Knoxville weekly chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1875, 1874-06-10

consideration Jnan character. Instead
of speaking against the poor, AS have
been represented "a doing, | showed
that nobody had the Christianity of
Of the New Testament who would not
do all in his power to elevate the lowest
of Gods creaturesand endeavorto make
them the sons and daughters of the
living aud true God.
/ said, | could not imagine a single
reason any one could assign against
the co.education of the races,
but complexion, which would not
exclude many whites. That if coll
or must decide the question, l
wished to know hotC ,rhitc, boU
ddrE any one must be? That if we
follow this rule since many negroes
so called, are whittier than some called
whites, they must he put into schools
with the whites, while some Of the
Caucasian race must be put with the
blacks-tbat it was fact that some Of
the white race had become, i'm hot
countries, blacks with crisped hGir-so
that If we adhered to any particular
race, we should he obliged in some
countries to take blacks into our
schools with whites.
After all il was not mere complex
ion which could be the reason for shut
ting out the negro, as here in Tonnes
see. AT Bristol, Indians much darker
than many blacks, had been received
into school. At last | told my audi
ence | could not see as If com pleXiou
had much to do with the alarm about
Social Equality" if you did not call
the man negro.
Having shown that the alarm as 10
Social Equality" arising from coed
ucatiOn, was founded on no sound
moral and Christian principles. said
that a man who was once "a Christian
minister and now a protested follower
of the Lord Jesus Christ, and a Sena-
tor, in his letter to the colored people,
had called co education of the races,
1.-THE sum of villainies." That no
man could sustain himself in that
declaration by the principles of the
Christian religion.
What then did | say about Senator
Brownlow's letter. No more, no less
than this-that, since no man could
show that it was a violation of the
least principles of our holy religion to
educate the races together, TO call the
"sum of villainies was a position
that no man as Christian could main
lulu IT'S liltI SuCil u ueCIdTdllOn WA
unworthy of any follower of our Lord
| Jesus Christ, who came TO preach GLAD
| tidings to the poor. As to all the string
of epithets, and comments upon Sena
tor Bfownlow's letter charged to me, !
wish both him and the public 10 know
| they originated in the distorted brain
of the man who reported them die
not even mention Mr.. Brownlow't
! . II 1
wishes to discuss the position did tax,
with regard to his letter in q gentle
manly way. am willing to meet him
| but am quite sure he is a man of to,
good sense to have ever SAID wor,
about my comments upon his letter,
| had he known the facts as now present
ed. In connection with my allusion I,
the said letter, ! referred TO the fact tina
many black children in many settle
ments could not be educated, if no
put into schools with the whites, hein,
too few in number to be by themselves
That once it was common here in Ten
nessee for blacks aud whites to 90 I,
the same school, that it did no evi
then-nobody was degraded by it-tha
in many parts ofthe land where white
and blacks were in the same schools II,
lEHOIhll
people did not know their places, bu
that educated people did, and henc
the most ettectual way to keep the race
separate was to educate them. sal,
if young man on returning hom
from college should say that all hi
class mates were his equals sociabl,
because they had been to the same
school, his father ought TO take him I;
an insane asylum.
Education, therefore, did not deter
mine social relations-it never has an,
it never can, even among whites, mucl
less between different races. Wha
does do it then? Nothing, nothing 6u
the person himself in the erercise of HI
otUn taste and free WW. EUcry man
associates are Of his OWn free, uare
strained chOice-just that and nothin
more or Tess. My allusion 10 the Civ
Rights Bill was for the sake of shown
that the principle of co educatio
would probably become a law-that
would not hurt anybody if it shout
pass-that as mans social relation
were determined by himself, such
bill had nothing 10 do with socia
equality.
did not discuss the bill as such, 70
I Il hlAi llOb hll'" W nav W llloNlSlpllS III
bearings upon other laws might be, a
had not seen it, and of course ha
given it no thought. My discourse lie,
me to speak of one feature of IL a.
principle, and it is pity if a man ca
not advocate Il principle contained i
n bill without endorsing the bill itself
Can not II person approve Of Legislation
to suppress tue sale of liquors, an,
: yet oppose a particular bill introduce,
with that end in view? Mrst certainl
} he can. At this point, notice the fala
cy, that because ! approve the py'inci
pie i'm the g Civil Rights Billn there
fore | advocate the bill itself. a grea
blunder in logic, that! Several day
after my lecture read the bill. / doub
the propriety of it 80 much that
could not vote for it without NOR
light as to its bearings upon other con
stitutiOuai rights. Let me be under
stood on this point. So far as regard
the co.educatiOn OF races rs TO an.
moral principle, do not believe a mai
can on moral orChTistian grounds con
/ Gigtantlxr amman a. for III va f,atpntau