 |
| Senator Ben Tillman |
Autocrats must be brazen and overconfident. Even the wickedest autocrat must inspire dedicated supporters, and that requires them to convert voters into true believers. Tyrants must state a value system, no matter how corrupt that value system might be, explain policies to achieve their vile goals, and muster funding and acceptance. Autocrats of today – autocrats of the past – are all the same. At some point, they must show their motives. Thus, speaking to the United States Senate on March 23, 1900, South Carolina’s Benjamin Tillman said that the victims, not the perpetrators, created South Carolina’s voting rights riots. He never pretended to support the rights of nonwhite voters:
Shameless or not, the fight for white supremacy in the post-Civil War United States impelled white conservatives in the South to evade the 15th Amendment of the United States Constitution, suppress the African American vote, and establish a police state to maintain their rule. Such a massive project might or might not start with some kind of conspiracy, but its execution required public persuasion. Yes, Tillman’s views were autocratic, but he felt a need to justify his values. So, as his speech continued, Tillman denied that African Americans received the ballot after the Civil War “to protect themselves against the indignities and wrongs,” but only because radical members of Congress wanted to oppress white people. Indeed, Tillman literally insisted that African Americans, who would suffer the indignities of chattel slavery and the Ku Klux Klan, were the autocrats, while their shotgun-wielding white overlords were victims:
Thus, Benjamin Tillman delivered a clear, specific speech. With no hint of conscience, he insisted that voter suppression was the only way to obtain white supremacy in the South. That is, obviously, almost as true today as it was then.
Do Tillman’s arguments stun the reader? Why? They should surprise no one. Tillman’s position prevailed throughout large parts of the United States for decades. In his effort to obtain support and justify his arguments, Tillman revealed Southern conservatives’ true motives. It is not as if those motives were ever well hidden, but at some point, the autocrat needs clarity. The autocrat’s followers need to know what their policies are, why they are felt to be necessary, and how they should be executed. Thus, Tillman chose to be explicit.
I am not saying that politicians never conspire in secret. After all, who knows? Nevertheless, a secret conspiracy can never garner public support. Thus, evil voices face a dilemma. Yes, they need to gather support, and that requires them to state their ideas. Yet, however, once they have posted their ideas, good people can (usually slowly, excruciatingly slowly) spot the danger and work against it.
Tillman protested that racial equality could only be upheld by “the bayonet.” In the year 2026, have the past’s civil rights accomplishments made us complacent? Do we not need to remember the struggle for freedom, year after year, century after century, against the forces of oppression that still wield power and threaten at any moment to replay the old tragedies?
The so-called Radical Republicans of post-Civil War America voted for the absolute abolition of slavery, equal protection of the law, birthright citizenship, voting rights, and employment opportunities. These basic rights, which we too often take for granted, were adopted only because former Confederate soldiers were denied the right to vote until they petitioned to be reinstated. An odd voting paradox, is it not? Odder yet, to my way of thinking, is the way the Republican Party of 2026 now stands foursquarely against the rights that their forbears provided us. Yes, the Radical Republicans were indeed considered radical. Their ideas still sound radical today, to the extent that President Donald Trump constantly rails against “radical left lunatics) whose ideas still resemble those of the old Radical Republicans. Let us not fool ourselves, for freedom and liberty have long been radical concepts.
Yes, Benjamin Tillman laid out a rhetorical path that still infests the political scene. He stated his motive, which was to preserve white rule. He stated his method, which was to suppress African American voters. He placed blame on the oppressed and their defenders, while picturing himself as the morally outraged victim. He flat-out admitted that democracy could not preserve white rule in the South. Tillman’s ruthless and bold rhetoric not only expressed his strategy, but gave it a philosophical justification. Tillman’s critics could call him crazy or evil. Did he care? Why should he? Autocrats seek power, not justice; obedience, not admiration.
“It was the riots before the election, precipitated by their own hotheadedness in attempting to hold the government, that brought on conflicts between the races and caused the shotgun to be used.”“Shotgun?” “Hotheadedness?” Wanting to exercise voting rights was hotheaded? What shameless word choices!
Shameless or not, the fight for white supremacy in the post-Civil War United States impelled white conservatives in the South to evade the 15th Amendment of the United States Constitution, suppress the African American vote, and establish a police state to maintain their rule. Such a massive project might or might not start with some kind of conspiracy, but its execution required public persuasion. Yes, Tillman’s views were autocratic, but he felt a need to justify his values. So, as his speech continued, Tillman denied that African Americans received the ballot after the Civil War “to protect themselves against the indignities and wrongs,” but only because radical members of Congress wanted to oppress white people. Indeed, Tillman literally insisted that African Americans, who would suffer the indignities of chattel slavery and the Ku Klux Klan, were the autocrats, while their shotgun-wielding white overlords were victims:
“I say that [the Negroes were given the ballot] because the Republicans of that day, led by Thad Stevens, wanted to put white necks under black heels and to get revenge.” [brackets added by historical editor]So, to Tillman, putting “white necks under black heels” counted as oppression, while having black necks under white heels, seemed okay, I guess, and the idea that everybody should have equal rights evidently escaped Tillman entirely. White supremacy was his value system. Us versus them. White versus black. With that clarified, Tillman laid out the mathematical fact that letting African Americans vote would surely put them in power:
“In my State, there were 135,000 Negro voters, or Negroes of voting age, and some 90,000 or 95,000 white voters. General Canby set up a carpetbag government there and turned our State over to this majority. Now, I want to ask you, with a free vote and a fair count, how are you going to beat 135,000 to 95,000? How are you going to do it? You had set us an impossible task.”Tillman’s twisted value system assumed, as if no argument could arise against it, that white rule was the only possible rule. Tillman rejected “a free vote and a fair count” because it contradicted morally bent value system. Indeed, Tillman protested that the Radical Republicans, as they were called, had offered white people no choice:
“You had handcuffed us [and] thrown away the key, and you propped your carpet bag Negro government with bayonets. Whenever it was necessary to sustain the government, you held it up by the Army.”
