It asserts that the problem of racial tension would not be solved by the "application of rabid emotionalism and inflammatory language" but rather was a problem of "adjustment to new conditions", which sometimes could prove difficult because of longstanding customs and traditions. It finds that for Mr. Clark, it appeared more than simply difficult but rather was "impossible". He had a right to his views and the Board had a right to disagree with them, as it expressed in "restrained but meaningful language" which, it believes, would have its place in a "progressive and enlightened state long after the heated, angry words of Trustee Clark have faded away."

Though only tangentially related to the Clark matter, as well the subject of the next editorial of the day, we have an apology to make to the late W. J. Cash, we suppose, though, in point of fact, we were not intending in the Friday parenthetical aside to take issue with the accuracy of Mr. Cash, living in a pre-internet era when the lights of the researcher could only be informed to the extent of the available print in the library, with the reader stuck in carrels with dim lighting, made the worse by Cash's reputed strained vision and his need during the Thirties to travel by his own thumb from Shelby or Charlotte to Chapel Hill to find the more obscure research material from the past. Rather, our assumption of error regarding either the date of the article or somewhat confused repetition of the account developed from the assumption that the confusion had occurred earlier, contemporaneous with the 1903 controversy—not, as it turns out, 1902—regarding Trinity College history professor John Spencer Bassett and his ascribed greatness to Booker T. Washington, to which Josephus Daniels and other editors of the time had taken umbrage, though Mr. Daniels led the effort to have Dr. Bassett dismissed from the faculty as a result. We assumed other newspapers, as they did far and wide across and beyond the state, had picked up the controversy and, as is wont to happen at times, somewhat mischaracterized or embellished the original statement of Professor Bassett.

In fact, however, upon a little more research, we now realize that Cash framed the controversial statement of Professor Bassett correctly, that he did say in the South Atlantic Quarterly article that, aside from General Robert E. Lee, Mr. Washington was "the greatest man … born in the South in a hundred years...", just as Cash paraphrased it in The Mind of the South. (We should be mindful from our prior extensive research in 1999 on the accuracy of the book that Cash was rarely, if ever, wrong in his relation of facts, based on painstaking efforts of the time during the eleven years he labored over the manuscript.)

After the comment in question, the statement of Professor Bassett had continued after a semicolon: "but [Mr. Washington] is not a typical negro. He does not even represent the better class of negroes. He is an exceptional man; and, endowed as he is, it is probable that he would have remained uneducated but for the philanthropic intervention of white men. The race, even the best of them, are so far behind him that we cannot in reason look for his reproduction in the present generation. It is, therefore, too much to hope, for a continued appearance of such men in the near future. It is also too much to set his development up as a standard for his race. To expect it is to insure disappointment."

It was this statement, and the overall tone of the article, which Josephus Daniels found sufficiently troubling to demand dismissal of Dr. Bassett from the Trinity faculty and to print his name, on at least one occasion, as "bASSett" in the Raleigh News & Observer, at the bottom of the first column of November 3, 1903.

Granted, viewing the entire above-quoted paragraph narrowly in the modern context, it appears condescending and even, again judging by present standards, perhaps somewhat racist, in itself. But it is plain that Mr. Daniels, in 1903, was not irritated on that account, but rather because of the ascription of such greatness to Mr. Washington and, moreover, the statement in the last two pages of the piece that blacks would eventually achieve social equality.

Times were different and perceptions, inevitably colored by experience, were different in 1903, and one can never expect anything but skewed and false impressions of history and therefore of our own times by trying to engraft, by relative analogy or direct comparison, modern conceptions of equality, justice and fairness onto an age 38 years after the Civil War, in which the airplane and motorcar were brand new inventions and segregation was institutionalized, in which former slaves and former slaveholders, though the latter were not as numerous* as commonly supposed, still permeated Southern society. Too, if read in the entire context of the article, one finds it more modern than the individual paragraph quoted above might at first make it appear—there being no reasonable objection for 1903 to the usage of "negro" rather than "Negro", as the former remained the accepted convention until the 1920's, even later in some publications, just as some authors, such as James Baldwin, began using for a time "Black" rather than "black".

Certainly the tone of the last couple of pages of the article, and especially its last paragraph, begins to sound quite paternalistic, Dr. Bassett candidly admitting at one point his "share" of "race feeling", though immediately adding that despite such race feelings generally pervading society, blacks would, at some time, acquire social equality and so the only thing to be done was "adoption of these children of Africa into our American life"—meaning, in the larger context of the piece, achievement of social equality. So was he, in so writing, only seeking to reach, psychologically, some of the more educated whites, who still held "race antipathy", as he phrased it, and who would be reading such a scholarly journal of the time, through appeal to their "spirit of conciliation", as he phrases it in the last paragraph, rather than intending the statements in their most literal, condescending sense? The entire arc of the article would suggest such a broader interpretation—not unlike the approach Cash took in his book in 1941, duly advanced in tone by four decades—, especially as the outcome Professor Bassett favored, the only outcome he could imagine, short of continued and increasing violence, was for blacks to attain social equality. (Don't search for "integration", as it is not present in the publication in 1903, just as "segregation" and "separate-but-equal" are not present. But the concept of social equality, or at least something far more integrating of society than had developed as the norm in seven years of practice under the 1896 separate-but-equal doctrine, is clearly intended by Dr. Bassett. That was the very purpose of the article.)

