The Project Gutenberg eBook of Profile in black and white
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: Profile in black and whiteA frank portrait of South Carolina
Author: Howard H. Quint
Release date: August 10, 2023 [eBook #71378]
Language: English
Original publication: Washington: Public Affairs Press, 1958
Credits: Carol Brown, Tim Lindell and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This book was produced from images made available by the HathiTrust Digital Library.)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PROFILE IN BLACK AND WHITE ***
Profile
in
Black
and
White
A FRANK PORTRAIT
OF SOUTH CAROLINA
By Howard H. Quint
PUBLIC AFFAIRS PRESS, WASHINGTON, D. C.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
For the past eleven years Professor Howard H. Quint has been a member
of the faculty of the University of South Carolina where he specialized
in the teaching of American constitutional and intellectual history.
Because he believed that this book should be published but did not
wish to cause embarrassment to the University of South Carolina,
a state-supported institution, he resigned his position prior to
publication.
Professor Quint was graduated from Yale University in 1940 and was
awarded an M.A. degree from Stanford University and a Ph.D. degree from
The Johns Hopkins University. During World War II he was associated
with the Foreign Broadcast Intelligence Service as a propaganda
analyst and with the Office of Strategic Services as a political and
economic analyst. In 1954 he won second place in an American Historical
Association competition for the John H. Dunning Prize. In 1956 he
was Smith-Mundt lecturer in United States history at the National
University of Mexico.
Copyright, 1958, by Public Affairs Press
419 New Jersey Avenue, S. E., Washington 3, D. C.
Printed in the United States of America
Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 58-11889
INTRODUCTION
Although this book deals with South Carolina, it is in effect a study
of the Deep South. What is happening in the Palmetto State is fairly
typical of the situation in other Southern states where segregation,
bigotry and prejudice remain deeply entrenched.
To judge by what Prof. Quint points out in this highly discerning book,
the situation in South Carolina hasn’t improved materially since the
Supreme Court of the land ruled, in its historic decision of May 17,
1954, that students in publicly supported educational institutions
may not be segregated because of race, creed, or color. A worsening
rather than improving racial situation is indeed reflected by the views
expressed by officials, newspaper editors, voluntary organizations and
individual citizens, Negro and white, as cited in this book.
Although Prof. Quint handles his material with admirable restraint, the
reader, even if he is personally attached to the state,[1] is likely
to pronounce South Carolina’s record a melancholy one. Is the state
behaving responsibly when it denies the law of the land, busies itself
with contriving means of avoidance, threatens instead of addressing
itself to the manifest mandate? When it revives the plea of peculiarity
does it remember its own history of nullification and secession? Is it
never to reject the demagogue who proclaims exploded notions of race
and distorts the Constitution of the United States? In the interval
for reformation which the Supreme Court has wisely allowed must South
Carolina indulge bluster and vituperation in place of summoning candor
and courage? Have ignorance, poverty, and prejudice fed on each other
until the white community has sunk to second-rate capacity?
Consider the spectacle of an ancient commonwealth in delirium because a
black child knocks on a schoolhouse door. What are the causes of this
fury? They are many, but the chief is that the applicant for equal
opportunity is now in a superior legal and moral position. It is the
Negro who rests upon rights, to be claimed through orderly processes.
He leaves desperate remedies to those who refuse him. In the rap on the
door sound the measured tones of judges, the command of the President
of the United States and the voice of the nation. Echoes too the demand
of deprived peoples in many countries.
More solemn than all these is the call of conscience of South
Carolina. Immemorial wrongs are at length to be redressed--gradually,
painfully, surely. Some will say that the conscience of the state is
dead, that to invoke it is delusion. If that is true, no solution
offers except coercion, while we entertain the hope that prudent
acquiescence will substitute for more valorous self-correction. If
the white people of South Carolina furnish no worthy response in the
crisis, then humiliation and rehabilitation by other hands is their
portion.
In spite of the discouraging showing to date, one awaits a better
prospect. Patience, double patience, in the cure of long-standing ills
is the obvious counsel. Though South Carolina has had ample warning,
public opinion reflects a state of shock. Additional time (but how
long, oh Lord, how long?) for readjustment will bring the problem into
truer focus. Extravagant allegations still industriously pressed will
inevitably be discredited. Who can believe that the Supreme Court is
Communist-controlled or that segregation in the schools is the bulwark
of racial purity? As other states conform to the court decree and
their experience is that the heavens do not fall, fanciful terrors
will subside. New leaders will bid for support, persons not pledged to
fierce intolerance.
Healthy elements deserve to be nursed. Wholesale condemnation, besides
being inapplicable, will act to bring support to the violent, the
confused, the cruel. A state may not be disparaged into compliance.
The truly restorative ingredients are within. That they will be roused
and meet the nation’s demand there can be no doubt. Prof. Quint’s book
makes this amply evident.
Some may feel that the author is much too critical and outspoken. I
disagree. While I don’t go along with everything that Prof. Quint
says, I am inclined to feel that his book needed to be written;
too many things have been left unsaid too long. It’s time that
South Carolina--that, indeed, the entire South--face up, boldly
and realistically, to their problems. I commend this book to every
Southerner and to every American.
BROADUS MITCHELL
[1] Mr. Mitchell is a graduate of the University of South Carolina, of
which his father, the late Samuel Chiles Mitchell, was president. His
mother was born in South Carolina, his father in Mississippi of South
Carolina (Richland and Abbeville districts) forbears. He is now John
Hay Whitney Visiting Professor of Economic History in Hofstra College,
Hempstead, Long Island.
PREFACE
This is a book about race relations in the sovereign state of South
Carolina. It gives particular attention to the lengths to which white
South Carolinians are willing to go to maintain a caste system of
society. And it shows why South Carolina, the prototype of every Deep
South state, is not likely to surrender without a catastrophic struggle
to accepting the proposition that the Negro is a free individual in
a free society with the same rights and privileges as every other
American.
In South Carolina, the race issue has always been emphasized in its
most exaggerated form and the Negro has helped to create what has
become a peculiar and almost unique state of mind. In many respects
the state’s history has been little less than a chronicle of the
white population’s reactions to the problems created by the presence
of a large number of Negroes--a case of the tail wagging the dog. In
1921 Professor Francis B. Simkins considered South Carolina’s failure
“to keep abreast of her sister states in non-partisan and classless
progress” as intelligible and explainable “only in the light of the
perennial fear of disturbing inter-racial harmony.” The state’s “proud
record in interracial harmony,” he noted, was based on a policy of
“absolute white supremacy.”[2] Similarly, the late W. W. Ball, the
Charleston champion of aristocratic conservatism, believed that
“socially and politically the presence of this race in majority” was
perhaps the ruling factor in the state’s progress or want of it.[3]
Summarizing the stand of South Carolina and the South on the decision
of the Supreme Court to end racial segregation in public schools, R.
Beverly Herbert, a Columbia attorney, expressed the same idea. “A deep
sense of race and race preservation,” he wrote, “has influenced and in
many cases controlled the South throughout her history.”[4]
* * * * *
I feel compelled to state at the outset certain basic assumptions upon
which this study is premised. I believe that the abolition of racial
segregation in public schools and public facilities is a desirable
end; that Southerners in defending such segregation in the 1950’s are
fighting the tide of history just as surely as their forefathers did
in defending human bondage a century ago; and that the Negro’s drive
to end this segregation will eventually be successful. I recognize
the tremendous difficulties presented by this problem due to long
established mores and realize that it cannot be solved quickly and
without a certain amount of social friction and resentment.
This investigation reveals a way of thinking that is in a sense foreign
to most non-Southerners and I ask of the latter patience, understanding
and tolerance. But I feel that constructive rather than obstructive
action must be taken and that compliance with rather than defiance of
the Supreme Court’s verdict must be the rule. I particularly deplore
the disrespect for federal law which is inherent in the official policy
of the State of South Carolina. In some ways this is the most ominous
development of the past few years. In all phases of this investigation
I have striven for objectivity and endeavored first and foremost to
allow South Carolinians, both white and Negro, to speak for themselves
and thereby to express the communal psychology of the state.
Since this study leans heavily on certain South Carolina newspapers, it
is appropriate to point out the following about these papers:
The _Charleston News and Courier_, the largest and probably the most
influential of those studied, reflects the sentiments of the most
extreme segregationists in the state. Conservative, if not downright
reactionary, not only on the race issue but in all political, economic
and social questions, the Charleston paper advocates resistance to the
Court decisions to the point of defiance of federal authority. The
editor of the paper is Thomas R. Waring.
While under the editorship of able Jack H. O’Dowd, the _Florence
Morning News_ was the most reasonable and constructive daily in the
state with regard to the segregation problem. An advocate of “militant
moderation” and an opponent of both white supremacists and the NAACP,
O’Dowd became the state’s most controversial editor, subject for the
wrath of ardent segregationists. Finally succumbing to pressures, he
resigned the editorship in August 1956. His successor, James A. Rogers,
is an “orthodox” segregationist.
Controlled by the same company that publishes the morning Columbia
_State_, the Columbia _Record_, an afternoon newspaper, accepts
prevailing views on the race issue, though in considerably less
extreme form than the _Charleston News and Courier_. Also staunchly
conservative, the _Record_ leans toward the Republican Party. As of
the beginning of this year, the _Record’s_ editor, George A. Buchanan,
became Dean of the University of South Carolina School of Journalism.
Decidedly anti-integrationist, the Anderson _Independent_ is less
concerned with the race issue than the other papers studied. This is
in part a reflection of its upcountry location. The _Independent_
represents to some degree the New-Fair Deal elements in the state and
is an outspoken advocate of loyalty to the national Democratic Party.
Editor of the paper is L. S. Embree.
These newspapers represent a cross section of the press in South
Carolina both geographically and ideologically. Moreover, a study of
additional newspapers would not change appreciably, if at all, the
basic patterns. (As far as I am aware, there is only one paper in South
Carolina which advocates compliance with the Supreme Court’s 1954
decision. This is the _Cheraw Chronicle_, edited and published by a
young and courageous North Carolinian, Andrew McDowd Secrest.)
Other sources, notably periodical literature, the proceedings of the
General Assembly of South Carolina, and the Columbia _State_ have been
used to a limited extent. For the sake of brevity the newspapers are
referred to throughout the text simply as the _News and Courier_, the
_Record_, the _Morning News_ and the _Independent_.
The author is a native of Connecticut who has lived over a decade in
South Carolina. But this book could not have been written without the
assistance of a young scholar who is a Southerner. Legitimately his
name should be on the title page but he desires for personal reasons
to remain anonymous. Both the research for and a preliminary draft
of a major portion of this study were done by him and I wish now to
acknowledge this fact and also my obligation to him.
HOWARD H. QUINT
_University of South Carolina
Columbia, South Carolina_
[2] Francis B. Simkins, “Race Legislation in South Carolina since
1865,” _South Atlantic Quarterly_, XX (June, 1921), 168.
[3] Anthony Harrigan (ed.), _The Editor and the Republic: Papers and
Addresses of William Watts Ball_ (Chapel Hill: University of North
Carolina Press, 1954), p. 19.
[4] _The State_ (Columbia, S. C.), Oct. 30, 1955, p. 1-B.
CONTENTS
I
The Development of Race Relationships 1
II
The Case from Clarendon 12
III
The Emergence of Patterns 21
IV
The White Folks Fight Back 38
V
The Brotherhood of Segregated Men 55
VI
A Place in the Shade 71
VII
The New Nullification 92
VIII
Politics and Segregation 128
IX
Another War of Yankee Aggression 145
X
Collaborators, Eggheads, Do-Gooders, and Appeasers 167
XI
The Lost Cause Relost 181
References 187
Appendix (Text of Supreme Court decision on
desegregation, May 17, 1954) 206
Index 210
CHAPTER I
THE DEVELOPMENT OF RACE RELATIONSHIPS
Emancipation, itself, would not satisfy these
fanatics. That gained, the next step would be
to raise the Negroes to a social and political
equality with the whites.--_John C. Calhoun_
The present pattern of race relations for South Carolina was shaped
in the last quarter of the nineteenth century. In 1877 at the end
of the Reconstruction period the mould of segregation had yet to be
rigidly defined. Only in the last decade of the century was absolute
segregation established. During the Reconstruction years public
schools were not integrated, although Negro students attended the
state university. In personal and social relationships segregation was
generally practiced but more on the basis of social custom than by
force of legislation. Largely if not entirely ignored was the Civil
Rights law which had been passed by the Reconstruction legislature.
This law, which remained on the statute books until 1889, prohibited
racial discrimination by “common carriers or by any person engaged in a
business, calling or pursuit” for which a federal, state or municipal
license was required.[5]
In the political area the establishing of Jim Crowism was slower though
no less effective and complete in its end result. Negroes voted until
the 1890’s and were influential in the local government of several
counties. South Carolina sent three Negro congressmen to Washington
after 1876; one served until 1896. In 1882 nine Negroes sat in the
state legislature, the last Negro member of that body being defeated
for reelection in 1902. Yet these were the exception and not the rule
for the Negro was in truth virtually eliminated as a factor in state
politics by the end of the 1880’s. With the restrictions on Negro
suffrage contained in the new state constitution of 1895 and the
adoption of the Democratic Party primary the following year, the Negro
was prevented from voting in the state. Yet, in spite of the Negro’s
all but complete disfranchisement, the fear that he might be used for
political purposes “prevented the whites from dividing into two parties
or from breaking out of the restrictions imposed by the Democratic
primary.”[6]
With the disfranchisement of the Negro, the repeal of the state Civil
Rights law and the establishment of absolute and legalized segregation,
a rigid system of caste based on race materialized as a means of race
control.[7] It was reflected in the segregation of schools, churches,
and other public and private organizations and institutions. The two
races seldom came into contact except in the relationship of employer
and laborer. In no sense was the concept of racial equality accepted by
the dominant whites.[8]
The maintenance of absolute segregation frequently necessitated resort
to either the threat or use of force or violence. The threat was ever
present in the personal, economic, and political relationships between
the races. Fear of slave insurrections was replaced by fear of a
“vague and unknown thing,” social equality. As the nineteenth century
ground to an end, application of violence was frequently approved by
“respectable” whites, especially if Negroes were suspected or charged
with murder or rape. The Charleston _News and Courier_, for example,
argued that the lynching of a suspected murderer was “not mob law.”
According to the paper’s editorialist, “the brute placed himself
outside the pale of the law and was dealt with accordingly.”[9]
Segregation of the races in the state has been both a manifestation of
belief in racial superiority and a basic distrust of democracy. Ben
Tillman interpreted his election as governor as a triumph of “white
supremacy over mongrelism and anarchy.” In his inaugural address he
denied “without regard to color that ‘all men are created equal.’”
It was not true then and it was not true when Jefferson wrote it, he
thundered.[10] Carlyle McKinley, associate editor of the _News and
Courier_, wrote in the 1880’s that in “works of art, skill, science,
invention, literature, in the whole field of human enterprise,
endeavor, design and discovery, in every respect that can be named,
the Negro is far behind the lowliest families of the white race.”[11]
The late W. W. Ball, among other things editor of the _News and
Courier_ and Dean of the School of Journalism of the University of
South Carolina, declared that “every decent white man and woman” in the
state maintained and exercised the “right of treating all Negroes as
inferiors.” In one of his characteristic diatribes against democracy,
he wrote that “universal and unrestricted suffrage” was unthinkable.
Safety demanded that South Carolina “steer away from the infatuation
even of universal white democracy.”[12]
In 1944, twenty-five years after Ball made the above statement, the
state House of Representatives adopted a resolution which “indignantly
and vehemently” denounced all organizations seeking “the amalgamation
of the white and Negro races by co-mingling of the races on any
basis of equality.” Such were deemed “hostile to the existence and
preservation of the American Union of States.” Simultaneously, the
legislators reaffirmed their belief in and allegiance to “established
white supremacy,” and pledged “our lives and our sacred honor to
maintaining it, whatever the cost.”[13]
In no other area have South Carolinians been so sensitive to outside
criticism as on the race issue. After the end of Reconstruction
“outside agitation” on racial problems was infrequent. It became even
less so after the Supreme Court in 1896 gave official legal blessing
to racial segregation in the _Plessy v. Ferguson_ decision. However in
the 1930’s and during the Second World War, “agitation” was renewed
for more civil rights for the Southern Negro. This agitation inspired
passage of the above cited resolution by the state legislature. The
latter demanded, “firmly and unequivocally,” that “henceforth the
damned agitators of the North leave the South alone.”[14]
II
Elimination of the Negro from state politics became an article of
faith, a factor of transcendant importance in the preservation of white
supremacy. The instrumentality through which the Negro was effectively
excluded from the suffrage was the Democratic Party primary which was
adopted in 1896. Not until the late 1940’s was the Democratic primary
opened to Negro voters and then only by direction of the federal courts.
Up to the New Deal period the South Carolina white primary faced
little real “danger” either from “outside agitators” or homegrown
“radicals.”[15] Yet a disruptive force was at work. This was the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People which slowly
but relentlessly was seeking to break down the restrictions placed on
Negro suffrage. An initial breach, which did not directly affect South
Carolina, had come with the ruling by the Supreme Court in 1915 that
the “grandfather clause” was unconstitutional. South Carolina reacted
to these developments by strengthening its determination to maintain
and re-enforce the white primary. One venerable device in this effort
was the poll tax which, of course, not only disfranchised a mass of
Negro voters but many whites as well. White South Carolinians were
willing to pay this price, however, to guarantee the white primary.
Toward the same end other devices were resorted to as grounds for
disfranchisement such as lengthy residence requirements, discretionary
educational requirements, property qualifications and numerous petty
crimes, supposedly common among Negroes.
Lack of organized opposition made control of the Democratic primary
tantamount to control of the state government. Such control
traditionally resided in the hands of politicians whose defeats
resulted not in the extension of democracy but simply in the creation
of a new faction to direct state politics. With great effectiveness
politicians used fear of the Negro vote to forestall development of
an operative two party system. They contended that a two-party system
would split the white vote and thus allow the Negroes to hold the
balance of political power. In opposing the repeal of the poll tax, a
member of the 1944 state House of Representatives said that Negroes
were “trying to vote” and if the suffrage were made too easy a two
party system would surely result. To prevent both, he concluded, it was
imperative to keep the Democratic Party all powerful.[16] Nor did this
feeling end with the abolition of the white primary. In 1952 Governor
James F. Byrnes, taking note of the increasing registration of Negro
voters, lamented that there would always be white politicians in the
state “willing to enter into secret political trades” for Negro votes.
Such men had to be “watched” and those who were willing to deal with
Negro leaders had to be defeated.[17] In 1956 Governor George Bell
Timmerman, Jr., said that a two party system would bring South Carolina
“nothing but permanent strife and damage.” It had brought chaos to the
North “where minorities are pawns and politics is played with the lives
of small children for the sake of a vote,” asserted the governor. He
for one was “not prepared to turn the state Democratic Party over to
any radical element or other irresponsible group.”[18]
Increased “agitation” for Negro civil rights in the New Deal and
World War II periods eventuated in the end of the white primary. This
disaster was the result of several federal court decisions, notably
in the cases of _Smith v. Allwright_ (1944), _Rice v. Elmore_ (1947)
and _Brown v. Baskin_ (1948). The first and most important of these
was a Texas case in which the Supreme Court declared all suffrage
restrictions premised on race to be unconstitutional.[19]
Reaction of the white leaders of South Carolina to the _Smith v.
Allwright_ decision was instantaneous. Officials, public figures, and
private citizens lost no opportunity to condemn it. The late Senator
Burnet R. Maybank, aware that the decision was not an isolated incident
but part of the developing effort to break down white supremacy,
declared that regardless of any Supreme Court decision and any laws
that might be passed by Congress, South Carolinians would maintain
those political and social institutions which were “in the best
interest of our people.” White South Carolinians would “treat the Negro
fairly,” said the Senator, but they did “not intend for him to take
over our election system or attend our white schools.”[20]
The then Governor Olin D. Johnston, not to be outdone, called a
special session of the state legislature to meet the “emergency.” He
recommended that the legislators repeal all state laws dealing with
primary elections, thus giving the Democratic Party the status of a
private club. This maneuver, he believed, would put the party outside
the jurisdiction of federal courts. Should it prove inadequate, he
announced, South Carolinians would “use the necessary methods to
retain white supremacy in our primaries and to safeguard the homes and
happiness of our people.”[21] The legislature, following his advice,
completely divorced the state from all legal connections with the
Democratic Party.
The Democratic Party of South Carolina itself took action to nullify
the effects of the court decision. If Negroes could not be legally
barred from primary election, they would be excluded from party
membership. A state Democratic convention, held shortly after the
decision, adopted a rule which provided that to be eligible for
membership in the party, a person had to be a “white Democrat” who
subscribed to the principles of the Democratic Party of South Carolina
as declared by the state convention.[22]
In 1947 the newly enacted defenses for white supremacy in the
Democratic primary were tested in federal district court and found
wanting. George A. Elmore, under NAACP auspices, brought suit against
the Democratic Party. He claimed that its recent actions deprived him
of his right to vote. Federal District Judge J. Waties Waring[23]
agreed and ruled against the state of South Carolina and the Democratic
Party. In admonishing South Carolina to “rejoin the union,” he
declared racial discriminations illegal in the machinery that selected
the officers and lawmakers of the United States. All citizens were
entitled to cast a “free and untrammelled” vote in the election. If
“the only material and realistic elections” were “clothed with the name
‘primary,’” said the judge, they were no less equally entitled to vote
in them.[24]
In the face of the decision, the harrassed and beleaguered state
Democratic Party took two important steps to insure continuation of the
white primary. By the first a dual system of voting qualifications was
established which sought to disbar most Negro voters. Concomitantly
a lengthy oath, designed to discourage Negro voters and required
of all voters, was adopted. It compelled the voter to swear that
he understood, believed in, and supported “the principles of the
Democratic Party of South Carolina,” the “social, religious, and
educational separation of the races,” and “the principles of states
rights,” and was opposed to the “proposed federal so-called FEPC
law.”[25]
These restrictions were quickly brought to a court test. In a second
decision, in the case of _Brown v. Baskin_, Judge Waring invalidated
the white primary. In a pointed and sharply worded opinion he termed
the dual system of voting qualifications “a clear and flagrant evasion
of the law” as enunciated in earlier court rulings against suffrage
restrictions on the basis of race. He also branded the oath required
of all voters in the primary as a “flagrant disregard of the rights of
American citizens to exercise their own views and opinions.” The oath
was patently unconstitutional.[26] The United States Supreme Court
refused to review either of Judge Waring’s decisions, thus in effect
upholding them.[27]
Judge Waring, a prominent Charlestonian, was condemned on all sides by
white South Carolinians. His decisions were likewise criticized. After
the ruling in _Brown v. Baskin_, Representative William Jennings Bryan
Dorn asked Congress to investigate Judge Waring’s “conduct in office.”
Under his ruling, said Dorn, “a Communist, a Negro, a Fascist, or a
Republican could vote in the Democratic Party of South Carolina.”[28]
III
Traditionally orthodoxy on the race issue has transcended all other
considerations in South Carolina politics. Consequently the state has
had more than its fair share of zealots willing to play the race issue
for the last ounce of its political worth. Even those most outspoken
on the issue have not been free of charges of racial heresy. In the
1938 senatorial election Olin D. Johnston, attempting unsuccessfully
to unseat “Cotton Ed” Smith, charged that the Senator had not always
been anti-Negro. “Why, Ed Smith voted for a bill that would permit a
big buck nigger to sit by your wife or sister on a railroad train,”
he cried. But Smith was able to use the attack on him by Roosevelt
and Northern liberals with telling effect. He boasted that he had
walked out of the 1936 Democratic National Convention when a Negro
minister was asked to pray. The purpose of that prayer, he declared,
was “not to ask divine assistance but to invoke colored votes.” “White
supremacy, that time honored tradition,” bellowed the Senator in a
campaign speech, could “no more be blotted out of the hearts of South
Carolinians” than could the “scars which Sherman’s artillery left on
the State House at Columbia.”[29]
During the 1930’s and 1940’s under encouragement given their
aspirations by the New and Fair Deals, South Carolina Negroes became
Democrats in theory and in fact. Their most ambitious political
undertaking was the formation in 1944 of the Progressive Democratic
Party under the leadership of John McCray, a newspaperman, and James M.
Hinton, a minister and insurance saleman. The Progressive Democrats
supported the national Democratic Party but opposed that of the
state.[30] The Progressive Democrats had little success. David Duncan
Wallace, the historian of South Carolina, estimated that only about
3,500 Negroes voted in the presidential election of 1944 and about
5,000 in 1948. In the latter year the Progressive Democrats sent a
slate of delegates to the national party convention and unsuccessfully
challenged the regular state Democrats.[31] A similar attempt in 1956
also failed.
The increasing role of the Negro in South Carolina politics has had
the effect of spotlighting such issues as civil rights, FEPC, and
states rights. The white majority remains as determined as ever to
maintain “the Southern way of life” and every inch of ground is yielded
grudgingly. The race question is applied to nearly every political
issue, either openly or covertly, and all-out attempts have been--and
to be sure, still are--made to discredit any proposal or policy
that would alter the _status quo_. The most popular method has been
that of equating unpopular measures with communism, atheism, racial
“mongrelization,” etc. Sometimes the results have been ludicrous. In
his unsuccessful 1950 campaign for the United States Senate, Governor
J. Strom Thurmond asserted that had President Truman “not been so busy
playing Negro politics,” the nation would not have been involved in the
Korean situation.[32] Favorite targets in the 1940’s were President
Truman’s civil rights bill and his FEPC proposals. Thomas R. Waring,
editor of the _News and Courier_ and not to be confused with his
cousin the judge, said the opposition to President Truman’s proposals
was based on the belief that they “would be an invasion of states and
individual rights” and would result in “an intermingling of races
in hotels, restaurants, theaters, buses, and places of employment.”
Governor Thurmond termed the FEPC proposals the closest this country
had yet come to communism. They would turn the United States into
“nothing more than a police state,” he warned. The proposals would
force employers “to hire even Hindus.” The Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux
Klan, a few hours after addressing the state legislature where he was
warmly received, told a Klan rally that if the civil rights proposals
passed, it would “be legal for a Negro to come up on your porch and ask
for your daughter’s hand in marriage.”[33]
Particularly dismaying to the state’s political leaders has been the
growing realization that neither of the national political parties can
be relied upon to protect what South Carolina Democrats consider to be
the best interests of the state and the South. At the 1936 Democratic
National Convention the South lost an effective weapon when the party
abolished the ⅔ rule for party nominations. Though President Roosevelt
had been able to hold the state party leaders in line, major revolts
have developed in South Carolina against the national Democratic Party
in every presidential election since 1944. Shortly before the 1952
presidential campaign was underway James F. Byrnes declared that the
South had become a “stepchild” in national politics while both national
parties were becoming slaves to the demands of minorities which held
the balance of power in key Northern cities. He labeled the 1948
Democratic platform “more socialistic than democratic,” and the result
of pressures brought by “organized minorities of northern states” on
the leaders of the Democratic Party. These pressures had forced those
leaders “to abandon the cardinal principle of states rights.”[34]
This alleged “renunciation by the Democratic Party of the principles
upon which the Republic was founded” led in 1948 to the most successful
of the political revolts, if measured in terms of election results.
In the presidential election of that year the “Dixiecrat” movement,
with Governor Thurmond as its candidate, carried four Southern states.
Though this movement was generally justified in terms of states rights
and constitutional government, the race issue undoubtedly was of
paramount importance in inspiring it.[35] Thurmond publicly and piously
objected to the “white supremacy” theme of many of his followers. He
professed to be “not interested one whit in the question of white
supremacy” and referred to himself as “a progressive Southerner” who
was interested in bettering the conditions of the Negro. He said he
would conduct his campaign solely in support of “the sovereignty of
the states as against federal government interference.” In October
he reiterated that he was not running “on a platform of racial
discrimination.” That was “for each state to decide.”[36]
Despite such pronouncements the race question ran prominently
throughout Thurmond’s campaign speeches. Few did not contain a long
attack on President Truman’s various civil rights proposals, especially
FEPC. In August he said that if the “segregation program” of President
Truman were enforced, “the results in civil strife” might be “horrible
beyond imagination.” Lawlessness would be rampant. Chaos would prevail.
Streets would be unsafe. The President’s “so called civil rights
program” was written by Joseph Stalin in 1920. It was “made to order
for Communist use in their designs upon national security.”[37]
In the 1952 election widespread support developed for General
Eisenhower in the state because it was believed generally that the
Republican Party and its candidate were more in harmony with Southern
conservatism and consequently represented less of a “threat” to the
South on racial and economic issues.[38] However, slightly more than
a majority of the state’s voters remained loyal to the national
Democratic Party; Negroes voted overwhelmingly for the Democratic
candidate.
IV
The constitution of 1868 authorized the first public school system
of South Carolina. Many years passed, however, before the state had
a functioning public school system worthy of the name, even for the
whites. Funds allocated by the state for public education increased
slowly. Though largely spent on white schools such outlays brought
limited advancement to Negro education through the trickle down
process. Discrepancies between the white and Negro systems continued
to grow. Not until the end of the nineteenth century did the total
amount spent on Negro education surpass that spent in 1879-80, despite
increasing enrollments. Not until 1919-20 did per capita expenditures
on Negro schools exceed those of the Hampton administration.[39]
In 1921 Professor Simkins, after making an unverified assertion to the
effect that “the educational separation of races in South Carolina
at present meets the approval of both races,” admitted that the
disproportionate share of the school funds spent for education of the
whites displeased the Negro. At this time the white schools received
$11.97 per capita while the Negro pupil received only $1.23.[40]
Until the late 1940’s when the NAACP began bringing suits for equal
and/or integrated public schools, little support was given in the state
for providing public education for Negroes, a situation reflected
in the wide discrepancies in the funds spent for white and Negro
schools. This attitude, in its most extreme form, was expressed in the
inaugural address of Governor Cole Blease in 1911. Blease, a blatant
Dixie demagogue, recommended “liberal appropriations for all our state
institutions of learning for white boys and girls.” He also favored
the improvement of “the free school system so that every white child
in South Carolina” could be given “a good common school education.” As
for Negro education, the Governor declared that “when the people of
this country began to try to educate the Negro they made a serious and
grave mistake,” the worst results of which were yet to come. “So why
continue?” he asked.[41]
In 1941 Governor Maybank, reputedly more enlightened, appointed a
committee to study the state’s education system. It found, among other
things, that nineteen counties in the state had no high school for
Negroes and that there were 1644 school buses for whites and eight for
Negroes.[42]
The relative status of white-Negro education in South Carolina can
be illustrated, and better yet dramatized, by reference to a few
statistics for the years 1940 and 1952. In 1940 statistics reflected
the relative unconcern for quality Negro education. On the other
hand, the 1952 figures indicated the progress that had been made by
the time the Clarendon County school case was making its way through
the courts. The NAACP used these statistics with devastating effect
in developing its argument against separate-but-equal systems.[43]
Since 1952 substantial improvements have come in both white and Negro
schools. Schools for Negroes have been rapidly approaching at least a
statistical equality with those of the whites.
