(Signed,) P. HANSEN.

GOVERNMENT HOUSE, ST. CROIX, 26th January, 1849.

—KNOX, An Historical Account of St. Thomas, West Indies, pp. 248-255.

FOOTNOTES:

[397] Father O'Ryan.

[398] He had obtained this brilliant military title on account of his fantastic attire.

[399] Extract from Captain Irminger's Report to the Minister of Marine. Despatched 12th July, 1848.

[400] Then Captain-General of Porto Rico.

REVIEWS OF BOOKS

A History of the United States, Vol. IV. By EDWARD CHANNING, Professor in Harvard University. New York, MacMillan Company, 1917. Pp. 575. Price $2.75.

This is the fourth volume of what promises to be the most interesting and possibly the most valuable single work hitherto produced in this field. It begins with the discovery of the New World and when completed will come down to 1910. The volume herein referred to covers the period of "Federalists and Republicans from 1789 to 1815." The work, therefore, goes over ground which has been extensively treated by such writers as Richard Hildreth, James Schouler, Herman von Holst, and James B. McMaster. Professor Channing, however, has given this period an original treatment and incorporated into his narrative so much material of human interest that his history makes a more readable and at the same time a more informing work than any of the general histories of the United States.

Professor Channing does not fall a victim to the mistakes of his predecessors. Hildreth is prejudiced, Schouler is dry and ex parte, von Holst is lost in the debates over slavery, and McMaster, at times, sinks beneath the load of his undigested material. Realizing that the problems of peace are greater than those of war and that the mere proceedings of legislative bodies cannot altogether be depended upon to reflect the political development of a country, Professor Channing is making his history economic as well as political. It is just as important to him to know the prices of commodities in 1800 as to know the terms of Jay's treaty. In other words, Professor Channing has a new point of view. He aims not to set forth an interesting narrative but to marshall his facts so as to make interesting his well-balanced account of the various forces which have operated to make this country what it is to-day. The smooth style, common sense, and thoroughness with which he is now doing this task will doubtless make this the standard history of the United States.

In reading this valuable work, however, one cannot but express regret that Professor Channing did not see fit to spell the word "Negro" with a capital letter and to say more about the people of color. In the volumes to follow the treatment of this element of our population will probably be more extensive in keeping with the increasing importance of the Negro as a factor in history of the later period. Professor Channing will hardly be so unfortunate as most writers of American history, who in their voluminous works give space for honorable mention of every race but the black, considering it sufficient to mention it, merely as the cause of the great agitation which finally rent the nation and the present cause of the race problem in the United States. The bearing of worthy achievements of the Negroes on the development of this country should be mentioned along with the deeds of others who have helped to make the nation.

* * * * *

The Early History of Cuba, 1492 to 1586. By I. A. WRIGHT. The MacMillan Company, New York, 1916. Pp. 390.

This book begins with the discovery of Cuba by Columbus and ends with the raid of Sir Francis Drake in the West Indies in 1586, by which it was demonstrated that Great Britain ruled the sea and that the retention of the Spanish possessions in the New World required that they be provided with means of local defence rather than be left in the position of dependence on protection from Spain. With this change is connected the subsequent economic development of Cuba and the success of the Spanish colonial policy.

In writing this book the author had an advantage over most historians in this field. It was compiled from documents now available at Seville, Spain. Miss Wright, however, did not use the documents found in other archives. What documents she had access to, however, are considered sufficient as they contain "letters and reports of the island's governors, of royal officials and lesser clergy, of municipal and ecclesiastical councils, of distinguished and humble citizens." This large collection, too, contains some of the documents copied by Munoz in his collection preserved at Madrid and some printed in the unsatisfactory series of Documentos Ineditos. The author, therefore, gives this book to the public as the only exhaustive treatment of Cuban history of this period, which has hitherto been published, despite the estimate we have placed on such works as those of De las Casas, Oviedo, Gomara, Solis, Bernal Diaz del Costillo, and Herrera.

The introduction of slavery and the treatment of the bondmen, although not objective points in this treatise, are given considerable space. The slave trade was authorized in Cuba in 1513 and we hear of Bishop Ubite in the possession of as many as 200 slaves in 1523 and later of Bishop Maestro Miguel Ramirez with a license from the crown to take half a dozen slaves and two white slave women. The writer shows how the failure of the native captives to meet the demand for labor eventually led to declaration making them the free vassals of the crown and authorizing the enslavement of Negroes in sufficiently large numbers to make up the deficiency. It was necessary to issue another order rescinding the license of the slave-traders because of the fear of servile insurrection, should the slave population too far exceed that of the whites. This restricted importation of Negroes, however, did not prevent their uprising in 1533, which, however, was easily quelled, the four Negroes defending themselves to death.

The author explains too how slavery in Cuba or in the Spanish possession differed from that of other nations in that although the Spaniard regarded the black as socially and politically inferior, he did not look down upon him as a "soul-less son of Cain condemned to servitude by divine wrath" but recognized the black's equality with him before the altar of the church. When he became free and even before he became free the slave had rights before the law. "This attitude of mind of the Spaniard—so very different indeed from that of the slave-holding North American,—partly explains the facility with which he mingled his 'pure, clean' white blood with black, so begetting a mulatto population to be reckoned with later." Free blacks, therefore, soon appeared. By 1568 forty in Havana had bought their freedom. Others, though still slaves, lived independently, the men doing such as working at trades and the women running eating houses, but all reporting their earnings to their masters at intervals.

C. B. WALTER.

* * * * *

Sierra Leone: Its Peoples, Products and Secret Societies. By H. OSMAN NEWLAND, F. R. Hist. S., F.I.D. John Bale, Sons and Danielsson, London, 1916. Pp. 247.

This work consists of the observations on a journey by canoe, rail and hammock through Sierra Leone. To this is appended fifty-three pages of matter on "Practical Planting Notes for Sierra Leone and West Africa," by H. Hamel Smith. Subject to sufficient demand, however, it is proposed to issue this book, annually or biennially, with amendments and additions to date, as a Sierra Leone Year Book and with a Who's Who section. Accordingly, it treats of the geographic and economic conditions of that land and the rule of 1,500,000 Africans, largely by less than 900 Europeans. Taking up the elements of population the author devotes much space to the Creole and Aborigine elements, giving the characteristics of these classes. He then considers the river system, the railroads, life in the interior, the rubber industry, the native chiefs, the amusements of the people, native law, peculiar customs of the people, their secret societies, the important products and the management of estates.

The author undertakes to answer the questions as to whether this is a country for a black or white man to live in, which of the two should rule, whether the people are becoming Europeanized in their habits and religion and whether it is a place for commerce and capital. Answering the last question first the author asserts that there are in Sierra Leone many possibilities for smaller capitalists and companies. As for the climate, Sierra Leone is much maligned, especially so since science has reclaimed its swamps and decreased the death rate. The writer too is satisfied with the progress with which the natives are taking over European civilization, although he is not anxious to see the African adopt this culture in toto because of the difference in climate. Unlike some other travelers, he found the natives industrious, honest, and truthful. Moreover, he does not share the prejudices foreigners have against the Creoles and blacks. He believes that the white man should rule not so long as he is white but so long as he can prove his superiority. "The black man," says he, "will only respect the rule of the white man as long as the latter can prove his superiority, and consequently, reasonableness." The natives have such a keen sense of justice that they are not blinded by hypocrisy. The writer believes that neither the white man nor his religion must rule because they are white and not black. The administrators, too, must not rule for themselves but as representatives only. "It is Britain that must rule—Britain which has one law for all, and administers it not for white or black, but for all who own her sway whatever their colour, race, or religion." While the portraiture of the sense of justice of Great Britain does not square with her colonial policy, the caution to those administering the affairs of Sierra Leone is well put.

After all that he says, however, the writer does not seem to be so sanguine as to future of West Africa. "Probably West Africa," says he, "will always remain a land of romance, mystery and imagination," Science may reclaim the swamp. The iron railroad may open up tracks for the engineer and planter to exploit its vast resources. But Nature, unchecked by man, has been allowed too long to run riot there among its impenetrable forests. Never, perhaps, will it be entirely subdued. As with the primeval forest, so with the people. Mohammedanism, Christianity, modern education, have all tried their civilizing influences upon the West African, and nowhere, perhaps, with more success than in Sierra Leone. But the old Adam dies slowly. Civilization is too tame, too quiet for those who love noise and mystery. And this feeling is infectious.

