f'^ By what right, unless it be that of a self-confessed 
 Thersites, does he charge Southern citizens and United 
 States Marshals with a legal warrant under the sanction 
 of the Constitution as kidnappers for seeking to arrest a 
 fugitive slave anywhere and everywhere within the jurisr 
 diction of the Supreme Court? 
 
 In all this abolitionism was guiltless of mob violence — 
 it was only seeking a " peaceful " emancipation of four 
 millions of native Americans. 
 
 The naked truth is that the party, through every period 
 of its liistory, was an organized mob in opposition to law 
 and order, denouncing from pulpit and platfjrm the 
 Federal compact as " a covenant with death, " and the 
 flag of the Union as "a flaunting lie." They put forth 
 Herculean efforts to stir up insurrections amongst the slaves 
 by means of incendiary pamphlets, distributed broadcast 
 through the mails. On other occasions they commissioned 
 hireling assassins to visit the plantations in Virginia, 
 South Carolina, and other points where the negroes were 
 largely preponderant, for the same nefarious purpose. In a 
 few instances they were partially successful. That they 
 failed at, all was the result of miscalculation or a thorough 
 police system amongst the planters. If they could they 
 
26 
 
 would have repeated at Charleston and Richmond, the 
 massacre of Scio, and reproduced on Southern soil the 
 wholesale slaughter of Hayti. 
 
 Not a few of them more infuriated than others, or it may 
 be less cautious in their utterances, avowed a willingness 
 to " organize hell in the heart of the Southern States." 
 
 A " peaceful " emancipation, says Dr. Whedon, with the 
 gentleness of " a sucking dove." " I thank thee, Jew, for 
 teaching me that word ! " 
 
 Was it we ask peaceful in its consummation? Well, 
 might the spirits of the gallant dead, some that wore the 
 Blue, and some that wore the Gray, an^,wer from Heaven, 
 with a thunderous no ! The statement in part and in 
 whole "is false as dicer's oaths." And there are thousands 
 North and South, who yet survive with empty sleeves and 
 maimed legs, and broken hearts and ruined fortunes, and 
 desolate homes, that bear witness to the cruelty of a frati- 
 cidal war; the sin and shame of which is chargable on 
 that abolition horde, whose persistent violations of the 
 Constitution both provoked, and precipitated the terrible 
 conflict. 
 
 Referring to an allusion of ours to the statement of 
 Edmund Burke, that the Southern Colonies were more de- 
 voted to liberty than those to the Northward, and that this 
 was in part because they were slaveholding communities, 
 he replies, " Very well. Let it be proclaimed the world 
 around that the slaveholders were earnest maintainers of 
 freedom — jor themselves, and the still more earnest main- 
 tainers of slavery for others." It is hardly extravagant to 
 say that Massachusetts and her satellites might have been 
 Crown Colonies of Great Britain to-day; but for the self- 
 sacrificing patriotism of the much abused " slave oligarch}'." 
 It was one of these " oligarchs," Patrick Henry, that made 
 the Virginia House of Burgesses shake from floor to rafter 
 with his denunciations of the English Government for its 
 encroachment on the rights of Massachusetts. Another 
 "oligarch," Richard Henry Lee moved the Declaration of 
 Independence; yet another, Thomas Jefiferson, drafted that 
 
27 
 
 Declaration ; still another, George Washington, commanded 
 the armies of the Revolution, to the triumphant close of the 
 struggle. We would detract nothing from the well-earned 
 fame of Adams and Hancock, and Hamilton, but these 
 played comparatively subordinate parts in the great drama. 
 Who but these same slave holders of the South, resisted 
 to blood the British orders in Council, and the Berlin and 
 Milan decrees that threatened to drive American commerce 
 from the high seas? While Madison and his administra- 
 tion were upholding the principles of international law, 
 New England was holding a dark lantern convention at 
 Hartford, and New England Federalists were signalling 
 the British fleet, that afterwards sailed up the Potomac 
 and burnisd the National Hapitol. We are safe in saying 
 that but for the speedy ratification of the Treaty of Ghent, 
 New England would have seceded from the Union and 
 formed a military alliance with Great Britain. And yet 
 Dr. Whedon alleges that these slave holders were "earnest 
 maintainers of slavery for others." 
 
 When Texas was invaded by Santa Anna, and his myr- 
 midons, these hated slave holders, led by Crocket, Fannin, 
 and Travis, flew to the rescue. Their blood stained the 
 walls of Bexar, and flecked the streets of Goliad, and at 
 the Alamo so bravely did they struggle for the freedom of 
 Texas, that it has been carved in marble on the Capitol 
 square at Austin; that while "Thermopyloe had its messen- 
 ger of defeat, the Alamo had none." 
 
 We shall not stay to consider how in the Mexican war 
 the South was foremost in the fray from the death of 
 Ringgold, to the capitulation in the hall of the Montezu- 
 mas. There is nothing in this record of gallantry that 
 warrants the foul aspersion of Dr. Whedon. Our opponent 
 does not fancy the historical paralell we suggest between 
 the action of the Free Church delegates in the General 
 Assembly of Scotland, and the conduct of the Southern 
 delegates in the General Conference of 1844. We are, how- 
 ever, not responsible either for his lack of appreciation, or 
 what is, perhaps a more charitable view, his want of pene- 
 
28 
 
 tration. There was, we allow, a difference in the details, 
 but they were both in substance a protest against the 
 oppressive rulings of a numerical majority, and a sturdy 
 adherence to principle in the face of threatened disaster. 
 Nor does the analogy cease at this point. As the Free 
 Church of Scotland has become one of the leading churches 
 of Christendom, so likewise the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
 South, has attained to proportions, but little short of the 
 strength of the entire church previous to the separation. 
 
 We rebuked the sneer of DeQuincey in our former arti- 
 cle, but we hardly know how to treat the scurrility of Dr. 
 Whedon against the Southern church. He does not, in ex- 
 plicit terms, liken the withdrawal of the Southern dele- 
 gates to the revolt of the devil and his angels. In this mat- 
 ter he exhibits the prudence of the cat in the adage, '"Who 
 let I would, wait upon I dare not." 
 
 Oh, wise cat ! Oh, discreet Dr. Whedon ! He fires, how- 
 ever, from the ambuscade of an inuendo. The plain English 
 of the matter is an intimation that Andrew, Soule, Pierce, 
 Winans, Capers, Parks and Longstreet, were not simple 
 schismatics, but devils incarnate. This is in keeping with 
 the purpose of his fellow-fanatic, above stated, to "organize 
 hell" in the South. The conception of Dr. Whedon is a 
 happy aftertliought to vindicate the wisdom of that aboli- 
 tion project. It follows, of course, that such men as Collins 
 and Cass and Finley were "the angels that kept their first 
 estate." If this is not a literal reditdlo ad absitrdum, we have 
 studied logic to little purpose. 
 
 But our venerable critic seems as much dissatisfied 
 with our estimate of Bishop Andrew, as with our " cruel 
 onslaught" on abolitionism. He thinks there is an 
 "overflowing gush" in it that savors of "relentless 
 bombast." We have shown that Dr. Whedon is not 
 an historian, still less a logician, and if the game was 
 worth the candle, we might quite as readily show that he is 
 not a master of rhetoric. Indeed, our first impressions of 
 him, received in part from Dr. A. T. Bledsoe, are about cor- 
 rect. His affected sympathy for Bishop Andrew, reminds 
 
29 
 
 us forcibly of that imperial saurian, the Egyptian crocodile, 
 whose proverbial tears have always been esteemed the cli- 
 max of cruelty. Only a few lines above, he virtually inti- 
 mates that Andrew is the Prince of Devils, and almost in 
 the next breath speaks of him as the "venerable Bishop.'' 
 Guiteau, the stalwart assassin, as chief mourner at the burial 
 of Garfield, is an apt illustration of this piece of acting. In- 
 deed, Dr. Whedon is such a bundle of contradictions that, 
 as Mrs. Malaprop might say, "he is two gentlemen at once." 
 We are perplexed to know whether he would suit best as a 
 model for another Joseph Surface, in some modern "School 
 for Scandal," or as another CoUey Gibber, for a new version 
 of Pope's Dunciad. 
 
 He ventures, also, in his summing up, to speak in a fath- 
 erly tone of the writer. We beg him, for pity's sake, to 
 spare us this infliction. His vituperation is only a matter 
 of merriment, but his "bowels of compassion" are grievous 
 in the extreme. On the whole, he does not appear hopeful 
 of our conversion, and this is by odds the most sensible con- 
 clusion he has reached. 
 
 He compliments Dr. Hinton, the able editor of the Review, 
 but chides him for allowing such "manifestos" to appear 
 in his columns. 
 
 Does Dr. Whedon claim to exercise a sort of censorship 
 over the Southern Methodist press ? He insinuates some- 
 thing of this sort. Has it come to pass, that before the 
 smoke of battle has fully cleared away, and before the mat- 
 rons and maidens, of our Southland, have ceased to decorate 
 the sleeping places of our fallen braves, that a Northern edi- 
 tor, brimful of malice and uncharitableness, shall snub a 
 hightoned Southern Review for an article that is simply 
 true to the traditions of our church, and true to the memory 
 of our fathers ? 
 
 Dr. Whedon's reproof is spiced, also, with a menace. As 
 long as such "manifestos are allowed, the Methodist Episco- 
 pal church is a necessity in the South." He knows as well 
 as the writer that his church, except the negro element, 
 within the borders of the eleven Confederate States, is "a 
 
30 
 
 plant of slow growth." It needed, from the beginning, to 
 be coddled and wet-nursed to be kept alive. Nor has it im- 
 proved in real moral strength with all the missionary help 
 that has been furnished. It is not adapted to our soil or 
 climate. As well might he expect the Magnolia Grandi- 
 flora, the pride of our Southern forests, to flourish under 
 the wintry skies of New England. The magnolia, placed 
 in a conservatory and carefully tended, might survive a 
 dozen winters in that high latitude, and so, by a like pro- 
 cess, the North may sustain a few white churches in the 
 South, yet it is only for a little while at the farthest. 
 
 If the Doctor relies on these white churches as auxilia- 
 ries "to the advocates of the New South," he must count on 
 a slender following, and if he believes that even conjointly 
 they can shake the "Solid South," he has somewhat of that 
 faith that removes mountains. We would, in all ocrious. 
 ness, inquire if Dr. Whedon is so infatuated by passion or 
 besotted by prejudice, as to dream of a new South in his 
 partisan sense ? If he means a party outside of the negroes, 
 that accept his views, we can asure him that it is composed 
 chiefly of a bevy of Federal office-holders. Such a party, 
 by trickery and sharp practice, may exist for a season in 
 some localities of the South, but it bears in its own bosom 
 the seeds of decay and dissolution. While it does exist, it 
 is what Randolph styles, a party of seven principles, to wit: 
 Five loaves and two small fishes. The masses of the South- 
 ern people have no thought and no desire to exchange, as 
 the immortal Stephens has said, the Greek type of civiliza- 
 tion, which means local self-government for the Asiatic type 
 which means Empire. This fancy of Whedon's is the same 
 old dream, "From Macedonia's madman to the Swede." 
 
 Such a vision must have been inspired by the ghost of 
 Hildebrand or of Bishop Gilbert Haven. We are prepared 
 to affirm that you may bankrupt your Missionary Treasury 
 and thereby multiply your Southern white churches an 
 hundred fold, and you are not a whit nearer the accomplish- 
 ment of your purpose. Enriched, as you have been, not ex- 
 clusively by thrift and industry, but by the spoils of un- 
 
31 
 
 righteous war, you have not yet accumulated money enough 
 in Wall street to bribe the unpurchasable millions of the 
 South. We advise you, Doctor, to leave off Review writing 
 and betake yourself to the study of histoYy. 
 
 "Order reigns in Warsaw," dispatched Suwarrow one hun- 
 dred years ago, but the Czar still trembles under the dome 
 of the Kreinhn, and requires narcotics to induce sleep, in 
 the heart of St. Petersburg. 
 
 Phenix Park assassinations transpire under the bristling 
 guns of Dublin Castle. Ireland has not forgotton the brutal 
 massacres of Wexford and Drogheda, by savage English Puri- 
 tans, nor is her nationality extinct. 
 
 There is a New South — a land "not without ruins, and, 
 therefore, not without memories." It sprung from the de- 
 bris of a war waged against us without the color of right. 
 Fields of husbandry are now white with the harvest that a 
 few years ago were desolated by the sword of Vandalism, and 
 flourishing cities are now seen on every hand that were de- 
 stroyed by the torch of the incendiary. Hungary, since the 
 failure and flight of Kossuth, has been restored to her con- 
 stitutional rights, and Italy, downtrodden for a thousand 
 years, has had its renaissance in the triumphs of Victor 
 Emanuel. But mark well, the men who died in the trenches 
 of Vicksburg and Richmond, have left their impress on this 
 and future generations — the same love of fatherland, the 
 same loathing for oppression. Not with sword and bayonet, 
 but with the plow and hammer, they are working out their 
 political and industrial salvation, with brave hearts and 
 sturdy arms. They are not, however, "dumb, driven cattle," 
 as your article implies. In their work-da}' apparel they are 
 the same men, or of like sort, that surrendered at Appomat- 
 tox — "the sifted wheat of the world's heroes." 
 
 The brave men of the North, and there are hundreds of 
 thousands of such, know well of what stuff" the Southern 
 soldier is made. Their ancestors stood shoulder to shoulder 
 with ours in the streets of Princeton and Germautown. To- 
 gether they endured the rigors of Valley Forge encamp- 
 ment, and together they shared in the crowning victory at 
 
32 
 
 Yorktown. In the second British war, they fought side by 
 side at Chippewa and Lunday's Lane, under the leadership 
 of a gallant Southern soldier. 
 
 With locked step^ South Carolina and New York marched 
 up the storm-swept heights of Churubusco, and faced the 
 double-shotted batteries of Molino Del Rey. 
 
 Why should we allude to the late war, the North won by 
 overwhelming numbers, but the South may say, with Fran- 
 cis I, after his defeat at Pavia, "All is lost save honor," 
 Thank God, we have kept that hitherto inviolate and un- 
 tarnished, and thousands of true men, North, will say 
 Amen at "this giving of thanks." We have kept as 
 well to our religion, our trust in God, our love of peace, our 
 hatred of strife. But ours is a religion that makes its ulti- 
 mate appeal not to the higher law of abolitionism, but to 
 the words of Christ, and the Epistles of St. Paul particu- 
 larly, in the 6th chapter of 1st Timothy, where he clearly 
 teaches that abolitionists, after the New England pattern, 
 are unworth}^ of church-fellowship. 
 
 And now, in reference to this whole matter, if you hon- 
 estly desire peace and fraternity, make haste to change your 
 tactics. Cease your scurrilous abuse of the men of '44 and 
 '61. Put away your own blind prejudices; stop your inter- 
 meddling with our social system ; recall your emissaries, 
 some of whom, under the disguise of teachers and preachers, 
 have been sowing dragon's teeth throughout the South. 
 Aye, more than this, restore, in full, the right of local self- 
 government to the States North and South. Discontinue 
 your inflammatory appeals to the race-prejudices of the 
 blacks. You are thereby doing both them and the nation 
 infinite harm. Be-.vare, lest you "teach bloody instructions 
 that being taught shall return to plague the inventor," in 
 the shape of labor strikes and bread riots, followed by an- 
 archy and bloodshed, and a financial crash in your own 
 midst. Above all, put an end to your pulpit twaddle about 
 the "nigger." Nobody is deceived by such clerical clap- 
 trap. 
 
 Your interest in the freedman is purely a bread and but- 
 
33 
 
 ter philanthropy. Demetrius and his fellow-craftsmen were 
 equally disinterested with the "freedom shriekers" of to-day, 
 and more ingenuous, because they confessed that it was with 
 them a question of profit and loss. If the freedmen should 
 ever, in a body, join the Democratic party, your occupation 
 and your gains would alike be gone. Such a revolution is 
 by no means a thing unheard of in our versatile politics. In- 
 deed, some of them are beginning to understand that their 
 best friends are not those who prate most about their edu- 
 cation and elevation, but those who, according to reason and 
 revelation, admonish them that their proper relation to the 
 white man is that of subordination. The negro has not 
 forgotten your promise of "forty acres and a mule," nor that 
 shrewd Yankee device of a "Freedman's Saving Bank." He 
 is now thoroughly satisfied that one was a stupendous swin- 
 dle and the other a mischievous lie. If he had been less slow 
 to learn, he would long ago have scouted your whole tribe 
 "as juggling fiends that keep the word of promise to the 
 ear and break it to the hope." Leave all these matters and 
 things that pertain to the freedmen to the State govern- 
 ments. They may commit blunders, but they can hardly 
 fail to manage it better than you have done in the past. 
 It is at least worth while to make the experiment. And 
 now, Doctor, whether you will hear or forbear, this method 
 is the shortest and the wisest for the adjustment of this con- 
 troversy. Furthermore, the views herein embodied are not 
 the sentiments of a single individual, but they are the con- 
 victions of an immense majority of the Southern people. 
 "Think of that. Master Brooke." 
 
 In conclusion, I commend to you a familiar fable of Esop 
 — himself a Greek slave. He relates, that, once upon a time, 
 an ass went masquerading in a lion's skin. At first, he pro- 
 duced a universal flutter and flight amongst the lower ani- 
 mals. The cheat was unmasked, however, when he at- 
 tempted to roar like the king of beasts. Thereupon, an hon- 
 est countryman proceeded to strip him of his leonine cover- 
 ing and to administer a sound cudgeling for his impudence. 
 3 
 
34 
 
 If you, dear Doctor, had studied Esop's fables more and the 
 abolitionist literature of the last half-century less, you 
 might have profited by the ass's example, and saved me- 
 the disagreeable task of inflicting this well-merited casti- 
 gation. 
 
"OUR BROTHER IN BLACK; HIS FREEDOM AND 
 HIS FUTURE." 
 
 Part I. 
 
 Such is the alliterative title of a volume by Dr. A. G. 
 Haygood, President of Emory college. It has been for 
 nearly a year before the public, but we have had no con- 
 venient opportunity until recently to give it a careful 
 perusal. 
 
 Dr. Haygood has acquired considerable notoriety by its 
 publication and, we may add, has secured the endorsement 
 of many leading journals North and South. He has en- 
 joyed for years an enviable reputation as a sprightly and 
 versatile writer for the religious and secular press. 
 
 We have known him from his early manhood and have 
 long recognized his ability and unquestionable integrity as 
 a Christian minister. He is a bold thinker and thoroughly 
 conscientious in his convictions. And yet we venture to 
 say that not a few of his latter day deliverances, especially 
 on the negro question, are grievous blunders, and will be 
 so esteemed by himself when his present ardor shall have 
 somewhat abated. 
 
 By his own admission he is a recent convert to the 
 theory embodied in this volume, and quite naturally he 
 manifests the usual fervent zeal of the neophyte. 
 
 As an advocate Dr. Haygood is certainly not lacking in 
 ingenuity. The very title of his book, if it has any prac- 
 tical significance at all, is an assumption of the physical 
 unity of the races. Surely we are not to understand that 
 this difficult ethnological problem has been set at rest 
 either by the surrender at Appomattox or the Thirteenth 
 Constitutional amendment. 
 
36 
 
 It is by no means ascertained that the negro is of the 
 same species with the Caucasian. Many learned Christian 
 men, amongst them Agassiz, have questioned whether this 
 theory has any basis whatever either in scripture or in 
 science. 
 
 We can readily see how, with the unity-dogma as a van- 
 tage-ground, such masterly orators as Wendell Phillips on 
 the platform, and Theodore Parker in the pulpit, could set 
 Massachusetts ablaze from Berkshire to Nantucket. For 
 if the negro is of identical origin with the white race, and 
 as Cowper postulated, is simply "guilty of a skin darker 
 than our own," then by an inexorable logic he is entitled 
 not only to freedom and citizenship, but to social equality 
 — and other kindred abominations that are contained in the 
 premises. A thin layer of coloring matter in the rete 
 mucosum of our African brother is hardly a sufficient reason 
 for excluding him from the table d'hote of the Kimball, 
 or ejecting him from the first-class coach of the Western 
 and Atlantic Railroad. And yet Dr. Haygood's Cincinnati 
 friend refused to share a bed with a clean negro ! Was this 
 race-instinct rebelling against the logic we are criticizing ? 
 
 Mohammed in every emergency of his career fell back 
 on a new revelation. The " New South," which is wonder- 
 fully progressive, may yet learn to spit on the " color line " 
 in this and kindred instances, even as it has apotheosized 
 Garfield and feted Sherman in the city that he burned like 
 a vandal chieftain. Bishop Warren has recently been pros- 
 pecting through the South, and since his return to the North, 
 has condemned in unmeasured terms the social disability 
 from which the "Brother in Black" still suffers in our midst. 
 The Bishop was exceedingly indignant that educated colored 
 ladies were compelled to travel in a smoking car. We have 
 never seen it on this wise, and it seems to have escaped 
 the notice of Bishops Pierce and McTyiere. Possibly our 
 Northern brother has a gift for seeing motes and was on 
 the alert for a sensational paragraph. Perhaps the "New 
 South " will " reform it altogether." 
 
 Dr. Haygood distinctly repudiates these logical sequences 
 
37 
 
 of his major premise. This w well for the Doctor, but in 
 the mean time what becomes of his argument ? 
 
 The question whether the negro is a distinct and earlier 
 creation of God than the Caucasian is a problem that de- 
 mands for its solution the most patient scientific research. 
 It is altogether outside the province of ecclesiastical dog- 
 matism — not less so than the order of the solar system. 
 When the church was all agog as to that matter a Romish 
 Cardinal, the learned Baronius, was wise enough to perceive 
 that the Bible was designed to teach us how to go to Heaven 
 and not how the Heavens go. 
 
 It may be found in the life time of some now living, that 
 there is a plurality of species of the genus homo. It would 
 be premature to assert that this is dejQnitely settled, but it 
 is not too much to say that it is probable that this whole 
 anti-slavery agitation from Wilberforce to Sumner, that the 
 fratricidal strife and bloodshed of the late civil war were 
 one, and all the results of a scientific blunder and a wrong 
 scriptural exegesis. 
 
 The leading proposition of Dr. Hay good's book is the 
 declaration that the emancipation of the Southern slaves 
 was the work of God. St. Peter tells us that " no prophecy 
 is of any private interpretation ; " the same law (if we 
 apprehend correctly the teaching of Christ in the 13th 
 chapter of Luke) holds in regard to the interpretation of 
 apparently vindictive Providences. 
 
 From sundry references to the exodus of Israel from 
 Egypt, we might infer that he regards the emancipation 
 of the negroes as a like accomplishment of His outstretched 
 arm. 
 
 By parit}^ of reasoning, he might hold God responsible 
 for the slaughter of the innocents by Herod, seeing Joseph 
 and Mary and the young child had fled into Egypt. 
 
 Would a God that cares for lilies and sparrows — to use 
 his own illustration — be unheedful of the voice of " Rachel 
 weeping for her children ?" 
 
 Indeed, Dr. Haygood believes that God had as much to do 
 with the negroes coming to this country as with Israel's 
 
38 
 
 going down into Egypt. Tlie slave trade then was a link 
 in the Providence of God. The horrors of the middle 
 passage which so often convulsed the audiences of Exeter 
 Hall were necessary factors of the divine economy, looking 
 to the election of Lincoln in 1860, and the downfall of the 
 Confederacy in April, 1865. 
 
 Most assuredly the Doctor does not mean to assert that the 
 Jehovah of the Old Testament, who instituted slavery 
 amongst His elect people, the Jews — and the Christ of the 
 New Testament, who, by His apostles, sanctioned a worse 
 form of slavery than ever was tolerated on the rice planta- 
 tions of South Carolina or the sugar estates of Louisiana, 
 that one or both of them should, in these last days, become 
 the apologists, aye, the champions of the most infamous 
 national robbery perpetrated since the partition of Poland. 
 
 Credat Judeus apella, non ego. 
 
 We believe and maintain, contrary to all this fanfaronade 
 about Providence, that the emancipation of the Southern 
 negroes was a premeditated spoliation concocted and 
 planned and prosecuted for nearly a half century by 
 Northern politicians, under various aliases, and upon sundry 
 pretexts of philanthropy. 
 
 From the day of William Loyd Garrison, at least, the Abo- 
 litionists left no stone unturned to cripple and destroy 
 Southern slavery. In the execution of this nefarious pur- 
 pose, they attacked it in the District of Columbia and 
 wherever else the national government held exclusive ju- 
 risdiction. They practically nullified, by means of mobs and 
 like appliances, the constitutional provision for the rendi- 
 tion of fugitive slaves^they incited insurrections amongst 
 the slaves, thereby imperilling helpless women and child- 
 ren. They influenced crazy John Brown to invade the soil 
 of the "Mother of States" with a like intent. 
 
 It answers a purpose now to call these "dead issues." 
 They are facts, nevertheless, and like the ghost of "the 
 blood-belted Banquo," they will not down at the bidding of 
 Doctor Haygood or any other prophet of the New Dispen- 
 
39 
 
 sation. They are part and parcel of the record upon which 
 the tribunal of universal history will adjudicate the right 
 and wrong of this controversy. We insist, furthermore, 
 that, as the North increased in relative power, it became 
 more arrogant and aggressive. It spared neither money 
 nor labor to exclude us from the common territory acquired 
 by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The burden of the 
 fight was borne by Southern troops led by Southern-born 
 Generals, but this availed nothing in the controversy. 
 Daniel Webster was locked out of Faneuil Hall for defend- 
 ing the compromise measures of 1850; and this solemn com- 
 pact between the sections was boldly set at naught in every 
 town and city of the North. The few exceptional cases 
 amount to nothing in the argument. The decade extend- 
 ing from 1850 to 1860 was a period of incessant anti-slavery 
 agitation. At its close, Abraham Lincoln, owing to the 
 dissensions of the Democratic party, was elected to the 
 Presidency. The South, goaded well-nigh to desperation 
 by the persistent assaults of the past forty 5'-ears and, hold- 
 ing to the right of secession, withdrew from the Union. In 
 our judgment it was an unwise step, but the political lead- 
 ers of the South thought otherwise, and we acquiesced. In 
 the struggle that ensued the South was greatly out-num- 
 bered in the field, and, without foreign recognition or a 
 financial crash at the North, could hardly hope for ultimate 
 success against such heavy odds. The Federal armies were, 
 however, disastrously defeated at several points, and an 
 alarming reaction occurred in the public sentiment of the 
 North. At this juncture Mr. Lincoln was urged to issue 
 his Emancipation Proclamation. He hesitated and post- 
 poned until the extremists of his party, conspicuous amongst 
 whom was the notorious Jack Hamilton, of Texas, told him 
 plainly that without it " the Union was lost." If this ver- 
 sion be true, emancipation was, as to its motive, a mere ex- 
 pedient. No sentiment of philanthropy prompted it. It 
 was simply and nakedly a desperate effort to bolster up a 
 tottering administration. It had the desired effect. It 
 consolidated the party. Like the bombardment of Fort 
 
40 
 
 Sumter, it fired afresh the Northern heart and unleashed once 
 more the dogs of war for a fresh onset on the Confederacy. 
 Henceforth slavery was doomed — the ratification of the Thir- 
 teenth Amendment being a sheer mockery. 
 
