Don’t Flap Together!
June 11, 1898
Summary
The Planet calls out the Richmond Times on its duplicitousness in regards to the Populist party and the situation of the African American man in the South.
Transcription
The Richmond Times in its issue of the 8th inst., under the caption of “Class Legislation,” and in commenting upon the remark of the Clinch Valley News relative to the rich and poor, proceeds to belabor the Populists on account of their hostile attitude towards the right.
It says:
“The government has no right to discriminate. It has no right to be a respector of persons. It must treat all alike. It cannot help one class without corresponding injury to other classes, and if it takes form one man or one class more in proportion than it takes from another man or another class it robs the person thus excessively taxed of what belongs to him.
The Times did not have the colored brother in its “mind’s eye” when it published that article.
It happened however to have written another which was directly opposed to the principle previously enunciated. It is entitled “Negroes in Office.”
Here is a specimen:
“The Post warns the colored folks that all that they can accomplish by this pestiferous uproar is to convince the whites that they are impracticable and malapropos. It also tells them that this is a white man’s country, which the white man intends to govern in his own was and for his own behoove.
“We do not wish to be hard, but facts are facts and the black man must recognize the truthfulness of what the Post says. This is indeed a white man’s country. It was discovered by white men, it was built up by white men, and it was through the sacrifice and daring of white men that it received its independence. The black men will do well to recognize this and will do badly to be constantly pressing his so-called claims.”
The above “rot” hardly deserves more than passing notice. Colored men have fought for this country, and have “bled and died” in every war in which this country has engaged. It says:
“It is inconceivable that the Department of War would appoint any white men to command the federal troops who, for whatever reason, whether prejudice or otherwise, was so distasteful to the soldiers that they would not willingly fight under him. That such feeling should exist against a white man or a black man is his own misfortune for which the government is in no way responsible.”
“It’s a bad rule which does not work both ways.”
Then it is not “inconceivable that the Department of War would appoint any white men to command the federal troops who, for whatever reason, whether prejudice or otherwise, was so distasteful to the soldiers that they would not willingly fight under him?” Answer that question and admit yourself “hoisted on your own petard.”
The Times says:
Every citizen in the United States has certain rights guaranteed him under the constitution which the government must respect, but the right to hold office does not carry with it any obligation on the part of the government to confer office upon any individual. No man has any peculiar claim on any office within the gift of the people or government.
The right to hold office carries with it the holding of it if the colored brothers can get it.
In the case of the t= colored officers, they have the right and are holding the command over the colored troops and you say they should be put out because they are colored and white men put in their places because they are white.
In the same issue in denouncing the Populists for their attitude towards the rich you say, — “The government has no right to discriminate. It has no right to be a respector of persons.”
Gov. J. Hoge Tyler takes that same view of the matter. How can consistently disagree with him?
Mr. Editor, in journalism and logic, you cannot blow hot and cold at the same time. Stay on one side of the fence or the other please.
By the way, we wonder if Mr. Joseph Bryan, the millionaire owner read the Times of June 9th. No officers; no fight!
It says:
“The government has no right to discriminate. It has no right to be a respector of persons. It must treat all alike. It cannot help one class without corresponding injury to other classes, and if it takes form one man or one class more in proportion than it takes from another man or another class it robs the person thus excessively taxed of what belongs to him.
The Times did not have the colored brother in its “mind’s eye” when it published that article.
It happened however to have written another which was directly opposed to the principle previously enunciated. It is entitled “Negroes in Office.”
Here is a specimen:
“The Post warns the colored folks that all that they can accomplish by this pestiferous uproar is to convince the whites that they are impracticable and malapropos. It also tells them that this is a white man’s country, which the white man intends to govern in his own was and for his own behoove.
“We do not wish to be hard, but facts are facts and the black man must recognize the truthfulness of what the Post says. This is indeed a white man’s country. It was discovered by white men, it was built up by white men, and it was through the sacrifice and daring of white men that it received its independence. The black men will do well to recognize this and will do badly to be constantly pressing his so-called claims.”
The above “rot” hardly deserves more than passing notice. Colored men have fought for this country, and have “bled and died” in every war in which this country has engaged. It says:
“It is inconceivable that the Department of War would appoint any white men to command the federal troops who, for whatever reason, whether prejudice or otherwise, was so distasteful to the soldiers that they would not willingly fight under him. That such feeling should exist against a white man or a black man is his own misfortune for which the government is in no way responsible.”
“It’s a bad rule which does not work both ways.”
Then it is not “inconceivable that the Department of War would appoint any white men to command the federal troops who, for whatever reason, whether prejudice or otherwise, was so distasteful to the soldiers that they would not willingly fight under him?” Answer that question and admit yourself “hoisted on your own petard.”
The Times says:
Every citizen in the United States has certain rights guaranteed him under the constitution which the government must respect, but the right to hold office does not carry with it any obligation on the part of the government to confer office upon any individual. No man has any peculiar claim on any office within the gift of the people or government.
The right to hold office carries with it the holding of it if the colored brothers can get it.
In the case of the t= colored officers, they have the right and are holding the command over the colored troops and you say they should be put out because they are colored and white men put in their places because they are white.
In the same issue in denouncing the Populists for their attitude towards the rich you say, — “The government has no right to discriminate. It has no right to be a respector of persons.”
Gov. J. Hoge Tyler takes that same view of the matter. How can consistently disagree with him?
Mr. Editor, in journalism and logic, you cannot blow hot and cold at the same time. Stay on one side of the fence or the other please.
By the way, we wonder if Mr. Joseph Bryan, the millionaire owner read the Times of June 9th. No officers; no fight!
About this article
Source
Location on Page
Upper Left Quadrant
Topic
Contributed By
Cali Hughes
Citation
“Don’t Flap Together!,” Black Virginia: The Richmond Planet, 1894-1909, accessed October 9, 2026, https://blackvirginia.richmond.edu/items/show/1404.