J. O. BURKE.

* * * * *

Trade Politics and Christianity in Africa and the East. By A. J. MACDONALD, M.A. With an introduction by SIR HARRY JOHNSTON. Longmans, Green and Co., London, 1916. Pp. 296.

This is a dissertation awarded the Maitland Prize at Cambridge in 1915 for an essay on the thesis, Problems raised by the contact of the West with Africa and the East and the part that Christianity can play in their solution. The work shows scientific treatment. The facts used were obtained largely from the Government Blue Books, the Minutes of Evidence attached to Reports of the Committee of Inquiry into the Liquor Trade in Southern Nigeria together with the reports of the United Races Committee, the Journal of the Anglo-Indian Temperance Association, the British Quarterlies, the publications of the Society for the Suppression of the Opium Trade, and the reports of the Proceedings of the First Universal Race Congress.

The writer traces the development of contact with the natives by means of trade which, supplying them with what they want rather than with what they need, often demoralizes them. Then along with the problem of trade comes that of labor, giving rise to labor contracts or forced labor, and this with another problem of preventing the native population from too far exceeding that of the whites. Then comes the consideration of the liquor question, the opium trade, education and self-government, and inter-racial marriage, with the merits and demerits of the methods of those who have attacked these problems. Caution is given in the assertion that Christianity must be the life-principle. "Imperialism," says the author, "is a matter of religion." The extension of the empire, therefore, is an extension of religion. The success of an imperial policy then depends upon the degree of attention paid religion, which lies deeper than statesmanship, deeper than civilization, which is, indeed, the inspiration of both. Administrators, therefore, must not neglect Christianity, as they are only imperialists so long as they remember that they are in spite of themselves religious men. "Translated into practical terms," says he, "the theory means that if the black and white races are unequal in intelligence and social capacity they are equal on the basis of common Christianity. The old doctrine of the 'solidarity of humanity' needs to be revived and to be applied over a wider area. The Empire can only be extended securely by the extension of its religion, but that means that settler, trader and administrator must realize in the black man a capacity to receive Christianity." The Church, too, must cease to regard the propagation of the gospel as its own task and missionaries must no longer retard the extension of the empire by carrying on their work as members of an independent organization.

Taking up inter-racial marriage, the author raises many questions. He does not seem to fear race fusion, as there is evidence "to prove that the crossing of the different races does produce definite physical and mental results in succeeding generations." He contends that the white man's objection to connection with women of colored races and to the children who spring from those unions has no scientific justification. The exclusive attitude of the white man is accounted for by the difference in degree of civilization, the so-called superiority of the white race. Although he does not show how science has uprooted the idea of racial superiority, the author does raise the question as to whether the integrity of the dominant races has been maintained. As evidence of this he cites the facts that the Pelasgii of Greece were, according to Professor Sturgis, of African origin, that Sir Harry Johnston traced Negro blood across India and the Malay States to Polynesia, that a negroid race penetrated Italy and France, according to recent discoveries, leaving traces at the present day in the physiognomy of the people of Southern Italy, Sicily, Sardinia, and Western France, and even in parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and that even to-day there are some examples of Keltiberian peoples of western Scotland and western Wales and southern and western Ireland of distinctly negroid type.

W. R. WARD.

NOTES

The following letter was addressed to the New Orleans Daily States by Mr. W. O. Hart:

LOUISIANA GOVERNORS.

NEW ORLEANS, LA., April 19, 1917. EDITOR Daily States.

Dear Sir:—Recently your paper published a very interesting account of many governors of Louisiana at one time being in the Cosmopolitan Hotel, but in giving the names of the ex-governors you omitted three, William P. Kellogg, P. B. S. Pinchback and General Joseph R. Brooke.

Kellogg while never elected was inaugurated in January, 1873, and served a full term of four years, having been upheld in office by President Grant.

Pinchback, who was elected President of the Senate when Oscar J. Dunn, elected lieutenant governor, died, in 1868, became acting governor on December 10, 1872, when Governor H. C. Warmoth was impeached and served until the inauguration of Kellogg, January 13, 1873.

There are now on the statute books ten laws passed at this extra session and which bear the approval of Pinchback; they will be found bound with the Acts of 1873, pages 37 to 50.

Pinchback's title as acting governor was upheld by the Supreme Court of Louisiana, in the case of Morgan vs. Kennard, decided in March, 1873, and reported in the 25th An. Reports, page 238, which was a contest over the office of Justice of the Supreme Court between John Kennard, appointed by Warmoth, and P. H. Morgan, appointed by Pinchback, and the judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Kennard vs. Morgan, reported in 92d U. S. 480. The opinion was rendered by Chief Justice Ludeling and concurred in by Justices Taliaferro and Howell, and Justice Wyly dissented. The case was tried in the Superior District Court before Judge Jacob Hawkins who decided in favor of Morgan and this judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Judge Kennard was appointed to the Court on December 3, 1872, vice W. W. Howe resigned; Morgan was appointed on January 4, 1873, and at the end of the litigation took his seat as a member of the Court on February 1st, serving until the Manning Court went into office on January 9, 1877.

After the eventful fourteenth of September, 1874, when General Emory took charge, he appointed Colonel (now Brigadier General retired) Joseph R. Brooke, military governor of Louisiana, but he only served one day, because President Grant disapproved of the appointment and ordered General Emory to reinstate Governor Kellogg.

W. O. HART.



* * * * *

In the January number of the South Atlantic Quarterly Gilbert T. Stephenson, Judge of the Municipal Court of Winston-Salem, North Carolina, writes on the subject, "Education and Crime among Negroes." Although he accepts as facts certain unreliable statistics concerning the criminality of Negroes, he nevertheless presents the subject in a liberal manner. His following conclusion is interesting.

"All the available statistics and the unanimous opinion of men in a position to know the facts would seem to be proof that education—elementary or advanced, industrial or literary—diminishes crime among Negroes. The alarming high rate of Negro criminality is as much a condemnation of the community in which it exists as of the offending Negroes themselves. Having discovered that the Negro school is, at least, one institution which successfully combats crime, the community cannot afford to withhold its active interest in and generous support of its Negro school. The more money spent in making such schools responsive to the special needs of the race, the less will have to be spent on crime, and if it comes to a question of cost, it is cheaper in the long run to maintain and equip schools—Negro schools, even—than police departments, courts, jails, penitentiaries, and reformatories; for the school, properly conducted, makes the Negro a greater asset, while the court finds him a liability, and nearly always leaves him a greater liability to the community."

* * * * *

Some interesting articles in various publications are: "Problems of Race Assimilation," by Arthur C. Parker, in the January number of The American Indian Magazine; The Cavalry Fight at Carrizal, by Louis S. Morey, in The Journal of the United States Cavalry Association; The Present Labor Situation, in the January number of The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences; Physic Factors in the New American Race Situation, in The Journal of Race Development, by George W. Ellis; and La Independencia de Tejas y la Esclavitud, by Senor V. Salado Alvarez, in the Cuban journal La Reforma Social.

Other such articles in this field are: Germany's Ambition in Central Africa, by Emile Cammaerts, in the October number of The National Review; The Present System of Education in Uganda, in the July number of Uganda Notes; The Gold Coast: Some Consideration of its Structures, People, and Natural History, by A. E. Kitson, in the July number of the Geographic Journal.

* * * * *

The arrangements for the biennial meeting of the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History have been almost completed. A majority of the members of the Executive Council desire that it be held on Wednesday, the twenty-ninth of August, and have so ordered it. The program has not yet been made up, but several persons of prominence have promised to attend and speak. Among these are Mrs. Mary Church Terrell, Dean Kelly Miller, Professor George E. Haynes, Dr. R. R. Wright, Jr., Mr. Monroe N. Work, and Dr. Thomas J. Jones. Two of the important topics will be Some Values of Negro History and The Negro in the World War.



