97

MRS. PEATTIE ON LYNCHING
----------------
The Blot on the Name of Civilization and Why It Is There.
----------------
Something Concerning the Young Negro Woman Who Is Agitating England Against America.
----------------
A Graphic Description of One of the Incidents Which Cause the Lynching of Southern Negroes.
----------------
Mrs. Allie C. Willard, writes from England to the WORLD-HERALD, in a perturbed state of mind, concerning the agitation of Miss Ida B. Wells. Miss Wells is a colored woman, who despairing of finding any redress in this country for such of her race as are lynched for their wrong-doing, instead of being properly tried by law, has gone to England to arouse public sentiment there. Carried away by the subject, and by the bitterness which she naturally enough feels, she indulges in some severe reflections upon this country and upon its most cherished heroes, particularly Lincoln. At least, so Mrs. Willard complains. She has also assailed or reproached Miss Willard for her lack of sympathy with the cause of the negro. And she has been guilty of ingratitude for the sacrifices made by abolitionist heroes, and by soldiers of the civil war, who gave all the had to give for the independence of the slave.

One would be in a much better position to criticize Miss Wells if one had hoard her addresses. Mrs. Willard’s accounts of her exaggerations and misrepresentations may be colored to an extent by her resentment at the reproach leveled at her beloved sister-in-law, and by the natural irritation of an American at having her country abused among foreigners.

But on the other hand, is it not true that we hang, boil, burn and shoot negroes who break the law, and that when a negro commits an offense we are more inclined to lynch than to try him by law?

If so, why should we resent having it told?

There is never any use in trying to conceal the truth. Truth is like water and flows through the tiniest cracks. It will make itself visible somehow.

If we lynch negroes, and maintain that we have a right to lynch them, why should we object to having Miss Wells say so? Why should not England and he whole world know it?

And could anyone reasonably suppose that Miss Wells could talk upon this subject calmly, or that she would not represent us as monsters? It would not be in human nature to do otherwise.

To defend herself against the charge of ingratitude she very naturally attacks our motives and the motives of the men who led us in the civil conflict. And she says very truly that Lincoln was not in favor of emancipation. That is true. He fought to preserve the federation of the states of the union, and it is with reluctance that he signed the emancipation papers, feeling that he was disturbing property rights, and that he was precipitating men into a problem hardly less distressing than slavery, Miss Wells says negroes are socially ostracized; that they have none of them been elected to high office since 1876, that even when they fought as soldiers in the civil war they were enlisted for less pay than the other troops and that they were not treated as well as white soldiers. Miss Wells is mistaken about there having been no negro elected to congress or other high place since 1876. But as for the other facts, they are probably true. There is no denying the social ostracism of the negro. There is not a first-class hotel or a first-class theater in this country where they would be admitted to equal privileges with other guests. There is not a drawing-room in this country where they come commonly as the friends of the family, although in church, or political, or educational work they may occasionally be associated with those of social position.

Mrs. Willard is very deeply moved because the men of the north have been called cowards, and because Lincoln has been assailed. But it is no arraignment of Lincoln to say that he did not at first believe in the uncompromising and immediate delivery of the slaves. Nor is there any occasion for northerners to fret because they are called cowards. Some of them are. A great many of them are moral cowards, and in race questions they are apt to be narrow, arrogant and un-Christian. Since they are so, why should not England know it? We have really no right to resent Miss Wells’ endeavors to get the English to protect the blacks, since it was but a little time ago that many of us were advocating an attack upon Russia by all Christendom, for the purpose of forcing her to respect the lives of her Jews, her peasants and her convicts. If we have been as culpable, must we not face the mortification of being similarly criticized? If we have a cancer in the national breast, denying its existence will not keep the poison from our blood.

It is just possible that Mrs Willard may feel some undefined irritation at seeing on of the scorned receiving honors from the influential. For that Miss Wells has been made much of is shown by Mrs. Willard’s own letter. Speaking of Miss Wells, she says:

She comes indorsed by Frederick Douglass, and has been received by many of the high and some of the best in England. She is in with the leading London papers, such as the Daily News, really the government organ the Sun., T. P. O’Connor’s paper, and the like. The Chronicle has given her one column and one of its big leaders, the Echo was written her up, also the Westminister Gazette and many other strong and influential papers. Among the people she has interested is the Rev. Joseph Parker of the City Temple, the tragedian of the pulpit. She has come at a time itself opportune for all the big annual May meetings, has been received by many of them, been heard and got resolutions passed, etc. [Diued?] and [fensted?], as inclosed clippings will indicate. Her books reviewed and pictures published.

