“The Solid South” 
 
 and the 
 
 Afro-American Race Problem 
 
 Speech of 
 
 CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS 
 
 AT 
 
 THE ACADEMY OF MUSIC 
 
 RICHMOND, VA. 
 
 Saturday Evening, 24 October, 1908 
 
 BOSTON 
 
 

 ■ K, w\ i; ■*V'-*" 
 
 ?§; * ’..i^fcv .4* A/-' 
 
 
 ;$& •Te5&v8£ 
 
 Sfc 
 
 v, 
 
WITH COMPLIMENTS OF 
 
 Charles f. Adams, 
 
 84 State St., koston. 
 
 Speech of 
 
 CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS 
 
 AT 
 
 THE ACADEMY OF MUSIC 
 RICHMOND, VA. 
 
 Saturday Evening, 24 October, 1908 
 
 BOSTON 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2018 with funding from 
 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 
 
 https://archive.org/details/thesolidsouthafrOOadam 
 
“The Solid South” 
 
 and 
 
 The Afro-American Race Problem. 
 
 It will now, in less than six months, be forty-four full years 
 since Appomattox day, — that day when, through the action of 
 the greatest of all modern Virginians, the War of Secession was 
 brought to a dramatic close. Forty-four years covers the whole 
 lifetime of one entire generation of men and a third part of that 
 of a second generation. The man of twenty-one in 1865 is, then, 
 a man of sixty-five now, — practically on the retired list; and, 
 if he has during the intervening years been a good citizen he, 
 next month, will have cast his ballot at eleven presidential elections 
 — covering the candidates from the first election of Grant to that 
 one who may be his choice on the 3d of November. During the 
 present canvass we have heard almost no reference at all to the 
 War of Secession, — the embers of the great strife have not been 
 raked over, nor its passions and enmities stirred up into a fitful 
 blaze. Both statesman and demagogue have left it severely 
 alone. In fact, since 1876 and the inauguration of President 
 Hayes, appeals of that character have ceased to be in vogue — 
 vulgarly speaking, the “bloody shirt” long since passed away 
 as a political emblem on either side, and to the eyes and ears of 
 the vast majority of those who will vote at the election of Tuesday 
 week the phrase has no significance. And yet, in spite of all 
 this, it is a significant and curious, as well as an indisputable 
 fact that the coming election will turn on the still living memories 
 and traditions of the great strife, and the more vital issues which 
 grew out of it. Proverbially, the ground swell following mighty 
 tempests is slow in subsiding. 
 
 I have said that this was an indisputable as well as a significant 
 and curious fact; to prove it so it is merely necessary to call a 
 moment’s attention to the attitude in the present canvass of the 
 eleven States which once constituted the Confederacy — now 
 what is known as the Solid South. To a large extent, by no 
 means impossibly as a controlling factor, those States will influence 
 the result. Assuredly, without their votes conceded to him in 
 
 3 
 
 600246 
 
advance, one of the two leading candidates would simply drop 
 out of the running; and yet those States have been, and now are, 
 ignored as a factor in the contest. In the eyes and minds of the 
 party managers they are a mere recognized appendage of one 
 political party, — a species of bob, so to speak, on the tail of its 
 kite. From the beginning of the canvass this has been apparent. 
 It was notorious at Chicago as at Denver, and before both the 
 nominating Conventions; it has been an accepted fact through¬ 
 out the somewhat languid debate now drawing to its wearisome 
 close. By both Democrats and Republicans the South has been 
 looked upon as a fixed political quantity, to be weighed and treated 
 as such — and, as such, ignored! 
 
 Obviously also this curious result is due to the fact that the 
 South has thus become solidified in presence of an overshadowing 
 problem affecting its very existence as a free and civilized indus¬ 
 trial community. I refer, of course, to the great Afro-American 
 Race Problem, — in its present form, a problem the direct outcome 
 of the War of Secession. For reasons well understood also, this 
 underlying motive of a Solid South — the great unsolved problem 
 of our day and country — has not entered into the presidential 
 debate. One candidate has altogether ignored it; the other has 
 touched on it only in the most desultory and delicate way. 
 Indeed, in whatever aspect viewed, it must be confessed it is 
 somewhat dynamitic in character. For that very reason I am here 
 to discuss it, — perhaps it would be more correct to say I am here 
 to philosophize over it, — this evening. For one without either 
 political connections or a possible political future, there is a certain 
 fascination in political dynamite. President Roosevelt has declared 
 that his “spear knows no brother”; and, to the political free lance, 
 dynamite has no terror. The explosive cannot hurt him. And 
 so I propose on this occasion to handle the dynamite referred to 
 with a freedom bordering on recklessness. 
 
 But I have also this evening a long way to travel, and I must 
 do it at the double quick if I propose to reach my destination at 
 all. None the less I have got to begin very far back. I, a Massa¬ 
 chusetts man, am talking in Virginia and to Virginians. An old 
 anti-slavery man, by inheritance a believer in Emancipation under 
 the War Power, I was through four long years of active operations 
 an officer in the Union Army, and as such was more familiar by far 
 with A irginia — your mountains, rivers and valleys — than I 
 ever was, or now am, with any equal extent of country in my 
 native New T England. I have traversed the Old Dominion from 
 the Shenandoah to the James. All this you will bear in mind, 
 
 4 
 
 Southern Pamphlets 
 Rare Book Collection 
 UNC-Chapel Hill 
 
and I cannot forget it; though in passing, let me add that, 
 having since had occasion to familiarize myself more or less with 
 every portion of the common country from Maine to Texas and 
 California, I hold Virginia still, as respects natural endowments, 
 to be the garden spot of the continent. I so thought it four and 
 forty years ago; I so think it now. It has but one “out” that I 
 know of, — nor do I fear to name that “out,”—the unhappy 
 presence of the African! 
 
 I propose to come to that presently. Before doing so, however, 
 you must bear with me while I indulge in a short but very necessary 
 historical retrospect. What is the matter with our present political 
 situation? Why is it so involved, so confused, — in a word, so 
 chaotic and abnormal? The answer is, I think, obvious, — it is 
 so because of the presence of an abnormal irremovable factor 
 which impedes and indeed prevents that freedom and fluidity of 
 action essential to political health. That factor is the Solid South. 
 
 Lord Palmerston, as Premier of Great Britain, was wont to say 
 that people talked of political landslides and overwhelming majori¬ 
 ties and all that sort of thing; but, for his own part, what he liked 
 best was a strong Government confronted by a strong Opposition. 
 Here, tersely put, lies the whole secret of a successful parliamentary 
 or representative government, — a vigorous Opposition facing a 
 powerful Administration. But this is exactly what our country 
 has not got now, has not had for thirty years, and, as I see it, is 
 most unlikely to have just so long as there is a Solid South, the 
 result of an abnormal political, social and industrial condition. 
 
 That it was not always so, you Virginians most of all must 
 realize. During the whole ante-war period — the antediluvian 
 or pre-deluge epoch, so to speak — the South and especially 
 Virginia, acting as a rule in close combination with the Democratic 
 Party of the North, greatly influenced, where it did not control 
 and actually shape the national policy. You remember, and I 
 need not recall, the constitutional, financial and industrial issues 
 of that period, — State Rights, Strict Construction, the Tariff, 
 the Bank, the Sub-Treasury, Texas. As respects them all, a 
 strong Government was confronted, upon well-defined issues, by 
 a strong and intelligent Opposition. The South, then a mighty 
 political factor, greatly influenced results. The outcome of the 
 War of Secession marked the change of leadership so far as the 
 Democratic Party was concerned. It then lost its head, and 
 except at rare intervals under the lead of two marked personalities 
 — Samuel J. Tilden and Grover Cleveland — ceased in any proper 
 sense to be Democratic at all; it became instead Socialistic. The 
 
 5 
 
South, a mere fixed party appendage, was no longer to be con¬ 
 sidered, — it had become a negligible quantity. So far as skill 
 and sagacity, to say nothing of standard and intelligence, were 
 concerned, I think it must be admitted the change was not for the 
 better. In every parliamentary form of government, whether 
 here or in Europe, what in Great Britain is sometimes known as 
 His Majesty’s Opposition is quite as essential to healthy political 
 action as is His Majesty’s Government. Without the former, 
 if I may use a very old and threadbare simile, the Ship of State 
 becomes a vessel with no cargo in its hold to serve as ballast, — 
 it yaws and lurches confoundedly in its course. It is the play¬ 
 thing of winds and waves, and the passing fancies of the helmsman. 
 I am not an admirer, political or otherwise, of Senator Benjamin 
 R. Tillman of South Carolina. In every possible respect I think 
 he compares otherwise than favorably with the great traditional 
 Carolina figures of the earlier period — I need not name them. 
 I recognize none the less a great deal of hard common sense, 
 mixed with characteristic profanity, in Mr. Tillman’s alleged 
 remark to David B. Hill that, in the light of the history of the 
 last fifty years, and since the Southern direction ceased to control, 
 “the Democratic Party could always be relied on to make a 
 damned fool of itself, at just the wrong time”! Think, in this 
 respect, of its record since 1864; the War, from the Northern 
 point of view, declared a failure in July of that year; a little 
 later the issue of paper money in time of peace urged by it, — by 
 the traditional hard money party; then followed in rapid succes¬ 
 sion the legal tender contention; the tariff fiasco of the second 
 Cleveland administration; that political laughing-stock, the 16 to 1 
 silver craze, with its Cross of Gold interlude; and now, at last, the 
 party of which Thomas Jefferson was the fountain head 
 gravely proposes a national guarantee of all Bank Deposits, and 
 the Congressional licensing of interstate commerce, with Govern¬ 
 mental Railroad ownership in the perspective. Was there ever 
 a political record so fatuous, so absurd, so illogical, so unhistoric! 
 In it, the break with the past is complete. I say this too in all 
 bitterness of spirit; for, since reconstruction days, I have belonged 
 to the Opposition to the Republican Party, and in every presiden¬ 
 tial election since 1868 would have acted and voted with that 
 Opposition to turn the Republicans out, if the Democratic Party 
 would only have permitted me, as a self-respecting man, so to 
 do. Thus, for the last forty years it has been my fate to dwell 
 almost continually in the political woods, — pondering over the 
 Tillman aphorism! 
 