THE AFRICAN ORIGIN OF THE GRECIAN CIVILIZATION[401]

I imagine, ladies and gentlemen, that when you first read the subject of the address to be delivered before this society to-day, you were a bit surprised, and, I trust, a bit interested. To claim an African origin for the Grecian civilization is hardly in keeping with the historical traditions inherited from our school days. It savors of a sort of heresy and passes far beyond the limits of popular opinion. There is a peculiar unanimity among all historians to state without reservation that the greatest civilization the world has ever known was pre-eminently Aryan, but historians are not always to be relied upon. They write for their own race and times and are careful to give as little credit as possible to races and events which fall within the pale of their prejudices. I question, however, if there is to be gained any ultimate good by subverting truth and popularizing error. Indeed, I believe that if to-day our historians, authors, press and pulpit would give the public the truth as far as it is possible to attain it, to-morrow would find us filled with a new vigor and a fresh determination to conquer the wrongs and inconsistencies of human life.

The old idea of the Grecian civilization was that it sprung, like Minerva, full armed from the brow of Zeus. It seemed to have no tangible beginning. The fabled kings and heroes of the Homeric Age, with their palaces and strongholds, were said to have been humanized sun-myths; their deeds but songs woven by wandering minstrels to win their meed of bread. Yet there has always been a suspicion among scholars that this view was wrong. The more we study the moral aspects of humanity the more we become convinced that the flower and fruit of civilization are evolved according to laws as immutable as those laws governing the manifestations of physical life. Historians have written that Greece was invaded by Aryans about 1400 B.C., and that henceforth arose the wonderful civilization; but the student knows that such was an impossibility and that some vital factor has been left out of the equation. When the Aryans invaded Greece they were savages from Neolithic Europe and could not possibly have possessed the high artistic capacities and rich culture necessary for the unfolding of AEgean civilization. "Of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes."

Speaking of the two foremost Grecian states, Herodotus writes as follows: "These are the Lacedaemonians and Athenians, the former of Doric, the latter of Ionic blood. And, indeed, these two nations had held from very early times the most distinguished place in Greece, the one being Pelasgic, the other a Hellenic people, and the one having never quitted its original seas, while the other had been excessively migratory." "The Hellenes," wrote Professor Boughton in the Arena some years ago, "were the Aryans first to be brought into contact with these sunburnt Hamites, who, let it be remembered, though classed as whites, were probably as strongly Nigritic as are the Afro-Americans." "Greek art is not [Greek: autochthonus]," said Thiersch some fifty years ago, "but we derived from the Pelasgians, who, being blood relations of the Egyptians, undoubtedly brought the knowledge from Egypt." "The aptitude for art among all nations of antiquity," remarked Count de Gobineau a few years later, "was derived from an amalgamation with black races. The Egyptians, Assyrians and Etruscans were nothing but half-breeds, mulattoes." In the year 1884 Alexander Winchell, the famous American geologist, upset Americans with an article appearing in the North American Review. From it I quote the following: "The Pelasgic empire was at its meridian as early as 2500 B.C. This people came from the islands of the AEgean, and more remotely from Asia Minor. They were originally a branch of the sunburnt Hamitic stock that laid the basis of civilization in Canaan and Mesopotamia, destined later to be Semitized. Danaus and his daughters—that is, the fugitive 'shepherds' from Egypt—sought refuge among their Hamitic kindred in the Peloponnesus about 1700 B.C. Three hundred years before this these Pelasgians had learned the art of weaving from Aryan immigrants. In time they occupied the whole of Greece and Thessaly. Before 200 B.C. they established themselves in Italy. Thus do we get a conception of a vast Hamitic empire existing in prehistoric times, whose several nationalities were centered in Mesopotamia, Canaan, Egypt, Northwestern Africa, Iberia, Greece, Italy, Sicily, Sardinia and Central Europe—an intellectual ethnic family, the first of the Adamites to emerge into historic light, but with the records of its achievements buried in gloom almost as dense as that which covers the ruder populations that the Hamites everywhere displaced. To this family, chiefly, are to be traced the dark complexions of the nations and tribes still dwelling around the shores of the Mediterranean."

It was to be expected that such statements as the foregoing would throw the scholastic world into a ferment. There was a scramble to bolster up the cause of Aryanism and to preserve this one civilization, at least, to the credit of the Caucasian race. Homer was scanned with a patience unknown to college students and the classic myths were refined in the alembics of master minds. Yet there were some who cared for truth more than for racial glory and among them was Dr. Schlieman. Armed with a spade he went to the classic lands and brought to light a real Troy; at Tiryns and Mycenae he laid to view the palaces and tombs and treasures of Homeric kings. His message back to scholars who waited tensely for his verdict was, "It looks to me like the civilization of an African people." A new world opened to archeologists and the AEgean became the Mecca of the world. Traces of this prehistoric civilization began to make their appearance far beyond the limits of Greece itself. From Cyprus and Palestine to Sicily and Southern Italy, and even to the coasts of Spain, the colonial and industrial enterprise of the Myceneans has left its mark throughout the Mediterranean basin. The heretics were vindicated. "Whether they like it or not," declared Sir Arthur Evans before the London Hellenic Society a short time ago, "classical students must consider origins. The Grecians whom we discern in the new dawn were not the pale-skinned northerners, but essentially the dark-haired, brown-complexioned race." Perhaps Sir Arthur's words will carry weight with you when I remark that his wonderful discoveries in classical lands have brought him the honor of election last year as president of the British Association, the most notable assemblage of scholars in the world. I might further mention that Professor Sergi, of the University of Rome, has founded a new study of the origin of European civilization upon the remarkable archeological finds, entitled "The Mediterranean Race." From this masterly work I choose the following: "Until recent years the Greeks and Romans were regarded as Aryans, and then as Aryanized peoples; the great discoveries in the Mediterranean have overturned all these views. To-day, although a few belated supporters of Aryanism still remain, it is becoming clear that the most ancient civilization of the Mediterranean is not of Aryan origin. The Aryans were savages when they invaded Europe; they destroyed in part the superior civilization of the Neolithic populations, and could not have created the Graeco-Latin civilization. The primitive populations of Europe originated in Africa and the basin of the Mediterranean was the chief center of movement when the African migrations reached the center and north of Europe."

What, then, are some of those discoveries which have so completely destroyed the ethnic fetish of the Caucasian race? The greatest and most conclusive of them all was the discovery of the palace of Minos by Sir Arthur Evans. In 1894 this scientist undertook a series of exploration campaigns in central and eastern Crete; it has so happened that some years previous he had been hunting out ancient engraved stones at Athens and came upon some three or four-sided seals showing on each of their faces groups of hieroglyphics and linear signs distinct from the Egyptian and Hittite, but evidently representing some form of script. Upon inquiry Sir Arthur learned that these seals had been found in Crete, and to Crete he went. The legends of the famous labyrinth and palace of Minos came back to him and were refreshed by the gossipy peasants, who repeated the tales that had come down as ancestral memories. In wandering around the site of his proposed labors Sir Arthur noticed some ruined walls, the great gypsum blocks of which were engraved with curious symbolic characters, crowning the southern slope of a hill known as Kephala, overlooking the ancient site of Knossos, the city of Minos. It was the prelude to the discovery of the ruins of a palace, the most wonderful archeological find of modern times.

Who was Minos? In the myths that have come down to us he was a sort of an Abraham, a friend of God, and often appears as almost identical with his native Zeus. He was the founder and ruler of the royal city of Knossos, the Cretan Moses, who every nine years repaired to the famous cave of Zeus whether on the Cretan Ida or on Dicta, and received from the god of the mountain the laws for his people. He was powerful and great and extended his dominions far and wide over the AEgean Isles and coast lands, and even Athens paid to him its tribute of men and maidens. To him is attributed the founding of the great Minoan civilization.

I will not have time today to review the mass of archeological data which the discoveries of this civilization have produced. They consist of cyclopean ruins of cities and strongholds, tombs, vases, statues, votive bronzes, and exquisitely engraved gems and intaglios. That which is most valuable in establishing the claim of the African origin of the Grecian civilization is the discovery of the frescoes on the palace walls. These opened up a new epoch in painting and are of the utmost interest to the world. The colors are almost as brilliant as when laid down more than three thousand years ago. Among these frescoes are numerous representations of the race whose civilization they represent. It was a race neither Aryan nor Semitic, but African. The portraitures follow the Egyptian precedent and for the first time the mysterious Minoan and Mycenean people rise before us. The tint of the flesh is of a deep reddish brown and the limbs finely moulded. The profile of the face is pure and almost classically Greek. The hair is black and curling and the lips somewhat full, giving the entire physiognomy a distinct African cast. In the women's quarters the frescoes show them to be much fairer, the difference in complexion being due, probably, to the seclusion of harem life. But in their countenances, too, remain those distinguishable features which link with the African race.

