a voice in the selection of those
who are to rule. In view of their numerical strength the probabilities
are that more of them would be officially recognized than in other
sections of the country, but never out of proportion to their fitness
and capacity, unless there should be a repetition of conditions that
existed in the early days of Reconstruction, which is improbable. The
dominant element in the Democratic party in that section at that time
adopted, as stated above, the policy of "masterly inactivity" which
was intended to prevent white men, through intimidation, from taking
any part in the organization and reconstruction of the State
governments, with a view of making the governments thus organized as
odious and as objectionable as possible, in other words, to make them
as far as possible "Negro governments." This policy proved to be
somewhat effective in many localities. The result was the colored men
found much difficulty in finding desirable white men outside of the
Democratic party for the different local positions to be filled. This
made it necessary in some instances for colored men to be selected to
fill certain positions for which white men would have been chosen. But
under the present order of things, a repetition of any thing of this
sort would be wholly out of the question.

I can not close this article without giving expression to the hope
that a fair, just and impartial historian will, some day, write a
history covering the Reconstruction period, in which an accurate
account based upon actual facts of what took place at that time will
be given, instead of a compilation and condensation of untrue,
unreliable and grossly exaggerated statements taken from political
campaign literature.

JOHN R. LYNCH,
Author of "The Facts of Reconstruction."

4352 FORRESTVILLE AVENUE,
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

FOOTNOTES:

[402] Lynch, "The Facts of Reconstruction," Chapter XI.

[403] The speech of R. B. Elliott in reply to A. H. Stephens in the
debate on the Civil Rights Bill was admitted to be one of the most
eloquent and scholarly speeches ever delivered in Congress. But Mr.
Rhodes's preconceived opinions and prejudices were so firmly fixed
that he was incapable of detecting anything in the acts or utterances
of any colored member of either branch of Congress that deserved to be
commended or favorably noticed.

[404] Rhodes, "History of United States,