It was spread all over the Point. The act was talked of and praised by the cadets wherever they went, and their conversations were repeated to me many times by different persons.

When on guard again I was the junior, and of course subject to the orders of the senior. He came to me voluntarily, and in almost my own words gave me exactly the same privileges I had given my junior, who was a chum of my present senior. In view of the ostracism and isolation to which I had been subjected, it was expected that I would be severe, and use my authority to retaliate. When, however, I did a more Christian act, did to others as I would have them do to me, and not as they had sometimes done, I gave cause for a similar act of good-will, which was in a degree beyond all expectation accorded me.

Indeed, while we are all p.r.o.ne to err, we are also very apt to do to others as they really do to us. If they treat us well, we treat them well; if badly, we treat them so also. I believe such to be in accordance with our nature, and if we do not always do so our failure is due to some influence apart from our better reason, if we do not treat them well, or our first impulse if we do. If now, on the contrary, I had been severe and unnecessarily imperious because of my power, I should in all probability have been treated likewise, and would have fallen and not have risen in the estimation of the cadets.

It has often occurred to me that the terms "prejudice of race, of color," etc., were misnomers, and for this reason. As soon as I show that I have some good qualities, do some act of kindness in spite of insult, my color is forgotten and I am well treated. Again, I have observed that colored men of character and intellectual ability have been treated as men should be by all, whether friends or enemies; that is to say, no prejudice of color or race has ever been manifested.

I have been so treated by men I knew to be--to use a political term--"vile democrats." Unfortunately a bad temper, precipitation, stubbornness, and like qualities, all due to non-education, are too often attributes of colored men and women. These characteristics lower the race in the estimation of the whites, and produce, I think, what we call prejudice. In fact I believe prejudice is due solely to non-education and its effects in one or perhaps both races.

Prejudice of--well, any word that will express these several characteristics would be better, as it would be nearer the truth.

There is, of course, a very large cla.s.s of ignorant and partially cultured whites whose conceptions can find no other reason for prejudice than that of color.

I doubt very much whether they are prejudiced on that account as it is. I rather think they are so because they know others are for some reason, and so cringing are they in their weakness that they follow like so many trained curs. This is the cla.s.s we in the South are accustomed to call the "poor white trash," and speaking of them generally I can neglect them in this discussion of my treatment, and without material error.

In camp at night the duties of the officers of the guard are discharged part of the night by the senior and the other part by the junior officer. As soon as it was night--to revert to the subject of this article --my junior came to me and asked how I wished to divide the night tour.

"Just suit yourself. If you have any reason for wanting a particular part of the night, I shall be pleased to have you take it."

He chose the latter half of the night, and asked me to wake him at a specified time. After this he discovered a reason for taking the first half, and coming to me said:

"If it makes no difference to you I will take the first half of the night."

"As you like," was my reply.

"You 'pile in' then, and I'll wake you in time," was his reply.

Observe the familiarity in this rejoinder.

The guard was turned out and inspected by the officer of the day at about 12.20 P.M. After the inspection I retired, and was awakened between 1 and 2 P.M. by my junior, who then retired for the night.

The officer in charge turned out and inspected the guard between 2 and 3 p.m.

Several of the cadets were reported to me by the corporals for violating regulations. The reports were duly recorded in the guard report for the day.

I myself reported but one cadet, and his offence was "Absence from tattoo roll-call of guard."

These reports were put in under my signature, though not at all made by me, as also was another of a very grave nature.

It seems--for I didn't know the initial circ.u.mstances of the case--that a citizen visiting at West Point asked a cadet if he could see a friend of his who was a member of the corps. The cadet at once sought out the corporal then on duty, and asked him to go to camp and turn out this friend. The corporal did not go. The cadet who requested him to do so reported the fact to the officer of the day. The latter came at once to me and directed me, as officer of the guard, to order him to go and turn out the cadet, and to see that he did it.

I did as ordered. The corporal replied, "I have turned him out." As the cadet did not make his appearance the officer of the day himself went into camp, brought him out to his citizen friend, and then ordered me in positive terms to report the corporal for gross disobedience of orders. I communicated to him the corporal's reply, and received a repet.i.tion of his order. I obeyed it, entering on my guard report the following:

"--, disobedience of orders, not turning out a cadet for citizen when ordered to do so by the officer of the guard."

The commandant sent for me, and learned from me all the circ.u.mstances of the case as far as I knew them.

He made similar requirements of the corporal himself.

Connected with this case is another, which, I think, should be recorded, to show how some have been disposed to act and think concerning myself. At the dinner table, and on the very day this affair above mentioned occurred, a cadet asked another if he had heard about--, mentioning the name of the cadet corporal.

