During a random check of my John Bates Clark files, I came across a final examination for a course “Economics 161” with the handwritten note: “E. M. Banks, Penn”. I figured this was a sign from Clio that I should check for that course at the University of Pennsylvania and find anything more about E. M. Banks. The first issue was resolved quickly upon consulting a copy of the University of Pennsylvania catalogue for 1905-06 where it was easy to verify that the introductory economics course was indeed taught by Enoch Marvin Banks, Ph.D. and that the textbook for the course was Henry Rogers Seager’s Introduction to Economics (New York: Henry Holt, 1904). The second term examination for the course has been transcribed and posted below.
Once I found the unique name of Enoch Marvin Banks, it was easy to find a copy of his Columbia Ph.D. thesis at archive.org, The Economics of Land Tenure in Georgia [Ph.D. thesis in the Faculty of Political Science, Columbia University, published as in Studies in History, Economics and Public Law. Vol. XXIII, No. 1, 1905]. This once-in-a-universe name also made it simple for a Google search to lead me to his papers at Emory University where a short biography was to be found and a link to his obituary in the national publication of his Alpha Tau Omega fraternity (both provided below). It was then that I discovered that this Columbia Ph.D. economics alumnus deserves a star on a memorial wall for academic freedom in the United States.
Given the competing political interpretations of having statues/memorials for Confederate leaders and generals in the United States today, I thought it appropriate to provide Banks’ article “A Semi-Centennial View of Secession” with its “shocking” thesis: “Viewing the great civil conflict…in the light of these principles and in the light of a broad historical philosophy, we are led irresistibly to the conclusion that the North was relatively in the right, while the South was relatively in the wrong. ”
For much more about the reception and reactionary blowback to Banks’ article, see Fred Arthur Bailey Free speech at the University of Florida: The Enoch Marvin Banks Case. The Florida Historical Quarterly, Vol. 71, No. 1 (Jul., 1992), pp. 1-17.
_________________________
Enoch M. Banks , Obituary
The Alpha Tau Omega Palm
March 1912
Enoch Marvin Banks, well known throughout the South as a writer on economics and history, died last night at the home of L. P. Bradley, after an illness of several months, and was buried today in Newnan. He was unmarried, and is survived by his mother and several brothers and sisters.
Professor Banks was born November 28, 1877, and would have been 34 years of age next week. He was a student at Emory College, Oxford, Ga., receiving his A. B. degree in 1897, and A. M. in 1900; studied at Columbia University for several years and was a graduate student of Economics, Sociology and History; acting professor of History and Economics at Emory College, 1902-03; fellow in Economics at Columbia University, 1904-05; received degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Columbia University, June, 1905; instructor in Economics. University of Pennsylvania, 1905-06; studied in Germany, 1906-07; professor of History and Economics, University of Florida, 1907-11. He was made a member of American Economic Association in 1902; a member of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, 1906, and a member of Academy of Political Science, New York, 1910.
Among his most important published writings were the following: “The Passing of the Old South,” “The Labor Supply and the Labor Problems in the South,” “A Semi-Centennial View of Secession,” “A Plea for Educational Freedom and a Liberated Intellectual Life,” “The New Point of View in the New South.” — Atlanta Constitution, November 24, 1911.
Source: The Alpha Tau Omega Palm Vol. 32, No. 1 (March, 1912), p. 144.
_________________________
Biographical note from Enoch Marvin Banks Papers at Emory University
“Enoch Marvin Banks (1877-1911), an Emory graduate and Professor of Southern Economics and History, was born in Newnan, Georgia. After briefly teaching at Emory and receiving his PhD from Columbia University, Banks began a professional career that included professorships at the University of Pennsylvania (1903-1906) and the University of Florida (1907-1911). Among his most important published works on the South’s economy was is “A Semi-Centennial View of Secession,” published in The Independent in February 1911 [pp. 299-303]. The article, which claimed that the South should admit wrongdoing for its past efforts to secede from the Union caused many Confederate societies to quickly call for Banks’ resignation from the University of Florida. Banks ultimately complied, writing a letter of resignation to the University, who accepted despite fears that they would be accused of denying free speech. After his resignation, Banks returned to Newnan, where he died only months later.”
