The Founders: The World Matters

Americans who dismiss or even resent the notion that we should look abroad for new ideas should know that the Founders they revere would have heavily disagreed — which makes sense given they were inspired by the European Enlightenment and Greco-Roman ideas and institutions.

James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution”, believed that “no nation was so enlightened that it could ignore the impartial judgments of other nations and still expect to govern itself wisely and effectively.”

In Federalist 63 he articulated the importance of respecting global public opinion, noting that “sensibility to the opinion of the world [was] perhaps not less necessary in order to merit, than it is to obtain, its respect and confidence.” In other words, America’s standing in the world matters, and in turn depends on how open we are to foreign ideas and judgments.

Madison also laid out two reasons why every government should pay attention to the international community:

The one is, that independently of the merits of any particular plan or measure, it is desirable on various accounts, that it should appear to other nations as the offspring of a wise and honorable policy.

Thus, no matter how good or justified a domestic policy may seem, we should also ensure that other nations agree as well. It lends support and credibility while also giving us legitimacy.

The second is, that in doubtful cases, particularly where the national councils may be warped by some strong passion, or momentary interest, the presumed or known opinion of the impartial world, may be the best guide that can be followed.

Translation: sometimes Americans get it wrong, and the world can offer guidance we may be lacking.

Madison then went so far as to claim that America has suffered for not taking the world into account:

What has not America lost by her want of character with foreign nations? And how many errors and follies would she not have avoided, if the justice and propriety of her measures had in every instance been previously tried by the light in which they would probably appear to the unbiassed part of mankind?”

As Goloveand and Hulesbosch point out in their law review article, A Civilized Nation, Madison’s point is clear:

“Even apart from the danger of provoking war or acting unjustly, paying respect to the consensus judgments embodied in the law of nations was an essential strategy for avoiding ‘errors and follies’ and for managing a foreign policy that would enable the nation to flourish”.

John Jay and Alexander Hamilton concurred, as did most of the Framers:

Madison’s views were shared by many of the framers, and consequently, they carefully designed the new Constitution to ensure that the new nation would uphold its duties under the law of nations. The most immediate concern, based on bitter experience, was to ensure that localist pressures at the state level would not undermine the nation’s capacity to comply. To accomplish this result, the Constitution centralized the foreign affairs powers in the hands of the federal government. As Madison put it,“[i]f we are to be one nation in any respect, it clearly ought to be in respect to other nations.”

Again, however, the framers’ concerns were not limited to federal-state relations. They also worried that popular sentiment,whipped up by “the artful misrepresentations of interested men,” would threaten to undermine compliance with the nation’s international duties. The people, John Jay lamented, were “liable to be deceived by those brilliant appearances of genius and patriotism, which like transient meteors sometimes mislead as well as dazzle.”Consequently, their representative assemblies would be prone “to yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to be seduced by factious leaders, into intemperate and pernicious resolutions.” Indeed, it was precisely this sort of defect in democratic systems that had led to disastrous results during the Confederation. “[T]he best instruction on this subject is unhappily conveyed to America by the example of her own situation,” Madison observed. “She finds that she is held in no respect by her friends; that she is the derision of her enemies; and that she is a prey to every nation which has an interest in speculating on her fluctuating councils and embarrassed affairs.”

Hence the Constitution gives treaties and international agreements the same strength as domestic law (see the Treaty and Supremacy clauses) and insulates foreign policy from local and state politicians who are too unscrupulous or far removed from international affairs (hence the requirement that only the Senate must ratify a treaty, and Jefferson’s interpretation that many international agreements can be made by the president alone).

It is safe to say that the Founders would be marked as elitist globalists by the very Americans who deify them.

The First Report on the Holocaust

On this day in 1942, the Polish government-in-exile published the first document informing the world about the Holocaust. 

Titled “The Mass Extermination of Jews in German Occupied Poland,” it was sent to 26 Allied governments (officially known as the United Nations) with the purpose of drawing attention to the Final Solution and thereby discourage Germans from carrying it out.

The most important component in the brochure was a note by Polish Foreign Minister Edward Raczynski authenticating its contents, making it the first official report on the Holocaust and the first time that a country called on other countries to defend *all* Jews persecuted by the Nazis, not just those who were citizens of their country. 

Drawing on extensive reporting by agents of Poland’s underground government, Raczynski discussed the change in execution methods from shootings to gassing, and the increased deportation of Jews from ghettos to locations described as “extermination camps.” He also estimated that up to one third of Poland’s three million Jews had already been killed—which turned out to be an underestimate. 

