Back More
Salem Press

Table of Contents

Defining Documents in American History: Dissent and Protest

Speech on His Expulsion from the Georgia Legislature

by Mitchell Snay, PhD

Date: 1868

Author: Henry McNeal Turner

Genre: Speech

Summary Overview

Henry McNeal Turner’s speech to the Georgia legislature in September 1868 was a direct response to the expulsion by that body of twenty-seven African American state legislators. In the first elections initiated by Radical Reconstruction in July 1867, three African Americans were elected to the Georgia Senate and twenty-nine to the Georgia House of Representatives. These black legislators represented a Republican Party that hoped to rise to power in the Reconstruction South by creating a coalition among the newly enfranchised freedmen, sympathetic native southern whites, and northern whites who had come to the South seeking economic prosperity and political opportunities. As in most southern states, Georgia Republicans were riven by factional disputes. Democrats, hoping to take advantage of Republican factionalism, sought means to regain political power for conservative whites.

The speech was rooted in the experiment in biracial democracy that underlay Radical Reconstruction. It thus speaks to several important issues in African American political history and in the history of Reconstruction. It sheds light on the nature of black political leadership, the dynamics of Reconstruction politics in the South, and the ideology of African American leaders during Reconstruction.

Years earlier, the former governor Joseph E. Brown had suggested the expulsion of the recently elected black legislators on the ground of constitutional ineligibility. On August 6, 1868, a resolution from the House minority committee declared a mulatto representative ineligible. Soon after that, the Democratic state senator Milton A. Candler presented a motion to investigate the eligibility of African Americans to sit in the legislature. White Republicans in the Georgia legislature faced public pressure to attack the evils of “Negro government.” By early September, enough Republicans joined with Georgia Democrats to pass resolutions removing African Americans from the legislature. The Senate voted twenty-four to eleven for these resolutions, specifically expelling the blacks Tunis G. Campbell and George Wallace as “ineligible to seats, on the ground that they are persons of color, and not eligible to office by the Constitution and laws of Georgia, nor by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” White conservative strength was stronger in the state House of Representatives, where the final vote, cast on September 2, 1868, was eighty-three to twenty-three. In all, close to thirty Republicans in the Georgia legislature supported the measure either by voting for it or by abstaining.

The Republican governor Rufus Bullock defended the expelled blacks, claiming that “the framers of the Constitution made no distinction between electors or citizens on account of race or color, and neither can you.” Bullock aimed his protest at the nation’s capital, where, with support from black leaders in Georgia, Congress passed the Congressional Reorganization Act of 1869, reconvening the Georgia legislature of 1868 and reseating those black members who had been expelled.

Defining Moment

In 1867, the period of Congressional, or Radical, Reconstruction began in the South. This resulted from strong resistance from southern Democratic-party controlled state governments against more lenient reconstruction efforts. They reelected former Confederates to office and passed a series of “Black Codes” that severely compromised the freedom and civil rights of former slaves. State governments were dismantled and the Army was put in charge of voter registration and elections. This spurred the growth of the a Republican Party in the south, where Republicans were an alliance of northern whites, native southern white supporters, and African Americans. Although the extent of black domination of Reconstruction governments was exaggerated by those whites who opposed them, blacks did serve in the U.S. Congress, state executive and legislative positions, and local offices.

State constitutional conventions of 1867–1868 created new Republican governments but over the course of the next decade these Republican regimes would fall. Three major factors were responsible for the end of Radical Reconstruction. First, antiblack and anti-Republican violence seriously crippled Reconstruction efforts. Republican officeholders were attacked and often murdered. Second, conflicts within the Republican coalition hampered their ability to rule effectively. Third, Reconstruction in the South was doomed by a growing lack of support among northern Republicans. Scandals and economic crises led to growing concern with domestic financial issues at the expense of following through with reconstruction efforts in the south.