Source: Finding Aide to Enoch Marvin Banks Papers, 1903-1911. Emory University, Stuart A. Rose Manuscript, Archives, and Rare Book Library (Atlanta, GA).
_________________________
From the University of Pennsylvania Catalogue, 1905-06
- Enoch Marvin Banks, Ph.D., Instructor of Economics
- Economics 161.—Introduction. Seager’s Economics, lectures and special reports.
- Economics 161 (2 hours, both terms) [Instructors listed:] Banks and Howard
Source: From the Catalogue of the University of Pennsylvania, 1905-06.
_________________________
[Handwritten note:] E. M. Banks, Penn.
EXAMINATION IN ECONOMICS—161.
Second Term 1905-06.
- (1) State four theories of wages. (2) What effect on wages has each of the following (a) Increase of population, (b) increase of capital, (c) improvements in the methods of production. (3) Explain the real meaning of “cheap labor.” (4) Have wages tended up or down in the last fifty years—explain the tendency.
- (1) What determines the general rate of interest? (2) In what ways, if any, is the general rate of interest affected by (a) an inflated state of the currency, (b) an inflation of the currency? (3) Is the general rate of interest tending up or down—explain.
- (1) Explain the nature and chief source of competitive profits. (2) Why are they temporary and permanent at the same time? (3) What effect in the long run do such profits have on wages and interest?
- (1) Explain the principle of monopoly prices as compared with that of competitive prices. (2) What methods do trusts often employ in ousting their competitors? (3) Do consumers get substantial benefits from the trusts? If not, why not, and how may they do so?
- On what grounds did Henry George advocate the single tax? Criticise those grounds.
- (1) Why must a country normally import as much goods (in value) as it exports? (2) Explain England’s excess of imports and our excess of exports. (3) Give the strongest economic argument for protection. (4) Discuss the effect of protection on wages.
Source: Columbia University Archives. John Bates Clark Papers, Box 9, Folder 1 (Administrative Records and Course Materials, undated). Series II.4.
_________________________
A Semi-Centennial View of Secession
BY ENOCH MARVIN BANKS, Ph.D.
[The semi-centennial of Abraham Lincoln’s accession to the Presidency is also that of secession. The author of the following article is Professor of History and Economics in the University of Florida. He was born in Georgia in 1877, was graduated from Emory College, and has always lived in the South, except for the few years when he was studying at Columbia University and the University of Pennsylvania. He has frequently contributed articles to the magazines and reviews on Southern topics. — Editor.]
FIFTY years ago Abraham Lincoln was elected to the Presidency of the United States and secession was precipitated in the State of South Carolina. Before the inauguration of Lincoln six other Southern States had followed the example of South Carolina in passing secession ordinances and had co-operated with that State in forming a confederacy, with its temporary seat of government at Montgomery. Lincoln, upon assuming the duties of President, pronounced as distinctly in favor of the integrity of the Union as the seceding States had pronounced in favor of its dissolution. Since the two governments were thus holding and acting upon contradictory theories of the situation, it was inevitable that a clash should soon occur unless one side or the other should modify or surrender its position. The clash did occur, as is so well known, at Fort Sumter, when, upon the refusal of the National Government to evacuate, the fort was bombarded and reduced by order of the Confederate Government, Lincoln immediately issued a call for 75,000 volunteers, four other Southern States, rather than aid in a policy of coercion, joined the Confederacy, and thus was inaugurated the great and tragic civil struggle in American history.
Since the South was the prime mover in those stirring events, it seems a fitting thing for a Southerner who belongs to an entirely new generation and who has abounding faith in his section’s future as well as in his country’s destiny to write a short semi-centennial view of that movement, in the hope of being able to estimate in the calm light of history the wisdom of secession and the meaning of the great conflict which its trial precipitated. In a certain sense, to be sure, the wisdom of secession was tested and found wanting in the war itself; but there are those who urge that superiority of resources and numbers may triumph for a season over what is right and best in principle. Again, the writer is, of course, aware that historians from other sections of the country and from other parts of the world have passed judgment upon the Southern movement of the sixties, and their judgment has been on the whole unfavorable to its wisdom and righteousness. On the other hand, the people of the South have very naturally been inclined to repudiate such interpretations as arising from sectional prejudice or foreign ignorance, and while acquiescing in the results of the war, they instinctively feel that their fathers and grandfathers were willing to make the tremendous sacrifices that were actually made only in behalf of a righteous and altogether splendid cause.
