CHAP. VII.
American prejudice against color examined, its nature, its tendency and its cure.
I. Its nature. What is it? In order to avoid saying what has already been well said by many, I shall not make an argument of the fact that it is hating the image of God, nor of that, it is founded in a will to tread down the weak and poor. But pass on and say,
- It is supreme selfishness. It seeks no glory for God, nor good for man, but is pointedly opposed to both. To this as including that, and to that as inseparable from this. And if this does not give it the character of selfishness, then selfishness is yet without proper definition.
If in any act under the sun a man shows himself to be selfish, it is in that of despising his fellow worm of the dust.
Selfishness is seen in two ways; it may consist simply in neglecting the interest of our fellow beings while we are miserly attached to our own. And again, it consists in despising, suppressing, and wickedly opposing the interests of others. This last is capping the climax. It is the thing supremely. But all this, yes all of it I charge on American prejudice against color.
If God, therefore, is to be glorified in the fulfilment of that law by which he enforces upon man a regard to the interests of his fellow man, there is no glory for God in this prejudice. If that law condemns selfishness, it condemns this prejudice.
- It is emphatically ill will. Let no man be deceived here. Many who are guilty of this prejudice, may be ignorant of its true nature, and so may many who see its operations. But let the world be assured that it is ill will. Mere aversion does not pursue a man like “an old shadow.” It is ill will that does it. Mere aversion does not abuse and insult a man in the public street, in the stage, in the rail car, in the steam boat, and in the church. It is ill will that does this. Mere aversion would be satisfied to let the victim pass unmolested, but ill will is always known by its perseverance in seeking the injury of its victim. Ill will leaves no place for its victim to be at peace. And so with this prejudice. Ill will is aggressive, and so is this prejudice. If any who are filled with this prejudice should deny this, it only proves that they do not know what is in their hearts.
The history of Cain shows that it is not so difficult a matter for a man to fill his heart with ill will to his fellow man, and thence to pursue him even to blood itself. If they had a better knowledge of the depravity of human nature, and were more humbly affected in view of that part of it which they have inherited, they would not trifle with their guilt by pretending that their hearts are only filled with aversion to so and so, and so forth, when their fruit is the fruit of ill will.
II. Its tendency. 1st. Insubordination, bloodshed, and murder, are its legitimate aim. It needs only to be resisted in a rightful degree even, and it can soon show that neither law nor human blood are sacred in its way. If any man disputes this, I appeal to the annals of the bloody riots of days gone by not far. What kind of a spirit was that which besieged our houses with brickbats, stones, and deadly weapons, broke up the Canterbury school, put a rope around Garrison’s neck, burnt Pennsylvania Hall, and shot Lovejoy? Was there no insubordination, no bloodshed nor murder in all this? And what if that spirit should have been moderately resisted in all this? Why no one can even guess at the extent to which it tended.
2d. It tends to blindness of mind. Who can be blinder than he who abuses all relation and obligation, and argues that he is doing no wrong! And let any man say whether this prejudice against which I am now handling my pen, does regard the sacred relations and obligations of moral agents.
3d. It establishes in the whites a character for injustice. Injustice is the subversion of rights. It is prejudice itself to the rights of those on whom it is brought to bear. This prejudice, however, is not a single act of injustice, but a series of acts. Hence, we have only to see that a minister, a judge, a teacher, or a church is prejudiced against our interests, and we are hopeless for justice from such.
4th. Dishonesty is a fruit of prejudice. When I say this prejudice tends to dishonesty, I intend that form of dishonesty by which a man uses his neighbor’s dues by stealth of fraud. Now what is that which induces those who are actuated by this prejudice, to use colored people at any time and in any way when the whole can be turned to their own account? Is it not dishonesty? If a colored man has skill, talents, property, or any thing conducive to their interests, and they can get the benefit of it, without acknowledging him to be a man, they will take it. And this is not done by accident, but they are studiously dishonest.
The writer was once while teaching a colored school, earnestly solicited to go into a white family evenings, and give their children lessons. But, O! it would not do to let this be known, nor for those children to go to his school.
5th. Hypocrisy is copiously gendered by this prejudice. When those who are actuated by this prejudice wish to get a good colored coachman, or waiter, or cook, they can completely change the color of their own faces. They like colored people best. They do not like white servants, and as for the poor Irish, O! they can’t “bear them about the house.” Now what do they mean by all this? The intention is deep. It is hypocritical; and we can easily see it.
6th. Brutish and uncivil manners, are the fruit of this prejudice. It is pretended that those who crow, and whine, and bellow about the streets after colored people, are neither numerous nor respectable; but we are better informed on the subject. Many of their ladies are addicted to very silly behavior. On the public streets they act like perfect mimic mistresses. I have seen them prance and scud for the sake of walking before a colored person on the side walk! I have seen them poise their parasol, with evident intention to rake my hat in passing!
7th. The tendency of this prejudice is to sacraligion: abuse of sacred things. Are not those sacrilegious who carry this mean feeling into the house of God? Who has authorized the division of the church of God into white and black divisions?
Not long since, I stepped into the conference room of a church on Main street in this city, while the bell was ringing for prayer meeting, thinking I should like to know whether they had any prospect of a revival. But I soon found that something was reviving, whether it was religion or not, I did not stop to see. I saw nestling and sneering, and left.
8th. The tendency of this prejudice is to blasphemy. If blasphemy consists in indignity offered to God, I am at a loss to conceive who does this more emphatically than those who are actuated by this foul prejudice. Who is a blasphemer if not he who says that God is the author of American slavery? Who is a blasphemer but he who wrests the holy word of the Holy God from its proper meaning, and makes it to sanction iniquity? Woe unto him who does not only rebel against God, but tries to make it appear, by false arguments, that God stands with him instead of against him in his sin.
9th. This prejudice hates the truth. And this is not all, but it hates to be pushed with the truth. And still more it hates those who dare to push it with the truth. It is itself opposition to the truth. It is opposed to truth religiously, morally, and politically, nor will hear truth. And hence, the more you show the truth the more objectionable and obnoxious you are. The more you exhibit the truth the more hateful you are. But why is this if not that this prejudice hates the truth and those who tell it? Why are abolitionists hated and abused? For telling the truth. They are even accounted enemies because they tell the nation it is in danger of the judgments of God for the sin of oppression.
10th. Finally it is carrying the total nation down to a state of refined heathenism. If I am asked to say what I mean by this, I answer, I mean that the fear of the living God is not before the eyes of this nation in all these things. Now who is a heathen but him who acts as if the God of heaven did not hear, see, and govern him? But this is sadly true of those who are actuated by this prejudice. There is not only a heathenlike disregard to the relation which God has established between man and man, but this disregard is acted out just as bravely, and as silly as if God could not discern it, or rather as if there was no God to discern it. A nation covered with Egypt’s darkness could do nothing more. “He that hateth his brother is in darkness.”