Portrait of a Scientific Racist: Alfred Holt Stone of Mississippi

12 A SLAVE TO BUSINESS

211 1. “Miniature of Mrs. William Jay Schieffelin (1871–1948),” luceweb.nyhistory.org/ luceweb/item_detail.htm?qmkey=16703; “Choate and Twain Plead for Tuskegee,” New York Times, January 23, 1906. 2. William Jay Schieffelin, review of Studies in the American Race Problem, by Alfred Holt Stone, Political Science Quarterly 24 (December 1909): 701–2. 12 A SLAVE TO BUSINESS Not everybody was impressed with Studies in the American Race Problem. William Jay Schieffelin, a wealthy New Yorker, the great-great grandson of Chief Justice John Jay, and a generous supporter of the Tuskegee Institute ,1 wrote a critical review of Stone’s book in the Political Science Quarterly. Schieffelin acknowledged that Stone marshaled his facts and presented them in a logical and impartial manner, but Schieffelin asserted that Stone “is guilty, nevertheless, of glaring inconsistencies.” For example, although Stone argued that “the [Negro] problem is a national one,” he “shows impatience not only of much of the comment that comes from the North, but of the endeavor of northern men to contribute towards a solution.” Along the same lines, Schieffelin pointed out that Stone “warns the reader against generalizing from special instances [for example, the accomplishments of talented African Americans], and then he cites a simple case from which he himself draws pessimistic conclusions [Stone’s experience with seventy-five black families at Dunleith].” Schieffelin also criticized Stone for comparing the ef- ficiency of black laborers to Italian immigrants. “The very fact that these immigrants have come to America,” Schieffelin observed, “shows them to be more resourceful and enterprising and intent upon success than their fellows who remain at home.”2 Yet, there were things about Stone’s book that Schieffelin liked—the chapter “Race Friction,” for example. “In it he presents many interesting facts,” Schieffelin wrote; “his diagnosis, in the reviewer’s opinion, is correct; PORTRAIT OF A SCIENTIFIC RACIST 212 3. Ibid. 4. Fredrickson, Black Image in the White Mind, 284 n. 5. For an example of Murphy’s defense of segregationist principles, see Edgar Gardner Murphy, The White Man and the Negro at the South: An Address Delivered under the Invitation of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, the American Society for the Extension of University Teaching, and the Civic Club of Philadelphia, in the Church of the Holy Trinity, Philadelphia, on the Evening of March 8th, A.D. 1900 (N.p., [1900?]), 55 pages. There is a copy of this pamphlet in TSC. 6. Bailey, Edgar Gardner Murphy, 192; emphasis added. but the treatment which he proposes, namely, that the Negro should be let alone, is gravely inadequate.” Schieffelin also liked Stone’s chapter on race and politics. However, he complained that the chapter entitled “The Mulatto Factor” was too short. “Instead of brooding over ‘the horrors of reconstruction ,’” which Stone had done with his account of black political participation in the previous chapter, “the author should labor to create a prevailing public opinion against the menace of miscegenation. Why did he not take this opportunity to proclaim the gospel of race integrity and to demand that it be practiced by the men of the South?” Not surprisingly, Schieffelin ended his review of Studies in the American Race Problem by endorsing another book. “Since Mr. Stone’s articles appeared,” Schieffelin wrote, “a very able and temperate book has been published, entitled The Basis of Ascendancy, by Edgar Gardner Murphy. Its perusal will lead the reader to a higher and more hopeful view of this great question than is taken by Mr. Stone.”3 Edgar Gardner Murphy was the rector at St. John’s Episcopal Church in Montgomery, Alabama, who organized the three-day conference on the race problem that Stone had attended in 1900. Murphy’s tenure as a priest in Montgomery had been cut short, however, because of his involvement in progressive causes, such as the campaign against child labor in Alabama. Murphy was also against the unilateral disfranchisement of African Americans . If illiterate and uneducated citizens should be barred from voting, he argued, those restrictions should be applied to white people and black people equally.4 But Murphy was not for the integration of races; his progressivism did not go that far.5 As Murphy’s biographer, Hugh C. Bailey, put it, “Even with these advanced ideas, Murphy still held that the Negro could be granted his civil, political, and industrial rights without social integration and race amalgamation.”6 The Basis of Ascendancy was a blueprint for how the South could grow...