To be sure, it is not the purpose of this paper to effect a direct alteration of this Southern conviction, since such pervasive popular convictions do not usually undergo great modification at the instance of a slight magazine article. Nevertheless, such an article may serve the purpose of showing that conditions are changing, and that the South is becoming more tolerant of a free discussion of its past and present policies. It is well known that this section is undergoing a remarkable expansion of industry and commerce and is greatly enlarging its educational facilities, and is thus paving the way for a liberated intellectual life. This new spirit of liberality toward opposing views when exprest with sincerity and befitting decorum is perhaps the greatest incipient triumph of the twentieth century South. Such a spirit is doing much toward making the section an integral part of the nation, and it will do more as the years go by toward making it, in hearty union and co-operation with other parts of a great nation, an important factor in the advancement of world civilization. A free estimate of our past and a frank realization and acknowledgment of its errors, where errors are found, will place us in position to assume the responsible duties that lie in the immediate and more distant future. In such a spirit of intellectual integrity and freedom this article is written.
Large movements in history usually involve some important principle of government, or liberty, or economics, or religion, or what not, and the triumph or defeat of the principle or principles, for there may be more than one, gives meaning to the movement. These larger aspects of a struggle are, of course, not always distinctly envisaged by those who take part in the struggle, since such participants are oftentimes impelled by more immediate interests and passions, and it is only with the passing of years that the real significance of the movement in relation to human progress is generally seen, tho, to be sure, there are usually some leaders who are gifted with a larger vision and foresee more or less distinctly the meaning of the movement they are directing.
It requires no very acute powers of analysis to see — and indeed it is generally recognized by students of American history — that two large principles were involved in secession and the Civil War. One was a question of political science and concerned the nature of our union. The war itself was prosecuted with avowed reference to this principle, the South taking one attitude toward it and the North taking the opposite attitude. The other question was antecedent to this, in that it operated to cause the two sections to take divergent attitudes on the question of the nature of our union — or, to speak more specifically, it caused the South to attach continued importance to the idea of State sovereignty, it caused eleven States of the South to attempt secession, as the State sovereignty theory declared they had a right to do, and it thus caused the Civil War itself. That fundamental cause of secession and the Civil War, acting as it did thru a long series of years, was the institution of negro slavery. These two questions, therefore — that of State sovereignty primarily and directly, and that of negro slavery secondarily and indirectly — were the supreme questions involved in the American Civil War. Was the attitude of the South in relation to these two questions right — in the highest and best sense of the term right?
The ablest defense of the South’s position on State sovereignty is perhaps to be found in Alexander H. Stephens’s “Constitutional View of the War Between the States.” Moreover, Stephens’s attitude on the eve of secession demonstrated a breadth of statesmanship on his part that was only too rare in that emergency. He made a clear distinction between secession as an inherent constitutional right and secession as a policy to be put into operation in 1860, defending with considerable acumen, along lines marked out by Calhoun, the right of a State to secede under the Constitution of 1789, but combating the notion that the existing evils in the Union at that time justified a resort to so drastic a remedy. In his great union speech delivered before the Legislature of Georgia just after the election of Lincoln, he deliberately declared and urged that the South was not suffering in the Union, and that the section was not likely to suffer under the administration of Lincoln. Moreover, he calmly told his fellow countrymen that in case they withdrew from the Union without greater provocation than then existed, the verdict of history would be made up against them. Every careful student of our history can appreciate the wisdom, the statesmanship and the patriotism of this speech, as well as the courage and correctness of Stephens’s attitude in opposing secession a little later in the Georgia convention. I venture to think that if the lower South had possessed a few more leaders of Stephens’s ability and influence, secession would not have been precipitated by the election of Lincoln, except possibly in the case of one State. Indeed, such States as Virginia and North Carolina, altho believing in the right of secession, had the wisdom to defeat the secessionist movement until after the outbreak of hostilities, when they were called upon to aid in ”coercing” their sister Southern States.