Much of the information came from a 100-page report by Witold Pilecki, a Polish agent who allowed himself to be captured and sent to a concentration camp so as to ascertain the nature of the Nazi’s campaign. It was the first comprehensive record on a Holocaust death camp, with details about the gas chambers and sterilization experiments. It also states that there were three crematoria in Birkenau able to burn 8000 people daily.

Unfortunately, Poland’s courageous efforts came mostly to nothing. Despite its extensive and detailed information, the document had little effect, largely because people outside German-occupied Europe could not believe Jews were being exterminated on that scale. The concept of genocide, let alone the term, did not exist yet, so no one could comprehend a methodical, systematic, and deliberate elimination of an entire people (though similar campaigns had been undertaken before, and have since been labeled genocides). 

Ultimately, over six million Jews would be killed, along with another five to six million other “undesirables”. Poland would suffer the worst WWII losses proportionally, with nearly one out of four Polish people killed, including nearly all Jews (once the largest and most vibrant Jewish community in the world).

The Saint Among Princes

Emir Abdelkader was an Algerian religious and military leader who led a tenacious struggle against the French colonial invasion in the mid-19th century. An Islamic scholar and philosopher from the mystical Sufi tradition, he unexpectedly found himself leading a military campaign, after a meeting of tribesmen elected him as leader. He built up a coalition of Algerian tribes from across the region, successfully holding out for years against one of the most powerful armies in Europe (as well as the second largest colonial empire at the time).

Abdelkader was well regarded by allies and opponents alike, not only for his military and political acumen, but for his markedly good character. He sought counsel from both Jews and Christians, and respected their religious traditions, seeking to create an Algerian state for all faiths. He was honorable and merciful to combatants, ensuring that prisoners were treated well; in one instance, he released prisoners because he could no longer afford to care for them properly. France’s highest-ranking military leader declared him one of the three greatest living men (the other two were Egyptians also known for their skills on and off the battlefield).

Due to this  well-earned grudging respect, when the sheer weight of the French military finally forced him to surrender, Abdelkader was permitted to live in exile in Ottoman-ruled Damascus, with the French government paying his pension, on the condition he would never disturb Algeria again. He lived a quiet life dedicated to debating and writing Islamic theology and philosophy, until another event again catapulted him into fame and world renown.

Years into his exile, a conflict broke out in the region between Muslims, Druze, and Christians. Abdelkader warned local authorities and French diplomats that the Christians of Damascus were in danger. When violence finally broke out, he sheltered large numbers of Christians and ordered his sons to go throughout the city to offer Christians aid and protection. Reports from various survivors and religious orders attested to Abdelkader’s decisive role in saving thousands, and he became an international celebrity.

His erstwhile enemy France increased his pension and awarded him the Legion of Honor, the nation’s highest military award. Greece, Turkey, and even the Vatican also bestowed him with official honors; he is one of the few non-Christians to have the Order of Pope Pius. Even Abraham Lincoln recognized his deed, giving him a pair of inlaid pistols that are now on display in Algeria’s national museum.

For these reasons, he was widely hailed across the world as the “Saint among the Princes, the Prince among the Saints”.

The Mexican Phoenix

Juana Inés de la Cruz (1648-1695) was a self-taught scholar, philosopher, composer, poet, and nun who lived in colonial Mexico (then called New Spain). She was known for her remarkable intelligence, wit, and courage to challenge opinions and speak out for her beliefs, which is why she is known by such monikers as “The Tenth Muse”, “The Phoenix of America”, or the “Mexican Phoenix”.

Source: Wikimedia Commons

Born an illegitimate child of a Spanish captain who was absent from her life, Juana was raised mostly by her mother and maternal grandfather. As a child, she often hid in her grandfather’s chapel and read books from the adjoining library, which was forbidden to girls. She was a child prodigy, learning how to read and write Latin by age three; do financial accounting by age five; and compose a poem by age eight. By the time she was a teenager, she mastered Greek logic, knew Latin well enough to teach it to children, and even learned the Aztec language of Nahuatl.