1940 1952
White Negro White Negro
Expenditure per pupil $50.81 $15.16 $159.34 $95.65
Capital outlay per pupil 6.25 .66 24.70 11.45
Average length of school year (days) 175 147 180 178
Average annual salary of
classroom teachers $938 $388 $2,644 $1,985
Average years of college
of classroom teachers 3.7 3.4
Books in school libraries per pupil 2.3 0.7 3.0 0.9
Other statistics bear investigation in connection with the state’s
public education program. In 1950 the per capita income of South
Carolinians was $844, 46th in the nation. In the same year the state
spent 3.3 percent of its total personal income on public schools, tenth
highest percentage-wise in the country. In 1952, 42.7 percent of the
pupils attending public schools in the state were Negroes, a somewhat
higher percentage than Negroes in the total population. Between 1940
and 1950 the white population of the state increased 19.3 percent while
the Negro population increased only 1.0 percent. Yet during the period
1940-52 the Negro school population increased 12.5 percent compared to
a white pupil increase of 9.9 percent.[44]
As late as 1918 only one public Negro high school was operating in the
state! Not until 1930 did South Carolina have an accredited Negro high
school. By 1950 there were 80 state accredited Negro high schools, only
ten of which, however, were recognized by the Southern Association
of Colleges and Secondary Schools. By comparison there were 301
state accredited white high schools, 56 of which met the accrediting
standards of the Southern Association.[45]
The same inequality evidenced on the public school level existed in
higher education. The state maintains five institutions of higher
learning for whites and one for Negroes. The Negro institution was
originally rather thoroughly named the Colored Normal, Industrial,
Agricultural, and Mechanical College. The total state appropriation
for the white colleges in 1949 was in excess of $4,500,000 while that
for the Negro college was less than $600,000. Dr. Lewis K. McMillan,
former professor of history at the Negro institution, described the
college as “a glorified high school” treated as a “step child” by the
state. Until after World War II the college did not have a nominal
graduate or law school. However, in the light of a spate of federal
court decisions admitting Negro students to white state universities
when equal educational opportunities were lacking in state-supported
Negro schools, the 1945 state appropriations act authorized the college
to establish “graduate, Law, and Medical departments and such other
departments as may be necessary to provide training in all lines of
college activities for students attending this college.” No money was
appropriated until 1946 and then a completely inadequate $25,000 for
the graduate school. In 1947 $60,000 was appropriated for the Law
School. “Medical and pharmaceutical training” was authorized to the
extent of a paltry appropriation of $15,000 in 1950.[46]
While federal court cases in other states provided a general impetus
to this program, the danger that a Negro might be admitted to the
University of South Carolina loomed ominously on the horizon in 1946
when a Negro, Cleveland M. McQueen, applied for admission as a graduate
student in the School of Education. The state answered his request
with the appropriation for a graduate school at the Negro college.[47]
In the same year another Negro, John Wrighten, applied for admission
to the University Law School and was denied admittance. He then took
his case to the courts which ruled that unless the state provided a
law school at the Negro college “on a substantial parity with the
University Law School” by September, 1947, Wrighten had to be admitted
to the latter. By the deadline a law school had been established and
Wrighten made no further appeal.[48] Until January, 1958, no Negro made
a concerted effort to gain admission to one of the white institutions
of higher education. Two Negroes applied for admission to Clemson
College in 1956 but did not press their applications after being
refused. But in January, 1958, as will be seen in Chapter VII, Negro
students were clearing the decks for a law suit to force admission to
the University of South Carolina.
CHAPTER II
THE CASE FROM CLARENDON
When the social needs demand one settlement
rather than another, there are times when we
must bend symmetry, ignore history and sacrifice
custom in the pursuit of other and larger
ends. From history and philosophy and custom,
we pass, therefore, to the force which in our
day and generation is becoming the greatest of
them all, the power of social justice which
finds its outlet and expression in the method
of sociology.... The final cause of law is
the welfare of society.--_Justice Benjamin N.
Cardozo._
Culmination of the effort of the Negroes of South Carolina to win
legal recognition of their rights to first class citizenship came
in 1954 in the Clarendon County school case. This was the key case
in the NAACP’s nationwide campaign to break down racial segregation
in public schools. Negro leaders purposely singled out Clarendon
County because it presented racially segregated schools in the worst
possible light. Located in the state’s black belt, the county in
1951 had approximately 23,000 Negroes and 8,000 whites. Enrolled in
its public schools were 6,531 Negro students as compared to 2,375
whites. Yet school expenditures totaled $395,329 for whites as against
$282,950 for Negroes.[49] In School District No. 22 (Summerton), the
district directly involved in the suit, there were 298 white pupils
and 2,259 Negro pupils.[50] In facilities such as libraries, lighting
fixtures, desks, play grounds, classroom space, lavatories, lunchrooms,
auditoriums and teacher ratio to pupil, the Negro schools were
decidedly inferior to those provided for whites. For example, the NAACP
pointed out in the hearing of the case before the federal court that
one of the Negro schools with 600 pupils had only two toilets, both
outdoors. Another school lacked drinking faucets and water had to be
brought in a bucket from the home of a neighboring minister.[51]
Clarendon is a typical South Carolina low country rural county and most
of its people, especially Negroes, are agricultural workers. In 1955
the _Nation_ described the county as a place where the people
talk of Citizens’ Councils and the “economic squeeze,”
where the Ku Klux Klan met with Bryant Bowles, head of the
National Association for the Advancement of White People,
as a featured speaker, where integration is freely referred
to as a “Communist-Catholic-Jewish plot,” where a place of
business displays the latest newspaper clippings showing
crimes of Negro against white, where private citizens
discuss the hated Ford Foundation along with the price of
tobacco, where the NAACP has only a small chapter and where
you hunt long and hard for a defender of the Negro.[52]
The Clarendon case, technically known as Harry Briggs, Jr., _et al._,
appellants, versus R. W. Elliott, _et al._, appellees, had its origins
in 1948 when a group of Negro citizens brought suit in federal court to
require state and county officials to provide school buses for Negro
pupils. Federal District Judge J. Waties Waring dismissed this suit on
the ground that the state as a governmental unit did not supply school
buses for any students. The following year Negro parents in Clarendon
petitioned authorities to bring Negro school facilities up to the
standards of the county’s white schools. The petition threatened legal
action if equality were not provided. In May, 1950, citing failure
of local officials to equalize school facilities, a suit was filed
asking that school authorities be compelled to provide equality. In
December, 1950, this suit was dropped and another, filed by forty Negro
parents, attacked segregation _per se_ as a violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment and asked the abolition of all segregation in public schools
based on race.[53] The suit was filed under NAACP auspices.
In May, 1951, the case was heard by a special three-judge court
presided over by Federal Circuit Judge John J. Parker of North Carolina
and District Judges George Bell Timmerman, Sr., of Columbia and J.
Waties Waring of Charleston. The suit represented the first all-out
legal attack in the deep South on the system of racial segregation
on the public school level. It was clearly a test case; the ruling
would provide a basis for future court decisions in similar cases. The
appellants were represented by Thurgood Marshall, chief counsel for the
NAACP; the appellees by attorneys Robert McC. Figg of Charleston and
S. Emory Rogers of Summerton. Figg is an able Charleston corporation
lawyer; Rogers, a determined defender of white supremacy at any price,
was attorney for the Summerton school board.
In the arguments before the court, Marshall sought to prove first that
the separate school facilities provided Negroes in District 22 were
in fact physically unequal and second that segregation _per se_ was
discriminatory and therefore a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Inasmuch as school officials readily admitted that the facilities
then offered Negroes in Clarendon were unequal, Marshall concentrated
on sociological and psychological arguments to support his second
contention. He argued that segregation invariably resulted in the
development of “psychological roadblocks” which prevented Negro pupils
from achieving “full absorption” of the educational process.[54]
To buttress this position, Marshall introduced what the late Walter
White, then executive secretary of the NAACP, thought “the most
impressive array of authorities ever assembled to testify as experts on
the unreasonableness of segregation.” Their arguments, he said, were
“irrefutable.”[55] The “experts” were half a dozen social scientists
from such universities as Harvard, Columbia, Vassar and Howard. They
held that segregation resulted in “discordant” education that caused
“moral confusion” for both whites and Negroes. Amongst Negroes it
resulted in “a lowering of self-esteem, a strengthening of resentment
and hostility” and a personality development that emphasized “a desire
to escape or withdraw from social participation.” Amongst white
children segregation developed a feeling of guilt caused by their being
taught simultaneously both the doctrine of brotherly love and the
practice of unbrotherly racial segregation.[56] Segregation was said to
be building into the Negro “the very characteristics” which were then
used to justify prejudice.
The counter case presented by Clarendon school officials contained
three basic points. First, they maintained that segregation _per
se_ was not violative of the Fourteenth Amendment as it had been
recognized as legal by the courts, Congress and the governments of
seventeen states. The only condition that could be legally demanded
was that the segregated facilities be substantially equal. Attorney
Figg readily admitted that school facilities then being offered Negroes
in the county were unequal but asked that the court allow the state a
“reasonable” time in which to equalize them. South Carolina, he pointed
out, was in the midst of a statewide equalization program. The second
argument held that school segregation statutes were “a valid exercise
of legislative power,” a matter of state legislative policy rather than
of constitutional right. No legal compulsion could oblige a state to
accept “scientific opinion” that its school program “must be geared
to personality development.” The third contention of appellees was
that to disturb drastically the racial _status quo_ in the deep South
would produce “dangerous tensions and unrest.” Racially segregated
school facilities, Figg insisted, were the “normal” result of a racial
conflict heritage in the state of South Carolina.[57]
The court ruled two to one against the appellants. Judges Parker
and Timmerman held that segregation _per se_ was not a violation of
the Fourteenth Amendment. They said, however, that “the educational
facilities and opportunities” provided both races “must be equal.”
Equality had to be provided “promptly” and “in good faith.”
Consequently school officials were directed to report to the court
after six months as to what actions were being taken to provide
equality. In rejecting Marshall’s line of argumentation the court
asserted that judges had “no more right to read their ideas of
sociology into the Constitution than their ideas of economics.”
Judge Waring dissented vigorously. The majority opinion, he wrote, was
“unreasonable, unscientific, and based on unadulterated prejudice.”
He condemned the “sadistic insistence of the ‘white supremacists’ in
declaring that their will must be imposed irrespective of rights of
other citizens.”[58]
Governor James F. Byrnes hailed the majority ruling upholding school
segregation as “unanswerable.” The court’s “well-reasoned opinion,” he
maintained, completely vindicated the separate-but-equal doctrine.[59]
II
Only slowly had white South Carolina awakened to the threat to legal
school segregation contained in the repeated petitions and suits of
Clarendon Negroes. By the time the state legislature convened in
January, 1951, the menace was fully realized. A definite fear had
developed that the courts might rule in favor of the Negro petitioners.
Basis for this fear was a long line of recent United States Supreme
Court rulings outlawing segregation in state university graduate and
professional schools even when facilities provided Negroes were in fact
substantially equal to those for whites. The legislators and other
state officials clearly recognized that by no criteria were white and
Negro schools even remotely equal, not only in Clarendon but over the
entire state. White South Carolina’s only hope, they reasoned, lay in
an immediate and far reaching program to provide equal facilities for
each race. At the same time certain precautionary measures had to be
taken against the possibility that the courts might hold segregation
_per se_ illegal.
Leadership in this program fell to Governor James F. Byrnes, who, after
a long career in the federal government, including a short period of
service on the Supreme Court, had broken with President Truman and the
national Democratic Party and had returned to South Carolina to vent
his frustration against the national government and the Democratic
Party. Elected governor in 1950, he was inaugurated in January, 1951.
Almost immediately Byrnes began a long range program which was to
provide a basis for the state’s defense of the racial _status quo_ and
the doctrine of separate-but-equal schools. The program subsequently
was enacted by the 1951 state legislature. The position of Byrnes,
as well as that of many of the state’s other leaders, was summarized
in a series of the governor’s speeches in early 1951. South Carolina,
he announced, would not then “nor for some years to come mix white
and colored children” in public schools. To prevent this situation
the state would, if necessary, “reluctantly” abandon its public
school system. “A lawful way” would be found to educate all children
“and at the same time provide separate schools for the races.” While
conceding the inferiority of Negro schools, Byrnes insisted that the
educational crisis facing the state was caused by “the politicians
in Washington and the Negro agitators in South Carolina” seeking to
alter the “Southern way of life.” But they would find that “what a
Carpetbag government could not do in the Reconstruction period” was
likewise impossible in 1951. The governor would protect the “innocent
Colored children,” the victims of those elements which sought to end
segregation. With a prescience characteristic of white spokesmen
for racial separation, he insisted that “the overwhelming majority
of colored people in this state” did not want integrated schools.
Byrnes denied that new school policies were based on the expediency
of necessity rather than on high principle. He righteously observed
shortly after the district court ruling that “had there been no suit
... I would have urged this school program to help the white and
colored children” of the state.[60]
The most important undertaking in the Byrnes educational approach was
the beginning of a tremendous school construction program. The cost
was estimated at $75,000,000 though the amount actually spent on the
project by 1957 was more than double the original figure. To finance
new school construction, Byrnes secured legislative passage of a three
percent sales tax.[61] This program, in which more than half the funds
were spent for Negro schools, had the result of giving the Negroes
better physical school facilities in some localities than those of the
whites.
In addition to these constructive measures, the state legislature,
upon Byrnes’s recommendation, enacted several “preparedness measures”
for use in the event the federal courts outlawed segregation. Local
school officials were given authority to sell or lease school property.
Churches or other private groups thus would be enabled to maintain
schools under some sort of private school plan. Another strategem
provided that pupils could be transferred from one school to another
only with the approval of the superintendents of both schools
affected.[62]
A measure that caused understandable hesitation on the part of many
public officials and civic groups was the repeal of the constitutional
provision requiring a state supported public school system. The NAACP
and other Negro groups vigorously opposed repeal, but in February,
1952, the legislature approved a referendum on the proposal. In the
referendum, held the following November, 68 percent of those voting
favored repeal. Opponents of the measure considered the 32 percent
against repeal something of a moral victory for their side.[63]
To coordinate state policy on the segregation issue, the legislature
created a special 15-member committee. This group came to be known as
the Gressette Committee, after its chairman, State Senator L. Marion
Gressette, a fifty-three year old Phi Beta Kappa, farmer-lawyer from
the low country Calhoun County. The committee had a double function.
First, it was directed to study the conditions that would confront the
state should the federal courts direct an end to segregation in public
schools. Second, it was to recommend to the legislature a course of
action which would “alleviate the serious condition which would result”
from such an eventuality.[64] This committee, after assisting Byrnes in
developing his program in 1951, was inactive from that time until the
Supreme Court ruling of May 17, 1954.
III
Following the circuit court’s ruling the Clarendon case was immediately
appealed to the United States Supreme Court. By the time the highest
tribunal considered the case, the six months period allowed by the
circuit court for school officials to furnish _bona fide_ equality
for Negroes had elapsed. Consequently, on January 26, 1952, the case
was remanded to the circuit court which was directed to take whatever
action it deemed appropriate in view of its findings. In the meanwhile
Judge Waring had retired and had been replaced on the court by Judge
Armisted M. Dobie of Virginia. At the rehearing counsel for the school
officials reported on the steps taken by the county and on other
plans contemplated under the statewide school equalization program.
These plans, when completed, would provide equality in all areas for
white and Negro schools, claimed school authorities. Though equality
admittedly as yet had not been attained, such would be forthcoming
within a “reasonable” time. Accepting these arguments at face value,
the circuit court ruled unanimously that “the defendants have complied
with the decree of the court to equalize facilities as soon as humanly
possible and no good could be accomplished for anyone” by ordering an
end to segregation.[65] The NAACP again immediately appealed to the
Supreme Court.
Arguments before the Supreme Court took place in December, 1952, in
conjunction with four similar cases. Clarendon County was represented
by John W. Davis, noted constitutional lawyer and Democratic
presidential candidate in 1924. Davis, a twentieth century “Northern
man with Southern principles,” based his case mainly on grounds of
constitutionalism and states rights. “What is the great national policy
underlying this whole question?” he asked. “Is it not that the very
strength and fiber of our federal system is local self-government
in those matters for which local action is competent?”[66] Again
the appellees stressed three main points. They maintained that the
state was proceeding to remove “all inequalities between its white
and colored schools,” as had been found by the lower court. Further,
school authorities argued that the legality of school segregation
had been exercised and recognized so continuously that the question
was “no longer open for debate.” As for the testimony of “sundry
academic persons” offered in opposition to segregation, such “opinions”
presented questions of legislative policy only and formed no sufficient
basis for any conclusions on the subject, least of all for a judicial
finding.[67]
Thurgood Marshall, chief counsel for appellants, presented the same
arguments he had used in the lower courts.
Unable to arrive at a decision on the basis of arguments advanced at
the first hearing, the Supreme Court in June, 1953, asked for further
pleadings on five questions. These involved essentially two points:
(1) In the light of the history of the Fourteenth Amendment, was
school segregation _per se_ violative of that amendment? (2) Assuming
that segregation was unconstitutional, would it necessarily follow
that schools should be integrated “forthwith” or could the Court in
the exercise of its equity powers remit the cases to lower courts and
permit a “gradual adjustment” to integration?
Answers to these questions were prepared under the supervision of T.
C. Callison, South Carolina’s Attorney General. The state maintained
that the “overwhelming preponderance of the evidence” demonstrated
that the Fourteenth Amendment could not be construed as forbidding
racial segregation. In reply to the second query, the state held
that on the assumption stated, the Court could permit gradual
integration to be carried out within broad policy limitations by the
lower federal courts. However, in this connection, the state argued
that even assuming that the courts could declare segregated schools
unconstitutional, it was not within the judicial power to determine
what, if any, non-segregated system should be substituted in their
place.[68]
IV
Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the Court’s unanimous opinion,
a milestone in the American Negro’s struggle for human dignity and
freedom.[69] After reviewing the background of the various cases under
consideration, the Court declared that the history of the Fourteenth
Amendment, as it applied to school segregation, was “inconclusive.”
Furthermore, said the Chief Justice, the school segregation issue had
never been definitely settled by the Supreme Court. Recent decisions
concerning inequality on graduate and professional levels of schooling
had not faced the basic issue--the legal status of segregation _per
se_. Consequently the Court would attempt conclusively to settle the
problem.
In premising its decision, the Court turned not to “tangible factors”
but to the overall “effect of segregation on education.” On this basis
it asked: “Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the
basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other ‘tangible’
factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of
equal educational opportunities?” The reply was direct: “We believe
that it does.” Accepting the testimony presented in the lower court
by the social scientists, the Court found that segregation of Negro
children “from others of similar age and qualifications solely because
of their race” generated feelings of inferiority concerning their
status in the community that might affect “their hearts and minds in a
way unlikely ever to be undone.” In the light of such a condition the
Court concluded that “in the field of public education the doctrine of
‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are
inherently unequal.”
The cases were not immediately disposed of since no implementing decree
was included in this ruling. Recognizing the revolutionary nature of
the transition being ordered, the Court, departing from established
legal tradition, restored the cases to the docket and asked all
affected states, the NAACP and the United States Attorney General to
appear as friends of the Court and present further argument on how best
to implement the decision. The state of South Carolina refused to come
before the Court in this capacity. Attorney General Callison thought
that such an appearance might indicate that the state was bringing
itself “within the jurisdiction of the Court in this particular
case.”[70] The state, as such, would do nothing that might make the
Court’s decision specifically applicable to all school districts.
Clarendon officials, however, did file a brief with the Court. They
urged that the case be remanded to the lower federal court to permit
school authorities “the opportunity of presenting their problems
fully to that tribunal and of appealing to its equitable discretion in
connection with their further handling of its affairs.”[71] Attorney
Figg asked the Court to give the Clarendon authorities time to allow
for “community acceptance.” But privately the less suave Attorney
Rogers maintained that there was going to be no integration in South
Carolina.
The Supreme Court’s implementing decree was not issued until May
31, 1955, a little over a year after its momentous decision.[72]
It recognized the existence of “varied local school problems.”
Consequently federal district courts were given the responsibility
within their local areas for supervising the compliance with the
Court’s original decision. While giving attention to local conditions,
the district courts were to require school officials to make “a prompt
and reasonable start toward compliance” with the original ruling.
Delays in beginning integration were justifiable only when “necessary
in the public interest” and “consistent with good faith compliance.”
In proceeding “with all deliberate speed,” school officials were to be
allowed consideration for such factors as “physical condition of the
school plant, the school transportation system, personnel, revision
of school districts ... and a revision of local laws and regulations”
requiring segregation. This decision was applicable in the strict sense
only to those school districts immediately involved in the litigation.
No allowance was made for applying its provisions to other school
districts. Segregation therefore would be erased only when action
voluntarily was taken by school authorities or when directed by federal
courts following petition by aggrieved groups upon failure of local
officials to follow the spirit of the decision.
On July 15, 1955, the Federal Circuit Court, composed of Judges Parker,
Timmerman and Dobie, met in Columbia and disposed of the Clarendon case
in conformity with the Supreme Court ruling. In an unanimous decision
the three judges restrained Summerton school officials “from refusing
on account of race to admit to any school under their supervision any
child qualified to enter such school, from and after such time as they
may have made the necessary arrangements for admission of children
to such schools on a non-discriminatory basis with all deliberate
speed.”[73]
There the case rested in the spring of 1958. The school officials have
not yet “made the necessary arrangements” to end segregation, and
Negro parents, fearing among other things that the public schools will
be closed if precipitate action is taken, have not pushed the matter
further.
CHAPTER III
THE EMERGENCE OF PATTERNS
So strongly drawn is the line between the two
races ... and so strengthened by the form of
habit and education, that ... no power on earth
can overcome the difficulty.--_John C. Calhoun._
The May 17, 1954, decision of the Supreme Court in the school
segregation cases issued in a new era in race relations in the South.
From this point onward the race issue centered on public school
integration. Reaction to the ruling tended to vary in proportion to
the percentage of Negroes in the local population. Some border areas
began preparations for compliance; the deep South was defiant. South
Carolina, with a high percentage of Negro population (between 35 and
40 percent) and with a strong master-servant tradition governing its
race relations, was among the most intransigent of the deep South
states. Few white South Carolinians were willing even to consider
compliance with the decision as being among the possible solutions to
the segregation problem.
The Clarendon verdict momentarily stunned the white citizenry of
South Carolina. Though politicians and their allies in the “power
structure” of the state quickly warmed to their traditional thespian
role of championing white supremacy and competed in lambasting the
Court and the decision, the general public was slow in grasping its
full implications. It was this seeming state of indecision that misled
those moderates who were willing to go ahead and at least try school
integration. The majesty of a Supreme Court decision lent conviction
that little needed to be done and in any event there was no sense in
antagonizing one’s neighbors. As a consequence the moderates rested on
their oars and did virtually nothing to help prepare the way for the
implementation of the Court’s ruling. This was a tragic error. But in
retrospect and admittedly with the benefit of historical hindsight, it
was no more an error than the Court’s allowing the Clarendon County
officials an unspecified length of time to achieve integration. Had
the Court ordered immediate integration, compliance might well have
been forthcoming since at the time there was no alternative course
of action. As was, the Court allowed the Clarendon officials time to
develop stalling tactics and the state to adopt a public policy which
together have been successful in preventing even one Negro child from
entering a white public school in South Carolina.
Official reaction to the decision was universally condemnatory.
Governor James F. Byrnes was “shocked” to learn that the Court had
overthrown the Plessy doctrine. The late Senator Burnet R. Maybank
labeled the ruling “a shameful political edict rather than a judicial
decision.” The Court made the ruling, he asserted, only “under the
duress” of Chief Justice Earl Warren and Attorney General Herbert
Brownell. Had the Democrats been in power, the decision would never
have been made. Senator Olin D. Johnston, too, saw the fine Venetian
hands of Warren and Brownell in the decision which he described as “a
flagrant, direct appeal for the political favor of minority groups.”
He deplored the Court’s “radical departure from the well-reasoned”
separate-but-equal doctrine as being written largely by “subversive
groups.”[74]
Senator J. Strom Thurmond was, if anything, even more critical. Blaming
the decision on “pressure and power politics,” he termed it “one of
the worst ever handed down by any court ... in this country.” Most
of the authorities cited by the Court, he said, “were either members
of Communist-front organizations” or their loyalty was “in serious
question.” Broadening his attack, Thurmond declared that integration
was “impractical, illogical, and unconstitutional” and undesired by
white people or “good Negro people” of the South. The trouble came from
“outside agitators” who were stirring up Negroes with discrimination
charges.[75]
Similarly, Attorney General T. C. Callison saw “no constitutional
authority, no statutory authority, no judicial precedent, no reason and
no justice in that decision.” Callison, a small town lawyer, described
Gunnar Myrdal, “the principal authority” used by the Court, as “a
foreign Socialist, with no first hand knowledge of conditions in the
South.” Many of Myrdal’s “collaborators” in the writing of _An American
Dilemma_ were allegedly “members of Communist front organizations.”[76]
In sharp contrast to the comments of the state’s leading political
figures was the reaction of James M. Hinton, state NAACP president.
Hinton believed that there was “no place in a democracy, and certainly
not in the Christian church, for segregation.” Both whites and Negroes
of South Carolina, he thought, would accept “any decision from the U.
S. Supreme Court.”[77]
The press was no less critical than the politicians. The Charleston
_News and Courier_ was especially outspoken. This paper attacked the
decision on several grounds. It gave new meaning to the Constitution;
“drove another nail into the coffin of states rights;” consisted of a
“sociological finding, as contrasted with an affirmation of the law;”
constituted an abridgement of “the freedom of white people;” repealed
and outlawed laws and customs that were “older than the Republic;” and
was the result of packing the Supreme Court “to represent the New-Fair
Deal viewpoint” to the exclusion of the “States Rights viewpoint.”
Noting the embarrassingly favorable reaction to the decision throughout
the non-Southern part of the country and the world, the _News and
Courier_ asserted that the only ones “unhappy” with the ruling were
“white Southerners ... and the rank and file of self-respecting
Negroes,” who were “not interested in being compelled to associate with
one another.” While Editor Thomas R. Waring’s paper urged “wisdom and
tolerance,” it opposed “cowardice” on the part of Southerners.[78]
The Columbia _Record_ was more realistic. Southerners should not have
been surprised by the Supreme Court’s “bouleversement on segregation,”
said Editor Buchanan, because such a decision was the logical result of
previous cases affecting graduate and professional levels of education.
It was based “not upon law but upon sociology and psychology, so-called
social sciences which true scientists agree today are not scientific.”
The opinion was “a sociological interpretation of the Constitution”
and segregation was “sociologically, not legally ... unconstitutional,
null and void.” The Court was guilty of getting “too far ahead too fast
of public opinion in the South.” The Justices might have held that
segregation _per se_ was inequality, suggested the _Record_, but then
concluded that because of “the cultural, health, and other differences
between children of the two races and in the preponderance of Negroes
in its school population” the Clarendon district had problems which
would make integration “harmful, psychologically and sociologically.”
The capital city paper, a strong supporter of President Eisenhower,
took issue with those who blamed or credited the decision on the
Republican administration. Buchanan insisted that the decision was a
Democratic ruling eight to one, since Eisenhower had appointed only one
justice to the Court. In seeking to absolve Chief Justice Warren of
responsibility, the _Record_ declared with a good deal of truth that
there were “some indications” that the case had been decided before
Warren’s appointment.[79] The editor of the _Record_ refused to concede
that what was involved was an “American” decision rather than either a
Republican or a Democratic one.
The Anderson _Independent_ likewise stressed the non-legal nature of
the Court’s action. Taking exactly the opposite direction from the
_Record_, the upcountry paper said that the decision, which combined
“a bit of law along with large doses of psychology and sociology,”
was not unexpected in view of the pro-integration policies of the
Republican administration. It conveniently ignored the attitude of the
national Democratic Party toward the segregation issue. Decision or
no decision, said the _Independent_, the races would “not be mixed in
South Carolina schools today, tomorrow, next year or in the years to
come.”[80]
Only the Florence _Morning News_ admitted the end of school segregation
in South Carolina a probability. On the day following the decision,
Editor Jack H. O’Dowd announced, prematurely to be sure, that
“segregation is ended in Southern schools.” He then added, “It can
be assumed that South Carolina, in the immediate future, is to have
integrated schools, or no public schools.... The question is no longer
whether or not segregation is proper, the present question is what the
state is to do in the face of the Court’s decision.” Within a year,
however, the Florence editor saw the South Carolina light, or felt the
intolerably hot breath of the white population on his neck, and became
more critical of the decision. In April, 1955, he chastised the Court
for having “swapped law and legal tradition for ... warped ideas of
sociology” which only endangered the “medium through which the Negro
has made his greatest gains--public education.”[81]
White South Carolinians generally were no less antagonistic toward the
decision than their political leaders and newspapers. W. D. Workman,
Jr., the _News and Courier_ correspondent in Columbia, thought the
Court was more concerned with the Southern Negro than his white
neighbor. And this in spite of the fact that the latter had always
relied upon the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution
“rather than upon the changing social and political standards of a
polyglot nation.” Southerners, boasted this young apostle of the old
order, “have been and still are, closer by blood, by belief, and by
behavior to the framers of those two documents than are persons of any
other section of the country.”[82] L. B. McCord, the Clarendon County
school superintendent and former Presbyterian minister, thought the
decision “one of the worst things that has happened in this century,”
endangering as it did “_the splendid relation_” which had previously
existed between the races “in this good old Southland.”[83]
Stanley F. Morse, president of the Charleston Grass Roots League, a
white supremacy organization, viewed the decision as “just another
successful step in the Red Revolution against the United States,”
marking “the attainment of one of the objectives of the Communist
drive among U. S. Negroes started in 1920.” The fact that the decision
was unanimous was “indicative of powerful pressure on the Court by
‘liberal’ politicians and Marxian Socialist conspirators.” In a similar
manner another Charleston man, Huger Sinkler, attorney and former state
legislator, considered the decision to be “but another aftermath to
Appomattox.” He believed that
... the authors of this latest outrage are as deeply imbued
with hatred for our Southern customs as was Thaddeus
Stevens. And, unfortunately, in both periods, we find as
President a man whose decisions are obviously made for him
by others.
In the case of Grant, it was the man with the mulatto
mistress, Thaddeus Stevens, and the small corps of
abolitionists. In the instance of Eisenhower, it would
appear to be Dewey, Brownell and Dulles, men whose
political ambitions lead them to pose as friends of the
underprivileged, and, in the case of Dewey, a man with an
open hatred for the South....
Reconstruction days were harsh, but, notwithstanding the
scalawags, the carpetbaggers and the federal bayonet,
the basic principles for which the South fought were not
destroyed.