 6 
 
Such is the indisputable record; what is the prospect for the 
 future? — “Watchman, tell us of the night, what its signs of 
 promise are? ” Poor, I must confess! So far as the party in con¬ 
 trol is concerned, I am one of the politically dissatisfied. I see 
 little that attracts, nothing to admire in the recent conduct of 
 affairs, — the administration program, so-called. I am an indi¬ 
 vidualist— in that respect a disciple of Jefferson; but I every¬ 
 where see a tendency to collectivism. Constitutionally, I am a 
 strict constructionist, especially since the Civil War: but I have 
 seen the Constitution treated with ill-disguised contempt; and 
 stretched by administrative and legislative construction until, 
 like FalstafPs waist, it has got out of all reasonable compass. A 
 free-trader, I have looked on at protection run mad. An economist 
 in public expenditure, I have studied the records of billion-do liar 
 congresses. A disbeliever in costly armaments, I have been con¬ 
 fronted with the heaviest war budget in time of peace the world 
 sees, or history records. A believer in minding one’s own business, 
 I have seen my country masquerading, as I consider it, in the 
 absurd character of an imperialistic World Power. Somewhat 
 of a student of economical and business developments, I have 
 felt growth hampered and thwarted by spectacular performances 
 known as trust-curbing and “trust-busting.” Like every other 
 man engaged, or even interested, in considerable business enter¬ 
 prises, I have been denounced, abused and despoiled. And, not 
 unnaturally I think, I find myself neither an ardent Republican 
 nor a devoted supporter of the present methods of administration. 
 Tired of strenuosity, I, in fact, yearn for a period of rest. Where 
 am I to look for it? Is it to the present candidate of the Demo¬ 
 cratic Party? The question answers itself. The chief fault 
 Mr. Bryan has to find with Mr. Taft as his opponent is that he will 
 not carry out to their last and logical results what are known as 
 “the Roosevelt policies.” Mr. Roosevelt even has, so the candi¬ 
 date of the present so-called Democracy charges, confined his 
 activity to the levying of fines and money penalties; but he, 
 Mr. Bryan, if elected, promises to make evident the need, not of 
 battleships but of more and enlarged penitentiaries. Judging 
 by his language I should infer that, under the regime he proposes 
 to install, to be a director even in any large business undertaking 
 will constitute prima facie evidence of states-prison criminality. 
 A negative is in such cases proverbially hard to prove. 
 
 The simple fact is, and it may as well be blurted out, Mr. Bryan, 
 though in many respects an estimable man, is, judged by any 
 recognized and historical test, no Democrat at all. The writer 
 
 7 
 
of a communication printed a few days since in the New York Sun 
 put the case very fairly: “Even Taft,” he said, “shows himself a 
 better Jefferson-Tilden Democrat than Bryan in regard to things 
 to be left in control of the several States. Taft at least denies 
 that State production implies interstate commerce. Bryan 
 affirms it.” Bryan is thus “imbued with strong government 
 theories of so extravagant a character that even Hamilton would 
 have disowned and doubtless would have condemned them.” 
 Mr. Bryan is not a strict constructionist; he is not a hard money 
 man; he talks of local and State government, but when it comes 
 to legislation he advocates, as respects money, trade and means 
 of transportation, a system of concentrated government super¬ 
 vision and control such as the civilized world has not yet seen. 
 In a word, he is a Socialist of the mild type. But the very essence 
 of American Democracy lay in its faith in the individual; in its 
 demand for freedom from governmental control. It is just the 
 opposite with Mr. Bryan. He is in fact the antithesis rather than the 
 follower of Jefferson, and, unconsciously perhaps, he is masquerading 
 under a traditional Virginia name in garments peculiar to the North¬ 
 west. To the student of our political history he presents in so 
 doing a somewhat odd, not to say grotesquely incongruous aspect. 
 
 But many of those who feel as I do, — made restless, terrified 
 even, by the long continuance of one party in control of the govern¬ 
 ment, — thoroughly alarmed over its tendencies, its lawlessness, 
 as they deem it, its undeniable extravagance, its scarcely dis¬ 
 guised subservience to the protected interests, its morbid tendency 
 to indiscriminate meddling, its disregard of constitutional limita¬ 
 tions and avowed disposition to centralize power and authority, 
 its constant increase of the vast army of office holders and conse¬ 
 quent political hangers-on and “heelers,” — seeing, I say, all 
 this — and not a count in the indictment is disputable — seeing 
 all this, many of those who feel as I feel are hot for a change — a 
 change of any sort. The existing state of affairs, they insist, 
 must not be continued or perpetuated; and it will surely be per¬ 
 petuated if it is much longer continued. This is plausible; but 
 are those who argue thus perfectly sure that an ill-considered and 
 premature change under existing conditions — especially in pres¬ 
 ence of a Solid South — is not the most assured way of renewing 
 and perpetuating just that state of affairs of which they now 
 complain, and those tendencies, the results of which they so fear¬ 
 fully apprehend? Have they wholly forgotten their own recent 
 experience, now history? Let me remind them; and, before so 
 doing, offer to them, free of charge, a solid hunk of political wisdom. 
 
 8 
 
In that respect from experience wiser than we, the English know 
 that few things are more disastrous to a political organization 
 dependent on parliamentary support than for it to assume the 
 responsibility of administration prematurely, or when as a party, 
 from disorganization or lack of acknowledged leadership, it is not 
 in position to carry on the government successfully. By so doing 
 it provokes an inevitable reaction; and, when that reaction comes, 
 it will find itself powerless to stem it. As respects the policies it 
 has at heart, its future will then be infinitely worse than its past. 
 It will have provoked and suffered a more or less prolonged set¬ 
 back. The precedents, therefore, are many in which, under such 
 circumstances, His Majesty’s Opposition, even when in position 
 so to do, has declined to overthrow His Majesty’s existing Govern¬ 
 ment. Wisely, those composing it have bided their time. 
 
 The significance of this reference to a foreign experience lies in 
 its immediate application to ourselves. I doubt if there is to-day 
 a single Democratic or so-called Opposition member of Congress 
 — Senate or House — and especially not one from the South — 
 who really in his heart believes that the Democratic Party as at 
 present composed is even remotely in condition successfully to 
 assume the responsibility of national administration. Made up 
 of incongruous and manifestly discordant elements, it has no 
 established and recognized policy, and, above all, no acknowledged 
 leadership. 
 