At the age of 16, Juana was sent to live in Mexico City. Her insatiable appetite for knowledge remained strong, and she even asked her mother’s permission to disguise herself as a boy so she could go to university. Having been forbidden from doing this, she continued to study privately. The Viceroy of Spain took interest in the precocious teen, and she was invited to a meeting of esteemed intellectuals of every background, where she managed to hold her own and answer various scientific and literary subjects unprepared. Her quick-thinking and intelligence were impressive for anyone, let alone a young woman, and she subsequently became well known through colonial Mexico (she garnered several marriage proposals, all of which she rejected).

Juana’s thirst for knowledge drove her to become a nun, wanting “no fixed occupation which might curtail my freedom to study,” since nuns were historically given far more autonomy and leeway than they would have in society. She joined the Hieronymite Nuns specifically, a Catholic order known for its relaxed rules. Far from being stereotypically quiet and pious, she continued writing, learning, and even challenging social norms through poetry and prose (note the sheer number of books in the portrait). She touched on topics such as love, religion, and feminism, criticizing the misogyny and hypocrisy of men in both religious and secular power.

Unsurprisingly, she earned the ire of clerical and political authorities who thought she should know her place and focus on quiet prayer. In response, she wrote “Oh, how much harm would be avoided in our country” if women were able to teach women in order to avoid the danger of male teachers in intimate setting with young female students, remarking that such dangers “would be eliminated if there were older women of learning, as Saint Paul desires, and instructions were passed down from one group to another, as in the case with needlework and other traditional activities.”

Juana was ultimately condemned by the Bishop of Puebla and forced to sell her collection of books and focus on charity to the poor. She died a year later after contracting the plague while helping the sick. Though many of her works have not survived, her legacy as an unusually outspoken proto-feminist lives on for women in Mexico and beyond.

Happy Birthday to Charles Darwin’s Seminal Work

On this day 1859, “On the Origin of Species” by British naturalist Charles Darwin was first published, selling out by the end of the day. It introduced the scientific theory that populations evolve over generations through a process of natural selection. It presented a body of evidence — gathered from Darwin’s nearly five-year journey around the world on the HMS Beagle — that the diversity of life arose by common descent through a branching pattern of evolution.

While various evolutionary ideas had been proposed since ancient times, there was renewed interest into the 19th century as scientific knowledge increased. (In fact, fellow British naturalist Alfred Russell Wallace had independently conceived the theory of evolution through natural selection, publishing his paper on the subject jointly with Darwin in 1858.)

However, Darwin’s book was brilliant in that it was written for lay readers who were not specialists in the subject. Moreover, because he was already a famed scientist, his findings were taken seriously, with the evidence he presented generating intense scientific, philosophical, and religious discussion. Within two decades, there was widespread scientific belief in evolution with a branching pattern of common descent, although people were slow to give much credit to Darwin’s specific finding of natural selection as the primary mechanism.

Indeed, from the 1880s to the 1930s there occurred an “eclipse of Darwinism” , wherein various other mechanisms of evolution were given more credit and Darwin’s fell to the wayside. Only in the 1940s, with the development of the modern evolutionary synthesis — a set of theoretical concepts that tried to harmonize and integrate different factors in evolution — did Darwin’s concept of evolutionary adaptation through natural selection become central to modern evolutionary theory, now becoming the unifying concept of the life sciences (botany, zoology, biology, etc.)

A word about the term theory as used in science: Contrary to popular belief, a theory in science is not the same as how theory is used in everyday language. 

A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method (rigorous observation, measurement, evaluation of results, etc.) Theories are tested under controlled conditions and/or through abductive reasoning (logical inference from a set of observations). Scientific theories are established following repeated tests and scrutiny. 

By contrast, outside the scientific context, a theory usually defines explanation that is unsubstantiated or speculative–hence why so many people wrongfully believe that evolutionary is “just a theory” in the vernacular sense, rather than the more rigorously proven scientific kind of theory.

The Treaty of Tlatelolco

46497943_10161228587365472_3220843945760129024_nDid you know that Mexico played a leading role in keeping nuclear weapons out of the Western Hemisphere? (Outside the U.S. of course.)

Following the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, Mexican diplomat Alfonso García Robles was a driving force for an initiative to develop a framework for keeping the region nuclear-free.

Following a series of conferences with nations from all over the region, the 1967 Treaty of Tlatelolco was drafted to prohibit and prevent the “testing, use, manufacture, production or acquisition by any means whatsoever of any nuclear weapons” and the “receipt, storage, installation, deployment and any form of possession of any nuclear weapons.” (The treaty is named after the district in Mexico City where the meetings were held.) Continue reading

The Jay Treaty And It’s Lessons

46454542_10161226646240472_1401776745870262272_nOn this day in 1795, the United States and Great Britain signed the Jay Treaty, resolving lingering issues from the American Revolutionary War that almost escalated to another war.