Today, we face a similar challenge. Perhaps, if we have
the strength of character, exhibited by the generation
preceding, the dawn of a new 1876 will arrive.[84]
The reaction of the white people of Clarendon County to the decision,
according to _Record_ reporter Carlton Truax, a former missionary,
ranged from “resignation to bitterness and violent rebellion.” A
minority “fringe group” openly expressed the opinion that blood would
flow if Negroes sought admission in white Clarendon schools. Truax
found “much bitterness, some deep frustration and often a sense of
helplessness.” At a meeting held in June, 1955, approximately 350 white
residents of the Summerton school district agreed that the schools
should be kept open only until the courts ordered the admission of a
Negro pupil to the white school.[85] The white Clarendon community had
decided that segregation was more important than education.
Reaction to the implementing decision of May 31, 1955, was less
critical than that of the earlier ruling. The Columbia _Record_
considered the Court’s plan to remand the cases to lower courts a
partial Southern victory even though the justices failed to change
their original decision. Similarly the Florence _Morning News_ saw
“some small comfort” for the South in the Court’s failure to establish
a deadline for compliance. In a more critical mood, the Anderson
_Independent_ declared that “the poison prescribed when the Supreme
Court wrote new law into the Constitution last year is no less deadly
offered in the small doses as now directed.” The Charleston _News and
Courier_ believed that the Court’s “as soon as practicable” meant
“never at all.”[86]
Attorney General T. C. Callison, speaking for the state leaders,
termed the implementing decision “quite unsatisfactory.” He asserted
once again that integration in South Carolina would “bring about every
condition which will create a breeding bed for communism.”[87]
An outgrowth of the Supreme Court’s invalidation of segregation in the
public schools was increased criticism of the Court itself. Extremists
expressed scorn for the Court as an instrument of government; others
urged the Court’s powers be curbed by Congress. Senator Thurmond
maintained that the members of the Court were “not worthy to wear the
robes of their high office.” James H. Hammond, former state senator
and direct lineal descendant of the ante-bellum United States senator
of “Cotton is King” fame, called the justices “a bunch of skunks.” At
a rally at Laurens, E. L. Edwards, the Grand Dragon of the national
Ku Klux Klan, referred to the “nine buzzards on the Supreme Court.”
State Representative George Harrell of Florence County introduced into
the state legislature a resolution which urged Congress to investigate
the Court for “attempting to enact and enforce as law the sociological
concepts of its members.”[88]
According to the _News and Courier_ the Court had become “an
instrument to uphold the right of Big Government to slap down state
and individual rights.” It was more concerned with “the rights of
leftist labor officials and Communist editors” than “the rights of
white Southerners.” And it had degenerated into a mere political arm
of the Eisenhower administration. Indirectly accusing the President of
court-packing in the appointment of John Marshall Harlan, the _News
and Courier_ peevishly declared that “a suitable man could have been
found whose grandfather had not been the only dissenter to the basic
(Plessy-Ferguson) decision in the 1896 issue.”[89] The need of the
country, said the _Record_, was “a Supreme Court in the pre-New Deal
tradition, one of integrity, stability, learning and judicial outlook.”
Unfortunately neither national party offered hope in this area. Warren
was “a political appointment” and on the Court he had been a “political
Chief Justice.”[90] No less critical of the Court, the _Independent_
suggested that the justices would be less subject to “political
pressures” and “radical departures” if they were appointed not for life
but for specified terms.[91] The Columbia _State_, not to be undone,
opined that the popularity of the Supreme Court among “sound thinking
people seems to resemble that of measles.” It asserted on another
occasion that the Court had rather “meander through Myrdalism than
precedents.”[92]
Congressman Robert J. Ashmore, a member of the House Judiciary
Committee, criticized the Court for a long line of “foolish,
unconstitutional and un-American” decisions. Sooner or later, he
asserted, Congress would realize that the real aim of the justices
was “to set up their socialistic ideas as supreme.” In like manner
Representative William Jennings Bryan Dorn accused the Court
of degenerating into a mere “rubber stamp” for the Eisenhower
administration.[93]
Former Justice James F. Byrnes spoke for states righters who would curb
the powers of the Court as a means of halting “creeping centralism.”
Holding the desegregation decision an amendment to rather than an
interpretation of the Constitution, Byrnes criticized the Court for
impairing “progress and ... freedom,” undoing the South’s “steadily
advancing racial amity,” and undermining the Constitution. He blamed
the decision on political factors and attempted to discredit the
sources cited in the Court’s opinion. The one-time New Dealer quoted
Senator James O. Eastland of Mississippi as authority for the statement
that the files of the House Un-American Activities Committee were
“replete with citations and information” concerning Theodore Brameld
and E. Franklin Frazier, whose studies were considered by the Court.
Allegedly, the files contained “18 citations of Frazier’s connections
with Communist causes in the United States.” Byrnes was especially
critical of the use of Myrdal’s _An American Dilemma_. He branded as
obviously false Myrdal’s statement that “in the South the Negro’s
person and property are practically subject to the whim of any white
person who wishes to take advantage of him or to punish him for any
real or fancied wrongdoing or insult.” Removed from the bench and no
longer the wearer of the judicial ermine, Byrnes stated flatly that
the only solution to such a situation was to limit the authority
of the Court. The trend toward centralization of government powers
in Washington, said the ex-War Mobilizer, was bringing “joy to the
Communists and their fellow travelers, for they could more easily
influence one government” than forty-eight.[94]
Illustrative of the widespread opposition to the Court and its
anti-segregation decisions was a resolution signed by 52 prominent
white South Carolinians and circulated throughout the state for
signature by other Carolinians. All the original signers of this
resolution could be included in the State’s “power structure.” The more
outstanding included E. H. Agnew, Eugene S. Blease, Robert R. Coker,
Rev. Edward B. Guerry, R. Beverly Herbert, Col. Wyndham M. Manning,
Thomas H. Pope, Herbert Ravenel Sass, Ellison D. Smith, Jr., Farley
Smith, the Rt. Rev. Albert S. Thomas, Ransome J. Williams and William
D. Workman, Jr. These people, said the _News and Courier_, “are not
crackpots, extremists, Klansmen, rightists or leftists. They are
largely middle-of-the-roaders. They are intelligent white men. They are
leaders in law, clergy, business, farming, education, and politics of
our state. In other words, they are a cross section of the better-class
moderate, white people of South Carolina.”[95]
The “Committee of 52” resolved that the Supreme Court relied “not upon
the body of established American law, but upon the dubious conclusions
of sociologists and psychologists whose number includes persons tainted
with Communism;” that pressure from the NAACP and other “self-serving
organizations” had “lowered the will of politicians and the public
generally to resist encroachments upon the sovereign rights of states;”
and that such pressure was endangering both “the public school system
of South Carolina and the harmonious relationship between the white and
Negro races.” Therefore, the resolution urged the state legislature
to take such steps as “may be necessary or desirable to interpose the
sovereignty of the State of South Carolina between Federal courts and
local school officials.”[96] The petitioners had some initial success
and within a week 7,000 persons had reportedly signed the resolution.
However, this movement soon lost its drive and produced no tangible
results.
As already observed, one of the tactics most widely used by the
segregationists was ridicule and disparagement of the Court’s use of
sociological and psychological authority. W. D. Workman, Jr., some
fifty years behind the times, spoke of the “new school of sociological
jurisprudence.” If Negro children required the company of white
children “to fully develop personality and education,” he wrote, then
South Carolina needed help because in some areas there weren’t “enough
white folks to go around.” In a heavy handed attempt at facetiousness,
he suggested that the Supreme Court set up the number of white and
colored children necessary to form an acceptable classroom situation.
In like vein, the _Record_ complained that “nobody knows what the law
is today or what it will be tomorrow with a Supreme Court making its
decisions on whim, fancy or pseudo sociology.”[97]
The _News and Courier_, which shudders at all innovations, was
critical of the Court’s emphasis on “psychiatry.” The injection of
psychiatry into the controversy brought a letter to the editor from
Dr. Norton Williams, a Charleston psychiatrist, who felt that the
Supreme Court had “used unwise judgment” and accepted “bad advice”
from the psychiatrists who testified in the Clarendon case. “False
interpretations” of psychiatry “in the hands of some psychiatrists with
misguided motivations” would lead to “unhappy situations” such as the
anti-segregation riots in Delaware and Tennessee. Many psychiatrists,
according to Williams, “using good, profound psychiatric principles,”
realized the need for maintaining segregation. The Negro, a member of
a culturally inferior race, was not yet ready for integration. Until
he had developed his own culture he would remain unready. To force
integration suddenly would make the Negro feel “inferior, hostile, or
defiantly competitive.”[98]
Only on the rarest of occasions did a white South Carolinian speak out
in favor of the decision of the Supreme Court. On one such occasion
H. B. Clark of Charleston, in a letter to the _News and Courier_,
criticized the white man’s “conception of the Negro as something
slightly subhuman, a sort of beast of burden for the exploitation of
the white man.” He declared that
All the restrictions upon economic and educational
opportunity, all the degrading Jim Crow laws which we
impose upon the Negro say, in effect, “We no longer own
you as slaves, but we are determined to keep you in a
subordinate position in our society, and to impress upon
you in a thousand small ways every day that you are an
inferior race.” Now the justices of the Supreme Court are
not black-hearted villains who have sold their souls to the
devil of political expediency; on the contrary, they are
simply nine Americans honest enough to face inescapable
conflict between these undemocratic values of the South
and the principles of equality and freedom on which the
Constitution is based, and courageous enough to proclaim
the necessity of eliminating this paradoxical state of
affairs no matter what the cost in terms of readjustment of
traditional thinking.[99]
II
White South Carolinians, regarding integration with outright disdain
and horror, advance many arguments in defense of segregation. These
range from temporary expediency to the fear of “mongrelization”
and ultimate extinction of the white race. Running parallel is the
constant reiteration that segregation, which allegedly provides
separate-but-equal facilities, is of greater advantage to the Negro
than to the white. Such a view, to be sure, runs completely counter
to the assertion of President Truman’s committee on civil rights
which said in 1948 that segregation had become “the cornerstone of an
elaborate structure of discrimination.” Separate-but-equal arguments,
declared the committee, were the basis for “one of the outstanding
myths of American history;” while facilities were indeed separate
they were far from equal.[100] In defending segregation white South
Carolinians are far less concerned with the equal than with the
separate.
Arguments against racial integration indicate a frank belief in the
inherent superiority of the white race. In a widely read article in
_Harper’s_ magazine, Thomas R. Waring argued against integration on
the following grounds: (1) The incidence of venereal diseases was
higher among Negroes. (2) The cultural home environment of Negroes was
inferior. (3) Marital habits among many Southern Negroes were “to state
it mildly, casual.” (4) Crime was more prevalent among Negroes. (5) The
intellectual development of Negro school children was generally below
that of their white counterparts.[101] The late Herbert Ravenel Sass, a
well known Charleston author, got down to Freudian bedrock in stating
that fear of intermarriage was the most important factor in Southern
opposition to racial integration. In an article in the _Atlantic
Monthly_, he asserted that “it is the deep conviction of nearly all
white Southerners in the states which have large Negro populations,
that the mingling or integration of white and Negro children in the
South’s primary schools would open the gates to miscegenation and
wide-spread racial amalgamation.” He claimed that there was “almost
no hatred of the Negro” nor was there anything that could “accurately
be called race prejudice” in South Carolina. In a skillful display of
semantic gymnastics, he held the desire for segregation to be based on
“race preference.”[102]
In rebuttal to Sass, Harvard historian Oscar Handlin declared that
statistics indicated that the growth of equality between the races
did not increase the rate of intermarriage. Historically racial
“miscegenation” had been the “direct product of the inferiority
of Negro women.” The extent of “miscegenation” varied directly in
proportion to the degree of that inferiority. The idea that Negroes
were eager to marry whites, he said, was “a delusion born of the
white’s own vanity and of his ignorance of the real sentiments of his
fellow Americans of another color.”[103]
Answering criticisms such as those of Handlin the _News and Courier_
replied: “The separation of races in public schools, in the
circumstances that exist in South Carolina, is necessary. It is not
evil or immoral. It does not deprive Negroes of their rights. It does
protect the rights of white people. Arguments to the contrary usually
stem from ignorance. Firm decent resistance in the end will win.”
The paper branded integrationists as “Meddlesome Matties” who were
interfering with a custom “older than the Republic.” Only in the last
few years had “native born Americans ... learned from the NAACP and the
eggheads that a traditionally American practice was un-American.”[104]
The _Record_ considered segregation a _modus vivendi_ which enabled
the two races to live together until a more suitable solution could
be evolved. Such would result only from a long and slow process of
education in which racial prejudice would be wiped out.[105]
The attitude of _Morning News_ Editor O’Dowd was highly ambivalent.
Four days before the Court’s original decision he had declared that
segregation traditionally had been “a social, economic and political
expedient” which had no “moral justification.” Yet he believed the
institution continued to be necessary. Three months later he described
segregation as “a benevolent and paternal social order,” which “has
not been a matter of expediency.” Under O’Dowd’s successor, James A.
Rogers, the _Morning News_ moved nearer the position of the _Record_
and the _News and Courier_. In his first editorial comment on the
problem, Rogers stated his “sincere belief” that segregation was
practiced in the best interest of both races. Under such circumstances
segregation was “not an evil scheme to keep the Negro in subjection but
a high road” along which the Negro could “achieve maximum development
in an atmosphere without tension or ill will.” A suitable solution
to the problem of integration, Rogers thought, would come only after
“education, education, education for a period of generations, and
patience, the practice of tolerance and the willingness to wait until
the alchemy of good will has done its work.”[106] Such a proposal meant
postponing integration indefinitely.
Amongst individual white South Carolinians much the same attitudes
prevailed. Governor George Bell Timmerman, Jr., indignantly contended
that “any statement that our law is inherently unequal is inherently
untrue.” Lieutenant Governor Ernest F. Hollings, young, handsome and
ambitious, told the Lions Club of Florence that he did not know anyone
who believed in “any prejudice on account of race.” Segregation was
based on “history, culture and economic background” rather than race
prejudice. Former Governor Byrnes told the Sumter Kiwanis Club that
segregation arose not from “petty prejudice” but from “an instinctive
desire for the preservation of our race.”[107]
Other South Carolinians expressed these sentiments in greater or lesser
degree. Charles D. Haigh of Florence pleaded with “white American
fathers” to guard their “defenseless children” against all attempts at
integration. Criticizing any moderate approach, he recognized only two
alternatives--“segregation or integration and eventual mongrelization
of the races.” Should the latter alternative come to pass there would
be “no ‘Star Spangled Banner’ as a national anthem, but more than
likely some such song as, ‘Rest your li’l kinky head upon my breast,
w’suns is all alike.’”[108] Similarly, Gilbert Wilkes of the Charleston
suburb of Mt. Pleasant had not taught his children “any prejudices
against other races” except insofar as “racial purity” was concerned.
In keeping his children free from prejudice he imparted to them “the
knowledge that God chose members of the white race as his chosen people
and then colored the others.”[109]
III
The course of race relations in the state during the period following
the court decision was indicative of the moves and counter moves by
the proponents and opponents of integration. Segregationists were
unanimous in asserting that race relations had been harmonious in the
state in the days before the “agitation” began. Historically, said the
_News and Courier_, “whites and Negroes have got along with a minimum
of friction in the South.” Likewise, “the South was making rapid
progress toward elimination of racial prejudice,” claimed the _Record_.
“There was sympathy and understanding among whites for Negroes in the
South.” This era of good will allegedly had been overturned by those
who would force integration on an unwilling South. For the “cold war”
between the races, full responsibility rested with the “titular Negro
leadership.”[110]
During the year between the original ruling and the implementation
decree there was little outward evidence that relations between the
races had changed appreciably. Each side appeared to be awaiting final
action by the Court before digging in and taking its stand. Abruptly
in the summer of 1955 the situation changed. The implementing ruling
came on the last day of May. Almost at once there followed such “overt
actions as the filing of NAACP-sponsored integration petitions.” In
response, the whites organized the Citizens Councils which employed
or threatened to employ the economic boycott as a means of ending
the attempts by Negroes to secure school integration. The most
notable example of the economic boycott in action came in the city
of Orangeburg in 1955-56. Orangeburg Negroes retaliated in kind and
relations between the races deteriorated generally, remaining at their
lowest between the summers of 1955 and 1956. The _New York Times_, in
surveying race relations in early 1956, noted this retrogradation.
So did the _News and Courier’s_ W. D. Workman, Jr., who reported “a
massive deterioration of the racial amity which had been developing
and increasing between whites and Negroes.” “Distrust, suspicion
and growing bitterness” had supplanted good will. By the following
December, when the full implications of the boycott were felt and
realized by both whites and Negroes, Workman noted that relations
between the races seemed “considerably more tranquil” than a year
earlier. He observed that while neither side had compromised “its
adamant position,” each was attempting to soft-pedal the issue.[111]
A few whites, by indirection, conceded that the “mutual respect
and affection” which allegedly had traditionally characterized the
relations between the races in South Carolina resulted from the
Negro’s submission, in the face of overpowering odds, to a _modus
vivendi_ dictated by the white man. Dr. E. E. Colvin, pastor of the
Immanuel Baptist Church of Orangeburg, thought segregation had been
a success even if the South “used to have an occasional lynching.
Almost invariably the Negro who was lynched had committed some terrible
crime.” By contrast, “up North where they don’t have segregation they
have a race riot every once in a while.” Similarly, Dr. J. G. McMaster
of Kingstree wrote that “whites have sometimes taken advantage of
colored but that can be expected and on the other hand, Negroes are
less honest with each other than are whites with them.”[112]
IV
Public spokesmen offer many answers to the school integration question.
The press of the state constantly urges “patience and forbearance;”
“calm, careful consideration, hard thinking and studied action;”
“calm, reasonable, and foresighted” actions; “cool calculation,
searching forethought;” “restraint and common sense;” “planning, ...
determination, perhaps ... cunning;” and “calm and wise decisions.”
Of the many proposals for circumventing the Court’s decision, voluntary
segregation is the most popular. _Morning News_ Editor Rogers thought
it represented the “ultimate answer to the problem.” The _News and
Courier_ believed that “of all the approaches ... now uppermost in
the minds of South Carolinians, the voluntary selection of schools
by patrons according to their own race keeps recurring as the most
reasonable.” Former Governor Byrnes stated that “the hope” of the South
was voluntary segregation.[113] Proposals for voluntary segregation, of
course, contain no provision for Negro parents who desire integrated
schools for their children.
The _News and Courier_ has been a consistent advocate of voluntary
segregation. In defending this approach, the Charleston paper said:
Happiness cannot be measured in worldly goods, nor social
position, nor many of the things that some of us hold too
dear. Contentment is necessary for true happiness....
Too many people of all races and stations in life seem
dissatisfied with things as they are. While ambition
and the go-getter spirit are praiseworthy, whining
for “equal treatment”--which often means excuse for
shortcomings--should not be a part of a person’s equipment.
Merit has a way of being recognized.
Too many people--both white and Negro--are trying to bite
off more of life than they can chew. Not everyone is
qualified to take a place in the front rank. Instead of
being angry, they would do themselves a favor by adopting a
philosophical attitude. Instead some persons dissatisfied
with their own accomplishments demand a change in
government, in economic laws, in the rules of society.[114]
Another solution is the migration of the Negroes to non-Southern parts
of the United States, thus relieving “the pressure of numbers” on the
black belt areas of the South. This proposal represents a revival of
the pre-Civil War suggestion that the free Negro should be returned
to Africa. But in 1955 even the _News and Courier_ conceded that
“migration to Africa seems no longer feasible.” In a letter to the
editor of the paper W. W. Bragg of Columbia offered concrete proposals
to encourage migration. He urged that the state provide each Negro
desiring to migrate with a small sum of money--$100 to $200--and pay
his transportation expenses. The Negro would be required to “go to a
State in the North,” and agree not to return to South Carolina for five
years. In the long run this would be cheaper for the state, argued
Bragg, because the Negro paid much less money in taxes than the value
he received in state services.[115]
The South Carolina Farm Bureau Federation and its president, E. H.
Agnew of Starr, also advanced proposals for the continuation of
segregation. Agnew, who strongly opposed “this dastardly thing of
forced integration,” summarized what he considered to be the views of
farmers in the state: “The farm people of South Carolina, both white
and colored, are bitterly opposed to such a program as the Supreme
Court outlines. They earnestly desire both separate schools and a
continued relationship of peace and harmony but they are determined
that this vile thing shall be circumvented. They want neither abolition
of public schools nor do they want a shotgun solution to the problem
but if worst must come they are ready for either or both.”[116]
In a booklet entitled “Education and Race Relations” distributed to
its 20,000 members, the Farm Bureau proposed the development of a
“co-racial program” of separate but equal schools. By co-racial the
Bureau meant “equal status, equal opportunity and self-determination.”
If facilities were truly equal, contended the Bureau, there would be
“more gracious acceptance” of segregation by both races and “no white
or Negro child” would be “forced to attend a school of mixed races,
unwillingly.” Since segregation would, under these circumstances, be
maintained voluntarily both the spirit and the letter of the court
decision would be observed. The success of this program would depend on
voluntary acceptance by both races. Again significantly, no provision
was made to accommodate those pupils seeking integrated schools.[117]
The _Record’s_ proposals merit special attention since in reality
they cracked the door to school integration. It recommended a system
(consequently adopted in part in North Carolina) which would allow
Negroes in “a few rare instances” to attend white schools. Such a
system, which would have assigned pupils to schools on factors other
than race, would comply with the Court’s decision and at the same time
maintain segregation almost 100 percent intact. Under the system “an
occasional white pupil” would have to be assigned to a Negro school.
The _Record_ also recommended repeal of all of South Carolina’s
segregation laws as a means of removing the basis for further court
rulings against the state.[118]
The _Independent_, though less concerned with the segregation issue,
had its own homespun suggestions as to how to circumvent the Court.
Comparing resistance to integration with opposition to the Eighteenth
Amendment, it suggested that the time might come “when segregated
education will be ‘bootlegged’ and when federal agents, slinking behind
hedges, will try to follow little Johnny to the ‘speakeasy’ school.”
However, there would be plenty of old timers who could give Johnny
“some valuable tips on how to confound the revenooers.”[119]
Not a few urged defiance to the point of violence in resistance to
integration. Others, less extreme in their utterances, helped create a
climate of disrespect for the segregation decision which made defiance
easier. “Because the Supreme Court has spoken we should not submit
without resistance,” said Senator Thurmond. South Carolinians, he
added, “must resist integration by every legal means harder than the
integrationists fought to end segregation.” The _News and Courier_
asserted that “the will to resist goes deep into the fabric of the
Southern people. They do not intend to yield their principles so
long as they draw breath.” Commenting on the integration violence
in Clinton, Tennessee, it declared that “organized rebellion at the
local level” was “a wasteful and disturbing means of dealing with
government.” But Southern states should not “give an inch in standing
up to the federal government.”[120]
Despite the intransigent opposition that had developed to integration
in the state and the South generally by the summer of 1955, W. D.
Workman, Jr., despaired of the “blight of submissiveness” which the
Court decision had spread over the land. The “cry of surrender” by
those who would accept the decision as law did not “fit well into
the traditional pattern of American resistance to dictation,” he
declared.[121] A number of letters to the editor of the _News and
Courier_ were of the same opinion.
Occasional outbreaks of violence have come in South Carolina as a
result of the integration “agitation.” These have been rare, however;
the threat of violence was usually sufficient. The most prominent case
of violence involved the Reverend J. A. DeLaine, an African Methodist
Episcopal Church minister[122] and leader of one of the organizations
sponsoring the school case from Clarendon County, where he had a
pastorate. Later he was transferred to Lake City. DeLaine’s church in
Lake City was destroyed by a fire of undetermined origin; his home was
pelted with rocks, fruits and other objects from passing automobiles.
On one occasion DeLaine, claiming that the occupants of a passing
automobile had fired gunshots into his home, shot back. Two of the men
were slightly injured by metal fragments from the car. The men in the
car maintained that they had not fired and were in fact unarmed. As a
result of this incident DeLaine fled to New York City, seeking refuge
with an AME bishop. In South Carolina he was indicted for assault with
intent to kill. Federal authorities took no action to return DeLaine
to South Carolina. Governor Timmerman, stating that he did not want
to give the NAACP another martyr who could be used for fund raising,
decided not to press for extradition. South Carolina was well rid of
“this professional agitator,” commented Timmerman.
Some two years later DeLaine, interviewed at New Rochelle, N. Y.,
where he was serving as pastor of the Mount Carmel Church, asserted
that his experiences in South Carolina had permanently scarred both
him and the members of his family. However, he added: “It’s worth some
suffering--it’s even worth a man’s life, if he can start something
that will lead to a little more justice for people.... We helped start
some things that are bringing a revolution in education for Negroes in
South Carolina, in modern schools and bus transportation.” Nor did the
minister harbor any ill feelings toward the people of South Carolina.
“There are too many good people there, white and colored. But they need
to stand up against the hate-mongers,” he declared.[123]
A second notable incident of violence, which took place in December,
1956, involved the flogging of a Camden High School band leader, Guy
Hutchins, by six hooded men. According to Hutchins, he was attacked
while changing an automobile tire on a lonely road. His assailants
accused him of making remarks in favor of racial integration, a charge
which Hutchins flatly denied.
Although the Kershaw County grand jury on two different occasions
refused to indict six men arrested in connection with the case, many
white South Carolinians publicly criticized the incident. The Rev.
Stiles B. Lines, pastor of the Camden Episcopal Church of which
Hutchins was a member, declared that “fear covers South Carolina like
the frost.” Referring to the flogging, he told his parishioners: “Men
are afraid to speak. Freedom of speech is almost extinct in South
Carolina, except for those who wish to speak in favor of and in accord
with the policies of the pressure groups who self-righteously assume
that they, and only they, have the answers.”[124]
Criticism of the Hutchins affair was sufficiently widespread to cause
the steering committee of the Kershaw County Citizens Council to meet
in special session and issue a statement declaring that “unlawful
acts of violence, force or intimidation serve only to bring discredit
on this community and state, and, insofar as concerns the struggle
against integration, the loss of States’ Rights and loss of individual
liberties, to cause diversion, dissension and dismay among those who
are attempting to maintain our traditional social order and way of
life.”
The comments made by South Carolina Circuit Judge G. Duncan Bellinger
of Columbia on the Supreme Court’s desegregation decision were an
interesting sidelight on the Hutchins incident. They were voiced in
his charge to the grand jury considering the indictment of the six men
accused of the flogging. Members of the Court, said the judge, had
“substituted for legal principles their own personal, social, economic
and political ideas, taking away the rights of states, the powers of
the departments of the federal government and the rights of individual
citizens.” But in urging an indictment of the accused, Bellinger
declared that violence would aid only the “scalawags and carpetbaggers”
who were seeking to bring about another Reconstruction.[125]
By inference the judge considered fighting the “scalawags and
carpetbaggers” as important as the rights of individual citizen Guy
Hutchins.
Under circumstances and conditions such as those outlined above South
Carolina developed its resistance to attempts of the Negro to win
integration. The unanimity of opinion among those elements which spoke
out on the subject encouraged silence among more moderate persons. Such
a situation is further illustrated by a more detailed consideration of
the various phases of resistance.
CHAPTER IV
THE WHITE FOLKS FIGHT BACK
We are surrounded by invisible dangers, against
which nothing can protect us, but our foresight
and energy.--_John C. Calhoun_
In response to the Supreme Court’s desegregation decision a number
of organizations dedicated to the preservation of white supremacy
mushroomed up in the state. Among these were the National Association
for the Advancement of White People, the States Rights League, the
Grass Roots League, American Educators Incorporated, the Federation
for Constitutional Government, the Association for the Preservation of
Southern Traditions and the Citizens Council. In addition the Ku Klux
Klan again reared its ugly head. These organizations opposed racial
integration with methods that varied from the “legal” opposition of
the Citizens Council to the blunt threats of naked force by the Ku
Klux Klan. Similarly, they experienced differing degrees of success.
The Citizens Council, though last to be organized, has been the most
prominent. With the exception of the Citizens Council, none of the
organizations developed anything approaching a statewide following. Its
appearance in the summer of 1955 virtually signalized the disappearance
of the other groups. Only the Ku Klux Klan remains.
The Klan is the largest and most important of the white supremacy
groups next to the Citizens Council. As it exists in the state during
the period following the Supreme Court’s ruling on school segregation,
the Klan is a continuation of the organization that had become almost
defunct by the late 1940’s and early 1950’s. The Court decision gave
the Klan a new lease on life. However, it has not been able to achieve
recognition as the state’s chief defender of racial segregation.
Essentially this results from the fact that the Klan, because of its
checkered history since World War I, has no appeal among “respectable”
elements, in short to the state’s “power structure.” The bedsheet
brigade also has the official opposition of the state government.
In general the South Carolina Ku Kluxers have found greatest following
among the less economically privileged whites, workingmen and petty
tradesmen. Klan rallies, replete with burning crosses and fiery
oratory, have been held at various points throughout the state.
Attendance, as reported by the press, usually has varied from less than
a hundred to several hundred, though Klan leaders argue that these
figures are much too low. At one meeting in Union, the Klan claimed an
attendance of between 12,000 and 15,000.[126]
Several independent Klan factions have been organized in the state.
The national organization, with headquarters in Atlanta, recognizes
the group headed by Grand Dragon J. H. Bickley, a Marion carpenter,
as the “official” Klan in South Carolina. Bickley’s organization has
been bothered by periodic Klan rallies which it has not sponsored and
which engage in practices which, according to the Grand Dragon, tend to
discredit his group and alienate its followers. Since Bickley refuses
to release any information on the number of Klansmen or klaverns in the
state, the numerical strength of the Klan is impossible to determine.
He claims that if he had the time, he “could stage a rally each night
of the week.”[127]
The purpose of the Klan according to E. L. Edwards of Atlanta, the
national Imperial Wizard, is to protect Southerners “against the NAACP,
Knights of Columbus and the ADL [Anti-Defamation League].” The Klan
is “a white man’s organization fighting for white supremacy” and is
not made up of race discriminators but people who want to live “in a
segregated group.”[128] On the basis of stated aims and objectives,
there is no discernible difference between the Klan of the 1920’s and
that of the 1950’s.
Klan leaders deliver impassioned harangues at klavern rallies. Their
principal foes, as evidenced by the organizations singled out by
Edwards, are Negroes, Jews and to a somewhat lesser extent Catholics.