 Doctor Haygood sees in all this the finger of Providence. 
 We see in it the fortunes of unsuccessful war. 
 
 The North, emboldened by its military successes in the 
 utter overthrow of the Confederate Government and the 
 wholesale impoverishment of the South by its emancipation 
 policy, proceeded to inflict every conceivable indignity on a 
 vanquished foe. We shall not stay, however, to discuss the 
 reconstruction period. We must not in this connection 
 overlook the fact that the Government stoutly refused one 
 farthing of compensation to the South for its four millions 
 of slaves. Less than forty years before, when the British 
 Parliament, in a moment of madness, abolished slavery in 
 the West Indies, it promptly voted a handsome remunera- 
 tion to the colonists. Yet Parliament, according to the 
 theory of the British Constitution, is omnipotent, whilst 
 the American Congress trampled upon the limitations of 
 the Constitution and the principles of eternal justice to 
 consummate a partisan project and perpetuate a partisan 
 ascendency. And this, too, when the ancestors of these law- 
 givers had been enriched by the traflic in slavery, foreign 
 and coastwise, and not a few of them were, at that precise 
 time, banking, manufacturing and trading with the pur- 
 chase money received for these manumitted slaves. 
 
 We venture to say that Doctor Haygood's thanksgiving 
 for the abolition of slaver}^ like Macbeth's amen, would 
 stick in his throat at this point. He indeed pointedly dis- 
 claims an indorsement of the methods employed in this 
 matter of emancipation. We could hardly expect less 
 of him. Will he pardon us for saying that he does seem to 
 us to confound all moral distinctions when he makes God 
 the author or abettor of such a tangled web of falsehood, 
 villainies and abominations as characterize this whole work, 
 from its beginning to its end. 
 
 We take leave now of this aspect of the question and pro- 
 
41 
 
 pose to devote some space to the freedom and the future of 
 "Our Brother in Black." 
 
 Doctor Haygood seems greatly concerned to impress both 
 races with the conviction that God and not Mr. Lincoln, 
 freed the negro. Convinced as we are of his error, we have 
 sought to disabuse both races of what would prove a hurt- 
 ful delusion. But at all events he is free, and what are the 
 immediate results of this anomalous condition of the for- 
 mer slave ? Doctor Haygood argues that it has been a signal 
 blessing to both parties. In proof of this he gives us a lot 
 of statistics about the negro's intellectual advancement — 
 his increase in population, and the improved industries of 
 the South. 
 
 We have this to say at the outset — that Doctor Haygood 
 sometimes bases his conclusion on too narrow an induction 
 of facts. A witty conversation with a Federal Judge on a 
 railway car, and a few months observation in Atlanta, and 
 much besides, do not furnish sufficient data for such a sweep- 
 ing generalization. Let it not be forgotten that this is not 
 the first time that our " Brother in Black" has been put on 
 probation. 
 
 In 1791 the French Convention, at the suggestion of 
 Robespierre, by an almost unanimous vote decreed the free- 
 dom of the blacks of Hayti, one of the richest Islands of 
 the Greater Antilles. It was predicted that the blacks 
 would prosper beyond all precedent. Never was there a 
 more disgusting failure. Riot and rapine and butchery fol- 
 lowed the decree. Infants were impaled upon the pikes of 
 a brutal soldiery, and wives were violated on the bodies of 
 their dead husbands. Agriculture was abandoned, commerce 
 was destroyed. The exports in the single item of sugar 
 declined from 672,000,000 of pounds in 1791 to nothing in 
 1842. 
 
 At a later period England abolished slavery in Jamaica. 
 Wilberforce and Clarkson were jubilant on the occasion. 
 Doctor Channing, of New England, regarded it as the most 
 notable event of modern times. He prophesied that in a 
 few years Jamaica would rival in beauty and fruitfulness 
 the fabled Atlantis. 
 
42 
 
 A brief experience sufficed to dispel the Utopian dream. 
 Jamaica and its population waxed poorer and poorer, and 
 but for the subsidies of Parliament it would, ere this, have 
 been depopulated by lust and famine. 
 
 We admit that the presence of a large white population 
 in the Southern States has prevented the butchery of Hayti 
 and the impoverishment of Jamaica, The experiment here 
 is made under vastly more favorable circumstances — but the 
 end is not yet. 
 Dr. Haygood is not a statesman — but a capital college presi- 
 dent and an excellent preacher ; but if he was a statesman 
 besides he could not, from his present standpoint, see the 
 beginning of the end of this emancipation project. Leaving 
 out of view the methods by which the negro was emanci- 
 pated, we are constrained to say that the experiment hitherto 
 has been quite unsatisfactory in its results. 
 
 We confess our own disappointment. We did hope that 
 his previous training to habits of obedience, coupled with a 
 wise and cautious procedure on the part of the general gov- 
 ernment would have been followed by better consequences. 
 A gradual emancipation and a qualified suffrage would have 
 lessened the evils of the transition from bondage to liberty 
 and citizenship. But madness ruled the councils of the 
 nation, and the issue is what might have been anticipated. 
 Not less than two millions of industrious laborers were con- 
 verted into an army of tramps and idlers. Intoxicated by 
 his sudden enfranchisement the negro became inefficient 
 and unreliable as a laborer. This fact, not less than the 
 purchase of fertilizers and supplies at ruinous rates, has 
 impoverished our planters. It is not extravagant to say 
 that over half of them to-day are loaded down with mortga- 
 ges and liens, and are on the verge of bankruptcy. 
 
 To say by way of offset to this statement, that our cotton 
 crop is largely in excess of what it was before the war, is to 
 no purpose. This is explained not by the thrift or industry 
 of the freedman, but because the stimulus of high prices 
 has greatly extended the production of cotton and, more- 
 over, the growth of our population, white and colored, has 
 
43 
 
 increased the productive capacity of the country by not less 
 than forty per cent, since the close of the war. 
 
 Nor has the moral or religious status of the negro been 
 improved by his freedom. The criminal statistics of the 
 South will show that more crimes of a graver sort have been 
 committed by the negroes during the last fifteen years than 
 for fifty years preceding the war. Murder, rape, arson and 
 other felonies have been augmented a hundred fold. As 
 respects petty thieving it has become well nigh unbearable. 
 The overseer's lash has been substituted by the chain gang. 
 
 We write this more in sorrow than in anger, and believe 
 that the blame is less due to the negro than to the shameful 
 policy which placed him in a position for which he is 
 utterly unfitted intellectually and morally. In a word he 
 is largely the victim of circumstances brought about not by 
 the act of God, but by the fanaticism of a small majority of 
 the American people. 
 
 We might speak of the increase of drunkenness since the 
 dawn of their political freedom, the legalized adultery — the 
 alarming prostitution. True, these evils existed in a fearful 
 degree during slavery, but they have greatly increased, and 
 the more thoughtful and sober amongst the blacks acknowl- 
 edge and deprecate the truth. But we refrain from these 
 sickening details. 
 
 What use has the negro made of the ballot, which, as 
 Whittier says, " Executes the freeman's will as lightning 
 does the will of God." Is it not already a matter of history 
 that he has prostituted it to the vilest ends ? We do not 
 speak so much of his adherence to the Radical party, but on 
 questions of a purely local character is he not always arrayed 
 against moral reform and political progress? 
 
 He stands in the political market places of the country 
 until the eleventh hour waiting to be hired. With some 
 honorable exceptions they are, in the main, as voters, 
 bought and sold like sheep in the shambles. The outcome of 
 all this must be the demoralization of the elective franchise, 
 until some whirlwind of virtuous popular indignation shall 
 sweep it as a pestilence from the face of the earth. But 
 
44 
 
 enough on this point. We have somewhat to say of his 
 
 future. On this subject Dr. Haygood is enthusiastic to a 
 
 degree, and in his eloquence 
 
 "doth attain — 
 To something like prophetic strain." 
 
 If we maybe allowed to judge the future by the past, we find 
 nothing in the history of " Our Brother in Black " to warrant 
 any great expectations. 
 
 Africa is geologically the oldest continent on the Globe. 
 It is not all a desert as many suppose it. Modern explora- 
 tions have shown that large tracts of it are exceedingly 
 fertile. And yet what has the African race in their native 
 land ever contributed to the world's progress and enlight- 
 enment ? Did it ever produce a book of prose or poetry ; 
 a masterpiece in statuary or painting? In religion has 
 it ever gone beyond Fetichism and Devil worship? Even 
 the negro colonists of Liberia and Sierra Leone, many of 
 them educated and petted and fostered by Great Britain 
 and the United States, what have they done for their own 
 advancement or the civilization of their countrymen ? 
 
 Contrary to the general opinion, there are tribes of Afri- 
 cans every way superior to the tribes of the West Coast. 
 These better tribes have numerous representatives in this 
 country. Their ancestors were captured in war and sold to 
 the Kings of Dahomey and Ashantee, and thence trans- 
 ferred to the slave dealers. But the most of our slave popu- 
 lation came from the region that Du Chaillu visited where 
 they subsist on the bark of trees, and are but little superior 
 in their physical organization to the chimpanzee and 
 gorilla that abound on the banks of the Gaboon and Sene- 
 gambia. 
 
 More than two hundred and fifty years have elapsed since 
 they were brought to America. All this while they have 
 been in contact with the highest form of English civiliza- 
 tion, and yet but comparatively few have advanced beyond 
 the rudiments of civilization. Any dozen of our negro 
 laborers gathered out of the streets of Atlanta are neither 
 physically nor intellectually different from the same num- 
 
45 
 
 ber as represented on the tombs of Egypt of the Seventeenth 
 dynasty. 
 
 We are far from opposing the education of the negro. We 
 would be glad to believe that education would lift him to a 
 lofty plane of thought and action. But as no skill of the 
 lapidary can polish the coarse pebble into the beauty and 
 brilliance of the Kohinoor, so no scholastic drill-sergeant 
 can change the skin of the Ethiopian or give him the brain 
 of the Caucasian. 
 
 Believing, as we do, that God has created him for a sub- 
 ordinate relation to the higher races, we have no thought 
 that any species of state-craft will so counteract the Divine 
 purpose as to make them, with rare exceptions, other than 
 hewers of wood and drawers of water. Their muscles and 
 sinews qualify them for the drudgery of the field and work- 
 shop. In this sphere they will find their highest happiness 
 and greatest usefulness. 
 
 In this way will they best serve their generation, until 
 they shall be numbered with the extinct races that were 
 contemporary with the mastodon and the great Irish elk. 
 The law of the survival of the fittest is as inexorable in 
 •its working in regard to races of men as to races of animals. 
 The Aztecs and Toltecs, like the dodo and the megatherium, 
 belong to the records of the paleontologist. The negro and 
 the Indian and other inferior races cannot escape a similar 
 fate. 
 
 Dr. Haygood seems to regard the destiny of the South as 
 inseparably bound up with the elevation of the negro race. 
 Has it never occurred to him that in fifty years the blacks 
 of this country will be less than one-twelfth of oar popula- 
 tion, and therefore relatively of less numerical importance 
 than our Indian tribes one hundred years ago ? Still, he 
 advocates with impassioned earnestness what he styles the 
 New South. This phrase savors of slang unbefitting the 
 author and the occasion. If by the phrase he means an 
 organization, political or semi-religious, that shall renounce 
 the traditions of our past history, we hesitate not to say 
 we loathe the bare suggestion. We grant there is too much 
 
46 
 
 in the past that we ought to repent of and turn away from. 
 But Heaven forefend that the South should, upon any pre- 
 text of expediency, surrender her just convictions, or that 
 with an ingratitude " sharper than a serpent's tooth," we 
 should forget those gallant men whose bones bleach on every 
 battlefield from Gettysburg to the Messila Valley. 
 
 What is there, indeed, in our history from the drafting of 
 the Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson to the 
 cruel imprisonment of President Davis at Fortress Monroe 
 that should make a Southron's cheek tingle with shame ? In 
 every contest with a foreign foe we have furnished more than 
 our quota of men and money. In the halls of Congress our 
 statesmen have been ever foremost in debate, as our military 
 chieftains have been foremost in the bloody fray of battle. 
 The six most successful administrations of the government 
 were presided over by Southern men. What if in the 
 unequal strife of the civil war we were overwhelmed by 
 immense odds, God yet reigns, and the justice or injustice 
 of our cause could not be decided by the arbitrament of the 
 sword. Nor is the future glory of the South to be promoted 
 by truckling sycophancy or unmanly concessions. God has 
 given us a goodly heritage. A territory beautifully diversi- 
 fied by hill and dale — mountains *' rock-ribbed and ancient 
 as the sun," that teem with exhaustless mineral wealth ; 
 rivers that can float the commerce of a continent moving 
 majestically onward to the stormy Atlantic and the Mexic 
 sea. A territory vaster in extent than imperial Rome ever 
 shadowed Avith her eagles, " What though the field be lost," 
 the South has still the "unconquerable will," with a steady 
 purpose to hew out her pathway to a fame and a fortune 
 that shall eclipse all the refulgent glories of the past. 
 