 And this brings me immediately to the personal equation, — 
 face to face with Mr. Bryan. With him I propose to deal frankly, 
 and, as I think, fairly. That Mr. Bryan is a kindly, well-inten¬ 
 tioned man I at once admit. He is also honest, I suppose, as this 
 world goes; though I cannot but feel that for a really honest man, 
 the “go-it-alone,” 16 to 1 delusion of 1900 was a questionable as 
 well as novel way of extinguishing uncomfortable money obliga¬ 
 tions. He certainly then strongly advocated a bare-faced debase¬ 
 ment of the coinage which he now admits would have proved a 
 blunder as well as a crime; and wholly uncalled for at that. That 
 Mr. Bryan is possessed with a consuming desire to occupy the 
 presidential chair is apparent; but other and far better and abler 
 men than he have been life-long victims of the same ambition. 
 Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, Lewis Cass, Salmon P. Chase and 
 Winfield Scott at once suggest themselves as cases in point. But 
 the trouble I find with Mr. Bryan, as the leader of an Opposition 
 offering to assume the responsibilities of office, is not lack of honesty 
 or stability of temper, —the objection I make to him lies deeper; 
 it is that he is obviously and essentially — let me out with it — 
 
 9 
 
an Opportunist and a Charlatan. Look at his record! Mr. Bryan 
 began in Congress as a tariff reformer. But what did we hear of 
 tariff reform when twice he ran for the presidency? Not one word! 
 After Mr. Cleveland’s — the “bunco-steerer’s/’ as he termed him 
 
 — experience with that, it plainly was not a winning card. So the 
 Opportunist let a reform of the tariff drop. In place of it, the 
 Charlatan then took up 16 to 1, with its precious Cross of Gold. 
 I fairly acknowledge that my gorge rises as I recall the course of 
 events and his utterances. Then followed the absurd empty- 
 dinner-pail campaign, with its prolonged lamentation over the 
 hopeless case of the unemployed toiler, and the utter absurdity 
 of expecting restored prosperity except on a “go-it-alone” silver 
 basis; all ending in the eloquent New York City outburst, — 
 “Great is Tammany, and Croker is its Prophet!” The occasion 
 passed; for the “unemployed,” a transformation scene ensued, 
 
 — a period of high wages unparalleled in history. As a result, 
 the Cross of Gold was relegated to the dust of that lumber-room 
 which serves as a receptacle for over-worked political emblems. 
 Mr. Bryan had no further use for 16 to 1; and it was distinctly 
 impolite to allude to crosses, gold or otherwise, in his presence. 
 Next he went to Europe, and traveled on an imperial railroad; and 
 forthwith, the Opportunist gave way to the Charlatan, and, when 
 he came home, the theory of National and State Railroads was 
 paraded before the eyes of an astonished American public. That 
 novelty failed to draw, especially in the South; so it too was speedily 
 sent to the lumber-room, to keep company with the Cross of Gold. 
 A good card some day, perhaps, it was not, just now, a drawing one! 
 Then came the excess-of-prosperity crisis of 1907, and, fully equal to 
 the occasion, the Charlatan again mounted the stage; and now he 
 pulled out from the lumber-room the dust-covered, time-honored 
 tariff reform, and, simultaneously, invented a new elixir of life 
 labeled the Guaranty of Bank Deposits; and also — “Rest, rest, 
 perturbed spirit” of Thomas Jefferson! — the National Licensing 
 of Interstate Commerce! The world, instead of being governed 
 too much, as your prophet so loudly proclaimed, cannot, it would 
 appear, be governed enough. Congress, presumably, has little or 
 nothing to do; so every branch of trade is to be scrutinized by it on 
 a 50% basis, and any one engaged in it, not panoplied by a license 
 fresh from Washington, is to be summarily jailed. And — tell 
 it not in the Gath of Monticello; publish it not in the streets of 
 this, the Virginia, Askalon — these bare-faced political heresies 
 are all proclaimed as the accepted tenets of to-day’s Jeffersonian 
 Democracy! And you Virginians are not only asked to gulp the 
 
 10 
 
dose down, but — I am glad to say not without some grimacing and 
 considerable retching — you actually propose to accomplish the feat. 
 
 However, I am asked, — what is the alternative? Mr. Taft: and 
 Mr. Taft, I am assured, is only Mr. Roosevelt’s “ man”; he would 
 go into the presidential chair pledged to carry out the policies of 
 his predecessor. This, as an alternative, I deny. I am no prophet; 
 but I most confidently assert that did I want to see Mr. Roosevelt 
 and his policies back, four years hence, and securely entrenched 
 in office, I would now elect Mr. Bryan president. Surely you have 
 not forgotten the Cleveland experience of 1892! We of the Oppo¬ 
 sition then rejoiced over a premature victory. We turned the 
 Republicans out. What ensued? Under the stress of the financial 
 and commercial crisis of 1893 the Democratic Party simply dis¬ 
 solved. Its leader went one way — the right way; and the 
 Northern section of the party went the other, the wrong way —* 
 and Mr. Bryan, you remember, the present leader of that section 
 of the party, pronounced Grover Cleveland a “ bunco-steerer”! 
 Now, I, a Massachusetts man, tell you, Virginians — and in your 
 hearts you know it to be so — Mr. Bryan is not the man to succeed 
 Theodore Roosevelt in the presidential chair. As a political 
 character Mr. Roosevelt is tolerably well understood. I am no 
 supporter of his. I do not like his methods, and I think he has 
 gone far to break down constitutional and traditional barriers 
 which I regard as very essential to our national well-being. But 
 uncertain, impulsive and, consequently, erratic as he unquestionably 
 is, Mr. Roosevelt is neither a Charlatan nor an Opportunist. 
 Strenuous — altogether, in my judgment, too strenuous — aggres¬ 
 sive, hard-hitting and effusive, he is honest; and, while to the last 
 degree theatrical, he is in his curious way instinctively tactful. 
 He is also courageous in both thought and deed; altogether a 
 masterful man. And the Opposition proposes to replace this 
 Theodore Roosevelt with William Jennings Bryan! I do not care 
 to follow out the comparison, but on this prediction I confidently 
 venture. Just so sure as Bryan now replaces Roosevelt, just so 
 sure will our experience in 1896 repeat itself in 1912. In 1896 
 the inevitable reaction ensued. Under the lead of Mr. McKinley 
 the Republican ascendency was restored; and it came back, more 
 securely entrenched in power than ever, for a period of twelve 
 years. So Roosevelt will succeed Bryan. From the day of his 
 inauguration the latter will be conscious of the shadow of his 
 predecessor creeping over the succession. 
 