You will pardon me, I trust, if occasion is taken here to impress upon you the value of genuine archeological evidence. Historians may write anything to reflect their vanity or their prejudices, but when the remains of ancient civilizations rise out of the dust and sands and give the lie to their assertions there is nothing more to be said. Egypt, Mesopotamia, Phoenecia, Greece, and Rome, have all been claimed for the Aryan, but the spade has unearthed stone that bears sentient witness to the fact that Africa has been the pioneer in the field of civilization. We wonder, then, why the historians continue to ignore these remains and persist in continuing falsehood. There can be but one answer and that is racial vanity prefers falsehood to truth and prejudice demands suppression rather than expression.

Yet these frescoes of Crete need not be such a surprise to scholars and public after all. The very classics themselves have more than hinted of the great part played by Africa in the development of Grecian civilization. Let us revert to the myths and trace the descent of Minos and his progeny. You will recollect that the ancient heroes of Greece were divided into the older and younger branches, the former belonging to the house of Inachus, distinctly Hamitic, while the latter belonged to the race of Japotus, distinctly a mixture.

The Pelasgic races of the south traced their descent from Inachus, the river god and son of Oceanus. The son of Inachus, Phoroneus, lived in the Peloponnesus and founded the town of Argos. He was succeeded by his son, Pelasgus, from whom the aforementioned races of the south derived their name. Io, the divine sister of Phoroneus, had the good fortune, or perhaps misfortune, to attract the attention of the all-loving Zeus and as a consequence incurred the enmity of Hera. She is transformed into a beautiful heifer by Zeus, but a gadfly sent by Hera torments her until she is driven mad and starts upon those famous wanderings which became the subject of many of the most celebrated stories of antiquity. AEschylus reviews her roamings in his great tragedy, "Prometheus Bound," and makes Io to arrive at Mount Caucasus to which the fire-bringer is chained. It is here that Prometheus delivers to her the oracle given him by his mother, Themis, Titan-born. He directs her to Canobos, a city on the Nile, and tells her that there Zeus will restore her mind.

"and thou shalt bear a child Of Zeus begotten, Epaphos, 'Touchborn,' Swarthy of hue."

Aryan parents do not usually bear black children and to show that AEschylus was thoroughly cognizant of the ethnical relationship here implied, permit me to quote from "The Suppliants," another of his tragedies. The Suppliants were the fifty daughters of Danaus, the Shepherds of Egypt, and they described themselves as, "We, of swart sunburnt race," "our race that sprang from Epaphos," and when they appear before the Argive king, claiming his country as their ancestral home, their color causes him to question their claims in the following words:

"Nay, stranger, what ye tell is past belief For me to hear, that ye from Argos spring; For ye to Libyan women are most like, And nowise to our native maidens here. Such race might Neilos breed, and Kyprian mould, Like yours, is stamped by skilled artificers On women's features; and I hear that those Of India travel upon camels borne, Swift as the horse, yet trained as sumpter-mules, E'en those who as the AEthiops' neighbors dwell. And had ye borne the bow, I should have guessed, Undoubting, ye were of the Amazon tribe."

No, AEschylus made no mistake. He meant just what he wrote and the discoveries of the wonderful Minoan civilization have proven that the swarthy touch-born son of Zeus and Io was the incarnation of the African element that raised Greece to the very pinnacle of civilization. Minos is in direct descent from Epaphos and from the latter's prolific progeny we note such names as Agenor, Cadmus, Europa, AEgyptus, Danaus, Perseus, Menelaus, husband of the famous Helen, Hercules, and Agamemnon, chosen by the Greeks to lead them against Troy.

If I should conclude at this point my thesis would be complete and conclusive, but there are other subjects which demand some attention. I cannot pass in silence the supposed testimony to the presence of the fair type in Greece, and to its superiority over the darker population, furnished by the Homeric poems. This supposed testimony has precipitated wordy wars as terrible, though perhaps less sanguinary, as those which were engaged in by the gods and heroes themselves. The fault, however, lies with the translators rather than with the epics. From the work of these industrious authors we get the idea that golden hair and blue eyes were so common that there was little chance of any other sort of people lingering around. The truth of the matter is that these translators, like historians, have permitted their prejudices to warp their accuracy. There is not in the entire writings of Homer an adjective or description applying to any of the principals that even suggests a single one of them having blue eyes and golden hair. Indeed, it is quite the reverse. Athena is [Greek: glaukopis]; [Greek: glaukos] means blue like the sea and the unclouded sky; the olive is [Greek: glaukos] also, and Athena is guardian of the olive. [Greek: Glaukopis] means that her eyes are brilliant and terrible. Apollo in Homer is [Greek: chrusaoros], that is to say, bearing a golden sword; while [Greek: xanthos], which has been mistranslated to mean fair, means reddish brown and brown, Artemis is [Greek: chrusee], golden, that is to say, brilliant, but never fair. Neptune is [Greek: kuanochaites], that is to say, bluish, blackish, like the dark and deep waves of the ocean. Eos, the dawn, is [Greek: chrusothronos, rododaktulos, krokopeplos], because the color of the dawn is golden, rosy and red. Neither Hera nor Kalypsos is fair from the descriptive adjectives. Achilles is [Greek: xanthos] which, as was said before, means reddish brown and brown. Agamemnon is also [Greek: xanthos] and remember, if you please, that he is in direct descent from Epaphos, the swarthy ancestor of the Pelasgic houses.

So you see that even our translators are not to be trusted. Professor Sergi made an extensive investigation of the supposed testimony to the presence of the fair type in Greece and his conclusions are as follows: "In Homer none of the individuals are fair in the ethnographic sense of the word. I could bring forth a wealth of facts to show that what I have just stated regarding the anthropological characters of the Homeric gods and heroes may also be said, and with more reason, of the types of Greek and Roman statuary which, though in the case of the divinities they may be conventionalized, do not in the slightest degree recall the features of a northern race." Hence the blue-eyed and golden-haired gods and goddesses who grace the canvases of our art galleries and theater curtains are but pigmentary creations from the minds of artists who visualize the peculiarities of their own race just as the Jewish Madonna is depicted as a Spanish, Dutch, German, English, Italian, Russian, Scandinavian, and even as an African mother by the different nationalities in turn.

Another idea which seems to be rapidly taking hold upon the scholastic mind is that the Iliad and Odyssey are in reality Minoan epics made over, if you please, to fit the later Grecian epochs. While the Homer we know professedly commemorates the deeds of Achaean heroes, everything about them is non-Hellenic. The whole picture of the civilization, including home life, dress, religious worship, and architecture, is Minoan and Mycenean. Warriors' weapons are of bronze when the age to which we attribute Homer was an iron age. The combatants use huge body shields when, as a matter of fact, such shields had been obsolete long previous to 1200 B.C. The form of worship, hymns and invocations to deities, and the use of certain sacrificial forms were all adaptations from the Mycenean ritual. The arrangements of the palaces and courts as narrated in the epics were counterparts of the Minoan and Mycenean palaces and had long since passed out of existence. Among the discoveries in Crete have been found pictorial scenes exactly as described in Homer, and the artistic representations upon the shield of Achilles and upon the shield of Hercules, as described by Hesiod, have been duplicated among the ruins of Crete. Upon intaglios recovered we find combatants striking at each other's throats and you will recollect that Achilles does just this thing in his fight with Hector. I might continue these coincidences indefinitely, but I believe that the point I desire to make is sufficiently clear to merit your attention. The great Grecian epics are epics of an African people and Helen, the cause of the Trojan war, must henceforth be conceived as a beautiful brown skin girl.