Reconstruction in Georgia followed this regional pattern. Like other states, internal dissensions within Republican ranks led to their defeat. Particularly challenging was the attempt to appeal to both the freedmen and the former Democrats of north Georgia. Georgia Republicans also had to contend with politically motivated terrorism. In March 1868 the Republican legislator George A. Ashburn was assassinated while visiting Columbus after receiving a warning from the Ku Klux Klan. Radical Reconstruction in Georgia was relatively short lived. And during its heyday, in protest of Congressional Reconstruction that enfranchised African American males, conservative southern white Democrats barred their admission into the Georgia legislature by declaring their ineligibility to holding office both in Georgia and the United States.

Author Biography

Henry McNeal Turner was born in Newberry, South Carolina, to free black parents in 1834. He learned to read and write while working in a law office. Turner joined the African Methodist Episcopal Church in 1848 and became a licensed preacher in 1853. He traveled throughout the South as an itinerant evangelist and, in 1860, took a preaching position at Union Bethel Church in Baltimore, Maryland. In 1862 he moved to Washington, D.C., and, as pastor of Israel Bethel Church there, became a prominent leader in the black community. During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln appointed Turner as chaplain to the First Regiment, U.S. Colored Troops.

Turner moved to Georgia in 1865 and soon became an influential figure in Reconstruction politics in that state. He organized Union Leagues that brought blacks into the Republican Party and served as a delegate to the 1866 Georgia black convention and worked for the Republican Congressional Committee in 1867. Turner was elected to the Georgia constitutional convention of 1867–1868. Voters then chose him for the Georgia House of Representatives in 1868. After his expulsion, Turner was reseated by order of Congress in 1870 and reelected in 1871. As a legislator, he submitted bills for an eight-hour day for laborers and to prohibit discrimination on public transportation (primarily streetcars), yet he was the only black member to support a literacy test for voting. Turner’s political activism proved dangerous in Georgia in the late 1860s. Two attempts were made on his life, and his home was often protected by armed guards. In 1871 Turner was appointed by national Republicans as customs inspector in Savannah.

Turner was ordained a bishop in the African Methodist Episcopal Church in 1880 and became chancellor of Morris Brown College, an African American institution in Atlanta. He later joined the Prohibitionist Party. Besides publishing three religious periodicals, he became a leading advocate for black emigration from the United States. He died in Windsor, Canada, in 1915.

Historical Document

Mr. Speaker: Before proceeding to argue this question upon its intrinsic merits, I wish the members of this House to understand the position that I take. I hold that I am a member of this body. Therefore, sir, I shall neither fawn nor cringe before any party, nor stoop to beg them for my rights. Some of my colored fellow members, in the course of their remarks, took occasion to appeal to the sympathies of members on the opposite side, and to eulogize their character for magnanimity. It reminds me very much, sir, of slaves begging under the lash. I am here to demand my rights and to hurl thunderbolts at the men who would dare to cross the threshold of my manhood. There is an old aphorism which says, “fight the devil with fire,” and if I should observe the rule in this instance, I wish gentlemen to understand that it is but fighting them with their own weapon.

The scene presented in this House, today, is one unparalleled in the history of the world. From this day, back to the day when God breathed the breath of life into Adam, no analogy for it can be found. Never, in the history of the world, has a man been arraigned before a body clothed with legislative, judicial or executive functions, charged with the offense of being a darker hue than his fellow men. I know that questions have been before the courts of this country, and of other countries, involving topics not altogether dissimilar to that which is being discussed here today. But, sir, never in the history of the great nations of this world—never before—has a man been arraigned, charged with an offense committed by the God of Heaven Himself. Cases may be found where men have been deprived of their rights for crimes and misdemeanors; but it has remained for the state of Georgia, in the very heart of the nineteenth century, to call a man before the bar, and there charge him with an act for which he is no more responsible than for the head which he carries upon his shoulders. The Anglo-Saxon race, sir, is a most surprising one. No man has ever been more deceived in that race than I have been for the last three weeks. I was not aware that there was in the character of that race so much cowardice or so much pusillanimity. The treachery which has been exhibited in it by gentlemen belonging to that race has shaken my confidence in it more than anything that has come under my observation from the day of my birth.