Liberal use is made of the smear technique of accusing opponents of
being pro-Communist. Speaking at Sumter Imperial Wizard Edwards charged
that the Supreme Court’s ruling was “a Communist-Jewish-Catholic plot”
aimed at “destroying and mongrelizing” the white race. Parties to this
conspiracy included Franklin D. Roosevelt, Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, “the
Jew Bernard Baruch,” and President Eisenhower, whom he referred to as
“Eisenberger.” With characteristic disregard for historical accuracy,
the Imperial Wizard branded the NAACP as an organization formed in 1906
by a “group of three people sent directly from Russia.” He urged all
“one hundred percent Protestant white Americans” to join the Klan and
help overcome this menace.[129]
At a Timmonsville meeting Ku Klux attitudes were well expressed by a
Klan speaker identified only as a “minister of the Gospel” who would
be in his pulpit the following Sunday morning. After the opening
prayer, this defender of the faith announced that he hated all Jews and
“niggers.”
The NAACP [he continued] is a Communist front organization.
We have documents in the House Un-American Activities
Committee to prove this. I was supposed to have literature
here tonight to prove this, but it was late in arriving....
The main issue in South Carolina is not so much Communism
as it is niggerism....
Klansmen don’t wear sheets, they wear robes. It is a shame
that good Christian people have to hide themselves to do
what our country was founded for....
That nigger-lovin’ Estes Kefauver wouldn’t sign the
referendum (Southern Manifesto); we ought to send that
nigger-lover to Africa....
The National Council of Churches is a Communist front
organization. Bishop Oxnam, the former president, is under
indictment by the House Un-American Activities Committee as
a Communist....
I’d rather (my little boy) grow up unable to read or write
than sit beside a nigger in school.
Another speaker, standing on the flat bed of a Ford truck, told a Klan
rally that Henry Ford II had given $1,500,000 to the NAACP and that he
(the speaker) would boycott all Ford products until Ford gave an equal
amount to a white supremacy group.[130]
Klan speakers invariably include a thinly veiled threat against
those who seek to upset racial segregation. The Grand Dragon of
South Carolina warned that “the day the Negro steps into a white
South Carolina school as a student will be the day we pick up our
weapons.”[131] A “preacher” told another rally that “moderation has
never been the answer to anything. It’s the extremists--you and me--who
are going to solve this situation.”[132]
The lengths to which Klan “extremists” are willing to go, or more
accurately the depths to which they can descend, is illustrated by an
episode which occurred at Traveler’s Rest in Greenville County which is
in the upper part of the state. On the night of July 21, 1957, eleven
white men broke into the home of Claude Cruell, a moderately prosperous
fifty-eight year old Negro farmer and Baptist deacon. Four of them
proceeded to chain him up and beat him. The others watched. During the
course of the beating, according to Cruell’s wife, Fannie, who was
subsequently driven away several miles from the farm and made to walk
home, the invaders berated the Negro couple for “trying to mix with
white people.”
Specifically, the group was referring to the Cruells’ association
with Sherwood Turner and his family. Turner, a tall, illiterate
thirty-four year old white man who eked out a precarious livelihood as
an itinerant bean picker and handyman, lived with his wife and seven
small children in a nearby house which they rented from Cruell for
five dollars a month. On occasion, the Negro farmer had given Turner
and his family rides in his car to nearby bean fields. On the day of
the beating the Cruells were caring for Turner’s children while the
latter had taken his wife, a thin, anemic woman, to the Stroud Memorial
Hospital at Marietta for emergency treatment for a kidney ailment. The
Turner children, consequently, witnessed the beating of Cruell.
A police investigation led directly to the independent Greenville
County Ku Klux Klan. It was A. Marshall Rochester, head of the
Greenville Klansmen, who led the “inquisitional” party to the Cruell
farm. They had intended to whip not only Cruell but also the pitiful
Mrs. Turner. Rochester openly acknowledged his role in the affair.
Eight of the other men arrested with him not only in connection with
the Cruell beating but also that of another Negro, Willie Lewis Brown,
on July 29th, admitted membership in the Klan; a tenth said that he was
a “probationary” member, and the eleventh identified himself as its
“chaplain.”
The Cruell incident brought an indignant protest from Grand Dragon
Bickley who denounced the Greenville Klansmen. He expressed “great
pleasure” that the incidents of violence in Greenville had been solved
by law enforcement authorities and held that such episodes resulted
“only in harmful effects upon the South and our nation as a whole.” He
carefully pointed out that his own organization had no acts of violence
charged against it and also that it was not on the Attorney General’s
subversive list. “This is due to the fact,” said Bickley, “that in all
our chartered klaverns, the klansmen are taught to respect law and
order.”
When the Klansmen were finally brought to trial after an indictment by
a grand jury all but six were exonerated by Judge James M. Brailsford,
Jr., who ordered charges against them dismissed. The trial jury found
two others innocent. The remaining four, including Rochester, were
found guilty of conspiracy and assault and battery and sentenced to
jail terms ranging from one to six years. Rochester received the
maximum six year sentence from Judge Brailsford who remarked: “I don’t
see that I can accomplish any good by lecturing these men.” He was
undoubtedly right.[133]
The press of the state has universally harrassed the Klan not only in
the Cruell episode but in its other activities as well. The _Morning
News_ referred to the organization as “this blasphemy against religion;
this living curse against decency; this social cancer that pollutes
everyone and every area it touches.” The _Independent_ called the Klan
a “latter-day bedsheet brigade” which appealed only to the “mentally
immature” who had “something to hide.” The _News and Courier_ believed
that it was made up of “hotheads, crackpots and brutes,” who went
“night riding for sport” and did more harm than good for the cause of
segregation.[134]
Not only does the Klan have to contend with a hostile press but it
also faces opposition from the state government. Governor Timmerman
quixotically charged that the reorganization of the Klan was the work
of the Communist Party. In early 1956 the South Carolina Klan applied
for a state charter. Attorney General Callison ruled against this
request on the ground that Klan ritual called for the wearing of robes
and hoods, which was illegal under the state’s anti-masking law.[135]
Previously Callison had joined other Southern attorneys general in a
declaration which pledged joint action to “use every legal means” to
check Klan growth and expose its “secret and unlawful purposes.”[136]
The attorney general’s actions were applauded by the press.
Public support of the Klan is rare. An occasional letter to the editor
has defended the order. The writer of one such letter to the _News and
Courier_, for example, had “never heard of the Klu Klux Klan bothering
anyone who did not need a double-dose of what they got.” Neither had
he ever known of the Klan taking the law into its own hands until “the
law had been notified, and had failed to take action.” Because of the
nature of the Communist conspiracy, he was in “favor of America waking
up” even if the Klan had to do the waking.[137] Another letter writer
to the _News and Courier_, one C. A. Rea of Hamlet, North Carolina,
a town close to the South Carolina border, said that he had attended
several KKK rallies and was sure that Klansmen did “not want any
trouble.” Rea, who concluded his letter with “Yours for Christianity,
segregation, and decency,” praised South Carolina law enforcement
officers “for their fairness and cooperation” at Klan rallies. “They
recognize and respect constitutional rights of peaceful assembly and of
free speech,” he declared.[138]
The other white supremacy groups, nearly all of which had short
existences, were less well known than the Klan. One of these, the
National Association for the Advancement of White People, apparently
had only one chapter in the state. This group was located at Florence
and affiliated with a national organization led by Bryant Bowles who
achieved a fleeting notoriety in connection with his attempts to
prevent school integration in Delaware and Washington, D.C. The NAAWP,
according to its national president, represented the white man’s “last
hope” against the NAACP. He pledged to fight the “trend from communism
to liberalism and then to negroism in the United States.”[139]
The Florence chapter was headed by G. L. Ivey, a restaurant owner, who
fired all of his Negro employees immediately after the Supreme Court
decision of May 17, 1954. The pronouncements of Ivey and Bowles were
similar to those made by some of the more outspoken members of the
Klan. What the Negro really wanted, Ivey told white Carolinians, was
“to get into your front bedroom.” Bowles protested that he was not
anti-Semitic but added “the Jews are fast making me that way” through
their support of the NAACP.[140]
The _Morning News_ condemned the NAAWP as being “at least as
undesirable” as the opposition it proposed to combat--the NAACP.
The _News and Courier_, professing to know little concerning the
organization, was inclined “not to endorse such a movement.”[141] Such
criticism may have discouraged white supremacists elsewhere in the
state from forming NAAWP chapters.
In March, 1955, apparently because of failure of the organization on
both the local and national level, the Florence chapter reconstituted
itself as the Florence County Chapter of the States Rights League.[142]
The States Rights League was another abbreviated attempt to combat
integration. It had a few chapters in lowcountry counties, e.g.
Charleston, Darlington, Florence, but never achieved more than a tiny
numerical strength. Its purposes, though couched in constitutional
terms, were essentially the same as those of other white supremacy
groups. The Darlington chapter of the League, in applying for a state
charter, listed its objectives as follows:
To promote constitutional government, including the
preservation of the independence of the legislative,
executive and judicial departments; the preservation of the
sovereign rights of state government and the preservation
of individual liberties guaranteed by the Federal
Constitution....
To oppose the adoption of socialistic platforms; to
seek in every Christian and legal manner the strongest
opposition to decisions of the Federal Courts and the
Supreme Court, which wrongly abrogated, modified or amended
the provisions of the U. S. Constitution which require a
separation of power between the three great branches of
government....[143]
Spokesmen for the League were more blunt in stating their objectives. A
member of the Darlington chapter declared that the League was seeking
“to preserve Christianity, segregation, states rights and individual
liberties.” The “sole purpose” of the League, announced G. L. Ivey,
was “to maintain segregation.” He urged “every white man and woman”
who believed that segregation provided “the only stable arrangement
for mutual respect and right conduct between the races” to join the
League.[144]
In promoting constitutional government, the Florence County States
Rights League concerned itself with such momentous issues as passing
a resolution demanding the resignation of the Reverend E. L. Byrd, a
Florence Baptist minister, who had advocated “the mixing of the white
and Negro races” in churches. In another equally dramatic action
the League adopted and sent to officials of the Florence County
Agricultural Building a resolution requesting that officials correct
a situation wherein whites and Negroes had to use the same drinking
fountain in the building. This move was taken following a report by a
league member that he had seen a “bunch of little Negro children all
around the white drinking fountain like a swarm of bees around a saucer
of syrup.”[145]
Another of the ephemeral Class B white supremacy groups was the
Grass Roots League of Charleston. President of the League was the
elderly Stanley F. Morse. Though highly vocal, the Grass Rooters were
numerically insignificant. Their method of attack was through the
issuance of “Research Bulletins.” Bulletin No. 2, for example, “proved”
that the NAACP “was infiltrated by the Communist party in 1925.”[146]
Bulletin No. 3 accused the National Council of Churches of distributing
“leftist propaganda” which echoed “the subtle Marxist line that the
South must give up its constitutional States Rights and necessary local
customs in accordance with the Supreme Court’s left-wing segregation
ruling.” This Bulletin was prepared by the League’s Religious Affairs
Committee whose chairman, Micah Jenkins, was later to become president
of the state Citizens Council organization.[147]
The purpose of the Grass Roots League, as stated by its president, was
to combat the “threat to the continued existence of our free American
Republic,” a threat which resulted from the Supreme Court’s segregation
ruling. Various facets of this threat included the “Communist
aim” of weakening “America’s constructive white civilization by
mongrelization;” the attempt of the Supreme Court to seize legislative
powers and destroy the principle of States Rights; the Supreme Court’s
surrender to “political expediency” in cooperating with the Eisenhower
administration’s “unscrupulous effort to win the Negro vote;” and “the
cowardly reluctance of too many Southern businessmen, newspapers,
radio stations, etc.,” to support resistance to “the black phases
of the Red revolution.” Almost two years later, in February, 1957,
Morse further expounded his views on the integration controversy in a
letter to the editor of the _News and Courier_: “In brief the racial
issue is political and biological--not religious. Since it is promoted
by the atheistic Reds, it is anti-Christian. If the pro-Negro drive
of the Communists succeeds, our United States may be wiped out and
Christianity may receive a terrible setback. It is incredible that many
clergymen and other ‘intellectuals’ are so unfamiliar with the laws of
God (natural laws) and the facts of history that they have been duped
into participating in this pagan attack on our civilization.”[148]
Still another transitory organization combatting racial equality was
the American Educators, Incorporated, with headquarters in Hartsville.
The American Educators apparently consisted of little more than their
president, George W. Waring, who was connected with other similar
groups, notably the States Rights League. Chartered in August, 1955,
the American Educators sought to instruct the public to “the dangers
of the communistic, socialistic, left wing, and modernistic trends to
destroy Christianity and other religious faiths, the Constitution of
the United States, individual liberties, high morals and self respect.”
President Waring favored the application of economic pressures against
“all members and sympathizers of the NAACP as well as any other
communist-dominated organizations.”[149]
The Federation for Constitutional Government with headquarters in New
Orleans is a “national” coordinating organization for white resistance
groups. It has affiliates in South Carolina, notably among the Citizens
Councils. The Federation was organized in December, 1955, in Memphis,
Tennessee, by representatives from twelve Southern and border states
and a sprinkling of delegates (self-appointed) from other states. Among
the South Carolinians attending were Micah Jenkins, who was elected
to the Executive Committee of the Federation, and Congressman L.
Mendel Rivers of Charleston, who offered a resolution, adopted by the
Convention, supporting interposition. Present at the Memphis meeting
were many persons prominent in pro-segregation organizations such as
the Citizens Councils and rightist organizations such as We the People
and For America. The motives which brought these elements together,
according to the _News and Courier_, were the same as those which
guided “the founders of our Republic”--“the preservation of rights and
freedoms built on centuries of Anglo-Saxon culture.”[150]
In the development of organized resistance to integration efforts, the
Citizens Council has emerged as the most effective opponent of the
NAACP. The Council was a relatively late comer to the state, first
appearing in the summer of 1955, a full year after the Court’s original
ruling. The “need” for an organization which would rally “moderate”
and “respectable” whites was apparent to many segregationist leaders.
The Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacy groups were unable to
generate anything approaching popular support and furthermore they
represented not particularly desirable white elements. In May, 1955,
Farley Smith, son of the late Senator “Cotton Ed” Smith, complained
of the “apathy of the average white citizen” toward pro-segregation
movements and urged establishment of a white counterpart of the NAACP.
Smith, S. Emory Rogers, the Summerton attorney who helped argue the
Clarendon school case, and others recognized the Council as the answer
to the undermining of segregation by the NAACP. The _News and Courier_,
too, believed that the Citizens Council might succeed in steadying the
shaking “foundations of the Republic” by providing leadership of the
type which was “sorely needed” in the “uncertain times” of 1955.[151]
The Citizens Council idea originated in Indianola, Mississippi, where
the first Council was formed in July, 1954. The movement spread
rapidly throughout the South. In the late summer of 1955 Thomas R.
Waring of the _News and Courier_ wrote a series of articles on the
Mississippi Councils to acquaint South Carolinians as to their nature
and purpose with a view to encouraging the creation of similar groups
in the state. He reported that the Councils proposed “to preserve
separation of the races” against the combined assaults of the NAACP
and the federal government. At the same time they allegedly were
dedicated to the protection of rank and file Negroes “from the wrath
of ruffian white people.” Membership in the Councils, said Waring, was
recruited from “private, patriotic citizens,” who were the “pillars of
the community.” Council members were citizens who “run the Chamber of
Commerce and the Community Chest, serve as officers of churches and
do the civic chores in every town worthy of the name.” Meeting the
criticism of liberals both in the North and the South, Waring stated
that Council leaders were “in no sense the architects of an American
Fascist movement.” On the contrary, they were “firm supporters of
the Republic and Jeffersonian democracy.” The Councils screened all
potential members carefully “for character and dependability, as well
as for their determination to keep the races separate,” and accepted
only those who could be trusted with “the powers of organized civic
righteousness.”[152]
The aims of the Citizens Council do not, in fact, differ particularly
from those of other white supremacy groups; in its methods, however,
the Council places greater emphasis on economic pressure, legal
resistance and respectability. Its members wear business suits instead
of bedsheets. In 1956 the State Legislature adopted a resolution
commending the Citizens Councils in South Carolina as organizations
designed
to preserve and maintain proper relations between all races
residing in the State of South Carolina; to oppose the use
of force by radicals and reactionaries; to disseminate
information concerning radicals and reactionaries who may
attempt to disrupt the peace and good relations among the
races; to make every legal and moral effort to maintain
the segregated public schools of the state; to study and
develop ways and means for providing adequate education for
children of all races in the State of South Carolina in the
event that radical agitators should force the abandonment
of the public schools; to operate segregated public
schools by agreement between the races on a voluntary
basis; to acquaint public officials without the State of
South Carolina with the conditions in our State which
make integration impossible; to acquaint such officials
with the fact that the vast majority of the citizens of
our State, both white and colored, favor the continuance
of segregation in the public schools as now exists; to
continue the present American way of life; and for other
eleemosynary purposes.[153]
The emphasis on white supremacy is more apparent in a newspaper
advertisement of the Florence Council soliciting membership. After
describing the organization as the “modern version of the old town
meeting,” it stated that the “Council is the South’s answer to the
mongrelizers. We will not be integrated! We are proud of our white
blood and our white heritage of sixty centuries.” To do battle with the
“mongrelizers” the Council needed “every patriotic white Southerner,
rich or poor, high or low,” who was “proud of being a white American.”
All such persons were urged to join the Council for the protection
of “those baby children at home.”[154] Micah Jenkins, president of
the Charleston Council, said the movement aimed “to promote better
race relations, and in every way preserve for the South its own way
of life.”[155] The Reverend L. B. McCord, the Clarendon County school
superintendent and one of the founders of the Clarendon Council,
justified formation of the Councils on the ground that should an
emergency arise such organizations would be available to give it
“thoughtful and prayerful attention.”[156]
The immediate cause for the rapid growth of the Citizens Councils in
South Carolina was the appearance of the school integration petitions
in the summer of 1955. These petitions served as a catalyst to
crystallize the previously unorganized opposition among whites to
integration. The first Council was formed at Elloree in Orangeburg
County in early August, 1955, immediately following a petition by
Negroes for school integration. From this beginning the Councils spread
rapidly throughout the lowcountry and into several counties in the
upper part of the state. During the first year’s existence, Councils
were formed at the rate of better than one per week so that by July 1,
1956, South Carolina had 55 separate Councils.[157] Only a few have
been added since that date.[158]
In October, 1955, representatives from the various Councils met in
Columbia to lay the foundation for a statewide association. This was
effected in December, 1955. Micah Jenkins, a Charleston nurseryman,
was named state chairman and S. Emory Rogers executive secretary.
Inasmuch as the local Councils were autonomous, the purpose of the
state organization was to give overall coordination and direction to
activities on the state level. The state association had a speakers’
bureau and a legal advisory committee composed of one member from each
of the state’s judicial districts in which at least one Council was
organized. The board of directors was made up of one representative
from each county in which a Council had been organized. Membership
totals were not maintained by the state headquarters but were variously
estimated between 25,000 and 40,000 in the summer of 1956.[159]
The South Carolina Citizens Councils are affiliated with the national
Citizens Councils of America which has headquarters in Greenwood,
Mississippi. The national organization published an official newspaper,
_The Citizens Council_, which had a circulation in early 1957 of
approximately 4,000. In 1957 _The Citizens Council_ ran in serial form
“A Manual for Southerners,” a segregation handbook designed for public
school pupils. That portion designed for third and fourth graders read
in part:
Negroes and white people do not go to the same places
together. We live in different parts of town. And we are
kind to each other. This is called our Southern Way of Life.
Do you know that some people in our country want the
Negroes to live with the white people? These people want us
to be unhappy.... They want to make our country weak....
Do you know what part of our country you live in? You live
in the South.... We are called Southerners. Southerners are
people who live in the South. You are a Southerner. You
live in the South....
God put the white people off by themselves. He put the
yellow, red and black people by themselves. God wanted the
white people to live alone....
White men built America. The Negro came to our country
after the white man did. The white man has always been kind
to the Negro. But the white and black people do not live
together in the South....
[Those who seek integration] say we are not good if we
don’t live together. But we know it is wrong to live
together.... They want to make our country weak. Did you
know our country will grow weak if we mix our races? It
will.[160]
Although this quotation requires no comment either from the standpoint
of logic or historical accuracy, the reaction of Margaretta P. Childs
of Charleston is noteworthy:
Such pontifical judgments [she wrote] may not edify the
third grade pupil for whom they are intended, but will
surely amuse a wide audience all over the country. The
Mississippians’ intimate knowledge, perhaps even complicity
in, the Deity’s intentions will also catch the attention of
the nation’s Biblical scholars and theologians....
Unfortunately for the school child, if he learns any
history or geography he may be more perplexed than
confirmed in a fine old Saxon interpretation of divine
will. If God wanted the white man ‘to live alone’, why did
He send the white man across the ocean to trespass on the
lands of the red men or to make long voyages to settle
among the dark-skinned people of Africa and Asia?
The pamphlet in its ‘simple, easy-to-read style’ will
not fool the children for long and will furnish lots of
jokes to observers of the Southern scene. Too bad that H.
L. Mencken, keenest critic of bigotry, false sentiment,
and hypocrisy, is not around to enjoy and lampoon this
latest tasteless expression of the cracker mentality. The
intellectual bankruptcy of the die-hard segregationists is
clearly shown for those who have eyes to see and ears to
hear.[161]
Local Councils maintain several committees, each charged with specific
functions. An information and education committee is assigned to
gather and disseminate information on racial problems on all levels. A
committee on politics and elections has the responsibility of studying
candidates for political office and presenting their qualifications
to the voters. A membership and finance committee seeks to enlist
“all patriotic white citizens for membership” and thus assure the
organization of support. Membership fees are generally set at $5.00. A
legal advisory committee provides “legal knowledge” to the Council in
its fight against integration.[162] Some of the Councils are organized
on a countywide basis while others correspond to a local school
district.
The Citizens Councils have quickly endeavored to make their influence
felt in the political arena. Although the state organization declares
that it will “steer clear of partisan politics,” it nonetheless exerts
direct political pressure. Using its power “for principles, not
persons; for causes, not individuals,” the state Council makes sure
that all candidates hold orthodox views on the race question. The aim
is not so much to endorse particular candidates but to insure that all
are “safe.” As the _News and Courier_ noted, the Council aimed “to give
support to strong officials and put backbone into weak ones.”[163]
In the state elections of 1956 the Council submitted to the candidates
a list of questions designed to detect any deviation from orthodoxy on
the race issue. The most revealing of these asked: “Do you here and
now promise not to seek the Negro vote directly or indirectly?”[164]
A joint statement in reply to the queries by five of the six members
of the state’s delegation to the House of Representatives--L. Mendel
Rivers, John J. Riley, W. J. Bryan Dorn, Robert J. Ashmore and John L.
McMillan--reflected the attitudes of South Carolina politicians. Said
the representatives:
We believe continued segregation to be in the best interest
of South Carolina and the United States. Our country is
threatened from abroad and from within by an atheistic
menace which will stoop to any methods to create unrest and
disunity. South Carolina’s record of tolerance, patriotism
and understanding is second to that of no other state. It
is far superior to that of some other states which spawn
the chief critics of our way of life and harbor fugitives
from justice.
There are in South Carolina many patriotic colored citizens
who are not misled by outside agitation and who are working
at the local level with our white citizens to solve this
complex problem.
The votes of such Negroes, continued the congressmen, would and should
be welcomed by all South Carolina politicians.[165]
Political leaders, the state press and other moulders of public opinion
endorse the Citizens Council in its role as spokesman for “the Southern
way of life.” Indicative was the appearance of Senators Thurmond and
Johnston, Representatives Rivers and Riley, former Governor Byrnes,
State Representative Burnet R. Maybank, Jr., and others of less
political note at a Council rally held in Columbia. Senator James O.
Eastland of Mississippi, the principal speaker, told his audience that
the Supreme Court decision had been “dictated by political pressure
groups bent upon the destruction of the American system of government
and bent upon the mongrelization of the white race.” In making the
decision, the Court had “responded to a radical pro-communist political
movement.” Senator Thurmond commended the Councils for the “orderly and
lawful manner” in which they had approached the “problem” created by
the Supreme Court decision.[166]
Among the state press, the _News and Courier_ has become a sort of
unofficial organ for the Councils. The Charleston paper presents these
organizations as “moderate and sound” in approach and representative
of a “deep public sentiment” against integration. To the _News and
Courier_ the movement is evidence that the South has “not shrunk
from revolution and rebellion,” words which were “honorable” when
the cause was just.[167] The _Record_ endorses the Councils but the
_Independent_, reflecting upcountry distrust of lowcountry domination
of the Councils, expresses little interest in the movement.
Scattered opposition has developed amongst the South Carolina white
population to the Councils. Initially, the _Morning News_ mildly
condemned them, stating that their appearance was “tacit admission”
that the NAACP occupied a position of superiority in the segregation
controversy.[168] Stronger protest has come from the South Carolina
Methodist Church. In a statement adopted at its annual conference in
1955--before the Citizens Councils had consolidated their position in
the state--the Methodist leaders condemned the movement. They noted
that “it is properly supposed that these councils are being formed
for the express purpose of exerting economic pressure upon a portion
of our citizenry to prevent the exercise and development of their
moral conscience and their civil rights according to the dictates
of their consciences.” Such action, declared the Methodists, was a
“contradiction of the basic teachings of our Lord and Master.”[169] The
national executive council of the AFL-CIO has approved a report that
contained an especially strong condemnation of the Councils. The labor
leaders referred to them as “this new Ku Klux Klan without hoods” whose
actions bore “ominous” resemblance “to the pattern of the growth of
Naziism and other totalitarian movements which have fed on hatred and
defied constitutional democracy.”[170] Expressing similar sentiments,
Thurgood Marshall said that “the really vicious part about these
groups” was the creation of an “atmosphere of respectability” in which
other less scrupulous groups could “intimidate, threaten, beat up and
kill Negroes.”[171]
The principal method used by the Citizens Councils in opposing
integration is the economic boycott. This policy, which belies
professed reliance on constitutional forms of opposition, has been
employed from the very beginning. Leaders of the Elloree Council
declared their immediate purpose was to exert “economic pressure on all
persons connected with the NAACP.” Specifically, these spokesmen were
referring to the seventeen Negro parents who had signed the petition
seeking the end of race discrimination in Elloree public schools. The
effectiveness of the policy was indicated within two weeks following
the formation of the Council. Several Negro petitioners lost their jobs
or were peremptorily evicted from their farms as a consequence of which
fourteen of them asked that their names be removed because they “did
not fully understand the meaning of the language of the petition” at
the time of their signature.[172]
The overall object of the economic boycott has been to discourage
all persons sympathetic to the idea of integration. Because of their
generally inferior economic status, Negroes are especially vulnerable
to such pressures. In areas where the boycott has been invoked any
Negro who did not support segregation could expect to find business and
personal credit withheld, home mortgages and installment loans denied,
employment terminated or refused, rental quarters barred to him, and
business and professional patronage withdrawn.
The city of Orangeburg provides an excellent study of the way in which
the economic boycott operates. Located about fifty miles southeast
of Columbia, Orangeburg had a population in 1950 of approximately
15,000. It is the county seat of Orangeburg County, a predominantly
agricultural area the population of which is approximately fifty
percent Negro. The white population of Orangeburg had always considered
the city a model of “biracial amity, interracial cooperation, and
educational progress.”[173] This attitude prevailed until fifty-seven
Negroes petitioned for public school integration in the summer of
1955. The white citizenry was stunned by this action, considering it
a breach of good faith on the part of the Negro parents. Reaction was
instantaneous. A Citizens Council was organized which immediately
began a policy of economic pressure against the petitioners. A number
of prominent businessmen joined the boycott and several Negro retail
merchants among the petitioners found their supply of such basic
commodities as bread and milk curtailed. White merchants refused
to extend credit to the petitioners and asked that all outstanding
accounts be settled immediately. The white community terminated
financial assistance that had previously been available to petitioners.
Negro leaders, realizing that economic pressure was a two-edged
sword, immediately began retaliating in kind against those merchants
prominent in the Citizens Council boycott. Since Negroes represented
approximately fifty percent of Orangeburg’s population, their counter
boycott was of considerable proportion and keenly felt by many white
merchants. A boycott list of twenty-three local firms was distributed
among the Negro community. It included only the more outspoken of
the white boycott leaders and those most dependent on Negro trade.
According to _Reporter_ magazine, at least one white retail merchant
was put out of business.
More positive steps were also taken to aid the Negro boycott victims. A
fund, eventually reaching approximately $50,000, was deposited in the
Victory Savings Bank, a Negro institution in Columbia, and was made
available for small loans to Orangeburg Negroes. This fund included
$20,000 donated by the NAACP, $5,000 deposited by an unidentified
Catholic church, and $5,000 deposited by the National Council of
Churches. The Negroes cooperated among themselves in other ways to help
make their counter-boycott effective.
Accompanying the two-sided economic boycott was a general breakdown
in race relations. To a suggestion by Negro ministers that they hold
joint prayer services to help solve the problem, the white ministerial
alliance of Orangeburg replied, “This is not the time” for praying
together.
Boycott and counter-boycott reached an impasse and in the spring of
1956 both sides realized the desirability for compromise. The whites
made several concessions, notably the resignation of Council Chairman
W. T. C. Bates who had been largely responsible for the extreme
position taken by the whites. With both sides easing up on the economic
boycott, there was a general lessening of tension. However, neither
side would compromise the basic issue. Negro parents continue to demand
an end to school segregation (the number of petitioners was reduced by
the boycott from fifty-seven to twenty-six); whites continue to stand
adamantly against ending school segregation.[174]
An important incident in the Orangeburg controversy was the protest
against intimidation by the student body and certain faculty members of
the State Agricultural and Mechanical College for Negroes. The college
is the only state supported institution of higher education for Negroes
in South Carolina. Its presence in Orangeburg gives the local Negro
community an unusually well educated and effective leadership. Several
of the faculty members were at least sympathetic to the policies of
the NAACP. The anti-segregation sentiment of these and other persons
prominently connected with the college brought a request from Rep.