In the press and periodicals of our country we read that the classics are doomed and about to pass out of our lives, but the classics can never die. I sometimes dream of a magical time when the sun and moon will be larger than now and the sky more blue and nearer to the world. The days will be longer than these days and when labor is over and there falls the great flood of light before moonrise, minds now dulled with harsh labor and commercialism will listen to those who love them as they tell stories of ages past, stories that will make them tingle with pleasure and joy. Nor will these story tellers forget the classics. They will hear the surge of the ocean in Homer and march with his heroes to the plains of Troy; they will wander with Ulysses and help him slay the suitors who betrayed the hospitality of the faithful Penelope; they will escape from Priam's burning city with AEneas, weep over Dido's love, and help him to found a nation beside the Tiber. And the translators who shall again bring into life the dead tongues will not let prejudice cloud their brains or truth make bitter their tongues. The heroes of Homer shall, like the Prince of Morocco, wear the livery of the burnished sun and be knit by binding ties to the blood of Afric's clime from whence civilization took its primal rise.

Permit me now, ladies and gentlemen, to show definitely the debt which Greece owes to the Minoan and Mycenean civilizations. Crete, as I have said before, appears to be the center from which the Mediterranean culture radiated. It is the "Mid-Sea Land," a kind of half-way house between three continents, and its geographical position makes it the logical cradle of European civilization. It is near the mainland of Greece, opposite the mouths of the Nile and in easy communication with Asia Minor, with which it was actually connected in late geological times. As I mentioned before, the civilization expanded in every direction and at the time of the conquest it had firm hold upon Greece, appearing at Mycenae, Tiryns, Thebes, Orochomenos, and other places. That some vanguard of Aryan immigrants came into contact with this culture at its climax is plain from the evidence furnished by Homer. That they mingled with the inhabitants is certain. The later onrush about 1200 B.C. destroyed in part the civilization found there, but fortunately there was not utter destruction. These rude people realized the difference between their savagery and their enemies' culture. They, too, merged with the inhabitants and formed the Grecian people of historic times. This amalgamation is clearly apparent in the Greeks to-day and because of it Count de Gobineau has called their ancestors half-breeds and mulattoes. Note, also, if you will, that Greek genius burned brightest in those parts of Greece where the Minoan elements were most thoroughly planted.

If you should inquire the source of the Minoan civilization I would first call your attention to the fact that Herodotus attributed much of the Grecian civilization to Egypt, and secondly to the opinion expressed by Sir Arthur Evans in his presidential address before the British Association last fall. "My own recent investigations," said he, "have more and more brought home to me the all pervading community between Minoan Crete and the land of Pharaohs. When we realize the great indebtedness of the succeeding classical culture of Greece to its Minoan predecessor the full significance of this conclusion will be understood. Ancient Egypt itself can no longer be regarded as something apart from general human history. Its influences are seen to lie about the very cradle of our civilization. The first quickening impulse came to Crete from the Egyptian and not from the Oriental side." Herodotus has been called the father of lies, but at this late date we again see him vindicated in a conclusion reached by the greatest living authority upon classical archeology.

Before closing I wish again to enforce the fact that the ferment creating the wonderful Grecian civilization was preeminently the ferment of African blood. Take all the archeological facts of the last fifty years and read them up or down, across or diagonally, inside and out, and this fact rises into your mind like a Banquo that will not down. Historians may distort truth and rob the African race of its historical position, but facts are everywhere throwing open the secret closets of nations and exposing ethnic skeletons that laugh and jest at our racial vanities. The Aryan savages of Europe came down upon Greece, found there a great civilization, merged with the inhabitants and builded a greater. The all but savage European of the Dark Ages knew nothing of culture save what had been taught him by the Roman legions, the heirs of the Mediterranean civilization. This little was almost forgotten until religious fanaticism started the Crusades and brought them into contact with the civilized refinement of the Arabians, Moors and Saracens, likewise peoples in whose veins flowed the fiery ferment of African blood. If, as Sir Arthur Evans declares, classical students must consider origins and admit the ancient Grecians of African descent, so must they go a bit further and admit the Renaissance to have sprung because of contact between feudal Europe and African Mohammedanism. Again we must admit, no matter how bitter the taste, that the mixed race has always been the great race—the pure race always the stagnant race. One potent reason for the possible downfall of European civilization to-day is the fact that the Aryan element has proven incapable of the mighty trust. It has forgotten the everlasting lesson of history that mergence of distinct types means the perpetuation of nationalism. The sole tenet of Europe has been the domination of the world by the Caucasian and suddenly it discovers that the term Caucasian is too narrow to include both Saxon and Teuton. Hence a war for the extermination of both.

The end of the world is not near and the dream of a millennium is equidistant. The sum of all that is past is but a prelude of that which is to come. It has taken the brute a myriad of years for his gaze to reach beyond them. Civilization is a mixture of dictions and contradictions and none of us to-day is sure that we know just what it means. Through all there yet remain:

"Those first affections, Those shadowy recollections, Which, be they what they may, Are yet the fountain light of all our day,— Are yet the master-light of all our seeing,— Upholds us, cherish and have powers to make Our noisy years seem moments in the being Of Eternal Silence."

I close with the hope of a time when earthly values will be measured with a justice now deemed divine. It is then that Africa and her sun-browned children will be saluted. In that day men will gladly listen with open minds when she tells how in the deep and dark pre-historic night she made a stairway of the stars so that she might climb and light her torch from the altar fires of heaven, and how she has held its blaze aloft in the hall of ages to brighten the wavering footsteps of earthly nations.

FOOTNOTES:

[401] This address was delivered before the Omaha Philosophical Society, April 1, 1917.



THE JOURNAL

OF

NEGRO HISTORY

VOL. II—OCTOBER, 1917—NO. 4



SOME HISTORICAL ERRORS OF JAMES FORD RHODES

While on a visit to Cleveland, Ohio, some time ago, the guest of my good friend George A. Myers, my attention was called to Rhodes' History of the United States. This was due, no doubt, to the fact that Mr. Myers had been in correspondence with Mr. Rhodes relative to certain points in the career of the late M. A. Hanna, brought out by Mr. Rhodes, which, in the opinion of Mr. Myers, were not accurate. In glancing over one of the volumes, I came across the chapters giving information about what took place in the State of Mississippi during the period of Reconstruction. I detected so many statements and representations which to my own knowledge were absolutely groundless that I decided to read carefully the entire work. I regret to say that, so far as the Reconstruction period is concerned, it is not only inaccurate and unreliable but it is the most biased, partisan and prejudiced historical work I have ever read. In his preface to volume six, the author was frank enough to use the following language: "Nineteen years' almost exclusive devotion to the study of one period of American history has had the tendency to narrow my field of vision." Without doing the slightest violence to the truth, he could have appropriately added these words: "And since the sources of my information touching the Reconstruction period were partial, partisan and prejudiced, my field of vision has not only been narrowed, but my mind has been poisoned, my judgment has been warped, my decisions and deductions have been biased and my opinions have been so influenced that my alleged facts have not only been exaggerated, but my comments, arguments, inferences and deductions based upon them, can have very little if any value for historical purposes."

Many of his alleged facts were so magnified and others so minimized as to make them harmonize with what the author thought the facts should be rather than what they actually were. In the first place, the very name of his work is a misnomer: "History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850 to the Final Restoration of Home Rule at the South in 1877." I have emphasized the words "to the final restoration of home rule at the South in 1877" because those are the words that constitute the misnomer. If home rule were finally restored to the South in 1877, the natural and necessary inference to be drawn is that prior to that time those States were subjected to some other kind of rule, presumably that of foreigners and strangers, an inference which is wholly at variance with the truth. Another inference to be drawn is that those States had enjoyed home rule until the same was revolutionized or set aside by the Reconstruction Acts of Congress and that it was finally restored in 1877. If this is the inference which the writer meant to have the reader make, it is conclusive evidence of the fact that he was unpardonably and inexcusably ignorant of the subject matter about which he wrote. As that term is usually and generally understood, there never was a time when those States did not have home rule, unless we except the brief period when they were under military control, and even then the military commanders utilized home material in making appointments to office. Since the officers, however, were not elected by the people, it may be plausibly claimed that they did not have home rule. But the State governments that were organized and brought into existence under the Reconstruction Acts of Congress were the first and only governments that were genuinely republican in form. The form of government which existed in ante-bellum days was that of an aristocracy. That which has existed since what Mr. Rhodes is pleased to term the restoration of home rule is simply that of a local despotic oligarchy. The former was not, and the present is not, based upon the will and choice of the masses; but the former was by far the better of the two, for whatever may be truthfully said in condemnation and in derogation of the southern aristocracy of ante-bellum days, it can not be denied that they represented the wealth, the intelligence, the decency and the respectability of their respective States. While the State governments that were dominated by the aristocrats were not based upon the will of the people, as a whole, yet from an administrative point of view they were not necessarily bad. Such can not be said of those who are now the representatives of what Mr. Rhodes is pleased to term home rule.