What is the question at issue? Why, sir, this Assembly, today, is discussing and deliberating on a judgment; there is not a Cherub that sits around God’s eternal throne today that would not tremble—even were an order issued by the Supreme God Himself—to come down here and sit in judgment on my manhood. Gentlemen may look at this question in whatever light they choose, and with just as much indifference as they may think proper to assume, but I tell you, sir, that this is a question which will not die today. This event shall be remembered by posterity for ages yet to come, and while the sun shall continue to climb the hills of heaven.

Whose legislature is this? Is it a white man’s legislature, or is it a black man’s legislature? Who voted for a constitutional convention, in obedience to the mandate of the Congress of the United States? Who first rallied around the standard of Reconstruction? Who set the ball of loyalty rolling in the state of Georgia? And whose voice was heard on the hills and in the valleys of this state? It was the voice of the brawny-armed Negro, with the few humanitarian-hearted white men who came to our assistance. I claim the honor, sir, of having been the instrument of convincing hundreds—yea, thousands—of white men, that to reconstruct under the measures of the United States Congress was the safest and the best course for the interest of the state.

Let us look at some facts in connection with this matter. Did half the white men of Georgia vote for this legislature? Did not the great bulk of them fight, with all their strength, the Constitution under which we are acting? And did they not fight against the organization of this legislature? And further, sir, did they not vote against it? Yes, sir! And there are persons in this legislature today who are ready to spit their poison in my face, while they themselves opposed, with all their power, the ratification of this Constitution. They question my right to a seat in this body, to represent the people whose legal votes elected me. This objection, sir, is an unheard-of monopoly of power. No analogy can be found for it, except it be the case of a man who should go into my house, take possession of my wife and children, and then tell me to walk out. I stand very much in the position of a criminal before your bar, because I dare to be the exponent of the views of those who sent me here. Or, in other words, we are told that if black men want to speak, they must speak through white trumpets; if black men want their sentiments expressed, they must be adulterated and sent through white messengers, who will quibble and equivocate and evade as rapidly as the pendulum of a clock. If this be not done, then the black men have committed an outrage, and then representatives must be denied the right, to represent their constituents.

The great question, sir, is this: Am I a man? If I am such, I claim the rights of a man. Am I not a man because I happen to be of a darker hue than honorable gentlemen around me? Let me see whether I am or not. I want to convince the House today that I am entitled to my seat here. A certain gentleman has argued that the Negro was a mere development similar to the orangoutang or chimpanzee, but it so happens that, when a Negro is examined, physiologically, phrenologically and anatomically, and I may say, physiognomically, he is found to be the same as persons of different color. I would like to ask any gentleman on this floor, where is the analogy? Do you find me a quadruped, or do you find me a man? Do you find three bones less in my back than in that of the white man? Do you find fewer organs in the brain? If you know nothing of this, I do; for I have helped to dissect fifty men, black and white, and I assert that by the time you take off the mucous pigment—the color of the skin—you cannot, to save your life, distinguish between the black man and the white. Am I a man? Have I a soul to save, as you have? Am I susceptible of eternal development, as you are? Can I learn all the arts and sciences that you can? Has it ever been demonstrated in the history of the world? Have black men ever exhibited bravery as white men have done? Have they ever been in the professions? Have they not as good articulative organs as you? Some people argue that there is a very close similarity between the larynx of the Negro and that of the orangoutang. Why, sir, there is not so much similarity between them as there is between the larynx of the man and that of the dog, and this fact I dare any member of this House to dispute. God saw fit to vary everything in nature. There are no two men alike—no two voices alike—no two trees alike. God has weaved and tissued variety and versatility throughout the boundless space of His creation. Because God saw fit to make some red, and some white, and some black, and some brown, are we to sit here in judgment upon what God has seen fit to do? As well might one play with the thunderbolts of heaven as with that creature that bears God’s image—God’s photograph.