It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss in detail the circumstances and grievances which convinced the people of the South, contrary to the better judgment of Stephens and some others, that they could no longer remain with honor and safety in the Union. It is sufficient to say that the two sections had divergent economic systems, and that the institution of slavery, which was the South’s peculiar economic heritage, was the prime factor in begetting grievances, There arose a disposition on the part of the North, which in some instances took an aggressive form, to discredit the institution of slavery on moral and religious as well as economic grounds. The severe criticisms of the institution that were thus made, particularly after 1830, naturally aroused a feeling of resentment in the South against those who would interfere in a matter with which, from a Southern viewpoint, they had no direct concern. Since the people of the South were on the defensive with regard to slavery, and since they were Southerners also, they became peculiarly restive under the adverse criticism that was directed against their institution, and sensitive to a degree that prepared the soil for a rich harvest of supposed grievances.
Moreover, since slavery was legalized and regulated by the State governments and not by the National Government, and since any enlargement of the powers of the latter might operate, thru the increasing preponderance of Northern and Western influence in that Government, to interfere with the institution of slavery at the time of the admission of new States or otherwise, the South was led to attach exaggerated importance to the doctrine of State rights, and to revive a political science that was becoming obsolete. Since it was recognized North as well as South that the National Government could not directly molest slavery in the States where it already existed, the warmest debates in Congress concerned the powers of the National Government over slavery in the Western Territories, the debates over this question being particularly acrimonious from the time of the war with Mexico down to 1860. The momentous election of that year centered upon that issue.
The extreme Southern party, in harmony with the famous Dred Scott opinion, had advanced to the position that neither Congress nor the Territorial Legislature itself could debar slavery from a Territory, and that slavery could be abolished by the people of a Territory only after the Territory had passed into Statehood. This view declared slavery legal in all the national domain and declared Congress altogether impotent in the matter — in other words, only a State in our system of government could make and unmake slaves, and where States did not exist to exercise that function our public law would presume slavery to exist and assume the protection of such property. On the other hand, the extreme Northern attitude, as exprest in the Republican party, was the exact opposite of the ultra Southern position on the vital question of slavery in the Territories. The party of Lincoln held that Congress under the Constitution had complete powers of government in the Territories, and that it should exercise these powers in behalf of freedom. Lincoln upon several occasions very tersely exprest the difference between the sections on this question in this wise: “We of the North think slavery is wrong and should be restricted, while you of the South think slavery is right and should be extended,” having reference, of course, to the restriction and extension in the Territories. It is a great popular error on the part of the people of the South to suppose that it was in the program of the party of Lincoln to directly interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it existed. The Republican party recognized and declared it had no right to do that, and Lincoln hesitated long before deciding that the exigencies of war warranted a resort to the emancipation proclamation,
Those opposed to the extension of slavery won in the election of 1860. The South interpreting this as the beginning of the decline of her dominance of the National Government, in a series of impetuous acts which the wisdom of Stephens and others could not restrain, repudiated that Government and inaugurated one of her own. Students of history can easily see the reasonableness and the correctness of the Republican attitude on the main issue in dispute in the election of 1860, and it is a matter of regret that the Southern leaders of that day were unable to see its wisdom in the light of a true philosophy of progress. However, in passing judgment upon their action we should recognize that we have the advantage of perspective and that they were in large measure the victims of circumstances not altogether of their own making. Moreover, the notion of an evolutionary order of things in morals, in governments and in all manner of social institutions is an idea that was by no means as familiar to them as it is to us of the twentieth century.
The institution of slavery was becoming an anachronism in the nineteenth century. Other nations, such as England and France, had entered upon policies of emancipation in the early decades of the century, and the Northern position on the subject was merely in harmony with the dictates of an advancing civilization. Southern leaders, under the influence of apparent pecuniary and social interests, failed to understand this tendency, and to enter upon the work of formulating plans for harmonizing its policies with the currents of world progress. Moreover, being nettled as they were by outside pressure and in many cases undue criticism, they more and more concentrated their efforts in support of an antiquated order of things in morals and economy, and finally waged a four years’ war with unsurpassed heroism and devotion in support of an equally antiquated order of things in government. Such in epitome is the tragedy of the South’s past, and the tragedy of her present is that she does not yet fully realize it!