 This she will do, despite the cant and sneer of the Puritan. 
 For in the veins of her sons courses the cavalier blood that 
 mantled in the cheeks of the titled dames and high-born 
 beauties in the court of Elizabeth, and that flashed in the 
 eyes of the knightliest that rode with Rupert at Nasby and 
 Marston-moor. There are those, too, whose Huguenot ances- 
 try followed the snow-white plume of Navarre in the des- 
 
47 
 
 perate charge at Ivry, and who suffered bonds and banish- 
 ment rather than violate their loyalty to conscience. Aye, 
 and Scotch blood transmitted from those who triumphed 
 with Bruce at Bannockburn, and of like lineage with the 
 heroes who, led by Havelock, double-quicked for ten weari- 
 some miles to the relief of Lucknow, and saved the empire 
 of the Indies to their country and to Christianity. 
 
 Tell us that a race like this is to lose its individuality ! 
 That a country like ours — hallowed by such precious memo- 
 ries, and inspired by such uplifting hopes, is to become a 
 mere appendage to New England! The distinction between 
 the North and South is more than a geographical difference. 
 It is a distinction broader than the bloody chasm of a four 
 years' conflict — a distinction that will endure while the 
 starry firmament is above us or the moral law within us. 
 
 Let us have fraternity founded in justice and consistent 
 with self respect, but aught else should be indignantly 
 spurned with the foot of contempt. 
 
 We claim not the gift of prophesy, but we know that in 
 the end the right comes uppermost. Therefore we confi- 
 dently expect that long years hence, in some Amphyctionic 
 council of the nations, the wrongs of Poland shall be redress- 
 ed — the sufferings of Ireland shall be avenged, and that the 
 right for which Lee drew his sword, and the cause for which 
 Jackson fell shall be vindicated by the verdict of universal 
 humanity. 
 
OUR "BROTHER IN BLACK"— HIS FREEDOM AND 
 HIS FUTURE. 
 
 Part II. 
 
 In the early part of the past year we felt called upon to 
 discuss, in the columns of the Sunny South, some of the ques- 
 tions suggested by Dr. Haygood in the above mentioned 
 publication. 
 
 The article, we have reason to know, was extensively 
 copied by the Southern press, and was probably read by one 
 hundred thousand of our people. 
 
 Since that time, we have been frequently solicited, and 
 have several times purposed to write a second part, with 
 especial reference to his views on "negro education," and 
 its related topics. 
 
 We have felt, all the while, a fixed dislike to such contro- 
 versial writing. But the wide publication of his late Mont- 
 eagle speech furnishes us both with a fitting opportunity 
 and ample justification. We find, on examination, that this 
 speech is largely a rehash of what he had previously written 
 in "Our Brother in Black." We, therefore, for convenience 
 sake, confine ourself chiefly to the Monteagle text. 
 
 It is a serious blunder, and we will add, a grave mistake, 
 to say, as some journalists have alleged, that Dr. Haygood 
 is either a "crank," on the one hand, or a stipendiary of 
 Northern abolitionists, on the other hand. He is, according 
 to our estimate, a man of more than average endowments 
 and scholarship. His integrity is unimpeachable. His 
 harsh and, at times, seemingly "cranky" deliverances, de- 
 note merely the strength of his convictions. His thorough 
 earnestness, more than his intellectual resources, or his skill 
 as a dialectician, makes him a formidable disputant, whether 
 
49 
 
 through the press or on the platform. These earnest men, 
 like Luther and Loyola, Thad. Stevens and Robespierre, 
 John Knox and Mohammed, have always made an impress 
 on their generation. Dr. Haygood, while far below their 
 level, has a like earnestness, and in his narrower sphere is 
 not to be snuflfed out by a sneer nor silenced by a threat. 
 
 We shall, in our discussion of his Monteagle speech, en- 
 deavor to eschew all oflFensive personalities. We propose 
 rather to give his principles the "cold steel" of stubborn 
 facts and invincible arguments. 
 
 Dr. Haygood evidently comprehends the significance of 
 the French proverb, that it is "the first step that counts" in 
 an enterprise or argument. He sets out with the assertion 
 that "the essential characteristics of the human mind are 
 the same in every race and in every age." Now, consider- 
 ing how little he in common with all of us know of the pre- 
 historic man, his averment is alike harmless and worthless. 
 Let that pass, however. He illustrates this gratuitous asser- 
 tion on this wise : "When a negro child is taught that two 
 and two are four, he learns just what a white child learns 
 when he is taught the same proposition." "Except in the 
 mind of a fool," he continues, "there is no more in this to 
 excite prejudice than for me to affirm that a negro boy, ten 
 years old, weighs as much as a white child of the same age." 
 
 This argument (if it deserves to be called an argument) 
 is utterly valueless for any legitimate purpose in this con- 
 troversy. 
 
 For example, if the capacity of the negro child to master 
 the problem that the sum of two and two is four as readily 
 as the white child, establishes that the essential charac- 
 teristics of the human mind are the same amongst all races 
 in all ages, it proves a great deal more than Dr. Haygood 
 bargained for. Suppose we test the arithmetical skill of 
 the English mastiff, Kepler. Dr. Huggins trained him 
 with the stimulus of cake to such an extent, that when 
 asked the square root of 16, he barked four times without 
 a mistake. When asked the square root of 25, he barked 
 with equal accuracy five times. When asked the quotient 
 4 
 
50 
 
 of 19+6 — 1-^-by 4, he answered 6. It is more than ques- 
 tionable whether in the case supposed by Dr. Haygood, 
 there was the exercise of any faculty that Kepler didn't 
 possess as well as either the white or black child. And 
 yet while we have read of an aged spinster that founded 
 a hospital for cats, we have heard of no Northern philan- 
 thropist who has furnished a fund to establish a college 
 for "the higher education" of dogs. Dr. Haygood has said, 
 with magisterial tone, elsewhere in this speech, that the 
 achievements of individual negroes in the matter of ad- 
 vanced education, compels a revision of the accepted phi- 
 losophy as to the capacity of the negro. With equal confi- 
 dence we might say, the evidence constantly accummu- 
 lating of the intelligeiice of dogs and horses, and even rats, 
 forces US to discard the old theory, that "instinct is the 
 reason of brutes." It is well ascertained that animals 
 do reason, and that they have a rudimentary conscience. 
 Indeed, as compared with the lower savage races of 
 men, they are separated intellectually by a narrow line 
 of demarcation. A terrier bitch can count her whelps as 
 correctly as a West Coast negress can count her children, 
 and a common dunghill fowl will count her eggs or chicks 
 about as well as an Australian savage can count his game. 
 So that the fundamental characteristics of the human mind 
 are found in the higher order of vertebrates from the rodentia 
 to which our house rat belongs, to the monkey tribes of 
 South America. We have reference to Dr. Haygood's state- 
 ment not so much for the sake of pleasantry, as because he 
 makes it a stepping stone to another proposition about "the 
 essential unity of the races." The proposition is equivocal. 
 It may mean no more than we have already conceded, or it 
 may convey an idea that no well-informed anthropologist 
 will accept without modifications that utterly destroy its 
 force in the present discussion. 
 
 This proposition is, however, the corner stone of his social 
 philosophy. His repeated declaration that he stands "on 
 the Decalogue and the Sermon on the Mount," may be the 
 result of strange ignorance of his real logical whereabouts, 
 
51 
 
 or it may be a piece of persiflage. One or the other it 
 must be. 
 
 Norman whose judgment is not warped by prejudice 
 M'ould find anything in the Decalogue or Sermon on the 
 Mount in accord with the tone of this address. True he 
 makes only an indirect allusion to slavery, but the sup- 
 posed evils of it are the bottom fact in his Monteagle 
 speech and 3^et more so in "Our Brother in Black." 
 
 Doctor Haygood can derive neither aid nor comfort from 
 the Holy Scriptures. Moses and Christ were both in round 
 terms slavery propagandists. Moses by Divine direction 
 established it and fenced it about by severe penalties. 
 Christ, although in frequent contact with it, nowhere in the 
 four Gospels condemned it, as He did on all occasions the 
 sins of the people. His Apostles, whom he himself or- 
 dained, by exhortation and otherwise enforced passive obe- 
 dience on slaves (douloi) and reproved sharply those that 
 were of a contrary mind. 
 
 Ingersoll, a rabid infidel and fierce anti-slavery fanatic, is 
 ar more consistent when he denounces the Bible for estab- 
 lishing and defending slavery. I wish Doctor Haygood had 
 been more explicit in his statement as respects the unity 
 and brotherhood of the races. Does he believe that the fif- 
 teen or more distinct races of mankind in Europe, Asia, 
 Africa, America, Oceanica and Polynesia all sprung from 
 Adam, six thousand years ago? Or does he accept the Dar- 
 winian theory of unity, that all mankind have descended 
 from the Simius Homo, the missing link between the An- 
 thropoid apes and the lowest of human savages ? His state- 
 ment as it stands is exceedingly vague. We know not 
 what is the precise import of his newly coined phrase, 
 " essential unity." We infer, however, from his general 
 teaching, that he accepts the former rather than the latter 
 view. In that event his ethnology may be theologically 
 correct, but it is scientifically absurd and scripturally 
 false, and is about on a par with Rev. John Jasper's astron- 
 omy. Jasper, who insists that the sun does move, while the 
 earth stands still, has at least one text in the Book of Joshua 
 
52 
 
 which, when literally construed, appears to sustain his 
 theory. But the Bible makes no more reference to the eth- 
 nology in question than to the theory of the tides, or to the 
 satellites of Jupiter. It does, however, suggest the exist- 
 ence of pre-Adamite races and so far has, in other instances, 
 anticipated the discoveries of physical science. 
 
 The earth has moved forward in its orbit some billions 
 of miles and carried John Jasper with it since Cuvier and 
 Blumenbach made the genus homo to comprehend only a 
 single species with three or five varieties of mankind. 
 Ethnologists, although still but " squatters in the far West 
 of learning,'' have made decided progress since Prichard 
 argued that climate and diet and association in barely six 
 thousand years sufficiently accounted for the diversities not 
 only of color and of physical structure but civilization, that 
 so strongly demarcate the tribes of men. As to the brother- 
 hood of the races we accept it as a sentiment, but not as a 
 scientific or Scriptural verity. 
 
 There is a relationship, and a most sacred one, between 
 all the races of men, and it is based not upon a common de- 
 scent, but on the humanity of the races, and yet more on a 
 common redemption. In a smaller measure we are related 
 to the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and even 
 to everything great and small, animate and inanimate, not 
 only on this earth, but throughout the universe of God. As 
 .an ethnological question, purely, we believe that Negroes, 
 Aryans, Mongolians, Indians, Eskimos, Malayans, etc., and 
 -likewise Gibbons' Gorillas, Chimpanzees and South Amer- 
 ican monkeys all belong to the zoological order of primates. 
 Nor do we credit the hypothesis of Darwin, that a negro was 
 ever evolved from an ourang outang or any other ape ; nor 
 ■do we believe that a negro or Mongolian or Malayan was 
 ever developed from a white man. We agree, substan- 
 tially, with the view of Agassiz, the great Christian an- 
 thropologist, that God created each species of men. That as 
 'there were different centers of creation for plants and lower 
 animals, so, also, for men. The Aryans, for example, were 
 created on the great central plateaus of Asia, and the negro 
 
53 
 
 in central and western Africa. We believe, furthermore, 
 that the gulf between these different species cannot be 
 bridged over by the natural selection of the evolutionist, by 
 the elementary or higher education schemes of Dr. Hay- 
 good, nor the social equality dogmas of New England di- 
 vines. 
 
 Between this theory and that of Darwin, the scientists 
 are divided. Still we suppose Dr. Haygood will dissent from 
 both and cling to the Adamic origin of all the races barely 
 six thousand years ago. 
 
 He is wise enough to know that his entire argument on 
 the negro question rests on that foundation. If it is true, 
 then all objections, not only to the education of the negro, 
 but to political and social equality, even to the extent of 
 miscegenation, may be resolved, as he expresses it, farther 
 on into "prejudice against a negro, because he is a negro." 
 Besides, slavery, notwithstanding the express testimony of 
 Christ and the Apostles, was the "sum of villainies," and 
 Jeff. Davis ought not only to have been manacled in Fortress 
 Monroe, but he ought to have been hanged as high as Ha- 
 man. Dr. Haygood, in this connection, refuses to say which 
 of the two races, on this continent, is susceptible of the 
 widest culture and capable of the largest development. He 
 loses sight of the fact that comparative anatomy teaches 
 that the negro brain, as measured by Camper's facial angle^ 
 is notably deficient in the cerebral portion. He forgets that 
 the cubic capacity of the negro cranium is one-tenth less 
 than that of the Caucasian. He ceases to remember that 
 the negro brain weighs one-tenth less than the brain of the 
 white man. We speak of averages. In not a few instances 
 the Caucasian brain has reached sixty ounces and more, 
 while the average is but fifty ounces. 
 