 You remember what the demand was only the other day on the 
 part of the extreme wing of the Republican Party? A stampede 
 
 n 
 
in favor of what was called a Second Elective Term was greatly 
 apprehended at Chicago. An I-told-you-so cry would inevitably 
 follow the defeat of Mr. Taft. It is, I know, the unexpected which 
 is apt to occur; but, in my judgment, a vote for Mr. Bryan on 
 November 3 of this year is a vote for Mr. Roosevelt, and a return 
 to Republican administration four years hence. History will 
 repeat itself. 
 
 The single alternative is the election of Mr. Taft. It is true that 
 what we really need to clear the political atmosphere, — a re¬ 
 alignment of parties on an intelligible basis of division, — we will 
 not immediately get; as I have said already, this in my judgment 
 we cannot hope for until we have a return to normal conditions 
 through the break-up of the Solid South. In the election of 
 Mr. Taft, however, a long step may well have been taken towards 
 that most desirable result. Mr. Taft I personally do not know. 
 I have never met him; nor, indeed, have I ever met Mr. Bryan. 
 But, when they tell me that Mr. Taft is but the shadow of Mr. 
 Roosevelt, —that, as President, he will be but his echo, I simply 
 do not believe it. Indeed, I know better. Mr. Taft, if he tried, 
 could not be the echo of Mr. Roosevelt any more than, physically, 
 he could stand in Roosevelt’s shadow. That, in the main, he will 
 carry forward the policies generally known as those of Mr. Roosevelt, 
 I do not question. In themselves, however, those policies — a high 
 tariff, profuse expenditure, a large naval and military establishment, 
 an active world-power diplomatic attitude, the centralization of 
 power and governmental control, a rigid and somewhat inquisi¬ 
 torial corporate supervision, a sustained purpose to counteract 
 the tendency to large accumulations of individual wealth, the 
 purification of political life, — all these, I say, and many other 
 issues of like nature closely identified in the public mind with the 
 intense activities of Mr. Roosevelt present distinct and reasonable 
 issues on which parties may fairly divide. In themselves, properly 
 presented and calmly argued, they are not open to criticism. But 
 when it comes to presentation of issues and the promoting of 
 policies Mr. Taft has what Mr. Roosevelt distinctly has not, a legal 
 mind, disciplined by judicial training. He may to a degree be 
 strenuous; but he is by nature neither impulsive nor sensational. 
 This conceded, I see no objection to him in other respects. I may 
 not advocate all that he advocates; on many points I do disagree 
 with him fundamentally: but the issue would in any case be fairly 
 joined. A result would then be reached in a recognized way, and 
 with due regard to form. Is not this all that can be asked, or even 
 desired, under a representative government? 
 
 12 
 
Let me illustrate in a concrete case, — the issue of Tariff Revision. 
 For many years somewhat of a student of this subject, and in later 
 life brought more than once in direct contact with our protective 
 system — sometimes as a sufferer from it, but much more frequently 
 as what is euphoniously called a “ beneficiary ” — I frankly confess 
 myself an advocate of a pure Tariff for Revenue. I would, if I 
 could, wholly eliminate from our schedules the protective features. 
 I believe them to be at best unnecessary, and so undesirable; and, 
 in many cases, pernicious — a mere cover for legalized robbery. In 
 some cases as a “beneficiary,” so-called, I know, to my great 
 profit, this to be the case. Mr. Taft declares himself distinctly 
 and emphatically in favor of a revision of the tariff. As a tariff- 
 for-revenue man, do I anticipate any real reduction of the present 
 tariff schedules in case of the election of Mr. Taft? Most certainly 
 not. Even less should I hope for any in case of the election of 
 Mr. Bryan. Yet I believe both Mr. Taft and Mr. Bryan would 
 honestly strive, each in his way, to bring it about. But so did 
 Mr. Cleveland. He proved powerless; in my belief, so will they. 
 How will the game be worked? I will tell you; it is not hard to 
 explain. 
 
 The tariff “beneficiaries” — and I have confessed I am one of 
 them — are wise in their day and generation. Thoroughly 
 familiar with their business, infinitely skilled in political and 
 legislative methods and work, no thimble-rigger at a county fair 
 is more plausible, or a greater proficient in the game in hand. That 
 in the next Congress, whether Mr. Taft or Mr. Bryan is President, 
 there will be a so-called revision of the present schedules is almost 
 certain. Yet I state what is of common knowledge when I say it 
 is perfectly feasible to make an ostensible average reduction of 
 25% in the present schedules, and yet in reality increase the actual 
 protective burden by at least 5%. It is only necessary to strike 
 off that excess of duty which was imposed through the different 
 schedules when the Dingley Tariff was framed, with a view to 
 trading thereon upon the passage of the Reciprocity Treaties then 
 in negotiation. Those treaties have not been confirmed; and now 
 the striking off of those excess duties, judiciously applied in way of 
 ostensible reduction, would in no way lower the actual protective 
 system. Meanwhile, on the other hand, a neatly arranged increase 
 of certain schedules, as suggested by Mr. Taft, would fill out and 
 complete the protected abominations. Here is “the little joker”; 
 and yet, as a result of the whole, it might publicly, and most 
 plausibly, be proclaimed that a net tariff reduction of 20% had 
 been effected. 
 