So far our discussion has mainly concerned the wisdom of secession regarded as a matter of practical politics, with no particular reference to the question of its legal, validity under the Constitution of the United States. We have reached the conclusion that calm history will not justify, however much it may explain, the secessionist movement of the sixties — a conclusion which, as we have seen, accords in the main with the position of Stephens on the eve of the secession of Georgia. Stephens, however, ardently advocated the right of a State to secede under the Constitution of 1789, and we may infer that he regarded a union of States severally sovereign to be the best form of union. Most intelligent Southerners would now concede that for our country a confederacy with the recognized right of secession is not the best form of union. On the other hand, they would entirely agree with Stephens and with the great body of his fellow Southerners of the sixties in claiming that the right of secession was then inherent in the nature of our Union. If indeed the right of secession existed, we may safely conclude that the counter right of resisting secession by force of arms did not exist — a conclusion which would place the North in the wrong in waging the war, even tho the South may have acted precipitately and unwisely, and therefore wrongly, in resorting to secession without greater provocation.
The dilemma just suggested may easily be avoided by placing the argument upon a plane distinctly higher than one concerned with the merely legal questions involved in conceiving our Union to be the static outcome of a contract between independent sovereign States. Indeed, we may well admit that our Union was generally regarded at the time of its formation and for some decades thereafter as a union of sovereign States. At any rate, it was a union made possible at the time thru compromises — the greatest of which had reference to the relative importance of national and State authority. The Union thus established upon the basis of compromises was in reality a great victory for the integrating’ forces moving in modern times in the direction of nationalism. Moreover, it was to be expected that as the interests of the people of the several States became more and more interdependent and harmonious a spirit of nationalism would increasingly pervade the Union and assert its potency, unless some disintegrating influence should thwart its development. The normal integrating influences worked in the direction of national integrity in all parts of the Union except the South, where the institution of negro slavery operated as the main influence to counteract its development. When, however, the particularistic spirit attempted in 1861 to put into practice its principle of separatism In order to defend the South’s cherished institution, the spirit of nationalism in other sections of the country had grown strong enough to assert its validity.
It was as much the function of the statesmen of 1860 to interpret the nature of our Union in the light of what it ought to be as it was the duty of our fathers in 1787 to act in harmony with the demands of progress in their day. Right and wrong are neither absolute nor static conceptions, but on the contrary they are decidedly relative and dynamic descriptions of conduct — conduct being right or wrong according to the degree in which it tends to promote or retard human welfare. Those who consciously and sincerely align themselves with the forces working for the best interests of an advancing civilization are in the right in the highest and best sense of the term right, while those who align themselves with causes less beneficent in their fruitage are relatively in the wrong, tho their sincerity, devotion and otherwise elevated type of character may command a lasting measure of admiration.
Viewing the great civil conflict, the semi-centennial of whose inauguration this year marks, in the light of these principles and in the light of a broad historical philosophy, we are led irresistibly to the conclusion that the North was relatively in the right, while the South was relatively in the wrong. Lincoln for the North became the champion of the principle of national integrity and declared the time ripe for a vindication of its validity; Davis for the South became the champion of the principle of particularism as exprest in State sovereignty and declared the time ripe for its vindication. The one advocated a principle of political organization in harmony with the age in which he lived and in accord with the teachings of history; the other advocated a principle out of harmony with his age and discredited by the history of Europe during the past thousand years. The one was a statesman of the highest order, deserving to be ranked with such of his European contemporaries as Cavour and Bismarck ; the other was a statesman of a distinctly inferior order in comparison, since the cause which he championed with so much ability, heroism and devotion ran counter to the true course of political and social progress.
Gainesville, Florida.
Source: The Independent , Vol. 70, No. 3245 (New York, February 9, 1911), pp. 299- 303.