On page 171 of his seventh volume, Mr. Rhodes says: "Some Southern men at first acted with the Republican party, but they gradually slipped away from it as the color line was drawn and reckless and corrupt financial legislation inaugurated." That thousands of white men in the South, who identified themselves with the Republican party between 1868 and 1876, subsequently left it, will not be denied, but the reasons for their action are not those given by Mr. Rhodes. In fact, there is no truth in the allegation about the drawing of the color line and very little in the one about corrupt or questionable financial legislation. The true reason why so many white men at the South left the Republican party may be stated under three heads: first, the Democratic victories of 1874 which were accepted by southern Democrats as a national repudiation of the congressional plan of Reconstruction; second, the closeness of the Presidential election of 1876 together with the supposed bargain entered into between the Hayes managers and southern Democratic members of Congress, by which the South was to be turned over to the Democrats of that section in consideration of which the said southern Democrats gave their consent to the peaceable inauguration of Hayes; third, the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States by which the doctrine of States' Rights was given new life and strength.

It is true there are some men whose party affiliations are based upon principle and convictions regardless of consequences personal to themselves. Occasionally there are found some who are even willing to be martyrs, but they are exceptions to the general rule. The average man is politically ambitious. He desires political distinction and official recognition. In determining his party affiliations, therefore, he is more than apt to cast his lot with the party through which he believes that ambition may be gratified. After the consummation of the events above referred to, the conviction became settled in the minds of white men at the South that the Democratic party in that section would be, for a generation, at least, the only channel through which it would be possible for any one to have his political ambition realized. Hence, thousands of those who had previously joined the Republican party returned to the Democratic since that party presented the only hope of their future political salvation.

Mr. Rhodes would lead one to infer that the southern white men who came into the Republican party in the South between 1868 and 1876 were not among the most intelligent, cultivated, refined and representative men of that section. As a rule, they were men who belonged to, and were identified with, what was known as the "Southern aristocracy." Such men, for instance, as Ex-Governors Orr of South Carolina, Parsons of Alabama, Reynolds of Texas, and Brown of Georgia. Also such men as Mosby, Wickham, and subsequently Mahone, Massey, Paul, Fulkerson and Riddleberger, of Virginia. General R. E. Lee was known to have leanings in the same direction, but since he was not politically ambitious, his views were not made a matter of public discussion. In addition to Ex-Governor Brown of Georgia, they included such men as General Longstreet, Joshua Hill, Bullock and many others of like caliber. Even Ben Hill was suspected by some and accused by others of leaning in the same direction. In Louisiana, not less than 25 per cent. of the best and most substantial white men of that State became identified with the Republican party under the leadership of such men as Ex-Governor Hahn and the Honorable Mr. Hunt (who was appointed Secretary of the Navy by President Garfield), Wells, Anderson and many others. General Beauregard was known, or at any rate believed, to be in sympathy with these men and the cause they represented, although he took no active part in politics. But it was in my own State of Mississippi, where I had an intimate knowledge of, and acquaintance with, the solid and substantial white men who identified themselves with the Republican party and whose leadership the newly enfranchised blacks faithfully followed. They included such men as James L. Alcorn, who was elected Governor of the State by the Republicans in 1869 and to the United States Senate by the legislature that was elected at the same time. Alcorn was one of the aristocrats of the past. He served with Mr. Lamar in the secession convention of 1861 and was a general in the Confederate Army.

Mr. Rhodes failed to inform his readers of the fact that the Democratic candidate for Governor against Alcorn, Judge Louis Dent, belonged to that much abused class called "carpet baggers," but who, like thousands of others of that class, both Democrats and Republicans, was a man of honor and integrity. The same was true of Tarbell, Powers, Pierce, McKee, Jeffords, Speed and others of the same type in both parties. In addition to Alcorn, there was Col. R. W. Flournoy, who also served with Mr. Lamar as a member of the secession convention and who was the Republican candidate for Congress against Mr. Lamar in 1872, also Judge Jason Niles, who served as a member of the State legislature, Judge of the Circuit Court and member of Congress. His able and brilliant son, Judge Henry Clay Niles, is now the United States District Judge for that State, having been appointed by President Harrison. He has the reputation of being one of the best and finest Judges on the Federal Bench. The State never had before and has not had since, a finer judiciary than it had under the administrations of Alcorn, Powers and Ames, the three Republican Governors. In referring to the three justices of the State Supreme Court, Mr. Rhodes made the statement that eligible material in the Republican party was so scarce that, in order to get three competent judges the Governor was obliged to select a Democrat. This is not true. Chief Justice E. G. Peyton and Associate Justice H. F. Simrall were both southern Republicans. Justice Tarbell, though a so-called "carpet bagger," was also a Republican and an able judge, who enjoyed the confidence and respect of the bench and bar. When he retired from the bench he was made Second Comptroller of the United States Treasury.

In addition to these able and brilliant men, I feel justified in naming a few others, such as R. W. Millsaps, in whose honor one of the educational institutions at Jackson was named; W. M. Compton; T. W. Hunt; J. B. Deason; W. H. Vasser; Luke Lea, who was at one time United States District Attorney; his son, A. M. Lea, who subsequently held the same office; J. L. Morphis, who was one of the first Republicans elected to Congress; Judge Hiram Cassidy, who was the recognized leader of the bar in the southern part of the State; his able and brilliant son, Hiram Cassidy, Jr.; and his law partner, Hon. J. F. Sessions. Among the circuit and chancery court judges there were such jurists as Messrs. Chandler, Davis, Hancock, Walton, Smyley, Henderson, Hill, Osgood, Walker, Millsaps, McMillan, and Drane. Moreover, there were thousands of others, such as J. N. Carpenter and James Surget, men of character, wealth and intelligence, who had no ambition for official recognition or political distinction, but who were actuated by what they honestly believed to be conducive to the best interests of their country, their State and their section. In fact, the southern white men that came into the Republican party were typical representatives of the best blood and the finest manhood of the South, than whom no better men ever lived. And yet to read what Mr. Rhodes has written, one would naturally assume that the opposite of this was true, that the Republican party in that section was under the domination of northern "carpet baggers," a few worthless southern whites and a number of dishonest and incompetent colored men. This, no doubt, is the false, deceptive and misleading picture which had been painted from the vividness of his partial, mistaken, prejudiced and diseased imagination.

That many mistakes were made during the progress of Reconstruction cannot and will not be denied. No friend and supporter of the congressional plan of Reconstruction will maintain that every thing was perfect. On the contrary, it is frankly admitted that quite a number of grave blunders were made; but they were not confined to any one party. Neither Republicans nor Democrats can justly lay claim to all that was good or truthfully charge the other with all that was bad. Of those who were selected as representatives of the two parties, the Democrats had, in point of experience and intelligence, a slight advantage over the Republicans; but in point of honesty and integrity the impartial historian will record the fact that the advantage was with the Republicans. How could either escape error? The Civil War had just come to a close; sectional animosity was bitter and intense. The Republican party was looked upon as the party of the North and, therefore, the bitter enemy of the South. The southern white men who joined the Republican party were accused of being traitors to their section and false to their own race and blood; they were called Scalawags. Through a process of intimidation, chiefly by means of social ostracism, independent thought and action on the part of southern whites, during the early period of Reconstruction, were pretty effectually prevented. Through such methods, they were quite successfully held under the subjection and control of those whose leadership they had been accustomed to follow.

Under such circumstances, the reader may ask the question, why was it and how was it that so many of the best white men of that section joined the Republican party? The answer is that, prior to the election of General Grant to the presidency in 1868, very few of them did so. It was never a question of men. It was always a question of party. Under such circumstances, thousands of white men were obliged to vote for certain Democratic candidates who were otherwise objectionable as against certain Republicans who were otherwise acceptable. In like manner, thousands of colored men were obliged to vote for certain Republican candidates who were otherwise objectionable as against certain Democrats who were otherwise acceptable. The wonder, therefore, is, not that so many, but that so few mistakes were made; not that so many, but that so few objectionable persons were elected to important and responsible positions.