The question is asked, “What is it that the Negro race has done?” Well, Mr. Speaker, all I have to say upon the subject is this: If we are the class of people that we are generally represented to be, I hold that we are a very great people. It is generally considered that we are the children of Canaan; and the curse of a father rests upon our heads, and has rested, all through history. Sir, I deny that the curse of Noah had anything to do with the Negro. We are not the Children of Canaan; and if we are, sir, where should we stand? Let us look a little into history. Melchizedek was a Canaanite; all the Phoenicians—all those inventors of the arts and sciences—were the posterity of Canaan; but, sir, the Negro is not. We are the children of Cush, and Canaan’s curse has nothing whatever to do with the Negro. If we belong to that race, Ham belonged to it, under whose instructions Napoleon Bonaparte studied military tactics. If we belong to that race, Saint Augustine belonged to it. Who was it that laid the foundation of the great Reformation? Martin Luther, who lit the light of gospel truth—a light that will never go out until the sun shall rise to set no more; and, long ere then, Democratic principles will have found their level in the regions of Pluto and of Proserpine.…

The honorable gentleman from Whitfield [Mr. Shumate], when arguing this question, a day or two ago, put forth the proposition that to be a representative was not to be an officer—”it was a privilege that citizens had a right to enjoy.” These are his words. It was not an office; it was a “privilege.” Every gentleman here knows that he denied that to be a representative was to be an officer. Now, he is recognized as a leader of the Democratic party in this House, and generally cooks victuals for them to eat; makes that remarkable declaration, and how are you, gentlemen on the other side of the House, because I am an officer, when one of your great lights says that I am not an officer? If you deny my right—the right of my constituents to have representation here—because it is a “privilege,” then, sir, I will show you that I have as many privileges as the whitest man on this floor. If I am not permitted to occupy a seat here, for the purpose of representing my constituents, I want to know how white men can be permitted to do so. How can a white man represent a colored constituency, if a colored man cannot do it? The great argument is: “Oh, we have inherited” this, that and the other. Now, I want gentlemen to come down to cool, common sense. Is the created greater than the Creator? Is man greater than God? It is very strange, if a white man can occupy on this floor a seat created by colored votes, and a black man cannot do it. Why, gentlemen, it is the most shortsighted reasoning in the world. A man can see better than that with half an eye; and even if he had no eye at all, he could forge one, as the Cyclops did, or punch one with his finger, which would enable him to see through that.

It is said that Congress never gave us the right to hold office. I want to know, sir, if the Reconstruction measures did not base their action on the ground that no distinction should be made on account of race, color or previous condition? Was not that the grand fulcrum on which they rested? And did not every reconstructed state have to reconstruct on the idea that no discrimination, in any sense of the term, should be made? There is not a man here who will dare say No. If Congress has simply given me a merely sufficient civil and political rights to make me a mere political slave for Democrats, or anybody else—giving them the opportunity of jumping on my back in order to leap into political power—I do not thank Congress for it. Never, so help me God, shall I be a political slave. I am not now speaking for those colored men who sit with me in this House, nor do I say that they endorse my sentiments, but assisting Mr. Lincoln to take me out of servile slavery did not intend to put me and my race into political slavery. If they did, let them take away my ballot—I do not want it, and shall not have it. I don’t want to be a mere tool of that sort. I have been a slave long enough already.

I tell you what I would be willing to do: I am willing that the question should be submitted to Congress for an explanation as to what was meant in the passage of their Reconstruction measures, and of the Constitutional Amendment. Let the Democratic party in this House pass a resolution giving this subject that direction, and I shall be content. I dare you, gentlemen, to do it. Come up to the question openly, whether it meant that the Negro might hold office, or whether it meant that he should merely have the right to vote. If you are honest men, you will do it. If, however, you will not do that, I would make another proposition: Call together, again, the convention that framed the constitution under which we are acting; let them take a vote upon the subject, and I am willing to abide by their decision.…