“Now this would be all right if she were honorable, honest and truthful, if loyal to country or party. But she has no good word for her country, and says some dreadful things, and inters others even worse. She is as sly as an Indian in her speech, and wicker as a tiger. She is rather fine looking, a good speaker, calm and possessed, and has learned her role well. It is still hard to understand, though, by what means she secures so many honors, seemingly without effrort.”

Miss Wells’ published material, however, does not justify the accusation that she is shy or tigerish Here is a communication writen by her to the editor of the Daily Chronicle of London:

“Sir. Every moment of my time has been so fully occupied since Governor Northen’s letter was published that I have not before been able to reply to his charges that my statements are false. Your leader and Dr. Clifford’s splendid letter have pointed out that it is not my statements alone, but the reports in the American newspapers, which reveal the lawlessness of the United States. I have only given the negro side of these stories. I have cuttings of lynchings running back six years, which were taken from the columns of the American dallies. This news has been furnished by the Associated Press. Only one newspaper in the United State has kept record of these lynchings as reported, and complied statistics therefrom. The Chicago Tribune has made it a feature the first day of every year to publish a list of the yearly record of murder, suicide, railway accident, lynching, etc. This it has done for the last ten years, and, in keeping with its custom, on the 1st day of January, 1894, was published the complete lynching record for 1893. The list occupied almost two columns. and beginning with January 1, 1898, the date, name, rate, accusation, and place of lynching were given for every day in the year that a lynching took place. The Tribune and the Associated Press are edited and owned by white men.

Governor Northen says: ‘There is not a community or a government of

THE WRONG KIND.

She—I hear you bought a “brown stone;” where is it located?
He—Wife cleans knives with it.

similar extent into which your paper goes, that is more law abiding and peaceful than the people of the state over which I have the honor to preside.’

Not complete 7/8/2020.

MRS. PEATTIE ON LYNCHING
----------------
The Blot on the Name of Civilization and Why It Is There.
----------------
Something Concerning the Young Negro Woman Who Is Agitating England Against America.
----------------
A Graphic Description of One of the Incidents Which Cause the Lynching of Southern Negroes.
----------------
Mrs. Allie C. Willard, writes from England to the WORLD-HERALD, in a perturbed state of mind, concerning the agitation of Miss Ida B. Wells. Miss Wells is a colored woman, who despairing of finding any redress in this country for such of her race as are lynched for their wrong-doing, instead of being properly tried by law, has gone to England to arouse public sentiment there. Carried away by the subject, and by the bitterness which she naturally enough feels, she indulges in some severe reflections upon this country and upon its most cherished heroes, particularly Lincoln. At least, so Mrs. Willard complains. She has also assailed or reproached Miss Willard for her lack of sympathy with the cause of the negro. And she has been guilty of ingratitude for the sacrifices made by abolitionist heroes, and by soldiers of the civil war, who gave all the had to give for the independence of the slave.

One would be in a much better position to criticize Miss Wells if one had hoard her addresses. Mrs. Willard’s accounts of her exaggerations and misrepresentations may be colored to an extent by her resentment at the reproach leveled at her beloved sister-in-law, and by the natural irritation of an American at having her country abused among foreigners.

But on the other hand, is it not true that we hang, boil, burn and shoot negroes who break the law, and that when a negro commits an offense we are more inclined to lynch than to try him by law?

If so, why should we resent having it told?

There is never any use in trying to conceal the truth. Truth is like water and flows through the tiniest cracks. It will make itself visible somehow.

If we lynch negroes, and maintain that we have a right to lynch them, why should we object to having Miss Wells say so? Why should not England and he whole world know it?

And could anyone reasonably suppose that Miss Wells could talk upon this subject calmly, or that she would not represent us as monsters? It would not be in human nature to do otherwise.