The professor, in a time when voicing such an opinion, obviously by the reaction, was anything in the South but widely accepted, appears to have been genuinely interested in trying to suggest the means for betterment of societal conditions for all, including black citizens, who had suffered, in most instances—90 percent of the blacks then in society, he says, having derived from field slaves—, through generations of slavery and then post-Civil War meniality, even among those who had prospered within the black community, in terms of general societal acceptance, education and employment. And that was Cash's point in singling out this and other such instances where academics at the turn of the century in the South had sought such enlightenment, only to be chastised and sometimes turned out of employment, actions sometimes supported even by the better lights of a given community, such as Josephus Daniels—who, it must also be remembered, in terms of the human dynamic between momentary subject and author, was the father of Jonathan, a friend to Cash after 1938, who co-sponsored him, along with the Knopfs, for the Guggenheim Fellowship which took him, fatally as it turned out, to Mexico in summer, 1941.

And, coincidentally, the first page of Dr. Bassett's 1903 article references a case arising in Virginia about 1630, eleven years after the first African slaves had been introduced to that colony, involving the highest colonial court's sentence of whipping of a white man, Hugh Davis, for the offense of "lying with a negro", that is miscegenational relations—suggesting the historical underpinnings, passed perhaps generationally, for the vigilante activity of Klan members in Columbus and Robeson Counties during 1951, resulting in the recently reported arrests therein, the Klan having taken it upon themselves to exert the police powers of enforcement of "morals", as they viewed the matter, against either interracial relationship or any form of extramarital cohabitation of couples even if not of mixed race, the Klan-determined penalty for which having been flogging, demonstrating what century in which they fancied themselves to be living.

In any event, had we not been conducting our research in too dimly lit conditions, we would have noticed that Cash had indicated that Dr. Bassett's statement had occurred "the following year", after he had referenced 1902 in the preceding paragraph. We saw 1902 and ran with it. Sometimes, being a little too familiar with a subject can lead to careless misapprehension of the finer points when being too hasty at re-reading the material in its original book form, after more than 25 years since the last reading of the entire book. But, it all turned out just as well, as we came across the reference in the 1902 editions of the South Atlantic Quarterly to Dr. Bassett's brief review of the Walter Hines Page article on Mr. Washington, which, had we gotten the date right on the indicated article in the first instance, we would have missed. Moreover, it also served to ferret out another prior instance, the year before, in which Dr. Bassett had referred to Mr. Washington as "one of the greatest men" who had lived in the South, though, as indicated, then only echoing the sentiment expressed by Mr. Page, which, for its brevity and failure to mention the venerated Marse Robert, Mr. Daniels, perhaps, had missed.

On the other hand, since the boys over at Trinity had hung Mr. Daniels's figurative ass in effigy over the matter, perhaps he could be excused from venting some spleen. Too bad he would not live long enough to see Dean Smith—, whose college team, incidentally, we have it on good authority, is about to win the N.C.A.A. championship here in 1952—, hung in effigy over at UNC in early 1965, and therefore perhaps be subsequently amused at being included in such estimable company by the young students around the Triangle. (Despite having heard about this latter instance a few weeks or months after it occurred, we did not realize until today that we had attended the game which precipitated the hanging.) The entire basketball world, as a matter of fact, owes a great debt of gratitude to those students who participated in the hanging, as it is a little known fact that it served as a spur to Coach Smith to go on to have the coaching career he had, setting the example for Coach Wooden and others to follow in competition, whereas, without this event, he would have likely ended his career a couple of years later in mediocrity and started selling Coca-Cola, resulting in Coach Wooden, therefore, being ultimately known as having achieved two consecutive national championships but no more, while N.C. State and Duke would still have none. For, every time thereafter that he saw a season going south, or north-south for that matter, that indelible vision of students forming his effigial image, no doubt, appeared to his mind's eye, pushing him ever onward to be a better coach and leader and somewhat less the natural gentleman he was ordinarily, making for humble success being his trademark thereafter. His players, too, were infused with this rejuvenated sense of impulsion toward victory in any one of the four corners of the world, even in Winston-Salem, with time running out and the nationally third-ranked team having just tied a 3-6 opponent, then stealing, driving hurly-burly, twisting, turning as a whirling dervish out of a trap in the corner to score the winning hoop, as we also saw two years later, realizing it as prerequisite to any enjoyment from consumption of the postgame Coca-Cola, otherwise bitter to the taste amid too many salt-laden tears, as had proved again after the home loss, the first of the season, two days earlier to Princeton in those early, fateful days of 1967 when the locker room was locked and press forbidden to enter for the gruesome sight therein to behold, and never again, after that fateful Epiphanic night of January 6, 1965, having the most talented player on the team loafing at one end of the court while the defense worked with only four players at the other, all to ensure that the vestigial retinal imprint formed that night from that which stood in frightful display before Winston dormitory in abruptly interruptive contrast to the campestral quietude ordinarily pervading each Wednesday night of student retirement from the arduous toils of a day's assiduous studies would never again repeat, such that everyone could say in unison, throughout the University community, wherever its members may find themselves to this day, even unto the four corners of the world, that we, at the University of North Carolina, drink Coca-Cola and eschew the notion that either Winstons taste good or Salems bring the spring, even if coach insisted on too many Larks. It's true... So thank you, effigiaters. It is one time that the usually fallacious principle of post hoc, ergo propter hoc communicates an accurate understanding of history.