Jerry M. Hughes, Jr. of Orangeburg for an investigation of NAACP
activities among the faculty and students. Consequently in March 1956
the state legislature approved a resolution establishing a nine-member
committee to determine which individuals at the college were “members
of and sympathizers with” the NAACP; the extent of participation of the
faculty and students in the activities of the NAACP; whether or not the
faculty and students were “serving to mislead the Negro citizens and
foment and nurture ill feeling and misunderstanding between the White
and Negro races;” and if the activities of the faculty and students
were “detrimental to the welfare of the college, its students and the
State of South Carolina as a whole.” The resolution described the
NAACP as an organization dedicated to the “fomenting and nurturing
of a bitter feeling of unrest, unhappiness and resentment among the
members of the Negro race with their status in the social and economic
structure of the South.”[175]
Following adoption of this resolution, a portion of the student body
and faculty of the college framed its own resolution which condemned
“pressures and attempts at intimidation” being applied to the college
and expressed approval of the policies of the NAACP.[176]
As unrest among the student body grew, Governor Timmerman directed the
State Law Enforcement Division’s attention to “information that certain
subversive elements” might attempt to sponsor a demonstration against
the state government. He directed the law enforcement agency “to keep
the situation under surveillance and to arrest immediately any law
violators.”[177]
These incidents together with the white-Negro boycott then in effect
in Orangeburg led to a protest strike by the student body of the
Negro college. During the strike the students presented President
Benner C. Turner with a list of grievances which protested against the
investigation and the patronage by the college of certain Orangeburg
business firms operated by men prominent in the economic boycott
against Negroes. The strike lasted a week, achieving little for the
students. Fred Moore, student body president and leader of the strike,
was expelled from school. At the end of the year the contracts of
several faculty members were not renewed and some twenty-five students
were requested not to return.[178]
The investigating committee met in July, organized itself and selected
Rep. James H. McFaddin of Clarendon County as chairman. When the
investigation began, committee members were told by the compliant
President Turner that since the student strike had been ended and
several faculty members dismissed, there was no longer anything to
investigate. Consequently after a perfunctory one-day meeting, the
committee held no further hearings.[179]
Use of the economic boycott at Orangeburg and elsewhere has generally
been approved by the press of the state. Its dangers are realized
but the end is considered worth the risk. The _Record_ has compared
the white boycott to Gandhi’s policy of “non-cooperation” (passive
resistance) against the British![180] Not surprisingly the policy
receives its most enthusiastic support from the _News and Courier_:
We would not encourage unfair retaliation against any
citizen, whatever his race, for free expression of opinion.
This is a truly free country and people can say or write
whatever they wish.
In exercising this freedom, people must be ready to
bear the consequences. If those consequences include
unpopularity, public dislike or refusal to do business with
them, they need not be surprised.[181]
On another occasion the _News and Courier_ declared that “Negroes
wishing to engage in activities repugnant to white people are also free
to earn a living elsewhere.” To secure employment in the South, Negroes
should be willing “to observe community customs.”[182]
The policies of the Citizens Council at least temporarily have been
successful inasmuch as they have postponed an immediate showdown on the
school segregation issue. Just how long such unofficial measures will
continue to be successful is problematical.
CHAPTER V
THE BROTHERHOOD OF SEGREGATED MEN
The ministers to our forefathers had the Bible,
but not Socialism; and for them segregation
was compatible with Christianity. Our modern
ministers have the Bible and Socialism; and
for them segregation is incompatible with
Christianity. The only difference is Socialism.
The Bible hasn’t changed; and, if Socialism is
omitted, segregation and Christianity are still
compatible.--_S. Emory Rogers_
During the 1850’s the church provided one of the bulwarks in the
Southern defense of slavery. In that decade pro-slavery theologians
prepared elaborate treatises “proving” slavery divinely authorized.
The 1950’s finds the churches of South Carolina dangerously close to
taking a similar position--only this time on segregation. Religious
groups of the later period, however, are less unanimous or enthusiastic
in support of “traditional race patterns.” In South Carolina, in fact,
a small number of ministers and laymen have opened the most important
crack in the solid wall of white segregationist sentiment. The
importance of their protest should not be overemphasized; in many cases
it is little more than academic. Protestant church organizations have
given no direct endorsement to the abolition of racial segregation. The
Methodist Church’s condemnation of the use of economic coercion against
Negroes by the Citizens Council has been to date the outstanding
criticism of white supremacy efforts by any Protestant group.
On the national level the church represents perhaps the most segregated
of all public institutions as Reinhold Niebuhr has so well pointed
out. Only a small fraction of church members, even in the North, is
associated with integrated churches. Nonetheless, national church
organizations outside the South have been making rapid progress in
removing all official barriers to church integration. This is also
true of most South-wide church organizations. The Southern Baptist
Convention, the Southern Presbyterian Assembly, and the Southeastern
Jurisdiction of the Methodist Church, for example, have all gone on
record as opposed to segregation based on race. These organizations
are much ahead of their South Carolina affiliates. Many leading
segregationists, who have always considered themselves staunch church
supporters, consequently are caught in a squeeze between church
leadership and their own attitudes toward segregation. This patently
unhappy situation has led some outspoken “Christian segregationists”
to question the church’s taking a stand on the issue. The _News and
Courier_ wistfully hoped “that religion could be held above the
complicated social, political and economic features of the present
debate over race.” It was difficult enough “to fill churches with
worshippers and to insure financial support of religious work” even
when people were not being “alienated by social conflicts.” The
“pressure in the churches” for an end of segregation was “only one of
the symptoms of a sick world” which “plain people, guided by their own
sure instincts, must resist with all their might.”[183]
In the best tradition of the Social Gospel, the _Morning News_
initially took the opposite view, holding that the church certainly
“should become interested in segregation. So long as we limit
ministers to talks of home, mother, God and country,” wrote Editor
Jack H. O’Dowd, “we won’t have a Christian nation, but a nation that
tolerates the seeds of Christian thought and influence.” More churchmen
were needed who were willing “to tie the power of Christianity to
the problems of living.” Yet in less than three months O’Dowd was
criticizing the Reverend Edward L. Byrd of Florence for attacking
segregation. He argued that while segregation could not be justified
“on the basis of Christianity and absolute morality,” it was “easily
defended on the grounds of public good and social expediency.” Religion
was of “greatest benefit” only when its application would “enrich
the people. An immediate application of the theory of segregation’s
immorality would not be a blessing to our Southland.” Disparaging
Byrd’s call for “courageous and Christian leadership” in facing the
problem, the _Morning News_ stated that leadership was neither “a
matter of blowing the bugles of war from the rear” nor “a matter of
leading your people into destruction for a cause being fought the wrong
way at the wrong time.”[184]
Among the various Protestant religious denominations opponents of
integration have been either strong enough to prevent any action
from being taken or able to place the church on record as favoring
a continuation of racial segregation. The Methodist Church provides
perhaps the best example of a division of opinion. In October, 1954,
the annual conference of South Carolina Methodism by a vote of 289
to 148 adopted a resolution stating that the question of racial
integration in the public schools could “best be resolved on the state
or local level.”
It is apparent to us [said the resolution] that an attempt
to integrate the races in our public schools without regard
to their relative numbers would work grave injustice to
many innocent persons, and in the present instance we fear
the Negro would suffer most, as he has often when those
far removed from his every day problems have undertaken to
speak in his name.
Consideration must also be given to the large number of
Negro teachers and administrators in our public schools,
lest they be denied leadership among their people.
To compel a parent, whether white or Negro, to send his
child to school and at the same time to compel the child
to live under conditions which the parents regard to be
detrimental to the highest interest would, in our judgment,
introduce problems of serious import.[185]
The _News and Courier_ applauded this statement as “a strong and
fearless stand,” “a common sense approach,” and “a more truly
Christian attitude than the twisting of ‘equality’ to mean forced
association.”[186]
The following year, however, the Methodist Church’s annual conference
pulled the rug from under its more ardent segregationist friends. On
that occasion the conference officially recorded its opposition to the
Citizens Councils as organizations “formed for the express purpose of
exerting economic pressure.” This statement, introduced by the Reverend
A. McKay Brabham, Jr., of Aiken, and the Reverend J. B. Murray of
Orangeburg County, drew only scattered negative votes.
Reaction throughout the state was almost unanimously hostile. The
Methodists’ resolution, declared the _News and Courier_, “is not
necessarily a full reflection either of the facts or of the sentiments
of most churchmen in South Carolina. It is one thing to regard our
fellowmen as all God’s creatures. It is quite another thing meekly
to submit to pressure against customs and convictions held by our
people these many centuries.”[187] L. B. McCord, a former Presbyterian
minister, thought it “not unChristian to fire or not hire anyone whose
conduct is not wholesome and [does not] contribute to the best interest
in the home or wherever that person may work.”[188] The Kingstree
Methodist Church, in an especially strong condemnation of its parent
body, was still more emphatic. It charged that “too many leaders and
ministers in our Methodist Church have been saturated with propaganda
and even made to have a guilt complex with reference to the question
of integration of the races and have used their high offices as
ministers and writers, though innocently we hope, for the purpose of
disseminating propaganda which we believe is inspired by Communist or
Communist-front organizations.”[189]
The extent of the opposition in some areas to the resolution is well
illustrated by the action of the Reverend J. B. Murray’s congregation
in forcing his removal from his Orangeburg County charge. In announcing
Reverend Murray’s transfer, Dr. Pierce E. Cook, the Orangeburg District
Superintendent for the Methodist Church, stated that the Citizens
Councils were “not as bad” as the resolution implied. The Councils,
he said, were “trying to do something our people in this area are in
sympathy with.”[190]
Another example of pressure on supporters of the resolution was the
case of the Reverend E. S. Jones of St. Paul’s Methodist Church of
Orangeburg. Less than two weeks after adoption of the resolution,
Jones, one of its prominent backers, felt constrained to declare
publicly: “I have from the beginning felt that it was unwise for the
races to be thrown together in the public schools, and I have not
changed from that position. It is my conviction that the Church and its
ministry must always be positively Christian, not only in its ends but
in the ways and means adopted to attain these ends.”[191]
Only the maverick _Morning News_ found any merit in the Methodist
stand. The Conference’s action, wrote Editor O’Dowd, “was proper and
timely ... [and] to be commended.” Segregation extremists, he thought,
would have a hard time labeling this as the action of “communistic and
brainwashed” outsiders.[192]
On the local level several Methodist churches, generally in the
low-country, have exhibited concern about growing integration support
among church elements. The Hemingway Methodist Church adopted a
statement condemning the Supreme Court ruling as “groundless and
defenseless,” an “improper interpretation of the U. S. Constitution”
and an “unholy invasion of State’s Rights.” To place the white and
colored children together in churches and schools would be “to
guarantee the loss of the sense of biological difference” between
the races which would becloud “our fair land with a mongrelized,
second-rate people cancelling five or more centuries of progress.”
Integration was being accomplished “by propaganda and open advocacy
and by the cunning of idea infiltration.” The Methodists of Hemingway
graciously conceded “the Negro to be human just as the white man,
to be a growing citizen and entitled to equal cultural and economic
advantages.” The “mixing” of the races in church and school, however,
should be “allowed to die and remain so forever.”[193]
The Women’s Society of Christian Service of the Kingstree Methodist
Church insisted that “voluntary separation” of the races was no denial
of the “Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Man.” The Society
desired “the advancement of Colored People, but not through the agency
of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.” In
the spirit of humility and soul searching, the ladies resolved that
“we desire to continue to work out our way of worshipping God and
in helping our Colored Brethren to do the same for themselves. All
sections of our great country are not the same, and what is best for
one section may not be best for another. We believe that in the sight
of God we have been working out our problems in a way acceptable to
Him, even though that way be not perfect, perhaps.”
“In some areas of Brotherhood” Church elements favoring integration
were “moving too fast,” continued the Kingstree ladies. “The coming of
the kingdom of God is gradual. We should concentrate on some of our
sins of greed, selfishness, worldliness, etc., before we attempt too
great a change otherwise.”[194]
The Manning Methodist Church adopted a resolution which affirmed belief
in the divine origin of man and the principle that all men “stand on a
spiritual equality.” But the Manning Methodists asserted that “certain
social, economic and cultural factors exist which make it impractical
and undesirable that members of the Negro race be received into and
made a part of this congregation.” Should the South Carolina Methodist
Church adopt a policy of racial integration in its churches, the
Manning Methodists would find it “impractical” to continue connection
with that body.[195]
The closeness of the division of opinion amongst South Carolina
Methodists toward the question of church integration was dramatized at
their annual conference in August, 1957, when by a vote of 287-261 it
was agreed to permit the denomination’s Negro churches to affiliate
with white Methodists where both agreed. Presiding Bishop Nolan B.
Harmon of Charlotte, North Carolina, was careful to point out that
the new course of policy had nothing to do with integration so far as
individuals were concerned and emphasized that no white church was
obliged to take in anyone. J. C. Holler of Columbia, conference lay
reader and one of the authors of the proposal, declared that “the
object of the plan was to take the race issue out of church law.” It
solidified local control as represented by States Rights, he asserted.
But opponents of the proposal thought differently. A Methodist layman,
D. D. Brown of Hemingway, warned that the plan was “a highway to
integration--a sedative to keep us quiet while the integration plan
is put into force.” Such proposals, he added, played into the hands
of “subversives” and would hasten the “mongrelization” of the races.
The Reverend B. Rhett Turnipseed, a retired clergyman from Greenville,
delivered an impassioned speech against the proposal. At the time of
the unification of the Northern and Southern branches of the Methodist
Church, said the Reverend Turnipseed, he was assured by two bishops
that the question of integration within the church would not arise.
“Brethren,” he declared, “I have kept the faith. My position hasn’t
changed.... It is unfortunate at this time for a denomination to
register itself for a paper like this. This is my swan song.”[196]
The Baptist Church, the state’s largest denomination, faced, or
more accurately dodged, the race issue at its annual convention in
November, 1954. The convention received a report from its Social
Service Commission urging Baptists to “protect the public school system
and seek to strengthen it in all possible ways.” Noting that “these
are the times that try men’s souls,” the Commission offered several
“guideposts” for Baptists to follow “in this crisis.” “God’s will”
should be “earnestly and prayerfully” sought. White Carolinians should
recognize and “humbly confess” that “in spite of strenuous efforts, and
because of inherited traditions ... adequate educational opportunities
for all our children” had not been provided in the past. And finally,
Baptist action should be based upon the recognition “of every person
as an individual, precious in the eyes of God.”[197] The Baptists,
by receiving a noncommittal statement of principles rather than in
adopting a formal resolution, deftly sidestepped the issue.
Individual Baptist ministers who have spoken out too strongly against
racial segregation have not been immune to pressure. The most widely
publicized incident involved the Reverend G. Jackson Stafford, pastor
of the Batesburg Baptist Church. The Reverend Stafford’s case was
particularly notable because Federal District Judge George Bell
Timmerman, Sr., and his son, Governor George Bell Timmerman, Jr., were
members of his congregation. Judge Timmerman, who has the hard face
of a Puritan elder, was chairman of the board of deacons. Stafford’s
difficulties arose from his vote in favor of a resolution adopted
by the Southern Baptist Convention endorsing the Supreme Court’s
desegregation decision. As a result, opposition to the minister
rapidly developed within the Batesburg congregation and finally forced
his resignation. With rare courage Stafford refused to renounce his
convictions “regarding Christian race relations.” He charged that his
resignation was made necessary by “several highly placed members of the
Batesburg church playing politics” with religion.[198]
One of the most notable and quoted addresses against integration
by a minister was delivered before the state Baptist conference on
evangelism in 1956 by the Reverend Dr. W. A. Criswell, president of the
Southern Baptist Convention and pastor of the First Baptist Church of
Dallas, Texas. Dr. Criswell told the Carolina evangelists:
That thing [integration] they are trying to ram down our
throats is a thing of idiocy and foolishness. Any man who
says he is altogether desegregated is soft in the head.
I’m a segregationist when it comes to whom my daughter is
going to associate with. I know some white trash I don’t
want my daughter running with.
I’m a segregationist when it comes to the woman I take home
at night. I pick out one, and that one is my wife. We are a
segregated family. We don’t invite everybody to come home
with us. If we did, we would not have a home, and the same
thing applies to the church....
Who is stirring up all this stuff? Is it God’s people or is
it somebody else? I happen to know it is somebody else....
This [resistance to desegregation] is part of the ordeal by
fire. When a true minister stands up and is true to God he
will have to face these pressures. But God will not let us
down.
They may put your feet to the fire, they can cut off your
head, but you can’t quit. You might want to be dead, but
you can’t quit. God has called you and you must go on.
God help us to be absolutely honest and absolutely fearless
in the things we believe, saying with Martin Luther, “Here
I stand, I can do no other.”[199]
The day after delivering this oration, the Reverend Doctor Criswell
was invited to address a joint session of the state legislature. In a
speech similar in tone and content to that quoted above, he told the
solons: “Sometimes you can get broad and liberal and it doesn’t matter
... but there are other things that are precious to you such as whom
are you going to marry and who is it that daughter of yours is going to
marry.”[200]
South Carolina Baptists, of course, are affiliated with the Southern
Baptist Convention. The latter was organized in pre-Civil War days
in protest against abolitionist activities of Northern Baptists.
Now one of the nation’s largest denominational groups, the Southern
Baptists have prospered and spread over most of the country. (The
Convention’s 1957 annual meeting, for example, was held in Chicago.)
In recent years the Convention has wandered further and further
away from the “traditional Southern viewpoint” on race relations,
especially since the 1954 Supreme Court decision. The Convention’s
action in forthrightly condemning racial segregation and approving
the Court decision has placed South Carolina Baptists in a quandary.
Increasingly local churches and church groups have been prone to
criticize the national Convention. Shortly after the 1957 Convention’s
condemnation of racial segregation the congregation of the First
Baptist Church of Orangeburg, one of the largest in the state, passed
a resolution offered by its Laymen’s Class which not only criticized
the Convention’s action but declared that “if such practices are
continued by the Southern Baptist Convention it will be for the best
interest of the Baptist Churches of the South to withdraw from the
so-called Southern Baptist Convention and organize an association with
churches” which favor racial segregation. Baptist churches in Olar,
Denmark, Manning, Sumter, Andrews and Branchville adopted similar
resolutions.[201]
South Carolina Episcopalians, who have a central jurisdiction for both
white and Negro churches, took a wavering stand on the segregation
issue at their 166th annual convention in 1956. By a vote of 94 to
43 they resolved “that there is nothing morally wrong in a voluntary
recognition of racial differences and that voluntary alignments can be
both natural and Christian.” The resolution continued that it was “the
sense of this convention that the integration problem caused by the
Supreme Court decision of 1954 as it applies to the Episcopal Church
should not be characterized as Christian or un-Christian, by reason of
the fact that it is either inter-racial or non-inter-racial. In such
choices, Christians may wisely exercise personal preference.”[202]
In adopting this resolution, the convention rejected “by a large
majority in a voice vote” a substitute resolution that would have
urged Episcopalians “to employ at diocesan and parochial levels a
strong degree of calmness and mutual toleration and respect for
disagreement.”[203]
The endorsement of voluntary segregation by South Carolina
Episcopalians was scathingly denounced by _The Living Church_, official
organ of the national Protestant Episcopal Church. Comparing the
resolution to the “Aryan Paragraph” which Hitler attempted to force on
all German churches, _The Living Church_ declared that “Christians do
not have the right to exercise personal preference to keep other people
out of the church.... It is one thing to be gentle and understanding
about sin; it is another thing to pass resolutions commending sin on a
‘voluntary’ basis ... open church membership is a first principle of
Christianity. When the church door is closed to a man because of his
race, a sin has been committed. When the church says that it is all
right for this to be done a heresy has been enunciated.”[204]
The intensity of opposition of many Episcopalians to integration is
illustrated by a resolution adopted by Episcopal women’s groups of
Sumter, Kingstree, Summerton, Statesburg, and Hagood. In fulfillment
of what they considered to be their duty “to see that those in
high offices in our government are not influenced by Communist
doctrines,” these women, whose mastery of dialectical materialism
might legitimately be questioned, pointed out for all to know that
integration was “a plan of the Communist Party,” a party which
acknowledged “no God except Communism.”[205]
The most overtly pro-segregation religious group in South Carolina is
the Southern Methodist Church, made up of those Methodists who had
refused to agree to the union of the Northern and Southern branches of
Methodism in the 1930’s. Headed in 1955 by the Reverend Lynn Corbit
of Bowman, it is relatively small numerically, comprising but three
conferences in the entire state. In 1955 the Southern Methodists
stated their position in the following terms: “The Southern Methodist
Church stands for continued racial segregation in the schools, state
and federal installations of all kinds, churches, and all ways of
life where it has always been practiced. We wish further to go on
record approving any law-abiding organization that has as its aims the
upholding of segregation in a peaceful manner.”[206]
In the _News and Courier_, a member of the Southern Methodists, S.
J. Summers, Jr., of Cameron, described his church as being composed
of “a dauntless group of congregations” which believed “ardently in
the rightness of the Southern Way of Life” and “in the kinship of
mankind under God but with the separations and differences He Himself
instituted and established.” He noted Southern Methodism’s belief that
“the Bible teaches of the decay and ultimate destruction of nations as
the inevitable outcome of decadent faith and mongrelized bloods.”[207]
Other denominations have been less outspoken in their views.
Presbyterians simply have continued their policy of segregation in
churches and educational institutions.[208] In Summerton, the late
Reverend Henry Rankin, Northern-born and Princeton-educated, was one of
the most active members of the Citizens Council. He sought to impress
Negroes “about the fallacy of trying to get their rights by going to
court.” Other Presbyterian ministers, as will be noted later, have
upheld the Court’s decision as being in line with the basic concepts
of Christianity. An unofficial Lutheran position was presented by H.
Odelle Harman, Lexington School Superintendent and delegate to the 1956
biennial convention of the national Lutheran church. In opposing a
resolution commending integration, Harman told the convention:
The Lutheran Church in South Carolina will not integrate.
Resolutions of the kind before us, then, can only serve
to hinder the progress and mission of our great church
and undo much of that which has been done in the South to
promote good will and better relations between the two
races.... The Christian church has done much to bring about
the confusion and bitterness that we are experiencing in
our racial relations in America today.... I do not believe
that segregation is basically a religious question.[209]
Among religious groups only the Catholics have given endorsement to
the Court decision and to the integration efforts of Negroes. The
missionary South Carolina Catholic Church has held that there is no
segregation before God; therefore, there should be none in the church.
The attitude was given tangible expression by the enrollment of five
Negro and 29 white pupils in St. Anne’s parochial school in Rock Hill
in the 1954-55 term, the only example of school integration in South
Carolina.[210] The Catholics, however, did not desegregate their other
schools or hospitals. The number of Catholics in the state is small and
only a tiny percentage of their membership is Negro.
Individual ministers frequently address themselves to the race issue.
Several condemn segregation as contrary to Christian teachings
concerning the brotherhood of man, though a much larger number holds
the continuation of segregation desirable. The Reverend Gaston Boyle,
a Presbyterian minister from John’s Island, declared that segregation
was “totally dependent upon the theory of a ‘superior race,’” a concept
which could not “be supported by science, Scripture, or any other
fact” and hence had to be upheld “by half-truths, misquotes and unjust
insinuations.” Dr. Carl Pritchett, pastor of the First Presbyterian
Church of Anderson, considered desegregation “not a troublesome
problem but a period of painful democratic growth.”[211] The Reverend
Edward L. Byrd, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Florence, was
especially outspoken. The decision of the Supreme Court, he said, was
“fundamentally right” and “doubtless legally correct.” Answering those
who used the Bible as authority for perpetuation of segregation, he
declared that “anyone who seeks shelter in the Bible for his racial
prejudice or his defense of segregation is walking on thin ice and
takes a position that cannot be soundly defended.” According to the
Reverend Byrd “no honest scholar and no honest minister can find
grounds for racial segregation in the Bible.” The Reverend Fred V.
Poag, pastor of the Shandon Presbyterian Church in Columbia, expressed
a similar view: “There is but one position for a Christian. I believe
the Church must be open to all regardless of color.”[212]
Clergymen endorsing segregation find it perfectly compatible with the
fundamental teachings of Christianity. The Reverend J. M. Lane, pastor
of the Tabernacle Baptist Church of Orangeburg, declared, “I think the
Bible teaches segregation and I believe it is the best for both races.
I feel that the work of the Citizens Councils, without violence and
force, is the Christian method of dealing with the move by the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People to force integration
in the public schools.”[213] The Reverend L. B. McCord of Clarendon
feared “mongrelization.” “Some people feel that segregation is a
sin,” he declared. “That isn’t true. Integration of the races would
definitely be sinful.” The Reverend J. J. Patrick, a retired Methodist
minister of Ruffin, stated that the South desired segregation “because
the best white and colored people believe in God and the Bible.”
Writing in the _News and Courier_, he declared,
We were all living in peace and contentment until that old
serpent, the devil, that beguiled Adam and Eve to disobey
God and eat the forbidden fruit, led the NAACP to scatter
propaganda down here and a few (big heads) were beguiled to
follow their teachings....
They [the politicians] with the communists and the NAACP,
with some of the socialist preachers, influenced the U. S.
Supreme Court Judges to try to nullify the Constitution and
force us to consolidate the schools and place our little
children in classes with Negro children, contrary to God’s
law.
God created the different races and set their bounds and
habitation. God commanded, demanded and taught segregation
from the Flood right on down until the Bible was
written....[214]
The aged and gravel-voiced Dr. Bob Jones, fundamentalist par
excellence, founder of the Bob Jones University in Greenville, and
one of the state’s best known Baptist clergymen, objected to making
segregation a Christian issue when Christianity was not involved.
Like Patrick, he said that any plan for “the intermingling of the
races” was the work “of the devil.” The Christian educator criticized
“agitators from outside the South and demagogue politicians” who
were “only interested in the colored vote.” Christians of both races
should “tell the folks who come in with all this foreign influence
to get back where they came from.”[215] In like manner, the Reverend
Edward B. Guerry, Rector of the lowcountry St. James’ and St. John’s
Episcopal Parishes, denounced the Supreme Court desegregation decision
as “unrealistic,” “unfortunate,” and conducive to “discord, confusion,
and ... sharp conflict” among the American people. Integration would
simply “deepen” any “sense of inferiority” the Negro might have. The
rector did not believe it was “in keeping with the mind of our Lord
Jesus Christ to force the Kingdom of God on people either by judicial
edict, or legislative action, or ecclesiastical pressure.”[216] Still
another proponent of segregation, the Reverend E. R. Mason, a retired
Columbia Methodist cleric, decried integrationist assaults on “those
institutions that we must have or we perish,” e.g., “God, your church,
home and schools.” Integration’s “true motive,” he declared, was
“infiltrating the Black race into the White race.”[217] The Reverend
M. A. Woodson of the Bethel Baptist Church of Olanta told the Lake
City Citizens Council that the connection between the Communists and
the NAACP had been “conclusively established.” The Citizens Councils,
he said, were the right hands in the fight for constitutional
government and states rights. “We must strive to leave our children a
constitutional form of government and a segregated society that works
in harmony.”[218]
Pro-segregation clergymen have not evolved a systematic theological
basis for defense of their position. Rather each minister has developed
his own. Sermons and statements upholding traditional Southern race
patterns abound with quotations of Biblical authority. In a sermon that
might well have been delivered in the 1850’s in defense of slavery,
Dr. E. E. Colvin, pastor of the Immanuel Baptist Church of Orangeburg,
asserted that
... the Old Testament scriptures recognize the existence of
things as they are. We find that also in the New Testament.
Jesus did not attempt to change or reform society in his
day by the use of force. There was slavery in his day.
There were many other civil and social ills in his day but
never did Jesus attempt to use force or advocate force. In
the centuries that have passed since then the teachings of
Jesus have brought to pass tremendous changes.
Paul sent Onesimus, the slave, back to his former owner,
Philemon. Paul didn’t write to Philemon and say, “You have
no right to own this man.” Not at all. Paul respected the
law and the right to private property back in that day.
In the New Testament we find instructions given to slaves
and to masters telling them what to do. “Servants, be
obedient unto them that according to the flesh are your
Masters, and ye masters do the same things unto them, and
forbear threatening; knowing that He who is both their
Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no respect of
persons with Him.” Ephesians 6:5,9.
We find no attempt whatever to overthrow slavery suddenly
and by force. “Let each man abide in that calling wherein
he was called. Wast thou called being a bondservant? Care
not for it: nay, even if thou canst become free, use
it rather. For he that was called in the Lord being a
bondservant, is the Lord’s freeman: likewise, he that was
called being free, is Christ’s bondservant. Ye were brought
with a price; abide with God.” I Corinthians 7:20-24. The
light of the Scriptures shows that we know by experience,
that social changes take time.
The solution offered by the Doctor was for “our Negro friends” to
“listen to reason and continue the practice of segregation on a
voluntary basis” so that “peace and harmony” might prevail. Should “the
spirit of hatred” induce them to seek integration, they would create
a condition which would “do as much damage in the long run as the War
Between the States did a hundred years ago.”[219]
Similar opinions are frequently expressed by others--from both the
clergy and laity. In a letter to the editor of the _Independent_,
James B. Davis of Anderson found scriptural sanction for opposition to
integration in Leviticus 19:19: “Ye shall keep my statutes, Thou shalt
not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind, thou shalt not sow thy
field with a mingled seed.” Citing this authority he wrote: “Oh yes,
we are careful about our pure cattle, poultry, dogs, etc., but we have
advocates in our government who would crossbreed the people, whom God
has put definite marks of color, build and features into, for their own
glory. I have seen a few half breed Negro and white, that is mingled
seed, and God pity an unfortunate child that must face the world a
bastard, with a mingled color in his skin and hair. And he is a bastard
because God has designated nations and languages, and directed us to
go to our father’s people for a husband or wife.” Davis felt that the
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution was a “malignant growth on a
righteous document.” The Constitution should never have been amended.
“Like our Holy Bible, it was good enough” in its original form.[220]
Another letter writer, Margaret L. Bostwick of Charleston, believed
that a cardinal message of the Bible was “that Israel--ALL Israel,
not just Judah” had been punished and was still being punished “for
having disobeyed the many severe injunctions against the mixing of
races.”[221] Similarly Lawrence Neff of Atlanta noted in the _Morning
News_ that “even the very elect may sometimes be deceived, or deceive
themselves.” According to Neff, “Jesus was the most consistent and the
most inflexible segregationist the world has ever known.” As “proof”
he asserted that Jesus, “in commissioning the 12,” had said to them,
“Go not to the Gentiles and into any city of the Samaritans enter
not....”[222]
Similar statements, indeed, have been legion. An unsigned article in
the _News and Courier_ editorial page reminded readers that Jesus
“advised all Christians to seek contentment, rather than advancement,
no matter where Providence had placed them.” Such advice, intimated the
article, might well be followed by Negroes seeking integration.[223]
Echoing these sentiments and adding a few twists of his own, E. Robert
Rowell, a “Lay Reader” of the Trio Methodist Church, declared that
it was “against God’s divine will for the races to be destroyed by
intermarriage and the bearing of offspring by such marriages.” In
the segregation fight, thought Rowell, the end justified the means
because God’s will was at issue. For this reason he gave unqualified
endorsement to such practices as economic boycotts and pressures not
only “against the Negroes who sign desegregation petitions or who are
members of the NAACP,” but also against “those who are in sympathy
with such people.” He favored refusal by his church “to receive or
support any minister who believes in the false doctrine of mixing the
races.”[224]
Others, too, were concerned with showing God’s approval of segregation.
A close study of the Bible, declared the Right Reverend A. S. Thomas,
a retired Episcopal Bishop of Wadmalaw, revealed a “plain implication”
that segregation was not only consistent with brotherly love but had
been ordained by the “appointment of God.” Anyone who attempted to
“facilitate and expedite the amalgamation of the Negro race with other
races” might well be “frustrating a great purpose of God.” Racial
segregation _per se_ was in no wise unChristian. Its unChristian
aspects were due to “man’s fallen nature, not to segregation itself.”