These colored men, who are unable to express themselves with all the clearness and dignity and force of rhetorical eloquence, are laughed at in derision by the Democracy of the country. It reminds me very much of the man who looked at himself in a mirror and, imagining that he was addressing another person, exclaimed: “My God, how ugly you are!” These gentlemen do not consider for a moment the dreadful hardships which these people have endured, and especially those who in any way endeavored to acquire an education. For myself, sir, I was raised in the cotton field of South Carolina, and in order to prepare myself for usefulness, as well to myself as to my race, I determined to devote my spare hours to study. When the overseer retired at night to his comfortable couch, I sat and read and thought and studied, until I heard him blow his horn in the morning. He frequently told me with an oath, that if he discovered me attempting to learn, that he would whip me to death, and I have no doubt he would have done so, if he had found an opportunity. I prayed to Almighty God to assist me, and He did, and I thank Him with my whole heart and soul.…

So far as I am personally concerned, no man in Georgia has been more conservative than I. “Anything to please the white folks” has been my motto; and so closely have I adhered to that course, that many among my own party have classed me as a Democrat. One of the leaders of the Republican party in Georgia has not been at all favorable to me for some time back, because he believed that I was too “conservative” for a Republican. I can assure you, however, Mr. Speaker, that I have had quite enough, and to spare, of such “conservatism.” …

But, Mr. Speaker, I do not regard this movement as a thrust at me. It is a thrust at the Bible—a thrust at the God of the Universe, for making a man and not finishing him; it is simply calling the Great Jehovah a fool. Why, sir, though we are not white, we have accomplished much. We have pioneered civilization here; we have built up your country; we have worked in your fields and garnered your harvests for two hundred and fifty years! And what do we ask of you in return? Do we ask you for compensation for the sweat our fathers bore for you—for the tears you have caused, and the hearts you have broken, and the lives you have curtailed, and the blood you have spilled? Do we ask retaliation? We ask it not. We are willing to let the dead past bury its dead; but we ask you, now for our rights. You have all the elements of superiority upon your side; you have our money and your own; you have our education and your own; and you have our land and your own too. We, who number hundreds of thousands in Georgia, including our wives and families, with not a foot of land to call our own—strangers in the land of our birth; without money, without education, without aid, without a roof to cover us while we live, nor sufficient clay to cover us when we die! It is extraordinary that a race such as yours, professing gallantry and chivalry and education and superiority, living in a land where ringing chimes call child and sire to the church of God—a land where Bibles are read and Gospel truths are spoken, and where courts of justice are presumed to exist; it is extraordinary that, with all these advantages on your side, you can make war upon the poor defenseless black man. You know we have no money, no railroads, no telegraphs, no advantages of any sort, and yet all manner of injustice is placed upon us. You know that the black people of this country acknowledge you as their superiors, by virtue of your education and advantages.…

You may expel us, gentlemen, but I firmly believe that you will some day repent it. The black man cannot protect a country, if the country doesn’t protect him; and if, tomorrow, a war should arise, I would not raise a musket to defend a country where my manhood is denied. The fashionable way in Georgia, when hard work is to be done, is for the white man to sit at his ease while the black man does the work; but, sir, I will say this much to the colored men of Georgia, as, if I should be killed in this campaign, I may have no opportunity of telling them at any other time: Never lift a finger nor raise a hand in defense of Georgia, until Georgia acknowledges that you are men and invests you with the rights pertaining to manhood. Pay your taxes, however, obey all orders from your employers, take good counsel from friends, work faithfully, earn an honest living, and show, by your conduct, that you can be good citizens.

Go on with your oppressions. Babylon fell. Where is Greece? Where is Nineveh? And where is Rome, the Mistress Empire of the world? Why is it that she stands, today, in broken fragments throughout Europe? Because oppression killed her. Every act that we commit is like a bounding ball. If you curse a man, that curse rebounds upon you; and when you bless a man, the blessing returns to you; and when you oppress a man, the oppression also will rebound. Where have you ever heard of four millions of freemen being governed by laws, and yet have no hand in their making? Search the records of the world, and you will find no example. “Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.” How dare you to make laws by which to try me and my wife and children, and deny me a voice in the making of these laws? I know you can establish a monarchy, an autocracy, an oligarchy, or any other kind of ocracy that you please; and that you can declare whom you please to be sovereign; but tell me, sir, how you can clothe me with more power than another, where all are sovereigns alike? How can you say you have a republican form of government, when you make such distinction and enact such proscriptive laws?