_________________________
Editorial from The Independent: Free Speech Supprest
In The Independent of February 9 there appeared an article by Enoch M. Banks, of Southern birth and training, Professor of History and Economics in the University of Florida. His subject was “A Semi-Centennial View of Secession.” He defended the appearance of an article, whose conclusions were not in agreement with the views which led to the attempt at secession, by saying
“The South is becoming more tolerant of a free discussion if its past and present policies . . . and is paving the way for a liberated intellectual life. This new spirit of liberality toward opposing views when exprest with sincerity as befitting decorum is perhaps the greatest incipient triumph of the twentieth century South.”
In that article he recognized negro slavery as the occasion for the war and that its defense required adhesion to the doctrine of State sovereignty. As to both State sovereignty and slavery, he admitted that the attitude of the South was a mistaken one.
Was that a conclusion proper to be held by one who is a teacher in a Southern university? Beyond question, yes. It is proper that in a Southern or Northern university both views might be held. So far as one is wrong there will be other teachers to correct it. Were his conclusions such as could with prudence be publicly proclaimed by one holding such a position as teacher? Professor Banks thought so, and took the risk. But he has found that the risk has severed his connection with the University of Florida. He has been compelled to resign.
Professor Banks’s article in The Independent came under the notice of a man of some local fame — we believe he had once been a Presidential elector, and he was a fluent political orator — we forget his name; it is not a nomen praeclarum — but he wrote a letter to us denouncing the professor and his views. We did not think it worth printing and sent a courteous reply. That made him angry. He declared he would expose and denounce Professor Banks and The Independent in every journal in Florida and the South. He kept his word. He waved the tattered, but sacred, flag of the Confederacy, appealed to the pious sentiments of Sons and Daughters, and demanded the removal of the traitorous professor from the chair where he was teaching treason to the youth of Florida. And he did it. The journals published his fulminations. Florida was stirred with worked up passion. The professor’s resignation was demanded; there were threats that the legislature would withdraw or reduce its appropriation. Professor Banks saw that his presence was endangering the financial support of the university and he gave in his resignation to the president and it was accepted with regrets. Liberty of speech was denied. The victim was sacrificed.
And yet Professor Banks was not mistaken. The South is becoming more tolerant of free discussion.” There is “a new spirit of liberality toward opposing views.” But if somewhat existent it is not prevalent, as he has found to his disappointment. It will not do, at least in the Gulf States, for a man who would keep a position of public service to dare to say that slavery was wrong, that it was time Nationalism should supplant State Sovereignty, and that the war for secession was not the most glorious, altho unsuccessful, struggle of modern times. Not yet is it allowed for a man to express opinions of his own. He must shout with the mass or go.
It is a sad condition of things, but they are improving. The Atlanta Constitution actively defended Professor Banks’s liberty of speech. We trust he will find a place in some other Southern institution and not be compelled to seek a freer civilization. He is a loyal Southerner. He loves his section as it never occurs to a Northern man to love his section. Ostracised from Florida, he may be welcome in other Southern States; but we should have liked it if the thousands of Northern men who have settled in Florida had flooded the State journals with letters in defense of free speech, and had themselves illustrated it. The press should not be left wholly to the noisy and noisome orators and writers who would glorify, and would, if they could, restore, an old bad past. Professor Banks spoke truly and bravely; we need a multitude of others in the South who will speak their mind and support each other, and fight for freedom now, as fifty years ago their less wise ancestors fought for slavery. The day of victory is coming, and the chance and duty to speak and act for it is urgent. What said John Milton when he defended himself for fighting for a righteous but imperiled cause. He pictured to himself the Church triumphant over her foes, liberty of thought and speech achieved in Church and State, and how would he then feel if he had taken no part in the glad free victory? He would have ever after said to himself:
“Slothful and ever to be set light by, the Church has now overcome her late distresses after the unwearied labors of many of her true servants that stood up in her defense; thou also wouldst take upon thee to share amongst them of their joy: but wherefore thou? Where canst thou show any word or deed of thine which might have hastened her peace? Whatever thou dost now talk, or write, or look, is but the alms of other men’s prudence and zeal. Dare not now to say or do anything better than thy former sloth and infancy: or if thou darest, thou dost impudently to make a thrifty purchase of boldness to thyself out of the painful merits of other men; what before was thy sin is now thy duty, to be abject and worthless.”