Integration would please only unnamed leaders of the nation who wished
“to appease atheistic Communism.”[225]
If God approved segregation, then logically integration was the work
of the devil. Mrs. Edna M. Smith of Charleston blamed the integration
drive with its “fear, confusion and despair” on “Satan” who was
“using all these weapons to gain more power, because he knows his
power is coming to an end and he wants to take all that he can with
him when he goes down into destruction and death.” The Reverend Paul
M. Pridgen, pastor of the First Baptist Church of North Charleston,
announced that “there is no room in Heaven for the NAACP or any other
organization that stirs up race hatred.” The _News and Courier_ took
issue with Dr. Norman Vincent Peale’s statement that heaven was
“completely unsegregated.” No one knew “for sure” what heaven would
be like, declared the _News and Courier_, since “no eye-witness” had
returned “to give us the direct word.” However whites were reassured:
“Surely in Heaven there will be no compulsory sharing by incompatible
elements.”[226] Apparently _someone_ had returned and had imparted this
information to the _News and Courier_.
On occasion, a voice of protest has been raised against the use of
religion as a justification for segregation. The _Morning News_
attacked the statement by a candidate for the State House of
Representatives who had said that if God had intended for the races
to be mixed he would have made all people the same color. “Using the
same syllogism,” said the paper, “it could be argued that if God had
intended for people to wear clothes, people would be born clothed; or
if God intended for people to ride, they would be born with wheels
rather than feet.”[227] A similar protest came from a Charleston
non-conformist. How long, asked H. B. Clark, would the South fail
to see “that any denial of a fellow human’s rights” constituted “a
violation of Christ’s supreme commandment that we love our neighbor as
ourselves?”[228]
The _News and Courier_ has leveled some of its most bitter editorial
blasts at those church leaders and groups who have taken a stand
against segregation.[229] The attitude of this paper is a clear
indication that leading segregation spokesmen recognize in the
church a potential and powerful defaulter from the solid front
against desegregation. In seeking to counteract clerical criticism
of segregation, the _News and Courier_ editorials constantly have
advised church leaders to steer clear of such a controversial issue
as race segregation. According to these strictures, segregation is
right and desirable, and something for which no Southerner has to be
apologetic. “To upset time-honored balances that keep the peace” would
be both wrong and scandalous. Attempting to dispose of the moral and
psychological implications of racism, the _News and Courier_ insists
that Southern whites should entertain no sense of guilt in connection
with segregation policies. “It was God who created people with
different physical characteristics. Who is to say that the races He
created separate and distinct should now be scrambled?” If separation
on the basis of race were sinful, so was separation by faiths and
creeds. The trouble was that “well-meaning reformers” were confusing
“religious principles with individual social customs.” “Just as morals
are not meant to be observed only on Sunday, social customs also
operate seven days a week.”
The mounting criticism of segregation from non-Southern religious
sources, particularly from the National Council of Churches, is
especially resented in South Carolina. Such ill based criticism,
asserted the _News and Courier_, constituted a part of the general
assault on “the three bulwarks of American decency ... the church,
the school and the home.” Those who engaged in such criticism might
themselves be guilty of religious bigotry. “No church” had “sole
possession of the last word either in religious faith or moral
rectitude.” God had not yet revealed His “precise purpose” in creating
people with different racial characteristics. In more ominous tones,
the _News and Courier_ declared “well-meaning” but “misguided”
religious leaders were treading “on dangerous ground in pointing
critical fingers at an entire region’s social structure.” Southerners
would “fight and die” for the freedom “to pick their own associates.”
The _News and Courier_ has suggesed a complete renunciation by the
church of all interest in the race issue. “Those of the white clergy
who have been busily promoting the mixture of the races,” it asserted,
could better serve their congregations by returning “to the religious
and moral aspects of their high calling and leave sociological and
psychological politics to the politicians.” Concurrently, if the Negro
clergy “would devote more time to inspiring their flocks to improve
their morals, and less to inciting them to get in with the white folks,
they would be performing a better service for their people.”
That these attitudes are popular among South Carolinians of all
stations is illustrated by the fact that on frequent occasions they
have been heartily endorsed in letters to the editor. As a case in
point Archibald Rutledge, poet laureate of South Carolina, viewed “with
misgiving the church’s stupid attitude toward segregation.” He regarded
the _News and Courier’s_ policy as “so fair, so calm, so profound,” a
policy notable for its “clarity” and “justice.” Rutledge was especially
happy with the paper’s “distinction between religion and ancient and
salutary social customs.” “I KNOW you are right,” he concluded, “and it
is high time that religious leaders realize how wrong, even how wicked,
they are.”[230]
Concerning the race issue then, South Carolina churches generally
give at least indirect endorsement to a continuation of segregation.
In large part both church organizations and individual ministers
attempt to steer clear of the issue, preferring to concentrate on less
controversial sins.
CHAPTER VI
A PLACE IN THE SHADE
We’ve always had a place in the sun down South.
Now I reckon some of us would like a little of
the shade too.--_An Unidentified Negro_
Throughout the segregation-integration controversy white leaders have
rarely attempted to discover what the Negro thinks on the matter.
Instead they have arbitrarily declared that the overwhelming majority
of South Carolina Negroes have no desire for integrated schools. This
claim is made almost without exception. A writer in the _Morning News_
noted that while Southern governors and attorneys general had held
conferences to consider the objectives of Negroes, they had never
called a biracial meeting at which the latter could voice their aims.
On no occasion had white leaders asked Negroes to state their position;
the aspirations of Negroes were always specified by white men. Such
a situation, it was observed, might well result in “brash action”
by “sincere white people, who, alarmed by white men’s statements of
Negro aims,” were girding for war without waiting to hear the Negroes
themselves.[231] A perusal of public pronouncements by Negro leaders
and groups reveals that a misconception in regard to Negro aims and
desires exists among the white people of South Carolina.
The goal sought by the overwhelming majority of South Carolina Negro
leaders is an immediate end to legal segregation. They recognize
that for many years to come _de facto_ segregation will continue to
exist. But on the point of legally enforced segregation, there is
no compromise. Dr. Benjamin E. Mays, a native South Carolinian and
president of Morehouse College in Atlanta, told a meeting of the
Florence County NAACP that the immediate concern of the Negro was
not for integration but desegregation. Desegregation, he said, meant
“to destroy segregation based on law.” Likewise A. J. Clement, Jr.,
president of the Charleston County NAACP chapter, said South Carolina
Negroes wished an opportunity to make their “best contribution” to the
development of the state, an objective that could be realized only by
ending segregation.[232]
At this point a more complete picture of the aims and aspirations
of South Carolina Negroes is in order. As already has been noted,
white political leaders constantly have stated that the majority of
the state’s Negroes oppose desegregation. Only on occasion is it
acknowledged that the Negro might, after all, want desegregation. The
_News and Courier_ believed that “the average Southern Negro” would
accept as much mingling “as the white man would allow.” It did not
think, though, that the Negro was “willing to risk a great deal to
attain it.” This “moderate attitude” by Negroes was in keeping with
“good citizenship as well as good race relations.” The recognition
of “conditions as they exist,” according to the Charleston paper,
should be neither “humiliating nor degrading for Negroes.” Writing in
_Harper’s_ in early 1956, Thomas R. Waring, editor of the _News and
Courier_, admitted that “it would not be hard to believe that, given a
choice, a Negro naturally would prefer all restrictions to be removed.”
But “a firm and positive stand by people everywhere,” he held, would
put an end to “the race agitation that has plagued our country these
last several years.”[233]
A more positive statement of this attitude was made by W. D. Workman,
Jr., the _News and Courier_ correspondent. Writing in late 1955,
he observed that too many white South Carolinians were laboring
“under the dangerous delusion that Negroes of the state do not want
integration.” In truth, he maintained, “a large percentage” of Negroes
“and an even greater percentage of their leaders very definitely do
want integration of the races, and as soon as possible.” The failure
of the state’s leadership to recognize this situation involved “the
tactical error--which could prove disastrous--of underestimating the
enemy.” Assessing the extent to which Negroes desired integration,
Workman noted that educational, religious and civic leaders seemed
overwhelmingly “determined to press for integration.” He reported a
division amongst Negroes with “some genuinely and sincerely” opposing
any integration and others who doubted the practicability of the
“current rate” of integration. But among Negro leaders he found
“increasingly open and avowed agitation for integration.”[234] In
substantial agreement, the _Record_ termed the belief that a majority
of Negroes favored segregation a “head-in-the-sand theory.”[235]
It is hardly possible to evaluate with exactness, of course, the
attitude of the rank and file of South Carolina Negroes toward
segregation. In early 1956 the Gallup Poll asked people throughout the
country their opinion on the Supreme Court decision. No results on a
statewide basis were announced; however, the poll indicated that 53
percent of Southern Negroes (13 states) approved the decision while
36 percent opposed it and 11 percent were undecided. For comparison
only 16 percent of Southern whites approved the decision, 80 percent
disapproved, and four percent were undecided.[236] The vehement
opposition of Southern whites to integration, reported the Gallup
organization, caused many Negroes “to view with misgivings the possible
repercussions” of race mixing. However, the report noted “a common
desire” on the part of Southern Negroes “to give their children the
best possible education and obtain for their race the treatment which
they consider to be in keeping with the ‘American way of life.’” In a
survey of the status of race relations in South Carolina in early 1956,
the _New York Times_ noted that, while Negroes were “more cautious”
in expressing views than whites, nonetheless, there was “little or no
question that literate, articulate Negroes generally” desired an end
of legal segregation. These groups, reported the _Times_, resented
being “officially classed” as “an inferior race and as second class
citizens.”[237]
Despite an understandable reluctance of Negroes to express themselves
on segregation, news reporters on occasion have been able to obtain
revealing statements. In the summer of 1956 an Associated Press writer,
interviewing Negroes in Clarendon County, sought the opinions of the
family of William Hilton, a tenant farmer. Several of Hilton’s 13
children spoke out forthrightly:
I’d like to go to school with white children, said
Henrietta Hilton, 13. I just don’t like to segregate myself
because of my color or hair. I’d like to be able to pick
friends on another basis. I think I’d enjoy being friends
with some white girls. Maybe they’d enjoy being friends
with me.
I never wished I was white, said Morgan Hilton, 16. I just
wished many times I was treated like the whites.
In the movies, said Leroy Hilton, 19, we got to go up to
“Buzzards Roost” (the Jim Crow Balcony). When there’s
a good picture, we’ll be standing up there even though
there’s empty seats downstairs. My feeling is we pay as
much, we ought to be able to sit anywhere. Every time I go,
I get mad, but I don’t say anything.
I feel insulted every time I got to sit in the back of a
Jim Crow bus, said Henrietta. I feel insulted every time
I go into the drugstore for ice cream or a soda. All the
booths are for whites. We got to have our ice cream out on
the hot street. I just wonder what makes them think they’re
superior. Sometimes, you walk down the street and white
people just look at you scornful. You can feel it.[238]
Statements made by individual Negro leaders and resolutions adopted
by various Negro groups reveal a willingness of Negroes generally
to follow anti-segregationist leaders. The Progressive Democratic
Party, the state’s leading Negro political group, stated that the
question was no longer segregation or integration but rather “how
best” to accomplish desegregation. The party proposed creation of
an inter-racial commission to handle such problems as would arise
during the period of integration. The Palmetto Education Association,
representing approximately 7,000 Negro public school teachers, adopted
a resolution in 1955 hailing the Supreme Court decision of May 17,
1954, as “consistent with the Association’s belief” in democracy.
The Association offered to cooperate in “discussing, outlining, and
implementing plans for universal public education” in the state “within
the framework of the recent ruling of the United States Supreme
Court.”[239] The Association’s stand is particularly noteworthy since
there is general agreement that many Negro teachers would be eased out
of their jobs should integrated schools become an accomplished fact.
The Richland County Chapter of the South Carolina Citizens Committee
(Negro), in an unusually strong statement, declared that it stood
“solidly for the respect and observance of all laws.” The chapter
wished it “clearly understood” that this included the Supreme Court
decision of May 17, 1954. “To circumvent or to defy the law is
rebellion and to join others in so doing is criminal conspiracy which
could lead to anarchy.” The chapter concluded that the Negro’s struggle
was “neither temporary nor futile” since its ultimate objective was
“the proper evaluation of each individual and the proper regard for
human dignity.” The Clarendon County Civic League, which backed the
school suit, attacked segregation as “un-Christian, undemocratic,
unscientific, and asinine.” Statements to the effect that Negroes
favored segregation, according to the League, revealed “a deep-seated
racial prejudice that has warped the intellect, the sensibilities and
the wills” of white people. According to State NAACP president James
M. Hinton, “Negro parents only want their children taught by competent
teachers and in integrated schools, where children of both races can
learn to study and learn to live as citizens.”[240]
Opposition to school integration has arisen from isolated Negro
individuals and groups. More than 100 “patrons” of a Negro school
in Mullins signed a petition urging continuation of segregation and
“opposing integration of the Caucasian and Negro schools.” A similar
petition was signed by Negro parents in North Augusta. This group
feared integration “might disrupt progress now being made” in the
Negro school program. A Negro school principal in Ehrhardt, in Bamberg
County, thought integration would result in Negro teachers and pupils
being “thrust into a most peculiar situation” which would be beset
“with many perplexing problems and grave consequences.” Educational
opportunities of Negro children under integration, he feared, would
“suffer for the next 50 years.”[241] A Negro delegate to the Horry
County Democratic Convention said that he wanted his children “to go
to as good a school as any man’s children,” but “to the same school
they go to now.” Dr. Ben J. Armstrong, prominent Mullins Negro,
believed it would take “a thousand years” for the races to get ready
for desegregation. The Reverend Webster McClary, a “preacher” from
Kingstree, praised the Citizens Councils as being composed of “smart
steady men” who “mean business” and declared that Negroes did not
desire mixed schools any more than whites.
I can say this to any Negro who has it sticking in his craw
that he can’t be happy without trying mixed schools [said
McClary]. All you have to do to get your heart’s desire is
buy a ticket to Philly or other points North where they
are already mixed. Nobody has to tell you that colored
children don’t learn books as fast as whites. But see for
yourself how pitiful your big colored children will look in
the same grades with smaller white children. Have you got
enough money to dress your brood in clothes they won’t be
ashamed of? Go ahead and try it if you must. But don’t be
fool enough to slam the door in your white friends’ faces
before you go. You might want to come back like I did after
I lived up there awhile. How if you came home and find the
door locked?--Will the NAACP give you a handout? Laugh,
folks, laugh.[242]
The _News and Courier_ considered McClary’s statement to be “moderate
in tone and sensible in approach.” The _Independent_ thought it “timely
advice” for Negroes. A letter to the editor of the _News and Courier_
nominated McClary for the Pulitzer Prize “for the most enlightening
and constructive” comment on the race problem “made to date.” The same
writer opined that McClary and eight other men “equally as intelligent”
should be appointed to the United States Supreme Court.[243]
Pro-segregation statements by Negro leaders have become less frequently
heard as attitudes toward the problem have hardened on both sides.
Pressure for conformity has worked within both the Negro and white
communities, though probably less effectively so among Negroes.
The attitude of Negro church groups is of especial significance in
light of the church’s undeniably great influence within the Negro
community. The number of ministers and prominent laymen among Negro
improvement and advancement groups is unusually high. Statewide Negro
church associations almost without exception have endorsed the Court
decision and have called for the ending of racial segregation. The
Progressive Democratic Party claimed that as early as 1951 “religious
denominations and groups administering to more than 600,000 of
the state’s 850,000 colored citizens” made voluntary statements
and declarations which urged the removal of racial segregation in
public places. The South Carolina conference of the Central (Negro)
Jurisdiction of the Methodist Church, in endorsing the struggle of
the Negro for equality of treatment, approved all organizations
which sought “the full participation of all American citizens in the
responsibilities and privileges of this nation.” Bishop Frank Madison
Reid expressed the attitude of the state’s African Methodist Episcopal
Church in late 1955. In suspending the Reverend James Vanwright for
opposing integration and the court decision, Bishop Reid asserted:
“No minister in our church can openly declare or write anything that
attacks the scriptural belief in the equality of all men.”[244] Dr.
G. G. Daniels, president of the Negro Baptist State Convention, in
supporting efforts to end all legal racial discriminations, stated
that the Negro was seeking only those human rights guaranteed by the
Constitution.[245] A manifesto of the Columbia Interdenominational
Ministerial Alliance, a Negro group, declared that there could be “no
first-class citizenship in a segregated society.” Full participation
of the Negro in the life of South Carolina would come only after the
removal of such barriers as “racial segregation, discrimination,
Jim Crowism and economic pressure.” The Alliance recognized the
difficulties involved in the process of desegregation. “Things cannot
be changed overnight,” the Reverend J. Arthur Holmes, Alliance
president, told this organization in 1956.[246]
The attitude of individual Negro ministers conforms to the same general
pattern. The Reverend William L. Wilson, pastor of a Spartanburg
Baptist Church, told a newspaper reporter that he was sometimes
“ashamed” of his white colleagues. “They tell me privately,” he said,
“that segregation is wrong, but they will say nothing publicly.” The
Reverend Giles G. Brown, a Methodist Minister of Charleston, referring
to proposals for church integration, said that there was only “one
human family.” The brotherhood of that family was ordained by God. Any
movement that furthered this brotherhood would eventually succeed but
in some areas this would come only after a “long, long time.”[247]
Negro leaders were restrained in commenting on the Court decision.
James M. Hinton said that “Negroes, though happy,” were “most mindful
of the seriousness of the decision” and would cooperate fully with
state leaders in its implementation. “There is no place in a democracy
for segregation,” he declared. Bishop Reid called for “a special day
of thanksgiving at this hour when the Supreme Court has answered the
challenge and call of democracy.”[248]
A small minority of Negro religious spokesmen opposed the decision. The
Reverend Hydrick Strobel of St. George, a black-belt town, urged his
congregation to “be well pleased and thank God for equal but separate
schools for our colored children, where they can learn to take pride in
their own race, instead of being ashamed of it.”[249]
A staff writer for the _Record_, analyzing the reaction of Clarendon
County Negroes to the decision, stated that “there is not much
rejoicing, even among the colored people of this district, over the
way their case has turned out. They hold their heads a little higher
and they seem to have a little more confidence in themselves, but they
are concerned about the future of the schools.”[250] In like manner
an Associated Press writer noted the difficulty of determining the
opinion of the majority of Clarendon Negroes. “Some say that they want
segregation to continue as long as facilities are equal,” he reported.
“Some are against it. Many won’t say either way.”[251]
White South Carolinians in maintaining that Negroes desire segregation,
customarily quote Negro “hands,” domestic servants or others who had
said they favored segregation. In evaluating these pro-segregation
statements by Negroes, the whites rarely distinguish between the
uneducated, economically dependent Negro and recognized Negro
leadership. Such a mistake results naturally from the Booker T.
Washington tradition that the Southern white man is the only true
friend of the Negro and has always stood ready to give him assistance
and advice in meeting the challenges of the white man’s civilization.
Whereas Yankees might mouth pious platitudes about all men being
created equal and having equal rights, the Southerner is the true
benefactor of the Negro on the individual level.
Indications are that in some quarters this attitude is changing as a
result of the segregation controversy. James M. Hinton spoke of the
rise of a “new Negro” in the South, one whom “traditional” Southerners
had difficulty in understanding. A few white spokesmen have admitted
that the “new Negro” was difficult to comprehend. W. D. Workman, Jr.,
spoke of the “incapacity of the white man to fathom the thinking of the
Negro.” In a similar vein the _Record_ editorially observed that “no
white person can know what the Negroes are thinking. For ordinarily a
Negro tells a white man in the South what he thinks that white person
wishes to hear. It may not be and frequently is not what the Negro
actually thinks.”[252]
Despite such evidence the state’s political leaders continue to
assert that Negroes favor the _status quo_. They possess, in short, a
superabundance of William James’s “will to believe.” In his inaugural
address, Governor Timmerman asserted that “most Negro parents” did
not want their children “to mix with large groups of white children.”
Lieutenant Governor E. F. Hollings, characterizing segregation as a
“natural thing,” maintained that “a majority of Negroes” were no more
enthusiastic about mixed schools than white persons. Senator Marion
Gressette told a Bamberg audience that “thousands of Negroes” were
fighting with the whites to preserve segregation.[253]
Newspaper editorialists also generally agree that the majority of
Negroes oppose integration. The _News and Courier_ thought that
“except for the NAACP and a few other zealots,” Negroes were not
willing “to disrupt harmonious race relations for a goal that many of
them view with indifference.” The _Independent_ believed public school
integration was opposed “not only by white people but by thinking Negro
leaders and the patrons of Negro schools.” The _Morning News_, after
James A. Rogers replaced Jack H. O’Dowd as editor in August, 1956, felt
that the majority of Negroes did not regard “with sympathy the efforts
of some of their contemporaries to force an unnatural mixing of the
races which would create unbearable tensions and inequalities.”[254]
White spokesmen only rarely can see any reason for the Negro’s
“agitation” for the abolition of segregation. Under segregation, said
the _Morning News_, the Negro had “opportunities for racial development
unparalleled anywhere else in this country.” Segregation was “not an
evil scheme” to keep the Negro in subjection but a high road along
which he could achieve “maximum development in an atmosphere without
tension or ill-will.” An excellent example of the “separate-but-equal”
argument appears in the following editorial statement from the _Morning
News_:
We believe that an integrated school system would deepen
the Negro’s inferiority complex, that it would magnify
his sense of being a second class citizen, that he would
not develop normally under the tensions and inequalities
of integration. We believe that his finest opportunities
are with equal segregated facilities. We believe that
he is entitled to equal facilities, that he, like his
white brother, is entitled to all the benefits of being
an American citizen, but for the sake of his race, its
potential, its integrity, its development, he should
demand segregation in the public schools as offering the
only normal, natural atmosphere in which to work for
maximum racial development. Furthermore, we believe that
the majority of Negroes themselves who view the problem
objectively are of the same opinion.[255]
Segregation by such reasoning is less a benefit for the white than for
the Negro.
Segregationists seem totally unable to understand the failure of
Negro leaders to support the _status quo_. “The finest thing that
could happen to the Negro race,” declared the _Morning News_, “would
be the emergence of leadership that would crusade for voluntary
segregation with the same vigor and persistence that the NAACP has
crusaded for integration.”[256] That such leadership has not been
forthcoming allegedly has been due to the “reign of terror” which the
NAACP has instigated against Negro moderates. Lowcountry Negroes,
like lowcountry whites, noted the _News and Courier_, were “largely
conservative,” an attitude expressed in their “reluctance to agitate
for racial change.” These moderates were loath to speak out because
they would be “penalized by the extremists.” Although such moderates
had “strong support” among Negroes in the state, they were largely
“silent.” Negroes who spoke out in favor of segregation, concluded the
_News and Courier_, were the “truly heroic” element in the segregation
controversy. “It would be well,” Senator Gressette said, “for us to
encourage the members of the Negro race with these [pro-segregation]
views,” so that they in turn could “discourage the few whites and
colored, from within and without the state,” who were advocating
integration. State Senator Marshall Williams would extend such
encouragement to all Negroes. “We should talk with the colored people
we employ, and can influence,” he said, “give them the benefit of
what we know, explain how they are being duped by the NAACP and other
outsiders and convince them that it would be better to live at peace
among their white neighbors in a segregated society.” White advice,
then, is for the Negro to return to the “sound counsel” of Booker T.
Washington.[257]
White leaders are certain that they and not the Negroes themselves
best realize the latter’s true needs. “Unless the Negroes come to
their senses and cast out the false leaders,” warned the _News and
Courier_, they might find that they had been led “down a primrose path
to misery and disaster.” “Respectable Southern white people” are the
Negro’s best friends.[258] Running concurrently with this refrain is
the frequently stated belief that nowhere on earth have Negroes been so
fortunate as in the South. “Segregation has been a success,” especially
from the standpoint of the Negro, proclaimed Dr. E. E. Colvin, a white
Baptist minister of Orangeburg.[259] The South had “none of the ‘isms’
and tensions of the Northern cities,” asserted Gilbert Wilkes of Mt.
Pleasant in a letter to the _News and Courier_, echoing the century
old philosophy of George Fitzhugh and John C. Calhoun. “As far as race
relations go,” the Negro lived “a much freer and happier life” in the
South. Another letter writer, Alford W. Atkins of Charleston, stated
that in the North in contrast to the South, one did not see among
Negroes “the smiling or solemn dark faces ... filled with content or at
least joy in living and the happiness that comes from it.” Negroes in
the North “looked strained and dissatisfied with life.” The _News and
Courier_ said that “apparently” integration was not bringing happiness
to Northern Negroes. Instead “contentment, freedom from worry and
a pleasant disposition” which have been the “prize possessions” of
Southern Negroes disappeared with the end of segregation.[260]
As will be shown subsequently in greater detail, the segregation
controversy has played a major role in state politics in the period
following the May 17, 1954, ruling by the Supreme Court. The constant
political concern with the subject explains in part the inability of
the two sides to get together and calmly work out a mutually agreeable
_modus vivendi_. Negro leaders see politicians using the issue as
a political football for personal benefit. Contributing to this
situation has been the failure of the Negroes to register and vote in
sufficiently large numbers to cause politicians to fear their influence
at the polls. Absence of an effective political pressure action group
has not helped the Negroes. The Progressive Democratic Party, the only
real Negro political organization in the state, has been practically
moribund from 1948 to 1958. Efforts of Negro political spokesmen have
been hampered because a large majority of the state’s Negroes are
ideologically Democrats in the national sense while Negro leaders
receive no consideration from state Democratic leaders.[261]
Negroes have attempted to make the pressure of their votes felt in
the state and not without some success in presidential elections. On
the state and local levels, however, they are completely frustrated.
They can not, for example, find candidates who will campaign on even
a “moderate” platform with regard to the race issue. Consequently the
Negro has only the choice of the lesser of several evils. The Negro
vote, moreover, is most ineffective in areas where it is potentially
the strongest, that is in heavily Negro populated low country counties.
In such counties the number of Negro voters was less than in those
where the Negro population was lower percentagewise.
Leading Negro political spokesmen have been John H. McCray, chairman
of the Progressive Democratic Party, and the Reverend James M. Hinton,
president of the state NAACP. McCray’s party sent a delegation to
the national Democratic convention in 1956 to challenge the regular
slate headed by Governor Timmerman. One of its purposes was to secure
official recognition by the convention in the event the regular
delegation walked out over the civil rights issue.[262] The presence of
the Negro group probably had little if any influence on the decision of
the regulars to remain in the convention.
The actual influence of the Negro vote in the state is difficult to
assess. Until 1958 voter registration has omitted any mention of race
and ballots by whites and Negroes have not been cast separately. Also
various groups, white and Negro, have made claims and counterclaims
for political purposes. McCray maintained his party delivered 85,000
to 95,000 votes to the Democratic Party nominee in 1952 and was thus
responsible for the Democratic victory. A similar claim was made for
1956. Anti-Negro politicians, especially among the Independents of
1956, agreed with these claims. They hoped thereby to stigmatize the
Democratic Party.[263]
In late 1954 the Palmetto State Voters Association was formed to
organize Negro voters for the purpose of electing to public office
candidates sympathetic to the Negro. It has had little, if any,
success, in part because many of the leaders of other groups, including
the NAACP, oppose isolating Negro voters in a separate group. Such
action, it is argued, is inconsistent with the professed aim of the
Negro for full integration into the state’s political activities.
“Racial bloc voting,” said A. J. Clement, Jr., was “out of order,
out of style” and did not provide the advantage of a system that was
interested in the whole as against a particular part.[264]
The organization primarily responsible for the giant steps taken by
Negroes toward the goal of full participation in the responsibilities
and benefits of American citizenship is the National Association for
the Advancement of Colored People. The South Carolina conference has
chapters scattered throughout the state with headquarters in Columbia.
The state organization, headed by the Reverend James M. Hinton,
claimed 22,000 members in South Carolina in early 1956.[265] Though
membership rolls are not made public, it would appear that the major
portion of NAACP spokesmen are from middle class and professional
groups. A disproportionate number of the organization’s leaders are
ministers. The NAACP generally represents the best in the state’s Negro
leadership. The state conference, though virtually autonomous, works
closely with the national headquarters in seeking to end all racial
discriminations based on law. According to the official Civil Rights
Handbook published by the national headquarters, the NAACP is “not a
legal aid society” for supplying assistance to every needy colored
person. Its intervention in legal suits is limited to three categories:
(1) Legal defense of innocent colored persons who are victims of
injustice solely because of race, (2) Assistance in legal cases
involving colored persons where fundamental civil or constitutional
rights are involved, and (3) Affirmative legal action to establish
principles of law of benefit to colored persons generally.[266]
Working within these boundaries and in conjunction with the national
headquarters, the state conference has secured several notable
victories, the most spectacular being the Clarendon County school case.
The NAACP also assisted in the cases which resulted in pay equalization
for white and Negro school teachers and in the destruction of the white
primary in South Carolina. In other less publicized cases assistance
has also been given. “The litigious NAACP,” the _Record_ complained,
“has been behind every one of the suits to mix the races in the public
schools, the colleges and universities, in transportation and in state
parks and other recreation areas.”[267]
The degree to which South Carolina Negroes agree with the NAACP
and its aims and objectives is evidenced by the widespread support
given the drive to end segregation by church, professional and other
groups. Many organizations have gone on record as supporting an end to
segregation without giving a specific endorsement to the NAACP. But the
general public directly associates the NAACP with leadership in this
fight. Typical of the expressions of support given the NAACP was the
resolution adopted by a portion of the student body and faculty of the
Negro college at Orangeburg when the state legislators were planning
an investigation of NAACP activities at the institution. The NAACP was
regarded “as simply one organization” which gave “vitality” to the
furtherance of the constitutional rights of the Negro. The students and
teachers disavowed “any knowledge of information that that organization
represents any more than the maintenance of law and order in the
determination of and in the protection of the constitutional rights
involved.”[268]
The NAACP is not without Negro opponents in the state. One of the most
outspoken is P. B. Mdodana, a school principal at McBee. Mdodana,
a native of South Africa, has spent most of his life in the United
States. He charged that Negroes were “losing their Constitutional
rights to a loud-speaking, scheming minority” which did not hesitate
to employ coercion to achieve its “scheming and radical demands.” No
exponent of logical consistency, Mdodana praised passage of a state law
which forbade employment by state or local governments to members of
the NAACP. Another NAACP opponent is George A. Elmore, whose lawsuits
resulted in the ending of the white primary in the state. Significantly
Elmore had broken with the NAACP after his failure to secure an office
with the organization. He maintained that the NAACP was “interested
in the little man only when the little man could be used to serve the
organization’s interest.” On other occasions, said the frustrated
Elmore, the association was concerned “only with college people and
‘big shots.’”[269]
Following the Supreme Court decision in the Clarendon case, the NAACP
was obliged to consider formulation of a program that would not
compromise the Negro’s legal position and yet take cognizance of the
intransigence of white Southerners. No concrete policy could be set
forth until the Supreme Court handed down its implementing decree and
the district court subsequently applied it to the Clarendon case. These
actions were taken in May and July, 1955. Consequently not until late
summer of that year did the NAACP begin sponsoring such “overt acts” as
petitions for the ending of school segregation.