 13 
 
That the whole thing was a thimble-rigging fraud would be only 
 too manifest to the well-informed. To the unthinking, however, 
 a campaign pledge would have been faithfully redeemed. 
 
 Mr. Taft I believe to be a perfectly honest man; but he has 
 already told us that he has “been advised by men who know” 
 that a certain schedule, to wit, that on pottery, could be raised 
 to advantage. The real facts in the case of that particular “little 
 joker” have since been exposed; and the duty on the commodity 
 referred to is already, it seems, fixed in the Dingley Bill of Abomi¬ 
 nations at from 55% to 60%, or “practically twice the total cost 
 of production”; and yet, as a practical example of a measure of 
 Tariff Reform, Mr. Taft unconsciously advises such further pro¬ 
 tection as shall be in reality prohibitive! 
 
 It was Macbeth, I believe, who, on a certain occasion, energeti¬ 
 cally exclaimed: 
 
 “And be these juggling fiends no more believed, 
 
 That palter with us in a double sense; 
 
 That keep the word of promise to our ear, 
 
 And break it to our hope.” 
 
 It is small matter of surprise, therefore, that, with this card up 
 the sleeve, the tariff “beneficiaries” evince no considerable anxiety, 
 irrespective of who may be President; nor that the Steel men, the 
 Wool men and the Sugar men all say, privately but with confidence, 
 that they do not apprehend their several schedules will be affected 
 adversely. You know their persuasiveness and their power! 
 
 Seeing the game about to be put up thus clearly, you will doubt¬ 
 less ask why do I, as a tariff-for-revenue man, still advocate the 
 election of Mr. Taft. My answ r er is immediate and direct. I bear 
 freshly in mind the Cleveland-Wilson experience of 1894. The 
 burnt child fears the fire. This time I want the tariff to be revised 
 by its proclaimed friends, and not by its enemies disguised as its 
 friends. I want, as the outcome of it all, no premature and decep¬ 
 tive victory, — no Dead Sea apple in guise of another Wilson- 
 Gorman measure. Is Bryan a stronger man than Cleveland? Is 
 Taft equally in earnest? There w T as thimble-rigging done in 1896, 
 — I, at least, do not say “bunco-steering”; if one or the other is 
 to be practiced in 1909 I want it to be practiced by those who can 
 be held directly responsible for the game. I can then see the way 
 to a political issue. I do not want again to be held accountable 
 for the “little joker.” The time for a real and genuine tariff 
 revision has not yet come; nor, in my judgment, is Mr. Bryan at 
 
 14 
 
all the man to achieve what Mr. Cleveland under infinitely more 
 favorable auspices wholly failed to accomplish. So, as a tariff- 
 reformer I say in the favorite phrase of old Cervantes — “Patience; 
 and shuffle the cards!” and on that issue, I vote for Mr. Taft. 
 
 And now at last I come to the matter which brings me here, — 
 the political fact of a Solid South, involving as it does the Afro- 
 American Race Problem. I have bluntly told you that, as a mere 
 fixed appendage to the so-called Democratic machine, the South, 
 solid though it be, receives no consideration. It trails along in a 
 species of servitude, the doubtful elements, the factors in the game 
 whose support it is necessary to secure, — always at a price, — 
 being alone considered. I have also pointed out to you that, so 
 far at least as Virginia’s traditional political theories are concerned, 
 there is absolutely, as between you and the socialistic democracy 
 of the Northwest, nothing in common. Yet you find your¬ 
 self chained as it were to the tail-board of the prairie schooner. 
 Why is this thus? And how long is it to continue? 
 
 The raison d’etre of a Solid South is not far to seek. We all are 
 cognizant of it. It is founded in the hateful memory of what is 
 known as the Reconstruction Period; and in a lurking apprehen¬ 
 sion of action in the shape of new force bills, or a reduction of 
 political power under the possible operation of the Fourteenth 
 Amendment to the Constitution. The Republican Party, it is 
 believed, still feels a secret hankering for the Negro vote. It 
 would, if it saw its way to so doing, convert what is now a political 
 shadow — though a sometimes convenient convention reality — 
 into a potent and reliable ally; and this too without regard to 
 local consequences so far as the Southern community is concerned. 
 The bitter memory of the period from 1865 to 1876 then recurs. 
 The portentous Race Question looms up! 
 
 And now I come to delicate ground. I, a New Englander, a 
 Yankee of the Yankees, an anti-slavery man from my birth, an 
 ex-officer of the Union Army, a lineal descendant of a signer of 
 the Declaration of Independence brought up in the faith, — I, 
 being all this by tradition, experience and environment, am to 
 talk to you of a problem largely in its present form the creation 
 of those of whom I am one, and a problem which you have always 
 with you. I propose to do so frankly and freely; though much 
 of what I have to say will, I apprehend, grate somewhat harshly 
 on ears at home, and, not impossibly, there elicit more than one 
 indignant rebuke and positive denial. 
 
