one of them. I confess with candor that I cannot see (nor can any lover of liberty who holds sacred the rights of the human family, regardless of race, color or previous condition of servitude) even a semblance of amity in the treatment which the Negro gets at the hands of the dominant race, in fact, it is just the opposite, the relationship is forced and also one sided.
The seemingly friendly relation is forced from the Negro; that is, he must show up friendly or be lynched by the first angry mob who becomes thirsty for Negro blood.
If we sustain a friendly relation based upon the integrity of the Southern whites, there could be no lynching; the friendship of the white man would cause it to cease at once.
Would to God that they would interpret our actions in the light in which they are rendered and not make us suffer for what somebody else has done, simply because we are weak and unable to protect ourselves against the insanity of the prejudice.
The Southern white people, in their haste, are making an unenviable history at which they will blush in the years to come.
Three innocent people in the State of Mississippi have just been taken from the officers and lynched, two of whom were women. Can a race of people said to be friendly towards another race reach such hasty conclusions? Would not friendship suggest an investigation in order that the facts in the case may be had? But we are living in the midst of a people whose civilization is christianized, thus having in it that friendship which characterised Christ in taking the sins of mankind upon himself. "Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you" (Bible). This text makes friendship conditional and reciprocal; that is, there can be no friendship without mutuality; so that the relation which now exists is not based upon friendship, for the relation which is made to exist is not in accordance with that moral rule given for the government of man, therefore things are not what they seem to be in the Southland.
I tell you that the Negro is not satisfied with his condition and the more he learns of the common rights of the human family, the more he sees the great wrongs "perpetrated" upon him and the reasons for the same. You cannot educate a people and crush them, history does not narrate an instance.
THIRD PAPER.
HOW CAN THE FRIENDLY RELATIONS NOW EXISTING BETWEEN THE TWO RACES IN THE SOUTH BE STRENGTHENED AND MAINTAINED?
BY REV. S. N. BROWN.
REV. STERLING N. BROWN, A. M., B. D.
Rev. Sterling N. Brown was born in Roane County, East Tennessee, November 21, 1857. He attended the first free school ever taught in his county. He entered Fisk University (Nashville, Tenn.) in 1875, and for some years, during his terms of vacation, taught school to provide the means with which to pursue his studies. He was converted when quite a boy and has been able since, almost continuously, to lead men to Christ. He began to preach early after his conversion, and many revivals have followed his ministry. The first great awakening where, under God, he was the instrument, was at Kingston, Tenn., where every child in school, of over one hundred in number, became Christians, and when the whole town was stirred as never before. Many hardened sinners were brought to Christ in the meeting. Several of the converts are now actively engaged in the ministry. Mr. Brown's acceptance as a preacher made it possible for him to spend the entire vacations of his last years at college in supplying the pulpits of his denomination in different parts of the South.
He graduated from the college course of Fisk University in 1885, and took the degree of A. M. in 1891. He is also a graduate from the Oberlin Theological Seminary with the degree of B. D. He was called, June 1, 1885, to the Mount Zion Congregational Church, Cleveland, Ohio, and was by that Church ordained to the gospel ministry. This church was composed of a few faithful but discouraged members. They worshipped in a small frame chapel without either attraction or convenience.
Soon the membership was increased, the church took new courage and a great ingathering came, the old building was torn away and in its place a beautiful and convenient house of worship was erected. Mr. Brown served Mt. Zion for nearly four years when he accepted a call from the Plymouth Congregational Church, Washington, D. C., April 1, 1889. This church, under his pastorate for eight years, had a steady and most healthful growth. In January, 1897, he gathered about him a few leading men and women of the race and organized a church in Northwest Washington, in the midst of a large unchurched population. Park Temple, the name of the new church, at once took an important place in the community and its influence for good was felt far and near. For five years the work grew and throbbed with life. Its lines of work, so practical and successful, awakened such interest in an older sister church nearby that overtures were made for a union, and so, October 1, 1901, the Lincoln Church and Park Temple were merged into a new organization to be known as Lincoln Temple, with the Rev. Mr. Brown as pastor. The new Institutional Church with a large main building and a branch work gives promise of an unusual church movement. The pastor of this church is one of the hardest worked men in the city. He was for three years a most active and influential member of the Washington Board of Education, and has been for seven years and is yet Professor in the Theological Department of Howard University. He is an able minister, a good pastor, and a practical man of affairs. His long public life in the city has added to his influence and in every best sense, he is still a growing man. He is full of sympathy and helpfulness, and so is continually drawn upon by all classes and conditions of people. He is regarded highly by public men of both races for his conservative views, good judgment and genuine public spirit.
Mr. Brown is a tireless worker, and one who looks always upon the bright side of things. He has an ear to hear man, but keeps also an ear attentive to the voice from the clouds. When he has settled upon a plan no discouragement can change him. Once convinced of the righteousness of his course he pushes ahead with no wavering. Many a time in his works he seemed headed for a stone wall, insurmountable and impassable, but he went up to the wall with as much courage and faith, as if there lay before him a beautiful green sward, inviting to his sandal. Thus through the years of school life and the years of his active ministry he has gone forward.
Any superficial or narrow view of the present conditions existing between the Blacks and Whites of this country will surely be discouraging. It is a time for an unbiased, comprehensive, and discriminate study of the situation. This, I think, will point to a basis of a coming final adjustment.
No people have ever achieved lasting distinction or greatness without hardships. God's way of development seems to be through trial. The Negro has not been, and will not be, excepted in this regard. The tests of life have been well borne by him and he has clearly demonstrated certain essential elementary characteristics. From slavery is learned his amiability, vitality and patient endurance, and from freedom, the spirit of hope, forgiveness, and his ability for the highest improvement.
At this time, when the race problem is demanding renewed consideration, we note with interest the extreme as well as conservative views. The unfriendly discuss the Negro in the light of his savagery, his bondage and his mistakes. They read history "with their prejudices and not with their eyes."
Just as white men candidly and otherwise hold their individual viewpoint of the subject, so do colored men differ as to their opinions. We, too, have extremists and conservatives among ourselves and friends. This is what ought to be expected. Why should an intelligent colored man be different in his thoughts and conclusions from his white brother of equal intelligence? What the American school and spirit do for the one may be expected for the other. There are certainly strong grounds for extreme views and for even more extreme measures. But who can rationally deny the wisdom of moderation and sensible counsel? Personally I cannot bring myself to accord with either one of these views. The extremist spits fire, swears vengeance and talks loudly. He might offer his life as a sacrifice, and yet he reckons without his host. The