Shortly after the original Court ruling, Hinton announced that the
NAACP would exhaust “local remedies” before again resorting to the
courts.[270] Petitions filed with school officials at the time of the
original ruling would be held in abeyance until announcement of the
Court’s implementation policy. Meantime the NAACP concentrated on
a program, notable for its utter and complete failure, of inducing
state political leaders voluntarily to accept both the letter and
spirit of the decision. National NAACP Chairman Dr. Channing H. Tobias
called on Governor Byrnes to accept his “responsibility of influencing
implementation” of the decision “in the light of the present
international situation, rather than in the light of local prejudice
or political expediency.” “The pioneer role of our Association in
South Carolina,” he continued, had “focused world attention upon this
state.”[271] The plea of Dr. Tobias fell on stone deaf ears.
Following the district court ruling in July, 1955, enjoining Clarendon
and Summerton school officials from refusing admission of any pupil
to a school solely on the basis of race, the NAACP and Negro parents
were faced with a difficult decision. A meeting of Negroes, attended
by Thurgood Marshall, was held in Clarendon. Though not indicating
his future course of action, Marshall was given a rousing vote of
confidence by “virtually 100 percent” of those present. With the
district court ruling on their side, the next move was up to the Negro
leaders. Clarendon school authorities bluntly stated that under no
conditions would the schools be kept open if a single Negro pupil were
admitted to white classrooms. In light of this threat, Negro leaders
and parents decided to postpone further action. Negro students would be
the biggest losers should the schools be closed.[272]
In the summer of 1955 the NAACP began sponsoring a number of petitions
asking local school boards to “reorganize the public schools” on a
“non-discriminatory basis.” The petitions were scattered throughout the
state. Most were similarly worded, indicating that the movement had
statewide direction. White South Carolinians reacted to these petitions
by the organization of Citizens Councils.
The petition presented the Florence County Board of Education was
typical. Signed by twenty-four Negro parents, it reminded school
authorities of the Court rulings of May 17, 1954, and May 31, 1955,
and asked that Florence school officials “take immediate steps to
reorganize the public schools” on a “non-discriminatory basis.” Pupils
could no longer be “denied admission to any school solely because of
race and color,” asserted the petitioners. “The time for delay, evasion
or procrastination” was past. School officials were “duty bound to take
immediate concrete steps leading to early elimination of segregation
in the public schools.” They were assured of the willingness of Negro
parents “to serve in any way ... to aid ... in dealing with this
question.”[273]
These petitions invoked the displeasure of many moderate whites and the
wrath of extremists. The _Morning News_, one of the few South Carolina
papers then not unsympathetic to the Negro, thought the petitions “most
unfortunate” following as they did “so closely on the heels of the
Supreme Court’s integration decree.” Their presentation was a “shock”
to South Carolina. The _News and Courier_ asked:
Who are these people [who signed the petition]? How many
of them have children in the public schools? Who persuaded
them to sign? (Some people can be persuaded to sign a
petition for almost anything.) Do they realize what they
are signing? Do they understand that they may be helping to
break down the public school system and even friendly race
relations?
White citizens should study carefully the list of names
in the newspapers. If they are acquainted with any of the
Negro signers, they might ask them some of the questions
propounded here and others of their own. These are
legitimate questions. Anyone seeking to upset conditions as
they are should be willing to explain his reasons....
White people have been educating Negroes for centuries.
They now need to undertake a new educational program in
race relations. The right of petition belongs to Negroes
as to any citizens. So does the right to question the
wisdom of the petitioners. If enough white people take it
on themselves to talk with Negroes about these matters,
the result may be better understanding on the part of both
races.[274]
As a consequence of economic pressures brought to bear against the
petitioners by the Citizens Councils, many of the former asked that
their names be withdrawn. They frequently maintained that their
signatures had been obtained through misrepresentation. Usually they
claimed they did not realize that the petitions were asking for
integration. Some said they had understood the petitions as simply
requesting interracial talks on the subject of integration. The number
of those asking their names be withdrawn was large, in some cases more
than half the number of signers. In one case, Elloree, fourteen of the
original seventeen signers asked that their names be struck from the
list.[275]
The NAACP recognized this problem and also the fact that for the
time being little could be done about it. “Names being struck from
petitions” was understandable, said Roy Wilkins, executive secretary
of the NAACP. He did not believe, however, that the signers failed
to realize what their signatures meant. He blamed withdrawals on
“pressures” operating on the Negro. The Sumter chapter of the NAACP
gave a similar explanation for the withdrawal of several signers
of a local petition. The signers “knew very well the content and
intent of these petitions,” said a statement issued by the chapter.
No “coercion, persuasion or pressure” had been used to secure
signatures.[276]
As of the early spring of 1958 no school board has acted favorably on a
petition for school integration and no Negro petitioner has resorted to
the courts to secure affirmative action.
The NAACP has born the brunt of the opposition to the desegregation
drive. Until white South Carolina recognized the extent of the
“threat” represented by the NAACP, its opposition to the organization
had not been particularly bitter. The hardening of attitudes was the
result of the NAACP’s increased pressure for racial integration and
occurred relatively late. For instance, when the NAACP was holding its
annual conference at Charleston in 1953, J. Walker Evans, executive
vice-president of the Charleston Chamber of Commerce, was “happy
to extend a cordial and sincere welcome” to the organization and
hoped that its deliberations would be “fruitful,” “pleasant,” and
“most profitable.”[277] But after the segregation decision all this
changed. Even white “moderates” felt obliged to deprecate the NAACP.
Editor O’Dowd of the _Morning News_, who had frequently defended the
association against irresponsible charges such as communist-front
action, stated that the organization was doing nothing more than
“paying lipservice to the idea of Negro advancement.”[278]
The attack on the NAACP has taken many different forms but basically
the association is pictured as a radical organization responsible
for the “climate of recalcitrance” in the South by insisting on its
“pound of flesh” and refusing to adopt a “moderate” attitude. The
NAACP refused to “barter or compromise,” complained the _Morning
News_, and instead had adopted a program of “absolutism” which only
made the problem more difficult. New assaults by the NAACP against
“the traditional citadels of Southern society,” the Florence paper
asserted, were “lacking in good sense and good taste.” According to
the _Independent_, “responsible Negroes” knew that NAACP’s “radical
agitators” had done “far more harm than good” in the school crisis.
The _Record_ argued that the NAACP was acting “neither wisely nor
tolerantly, preferring neither understanding nor cooperation.”[279]
The same papers choose to overlook the fact that the dominant white
community has offered no basis for compromise or conciliation within
terms of the Supreme Court decision.
As a result of the NAACP’s “radical” stand, i.e., its refusal to accept
segregation indefinitely, an attack has been made on all fronts to
discredit the organization in the eyes of both whites and Negroes.
The goal is to create an atmosphere in which any program, policy or
pronouncement by the association will be condemned automatically,
without regard to its merit. “If there’s one thing against our way of
life in the South,” announced Lieutenant Governor Hollings, “it’s the
NAACP. And if the U. S. Supreme Court can declare certain organizations
as subversive, I believe South Carolina can declare the NAACP both
subversive and illegal.” In the Lieutenant Governor’s home town the
_News and Courier_ proclaimed that the NAACP was “not genuinely
devoted to the advancement of the colored people,” but rather ignored
the real need of the Negro in its “search for headlines and racial
martyrs.” The _News and Courier_ believed that the association was not
interested in Negro “rights” but “that whites be forced to associate
with Negroes.”[280] The paper regretted that so many Negroes would
swallow the “unwholesome and impractical poisons” of the NAACP. The
_Record_ declared the Association was interested in cases of violence
against Southern Negroes solely for their fund raising value. “The
NAACP would have been disappointed” if the slayers of Emmett Till had
been brought to justice because the case provided the occasion for the
raising of vast funds. The Reverend E. R. Mason, a retired officer
and minister of the white South Carolina Methodist Church, termed the
NAACP a “militant” and “vicious” minority group interested only in the
“prominence of the front page and money.”[281]
A favorite tactic in this campaign of vilification is to equate the
NAACP’s desegregation aims with the communist conspiracy against the
United States. Attorney General T. C. Callison told the Columbia
Rotary Club that the NAACP was led by “meddlers” who were “playing
directly into the hands of Communism.”[282] The leadership of the
Citizens Councils has given especially strong emphasis to this phase
of the attack. Henry E. Davis, a Florence attorney, speaking at the
organizational meeting of the Lake City Citizens Council, announced
that “the NAACP is financed by Russia.” On another occasion he indulged
in anti-Semitism, a tendency which has become increasingly open in
the Citizens Council movement. Davis referred to the NAACP as “a
communist-front organ,” which was “in reality a Jewish organization
with financial backing from the Communists” purporting “to aid the
advancement of the Negro while stirring up disorder.” G. L. Ivey,
a leader of several white supremacy groups in Florence, including
the Citizens Council, described the NAACP as “the radical Negro
organization dominated by communist-front leaders.”[283] Stanley F.
Morse, one of Ivey’s many Charleston counterparts, noted that the
objectives of the NAACP coincided “strangely with the aims of the
American communist party.” He declared that the policies of the NAACP
were “dictated by white radicals rather than Negro patriots.” In 1954
the bellwether _News and Courier_ did not believe the “aggressive
race movement among Negroes” was communist-dominated. But a year
later, the same paper intimated to its readers: “We believe the NAACP
represents only a small but belligerent group of people. (In Russia
only a small number of Russians belong to the Communist Party yet they
rule the rest.) We aren’t saying the NAACP is Communistic. We are only
pointing out how much power can be wielded by a noisy and energetic
minority.”[284]
The charges of communism are accepted by the state NAACP as merely one
of many “brainwashing” devices used by the whites. President Hinton
answered with the following statement: “The NAACP is an American and
legitimate organization, and not once has it been even thought of by
right thinking people as a subversive organization. It has never done
more than go into the courts, and fight the issues out before white
judges using white men’s laws.”[285]
The NAACP, of course, has defended itself against such attacks. It
claims, with much truth, that instead of being a communist-front
organization it is in reality responsible for the fact that the
communists have been unable to make any headway among American Negroes.
The _Record_, however, has taken issue. The real reason why communists
were so unsuccessful in winning over American Negroes, said a _Record_
editorial, was the fact that most of them lived in the South “and were,
like their friends among the Southern whites, conservatives.” They
were not members of the Negro “intelligentsia” where, according to the
capital city paper, communism had made its only headway among Negroes,
and were by every sign “generally content [and] a happy race” and
therefore “anything but a fertile ground for communist wiles.”[286]
A new device against the NAACP became popular in 1957, one which
can be used against both the NAACP and labor unions. This is the
so-called “permit system” under which counties and municipalities might
require “any organization, union or society of any sort” that charged
membership fees to obtain permits to sign up new members. Applications
can be denied in the interest of “peace and good order.” Florence and
Abbeville counties have led in requiring the permits. Several other
localities have followed suit.[287]
The attacks on the NAACP contain many other phases. Among these are the
following:
(1) The NAACP is pictured as the Negro counterpart of the white Ku
Klux Klan. Such an association would discredit the NAACP, for the
attempts to revive the Klan are decried by all except the most radical
fringe of white supremacists. White conservatives are determined not
to allow the opposition to the Negro to be taken up by radicals who
would not only endanger their own dominant position but also completely
discredit the white South in the eyes of the nation. A good example
of associating the Klan and the NAACP was a statement issued by
Federal District Judge Ashton H. Williams when the Edisto Beach case
was pending before his court. The two organizations, he said, were
“the real enemies to any progress” in the segregation controversy.
No progress could be made by South Carolina until both were “wholly
eliminated” from the picture. In a severe condemnation of the NAACP,
interesting because he might be called upon in the future to hear civil
rights cases sponsored by the NAACP, the Judge said:
It must be kept in mind that the rights given to Negroes by
the Supreme Court are personal, and no one has a right to
persuade them by unlawful threats or otherwise to exercise
the rights given them by the Supreme Court. If the Negroes
wish to accept segregated schools, or segregated beaches,
parks and so forth, it is legally wrong for anyone, by
misrepresentation, undue influence, or threats, to force
them to seek personal rights given under the Supreme Court
decision.[288]
(2) Personal and abusive attacks are made on NAACP leaders. In addition
to questioning the sincerity and honesty of purpose of persons
prominent in the association, a vicious racism has crept into many of
the most extreme attacks. G. L. Ivey referred to Thurgood Marshall
as the “mulatto chief counsel for the NAACP.” The writer of a letter
to the editor of the _Morning News_ advised the South to “get rid of
the NAACP and the ‘halfbreeds.’” “History tells us,” he wrote, “that
‘halfbreeds’ have always been trouble makers. The Bible says that
a bastard cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, even unto the tenth
generation.”[289]
(3) Blame for originating the state’s race problem is placed solely on
the NAACP. W. D. Workman, Jr., stated that responsibility for beginning
a “cold war” between the races in the state rested “with the titular
Negro leadership, national and state,” by which he meant the NAACP. The
_Record_ said the NAACP’s “appeal to the force of the courts to compel
the elimination of segregation” created a climate in which “racial
cooperation” could not exist.[290]
(4) The NAACP is presented as an enemy of the Negro, existing only on
its ability to coerce. The purpose here is to alienate the Negro from
the NAACP. Eldridge Thompson, a _News and Courier_ writer, insisted
that the Association’s progress was based on “the weapon of fear.” The
Negro who did not subscribe to the NAACP was “afraid to be identified,”
he claimed. The grip of the Association over the Negro community was
so great that opposition could not be organized successfully against
it. The reporter concluded that the rank and file Negro had more to
fear from the NAACP than the white man. S. Emory Rogers told a Lake
City Citizens Council that “our fight is not with the Negroes, they’re
our hope, but we’ve got to get them under the correct leadership....
The NAACP is our chief enemy.” State Representative Charles G. Garrett
of Greenville County, in supporting the bill to bar NAACP members from
state employment, declared that “the NAACP should no longer be allowed
to prey upon the Negro people of South Carolina” who are paid by the
taxpayers.[291]
(5) The NAACP is pictured as an organization alien to Southern
traditions. According to the _Record_, it was “not a local or
indigenous organization.” It was “foreign to every one of the Southern
states” and therefore owed no loyalty to them. Governor Timmerman
stated that the NAACP was “largely sponsored and financed by white
people who are professional Southern haters and alien to the South.”
Therefore it was the “duty of every responsible Negro to repudiate the
false leadership of the NAACP.”[292]
The NAACP has been the victim, not only of a propaganda campaign, but
also of a program of action designed to harass and intimidate its
leaders to the point of discouragement and thus stop the pressure for
the end of segregation. The most effective portions of this effort have
been those undertaken by the state government (discussed in Chapter
VII) and the economic boycott popularized by the Citizens Councils. The
remainder of the “ranting and panting and wringing and twisting of the
South Carolina white professional rabble rousers”[293] has a nuisance
value only for the whites and merely postpones the inevitable question
facing the state: education or segregation?
In view of the many pronouncements by Southern whites to the effect
that the NAACP is a “radical” organization, a brief examination of the
association along these lines is necessary. In the last analysis, the
labeling of any organization as “radical” depends upon the light in
which it is considered. If the premise is accepted that segregation
of the races in the public schools is a positive good and that the
abolition of this policy would result in disaster, then the NAACP is
“radical.”
However, there are many indications that the organization was and is
not radical when viewed with detachment. Neither the leadership nor the
membership of the association, noted Myrdal, were “recruited from the
ranks of radicals.” Both its program and tactics were “well within the
bounds of respectability” and its policy was based on the “acceptance
of the fundamentals of the ‘American way’ of life.” An examination
of the specific objectives of the NAACP upon which this observation
was made reveals such “radical” aims as anti-lynching legislation,
enfranchisement of the Southern Negro, abolition of all legal
injustices based on race or color, equitable distribution of funds for
public education, abolition of inequalities in employment opportunities
based on race or color and the general abolition of “segregation,
discrimination, insult and humiliation” in other areas based on color
or race. In only one important respect, the abolition of public school
segregation, had the NAACP altered its objectives between 1940, when
the above goals were outlined, and 1954, when the Supreme Court ordered
an end to school segregation. One of the main sources of strength
of the NAACP in pursuit of its goals has been a willingness to work
within the framework of constitutional legality. Still another has been
a policy of compromise or opportunism--adapting its tactics to meet
local situations. National NAACP headquarters directed local offices to
“secure at least equal rights and accommodations for colored citizens”
in cases where race discriminations were “too strongly entrenched to be
attacked” directly.[294] In the post-World War II period there has been
a hardening of this attitude and greater emphasis has been placed on
securing integrated facilities.
The policy of the NAACP has been essentially one of moderation in
areas where progress is being made toward its goals. The more extreme
demands have been necessitated by absolute refusal of white leaders
to allow any “advancement” in such areas as school integration. In
opposing various proposals for “gradualism,” which appear to be little
more than an indefinite maintenance of the _status quo_, Roy Wilkins
has driven to the heart of the matter. He pointed out that the Negro
was the only American who was being advised “to take his citizenship
on the installment plan.” Two weeks later, however, he stated that “a
plea for understanding [by white Southerners] based on consideration of
timing is understandable. A plea for understanding based on defiance of
constitutional government is a plea for anarchy and secession.” A. J.
Clement, Jr., a prominent Charleston NAACP leader, was in substantial
agreement. “No one concerned with this problem,” said Clement, “likes
to be identified as being a ‘gradualist’ but, we who are ‘realists,’
have got to understand that long established customs and habits, no
matter how erroneous or abhorrent, will not suddenly be cast aside.
Some individuals are able to adjust themselves to change much quicker
than others. My chief concern is that there be no ‘backward steps,’ no
‘marking time.’”[295]
That the NAACP’s policy is essentially moderate has been demonstrated
by its willingness to compromise its position in the face of threats
to close public schools. The _Record_ reported that Marshall and other
attorneys for the appellants in the Clarendon case agreed orally
to forego a showdown in the face of a “blunt” warning by school
authorities that segregation was more important to them than education
and that schools would be closed if one Negro applied for admission
to a white school. Marshall, of course, denied this report but it is
significant that, although given virtually a free hand in the case, he
chose not to force the issue.[296] State authorities, however, have no
guarantee as to how long Negro leaders will be willing to compromise
their legal position in face of the irreconcilable attitude taken by
whites.
Throughout the entire controversy on the school issue neither Governor
Timmerman nor any other responsible political official in South
Carolina has ever offered to sit down at a conference table with Negro
leaders and to discuss the question. They have blandly taken the
position that there is nothing to discuss. The lines of communication
between the white and Negro populations of the state have completely
broken down. But in point of truth, as North Carolina pundit Harry
Golden has sagely observed, what these same politicians fear is that
the Negro leadership might be so reasonable in its requests that
such could hardly be refused without making the official policy of
South Carolina seem even more ridiculous than it already is. Governor
Timmerman and his advisers know only too well that the Negro leadership
would accede to the most gradual of gradualist programs provided it
was proposed in good faith. But to yield an inch on “principle,” a
word historically dear to South Carolinians, has literally become an
impossibility even for the best intentioned of the state’s political
leaders. They are the prisoners of the morally bankrupt policy of
“massive resistance.”
CHAPTER VII
THE NEW NULLIFICATION
In cases of deliberate, dangerous and palpable
infractions of the Constitution, affecting the
sovereignty of a state and the liberties of the
people, it is not only the right but the duty of
such state to interpose its authority for their
protection.--_Hartford Convention (1814)_
In the final analysis, the sound and fury of professional hate groups,
white supremacy organizations, “legal” resistance movements, and
“voluntary” segregation advocates would signify nothing without active
leadership and cooperation from the state government. Consequently,
organizations and individuals supporting segregation have made doubly
sure that there is no wavering on the part of public officials. Toward
this end, for example, the Lamar Citizens Council resolved that “the
powers of legislative decision and administrative responsibility must
remain in the exclusive control” of men who supported “constitutional
government, states rights ... individual liberty,” and “the separation
of races in the schools and colleges and social institutions of
this state.”[297] Segregationists have had no difficulty whatsoever
in achieving this objective if for no other than the simple reason
that political leaders are of one and the same opinion. Amongst the
politicians there has not been a single instance of deviation from
accepted attitudes of complete racial segregation. With such unanimity
of opinion, extremists inevitably would be able to set the pace in the
state legislature. That is precisely what has happened.
Immediately following the Court decision, much advice, largely
unsolicited, was given to state policy makers. The _News and Courier_
called “for moderation, for calm and wise decisions” in meeting the
crisis. It offered no specific policies for immediate consideration
by state officials but it did suggest for the time being a delaying
action, “a masterly retreat, in the Robert Edward Lee tradition of
rear-guard actions, including flank attacks.” Lest there be any doubt,
the Charleston paper reaffirmed its opposition to “de-segregation,
or integration, or amalgamation or any other tricky method of mixing
the races in public schools.”[298] The Florence _Morning News_, too,
called for “calm, reasonable and foresighted” leadership by “statesmen”
not “politicians.” Statesmen, it declared, “are not people who can
shout ‘nigger’ and they are not people who can prove--with words--that
the Negro is an inferior animal.” Solution of the problem would
result not from speeches that “inflame groups and excite the passions
of extremists,” but rather from “good sense, calm action and kind
reason.”[299]
W. D. Workman, Jr., the _News and Courier_ correspondent in Columbia,
thought South Carolina could take any one of five actions: acceptance
of the Court decision; “nullification” of the decision; abolition
of public schools; “evasive action,” such as the establishment of a
private school system to circumvent the Court decision; or “passive
resistance” which he deftly defined as “non-compliance rather than open
defiance.”[300]
The legislature was not in session at the time of the original ruling.
Therefore immediate policy decisions had to be made by Governor James
F. Byrnes. The latter decided that since the Supreme Court had failed
to implement its decree, it was unnecessary to call a special session
of the legislature. On May 20, 1954, however, he ordered a halt to all
school construction under the state’s equalization program. In July the
Gressette Committee recommended resumption of construction and the ban
was lifted on August 31.[301]
The new school building program represents the state’s one real
constructive reaction to Negro integration efforts. The purpose may
have been less an altruistic desire to improve Negro education than
to furnish the state with another arguing point in the preservation
of segregation. Whatever the motive, an immediate result has been
to provide Negroes with greatly improved, though still segregated,
educational facilities.
Early in 1956 Dr. E. Ryan Crow, the able director of the
“equalization” program, announced that despite “a fatal indifference
to equalizing facilities for Negroes” in some areas, the program had
been approximately 85 percent completed. The program’s magnitude
demonstrates that South Carolina whites, when pushed far enough, will
make efforts to equalize the Negro schools--at least from a physical
standpoint. Expenditures in Clarendon County are indicative: between
1951 and 1956 the state spent $770,576 on white school construction
as against $2,166,895 on Negro school construction. In the Summerton
school district which was directly involved in the case, $102,596 was
spent on white school construction as compared to $892,114 for Negro
school construction.[302]
In the gubernatorial election of 1954, George Bell Timmerman, Jr., who
had been lieutenant governor for eight years, was chosen to succeed
Governor Byrnes. Taking office in January, 1955, Governor Timmerman,
son of the Federal District Judge who had ruled against the Negro
plaintiffs in the Clarendon County case, became the key figure in
the state’s official opposition to any and all desegregation. For
this reason his public statements are of special significance. The
new Governor, a forty-five year old lawyer from Lexington County, is
a humorless and fanatical segregationist. On one occasion he told a
national television audience that segregation in the state would not
end “in a thousand years.”[303] Considering the problem in its more
immediate implications, he said on another occasion: “If you let one
[Negro] child come in ... you’ve opened the door. There can’t be any
compromise--you can’t compromise right with wrong.” In still another
instance he declared: “With the knowledge that right, justice and truth
are our allies, we shall not fail. There shall be no compulsory racial
mixing in our state.”[304]
Timmerman insisted that segregation did not involve discrimination.
Equality went “hand in hand” with separation. In developing this theme
the Governor added:
The two terms [discrimination and segregation] are not
interchangeable. I am opposed to discrimination on any
grounds, racial or otherwise, but it does not necessarily
follow that racial discrimination results from racial
separation. If anything separation makes for less
discrimination, for it does not provide a basis for the
inevitable discrimination which will follow if white and
Negro children are mingled in the same schools and the same
classrooms.
... The “separate-but-equal” policy provides a fair and
practicable basis for race relations in South Carolina.
If the administration of the law in years past has been
faulty, the need is for improved administration such
as we are now giving, not abandonment of the principle
itself.[305]
Timmerman asserted that the positive “benefits” of segregation were
realized by the state’s Negro population. He claimed that “many Negro
parents living in Washington and other cities to the North of us are
leaving their children with relatives in our State so that their
children can enjoy the benefit of a Southern climate in segregated
public schools.”[306] The Governor did not say whether he was referring
to climate in its physical aspects or in the realm of opinion and mores.
In his inaugural address, Timmerman criticized even the suggestion of a
moderate consideration of the segregation issue. “The cowardly approach
of gradualism,” he described as “the essence of discrimination,”
“a creeping evil” that had no place in “the government of a free
people.”[307] Constantly reiterating that “white parents” and “most
Negro parents” opposed integration, he applauded “the calm attitude”
in which white South Carolinians had approached the issue. Since the
latter were determined to resist integration, “the sensible choice
of the Negro” was to accept and support separate but equal schools.
“Our common task is one of patience, understanding and unyielding
determination,” said the Governor. “In this way we can minimize some
of the tragedy which the Supreme Court would impose upon us all. There
will be no compulsory racial mixing in our state.”[308]
Also indicative was Timmerman’s criticism of President Eisenhower’s
appeal that every American be “judged and measured by what he is,
rather than by his color, race or religion.” He complained that
“never before has a national administration proclaimed as unimportant
a person’s race and religion.” How better, he asked, could a person
be “judged and measured” as to what he is? “A man’s most priceless
possession is his heritage. A man’s most priceless achievement is his
religious faith.”[309]
Whatever one may think of it, Timmerman’s attitude is in no sense
hypocritical; it is in complete consonance with his political credo.
He is a conservative in the peculiarly Southern sense of the word, a
racist, a states righter, an advocate of decentralized government. In
referring to federal aid to education, he declared: “As far as I am
concerned, if I must be taxed and controlled, I would rather be taxed
by laws enacted sensibly by local representatives of my own state in
whose election I have some choice, than to be taxed ill-advisedly
by representatives of the other states, in whose selection I have
no choice.”[310] The full measure of his political conservatism is
reflected in a speech delivered before the Southern regional conference
of the Association of State Governments at Charleston in the spring of
1956. George Washington, he said, gave “to posterity prophetic advice
of strikingly current significance” when he cautioned against a “spirit
of innovation” upon the principles embodied in the Constitution. Such a
“spirit,” warned the Governor, was “prevalent and growing.”[311]
The state legislature and the special school segregation committee,
headed by Senator L. Marion Gressette of Calhoun County, also have
played leading roles in the official opposition to integration.
The Gressette Committee, consisting of 15 members appointed by the
Governor, Lieutenant Governor E. F. Hollings and Speaker of the State
House of Representatives Solomon Blatt, one of that rare variety of
Jewish segregationists, had been formed in 1951 as a result of the
Clarendon County school case. Shortly after the 1954 ruling, the
committee embarked in earnest on its task of determining the best
course to be followed in circumventing the integration drive. Beginning
in July the committee held a series of closed hearings which sounded
out the attitudes of leading individuals and groups. It heard from
such diverse individuals as the presidents of all state supported
colleges, including Dr. Benner C. Turner of the state Negro college;
former Governor Byrnes; E. H. Agnew, president of the state Farm
Bureau Federation; G. L. Ivey, president of the Florence National
Association for the Advancement of White People; representatives from
the Charleston NAACP and the Negro teachers association.
The initial efforts of the committee were generally applauded.
The _News and Courier_ praised its “statesmanlike and cautious
approach.”[312] The _Morning News_ was somewhat more reserved. In
addition to criticizing the closed hearings, Editor O’Dowd suggested
that the scope of the committee’s responsibility be widened to include
a study of the price South Carolina was willing to pay for segregated
schools. The same paper made the ingenious proposal that a “devil’s
advocate,” an “open and declared advocate of integration,” be placed
on the committee. Such a person, it was pointed out, could expose the
flaws in the various plans for continuing segregation.[313]
In justifying the closed hearings, the committee’s first interim
report explained that this was done “to avoid hasty action and public
misunderstanding, which could cause inflammation and friction.”[314]
In at least one instance what transpired behind committee doors
was revealed to the press. In a letter to the _News and Courier_,
A. J. Clement, Jr., the Charleston NAACP president, stated that
when appearing before the committee, he had urged “that South
Carolina accept the Supreme Court decision” and begin steps toward
desegregation “forthwith.” Clement acknowledged the magnitude of the
problem involved. “Molds and patterns of living, customs and habits
in daily activities” could not be altered overnight. The state of New
Jersey provided an example of gradual desegregation such as Clement
envisaged for South Carolina. In New Jersey the Negro had “all of
the educational, civic, political opportunities” he was fighting for
in South Carolina. Yet “the mark, the impression, the influence,
the stunting effects of former discriminatory practices and racial
segregations” were still present. He appealed to the Gressette
Committee to take the initial step toward desegregation in South
Carolina.[315]
The attitude of the Gressette Committee has been revealed in its
reports to the state legislature and in speeches by its chairman. The
latter, like the Governor, holds that a majority of Negroes desire
segregation. On one occasion he asserted that 98 percent of the
state’s Negroes were uninterested in forcibly integrating the races.
(Significantly, he neglected to say whether these same Negroes would
be opposed to integration if the question of force was not involved.)
To buttress his opinion, Gressette cited the NAACP’s “failure to
obtain more petitions” for integration in the public schools, despite
its alleged use of “fraud, deceit and misrepresentation.” Similar
ideas have been expressed in committee reports. In January, 1955,
the committee found no reason to alter its view “that the consensus
of public opinion in the State favors better educational opportunity
for children--in separate schools.” Such a view is in all probability
substantially true but the matter is academic since the Supreme Court
has ruled otherwise. The following December, the committee revealed
there were “many indications, and few if any to the contrary, that
sentiment in favor of separate schools and against integrated schools”
had crystallized during 1956. It further expressed agreement “with
those who maintain that the decision of the United States Supreme Court
was improper,” representing a usurpation of executive and legislative
functions by the Supreme Court. And it proposed “to employ every
legal means” to maintain a segregated school system which it “in good
conscience” believed to be “in the best interests” of the children of
both races. With some real basis in fact the Committee held that events
were proving “that the Court did not intend to force integration on an
unwilling people.”[316]
The public school system is, of course, the key factor in the
segregation-integration controversy. The one great trump card, though
a miserable joker for the children of the state, is the threat to
close down the public school system if integration is ordered. It has
been spelled out to leave no doubts. If a Negro pupil is admitted to
a white school by court order, both the white and Negro schools which
are involved are to be closed. This threat takes in not only primary
and secondary public schools but also state supported institutions of
higher education, including graduate and professional schools.