Professor Banks dared to speak; will not many others speak, according to their ability, and hasten the liberty and the better day now sure to come to the South, and save themselves in the future glad day from the shameful memory of cowardly silence?
Source: The Independent , Vol. 70, No. 3254 (New York, April 13, 1911), pp. 807-8.
_________________________
The Dismissal of Professor Banks
BY JAMES W. GARNER, Ph.D.
[We are especially glad to print this letter to The Independent from the Professor of Political Science of the University of Illinois. The author is not only one of the most distinguished economists of America, but he is as loyal a Southerner as Professor Banks, whose recent dismissal from the University of Florida is a disgrace to the university and the State. — Editor.]
As a Southerner, born and reared in the lower South, I want to endorse unqualifiedly the spirit of your recent editorial on the suppression of free speech in connection with the enforced resignation of Dr. E. M. Banks from the University of Florida. That a university professor with the high character and accomplishments of Dr. Banks should, in this enlightened age and country, be compelled by the pressure of local public opinion to resign his chair on account of his views on secession and State sovereignty seems almost incredible. What a miserable spectacle the case presents! What must be the judgment of the outside world concerning a condition of civilization in which such narrowness and intolerance exist? It is difficult to believe that any considerable proportion of the intelligent and fair-minded people of Florida really approve of such a wrong.
The man who claims the credit for driving Professor Banks from the university is the same person who recently, as a member of the Florida Legislature, threatened impeachment proceedings against Governor Gilchrist for recommending that Lincoln’s birthday be made a holiday in the State, and thus compelled him to withdraw the recommendation. He belongs to the class of small politicians with which parts of the South are still unhappily afflicted, whose chief stock in trade is their ability to exploit the negro question and the issue of white supremacy, which, as everybody but themselves knows, is no longer a real issue. Happily with each passing year the number of Southern politicians who live on dead issues and whose methods consist in appealing to the passions and prejudices of the past is growing smaller and the time is not distant when they will be without followers.
The people of Florida will no doubt be able to find men for their university professorships who believe or who profess to believe in the sovereignty of the States and who will be ready as occasion requires to defend the constitutional and moral right of secession, but it will be a sad day for the State when the announcement goes forth that no others will be tolerated. Dr. Banks is right and The Independent is right in saving that the South is becoming more tolerant of discussion, more liberal in its economic and political thinking and more national in its views of public policy, and Senator Beard and his kind can no more prevent advance along these lines than they can turn back the clock of ages or reverse the downward flow of the Mississippi. Such petty and shameful treatment as has been accorded Professor Banks will only hasten the movement.
Urbana, Ill.
Source: The Independent Vol. 70, No. 3256 (New York, April 27, 1911), p. 900.
_________________________
The Dismissal of Professor Banks
BY ANDREW SLEDD
[This discussion of the removal of Professor Banks from the University of Florida for an article he wrote in The Independent is written by the former president of the university, who was himself forced to resign for a somewhat similar cause. It will throw light upon the unfortunate conditions which limit educational freedom in the South. Mr. Sledd is now president of the Southern University at Greensboro, Ala. This whole case is attracting wide attention in the South and we suggest that the economists of the country take the matter up as they did in the case of Professor Ross. — Editor.]
I was president of the University of Florida for several years, and in 1907 asked Professor Banks, whom I had known personally and most favorably before that time, to take the chair of History in that institution. He accepted; and, as man, scholar and teacher, more than justified my highest expectations. His training was admirable; his personality delightful; his character of the highest; and he has both the gifts and the graces of an inspiring and finished teacher. I regarded the institution as peculiarly fortunate in having him upon its faculty; and this feeling grew steadily stronger with increasing knowledge of the man and his work.
In 1909, despite the unanimous and cordial support of the Board of Control of the institution, I was forced to resign the presidency. The charge against me was that the attendance upon the institution did not increase with sufficient rapidity under my administration. Upon my resignation, Professor Banks handed in his resignation, on the stated ground that he did not care longer to be connected with an institution where such, things were possible. The present president of the University and the chairman of the board, joined their persuasion with mine; and Professor Banks agreed to withdraw his resignation, and continued in his place.