 Coming at once to the point, — so to speak taking the bull by 
 the horns, — let me say that I fully concur in the remark of some 
 
 15 
 
observing Englishman — John Morley, I think, now Lord Morley 
 — made a year or two ago as the result of what he saw and heard 
 during a stay in this country. He pronounced the African Race 
 Problem in America as being as nearly insoluble as a human 
 problem could be. It is; and, so far as we in the United States 
 are concerned, its insolubility rests in the fact that it offers a flat 
 negative — gives the he direct — to a fundamental principle of 
 our social and political life and material development. The 
 American system, as we all know, was founded on the assumed 
 basis of a common humanity. That is, absence of absolutely 
 fundamental racial characteristics was accepted as an established 
 truth. Those of all races were welcome to our shores. They 
 came, aliens; they and their descendants would become denizens 
 first, natives afterwards. It was a process first of assimilation, 
 and then of absorption. On this all depended. There could 
 be no permanent divisional lines. The theory has now plainly 
 broken down. We are confronted by the obvious fact, as undeni¬ 
 able as it is hard, that the African will only partially assimilate, 
 and that he cannot be absorbed. He remains a distinct alien 
 element in the body politic; an element from smallness of quantity 
 negligible in New England, but in no way negligible in the South. 
 What is to be the outcome? What is to be done? A foreign 
 substance, it can neither be assimilated nor thrown off. 
 
 In the North, and in the community to which I belong, a great 
 change in opinion, and consequent feeling, on this grave problem 
 has been steadily going on for many years. It can be traced to 
 very remote sources, — for instance to the Bible, to the Declara¬ 
 tion of Independence, and, not least, to the writings of Mrs. 
 Beecher Stowe. There are still those among people I know, and 
 with whom I come in almost daily contact, who on this issue 
 plant themselves firmly on what Rufus Choate once referred to 
 as the 11 glittering generalities” of the Declaration of Independence. 
 Our theory, they say, was what I have stated — one of assimilation 
 and subsequent absorption, resulting in the equality of men. 
 That theory they believe in as of general application. If the 
 facts are not in accord with it, well — so much the worse for the 
 facts! They must be compelled to come into accord with it. 
 The theory is sacred, in complete harmony with the everlasting 
 fitness of things — as they see them! The argument is thus 
 closed. 
 
 Such, however, is not now the trend of thought of the more 
 judicious. They reason, and reason in constantly increasing 
 numbers, to a very different conclusion, and a conclusion of the 
 
 16 
 
utmost political importance to you of the South — white or black. 
 I have watched the change, — I have undergone it, and observed 
 its process in myself. It is interesting. To understand it we 
 must go back about two generations, or say sixty years, into the 
 scriptural and, so to speak, “Uncle Tom” period. The African 
 was then a brother, — descended from a common ancestor, — 
 to wit, Noah. He was the offspring of Ham; we of Japhet or of 
 Shem — which, exactly, I fail to recall. Consequently, the 
 Hamitic man, or negro, was simply God’s image carved in ebony, 
 — only partially developed under unfavorable fortuitous circum¬ 
 stances; — in a word, he was a potential Yankee who had, as the 
 expression went, “never had a chance”! Uncle Tom was then 
 held up as individual proof of the proposition. This may then 
 fairly be referred to as the “Uncle Tom” period of the Afro- 
 American Race Problem. I think it was the late Robert Toombs 
 of Georgia who emphatically declared that Uncle Tom was a 
 wholly imaginary creation; but if such a being ever existed in 
 the flesh, developed from the African savage, it was the strongest 
 and most irrefutable argument in favor of American slavery that 
 ever had been, or ever could be, advanced. A system which 
 evolved Uncle Toms out of Congo negroes should be sacredly 
 preserved. The missionary had never succeeded in doing it; and 
 Liberia was a dead failure. That there was force in the contention 
 cannot well be denied. 
 
 This was only fifty years ago; yet the discussions and contentions 
 of that day seem now strangely remote, archaic even. There is 
 no question, however, that, absurd as it sounds to us, the recon¬ 
 struction system was step by step evolved from that as a basis. 
 So Robert E. Lee was disfranchised; while the ballot was con¬ 
 ferred on the freemen he had himself liberated. Further 
 comment would be superfluous. I am glad to remember that I 
 then separated from the Republican Party on that issue. 
 
 Meanwhile, the subtle change of thought was going slowly on. 
 The scientific was gradually, imperceptibly, superseding the 
 scriptural; the Ham and Japhet, and Brotherhood of Man, theory 
 of descent was receding, — was indeed no longer gravely advanced. 
 Darwin’s “Origin of Species” was published in 1859; his “ Descent of 
 Man” in 1871; and in the light of his researches, and the inferences 
 necessarily drawn from them, the Afro-American Race Problem 
 assumed a new shape. Hayti and Jamaica also have served as 
 object lessons. The solution of the problem became in the eyes 
 of some, and those a constantly increasing number, a far more 
 complicated and difficult proposition. After all, the promiscuous 
 
 17 
 
conferring of the ballot had not solved it, — indeed, far from so 
 doing, it had only served to complicate what before was at best 
 terribly confused. As it now presents itself it is simply this, — 
 to devise some practical system, other than one of slavery, whereby 
 two races of widely different interests, attainments and ideals can 
 live together in peace and harmony under a Republican form of 
 government. 
 
 Thus stating the problem, at once let me say, I propose to 
 make no attempt at its solution. In the invitation which brought 
 me here, it is stated that “ the race question has in Virginia been 
 solved in a manner which insures the supremacy of intelligence; 
 gives to people of all races a fair opportunity to work out their 
 destiny upon their merits, and offers a just reward to good citizen¬ 
 ship.” These are words of cheer. That they are justified by the 
 facts of the case, I sincerely and devoutly hope. Meanwhile, I do 
 not for a moment profess to be informed on the subject myself, 
 or, consequently, to be in position to express an opinion. I am 
 not here to instruct you as to facts, as to your obligations, your 
 good deeds, or your shortcomings. I will run no risk of still 
 further darkening a difficult case by ignorant or ill-informed 
 counsel; above all I submit no patented panacea, warranted to 
 work a cure. Far too intricate and confused for me to pose 
 as one in any way competent to deal with it, I stand abashed 
 and silent in the awe-inspiring presence of this awful and 
 mysterious Afro-American Sphinx. On certain points only am I 
 clear. In the first place, I recognize the fact that forty-five 
 years, — the full lifetime of one generation and the half of the 
 lifetime of a second, — a period longer by five years than that 
 assigned for the sojourn of God’s chosen people in the Wilderness 
 before Israel entered on the Promised Land, — close, I say, upon 
 a full half century has now elapsed since Lincoln issued his epoch¬ 
 marking Proclamation. The African has thus passed through 
 his full period of probation. Already the third generation of 
 freedmen is coming forward; and from this time on it is but 
 reasonable to demand of those composing it that they work out 
 their own destiny. It is for the Afro-American, as for the 
 American descendant Of the Celt, the Slav, or the Let, to shape 
 his own future, accepting the common lot of mankind. He must 
 not ask to be held up, or protected from outside, in so doing. 
 