 While he talks learnedly of ethnic endowments and ethnic 
 developments, he commits a blunder thata Freshman ought 
 to be ashamed of. He speaks of the Britons of Caesar's time 
 as our ancestors. A common school history would have 
 shown him his error. These Britons were dark-skinned 
 Euskarians, near akin to the Basques of Gaul and Spain, with 
 
54 
 
 a slight infusion of Celtic-Aryan blood. There was not, we 
 may safely say, a Roman Legionary to be found between the 
 wall of Severus and the Straits of Dover when our Anglo- 
 Saxon ancestors, of Teutonic blood, began to colonize the 
 eastL'rn shores of England. According to eminent histori- 
 ans, these Teutonic tribes thoroughly extirpated the Brit- 
 ons. 
 
 We think, however, a considerable number of them es- 
 caped to the mountain fastnesses of Wales, the Eastern 
 Highlands of Scotland and the southwestern jmrt of Corn- 
 wall. Thosethat survived, in the midland, were at least re- 
 duced to a slavery as abjecc as that of Gurth, the swineherd of 
 Cedric the Saxon. To find our true ancestors he will have 
 to go back more than a thousand years beyond the landing 
 of Julius Cffisar, to the Aryan race, who three thousand 
 years ago produced the Homeric poems, and the literature 
 of the Vedas. 
 
 And yet he hesitates to speak of the comjDarative advance- 
 ment of such a race, and the negro who for ten thousand 
 years or other immense period has been grovelling in 
 unmitigated barbarism. With a large admixture of white 
 blood, he exhibits in a few instances a fair capacity in some 
 departments of learning. But a pure blooded negro has by 
 divine law a child's brain and a child's intellect. He may 
 acquire as a white child can do a knowledge not only of 
 grammar and geography, but wath the help of a good ver- 
 bal memory, he may acquire by rote a knowledge of lan- 
 guages. But never, under the manipulations of either 
 Oberlin or Wilberforce, has he developed even the germ 
 of the philosophical faculty. 
 
 Having disposed of these preliminar}^ questions, Dr. Hay- 
 good comes to his "higher plane " of argument. He says 
 that the negro ought to be educated. Upon this point our 
 reply shall be brief, as we reserve our elaborate answer for 
 another place in this discussion. There is such a thing 
 in judicial proceedings as a lawyer admitting himself out 
 of court. According to every legal precedent, Dr. Haygood 
 is bound to suffer a nonsuit or dismiss his case. "Every State 
 
55 
 
 in the Union with possibly a single exception," he says, "does 
 now, in principle at least, use its school funds without dis- 
 tinction of race." Why then this frequent and flagrant 
 assault on the " ignorance and prejudice " of the South ? 
 If all the States recognize the duty of educating the negro, 
 why this periodical vaporing at Washington and Monteagle 
 and Chatauqua by our reverend friend ? Don Quixote's 
 tilt at the windmill was a sensible procedure compared 
 with this lusty boxing match with his own shadow. With 
 marvelous ingenuity he constructs a man of straw, and 
 straightway proceeds to pound it with the vigor and per- 
 tinacity of a professional pugilist. And all this and 
 more like it, he undertakes to bolster up by a string of 
 theological platitudes that are quite out of place in the 
 sober discussion of a grave political problem. 
 
 This he calls his " higher plane of right and reason." We 
 confess that to us it appears a carmagnole, "full of sound 
 and fury, signif3ang nothing." 
 
 Let us then consider his " lower plane " argument. " The 
 negro," he says, " is here and here to stay." This nips 
 colonization in the bud. For who after this ex cathedra 
 announcement, will be rash enough to challenge the state- 
 ment ? Homer's "stamp of fate and sanction of God" was not 
 more authoritative than this will be with that select class 
 who always sneeze when Dr. Hay good takes snuff. 
 
 So far as we are concerned we have a painful recognition 
 of the fact "that he is here," and as to the other part of the 
 proposition, " he is here to sta}^," we are supremely in- 
 different. Let him stay or go as he likes ; nor are we fasti- 
 dious as "to the order of his going." 
 
 The statement, however, is in bad taste, as it smacks 
 somewhat of a taunt or a threat. But we are further ad- 
 monished that our Brother in Black is armed with the 
 ballot, that in some States he is in the majority, and that 
 in all the Southern States he is " a tremendous power." 
 Still seeking to terrorize the illiterate " white trash " of the 
 South, he affirms " that they are increasing steadily, 
 rapidly and faster than the whites." Let us prick this 
 
56 
 
 bubble made up of bad logic and worse arithmetic. We 
 are well apprised of the wonderful fecundity of the negress. 
 Prof. Harrison, of Virginia, speaks from personal observa- 
 tion, when he testifies that in the savage wilds of the once 
 flourishing colony of Hayti, they spawn like frogs in the 
 swamps. But unfortunately for Dr. Haygood's argument, a 
 small percentage of these survive the perils of infancy 
 long enough to reach the census tables. 
 
 The deaths amongst negro children there, not less than 
 here, are disproportionately large to the number of births. 
 In the neighboring Island of Jamaica, where the negro has 
 had all the "brotherly help" of the English Government, 
 with all the advantages of vast missionary appropriations, 
 he has steadily declined in mind and morals. Besides, 
 since his emancipation in 1833, he has increased only at the 
 rate of ten per cent, in each decade. To go farther back, 
 he barely doubled his population from 1807 to 1878. How 
 does this correspond with the increase 34.78 claimed for him 
 by the United States Census statistics of 1880. Doctor 
 Haygood says that one man of weight has impeached the 
 accuracy of that census, but that it is after all the highest 
 authority. He says likewise that the negro has increased 
 "steadily and rapidly." Is it possible that he was igno- 
 rant of the fact that from 1820 to 1870, a period of fifty 
 years, with a very slight improvement in a single decade, 
 he uniformly decreased in rate of increase until he fell 
 from 31.44 in 183C to 9.86 in 1870! In New England, where 
 he was free, he increased not exceeding nineteen per cent, 
 during the entire forty years prior to 1850. With these 
 figures, which are the "highest authority," does any man 
 believe that in the last decade his rate of increase jumped 
 at a single bound from its minimum rate of 9 86 in 1870 to 
 the unprecedented rate of 34.78 in 1880? 
 
 But we are prepared to accept Doctor Haygood's own es- 
 timate, the erroneous census of 1880 included, and demon- 
 strate the incorrectness of his other statement that the 
 blacks have increased faster than the whites. " One hun- 
 dred years ago," he says " there were in this country, seven 
 
57 
 
 hundred thousand slaves now there are seven millions. 
 That is, they have multiplied ten times." There is of 
 course a measure of uncertainty as to the exact number of 
 either whites or blacks in 1783, as there was no national 
 census prior to 1790. Taking that census as a criterion I 
 think he has fully stated the number of blacks in 1783. 
 According to the same census and the best historical data 
 besides, the white population at the same date was approxi- 
 mating two millions eight hundred thousand— but we 
 will make it in round numbers — three millions. In the 
 same hundred years the whites have increased to forty-six 
 millions and have multiplied not ten times but fifteen times. 
 At the close of our Revolutionary struggle the ratio of 
 whites to blacks was four and one-half to one — in 1880, ac- 
 cepting the disputed census returns of that year— the ratio 
 was six whites to one black. Now it becomes easy to 
 answer that terrific interrogatory of Doctor Haygood " what 
 will be the negro population in 1993?" Well, barring such 
 frightful contingencies as the impact of the comet of, 1843 
 or another glacial period resulting from a serious disturbance 
 of the solar photosphere — leaving out those cataclysms and 
 allowing the same relative increase of the two races, there 
 would be in 1993 seventy millions of blacks and mulattos and 
 six hundred and twenty millions of whites. So that the 
 ratio would then be eight whites to one black. We trust 
 these sum totals are both " interesting and instructive " to 
 Doctor Haygood. But Doctor Haygood puts in a saving 
 clause about white immigration to this country which does 
 not, however, materially affect the argument. This, we allow, 
 has contributed largely to the aggregate white population. 
 Especially has this immigration greatly increased since 
 1840. It may be well, however, for him to consider as a le- 
 gitimate set-off in part to this foreign-born population, the 
 large numbers of whites that have perished in the numer- 
 ous Indian wars of the last century — in the war of 1812 by 
 land and sea — in the Mexican war and in the four years' 
 war between the States. And yet another important item — 
 the importation of African and West India negroes from 
 
58 
 
 1783 to 1808 when the slave trade was abolished. And the 
 large number since imported in spite of every precaution) 
 as late even as 1858. Summing up hardly less than two 
 millions to be credited to relative increase of white popula- 
 tion. Making, therefore, the largest allowance for white 
 immigration, the whole statement of Doctor Haygood falls 
 to the ground. 
 
 He believes implicitly that the negro's emancipation was 
 providential and not political. We may insist with equal 
 confidence that this tide of white immigration is itself a 
 sort of providential compensation in behalf of the South- 
 But if this greater relative increase of the whites was ex- 
 clusively due to immigration how does it help his argu- 
 ment ? Whence is to come the sceptered Canute who is to 
 arrest the constantly swelling flood of industrious farmers 
 and artisans from the broad plains of Central Europe, and 
 those sturdy laborers from the Scandinavian mountains ? 
 What are his methods for staying the Irish, Scotch and 
 English immigration ? What also of the vast influx of 
 Chinamen and Japanese in future years by way of the 
 West? Add these vast multitudes to the expansion of our 
 white population and we shall have in fifty years a conti- 
 nent crowded with Mongolian and Ar\^an races representing 
 the two oldest civilizations of the world. If we may be 
 permitted the same liberty — of prophesying with Doctor 
 Haygood — we would say both in sorrow and in soberness, 
 that these poor Africans, such of them as shall escape the 
 ravagesof syphilis and small-pox and the curse of whisky and 
 starvation, will be ground to powder between these upper 
 and nether mill-stones. As he well says, "it is time to con- 
 sider facts." In the light of these facts what becomes of 
 the fanciful hypothesis of an overshadowing liCgro ele- 
 ment in 1993? Why be at pains to conjure up a hideous 
 spectre to frighten women and children? Wh}' even the 
 negro who has suffered himself to be bamboozled almost to 
 his ruin is beginning to reflect. His intuitions are wiser 
 than your conclusions. Colonization, doubtful as we are of 
 its beneficial results, is a better solution of this problem 
 
59 
 
 than your spelling-book philosophy. The Christianized 
 Indian tribes are decreasing in population and resources 
 under the shadow of church spires and in full view of 
 academies. The wild tribes exhibit a slow rate of increase 
 but no intelligent man questions that the race itself is 
 doomed. And yet the ancestors of these tribes were of the 
 same lineage with those races who built up the civilization 
 of the Aztecs and Incas — and erected Palenque and like 
 cities of Central America whose architecture indicates a re- 
 markable advancement. 
 
 Is the negro better fitted to grapple with the white man 
 in the arena of even industrial competition? In what 
 age or country has the negro shown the capacity or the dis- 
 position to rise above the lowest level of barbarism except 
 as aided by a superior race ? But hitherto you allege he has 
 had no chance for self-development. 
 
 Hear the testimony of a prominent Northern Republican 
 who has had opportunities of studying this question in all 
 its phases. In reply to my inquiry, what shall we do with 
 our Brother in Black ? he replied, " You have got to do one 
 of three things — you must remand him to a subordinate 
 position short of actual slavery, or ship him from the country, 
 or else kill him." 
 
 I replied, "That is a fearful trilemma, the first and second 
 seem now impracticable and the last is a cruel alternative." 
 
 Said he with firmness, '' One of the three is inevitable, 
 these Eastman riots and Athens mobs are significant of what 
 shall follow on a larger scale." 
 
 "But," I added, " what about educating him?" 
 
 " Oh," replied he, "that is all bosh ! We have tried it North 
 for sixty or seventy years, and they are with us as with 
 you a loathsome ulcer on the body-politic." 
 
 And although we have conceded that Dr. Haygood is neither 
 deficient in learning nor integrity, we are constrained to 
 say that on this and kindred questions he sorely needs 
 what Emerson has aptly denominated " the restraining 
 grace of common sensed 
 
 Dr. Haygood, still occupying his " lower plane," resumes 
 
60 
 
 his role as an alarmist. This time it is not the more rapid 
 increase of the hlack than the white population, but the 
 illiteracy of both races in the South. He undertakes to 
 startle the country by the announcement that there were 
 200,000 more male adults in the South in 1880 who could 
 not read, than in 1870. To make this Bombastes strain 
 more silly, he inflicts on his hearers a pitiful asthmatic 
 joke at the expense of certain philosophers who are bold 
 enough to differ with him. 
 
 He, time and again, affirms that illiteracy is steadily 
 increasing among the Southern voters. We are quite sure 
 Dr. H. does not mean to be understood as asserting that the 
 illiteracy of the whites of the South is larger in proportion 
 to the population than at former periods, and yet that is a fair 
 inference, and indeed all that gives any force to his declara- 
 tion. We have not canvassed closely the census tables on this 
 point, partly for the reason that the limitations as to age have 
 been frequently changed so as to affect the value of the results 
 deduced from the comparative tables. Even the Census 
 Bureau confesses the defect. But we venture to deny that 
 the ratio of illiteracy to white male adults has increased in 
 the Southern States, but rather has diminished with each 
 successive decade. 
 
 Take Georgia itself, and mark how plain a tale will put 
 him down. 
 