Named after John Jay, who negotiated the treaty, it was drafted by Alexander Hamilton and supported by President George Washington, although Thomas Jefferson and many Americans bitterly opposed it. The Treaty achieved the withdrawal of British forces from parts of the Northwest Territory that were supposed to be relinquished to the U.S. under the 1783 peace treaty that ended the Revolutionary War; the British were retaliating against Americans for reneging on Articles 4 and 6 of that treaty, in which U.S. courts prevented the repayment of debts to British subjects and upheld the confiscation of Loyalist property.

Instead of continuing this unsustainable tit for tat, the parties agreed that disputes over wartime debts, as well as over the exact boundary between the U.S. and British Canada, were to be settled by arbitration (i.e. outside the courts but with legal binding). This was one of the first major uses of arbitration in modern diplomatic history, and set the precedent for other states to resolve disputes. Both countries granted one another “most favored nation” status and facilitate ten years of peaceful relations and commerce—an absolute shock to people on both sides of the Atlantic, whose wounds from the war were literally only a little over a decade old.

Indeed, the treaty was hotly contested by Jefferson and his supporters across every state, who failed to block its approval in the House, which ultimately failed; following one of the first constitutional debates in American history, it was decided that only a two thirds vote from the Senate was required to ratify a treaty. (Amusing to think that even while they were still alive, the Founders debated what the Constitution meant.)

The “Jeffersonians” feared that closer economic or political ties with Great Britain would strengthen promote aristocracy and undercut republicanism; they supported France in the Revolutionary Wars that were raging in Europe, and saw the French as their natural allies, not the monarchical British. Hamilton, Jay, and even Washington were denounced as monarchists who sold out American values; one rallying cry among protesters was “Damn John Jay! Damn everyone that won’t damn John Jay! Damn every one that won’t put lights in his window and sit up all night damning John Jay”. So much for the golden age of civility!

The controversy and subsequent polarization over the Jay Treaty crystallized an already emerging partisan division: despite disliking political parties, and designing the Constitution without them in mind, the Founders and their fellow Americans began to form two camps within the so called the “First Party System.” The pro-Jay Treaty Federalists, typified by Hamilton, favored closer ties with the British, as well as a strong central government; those against the treaty, called “Jeffersonian Republicans”, favored France and a weaker national government. As we now know, these proto-political parties would mark the beginning of an increasingly sophisticated and entrenched division between two major national parties—something largely unforeseen by the Founders.

In any event, the Jay Treaty went into effect in February 1796 and lasted for its entire ten year duration. When Jefferson became president in 1801, he did not initially repudiate the treaty he had so despised; in fact, he even retained the Federalist ambassador in London to settle some outstanding issues. Unfortunately, when 1806 rolled around and the Monroe–Pinkney Treaty was proposed as a replacement to the Jay Treaty, Jefferson rejected it due to its perceived failure to resolve certain pending matters. The subsequent tensions escalated toward the War of 1812—which likely would have started sooner but for the Jay Treaty. Continue reading

The Anniversary of Porajmos

On this day in 1943, Heinrich Himmler—one of the most powerful Nazi leaders, and the main architect of the Holocaust—ordered that people of full or part Romani ancestry (a.k.a. gypsies) were to be put “on the same level as Jews and placed in concentration camps”.

Thus began the systematic extermination of Romani people all over Europe, resulting in 220,000 to 500,000 deaths—a quarter to nearly half the total population—though some figures put the death toll as high as 1.5 million. This event is sometimes known as the “Porajmos”, meaning “the Devouring”.

Himmler’s order was the culmination of the racist Nuremberg Laws of 1935, which classified Gypsies, like Jews, as “enemies of the race-based state”, ripping away their German citizenship accordingly. It also reflected centuries of hatred and antipathy towards the Romani.

Better known as Gypsies—after Egypt, which was believed to be their origin—the Romani or Roma people (to use their proper name) actually arrived in Europe and the Middle East from northern India over a millennium ago; many still retain some Hindu beliefs, customs, and symbolism, and speak a language related to Hindi. (Moreover, tens of millions of Indians maintain a similar nomadic lifestyle.)