Gentlemen talk a good deal about the Negroes “building no monuments.” I can tell the gentlemen one thing: that is, that we could have built monuments of fire while the war was in progress. We could have fired your woods, your barns and fences, and called you home. Did we do it? No, sir! And God grant that the Negro may never do it, or do anything else that would destroy the good opinion of his friends. No epithet is sufficiently opprobrious for us now. I saw, sir, that we have built a monument of docility, of obedience, of respect, and of self-control, that will endure longer than the Pyramids of Egypt.

We are a persecuted people. Luther was persecuted; Galileo was persecuted; good men in all nations have been persecuted; but the persecutors have been handed down to posterity with shame and ignominy. If you pass this bill, you will never get Congress to pardon or enfranchise another rebel in your lives. You are going to fix an everlasting disfranchisement upon Mr. Toombs and the other leading men of Georgia. You may think you are doing yourselves honor by expelling us from this House; but when we go, we will do as Wickliffe and as Latimer did. We will light a torch of truth that will never be extinguished—the impression that will run through the country, as people picture in their mind’s eye these poor black men, in all parts of this Southern country, pleading for their rights. When you expel us, you make us forever your political foes, and you will never find a black man to vote a Democratic ticket again; for, so help me God, I will go through all the length and breadth of the land, where a man of my race is to be found, and advise him to beware of the Democratic party. Justice is the great doctrine taught in the Bible. God’s Eternal Justice is founded upon Truth, and the man who steps from Justice steps from Truth, and cannot make his principles to prevail.

I have now, Mr. Speaker, said all that my physical condition will allow me to say. Weak and ill, though I am, I could not sit passively here and see the sacred rights of my race destroyed at one blow. We are in a position somewhat similar to that of the famous “Light Brigade,” of which Tennyson says, they had

Cannon to right of them,

Cannon to left of them,

Cannon in front of them,

Volleyed and thundered.,

I hope our poor, downtrodden race may act well and wisely through this period of trial, and that they will exercise patience and discretion under all circumstances.

You may expel us, gentlemen, by your votes, today; but, while you do it, remember that there is a just God in Heaven, whose All-Seeing Eye beholds alike the acts of the oppressor and the oppressed, and who, despite the machinations of the wicked, never fails to vindicate the cause of Justice, and the sanctity of His own handiwork.

Glossary

Anglo-Saxon: a reference to the Germanic tribes that overran Europe prior to the Middle Ages; loosely used to refer to the British people

Canaan: in the Old Testament of the Christian Bible, a region corresponding to portions of the present-day Middle East

Cush: the grandson of Noah in the Bible

Cyclops: in Greek and Roman mythology, a member of a race of early giants with a single eye in the middle of the forehead

Galileo: Galileo Galilei (1564–1642), an Italian scientist, best known for disputing the belief that the earth is the center of the universe

Ham: the son of Noah in the Bible

Latimer: probably a reference to Hugh Latimer, an English Protestant martyr who was burned at the stake in 1555

Martin Luther: the sixteenth-century German priest who initiated the Protestant Reformation

Melchizedek: an Old Testament figure in the Christian Bible, perhaps a king or high priest

Napoleon Bonaparte: the ruler of postrevolutionary France in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries

Nineveh: a city in ancient Assyria destroyed by God

Phoenicians: members of an ancient civilization in northern Canaan, or modern-day Lebanon

Pluto: the Roman god of the underworld

Proserpine: the Roman goddess of springtime and the wife of Pluto

Saint Augustine: Augustine of Hippo, an early father of the Christian church

Tennyson: Alfred Lord Tennyson, a nineteenth-century British poet and author of “The Charge of the Light Brigade”

Wickliffe: probably a reference to John Wycliffe, an early dissident in the Catholic Church and the leader of the Lollards, a persecuted Christian group