After the election of Grant, however, in 1868 the feeling of intolerance somewhat subsided, resulting in a large number of accessions to the Republican party from the ranks of the best and most substantial white men of that section. But it was not until the reelection of Grant in 1872 that the feeling of political proscription, social ostracism and intolerance among the whites seemingly disappeared. It was then that white men came into, took charge of and assumed the leadership of the Republican party, in large numbers. They then had nothing to fear and nothing to lose by being identified with the Republican party when social distinctions growing out of politics ceased to be effective. The South then entered upon a new era which was destined to bring to that section wealth and prosperity with happiness and contentment among its people of both races, all living under local governments successfully controlled by the better element of native whites with the cooperation and participation to some extent of the newly enfranchised blacks.

The writer of this article has always believed it to be a misfortune to his race and to the country, if conditions be such as to make it necessary for any race or group, of which our citizenship is composed, to act in a solid body with any one political party. The writer timely called attention to this in a speech which he delivered on the floor of the House of Representatives over thirty years ago. He then made an appeal to the Democrats to change the attitude of their party towards the colored Americans. While the colored people, he said, were grateful to the Republican party for their physical emancipation, they would be equally grateful to the Democratic party for their political emancipation. While he was a Republican from choice, he personally knew of many members of his race who were Republicans, not from choice but from necessity, and that the Democratic party was responsible for the existence of that necessity. Upon economic questions there are differences of opinion among colored as well as white persons. It is an injustice to the colored race and a misfortune to the country, if they can not vote in accordance with their convictions upon such questions. No race or group can be true and independent American citizens, as all should be, when they are made to feel that the exercise and enjoyment by them of their civil and political rights are contingent upon the result of an election. It must be said to the credit of the late Grover Cleveland that he did all in his power both as Governor of New York and as President of the United States to bring about this necessary change and reform in his party. That his efforts were not crowned with success, was through no fault of his.

The newly enfranchised blacks at the South, as I have endeavored to show, had no other alternative than to act with the Republican party. That some objectionable persons should have been elected by them under such conditions, could not very well have been prevented. But the reader of Mr. Rhodes's history cannot fail to see that he believed it was a grave mistake to have given the colored men at the South the right to vote, and in order to make the alleged historical facts harmonize with his own views upon this point, he took particular pains to magnify the virtues and minimize the faults of the Democrats and to magnify the faults and minimize the virtues of the Republicans, the colored men especially. On page 97 of his fifth volume, for instance, Mr. Rhodes says: "But few Negroes were competent to perform the duties; for instance, it was said that the colored man, who for four years was Sheriff of DeSoto County, could neither read nor write. The Negro incumbent generally farmed out his office to a white deputy for a share of the revenue."

The foregoing is one of the most barefaced and glaring misrepresentations that can possibly be made. The reader will notice that the allegation is based upon "it has been said." But if Mr. Rhodes had been anxious to record only what was accurate and true, he should have, as he easily could have done, found out just what the facts were, as I have done. The facts were these. When Tate County was created the greater part of the territory composing the new county had been taken from the county of DeSoto. The then sheriff of DeSoto County lived in that section which was made a part of the new county of Tate. It thus became necessary for a new sheriff to be appointed by the Governor for DeSoto County to hold office until the election of a sheriff at the next regular election. Rev. J. J. Evans, a colored Baptist minister and a Union soldier, was thereupon appointed. Since this took place in 1873, the appointment must have been made by Governor R. C. Powers, who had been elected Lieutenant Governor on the ticket with Alcorn in 1869 and had become Governor when Alcorn went to the United States Senate in 1871. Although he was one of those who belonged to that class called "carpet baggers," Governor Powers was known to be an honest and an upright man and one who exercised great care in all of his appointments. Governor Powers never could have been induced to appoint as sheriff of any county a man who could neither read nor write.

Mr. Evans discharged the duties of his position with such entire satisfaction that he was nominated by the Republicans and elected to succeed himself at the regular election in November, 1873, for the full term of two years. In 1875 he was renominated by his party to succeed himself. Mr. Evans's administration had been so satisfactory that when the Democratic county convention met to nominate a local ticket, no nomination was made for the office of sheriff. But between the nomination and election the Democratic organization in the State saw a new light. It was decided that the State must be "redeemed," and that nearly all of the counties must be included in that redemption. The Democratic executive committee of DeSoto County was, therefore, directed to meet and complete the local ticket by nominating a candidate for sheriff. This was done, and the ticket as thus completed was, of course, declared elected and DeSoto County "redeemed."

It is a fact of which Mr. Rhodes may not be aware, that the county sheriff in Mississippi is also the county tax collector, and as such he is required to give a heavy bond. These bonds are usually given by property owners of the county, nearly all of whom are white men and Democrats. Had Mr. Evans been the man described by Mr. Rhodes, he never could have qualified for the office. It is also a fact of which Mr. Rhodes may not be aware, that the county sheriff in Mississippi as the chief executive and administrative officer of his county, is necessarily obliged, regardless of his own qualifications and fitness, to employ a number of assistants and deputies to aid him in running the office. The number of persons, with the salary or compensation of each, is fixed by law or the court and they are paid according to law out of money appropriated for that purpose. In making these appointments, it is both reasonable and natural that the appointing power would favorably consider a suggestion or recommendation from any one of the sureties. At any rate, Mr. Evans had the good sense to surround himself with honest, efficient and capable assistants. He is still living at Hernando, DeSoto County, Mississippi. As I write these lines, an autograph letter from him is before me. While it is clear that he is not a college graduate, his letter effectually disproves the allegation that he can neither read nor write. Moreover, even if his education is limited, this cannot be considered exceptional, for the sheriffs of many counties in the South today are illiterate and mentally undeveloped. I judge from the contents of Mr. Evans's letter that there is no truth in the allegation that he divided any part of his own compensation with any one or more of his assistants. He left the office with a spotless record, every dollar of the public funds that passed through his hands, and for which he was liable, having been honestly and faithfully accounted for.

But even if Mr. Evans had been the man described by Mr. Rhodes, it would have been manifestly unfair and unjust to the colored voters of Mississippi to select him as a typical representative of those who were elected to important and responsible positions by the votes of colored men. Out of seventy-two counties of which the State was then composed, not more than twelve ever had colored sheriffs at any time, and they did not all hold office at the same time. Of those who were thus honored, the writer of these lines was personally acquainted with not less than ten. Mr. Evans was one of the few whom he did not then know personally. If Mr. Rhodes had desired to be fair and impartial, he would have taken all of them into consideration and would have drawn an average. But this would not have answered his purpose. It would have shown that in point of intelligence, capacity, and honesty the colored sheriffs would have favorably compared with the whites.

Take, for instance, the county of Adams-Natchez, my own home, where two colored men at different times held the office of sheriff. The first of the two was Wm. McCary, who was elected in 1873. He belonged to that small class known as free persons of color during the days of slavery. His father was the leading barber of Natchez for white business men and a private school teacher. He taught the children of those who were identified with his own class, of which there were quite a number, having privileges and advantages which were denied to the children of slaves. His own children, of course, were not neglected. Wm. McCary, therefore, had a good English education. He was also a property owner and a taxpayer. He was one of the two colored men who qualified as a surety on the bond of the writer of these lines when he was appointed a Justice of the Peace in 1869. Mr. McCary was held in high esteem by the people of the city of Natchez and the county of Adams, both white and colored. Prior to his election to the office of sheriff he had served as a member of the board of aldermen for the city of Natchez and also as treasurer of the county of Adams, and subsequently as postmaster of Natchez, the duties of all of which he discharged with credit to himself and satisfaction to the public. In 1875 he was succeeded as sheriff by another colored man, Robert H. Wood, who in all important particulars was about on a par with McCary. Wood had previously served as mayor of Natchez, to which position he was elected by popular vote in December, 1870. He was serving the people of Natchez as their postmaster when he was elected to the office of sheriff.