 Again, while, as I have already said, the essence of the race 
 problem is the peaceful common occupancy of the same territory 
 by people of two widely differing races, a certain responsibility 
 rests on us of the North, and especially us of New England; for 
 
 18 
 
it does not admit of denial that the connection between the 
 existing race problem phenomena which so perplex us and the 
 reconstruction policies and incidents to which I have so pointedly 
 referred is that of direct and historical sequence. In this case, 
 while we of New England may go into court with a clear conscience 
 as to goodness of our intentions, we do not, in view of actual results, 
 stand there with clean hands. The reconstruction policy of 1866 
 we forced on the helpless States of the Confederacy was worse 
 than a crime; it was a political blunder, as ungenerous as it was 
 gross. 
 
 Looking, therefore, into the future, illumined by the strong search¬ 
 light of the past, of one thing only do I feel assured. The solution 
 of this problem must be worked out in the South; and, while its 
 solution will be attended with infinite difficulty, and loud and 
 reiterated calls for sympathy and aid from without, I am satisfied 
 that, in the future as in the past, any external intervention of a 
 political character will tend only to confusion, suffering and harm. 
 And upon this conclusion I am satisfied the mind of the North is 
 rapidly crystallizing. Individually, and in concert among ourselves, 
 it is, and will be, incumbent on us to do whatever we clearly see our 
 way to do towards the uplift of the Afro-American. As political 
 communities, however, or acting through the national government, 
 the only wise attitude for us outsiders to assume must be one of 
 sympathetic observation. The recent terrible experience in the Illi¬ 
 nois Springfield should satisfy us that there is Christianizing work for 
 us at home. So I fully concur in the conclusions of one of the most 
 hopeful as well as thoughtful of your Southern students of this 
 problem, expressed in a recently published volume which I de¬ 
 voutly wish all my Northern friends would prayerfully study. 
 Writing in Mississippi, and from the heart of the Black Belt, 
 Mr. Alfred Holt Stone, quoting Booker T. Washington, says: “ ‘My 
 own belief is, although I have never before said so in so many 
 words, that the time will come when the Negro in the South will 
 be accorded all the political rights which his ability, character 
 and material possessions entitle him to. I think, though, that 
 the opportunity to freely exercise such political rights will not 
 come in any large degree through outside or artificial forcing, but 
 will be accorded to the Negro by the Southern white people them¬ 
 selves, and that they will protect him in the exercise of those 
 rights.’ ” 
 
 Naturally, you will ask me if, in speaking thus, I speak for my¬ 
 self only, or as representing, or thinking that I represent, a mass of 
 growing Northern opinion. And, in any case, what bearing has it 
 
 19 
 
all on the pending presidential election ? My answer is direct and 
 specific. I speak only for myself; but, none the less, I know that 
 in so doing I voice a large and growing, and in the end most influ¬ 
 ential, public opinion. Its influence has already been felt in politi¬ 
 cal action. How to promote the growth of opinion, and accelerate 
 the action, is another matter; and that rests largely with you 
 
 — your moderation, your self-restraint, your sense of justice 
 and your spirit of what is known as fair play. My reply 
 carries also an answer to your second question, — how what 
 I have said bears on the pending election. It bears very 
 closely upon it. You may not realize the fact, — I doubt if you 
 even suspect it; but, as I see it from my point of view, Virginia 
 to-day holds, — or rather Virginia will on Tuesday, the 3d of 
 November, hold politically a position of great strategic importance, 
 
 — as important as that held by her in 1787, or again in 1861. It 
 rests on her now, if she sees fit so to do, to serve notice on both 
 political parties and the country that the last movement resultant 
 from the War of Secession, and incident to the Period of Recon¬ 
 struction, has come to a close; and, consequently, that the Solid 
 South stands dissolved, and demands full political recognition. 
 The troubled waters have become calm. What would be the 
 result of her so doing? It scarcely needs to be pointed out. 
 Suppose for a moment that Virginia next Tuesday week should 
 throw a majority vote for Mr. Taft, thus serving formal notice 
 that she had broken the tie which bound her, in common with 
 her Confederate sisters, to what I have referred to as the tail-board 
 of the Democratic prairie schooner, — what, I ask, would be the 
 immediate political result of her so doing? You yourselves know, 
 for you are not unacquainted with the nature of our Northern 
 politicians. But I will tell you all the same, — I will shout it, 
 if you ask me to, from your house-tops. The immediate result 
 would be such surprise and delight in the Republican camp that 
 the colonels and captains, as well as the rank and file, would give 
 you anything you asked for; while, on the other hand, in their 
 utter dismay and confusion those of the Democratic camp would 
 let you dictate your own terms, if only you would come back to 
 the prairie-schooner tail-board. So far as your own local questions 
 and interests are concerned, by regaining your independence of 
 political action you make yourselves complete masters of the 
 situation. 
 
 I have given you my message. 
 
 20 
 
r \S ,