 In 1850 there were 16,000 adult white males who could 
 not read and write ; in 1870, twenty years thereafter (em- 
 bracing the civil -war period when the schools and colleges 
 were neglected) there were 21,000. This shows, compared 
 with population, a slight diminution of illiteracy. We are 
 aware that according to the census of 1880, the accuracy of 
 which has been inveighed against from all quarters and 
 by both races, the illiteracy is stated at 28,000. 
 
 Dr. Orr, the State commissioner of Georgia, whose oppor- 
 tunities of correct information were, we think, quite as good 
 as the census bureau, reported 20,000 in 1878. So that these 
 statistics are, after all, too inaccurate for any conclusion 
 except that as to Georgia, with which we are chiefly con- 
 cerned in this discussion, the illiteracy is diminishing. 
 
61 
 
 The same favorable result might be reached by a similar 
 analysis of the tabulated statements in regard to nearly all 
 the States of the Union. Let Dr. H. possess his soul in 
 patience, for if elementary education is to save the republic 
 there is less danger now than at any date since the inaugu- 
 ration of Washington. There was a vast amount of illiter- 
 acy in all the States in the earlier and purer days of the 
 first Presidents. And yet there was incalculably less official 
 corruption and defalcation during the twenty-four years of 
 Jefferson and Madison and Monroe's administrations than 
 during the eight years of Grant or the four years of Ruth- 
 erford Hayes. 
 
 . If statistics, as usually obtained, are reliable for any pur- 
 pose, we are clearly warranted in saying that there is no 
 appreciable connexion between illiteracy and crime, or 
 even illiteracy and honest and economical administration 
 of Government. 
 
 Massachusetts, that boasts of its culture, is credited by 
 the census with a larger percentage of criminals than 
 Georgia. We confess that we are not insensible to the evils 
 that have been thrust upon the country by the political 
 enfranchisement of millions of slaves, not only illiterate but 
 morally debased by centuries of barbarism. For this no 
 class of men are responsible except the anti-slavery fanatics 
 of the North. Millions of the best people of the Northern 
 States deplored it, as for the South she was driven to sub- 
 mit to this outrage by military coercion. 
 
 Dr. Haygood thinks that he understands " fairly well " 
 the unfitness of the negro for the elective function. But 
 the negro is a voter, and there's an end of it. A late English 
 writer has said with emphasis, " The most damnable pre- 
 cept of worldly wisdom is that which teaches us to accept 
 the accomplished fact. By it wrong is entrenched, might is 
 accepted for right, and the hazard of success is brought to 
 be the final test of truth." 
 
 In some other respects Dr. Hay good's statesmanship needs 
 enlightenment and enlargement. He fairly shivers with 
 a£fright at the immense illiterate negro vote. At this 
 
62 
 
 point, likewise, he needs a little of "the restraining grace" 
 above referred to as a nervous sedative. 
 
 We, of the South, ought (o understand something of the 
 logic of numbers. In the late war we learned that a mil- 
 lion of soldiers was an over-match for two hundred and fifty- 
 thousand. We found, to our cost, in the great presidential 
 fraud, that eight was a heavier number than seven. But 
 after all, the great problems of human history are not solved 
 by the Rule of Three, but by the formulas of a higher 
 mathematics, in which X Y and Z are the representatives 
 of unknown quantities. 
 
 This illiterate vote will not overthrow the Government. 
 The masses, indeed, seldom vote revolutions; and both Feder- 
 als and Confederates are satisfied on that line for the next 
 half century. After all, as we have shown, this negro element 
 of our population is a vanishing fraction. The Brother in 
 Black will become, year after year, a less influential factor 
 in national politics. Twenty years hence a constable, much 
 less a Governor, will not deign to canvass for his suffrage. 
 Anglo-Saxon blood and brain will rule muscle and sinew. 
 Dr. Haygood may have forgotten that thirty-five millions of 
 Englishmen dominate two hundred and forty millions in 
 India — although these latter are of Aryan descent — likewise 
 that thirty thousand Athenian freemen controlled the three 
 hundred thousand slaves of Attica, and yet these latter Avere 
 not negroes, but the kith and kin of races that crossed the 
 Alps with Hannibal and followed the conquering standard 
 of Alexander to the Indus. 
 
 The negro, with or without the spelling book, will never 
 destroy this Government. Dr. Haygood may, therefore, dis- 
 miss his fears, put on his night cap and dream to his heart's 
 content of the coming Aristotles, Platos, Bacons, LaPlaces 
 and Newtons of the negro race ; and of that grand Christian 
 Empire that Livingstone (grand soul as he was) thought of 
 founding on the shores of the Zambesi. Let him sleep 
 soundly and wake up to find not a feather plucked from the 
 wing or tail of the bird of freedom, the star-spangled banner 
 still booming, and nation still spelt with a big N, if the 
 
63 
 
 democracy shouldn't go into power and put the Ship of State 
 again on the old JefFersonian tack. 
 
 We have now reached a stage in this discussion when it 
 becomes necessary to inquire as did patient Job, what does 
 all this arguing reprove ? Doctor Haygood asserts that the 
 State Governments are committed to the policy of negro edu. 
 cation, and that they are estopped from any discrimination 
 on account of race or previous condition of servitude. Has 
 the South expressed any unwillingness to help in the edu- 
 cation of the negro? So far from it, thej- were doing it at 
 the very hour when before his Monteagle audience he 
 scoffed at their ignorance and prejudice, and twitted them 
 for wanting to keep them in ignorance that they might the 
 better enslave them. We quote his own words : "Intelli- 
 gence spoils no man for anything that a man ought to do in 
 this world. And were it otherwise what right before God 
 has one human being to keep another human being in ig- 
 norance in order to keep him his slave ?" "Before God" to 
 borrow his own almost irreverent expletive, what has the 
 patient and long suffering Southern States done to deserve 
 such an accusation ? Well nigh impoverished by a shame- 
 ful confiscation of our negro property we have yet from our 
 scanty earnings contributed millions to the education of our 
 former slaves. The whites bear almost the entire burden 
 of the civil list, pay the principal and interest of an enor- 
 mous public debt imposed largely by a carpet-bag dynasty. 
 We pay a poll tax and give half the rental of the State road 
 and other special taxes to a school fund that is distributed 
 2:)ro rata for the edudation of both races — giving three 
 months tuition to ninety thousand negro children per 
 annum. And still we are denounced for our opposition to 
 negro education. Doctor Orr, the State School Commis- 
 sioner, says that in IS'iS there were seven hundred and 
 fifty thousand negro children enrolled in the Southern 
 States, at a cost certainly of not less that two millions of dol- 
 lars. And of this amount the white tax-payers contributed 
 fully 95 per cent, of the entire outlay. 
 
 Dr. Whedon, to whom we have paid our respects else- 
 
64 
 
 where, claims that we owe these former slaves all that we 
 have, either as principal or interest for wages earned during 
 their long bondage. We suppose Doctor Haygood will not 
 endorse this proposition, and still we are not advised of the 
 extent of his demands. He talks of the liberality of the 
 North who have sent twenty-four millions South since the 
 war for the Freedmen's education. This is something less 
 than six cents per capita of its population per annum. 
 Of this amount seventy-five per cent, went in the way of 
 salaries to a class of men and women who, with rare excep- 
 tions, were not wanted at home, and who were prompted by 
 filthy lucre and a fanatical hatred of the South, Doctor 
 Haygood upbraids us for not appreciating their unselfish 
 labors in this behalf He grants that there were a few 
 marplots — but in the main they were *' devoted men and 
 women." The influence of their teaching we venture to 
 say has damaged our industrial interests — has tended to in- 
 tensify race antagonisms — and like the Egyptian plague of 
 the frogs the evil of their instruction has injured the peace 
 of our firesides, and the comfort of our homes. In a word 
 these indoctrinations have but served to exasperate the 
 negro and postpone if not utterly defeat the " era of good 
 feeling" between the races that every good man sincerely 
 wishes may be inaugurated. 
 
 Doctor Haygood next considers the objections to negro 
 education which he classifies under four heads. Two of 
 these objections, "ignorance and "stinginess," are of such 
 limited range that they are not entitled to consideration. 
 His third reason '' prejudice against a negro, because he is 
 a negro," is well nigh equally circumscribed. There are 
 instances in which this prejudice does exist. But in an 
 immense majority of cases the assertion is both a palpable 
 begging of the question and an unwarrantable impeach- 
 ment of the motives of men as wise and conscientious as 
 himself. Doctor Haygood ought to know that the idea 
 of common-school education at the South is not the off- 
 spring of his fertile brain. It was advocated by much abler 
 men when he was shooting marbles or trundling a hoop in 
 
65 
 
 the classic precincts of Watkinsville. Before even his first de- 
 liverances on the negro question the Legislatures of all the 
 Southern States had made provision for the elementary edu- 
 cation of both races. There are however a great multitude 
 of our people who do not think that education is restricted 
 to the school room, with its globes and maps and black- 
 boards. Men who honestly and wisely believe that in the 
 matter of education the negroes greatest need is moral ad- 
 vancement. We think that this can be best effected 
 through the agency of a non-political Gospel and next to 
 this in importance, if not equal to it, is for them to be 
 trained to industry, not in schools of technology, but in the 
 ■cotton-patch and work-shop. 
 
 Universal education, if it were practicable, is not such a 
 pressing necessity for the health of the body politic as a 
 Avell organized labor system. Hugh Miller was certainly fit 
 to be reasoned with, and yet he likened this vaunted scheme 
 of popular education to an effort to convert brass farthings 
 into gold guineas, by sheer dint of scouring. Dr. Haygood's 
 enthusiasm on this point is suggestive of Robin Roughhead's 
 plans, in the farce of "Fortune's Frolic." Robin declared, 
 after his sudden enrichment, that there should be neither 
 widows nor orphans in the parish, for he would marry the 
 former and father the latter. Dr. Hay good is likewise re- 
 solved that there shall be no illiteracy in this country. Not 
 only the whites shall be cared for, but the blacks as well. 
 He seems hopeful of an educational millenium, Avhen buck 
 negroes, who ought to be at the anvil or between the plow- 
 handles, shall be able to construct Latin hexameters like a 
 senior wrangler at Oxford. When, besides, colored damsels, 
 whose proper place is at the cooking stove and the wash tub, 
 will speak French with the Parisian accent, and all the lit- 
 tle darkies shall be organized into spelling ,bees in every 
 town, hamlet and neighborhood, from the Penobscot to the 
 Rio Grande. If anybody should dissent from these LTtopian 
 theories, he insists on calling in the fierce Arabs who burnt 
 the Alexandrian library. If anybody ventures a doubt that 
 the mastery of the three R's is not of supreme importance 
 
66 
 
 to the national well-being, then let our colleges and school- 
 houses be razed to the ground or consumed to ashes. Such 
 a spectacle of "dire combustion and hideous ruin" is enough 
 to give "Uncle Sam," the Nation's mythological daddy, a 
 touch of the nightmare. 
 
 Of course. Dr. Haygood does not literally intend all this, 
 but such is the drift of his oratorical flourishes and rhetori- 
 cal bravuras in this connection. 
 
 Now a vast number of the Southern people are rightly per- 
 suaded that three R's, as he classically expresses it, without 
 moral and industrial training, will only help to make the 
 negro a more expert rogue and forger, and a more incorri- 
 gible loafer and dead-beat. For this reason our people have 
 contributed vast sums in this direction. True Dr. Haygood, 
 in a published communication, says he never knew but one 
 Southern man to contribute as much as one thousand dol- 
 lars to the help of the negro. He makes no account of the 
 fact, that can hardly have escaped his notice, that the 
 Southern whites have paid millions to the building of their 
 churches and school-houses and to furnish them with books 
 and other facilities and to clothe and feed the aged and sick 
 and helpless amongst them. Nor this in the way of taxa- 
 tion, but voluntary offerings, an amount which in the ag- 
 gregate greatl}^ exceeds the boasted liberality of the Freed- 
 man's Aid Society, which persistently blows a trumpet to 
 attract the public gaze to its beggarly alms. These name- 
 less and numberless charities of the South, like the widow's 
 mite, are not incorporated in Annual Society reports nor in 
 the United States census statistics ; but their "record is on 
 high." So much for what he curtly styles "p-ejudice against 
 a negro, because he is a negro." 
 
 The 4th ground of objection, which he states is the appre- 
 hension of two- evils, supposed to be consequent upon the ed- 
 ucation of the negro. 1st. That "it spoils him as a laborer." 
 Now this, we observe, is a question of fact to be ascertained 
 by history and extensive observation. His sweeping decla- 
 ration "that education is never a disqualification for any 
 thing," is simply sophomoric, and so, also, the aSberti<m that 
 
67 
 
 the opinion that in the case of the negro (whose race-ten- 
 dencies are to slothfulness and vagabondism) it might fos- 
 ter idleness, is "mean, cowardly and the tyranny of boss- 
 ism." Does not this rigmarole savor of "sham and cant." 
 To us it seems a very transparent sham and a most offen- 
 sive cant, the like of which is seldom heard outside of a Pu- 
 ritan conventicle. 
 
 As an offset to this we oppose the historical truth that in 
 the West Indies and Northern States, where they have had 
 for more than a half-century schools of every grade, they are 
 notoriously inefficient and untrustworthy as laborers. Here 
 in our own midst it is the almost universal testimony of 
 farmers, mechanics and housekeepers that they have dete- 
 riorated greatly. 
 