Susan B. Anthony's Speech about the Right to Vote
Although the 15th Amendment made it illegal to deny the right to vote on account of race, creed, or color, the former Confederate states and not a few Northern states accomplished the same purpose with subterfuges: unfair literacy tests, grandfather clauses, and off-the-books intimidation. There were always excuses, since it seemed reasonable to expect voters to be informed. These discriminatory practices continued well into the 1960s, and, as a Southerner myself, I can testify that they have, even to this day, not totally died. In fact, just now, there is talk of sending the National Guard to key voting sites, presumably to intimidate Latina/Latino voters.
The post-Civil War constitutional amendments – the 13th Amendment that freed the slaves, the 14th Amendment that provided for equal rights, and the 15th Amendment that guaranteed the right to vote, never sat well with conservatives. Anyone who follows the news, even today, can see that the 14th and 15th Amendments continued to anger American conservatives. The so-called SAVE Act currently under debate, which is based on the false premise that illegal immigrants are voting in large numbers, follows that path. Conservatives today, disturbed that women and racial minorities don’t always vote for them, invent seemingly reasonable requirements (voter ID, but with the ID requirements made absurdly bureaucratic, restricting mail voting, and so forth) when their obvious purpose is to tilt election outcomes. Although less intense than Tillman's shotgun, such moves surely remind us of the old Jim Crow literacy tests, which sounded so reasonable, but whose purpose was oppressive.Thus, Benjamin Tillman delivered a clear, specific speech. With no hint of conscience, he insisted that voter suppression was the only way to obtain white supremacy in the South. That is, obviously, almost as true today as it was then.
 |
| Ben Tillman Cartoon, Chicago Tribune |
Do Tillman’s arguments stun the reader? Why? They should surprise no one. Tillman’s position prevailed throughout large parts of the United States for decades. In his effort to obtain support and justify his arguments, Tillman revealed Southern conservatives’ true motives. It is not as if those motives were ever well hidden, but at some point, the autocrat needs clarity. The autocrat’s followers need to know what their policies are, why they are felt to be necessary, and how they should be executed. Thus, Tillman chose to be explicit.
I am not saying that politicians never conspire in secret. After all, who knows? Nevertheless, a secret conspiracy can never garner public support. Thus, evil voices face a dilemma. Yes, they need to gather support, and that requires them to state their ideas. Yet, however, once they have posted their ideas, good people can (usually slowly, excruciatingly slowly) spot the danger and work against it.
Tillman protested that racial equality could only be upheld by “the bayonet.” In the year 2026, have the past’s civil rights accomplishments made us complacent? Do we not need to remember the struggle for freedom, year after year, century after century, against the forces of oppression that still wield power and threaten at any moment to replay the old tragedies?
The so-called Radical Republicans of post-Civil War America voted for the absolute abolition of slavery, equal protection of the law, birthright citizenship, voting rights, and employment opportunities. These basic rights, which we too often take for granted, were adopted only because former Confederate soldiers were denied the right to vote until they petitioned to be reinstated. An odd voting paradox, is it not? Odder yet, to my way of thinking, is the way the Republican Party of 2026 now stands foursquarely against the rights that their forbears provided us. Yes, the Radical Republicans were indeed considered radical. Their ideas still sound radical today, to the extent that President Donald Trump constantly rails against “radical left lunatics) whose ideas still resemble those of the old Radical Republicans. Let us not fool ourselves, for freedom and liberty have long been radical concepts.
Yes, Benjamin Tillman laid out a rhetorical path that still infests the political scene. He stated his motive, which was to preserve white rule. He stated his method, which was to suppress African American voters. He placed blame on the oppressed and their defenders, while picturing himself as the morally outraged victim. He flat-out admitted that democracy could not preserve white rule in the South. Tillman’s ruthless and bold rhetoric not only expressed his strategy, but gave it a philosophical justification. Tillman’s critics could call him crazy or evil. Did he care? Why should he? Autocrats seek power, not justice; obedience, not admiration.
By William D. Harpine
Copyright 2026 by William D. Harpine
Portrait of Ben Tillman, G. V. Buck, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Ben Tillman Cartoon, 1906 Chicago Tribune, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
No comments:
Post a Comment