In February of the current year Professor Banks sent me a copy of his article in The Independent; and I immediately foresaw the consequences. My own experience, as well as general observation, led me to know what he had to expect. And yet, as he says in a personal letter, which I take the liberty of quoting without waiting to ask his permission:
That article was written in all good faith and with an earnest desire to make some contribution toward promoting a liberated intellectual life here in the South. I am disposed to think that our political leaders, teachers, preachers, editors, and others in positions of more or less influence, made a serious and grievous mistake in the generation prior to the Civil War in not setting in motion influences that would have paved the way for the gradual removal of slavery from our country without the loss of so many lives, without the expenditure of so much treasure, without the bitterness of reconstruction, and without the subsequent pension burden! [Professor Banks might almost have had in mind Theodore Parker’s words, uttered four years before war broke out : “Had our educated men done their duty, we should not now be in the ghastly condition we bewail.”] Now, if I censure them in a sense for failing to measure up to the demands of the age in which they lived, can I excuse myself from making the attempt, to the extent of my ability and equipment, to set in motion influences in my limited sphere that would tend to liberate our minds and thus prepare the way for the solution of the present problems of our civilization and progress, problems indeed which are hardly less urgent and difficult than were those of our fathers prior to the sixties?
But this mental attitude is quite incomprehensible to some of our people, who follow the Saduceean motto, “Sever not thyself from the majority”; and so Professor Banks fell under their censure. When the censure became strident, and coupled with a demand for his removal, he tendered his resignation and it was accepted; and be becomes but another illustration of the proposition that “every step of progress that the world has made has been from scaffold to scaffold and from stake to stake.”
The authorities of the University were in a dilemma — a double dilemma, in fact. As the situation stands in Florida, the Board of Control is appointed by the Governor and is itself subject to the control of the State Board of Education, which is composed of five public officials elected by the people. The board of Control faced the dilemma of maintaining Professor Banks at the imminent risk of losing appropriations and patronage for the institution. Appropriations and large enrollments are very real things and furnish a common and conspicuous measure of institutional efficiency and progress. But freedom of speech and teaching is vague, a sort of academic myth concocted by impractical and visionary men and failures. If the Board of Control had said (which would have been true): “We can maintain this institution upon the Federal funds which it receives, independent of the state appropriation,” its decision would have been subject to review and possible reversal by the State Board of education. And then, in reaching its conclusions, the State Board of Education would have had to face the added possibility of a failure of re-election at the hands of the people. In other words. Professor Banks and freedom of teaching in the university had to be weighed against possible loss of appropriations and patronage, and political office for the members of the State Board of Education.
I do not know how the Board of Control would have stood, had it been in authority independent of the Board of Education. I believe that the Board of Control under which I served, of which the present junior Senator from Florida, Mr. Bryan, was chairman, would have accepted a recommendation from the president of the University to sustain Professor Banks. But I equally believe that, had they made such a decision, it would have been promptly reversed by the State Board of Education, under the influence of the three considerations which I have just mentioned.
Under the circumstances, it is not surprising that Professor Banks had to resign his place, he was the victim of two evils, neither of whih is confined to Florida or to the South. The one is direct political control and political interference in the affairs of the State University. This has resulted in many difficulties in many places in our country. The other is a wrong ideal of what constitutes a great institution. If size and wealth are taken as the standard, all other considerations must naturally give way to these. Not only is Professor Banks a victim of this standard, but probably no other one thing has done as much to degrade our educational institutions and impair their educational efficiency.
But Professor Banks has this great consolation, that his treatment and the public discussion of it forwards the cause for which he stands. The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church; and I doubt if Professor Banks by a year’s quiet work could have done as much as he has now done “to make his contribution toward promoting a liberated’ intellectual life here in the South.” He suffers; but because of his suffering his cause is nearer to its certain triumph. And in that knowledge Professor Banks will rest content.
And the University of Florida has suffered a humiliating defeat on a great moral issue.
Greensboro, Ala.
Source: The Independent Vol. 70, No. 3260 (New York, May 25, 1911), pp. 1113-4.
Image Source: Portrait of Enoch Marvin Banks, A.M., Ph.D.; Professor of History and Economics from University of Florida, The Seminole, 1911, p. 15.