Like the Jews, the Romani were regarded as an alien race, inherently strange, untrustworthy, degenerate, and devious. In some of the earliest records, they are described as satanically inspired wizards—hence the trope of the Gypsy curse or fortune teller. Depending on the time and place—or whether people needed a scapegoat—the Romani were either grudgingly tolerated, or chased out and killed. They were often subject to similar discriminatory laws and treatment, including enslavement, forced assimilation, separation from their children, and pogroms. They were banned from immigrating to the U.S., Argentina, and other settler countries. There is even a term for hatred towards them that is equivalent to anti-Semitism: Antiziganism.

Thus, as with the Jews, the Nazis simply tapped into a long-existing prejudice that was widespread and deeply rooted throughout Europe, which is why so many Europeans collaborated in rounding up, imprisoning, and killing them. It is believed part of the impetus for their mass targeting was the heavy resistance they posed to Nazi occupiers, especially as nomadic peoples who were often not well documented in national census data.

Unfortunately, it was their widespread invisibility that partly explains why Romani remain relatively forgotten, despite being one of the Nazi’s biggest targets. Overall records of their population before the Holocaust are sparse or unreliable, and after the war few gave them any mind; West Germany did not recognize them as victims of the Holocaust until 1982. Some scholars also attribute this to Romani culture, which is “traditionally not disposed to keeping alive the terrible memories from their history—nostalgia is a luxury for others”. Others blame the effects of pervasive illiteracy, the lack of social institutions, and rampant discrimination to this day, which has deprived the Romani of “national consciousness” and historical memory.

Pictured are Romani people being round up by German police in 1940; most were likely still detained, and thus later killed, following Himmler’s order.

46246762_10161209870105472_4076905810607734784_n

The Trent Affair and the Importance of Diplomatic Recognition

Last week was the anniversary of the Trent Affair, one of the most interesting scandals in the U.S. Civil War. It began in 1861 when the U.S. Navy illegally intercepted and boarded a British mail ship—in contravention of diplomatic protocol—capturing two Confederate diplomats as “contraband of war”. It was revealed that the envoys were bound for the U.K. and France to seek diplomatic recognition and possibly financial and military support.

As during the American War of Independence, the Confederate States of America (CSA) recognized the value of global legitimacy—and the subsequent aid it could bring—for strengthening their cause both ideologically and practically. Even one year into the war, the Confederates realized that ensuring independence against the more established and powerful Union would likely rest on foreign support—hence their secret mission to get the two leading powers of the day to back them.

Instead, they almost unwittingly caused the next best thing for their interests: another war between the U.K. and the U.S. American public opinion supported the capture of the diplomats and rallied against the British for perceived complicity. The British public disapproved of the violation of their neutrality and international law and viewed the Navy’s actions as an insult to national honor. Both countries clamored for war, with the British demanding an apology and the release of the prisoners; they even took steps to strengthen their military in Canada. The Confederates hoped that the tensions would, at the very least, rapture the “special relationship” between American and Britain, if not boil into war and diplomatic recognition of the CSA.

Unfortunately for them, Abraham Lincoln and his advisers were cool-headed and pragmatic; they recognized the very real risk of war with the U.K. and what a calamity a two-front conflict would be. This was far more important than saving diplomatic face. After several weeks, the crisis was finally resolved when the U.S. government released the two envoys and formally disavowed the actions of the Navy captain responsible—although without the formal apology the British demanded; for their part, they backed down from making this an absolute requirement, and settled for the resolution.

The two Confederate diplomats went on their way to Europe, albeit to no avail: the CSA never got the diplomatic recognition it craved, and that might very well have turned the war to their favor—after all, America’s securing of French recognition and support is what proved most decisive in guaranteeing its victory and subsequent independence.

The Only Coup in U.S. History

On this day in 1898, white supremacists seized power in Wilmington, North Carolina, in the only instance of a government being overthrown within U.S. history.

Originally described as a race riot initiated by blacks, over time, more facts emerged revealing that whites had planned an insurrection against the biracial “Fusion Party” that had been legitimately elected. A mob of over 2,000 whites, armed with over 400 small arms and a Gatling gun, expelled opposition black and white political leaders from the city, destroyed the homes and businesses black citizens built up since the Civil War—including the only black newspaper in the city—and killed an estimated 60 to more than 300 people.

45891319_10161190787980472_5183128827294908416_n

Black residents being forced to flee town. Wikimedia Commons.