But we digress.

We do have to confess that despite Cash having indicated that Mr. Daniels had "regularly" printed Professor Bassett's name in the mockish form, we have only found the one instance of it, and that was under Mr. Daniels's nom de plume, "Rhamkatte Roaster", which is to say that it was intended, we suppose, to be lighthearted, though the editorials around the time which he also indited on the subject suggest otherwise, with career impacting results intended for Professor Bassett, all for the mere exercise of free, and entirely appropriate, speech and press. Of course, just because it does not arise in the search engine does not mean necessarily that there were not other instances of the sophomoric printing of the professor's name, though we have looked at every issue of the News & Observer around that time which mentioned Professor Bassett without finding it repeated. The one instance found preceded by a month the hanging in effigy of Mr. Daniels and so he was not bending his literary license in reaction to that. And, regardless, Professor Bassett had nothing to do with creating the "mob mentality" which led to the hanging, whereas Mr. Daniels led the editorial effort to have the professor dismissed from the faculty. (We suppose someone on the side of the professor in the episode could have retaliated with "just-us JosephUS", but that would have been equally sophomoric.)

When one considers the underlying issue, it appears, insofar as any objection to Professor Bassett's statements, all a bit silly, much ado about millimicrons of infinitesimals—but 1903 preceded our time by a couple of years, thus preventing our judgment from being fully informed of the time and place wherein these events occurred, and, contrary to popular opinion of it having been such a more pleasant, simpler time than later, we have to thank our stars we were not forced to endure it. They would have hung us, for sure, and not just in effigy.

Pardon us while we take a leaf from Coach Smith and straighten our necktie.

And if we have offended anyone who is not a bigot, white or black or in between, then probably you are one, but purblind to the fact and ought to check it. Dig yourself...
_____________________

*For example, in the two states with the largest number of slaveholders in 1860, Georgia, with 41,084, and Virginia, with 52,128, they constituted 15.8 percent and 10.6 percent, respectively, of the white population, male and female, age 20 and older. In Alabama, the number of slaveholders, 33,730, constituted 14.9 percent of the 20 and older population. In Mississippi, the number was 30,943, 21 percent of the 20 and older population. North Carolina, incidentally, with the strongest abolition movement among the Southern slaveholding states, had 34,658 slaveholders, 11.7 percent of the 20 and older population. Virginia had 58,042 "free colored" and North Carolina had 30,463 in that category, Georgia, 3,500, Alabama, 2,690, and Mississippi, 773. The overall populations by states in 1860 are located here, from which we subtracted the aggregate numbers of white persons under age 20. Hinton Helper, whose Impending Crisis of the South was distributed by the Republican Party in 1860 and which was said to have helped obtain the nomination and election of Abraham Lincoln, shed some additional light on these figures in his Compendium of the Impending Crisis, basing his calculation on the 1850 census and suggesting that the numbers of slaveholders would be less than the census figures indicated for such factors as counting slaveholders more than once across state lines if an individual owned slaves in more than one state, as well as the inclusion in the census figures of "slave-hirers", whereby ordinarily non-slaveholding individuals would hire out one or more slaves for short times in a given year. Mr. Helper roughly calculated this latter category to include in 1850 about 160,000 across the slaveholding states, though utilizing a questionable methodology, extrapolating that total number from the ratio of slaveholders to non-slaveholding slave-hirers in his hometown of Salisbury, N.C., then with a population of about 2,300.

"What Now, Imperial Wizard?" discusses the Solicitor of Lumberton, Malcolm Seawell, having, in March, 1950, given the Klan organizer in Robeson County, Thomas Hamilton of Leesville, S.C., 24 hours to remove himself from the judicial district, and then the previous week, in response to Mr. Hamilton's letter in objection to the arrests of 26 Klan members in Robeson and neighboring Columbus Counties, following the series of floggings during the previous year, invited him to return to the county that he might test the resolve to have him arrested upon re-entry.