Document Analysis

Henry McNeal Turner’s speech of September 3, 1868, to the Georgia legislature was essentially an impassioned attack on the injustice of his expulsion—an event he claimed in the first paragraph was “unparalleled in the history of the world.” Turner wanted to force his white listeners to look squarely at the fundamental contradiction between the principles of republicanism and racism. Attacking the pillars of white supremacy, he defends (in paragraph 4) the contributions of African Americans: “Who first rallied around the standard of Reconstruction? Who set the ball of loyalty rolling in the state of Georgia?” Turner then pursues the theme of white hypocrisy, pointing out the inconsistency of voting against the Constitution of 1867 while acting as current legislators to remove a black person.

He opens his remarks in an essentially defiant tone. He would be defending his right to a seat in the legislature without apology: “I am here to demand my rights and to hurl thunderbolts at the men who would dare to cross the threshold of my manhood.” In the next two paragraphs Turner drives home the novel and momentous nature of his case. Never, he claims, has a man been expelled from a governing body for no other offense than the color of his skin. He next reminds his fellow legislators of the political wisdom of giving former slaves political rights, calling it the “safest and best course for the interest of the state.” In the fifth paragraph, he points out the irony that he is being expelled by sitting white legislators, many of whom did not even vote for the Georgia constitutional convention or originally recognize the legitimacy of the Radical government.

In paragraphs 6–8, Turner defends political equality between the races. He asks his listeners to remember the essential humanity of African Americans: “Am I a man?…Have I a soul to save, as you have?” He also counters the old proslavery argument that blacks were of a different species and reminds his audience of the contributions of southern blacks. On the basis of this primary political equality, blacks should be able to speak for themselves: “It is very strange, if a white man can occupy on this floor a seat created by colored votes, and a black man cannot do it.”

In the following three paragraphs, Turner counters the argument that Congress never gave blacks the right to hold office and insists that a biracial political order was the essence of Reconstruction. If this principle is in doubt, he suggests that the question of a black representative be submitted to the sitting Congress. Moreover, he begins to insist that former slaves deserve this change. White legislators do not realize “the dreadful hardships which these people have endured, and especially those who in any way endeavored to acquire an education.”

To appeal to the white legislators, Turner reminds them in paragraphs 12 and 13 that during the Civil War and so far in the postwar period blacks have not behaved in any destructive fashion. He reminds them how few advantages the freed people have had, perhaps appealing to their sympathies as well. In speaking to both African American and white legislators, Turner then insists that black loyalty to the state depends on the state’s loyalty to blacks: “Never lift a finger nor raise a hand in defense of Georgia, until Georgia acknowledges that you are men and invests you with the rights pertaining to manhood.” Going back to his defense based on essentials (in paragraph 15), Turner argues that his expulsion contradicts a basic premise of republican government––the consent of the governed.

In paragraphs 16 and 17, Turner seems to reassure his audience, who were perhaps anxious about black radicalism. He repeats his earlier point that blacks will act within the boundaries of political behavior. He reminds white listeners that “we have built a monument of docility, of obedience, of respect, and of self-control, that will endure longer than the Pyramids of Egypt.” He also presents himself as a political martyr, comparing his plight with other persecuted pioneers like the religious leader Martin Luther and the scientist Galileo. Finally, Turner warns the legislature that by their action to expel him, they will permanently alienate black voters. In his final paragraphs Turner closes with poetic and religious imagery, comparing the position of blacks to that of the ill-fated British cavalry charge (of October 25, 1854) against Russian forces in the Battle of Balaclava during the Crimean War and warning of providential revenge for “acts of the oppressor.”

Essential Themes

In his speech to the Georgia legislature, Turner echoed several themes of African American political thought during Reconstruction. First and primary was the fundamental commitment to Jeffersonian notions of independence and equality. Significantly, Turner quoted the Revolutionary premise that “government derives their just powers from the consent of the governed.” A second theme was the use of religious principles and language to defend his cause.

