The History of a Great Contention

THE

HISTORY OF A GREAT CONTENTION BY DR. JOSEPH M. TANNER. Some companies of negro soldiers had been stationed at Brownsville, southern Texas. A protest was made at the time by citizens of the town. Negro soldiers do not meet a very hearty welcome in perhaps any community near which they are stationed. The Afro-American is permitted to enlist in the army; and the army officers have had no little trouble in so regulating his service as to avoid race antagonism. In Brownsville such antagonism was manifested, and the differences between the people and the sol- diers became quite serious. The negro soldier naturally feels that he is in the service of his country, that in some way he is the ser- vant of the government, and is therefore entitled to some recog- nition; but race hatred prevents the recognition that the white man might receive. In August, 1906, while the negroes were in barracks at Brownsville, a number of them scaled the walls and made an attack upon the town. Bullets were fired into the homes of the people, the sheriff was wounded, a man was killed and the town terrorized by the soldiers. As soon as the shooting ceased, the soldiers immediately returned to the barracks and were not identified by their officer. The affair created some excitement throughout the country, and an army officer was at once detailed to make an investigation. The soldiers were all mum. They either did not know who took part in the affair, or would not give evidence against their comrades. It was a very serious matter for soldiers whose sworn duty it is to protect life and property and maintain the peace of the country to be thus engaged in a most disorderly and murderous riot. From the investigation made, it looked very much as if there were a conspiracy to conceal the

368 IMPHO VEMENT ERA. names of those who took part in the affair. Whether the con- spiracy was general is not known, but it was certainly evident that some of the negro soldiers who did not take part had knowledge of the affair. It was certainly necessary that some punishment be meted out, for such conduct was demoralizing to army disci- pline, and disgraceful to the army of the United States. But the guilty ones could not be found. What should be done? Upon recommendation of the army officer, detailed to make the investi- gation, the President of the United States dismissed all the com- panies of the barracks at Brownsville, without honor; and by way of further punishment declared them ineligible to hold any office of honor or trust or emolument in the military service of the United States, and he further declared them ineligible for any civil service within the gift of the federal government. The order of the president created an uproar among the colored population of the United States who had a host of sym- pathizers among the white population, especially of the North. It was soon perceived that innocent soldiers might have been pun- ished in equal severity with the guilty ones. There was no trial by court martial nor was there a trial by the civil courts. The punishment was upon the summary order of the president for their dismissal. Those familiar with the early history of Utah, remember a similar disgraceful riot by federal troops stationed near Provo. The soldiers there were not welcomed into the social life of the people, and were excluded from the dances. They took offense at such ostracism and raided the town in the middle of the night, shot into houses, attempted to burn the tabernacle, broke in the windows and doors of private homes, and treated the people to a reign of terror for one night. In those days the complaints of the people and their remonstrances were answered by stationing the troops in the heart of the town. Even the soldiers who took part in the riot, and against whom evidence was overwhelming, were turned loose without punishment. It did not then seem to make much difference what outrages the federal troops in Utah perpe- trated against its inhabitants. The Brownsville incident at once gave rise to an attack upon

THE HISTORY OF A GREAT CONTENTION. 369 the authority exercised by the president in dismissing the colored troops without honor, and inflicting upon them the disabilities of future civil or military service. Some of the leading journals of the United States, notably the New York Sun, at once took issue with the President. When Congress convened, the Brownsville in- cident at once became the subject of resolutions. Senator Fora- ker offered one authorizing a senatorial investigation. He took the ground that the President had exceeded his authority as Com- mander-in-Chief of the army, and that the soldiers were entitled to a trial. Mr. Taft, secretary of war, took the side of the Presi- dent, and in his report, after going over the details of the riot, argued that the order of dismissal went chiefly to the fitness of the soldiers to be serviceable any longer in the army of the United States. Mr. Taft has had long experience on the bench, and is a jurist of national reputation. The further fact that such men as Senator Knox were with the President, while some of the best lawyers of the Senate were opposed to him, clearly indicated that a great struggle was on among the leading Republicans of the Senate. Democratic senators, whose race prejudices were well known, were in sympathy with the President's order of dismissal; and Senator Blackburn introduced a resolution endorsing the ac- tion of the President. This threw the Republicans of the Senate into an alarming excitement. If the Republican members of the Senate became divided, it was evident that those who favored Mr. Roosevelt would have to make common cause with the Democrats on an issue that involved the President as a great factor in the political future of the Republican party. Senator Aldrich gave out that he also would offer a resolution directing an investigation of the race question, the very thing that Southern Democrats are anxious to avoid, since such an investiga- tion might lead to such questions as the representation which the South has upon the basis of its population, which includes the negroes, in giving the South its fixed number of representatives m the House; while, as a matter of fact, the negro vote is nullified throughout the Southern States. Such a resolution as that sug- gested by Aldrich was merely a menace to the Southern senators, that they must not interfere in a race question which they had al- ways deprecated. In the meantime. President Roosevelt, m a

370 IMPKOVEMENT ERA. supplementary report to the Senate, withdrew that portion of his order dismissing the soldiers which declared them ineligible forever to any civil office under the government of the United States. The question of civil status, he perceived, did not come within his pre- rogative as Commander-in-Chief of the army of the United States. It was a frank acknowledgment by the President of his error, and won for him enlarged commendation for what has been regarded by many as his frank and manly course in public life. The Brownsville incident evidently had the effect of bringing to light the differences that have for some time existed between the President of the United States and a certain group in the Senate. For the last few years, the President has been active and pro- nounced in his campaign against certain phases of great corpo- rations, and in favor of an income and inheritance tax. He has stepped from the traditional reserve of the White House, in mat- ters of legislation, into the arena of legislative combats, in both the House and the Senate. The immense power of his great patronage, and his exceptional popularity throughout the country, made his wish very effectual in compelling some senators to fall into line with his policy. Public opinion came to the aid of ,jthe President, whose way was evidently made more or less easy by the fear which senators and representatives had with respect to the approval of their constituency. The Brownsville incident, and the large disapproval of the President's order in dismissing the sol- diers without honor, brought about a reaction among a group of senators who, no doubt, felt justified in a retaliation against the President whose pressure they had hoped to throw off. It is said that the President is in no mood to compromise; and it is felt that, in the matter of resolutions, he is able to defeat the group of senators now opposing him by aid of the solid support of the Democrats. From this support, Tillman must be excepted. The critics of the President's policy have not been slow in pointing out his inconsistencies. They call to mind that in May, 1903, his attention was called to the retention in the army of a man who had been accused of a murder. On the question of the man's dis- 'missal, Mr. Roosevelt replied: *'In this matter, even if this man is a murderer, I am helpless, / have absolutely no power to dismiss anybodyJrom the army in time of peace.'' And yet, within three