The Ruffin Letter #2: “The Democratic Plan of Campaign,” Part 2

​Our anonymous writer from Ruffin in Rockingham County accurately captures the logic of the Democrats’ campaign strategy in 1898. He was writing almost two months before the Wilmington coup and massacre. Source: “The Democratic Plan of Campaign,” Union Republican, 15 Sept 1898, 4.

---

In the first part of the letter, the anonymous writer discusses the various false arguments and rhetorical devices and subterfuges by which the Democratic party kept advancing its racist and white supremacist message.

In the second part of the letter (see below), the writer discusses the Democrats’ abuse of language and their use of a false analogy between the period of Reconstruction after the war and the period of Republican-Populist rule after the elections of 1894 and 1896. The main “argument” of the Democrats in defense of “the Democracy” is a threat of violence to enforce their electoral ambitions, a threat carried out most notoriously in Wilmington. (Wikipedia’s article on the coup and massacre provides more background.) The writer perceptively notes: “it is difficult to see how the [Democrats’] campaign is to proceed without some show of quelling disorder in which there shall be blood shed.”

However, the writer fails to acknowledge the weakness of the coalition (the Fusion) of Republicans and Populists opposing the Democrats. After their successful campaigns in 1894 and especially 1896, the coalition had achieved many of the legislative goals they agreed on, for example, capping interest rates, moving control of local government from the legislature to local voters, and reforming the election machinery to ensure an accurate count of the vote. But they disagreed on the way forward. All they offered in the 1898 election was opposition to the Democrats.

The Democrats were advancing a constitutional provision that would require literacy of voters, a provision that would disenfranchise most African American voters and many poor white voters. The writer thought that the citizens would rebel at being disenfranchised, but there was no rebellion: Democrats controlled most of the media in the state, white Republicans abandoned their African American allies, and violence (or its threat, suppressed any overt sign of rebellion.

*****

The letter continues:

     [Threat of violence] This self-constituted custodian of “law and order,” the State Democracy puts before the good people of the State in this year of grace, this alternative: if you want to avoid a reign of terror and bloodshed return us to power. Listen to Bellamy, who is peculiarly fitted to speak for Democracy, a sort of pet, has been to Europe and speaks Henglish fluently. Referring to [the] ancient regime of 1868 he said in [a] Monroe speech, “This record has demonstrated beyond question that if bloodshed, strife and unhappiness shall be avoided, the Democratic party must rule the State.” [Possibly a speech to a large gathering on August 23, 1898; see coverage in Wilmington Star issue of 26 Aug, page 3; ] Here is Democracy with the masque off, and the Democratic press applauds the sentiment. Here is candor which is refreshing because of its very boldness. What does it mean? That the Democratic party gets moribund and has fits in cycles. It has been thirty years since it had a spell, and now notifies the public that it feels another coming on.
     [para break added; definition of terms] To appreciate the contradictory and self-destructive position of the Democracy in making law and order secure by unlawful methods, it is necessary to understand the Democratic conception of the import of the above terms. This conception is that “law and order” are synonymous with Democratic rule, and that any other rule is unlawful and destructive of order, that it is the inalienable right of the Democratic party to abrogate law and suppress this order—that is rule by any other party—by a resort to extra legal means. To state it differently, it is the prerogative of the Democratic party to hold office and govern at all hazards. Under this conception, that blot on the civilization of the South, lynch law is justified and sustained by Democratic sentiment. Under it that other highly refined product of Democratic civilization, the Ku-Klux institution, the peculiar glory of the North Carolina Democracy, flourished and shed imperishable luster on the fame of the State. Bellamy did not fail in his Monroe speech to make due acknowledgements of the invaluable services rendered the party by “bands of protection” singling out the “Ku-Klux” for special mention. For the assassins of Stephens to longer conceal their identity is to miss fame and immortality at the hands of Democratic speakers and press. For them to come forth now with the details of that patriotic taking off is to be crowned heroes in the evolution of the Democratic idea of how to make “law and order” secure” [sic]. [NOTE: John Walker "Chicken" Stephens, a Republican state senator and justice of the peace from Caswell County, was murdered by the Klan in 1870, a fact not proven  until the ringleader's confession was opened after his death in 1935; see NCPedia.] 
     The logic of the Democratic argument, as voiced by speakers and press is that is a parallel between existing conditions, and the conditions which existed from the close of the war till Democracy came into power; and that as desperate expedients had to resorted to then, so now what are adroitly called “heroic measures” must be employed. To translate the diplomatic tone of speakers and press into plain speech we would read: To the slum/glum element in our party, greeting: Our party is in desperate straits, the cry of “n***r” failing to solidify the white people. Organize “bands of protection,” and if a goodly number of you can manage to provoke a riot with n***rs in which you shall lose your lives, the more the better, we promise to keep your memories green. Nothing would so fire the Democratic heart and set in motion billows of enthusiasm just now as a bloody shirt. In fact from the logic of the situation, it is difficult to see how the campaign is to proceed without some show of quelling disorder in which there shall be blood shed. [emphasis added].
     With Democratic purpose and methods so clearly revealed, what is the duty of the loyal citizens of all parties? Is it not clear that the highest interest of the State demands the sinking of minor issues for the time, the suppression of personal rivalries. The yielding of personal resentment in the interest of united and harmonious actions to smash the Democratic conception that law and order are secured by resorting to illegal and insurrectionary methods, and to silence, forever the hypocritical subterfuge of “negro rule” by which the Democracy hopes to cover its return to power? Just now, strong emphasis is given by Democratic speakers and press to the fact that the State, by her election laws, is isolated from her sister Southern States. This is only a half truth which is said to be worse than a straighout [sic] lie. It is true that she is out of line with the Southern States when there is political decadence and dry rot [in] South Carolina, Mississippi and Louisiana, but she is in line with the progressive states of West Virginia, Maryland and New Jersey.
     But what of the argument? It means that[,] if the Democrats get the control of the next Legislature[,] the passage of an educational qualification law. To make law conform to the Constitution it must apply alike to white and black. In other words in order for the Democracy [to] strike the ballot from the hands of thirty to forty thousand negroes it must disfranchise fifteen to twenty thousand whites. Will the white man who, from poverty or lack of opportunity in childhood, failed to learn to read barter away his political birthright at the Democratic barbecue? “Surely in vain the net is spread in sight of any bird.” And if incendiary appeals by Democratic speakers and press shall precipitate not [sic; riot] and disorder as fore-shadowed, will not the liberty and peace loving people rise in their majesty and consign to utter political oblivion, the party having the hardihood to resort to such means?
     To Republican and Populist Insurgents, a word to you. It is your purpose to play the role of your namesakes in Cuba and the Phillippines? They deserted their benefactors at the critical moment and thereafter contented themselves with seizing American rations and supplies, and doing nothing. It is possible that you are more concerned about the loaves and fishes than the success of your respective parties? Are you not by factious opposition to co-operative candidates giving aid and comfort to the common enemy, the Democratic party? If Gen. Wheeler had contested the authority of Sh[a]fter at the battle of Santiago; and instead of meeting in combined assaults on the enemies [sic] works, had stirred up division and attacked his own lines[,] what would have been thought of his conduct in this country? Gen. Garcia did fail to come to [in] time and took the sulks. Did his conduct rise or lower, him in the estimation of his friends or even his enemies?
     [para break added] Just now Republican and Populist forces are lining up for combined assault on our ancient enemy, the Democratic party. Are you are this critical juncture, going to forment [sic] division in your our [sic] ranks and thereby forfeit the good opinion of your best friends for the empty reward of the temporary applause of your oldtime enemy, with his subsequent contempt after the victory is over? This is not the year for the so called independent candidate. The people are waging a crucial contest in this State, and will tolerate foolishness. Wherever independent candidates, so called, are up let them make haste to come down.
Let resentment in the 8th district, especially be silenced at the grave of Dr. Wilcox, whose untimely loss Republicans everywhere deplore, and for whom they sincerely mourn.
Let our ranks close up, and Democracy must meet its Santiago in November.
                                           Republican,
Ruffin, N.C., Sept 10, ‘98.