 There are few farmers in Georgia that would not greatly 
 prefer a negro of the ante-bellum pattern, as a farm hand, 
 to the best of the "new issue." For the chief industrial pur- 
 suits of the country, the education of the negro, as far as the 
 experiment has been carried, North and South, is a positive 
 disadvantage. Any thing, at most, above a merely element- 
 ary training, does disqualify the present generation for any 
 purpose beyond the dirty work of a ward-politician or the 
 swaggering insolence of a street bully. 
 
 As a rule, the freedmen throughout the South work 
 barely five days in the week. They flock to every court and 
 every circus — they frequent every political and religious 
 assemblage, and take stock in every railroad excursion with- 
 out reference to the condition of the growing crop, and then 
 at the close of the year, complain bitterly that they have no 
 surplus money for their labor. We submit to Dr. Haygood, 
 if a stringent and well-enforced vagrant law is not a more 
 imperative necessit}'- than any number of primary schools. 
 We allow, in the foregoing statement, for many exceptional 
 cases. Most of these, however, still speak the dialect of 
 Uncle Remus, and say "Ole Massa," instead of "Boss." 
 When the last of that sort dies let him be buried at the ex- 
 pense of the State — let General Toombs, the Rienzi of Geor- 
 gia, pronounce the funeral oration, and let the Legislature 
 
68 
 
 erect a monument to him as high as that at Bunker Hill. 
 Nor is there the slightest pertinency or force in the asser- 
 tion that the objection we are discussing applies as well 
 "to the education of poor whites " 
 
 There is, according to our theor}', a marked difference be- 
 tween the two races. The "poor white" boy is, in our esti- 
 mation, greatly superior to a negro boy, although the latter 
 may weigh as much as the former. Dr. Haygood's nebu- 
 lous views of ethnology may prevent him from seeing that 
 this question is not purely a question of avoirdupois. The 
 distinction lies deeper than the color of the skin — the crea- 
 tive hand that formed them both made tliem for different 
 spheres of activit}'. Therefore it is that their intellectual 
 constitution is radically different. So that to reason from 
 one race to the other involves a manifest absurdity. 
 
 And yet few men in the South object to the negro having 
 his share of the school fund, although he contributes hardly 
 any thing to it. Indeed, thousands of slaves were taught 
 to read and write, not only " before Appomattox," but before 
 Dr. Haygood's heroine of Canterbury Green was badgered 
 by a Connecticut mob. As before said, Dr. Haygood, in re- 
 gard to this whole question, is wearying himself in fighting 
 a " man of straw." While thus industriously and vehe- 
 mently beating the air, he makes a solemn appeal to histor}'. 
 This time against a Ku-Klux monstrosity, that he calls 
 " repression." He cites the Russian system of government 
 as the best illustration of his meaning. This we infer is 
 an argument against keeping the negro in his normal rela- 
 tion to the superior race. 
 
 We might with equal propriety refer to the madness of 
 Revolutionary France, as an argument for the divine right 
 of kings, and the need of an omnipresent constabulary. We 
 are alike opposed to the Russian knout and the French 
 guillotine. But if shut up to such an alternative, any sane 
 man would prefer a "despotism tempered by assassination," 
 to an anarchy like that of 1789, when in Paris and Lyons 
 and Bordeaux, a brutal rabble sung the Marseillaise, the 
 death chant of the best and noblest blood of the land. When 
 
69 
 
 all of virtue and worth was seeking refuge in Switzerland 
 and Germany, or else standing bravely to the National 
 colors, in the single department of La Vendee. 
 
 Then and there repression Avas unmistakably demanded. 
 Bonaparte understood this when, after years of weltering 
 anarchy, he turned his shotted guns on the insurgent 
 sections of Paris, and by a dozen rounds of grape and canis- 
 ter, put an end to that " dance of death." 
 
 It is well for Dr. Haygood to consider that the maintenance 
 of law and order is not repression in any odious sense. 
 The enforcement of subordination is not repression. More- 
 over, repression has its uses. The policeman's club is a 
 badge of repression; the penitentiary and the gibbet are 
 painfully repressive to thieves and murderers. The Penal 
 Code of ever}^ government on earth is sternly repressive, 
 and the burning hell of the Christian creed is the very 
 climax of repression. 
 
 Wisely does the judicious Hooker say, that law is the 
 voice of God and the harmony of the universe. And this 
 majestic law in its first and last analysis means eepression. 
 An occasional study of these rudiments of jurisprudence is 
 good "for the use of edifying." 
 
 If Dr. Haygood will point out any legal discrimination 
 in any Southern State, against any class of our pojjulation, 
 it will be time to discuss repression from his standpoint. 
 Until he does this let him for the sake of decency spare the 
 South his furious invectives. 
 
 With some he says there is an objection to negro educa- 
 tion, from " a vague fear of something that is called social 
 equality." There is surely nothing " vague " about the 
 Civil Rights Bill, which was as co the spirit of it is designed 
 to gratify partisan hate and to humiliate a fallen foe. 
 That there is "something " in it is evident from the fines 
 and imprisonments that have been actually suffered for pre- 
 tended violations of it. Only the other day the keeper of 
 a restaurant, in New Jersey, was fined for refusing to admit 
 a negro to social equality with his white guests. That the 
 law is a partial nullity in some places is because an en- 
 
70 
 
 lightened^public sentiment condemns it as only less iniqui- 
 tous than the Norman Curfew. 
 
 Dr. Haygood is partially correct for once, when sa3'S that 
 legislative enactments cannot regulate social intercourse. 
 But they can and do inflict severe penalties, and yet more 
 intolerable outrages. They furnish a vantage ground to 
 those political adventurers who clamor so loudly and so 
 long for the elevation of our " Brother in Black." 
 
 Dr. Haygood, however, suggests that this mysterious 
 " something " called social equality cannot possibly do any 
 harm, even if the Statutes at Large, backed by a file of bayo- 
 nets, undertake its enforcement, because of certain affinities 
 which settle the whole matter. This sounds like a fresh 
 discovery, but it is after all unwittingly borrowed from the 
 metaphysics of Free-Loveism. Down South scarcely one in 
 a hundred has ever heard of Free-Loveism, but up North 
 they understand it "fairly well." Especially in the model 
 commonwealth of Massachusetts, where everybody reads and 
 writes and anybody can obtain a divorce. The philosophy 
 of it is there a theme of fireside conversation. If you 
 chance to be in Massachusetts on the Sabbath, go to an 
 average church and you will recognize the ghostly minister 
 by his faultless necktie and his conventional coat and vest. 
 If you listen you will find that he preaches a " Gospel of 
 abuse," spiced with an occasional spread-eagle reference to 
 Lexington and Bunker Hill, and a fulsome tribute to 
 the American Union. If you examine his appreciative 
 congregation you will find in that pew a burly deacon who 
 grew immensely rich by shouting for the " Flag," at a con- 
 venient distance from the rebel guns, and manufacturing 
 shoddy shoes for the army ; not far off sits a " reverend 
 seignor," possibly a selectman of the town, who enjoys 
 the distinction of sitting in the same congregation with 
 three wives, two of them already divorced for want of 
 "a^n%," and the third waiting her turn. The sermon ended, 
 now comes the closing prayer. With uplifted hands the 
 surpliced hypocrite thanks God for the safe voyage of the 
 Mayflower and the glorious civilization of Massachusetts, 
 
71 
 
 Bat, beyond all, he blesses God that they are not as vile as 
 the wicked and unrepentant slaveocrats of Georgia, nor 
 even as sensual and devilish as the Polygamous Mormons of 
 Utah. Dr. Haygood's theory of elective affinities may 
 find acceptance there, but to our mind there is neither 
 religion or statesmanship in such schoolboy philosophy. 
 
 This social equality means something with the negro, 
 who has been industriously taught by pulpit and press, and 
 a host of Yankee school marms, that he is the equal of the 
 white man and, if he hadafair chance, perhaps his superior. 
 That he is of the same blood and the offspring of tbe same 
 Universal Father. Who shall liinder him from intermarri- 
 age with the blue-eyed Saxon or the dark-eyed Castilian ? 
 
 Here is " dynamite and death and hell!" Here are the 
 seeds of race conflicts and midnight conflagrations. History 
 sacred and profane is full of it from Cain, the first miscege- 
 nationist, to the large number of negroes that are now in our 
 chain gang for rapes perpetrated on defenceless white 
 women. Not only in grosser forms, but in many smaller 
 ways, this struggle for social equality is exhibiting itself 
 in town and countr3^ Men like Dr. Whedon who caress 
 Dr. Ha3'good with one hand and buffet him with the other. 
 Who say in one breath that he is the ablest preacher and 
 foremost statesman of the South, and in the next that the 
 Federal armies emancipated him (Dr. Haygood) as well as 
 the negro. Men of Whedon's stamp and calibre would 
 rejoice at the utter wreck of our Southern civilization and 
 the utter overthrow of white supremacy from Maryland to 
 Texas. 
 
 And yet, forsooth, it is a " vague fear of something called 
 social equality." This is assuredly a mild wa^^ of putting 
 a problem that is a standing menace to the peace and pros* 
 perity of the whole nation. 
 
 But Dr. Haygood is not content with the education 
 of the negroes, even by the white tax-payers of the 
 South. He insists that the work must be incomplete, 
 unless the teaching be done partly by the Southern 
 whites. This, whether intended (which we do not 
 
72 
 
 believe) or otherwise, is in the same direction of social 
 equality. Any unwillingness on the part of Southern men 
 or women to engage in this enterprise is not simply absurd,, 
 but farther, it is positively " sinful." 
 
 We are prepared to make allowance for the confused 
 moral perceptions of a Professor of Mental and Moral 
 Philosophy, who makes conscience in matters of ethical 
 truth a surer guide than reason, as diflerentiated from the 
 merely logical understanding. According to this hypothesis 
 Ave should have as many standards of absolute right as there 
 are degrees of spiritual illumination amongst individuals 
 and races. 
 
 But this teaching of negroes by Southern whites is not a 
 theological but a social problem. Indeed, it is rather a 
 question of taste, or some might say of smell, and of the fitness 
 of things, and will be so treated by the great majority of 
 level-headed people. Doubtless Dr. Haygood can find a 
 number of honest enthusiasts who will respond; and as 
 Trustee of the Slater fund he can reckon on a larger num- 
 ber who will seek such employment for the sake of emolu- 
 ment. Whether they will be discounted or suffer social 
 ostracism will depend, as he argues elsewhere, on " the 
 affinities.''^ Hitherto in despite of the Civil Rights Bill 
 they have kept negroes from our tables and parlors, and if 
 these marvellous "affinities" should operate to a similar 
 exclasion of the white teachers of negro schools, it is Dr. 
 Haygood's funeral and not ours. '■ Great changes" he says, 
 '' occur in a life-time ;" and if he will let patience have its 
 perfect work " these prejudices may be buried." "Birnam 
 Avood njay come to Dunsinane," as Shakespeare phrases it. 
 The bramble may be promoted not only to equality with, 
 but to supremacy over the vine and the olive as in the 
 parable of Jotham. 
 
 Possibly Avhen Dr. Haygood's youngest boy shall have 
 attained to the ripe age of Methusaleh, the Ethiopian 
 shall have changed his skin, and fashions so altered that 
 the native aroma of our Brother in Black, may be preferred 
 to Lubin's choicest extracts When that time arrives. 
 
73 
 
 whether sooner or later, it will require more than a dozen 
 Slater funds to pay the salaries of the Southern white men 
 and women, who will offer themselves willingly for this 
 service, which he assures us " angels would delight " in 
 doing. 
 
 He is startled if not indignant at the inconsistency of 
 our Southern ladies in teaching negroes to sew and cook, 
 or of our lawyers and doctors practicing law and prescribing 
 medicine for them; and yet either not teaching or else dis- 
 countenancing others tor teaching negro schools. Dr. Hay- 
 good had better look after his own consistency bofore he 
 hurls stones at other folk's glass houses. He will preach 
 and exhort and pray with a negro bishop until midnight, 
 and yet if the bishop should propose to share a clean bed 
 with him, he might not fight, but he would at least " turn 
 away in a rage." 
 
 Some wicked journalist has suggested that Dr. Haygood 
 show his "faith by his works," that he exchange positions- 
 with Dr. Callaway for example. That journalist ought to 
 know that preachers are sometimes chargeable with in- 
 consistency. Not a few in and out of the pulpit point 
 out the steep and thorny way, whilst themselves "the 
 primrose path of dalliance tread." 
 
 Seneca, the philosopher, the most notorious usurer and 
 money lender of Nero's court, lectured Lucilius on the 
 beauties and blessings of poverty. Froude, the English 
 historian, says that he advised Lucilius to try at short 
 intervals the beggar's fare, and the beggar's pallet, so that 
 he might know how to sympathize with the sufferings of 
 povert}'. 
 
 Notwithstanding this cheap advice to Lucilius, we no 
 where read that Seneca, the Jay Gould of his generation, 
 ever failed when in health to eat according to Roman 
 usage, two "square m^als" every day throughout the 
 year. 
 
 We do not question Dr. Haygood's right to refuse the 
 bishop's request. As said in a former paper, it was race 
 instinct, rebelling against his own logic; but seriousl}^ 
 
74 
 
 practice preuches more effectively than precept. So much 
 for Southern white teachers of negro schools. 
 