Another 2,000 blacks fled, most never to return; the once black-majority city was now a white-majority one. In a cruel irony, the driving force of the coup was white resentment of “black success”, which was actually minimal: though blacks made up nearly 60 percent of the county’s population, only eight percent owned property; of nearly $6 million in real and personal property taxes, blacks paid less than $400,000 of this amount. Per capita wealth for blacks was $30, compared to $550 for blacks. Yet affluent whites believed that they were paying a disproportionate amount of taxes compared to blacks, who now held political power and were believed to be targeting white wealth.

45617382_10161190761035472_5293949703770079232_n

A group of “Red Shirts”. Wikimedia Commons.

45833266_10161190760965472_8957395033019908096_n

Mob posing by the ruins of The Daily Record, the only black newspaper in town. Wikimedia Commons.

There was also tension with poor, unskilled whites, who competed with blacks in the job market, and found their services in less demand than that of skilled black labor. In essence, Wilmington blacks were “caught between not meeting the expectations of affluent whites, and exceeding the expectations of poor whites, effectively moving too fast and too slow at the same time.”

(In a cruel irony, when those working class whites finally took the jobs that had once been filled by blacks, they were disappointed with the types of work, describing it as black jobs with bad black wages.)

Though some petitioned the federal government to intervene, the McKinley administration claimed it could not do so without permission from the governor, who had made no request for assistance. The leader of the mob, Colonel Alfred Moore Waddell—who had threatened to “choke the current of the Cape Fear River” with black bodies—was elected mayor of Wilmington, and held power until 1905. The vast majority of coup organizers and plotters went on to be politically successful: one leader served five terms in Congress, followed by a stint as governor; a woman who supported lynching was appointed as the first female senator (albeit for one day), and went on to be a prominent suffragist; several others became long-time senators and federal officials.

The Wilmington coup was part of a broader effort to take back control of post-Civil War North Carolina and reinstate white supremacy. Through rallies, parades, and organized militias of “Red Shirts”, blacks were intimidated from voting and the white-dominated Southern Democrats took statewide power. Just a year later, a flurry of Jim Crow laws was passed to restrict the voting, residency, and property rights of blacks, which would remain in place well into the 20th century.

The following is a long and disturbing account by a reverend of what transpired:

It was a great sight to see them marching from death, and the colored women, colored men, colored children, colored enterprises and colored people all exposed to death. Firing began, and it seemed like a mighty battle in war time. The shrieks and screams of children, of mothers, of wives were heard, such as caused the blood of the most inhuman person to creep. Thousands of women, children and men rushed to the swamps and there lay upon the earth in the cold to freeze and starve. The woods were filled with colored people. The streets were dotted with their dead bodies. A white gentleman said that he saw ten bodies lying in the undertakers office at one time. Some of their bodies were left lying in the streets until up in the next day following the riot. Some were found by the stench and miasma that came forth from their decaying bodies under their houses. Every colored man who passed through the streets had either to be guarded by one of the crowd or have a paper (pass) giving him the right to pass. All colored men at the cotton press and oil mills were ordered not to leave their labor but stop there, while their wives and children were shrieking and crying in the midst of the flying balls and in sight of the cannons and Gatling gun. All the white people had gone out of that part of the City, this army of men marched through the streets, sword buckled to their sides, giving the command to fire. Men stood at their labor wringing their hands and weeping, but they dare not move to the protection of their homes. And then when they passed through the streets had to hold up their hands and be searched. The little white boys of the city searched them and took from them every means of defence, and if they resisted, they were shot down … The city was under military rule; no Negro was allowed to come into the city without being examined or without passing through with his boss, for whom he labored. Colored women were examined and their hats taken off and search was made even under their clothing. They went from house to house looking for Negroes that they considered offensive; took arms they had hidden and killed them for the least expression of manhood. They gathered around colored homes, firing like great sportsmen firing at rabbits in an open field and when one would jump his man, from sixty to one hundred shots would be turned loose upon him. His escape was impossible. One fellow was walking along a railroad and they shot him down without any provocation. It is said by an eye witness that men lay upon the street dead and dying, while members of their race walked by helpless and unable to do them any good or their families. Negro stores were closed and the owners thereof driven out of the city and even shipped away at the point of the gun. Some of the churches were searched for ammunition, and cannons turned toward the door in the attitude of blowing up the church if the pastor or officers did not open them that they might go through.