These men not only gave satisfaction to the people whom they served, but they reflected credit upon themselves, their race, their party and the community that was so fortunate as to have the benefit of their services. What was true of these two men was also true in a large measure of Harney of Hinds, Scott of Issaquena, Sumner of Holmes, and several others. But, if Mr. Rhodes had desired to be impartial and preferred to select but one man as a typical representative of those who were elected to such positions by the votes of colored men, he would have selected B. K. Bruce, who was sheriff of Bolivar County when he was elected to the United States Senate. Mr. Bruce needs no introduction to intelligent and reading Americans. He developed into a national character. He reflected credit not only upon himself, his race and his party but his country as well. And yet he typified in a most remarkable degree the colored men who were elected to important and responsible positions chiefly by the votes of members of that race. But the reader of Rhodes's history will look in vain for anything that will give him accurate information along these lines. His history, therefore, is remarkable, not only for what it says, but for what it leaves unsaid. In fact, it is plain to the intelligent reader that he started out with preconceived notions as to what the facts were or should have been, and that he took particular pains to select such data and so to color the same as to make them harmonize with his opinions. He thus passed over in silence all facts which could not be so distorted as to make them thus harmonize. He could find nothing that was creditable or meritorious in the career of any colored member of either house of Congress, notwithstanding the favorable impression made and the important and dignified service rendered by Revels and Bruce in the Senate and by Rainey, Rapier, Elliott, Smalls, Cain, Langston, Miller, Ohara, Cheatham, White and others in the House.[403]

But, to return to Mississippi, let us take up another error of Mr. Rhodes. Referring to the political and sanguinary revolution which took place in Mississippi in 1875, Mr. Rhodes makes use of these words: "Whilst regretting some of the means employed, all lovers of good government must rejoice at the redemption of Mississippi.... Since 1876 Mississippi has increased in population and in wealth; her bonded indebtedness and taxation are low."[404] It is difficult to conceive how an intelligent man, claiming to be an impartial recorder of historical events, could be induced to make such glaring statements as the above, when he ought to have known that just the opposite of what he affirms is true, except as to increase in population and in wealth. "All lovers of good government must rejoice at the redemption of Mississippi." Redemption from what? The reader is led to believe that the "redemption" is from bad to good government, from high to low taxes, from increased to decreased bonded indebtedness, from incompetent, inefficient and dishonest administration to one that was competent, efficient and honest.

Now let us see just what the facts were and are. In 1875 there was just one State officer to be elected, that of State treasurer, to fill the vacancy caused by the death of George H. Holland, who was elected on the ticket with Ames in 1873. The Democrats nominated Hon. Wm. L. Hemingway, of Carroll County, whose nomination was favorably received. He had the reputation of being a capable, an honest and upright man. In addition to this, he was identified with that wing of his party which was known to be progressive, liberal and fair. In the early days of Reconstruction, the Democratic party in the State was sharply divided into two factions. One, the major faction, adopted what they termed a policy of "masterly inactivity," which meant that the white Democrats should take no part in the organization of a State government under the Reconstruction Acts of Congress, with a view of making the work of Reconstruction as odious, as objectionable and as unpopular as possible. The other faction believed it to be the duty of the white Democrats to take an active part in the formation of a State government, elect as many Democrats to the State Constitutional Convention of 1868 as possible with a view of framing a new constitution that would have very few if any objectionable clauses. Wm. L. Hemingway was one of that number, and as such he was elected to the convention from Carroll County. The nomination of Hemingway for State treasurer by the Democratic State Convention in 1875 was looked upon as a concession to that element of the party.

The Republicans did not fail to see that in order to carry the State they must nominate their strongest and best man, even if the election should be fair and honest, which they hoped would be the case, but which hope they had good reasons to apprehend would not be fully realized. Capt. George M. Buchanan, of Marshal County, was nominated. Buchanan had been a brave and gallant Confederate soldier. He had served as sheriff of Marshal County for a number of years. He was strong, able and popular. He was known to be the best fitted and best qualified man for the office of State treasurer. With a half-way decent election his triumph, even over so popular a man as Wm. L. Hemingway, was an assured fact. The Democrats, however, had decided that the time had come for the State to be "redeemed," peaceably and fairly if possible, violently and unfairly if necessary. With George M. Buchanan as the Republican candidate, it was necessary to employ means which Mr. Rhodes so much regretted, but which he justifies because, as he understands it, they were employed in the interest of good government.

Was that true? Let us see. Buchanan, of course, was declared defeated and Hemingway declared elected. Mississippi was thus "redeemed, for which all lovers of good government must rejoice," but Mr. Rhodes failed to record the fact that this man who was the representative of the redemption of the State had been in office a comparatively brief period when the discovery was made that he was a defaulter to the amount of $315,612.19.[405] It would be a reflection upon Mr. Rhodes's intelligence to assume that he was ignorant of this important fact. Oh, no! he must have known about it, but to make any allusion to it would be out of harmony with the purposes he evidently had in view. It is safe to assume that, if the will of a majority of the legal voters of the State had not been violently suppressed in the interest of good and honest government, which would have resulted in the election of honest George M. Buchanan, while the State would not have been redeemed, it would have been saved from the loss of $315,612.19. The writer of these lines has never believed that Hemingway was the personal beneficiary of this money or any part thereof, but that he was the instrument in the hands of others. Still he was the official representative of the redemption of the State for which "all lovers of good government must rejoice."

That there was a material increase in the population and in the wealth of the State will not be denied. These results would have followed, even if the State had never been redeemed. They were not due to redemption but in spite of it. In fact, there was a marked increase in population and in wealth before as well as subsequent to the redemption. But when the author states that the bonded indebtedness and taxation are low, the impression necessarily made, and intended to be made upon the mind of the reader, is that after the redemption took place and as a result thereof, the rate of taxation was reduced, the volume of money paid into the State treasury annually for the support of the government was less than it had been before, and that there had been a material reduction in the bonded debt of the State, neither of which is true.[406] If Mr. Rhodes had been disposed to record the truth and nothing but the truth, which is presumed to be the aim of an impartial historian, he could have easily obtained the facts, because they are matters of record. To give the reader an idea of what the facts were and are, I will take, for purposes of comparison, one year prior and one subsequent to the redemption of the State. In 1875, the year that the redemption took place, the assessed value of taxable property was $119,313,834. The receipts from all sources that year amounted to $1,801,129.12. Disbursements for the same year, $1,430,192.83. In 1907 the assessed value of taxable property was reported to be $373,584,960. Receipts from all sources, same year, $3,391,127.15. Disbursements, same year, $3,730,343.29. The above figures speak for themselves. They are from the official records, the accuracy of which cannot be questioned.[407] The records show too that during the administration of Governor Ames, which was about half over when the redemption took place, the rate of taxation had been reduced from seven mills to four mills and that a material reduction had been made in the bonded debt of the State and that after the redemption took place the tax rate was increased from four mills to six mills and that by 1907 $732,890.74 had been added to the bonded debt of the State. And yet in the opinion of Mr. Rhodes, these are conditions for the deliverance from which the employment of regrettable means was necessary, at which, however, "all lovers of good government should rejoice," since their employment resulted in the redemption of the State.

But another evidence of Mr. Rhodes's careless and reckless manner of stating alleged historical facts will be found in a paragraph on page 132 of his seventh volume. In speaking of Governor Ames's unsuccessful efforts to have troops sent to the State to assist in maintaining order and insuring a fair and peaceable election, he says: "A number of the white Republicans of Mississippi who had quarrelled or differed with Ames, among whom were both the United States senators, used their influence against the sending of federal troops to Mississippi and none were sent." The two United States Senators at that time were J.L. Alcorn and B.K. Bruce. Bruce was a strong friend and loyal supporter of Ames and did all in his power to have Ames's request granted. This statement is based upon my own knowledge. Senator Alcorn was one of the few white Republicans who had quarrelled with Ames. In fact, he ran as an Independent for governor against Ames in 1873. But he was a Republican United States Senator and as such he had no sympathy with the Democratic party. My relations with both senators were cordial. If Alcorn had used his influence to prevent having federal troops sent to the State, I am sure I would have known it. If he raised his voice or used his pen for such purpose, that fact was never brought to my notice and I am satisfied it was never done. My own opinion is that he remained reticent and refused to take sides. The true reason why troops were not sent in compliance with the request of Governor Ames was that, although the President once directed that the requisition be complied with, he later rescinded the order when informed by Republicans from Ohio that such interference would cause the loss of Ohio to the Republicans at the October election and would not save Mississippi.[408]