To defend herself against the charge of ingratitude she very naturally attacks our motives and the motives of the men who led us in the civil conflict. And she says very truly that Lincoln was not in favor of emancipation. That is true. He fought to preserve the federation of the states of the union, and it is with reluctance that he signed the emancipation papers, feeling that he was disturbing property rights, and that he was precipitating men into a problem hardly less distressing than slavery, Miss Wells says negroes are socially ostracized; that they have none of them been elected to high office since 1876, that even when they fought as soldiers in the civil war they were enlisted for less pay than the other troops and that they were not treated as well as white soldiers. Miss Wells is mistaken about there having been no negro elected to congress or other high place since 1876. But as for the other facts, they are probably true. There is no denying the social ostracism of the negro. There is not a first-class hotel or a first-class theater in this country where they would be admitted to equal privileges with other guests. There is not a drawing-room in this country where they come commonly as the friends of the family, although in church, or political, or educational work they may occasionally be associated with those of social position.

Mrs. Willard is very deeply moved because the men of the north have been called cowards, and because Lincoln has been assailed. But it is no arraignment of Lincoln to say that he did not at first believe in the uncompromising and immediate delivery of the slaves. Nor is there any occasion for northerners to fret because they are called cowards. Some of them are. A great many of them are moral cowards, and in race questions they are apt to be narrow, arrogant and un-Christian. Since they are so, why should not England know it? We have really no right to resent Miss Wells’ endeavors to get the English to protect the blacks, since it was but a little time ago that many of us were advocating an attack upon Russia by all Christendom, for the purpose of forcing her to respect the lives of her Jews, her peasants and her convicts. If we have been as culpable, must we not face the mortification of being similarly criticized? If we have a cancer in the national breast, denying its existence will not keep the poison from our blood.

It is just possible that Mrs Willard may feel some undefined irritation at seeing on of the scorned receiving honors from the influential. For that Miss Wells has been made much of is shown by Mrs. Willard’s own letter. Speaking of Miss Wells, she says:

She comes indorsed by Frederick Douglass, and has been received by many of the high and some of the best in England. She is in with the leading London papers, such as the Daily News, really the government organ the Sun., T. P. O’Connor’s paper, and the like. The Chronicle has given her one column and one of its big leaders, the Echo was written her up, also the Westminister Gazette and many other strong and influential papers. Among the people she has interested is the Rev. Joseph Parker of the City Temple, the tragedian of the pulpit. She has come at a time itself opportune for all the big annual May meetings, has been received by many of them, been heard and got resolutions passed, etc. [Diued?] and [fensted?], as inclosed clippings will indicate. Her books reviewed and pictures published.

“Now this would be all right if she were honorable, honest and truthful, if loyal to country or party. But she has no good word for her country, and says some dreadful things, and inters others even worse. She is as sly as an Indian in her speech, and wicker as a tiger. She is rather fine looking, a good speaker, calm and possessed, and has learned her role well. It is still hard to understand, though, by what means she secures so many honors, seemingly without effrort.”

Miss Wells’ published material, however, does not justify the accusation that she is shy or tigerish Here is a communication writen by her to the editor of the Daily Chronicle of London:

“Sir. Every moment of my time has been so fully occupied since Governor Northen’s letter was published that I have not before been able to reply to his charges that my statements are false. Your leader and Dr. Clifford’s splendid letter have pointed out that it is not my statements alone, but the reports in the American newspapers, which reveal the lawlessness of the United States. I have only given the negro side of these stories. I have cuttings of lynchings running back six years, which were taken from the columns of the American dallies. This news has been furnished by the Associated Press. Only one newspaper in the United State has kept record of these lynchings as reported, and complied statistics therefrom. The Chicago Tribune has made it a feature the first day of every year to publish a list of the yearly record of murder, suicide, railway accident, lynching, etc. This it has done for the last ten years, and, in keeping with its custom, on the 1st day of January, 1894, was published the complete lynching record for 1893. The list occupied almost two columns. and beginning with January 1, 1898, the date, name, rate, accusation, and place of lynching were given for every day in the year that a lynching took place. The Tribune and the Associated Press are edited and owned by white men.

Governor Northen says: ‘There is not a community or a government of

THE WRONG KIND.

She—I hear you bought a “brown stone;” where is it located?
He—Wife cleans knives with it.

similar extent into which your paper goes, that is more law abiding and peaceful than the people of the state over which I have the honor to preside.’

Not complete 7/8/2020.