 In his summing uj), Dr. Haygood quotes the prophecy of 
 Jefferson, in 1782 : " Nothing is more certainly written in 
 the Book of Fate, than these people are to be free ; nor is 
 it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live 
 in the same Government ? " Be it remembered that was 
 in 17<S2. Mr. Jefferson, although he continued a practical 
 Emancipationist, greatly modified his views before his 
 death in 1824. Until his dying day he held thiit the 
 question of domestic slavery belonged exclusively to the 
 State Government, and then not without fair compensa- 
 tion to the owners. No man of the present century ever 
 had a heartier contempt for those wretched miscreants who 
 urged the abolition of slavery by the General Government, 
 even in those places where it had exclusive jurisdiction. 
 So that the " Sage of Monticello " was at no time in s^an- 
 pathy with that party who shamefully robbed the South of 
 its millions of slave property. 
 
 Subsequent events have shown that Mr. Jefferson was 
 right in his first prediction, and unless the history of the 
 world from the Book of Joshua downwards is at fault— the 
 second prediction that the two races cannot dwell together 
 in unity is only awaiting a speedy fulfillment. Doctor 
 Haygood accepts the former part of the prophesy but re- 
 jects the latter. And yet Doctor Haygood may search in 
 vain for a solitary historical jDrecedent when two races, so 
 radically dissimilar as the whites and blacks and so nearly 
 balanced in numerical strength, ever inhabited the same 
 countr}^, but that slavery or serfdom or extermination was 
 the fate of the inferior. He says that Mr. Jefferson might 
 have been right as to infidel France or pagan Rome. Here, 
 as usual, he is unfortunate in his historical I'eferences. In- 
 fidel France in the matter of negro emancipation was many 
 years in advance of Christian England. The same conven- 
 tion that dethroned the God of the universe and abolished 
 the Christian Sabbath decreed the emancipation of the 
 negroes of San Domingo. This was done while Christian 
 
75 
 
 England and Puritan Massachusetts and Connecticut were 
 kidnapping negroes on the African coast to sell to Southern 
 and West Indian planters. 
 
 Doctor Johnson, the autocrat of the club-room, said on 
 one occasion, that the Devil was the first Whig- he might 
 have said with greater truth that Robespierre was the first 
 Abolitionist. Robespierre was ahead of Wilberforce and 
 Clarkson. Indeed the master-spirits of American abolition- 
 ism were largely men who scoffed at religion and the Bible, 
 and said with Tom Paine, himself an Abolitionist, that Jesus 
 Christ was "a bastard begotten by the Holy Ghost" As 
 for Pagan Rome the first step towards the downfall of pub- 
 lic liberty was the admission of the inferior races to Roman 
 citizenship. This, more than Pharsalia and Phillippi, paved 
 the way to the Empire and to the final visitation of the 
 Goths and Vandals. As to the second prediction Doctor 
 Hay good modestly thinks that if Mr. Jefferson had studied 
 French infidelity less and Christianity more he might have 
 been of a different opinion. 
 
 We appreciate the value and power of Christianity. But 
 we should be blind to the facts of history if we did not 
 know that while it has softened in some instances the evils 
 of war, it has for nearly two thousand years vindicated 
 the Divine testimony that He canie not to send peace on 
 the earth but a sword. During all this period, upon one 
 specious pretext or another, it has been the occasion and 
 inspiration of the most destructive wars that have desolated 
 the world. We believe, notwithstanding, that these con- 
 vulsions are like the storms that purify the natural atmos- 
 phere. By this means he is winnowing the chaff from the 
 wheat and preparing the way to a higher civilization. This 
 is indicated in the gradual decay of the lower races of men 
 and animals. For some sentimental philanthropist to weep 
 over these unsearchable but inflexible judgments of the 
 Most High is like Sterne's moralizing over a dead ass or 
 Mark Twain phedding tears at the hypothetical tomb of 
 Adam. 
 
 The feud of Saxon and Celt, although both of Aryan 
 
76 
 
 descent, is written on every page of modern history, and 
 different forms of religion have only served to intensify it- 
 As between the blacks and whites, both on the same political 
 level the former, with or without bloodshed, will waste away 
 like the French of Louisiana and Canada and the Spaniards 
 of Florida. The law of species amongst human races is as 
 much the law of God as the law of repentance and faith 
 and it will assert itself in the face of canting religion- 
 ists of every grade and denomination. 
 
 Doctor Haygood flatters himself that with one foot on the 
 Decalogue and the other on the Sermon on the Mount he 
 can solve all problems that may be submitted. Hitherto, 
 however, his decisions have only served " to embroil the 
 fray." His utterances have stimulated partisan strife and 
 bitterness, notabh' have they kept the negro population in 
 a state of unrest and disquietude. The harmony of the 
 church is imperilled so that a second division is a matter of 
 newspaper discussion. We write thus plainly because we, 
 not less than himself, have the welfare of the negro race at 
 heart. We have associated with them from our infancy. 
 They were our playmates in boyhood. They have nursed 
 us in sickness and served us with more or less fidelity in 
 health. Asa slave owner we treated them with uniform 
 kindness and forbearance. When they were wrested from 
 us by military violence we gave them the best outfit our 
 impoverished condition would allow 
 
 Now that they are free, we counsel them to a recognition 
 of the truth that they are a subordinate race. Any attemjyt 
 at rivalry will be most disastrous to them sooner or later. 
 The whites have the advantage in original, intellectual and 
 moral endowments. This is supplemented by a civilization 
 of thousands of 3 ears. They have, and will maintain and 
 increase immensely, their numerical ascendancy. They 
 have the wealth in houses and lands, and stock and rail- 
 r,)ads and money. He is a madman or an enemy who will 
 advise them to antagonize this overwhelming odds They 
 may remain here in safety on the condition^; stated. If 
 you are too much inflated by self conceit to accept these 
 
77 
 
 terms of settlement, then seek out West or East or North 
 some Canaan where 3-011 may establish a colony of your 
 own. This, we confess, is a sad alternative. Xegro govern- 
 ments and negro colonies have been uniform failures. But 
 it is better to risk this tlian to provoke race rivalries and 
 race conflicts. The white inunigi-ation to this country, if 
 not checked by unforeseen causes, in another half centur}' 
 will fall but little short of half the present aggregate popu- 
 lation of the whole countr}^, white and black. This flood 
 of immigration is rising now. Presently it will cover the 
 lower hills ; in fifty years it will be creeping up the sides 
 of the loftiest mountains. Already you are feeling the pres- 
 sure of white competition. If you do not amend your ways 
 this conquering Aryan race, not with sword or spear, but 
 with their greater industrial qualifications, will drive you 
 out of the labor market. You are straitened even to subsist 
 now, it will be much worse then. Labor strikes will only 
 sink you deeper in suffering and privation. As for insur- 
 rectionary movements, with such fearful odds against you, 
 they could only end in shame and discomfiture on the 
 gallows or in the chain gang. Educate j^our children as best 
 you may be able, but don't depend on State or Federal Gov- 
 ernment, or freed man's aid societies and Slater funds. 
 Abandon forever the dead-head system. Earn 3'our bread 
 and whatever else j'-ou need by the sweat of your brow. 
 
 Much that you have learned from Northern teachers, 
 from press and pulpit and platform, must be unlearned. 
 The Southern slave-holders, amongst whom you have been 
 fed and clothed and cared for, are your best friends. With- 
 out their sympathy and help yours is a hapless and hope- 
 less lot. For a century at least you and j^our j^osterity may 
 be well satisfied with little knowledge of books and more 
 knowledge of farming and cooking and like industries. 
 Keep aloof from politics and vote, if at all, with your white 
 neighbor. Dont be ambitious to get into the jury box and 
 to figure on the police force. Study industry and economy, 
 and strive to show yourselves worthy of your citizenship by 
 the acquirement of those cardinal virtues, sobriety and 
 
78 
 
 honesty. Then your freedom may prove a blessing, and not 
 a blighting curse to both races. Your future, now dark 
 with lowering tempests, may become brighter than it now 
 seems to your wisest friends. This, whatever you may 
 think is a hopeful picture. Knowing, as we do, your true 
 place in the universe and your probable destiny as seen in 
 the light of history, we fear that even this golden vision is 
 as vain as the "fancies of a sick man's dream." 
 
 We might desist at this point, but our task is not done 
 yet. The Paine Institute, which Dr. Haygood champions 
 with accustomed zeal, is chiefly of local interest and does 
 not come properly within the scope of this general discus- 
 sion. Indeed the project as to the main purpose of it is not 
 a new thing under the sun. If we are not mistaken other 
 churches besides the Methodist have attempted something 
 in that direction. However that may be the Paine Insti- 
 tute was inaugurated by the late General Conference of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church South, to assist a particular 
 colored church in the education of negro preachers and 
 teachers. We do not believe in the infallibility of a Gen- 
 eral Conference nor did the Fathers, or else we would have 
 had no restrictive rules. We are quite sure they com- 
 mitted a blunder in sending around amongst the Annual 
 Conferences the proposition to strike off" the suftix South 
 from the corporate name of the Church. This was done in 
 part it would appear to gratify a few Lindley Murrays of the 
 Conference who ignorantly regarded it as ungrammatical, 
 and a yet larger number who thought it sectional if not war- 
 like. This we think was unwise. It will inevitably raise an 
 issue that will greatly distract our membership. If carried 
 it will certainly produce more or less disruption. A blind 
 man can see " that the logic of it is unification of the two 
 Methodisms." Whether the General Conference perpetrated 
 a blunder in the establishment of Paine Institute is a ques- 
 tion Ave are not prepared to answer. We are disposed to 
 think that our really meritorious protege the Colored Meth- 
 odist Episcopal Church of America, will gravitate to another 
 centre. Our connection with it was provisional from the 
 
79 
 
 outset. But the enterprise drags and this is largely due to 
 unwise methods of advocacy. It has been greatly hindered 
 by needless complications with other problems. We mean 
 no disrespect when we express our belief that a lurking 
 suspicion that Doctor Haygood was its God-father has not 
 materially helped its fortunes. It is well officered, and we 
 shall cheerfully contribute to its support if it is kept to its 
 proper work. If on the other hand the support of Paine's 
 Institute in anywise involves the endorsement of Doctor 
 Haygood's personal views on the negro question or similar 
 views, we are safe in saying that the great body of Southern 
 Methodists everywhere will repudiate it squarely and 
 emphatically. We favor the largest liberty of conscience 
 and of speech on all questions that may arise. Doctor 
 Haygood is unquestionably sincere and upright, but not- 
 withstanding his acknowledged ability and deserved promi- 
 nence in the past, he has ceased to be a representative in 
 this matter of Georgia Methodism. 
 
 We have not polled the North Georgia Conference on this 
 question. For aught we know personally his views may be 
 acceptable to the majority, but it is well to consider that 
 there is a Georgia Methodism outside the bar of the Annual 
 Conference : a host of good men and true, who sustain our 
 ministry and various Church enterprises whose convictions 
 are not to be despised. For their sakes and as well as for 
 the peace of our whole Zion, we have labored in all kindness 
 to Doctor Haygood and yet with a supreme deference to 
 the right to vindicate the truth of history. Nor have we 
 hesitated both to refute and to rebuke those teachings and 
 tendencies of his social philosophy which are fraught with 
 ruin to our distinctive Southern civilization. Doctor 
 Haygood has at times sneered at the characteristics of 
 Southern civilization in the presence of large assem- 
 blages. He has said a good deal of our provincialism and 
 lack of literature. If we mistake not he has said that the 
 little nutmeg State of Connecticut produced more and 
 better poets in a single decade than the entire South in a 
 century. If he prefers the hysterical rhyming of Mrs. 
 

 80 
 
 Sigourney to the exquisite poetiy that Mrs. Bryan and 
 French have occasionally written — if he even admires 
 the third-class poetry of Pierrepont, or even the higher 
 song of Halleck and Percival — more than Foe and Timrod 
 and Hayne and Sidney Laniei'— we shall think less of his 
 critical faculty than of his statesmanship. Doctor Haygood's 
 ■opinion on such a subject is of little worth. We do regret, 
 however, that he repeats these attacks on Southern litera- 
 ture from his ])ulpit throne at Oxford to a mixed multitude 
 of villagers and college students. While at the same time 
 he magnifies Northern literature which, with a heavy 
 advantage over the South in population, can barely show a 
 score of prose writers who rise above the level of Grub- 
 street authorship. 
 
 Our characteristic civilization is such as no Southern 
 man need be ashamed of. It has its defects, and that too in the 
 ■direction that Doctor Haygood suggests. But take it in all 
 its phases it is unquestionably nearer akin to the civiliza- 
 tion of the ancient Greek Republics and to Rome in her 
 palmiest days than any other civilization of modern times. 
 
 We henceforth take leave of " Our Brother in Black." It 
 was, we think, an untimely literary birth. Better for the 
 author and the country if it had never been written. It 
 may not share the fate of the magical books of the Ephe- 
 sians or of the mythical Alexandrian Library — most likely 
 it will be classed fifty years hence, if it survives, amongst the 
 ^' Curiosities of Literature." With less argumentative force 
 than Helper's '' Irrepressible Conflict," with less philosoph- 
 ical acumen than Theodore Parker's " Anti-Slavery Dis- 
 courses" — it has only been less mischievous in its effects 
 than the fiery orations of Wendell Phillips and the " Uncle 
 Tom's Cabin," of Mrs. Stowe, because the author of it was 
 lacking both in the inspiration of the orator and the genius 
 of the novelist.