Because God saw fit to make some red, and some white, and some black, and some brown, are we to sit here in judgment upon what God has seen fit to do? As well might one play with the thunderbolts of heaven as with that creature that bears God’s image––God’s photograph.

Like many Americans in the nineteenth century, Turner saw the scriptures as a political tract that taught the principles of justice.

Turner exhibits a curious mixture of militancy and conciliation in this speech. “I am here to demand my rights,” he declares at one point, “and to hurl thunderbolts at the men who would dare to cross the threshold of my manhood.” At other points, however, he assures his listeners that the freedman is not seeking retribution: “We are willing to let the dead past bury its dead; but we ask you, now for our rights.” Turner even urges his fellow freedmen to pay taxes and obey their employers. Turner’s ambivalence might be explained by the nature of his audience. He undoubtedly had to appease the Radicals in the Republican ranks. At the same time, Georgia freedmen needed the support of white Republicans, who needed reassurance that Reconstruction would not turn the racial order upside down.

Bibliography and Additional Reading

1 

Armstrong, Thomas F. “From Task Labor to Free Labor: The Transition along Georgia’s Rice Coast, 1820–1880.”Georgia Historical Quarterly 64 (Fall 1980): 432–447.

2 

Carson, Roberta F. “The Loyalty Leagues in Georgia.” Georgia Historical Society 20 (June 1936): 125–153.

3 

Cimbala, Paul A. “The Freedmen’s Bureau, the Freedmen, and Sherman’s Grant in Reconstruction Georgia, 1865–1867.”Journal of Southern History 55 (November 1989): 597–632.

4 

Coulter, E. Merton “Henry M. Turner: Georgia Negro Preacher-Politician during the Reconstruction Era.” Georgia Historical Quarterly 48 (December 1964): 371–410.

5 

Gottlieb, Manuel. “The Land Question in Georgia.” Science and Society 3 (Summer 1939): 356–388.

6 

Matthews, John M. “Negro Republicans in the Reconstruction of Georgia.” Georgia Historical Quarterly 60 (Summer 1976): 145–164.

7 

Angell, Stephen Ward. Bishop Henry McNeal Turner and African-American Religion in the South. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1992.

8 

Conway, Alan. The Reconstruction of Georgia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1966.

9 

Drago, Edmund L. Black Politicians and Reconstruction in Georgia: A Splendid Failure. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1982.

10 

Duncan, Russell. Freedom’s Shore: Tunis Campbell and the Georgia Freedman. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1986.

11 

Fitzgerald, Michael W. “Reconstruction Politics and the Politics of Reconstruction.” In Reconstructions: New Perspectives of the Postbellum United States, ed. Thomas J. Brown. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.

12 

Foner, Eric. Reconstruction, America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863–1877. New York: Harper and Row, 1988.

13 

Nathans, Elizabeth S. Losing the Peace: Georgia Republicans and Reconstruction, 1865–1871. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1968.

14 

Redkey, Edwin S.Respect Black: The Writings and Speeches of Henry McNeal Turner. New York: Arno Press, 1971.

15 

Thompson, C. Mildred. Reconstruction in Georgia: Economic, Social, Political, 1865–1872. New York: Columbia University Press, 1915.

16 

“Reconstruction: The Second Civil War.” PBS “American Experience” Web site. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reconstruction/index.html

Citation Types

MLA 9th
Snay, Mitchell. "Speech On His Expulsion From The Georgia Legislature." Defining Documents in American History: Dissent and Protest, edited by Aaron Gulyas, Salem Press, 2017. Salem Online, online.salempress.com/articleDetails.do?articleName=DDProtest_0044.
APA 7th
Snay, M. (2017). Speech on His Expulsion from the Georgia Legislature. In A. Gulyas (Ed.), Defining Documents in American History: Dissent and Protest. Salem Press. online.salempress.com.
CMOS 17th
Snay, Mitchell. "Speech On His Expulsion From The Georgia Legislature." Edited by Aaron Gulyas. Defining Documents in American History: Dissent and Protest. Hackensack: Salem Press, 2017. Accessed May 30, 2026. online.salempress.com.