"No, I haven't," he replied; "what's the matter with him?"

"Why, the officer of the day ordered him reported for disobedience of orders, and served him right too."

"What was it? Whose orders did he disobey?"

"Some cit wanted to see a cadet and asked C--if he could do so. C--asked--, who was then on duty, to go to camp and turn him out. He didn't do it, but went off and began talking with some ladies. The officer of the day directed the senior officer of the guard to order him to go. He did order him to go and-- replied, "I have turned him out," and didn't go. The officer of the day then turned him out, and ordered him to be reported for disobedience of orders, and I say served him right."

"I don't see it," was the reply.

"Don' t see it? Why--'s relief was on post, and it was his duty to attend to all such calls during his tour; and besides, I think ordinary politeness would have been sufficient to make him go."

"Well, I can sympathize with him anyhow."

"Sympathize with him! How so?"

"Because he's on guard to-day." What an excellent reason! "Because he's on guard to-day," or, in other words, because I was in command of the guard.

He then went on to speak of the injustice of the report, the malice and spirit of retaliation shown in giving it, and hoped that the report would not be the cause of any punishment. And all this because the report was under my signature.

When the corporal replied to me that he had turned out the cadet, I considered it a satisfactory answer, supposing the cadet's non-appearance was due to delay in arranging his toilet. I had no intention of reporting him, and did so only in obedience to positive orders. There surely was nothing malicious or retaliatory in that; and to condemn me for discharging the first of all military duties--viz., obedience of orders--is but to prove the narrowness of the intellect and the baseness of the character which are vaunted as so far superior to those of the "negro cadet," and which condemn him and his actions for no other reason than that they are his. How could it be otherwise than that he be isolated and persecuted when such minds are concerned?

In his written explanation to the commandant the corporal admitted the charge of disobedience of orders on his part, but excused himself by saying he had delegated another cadet to discharge the duty for him. This was contrary to regulations, and still further aggravated his offence.

For an incident connected with this tour of guard duty, see chapter on "Incidents, Humor," etc.

The only case of downright malice that has come to my knowledge--and I'm sure the only one that ever occurred--is the following:

It is a custom, as old as the inst.i.tution I dare say, for cadets of the first and second cla.s.ses to march in the front rank, while all others take their places in the rear rank, with the exception that third-cla.s.smen may be in the front rank whenever it is necessary for the proper formation of the company to put them there. The need of such a custom is apparent. Fourth-cla.s.smen, or plebes not accustomed to marching and keeping dressed, are therefore unfit to be put in the front rank. Third- cla.s.smen have to give way to the upper cla.s.smen on account of their superior rank, and are able to march in the front rank only when put there or allowed to remain there by the file-closers. When I was a plebe, and also during my third-cla.s.s year, I marched habitually in the rear rank, as stated with reason elsewhere. But when I became a second-cla.s.sman, and had by cla.s.s rank a right to the front rank, I took my place there.

Just about this time I distinctly heard the cadet captain of my company say to the first sergeant, or rather ask him why he did not put me in the rear rank.

The first sergeant replied curtly, "Because he's a second-cla.s.sman now, and I have no right to do it."

This settled the question for the time, indeed for quite a while, till the incident above referred to occurred.

At a formation of the company for retreat parade in the early spring of '76, it was necessary to transfer some one from the front to the rear rank. Now instead of transferring a third- cla.s.sman, the sergeant on the left of the company ordered me, a second cla.s.sman, into the rear rank. I readily obeyed, because I felt sure I'd be put back after the company was formed and inspected, as had been done by him several times before. But this was not done. I turned to the sergeant and reminded him that he had not put me-back where I belonged. He at once did so without apparent hesitation or unwillingness. He, however, reported me for speaking to him about the discharge of his duties. For this offence, I submitted the following explanation:

WEST POINT, N. Y., April 11, 1876.

Offense: Speaking to sergeant about formation of company at parade.

Explanation: I would respectfully state that the above report is a mistake. I said nothing whatever about the formation of the company. I was put in the rear rank, and, contrary to custom, left there. As soon as the command " In place, rest," was given, I turned to the nearest sergeant and said, "Mr.--, can I take my place in the front rank?" He leaned to the front and looked along the line. I then said, "There are men in the front rank who are junior to me." I added, a moment after, "There is one just up there," motioning with my head the direction meant. He made the change.

Respectfully submitted,

HENRY O. FLIPPER,

Cadet Priv., Comp. "D," First Cla.s.s.

To Lieut. Colonel--, Commanding Corps of Cadets.

This explanation was sent by the commandant to the reporting sergeant. He indorsed it in about the following words: