perpetuate a relationship, it must first be based upon the principles of right, guaranteed by the force of all competent power, that power being common to all parties concerned. This is the sum maximum of all ethical science and is complete. To add to it, or take from it, would change the rule. Then, the solution to all ills must be measured by that sense of conscience unimpaired, emanating from that innate rule of human duty based upon moral obligation.
Now, there must be a standard of righteousness, not fixed by man, but by a superior power; for it is not man's will which he must obey, but the will of his Maker. This will can be shown in two ways only. First, by revelation, and, second, by example, both of which have been verified and demonstrated in the sacrifice made by Christ for the world of mankind. This relationship can and will be sustained, because Christ sought to know the nature and power of the second party. He enters into a covenant fixing that relationship forever, between the two. Now, if the so-called superior race, with the boasted power of all the heavy centuries of the past, has given to the inferior race in its undeveloped condition, that consideration which is necessary to sustain and maintain the relationship which now exists, then, the relationship is real and the education and development of the Negro along economic and commercial lines will but make this relationship stronger. And the future of the two races in the South, under such conditions, must be bright and glorious.
But, I fear we have been hasty in our conclusions when we measure the relationship which now exists in the South, by constitutional rights and enactments. The Constitution of these United States makes the people a compact, and therefore equals in immunities, privileges and rights, with a common flag as the symbol of our common protection. Every citizen, then, of these United States—let him be of any race variety—owes to that flag its protection, and, in return, that flag is to protect him. So that the relationship of all the citizens of the United States to the flag is the same; being the same to the flag, they are the same to each other from a civic point of view.
I agree that there is such a thing as "State rights," but such rights must be local and subsidiary and must in no case conflict with, or counteract, the rights of a citizen growing out of a common Constitution whose jurisdiction holds the sisterhood of states together. To sustain and maintain such a sisterhood the compilers of the Constitution gave the general government the right to summons such states to protect her in the discharge of her duty. So that it is seen that the government is exercising a power that was given it by the sovereign people, acknowledging equal rights to all and special privileges to none. Among these are life, liberty and the peaceful pursuit of happiness. These are the rights which are guaranteed by the Constitution.
Now, an agreement entered into by the people of any part of these United States which does not conform to the stipulated rights mentioned above, is not a contract and can not be considered binding under the law. Therefore, a relationship based upon privileges of one and the denied rights of the other, cannot be friendly and must, sooner or later, be dissolved. I, for one, cannot concede that the relationship between the races in the South is friendly. It is, for the most part, peaceful, but that peace grows out of a fear of the law in the hands of an unfriendly and prejudiced people who feel that the Negro race has no rights which they are bound to respect. Accepting this position, the Negro quietly moves on, trying to make for himself and family a living, but he feels keenly the class legislation which proscribes him to the "Jim Crow" cars, to the rear seats in street cars, behind the doors in public restaurants, and a hundred other indignities heaped upon him. He is also denied the right to vote, which is the greatest evil done him and the only protection that the Constitution gives him.
Now, I ask, "Can there be friendly relations with such environments, and, if they are friendly, can they be sustained and maintained?" I assert that the infringement of any right is an unfriendly act, whether the one whose rights are infringed upon is conscious of the unfriendly act or not. If he is unconscious of it, it is all the more unfriendly. I assert further, that whenever existing conditions make it necessary for one race to suppress another, the suppression affects both races alike. The stronger race ceases to develop that strength which is necessary for the growth of a nation, and to prepare it to meet the great problems which are indispensable in the fostering of a government such as ours. And the weaker race is deprived of the opportunities which are necessary to cultivate those innate powers which are intended by God to be developed in the rounding out of good citizenship. In fact, the denial of freedom to any race, along any of the walks of life, has a tendency to teach that race irresponsibility; for responsibility must rest with the volition of the human family.
"The Nashville American," in a recent issue, admits that the Southern white people have made no progress in the great world of thought, because they had everything their way. The solid South practically destroyed its opportunities to develop thinkers in the political world, and the prejudice they entertain and foster by mere sentiment was not conducive to the production of strong men, or the development of great thinkers or leaders of distinguished constructive ability. In some sense the South has for some time lived in an eddy. There has not been that broad sweep of the current of thought which once made it strong and powerful. And the reason for this is assigned in their surroundings, their highest ambition being to suppress the Negro in the civil walks of life.
Now, we are confronted with a condition—call it a relation, if you please—in which the interest of the entire Southland is involved, and we, as the Negro race, are called upon to express ourselves as to the basis of this relationship and the perpetuity of the same. The facts above stated make it extremely difficult for one to conscientiously concede, first that the relations are friendly; and, second, that they can be sustained and maintained. As a matter of fact, the subject assigned me can be easily answered by saying that the friendly relations which now exist can be sustained and maintained by destroying the system of public instruction; by making no protest against the encroachments upon our liberty; by destroying the medium of the Christian religion, pulling down our altars, demolishing our churches and hanging crape on the door-knobs of all places of public instruction. This we are unwilling to do, and, as God gives us strength and light to see our plain duty, we shall work, watch and wait for that surrounding which shall be congenial to a healthful development of a Christian manhood, when the sphinx of this age shall have passed into the oblivious past; and mankind, transformed from brutish prejudice to that lordly prince, divested of all racial prejudice, shall stand upon that plain of reason where all are equals. We must see that our rights under the Constitution are one thing and the enjoyment of those rights quite another thing.
Now, then, shall we, because these rights are denied us, fail to teach our children that these rights are ours? And can it not be seen that for us to concede that the relationship, now existing between the two races in the South, is friendly, is an admission of the righteousness upon which such relation is based? And even this very book will be brought in evidence against us.
A friendly relation grows out of real friendship, so that it is necessary here to explain friendship. Mr. Webster gives the meaning of friendship as a state of being friends; a friendly relation or attachment, to a person, or between persons; affection arising from mutual esteem and good will; friendliness; amity; good will.
"There is little friendship in the world," says Bacon. There can be no friendship without confidence, and no confidence without integrity.
Dryden says, "Aptness to unite; conformity; affinity; harmony and correspondence are the signs of friendship." These grow out of that soil and are the forerunners of that friendship out of which a relation must be had to be called friendly.
Now let us analyze this term "friendship." "Amity"—from the Latin, amare to love, or friendship in a general way between individuals, societies or nations. "Goodwill"—I wish you well, peace and prosperity. "Integrity"—moral soundness; completeness; honesty; rectitude.
We have given some of the terms which Mr. Webster used in the explanation of the word friendship. Our purpose for so doing is to see if it is possible to base the relationship which now exists between the two races in the South, upon all the synonyms or any
