Negro by constitutional amendments, one in 1905, another in 1909, and still another in 1911, but all have failed.  About the intention of its disfranchising legislation the South, as represented by more than one spokesman, was very frank.  Unfortunately the new order called forth a group of leaders—­represented by Tillman in South Carolina, Hoke Smith in Georgia, and James K. Vardaman in Mississippi—­who made a direct appeal to prejudice and thus capitalized the racial feeling that already had been brought to too high tension.

Naturally all such legislation as that suggested had ultimately to be brought before the highest tribunal in the country.  The test came over the following section from the Oklahoma law:  “No person shall be registered as an elector of this state or be allowed to vote in any election herein unless he shall be able to read and write any section of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma; but no person who was on January 1, 1866, or at any time prior thereto, entitled to vote under any form of government, or who at any time resided in some foreign nation, and no lineal descendant of such person shall be denied the right to register and vote because of his inability to so read and write sections of such Constitution.”  This enactment the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional in 1915.  The decision exerted no great and immediate effect on political conditions in the South; nevertheless as the official recognition by the nation of the fact that the Negro was not accorded his full political rights, it was destined to have far-reaching effect on the whole political fabric of the section.

When the era of disfranchisement began it was in large measure expected by the South that with the practical elimination of the Negro from politics this section would become wider in its outlook and divide on national issues.  Such has not proved to be the case.  Except for the noteworthy deflection of Tennessee in the presidential election of 1920, and Republican gains in some counties in other states, this section remains just as “solid” as it was forty years ago, largely of course because the Negro, through education and the acquisition of property, is becoming more and more a potential factor in politics.  Meanwhile it is to be observed that the Negro is not wholly without a vote, even in the South, and sometimes his power is used with telling effect, as in the city of Atlanta in the spring of 1919, when he decided in the negative the question of a bond issue.  In the North moreover—­especially in Indiana, Ohio, New Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and New York—­he has on more than one occasion proved the deciding factor in political affairs.  Even when not voting, however, he involuntarily wields tremendous influence on the destinies of the nation, for even though men may be disfranchised, all are nevertheless counted in the allotment of congressmen to Southern states.  This anomalous situation means that in actual practice the vote of one white man in the South is four or six or even eight times as strong as that of a man in the North;[1] and it directly accounted for the victory of President Wilson and the Democrats over the Republicans led by Charles E. Hughes in 1916.  For remedying it by the enforcement of the Fourteenth Amendment bills have been frequently presented in Congress, but on these no action has been taken.