Reactions have varied to the possibility of closing the public
schools. Lieutenant Governor E. F. Hollings, opposing such action,
asserted that “it’s foolish to even consider for a moment that
abolishing public education is the solution.” On another occasion he
insisted: “We can never abandon our public school system.”[317] Yet
he reassured the people that schools were “intended for education and
not integration.”[318] And since segregation was a “natural thing,” it
followed that “a majority of Negroes” was no more enthusiastic about
integration than whites. The Lieutenant Governor took the realistic
position that any private school plan “might be tossed out by the court
as a ‘trick’ designed to circumvent the decree.”[319] He advocated
a system that would be premised on local control. Pupils would be
assigned to schools by the local superintendent or trustees on a basis
other than race--“sex, aptitude, proximity of school to home and
available classroom space.” Such a plan, he thought, would meet the
requirements of the court.[320]
W. D. Workman, Jr., in evaluating public opinion on the abolition
of the public schools, considered it “extremely doubtful” that a
majority of South Carolinians was prepared to do away with the system
altogether. None the less he reported that “in some parts of the
state,” white parents considered segregation more important than
education. The _News and Courier_ editorially agreed. “Compulsory
mingling of the races in public schools,” it announced, would be “a
worse thing than closing them.” The Charleston paper attacked the
public school system _per se_:
Many thoughtful citizens of South Carolina long have been
dissatisfied with the educational performance of our
public schools. We say this not in criticism of public
school teachers or officials, because it has been the
system--rather than the participants in the system--which
is at fault.
The public schools have suffered because of political
pressures, complacency due to lack of competition and a
trend to gear lessons to the dullest of the pupils. Social
promotions, progressive education and over-emphasis on
athletics and such nonsense as drum majorettes and beauty
contests have lowered the educational standards of public
schools....
In the future, South Carolinians who do not wish to send
their children to public schools should be encouraged to
send them to private schools. This encouragement should be
in the form of an allotment of money by the state toward
the private school tuition of any child who does not attend
public schools....
We believe that private schools which offered a poor
education soon would go out of business, and that private
schools which offered a good education would thrive and
multiply. There would be competition among private schools
to do a good educational job. At present there is no
competition among public schools....[321]
Others expressed like sentiments. Henry E. Davis, a Florence attorney,
told the local Citizens Council: “Close your schools if it comes to
that.... Closing public schools is not such a calamity and private
schools get the best results anyway.” Another Citizens Council speaker,
state representative O. L. Warr of Lamar, advised a Beaufort rally that
rather than accept integration, public schools should be abandoned
“reluctantly but inflexibly without flinch or falter.”[322] The letter
of T. H. McFaddin of Gable to the _News and Courier_ is revealing:
Any court that does not consider what is best for the
white child, in my opinion is a kangaroo court. No one can
read into the Constitution, that any child should be found
guilty for being born a white child and be sentenced to
over three quarters of every year during its school term
to be mixed with children of another race. For there is
no commandment that reads, Thou shalt not keep thy race
pure....
Books are cheap. Education can be gotten by mail to a great
extent ... the only way to beat this school mixture of the
races is to advertise all school property for sale.[323]
A few outspoken champions of the public school system have come
forward to be heard. _Morning News_ Editor O’Dowd declared that
“our educational system is of more importance than mores, political
opposition, state-wide resentment or mass disappointment.”[324]
Likewise Mrs. C. B. Busbee, head of the education department of the
South Carolina Federation of Women’s Clubs, said that “the abandonment
of a system of public schools would set back the cause of education for
all our people 100 years.”[325]
In view of the role of the schoolhouse in the segregation controversy,
the attitude of education groups is significant. The Council of
Delegates of the South Carolina Education Association, an organization
of white classroom teachers and administrators, in October, 1954,
approved a resolution which held segregated schools “the best form of
organization for meeting the needs of children of both races,” and
urged “an adequate system of free public schools in South Carolina be
maintained.”[326] Other education groups have been more hesitant to
state their positions. Not until August, 1955, more than a year after
the court decision, did the Association of School Administrators and
the School Boards Association, an organization of school trustees,
take their stand. The School Administrators pledged themselves “to the
preservation, continuation, and improvement of the public school system
of South Carolina.” The school trustees adopted a resolution which
observed that “as long as the State of South Carolina, through its
legislative authority, continues its policy of withholding funds for
the operation of integrated schools, our schools must continue to be
segregated if they are to remain open.” The trustees pledged themselves
to keep the public schools open “so that responsibility for closing
them must be assumed by other authorities.”[327] A sad commentary
is that no one administratively connected with any state supported
institution of higher learning publicly has opposed the state’s threat
to close those institutions if a Negro were admitted. To summarize, the
threatened abolition of the public school system would indicate lack of
appreciation by white South Carolinians of the fundamental role of a
system of free education in a democratic society.
The question of federal aid to education naturally has intruded itself
into the school integration controversy. So intense is the feeling on
this subject that it has become another of the articles of faith upon
which orthodoxy is demanded of all public spokesmen. Without doubt a
large majority of white South Carolinians agreed with the _News and
Courier_ when it referred to federal aid to education as “bribery” to
be used by integrationists. Governor Timmerman characterized federal
aid as “sugar-coated federal taxation.” He told the 1956 General
Assembly that propaganda for federal aid to education fostered upon
the people “a big political hoax, the claim of an acute shortage of
school buildings.” That contention, said the Governor, was “simply
untrue.”[328] Some South Carolina school administrators might have been
disposed to disagree were it discreet to do so.
Public officials and other leaders in the state have spoken out
against federal aid, especially if it suggests any inkling of federal
control. That South Carolina’s schools are already receiving hundreds
of thousands of dollars of federal money for educational purposes has
been conveniently overlooked. Most spokesmen oppose federal aid _per
se_. Occasionally, however, proposals have been made which are designed
to give the states federal money with no strings attached. For example,
University of South Carolina President Donald Russell who resigned
in October, 1957, to run for governor, suggested that the federal
government return to the states on a per capita basis ten percent of
all federal income taxes collected. This plan, declared Russell, would
involve no federal control and thus would test the sincerity of “those
who would pervert the matter of federal aid into a coercive weapon to
promote some alien or sociological goal.”[329]
The state legislature expressed itself on the subject in March, 1957.
The House of Representatives adopted a resolution, introduced by Rep.
P. Eugene Brabham of Bamberg, which noted that South Carolinians
“are now, always have been and shall always be unequivocally,
incontrovertibly and unalterably opposed to any federal invasion,
encroachment or infringement of the fundamental right, obligation and
duty of the people and their local authority to provide, supervise and
control the education of the children of this state or the educational
processes concomitant thereon.”[330]
A central theme of the opponents of federal aid to education is the
contention that South Carolina does not need any more money for
operation of its schools. They point with pride to the large scale
school building program which the state has undertaken in response
to the demands by Negroes for racial integration. The South Carolina
Conference of Education, a group appointed by Governor Byrnes to study
education in the state, reported in late 1955 that in regard to federal
aid to education “no funds are sought or desired, except in those areas
like North Charleston or Aiken where federal installations have caused
increases in school population out of all proportion to normal growth
and development.”[331]
Opponents of federal aid usually overlook all factors in the school
program except classroom construction. They disregard the pitifully
low salaries of classroom teachers and the resultant insufficient
training of many teachers. They also tend to ignore the results of
tests conducted by the American Council of Education. South Carolina
students, according to results announced early in 1956, ranked
nationally as follows:
34th in English correctness and effectiveness of expression
36th in general mathematical ability
42nd in interpretation of literary material
46th in interpretation of reading material on the natural sciences
47th in interpretation of reading material in social studies
According to a 1958 report of the National Education Association,
South Carolina ranks at the very bottom of the nation in its record of
public school education. Among the states it is 48th in the number of
median school years completed by persons 25 years of age and older.
It is 47th in the per cent of adult (25 years and older) population
with less than five years of schooling (27.4 per cent of its adults
have less than five years of formal education) and it is 48th in the
percentage of its adult population who have completed four years of
high school. It occupies 47th position in the percentage of selective
service registrants disqualified by mental tests. In the percentage of
its eighth grade enrollment going on to finish high school the Palmetto
State is 46th. With regard to teacher pay, South Carolina ranks 45th;
the average salary of its classroom teachers is $3,250.
Statistics such as these hardly give credence to Rep. Ashmore’s
statement that “what South Carolina has done with its schools is
evidence in itself any state in the union can take care of its own
school needs.”[332]
The press of the state generally denounces federal aid for education.
The _News and Courier_ went so far as to condemn federally subsidized
school lunches. If school children should get such lunches, it argued,
they should also receive suppers and breakfasts. “The difference
between government-sponsored school lunches and the welfare state is
only a matter of degree.” Similarly, the _Record_ thought that federal
aid could destroy “freedom and inventiveness in the schools” while the
_Morning News_ suggested it would in reality make less funds available
for education because of the bureaucratic costs of collecting the taxes
and sending the money back to the states.[333]
On occasion, however, a newspaper editorialist has questioned the
arguments used against federal aid. The _Independent_, rarely missing
a chance to lash out against former Governor Byrnes, wondered how
the Palmetto State’s elder statesman could oppose federal taxation of
South Carolinians for building schools in other states and not oppose
taxation of citizens of other states to build defense and military
installations in South Carolina. Driving this point home, the Anderson
newspaper then stated that in the past both South Carolina and Byrnes
had received far more money through federal channels than they had
paid out in federal taxes. Likewise the _Morning News_ objected to
arguments that federal aid was socialism. Socialism, said the Florence
newspaper, depended on whether South Carolina got anything from it.
“Our politicians say they will not accept federal aid to education
because it is socialistic.... The truth is that they do not need this
particular aid, so they can refuse it with indignation.”[334]
A concrete instance of the federal aid to education question came
to light in mid-August of 1957 when Clemson College, the state’s
agricultural and engineering school for whites, rejected a grant of
$350,000 from the Atomic Energy Commission. According to the provisions
of the grant, of which the college’s board of trustees had accepted
an initial payment of $99,050, “the grantee agrees that no person
shall be barred from participation in the educational and training
program involved or be the subject of other unfavorable discrimination
on the basis of race, color, creed, or religion.” Inasmuch as racial
discrimination undeniably existed at Clemson, the trustees belatedly
decided to withdraw from the agreement with the AEC and to return to it
the $99,050. Clemson president R. E. Poole stressed, however, that the
college’s nuclear testing and experimental program would continue.
Governor Timmerman, choosing to ignore the obvious racial
discrimination at Clemson, defended the college’s action on the far
less realistic grounds that the inclusion of the word “creed” in
the conditions of the grant would prohibit Clemson authorities from
denying participation in the atomic energy program to a Communist. This
lawyer’s trick in semantics was applauded by the Columbia _State_ which
ironically at this very time was leading a last-ditch fight to prevent
the closing of nearby Fort Jackson, a federal military installation
on which not a small part of Columbia’s economic well being directly
depends. “This affair,” pontificated the _State_, “is an affirmation
of the principle that federal aid means federal control.” The _News
and Courier_ also praised Clemson’s action, though recognizing that
its atomic energy program would have to be reduced in scope to the
detriment of the state. “So far as we know,” said the Charleston paper,
“Clemson is the first Southern college to make such a forthright
choice between freedom and government handouts. Other colleges sooner
or later will have to make the same decision. We hope they will be
guided by the example of the Clemson trustees. We do not know how many
federal dollars the choice of freedom will cost Southern colleges.
Freedom is an expensive commodity. It is worth every cent.”[335]
Though the state legislature did not reach the zenith of its
anti-integration zeal until 1956, its 1955 session provided an
informative prelude. Legislators in 1955 were more hesitant than a
year later, perhaps because the Supreme Court had not yet implemented
the original decision. Nevertheless a number of important measures
were adopted. The Gressette committee recommended and the legislature
adopted proposals that repealed the state’s compulsory attendance law,
gave local school trustees authority to sell or lease school property,
and prohibited automatic renewal of teacher contracts.[336]
Only the repeal of the state’s compulsory school attendance law evoked
any considerable opposition. In the Senate Lewis Wallace of York County
alone opposed repeal and then on the curious grounds that the measure
was an “abject surrender” to the Court decision. Greater objection
developed in the House. The House Education Committee approved the
measure thirteen to eight but on the floor Representative Richard L.
Breeland of Richland County, a high school teacher and lawyer, led
the opposition. He urged that repeal be postponed until after the
Supreme Court had given its final ruling. “In clearing the decks,” he
said, “let’s be careful we don’t sink the ship.” His chief adversary
in debate was John Calhoun Hart, an impulsive school teacher from
Union County. “Our very way of life is at stake,” he exclaimed. “Our
ethnological makeup may be swept away. If we falter, we shall go
down into the sewer of mongrelism.”[337] The repeal of this law was
generally accepted as an unpleasant but imperative move.
The _Independent_ regarded the repeal measure, along with other laws
which undermined the public school system, as a tactical action
necessary “to realize the overall strategy of maintaining segregated
schools.”[338] In abrogating the law the legislature was simply
reflecting the will of the people, thought the _News and Courier_.
In thus functioning “as a truly representative body in a Republic,”
the legislature was observing a principle “more important than the
compulsory attendance law, or even public education itself.”[339]
By analogy, then, if the people of South Carolina were bent upon
intellectual suicide, the logic of the Charleston paper would have the
legislature legally send them to their destruction.
In several other particulars, the 1955 legislature sought to hold the
segregation line. Most important was a provision in the general state
appropriation bill which stated that: “Appropriations of state aid for
teachers, salaries, and all other school district, county and state
appropriations for the operation of the public school system shall
cease and become inoperative for any school from which, and for any
school to which, any pupil may transfer pursuant to, or in consequence
of, any order of any court, for the time that the pupil shall attend
a school other than the school to which he was assigned before the
issuance of such court order.”[340]
The legislators also called upon Congress “to enact legislation
limiting the appellate jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court
and the jurisdiction of the other Federal Courts so that the fields
of government of the executive and legislative branches and that of
the several states shall not be invaded, but shall remain separate
and distinct.” Later the legislators, in urging the Supreme Court not
to implement its earlier decision, declared that integration in South
Carolina would result in “hatred, strife, chaos and confusion,” and
the “possible wrecking of the educational program.” Consequently, “at
no time in the foreseeable future” would it be possible to desegregate
the public schools of South Carolina. Reflecting a blindness to the
realities of the twentieth century, the resolution concluded on a note
of perverse logic that the continuation of segregation would weld and
unite America and thus enable the country to present “a solid front of
democracy” to the world.[341]
In 1956 the state legislature enacted anti-integration and anti-NAACP
proposals at almost a mass production rate. If no pertinent law could
be enacted, the legislators adopted, usually unanimously, resolutions
to express their opinion on a particular phase of the integration
controversy. Altogether more than a dozen important measures were
passed. These included a resolution of interposition; a law requiring
white colleges and the Negro college to close if integration were
ordered by the courts; a law barring NAACP members from state, county
or local government employment; a resolution ordering an investigation
of NAACP activities at the state Negro college; a resolution requesting
the federal government to place the NAACP on the attorney general’s
subversive list; a provision limiting all appropriations for state
schools and parks to segregated schools and parks only; a law closing
Edisto Beach State Park because Negroes had filed a court suit seeking
admission; a resolution requesting the State Library Board to remove
current, and screen future, books “inimical and antagonistic” to the
segregation customs of the state; a resolution commending the Citizens
Councils; a resolution requesting President Eisenhower to restore
segregation in the nation’s armed forces to rebuild morale and _esprit
de corps_; the establishment of the Gressette Committee as a permanent
legislative committee; a measure giving local law enforcement officers
the power to transfer pupils from one school to another to avoid “civil
commotion;” an enactment giving local school boards the power to make
enrollment rules and regulations having the force and effect of law,
appeals from such rules to be channeled through state courts; and
finally a resolution stating the legislators’ support of continued bus
segregation.[342]
Of all these actions the interposition resolution received the most
publicity. Revived during the period by Editor James J. Kilpatrick of
the Richmond, Virginia, _News Leader_, interposition has become the
shopworn answer of the states righters and “constitutionalists” to
the integration controversy. It is designed to please those elements
which have rationalized their prejudices and objections to racial
integration on constitutional grounds. Their contention, rightly
held to be sure, is that the founding fathers had not contemplated
integration in 1787 when they wrote the Constitution. Also appealing
is the long and hoary history of interposition and its companion
nullification. It had begun in 1798 and 1799 with the Kentucky and
Virginia resolutions of Jefferson and Madison and subsequently had
run through the Hartford Convention of 1814, Calhoun’s nullification
attempts in 1832 and Wisconsin’s refusal to accept the Fugitive Slave
Law in 1859. The Virginia resolution and the Hartford Convention both
used the term “interpose.” Illustrating that the use of interposition
or nullification was more a weapon of the political outs than of a
geographic section, the Hartford Convention, in terms worthy of the
best states righters of the 1950’s, had declared that “in cases of
deliberate, dangerous and palpable infractions of the Constitution,
affecting the sovereignty of a state and the liberties of the people,
it is not only the right but the duty of such state to interpose its
authority for their protection.”
The historically outmoded theory behind interposition is the core of
the states rights argument: the federal government is a creature of
the states, which had united to establish a central authority. The
Constitution set the rules and regulations which governed that central
authority. Ultimate sovereignty, however, continued to rest with the
states. If the people of the states felt that the federal government
had exceeded its authority, then they--acting through the states--had
the power to challenge the action of the federal government.[343]
In theory the challenge would take the form of a suspensive veto
which would hold the particular act of the federal government to be
null and void until approved by ¾ of the states by a constitutional
amendment. The theory resolved itself into a basic question: Is the
federal government or are the state governments the final judge of the
authority of the federal government? Historically, the political outs
have answered the states, though the Civil War, certainly if it meant
anything constitutionally speaking, proved the contrary to be true. In
the 1950’s the South represented the political outs in the segregation
controversy.
The interposition doctrine connoted different things to different
people; consequently, it produced varied reactions. Governor
Timmerman, who considered interposition a form of protest, believed
it “fundamentally sound.” Representative James L. Richards, dean of
the state’s congressional delegation and Chairman of the House Foreign
Affairs Committee, praised interposition as a means of protest but
balked at talk of nullification. Interposition he defined as “an
assertion, a protest, and a declaration of opinion of illegality.”
He urged South Carolinians to “avoid the passion and hysteria that
will lead men to ‘ride at night,’ take the law into their own hands,
or insult the United States flag.”[344] On the other hand, the
silver-maned Congressman L. Mendel Rivers of Charleston declared that
“interposition is worthless unless it carries with it the corresponding
power of nullification.” Indicating that at least one later day
Charlestonian had learned nothing from the nullification crisis of
1832, Rivers asserted that “interposition without nullification is
a knife without an edge, a gun without bullets, a plane without an
engine or a head without a body.”[345] Similarly, S. Emory Rogers, the
Summerton attorney and Citizens Council leader, agreed that there could
be “no effective interposition without nullification.”[346]
Newspaper opinion also varied. The _Record_ considered interposition
“sound” when viewed “as a device for formalizing the states’ protest
against amendment of the Constitution by judicial decision.” But like
Representative Richards, the _Record_ looked upon any nullification
proposal as “counsel of confusion” which could be supported “only
by ... outdated law and pre-Confederate War logic.”[347] The
_Morning News_ endorsed interposition as “in all probability, the
only proper answer” to the segregation controversy. However, it
cautioned interposition advocates to be prepared to accept the
possible consequences. Should the nation admit the challenge of the
interposition theory and in fact approve the integration decision by
constitutional amendment, the South would be bound by its own doctrine
to adopt integration.[348] Such an eventuality would test the sincerity
of the constitutional objections to integration. The _Independent_,
while considering interposition “worthy of the test,” also realized
this danger. In the main, however, the Anderson paper was wary of the
whole doctrine because of its support by economic conservatives. “Is
there thought in some quarters,” asked the _Independent_, “that the
doctrine might be used to combat not racial decisions alone, but also
decisions and legislation dealing with such matters as wages and hours,
old age pensions, health insurance, right to work laws and other issues
that might arise in the future?”[349]
The _News and Courier_ gave unqualified assent to interposition but
never definitely identified the doctrine with outright nullification.
That this paper was willing to carry the issue to an extreme, however,
was demonstrated on several occasions. Southerners, it declared,
... understand, we believe, the meaning of nullification.
Though many are afraid of the consequences--they have been
coerced, bought and brainwashed for nearly a quarter of
a century now--there are many others who are eager for a
showdown.
Southerners do not talk about Civil War II. That is a
bogeyman to scare the faint of heart. There will be no war.
There may be “economic sanctions” such as withholding of
some form of federal aid....
Whatever may be the form of interposition, the South will
not, cannot and should not accept dictatorship while breath
remains in Southern breasts....
For many reasons the _News and Courier_ advocated interposition, the
most important being that it “could raise the issue above the tumult
and the shouting” of race and thus place “state sovereignty on the
highest plane.” The doctrine “should be held in reserve for use in
cases of maximum gravity.”[350]
Interposition was first considered seriously late in 1955. In January,
1956, Governor Timmerman and several other Southern governors attended
a conference in Richmond, Virginia, where the problem was discussed
with a view toward united action. The conference approved a statement
urging all the Southern states to adopt a “resolution of interposition
or protest.” Upon returning from the conference, Governor Timmerman
recommended that the state legislature approve such a resolution. He
described the interposition doctrine as representing “the studious
thought and deliberate work of the men who have provided sound advice
and wise leadership in this crisis.”[351]
A resolution interposing the sovereignty of the state of South Carolina
between its people and the federal government was introduced into the
legislature by Senator Gressette on January 31 and adopted February
14. It condemned “the illegal encroachment by the central government
into the reserved powers of the states and the rights of the people.”
The resolution protested “against the grave threat to constitutional
government, implicit in the recent decisions of the Supreme Court of
the United States.” Eight closely connected reasons were enumerated in
justification for interposition. “The right of each of the States to
maintain ... racially separate public schools ... is not forbidden or
limited” by the Fourteenth Amendment. When the Supreme Court handed
down its desegregation decision, it departed from “the sanctity of past
decisions” and relied “on the current political and social philosophy
of its members.” Such in effect constituted an amendment to the
Constitution, since the Court ignored the “principle that the meaning
of the Constitution and its Amendments does not change. It is a written
instrument.” This usurpation of power by the Court transcended even
the “problems of segregation in education.” Under such circumstances
the sovereign state of South Carolina could “judge for itself of the
infraction of the Constitution.”
For these reasons, then, the legislature resolved that the Court
decision was “a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous attempt to change
the true intent and meaning of the Constitution;” that the state
“condemns and protests” against this illegal encroachment of the
federal government upon the rights of the states; and that South
Carolina reserved for itself the right to take such “legal measures” as
it might deem appropriate “to protect its sovereignty and the rights of
its people.”[352]
Scattered opposition developed in the legislature against the
resolution. The more extreme elements clamored for a stronger
statement! One of the modern “fire eaters,” Representative George
Harrell of Florence, previously had introduced an interposition
resolution in the House on January 10, 1956, which would have
declared “that the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States
holding that segregation of races in public schools of this state is
unconstitutional, is, in itself, unconstitutional, contrary to law,
and therefore null and void and of no effect so far as this state is
concerned.”[353] On the House floor, Representative John M. Horlbeck
of Charleston echoed the _News and Courier_: “This is a resolution of
protest and not of interposition. There are many who think that this
resolution should state a positive position asserting and pledging
the authority of the State to prevent the implementation of what this
resolution terms an unlawful decree. I am of this opinion.”[354]
The press of the state underscored the protest nature of the Timmerman
resolution. The political writer, W. D. Workman, Jr., termed it “a
states rights resolution which is well-worded, well-reasoned and
eminently logical, but ... NOT an interposition resolution.” It marched
“briskly” up to the threshold of interposition and then stopped.
Decrying such hesitation, he declared that “somewhere, sometime,
somehow, the people and the states must stand and fight, or else watch
the American form of government evolve into centralism.”[355] The
_Independent_ agreed. The resolution, thought this upcountry paper,
amounted to nothing more than a protest. Since no assertion was made
of “the state’s claim to the right of outright nullification,” it was
meaningless. The Anderson daily questioned the seriousness of state
political leadership in the whole interposition affair.[356] The
_Record_, which strongly opposed all implications of nullification,
praised the resolution as a “solemn protest” and a “dignified
document.” It condemned the trend in the nation toward “an all-powerful
central government, constructed in the form of an absolute democracy”
in which the minority would have no rights. This situation was caused
by the political thinking of the big Northern cities--thinking that
was partially to be explained “by the high proportion of European
immigrants in their population.” These people could not “even
understand” such historical American concepts as states rights.[357]
Shades of John C. Calhoun, perhaps, but completely comprehensible to
regular readers of the _Record’s_ xenophobic editorials.
Expressing similar views, Senator Gressette said that the resolution
would serve notice to all America that the major political parties were
“victims of small pressure groups ... in some of the larger cities and
states of the North and East.”[358]
The full implications of the doctrine of interposition emerged in stark
reality early in September when Governor Orval Faubus of Arkansas
called out the state’s national guard to prevent implementation of a
federal court decree ordering the integration of a Little Rock high
school. Though Faubus made no reference to interposition and claimed
that he had called out the troops solely to maintain order and to
prevent bloodshed, many South Carolinians insisted, and with some
reason, that the Governor’s defiance of federal authority constituted
interposition in effect if not in name. “Use of state troops to prevent
Little Rock’s school board from carrying out integration orders of
a federal judge is a direct act of interposition,” said a _News and
Courier_ editorial. “The doctrine of interposition,” it added, “has
been hazy in the minds of many persons, even in the South. Now it
has taken shape in the form of state troops on school patrol.” The
following morning the _State_ followed the lead of the Charleston
paper: “We have in Arkansas a first-class example of interposition--a
state putting itself between the federal government and the people.” A
few days later the same paper leveled an editorial blast against United
States District Judge Ronald N. Davies who issued the integration
decree. “In the first place a North Dakota judge, no matter how learned
he may be in law or how sternly he can throw around his bantamweight,
should never have been put in the position of making the integration
ruling in Little Rock,” said Editor Samuel Latimer. “He couldn’t
possibly have any deep understanding of the relationship between the
whites and Negroes in the South and because of this shallow knowledge
he has created a most unpleasant situation.” Mr. Latimer’s analysis was
a bit ironic since the _State’s_ editorials had constantly demanded
that judicial decisions be premised on law and not the sociological
opinions of the judges.[359]
Measures taken against the NAACP are another important phase in
the state’s efforts to preserve segregation unimpaired. These have
given official direction to the drive to eradicate the NAACP in
South Carolina. In February, 1956, the state legislature unanimously
adopted a resolution urging the attorney general of the United States
to classify the NAACP “as a subversive organization so that it may
be kept under the proper surveillance and that all citizens of the
United States may have ample warning of the danger to our way of life
which lurks in such an organization.” By way of justification the
legislators maintained that the files of the Un-American Activities
Committee of the national House of Representatives contained records
“of affiliation with ... subversive organizations or activities” of 53
leading officials of the NAACP. Among the individuals so listed were A.
Philip Randolph, Mary McLeod Bethune, Oscar Hammerstein II, Channing H.
Tobias, William H. Hastie, Benjamin E. Mays, Arthur B. Spingarn, Ralph
Bunche, Allen Knight Chalmers, Norman Cousins, and James Hinton.[360]
In March the legislators approved a law barring all members of the
NAACP from employment by state, county or local governments. It
declared that the NAACP exerted “constant pressure on its members
contrary to the principles upon which the economic and social life of
our state rests.” Membership in the organization was held to be “wholly
incompatible with the peace, tranquility and progress that all citizens
have a right to enjoy.” This legislation required prospective teachers
to fill out a long questionnaire designed to uncover the slightest
deviation from complete racial orthodoxy. The questions asked included:
Do you belong to the NAACP? Does any member of your
immediate family belong to the NAACP? Do you support the
NAACP in any way (money or attendance at meetings)?
Do you favor integration of races in schools? Are you
satisfied with your work and the schools as they are now
maintained? If yes, comment on back.
Do you feel that you would be happy in an integrated school
system, knowing that the parents and students do not favor
this system? (Give reasons for your answer)
Do you feel that an integrated school system would better
fit the colored race for their life’s work? (Give reasons
for your answer)
Do you feel that the parents of your school know that no
public schools will be operated if they are integrated? Do
you believe in the aims of the NAACP?[361]
The 1956 legislature also authorized the investigation of NAACP
activities at Orangeburg state college.
Several other anti-NAACP measures were introduced but failed of
passage. These followed the pernicious tactic of linking the NAACP with
the Klan. Included was a proposal to deny tax exempt status to “any
building of public worship” used as a meeting place by the Communist
party or the NAACP. Another would have required all state officials and
employes to declare by oath that they belonged neither to the NAACP nor
the Ku Klux Klan. Declared the latter proposal: “The dangerous policies
and doctrines of these despicable organizations constitute a danger
to the health, morals, safety and general welfare of citizens in the
state.”[362]
The legislature’s preoccupation with such measures was generally
criticized by the press of the state. The _Morning News_ questioned
the reasonableness, fairness and justness of the anti-NAACP bills
and compared them to the pattern of “McCarthyism.” “Bills of this
kind,” wrote O’Dowd, “are seldom given a chance of passage--even by
the authors. They are written and introduced as a grandstand play
for the folks back home. They may serve to make the author look like
the champion of white Protestantism to some of the more rabid of
his supporters; but the bills also make the legislature look pretty
silly and immature.” On another occasion the same paper declared that
“speeches and resolutions against the Supreme Court and the NAACP” had
replaced “home, mother, God and country in South Carolina political
circles.” The 1956 session of the legislature, chided O’Dowd, would
possibly be renowned for “turning its back on positive progress and
dedicating its efforts to blind blows against the Supreme Court and
the NAACP.”[363] In agreement the _Independent_ stated that the 1956
legislature showed “signs of turning into a mad scramble” to see
who could introduce the most “‘segregation’ bills.” The low-country
Walterboro _Press and Standard_ believed that “some politicians are
more interested in ‘cashing in’ politically on the [segregation] issue
and prolonging it than in establishing a steady, determined course of
action that will in fact preserve both segregation and the fundamental
freedoms in South Carolina.”[364] The _Record_ also questioned the
wisdom of anti-NAACP measures which might serve only to drive the
organization underground or to replace it with “some other apparently
less sinister group.”[365]
The _News and Courier_ was more sympathetic especially in the light of
the purpose for which the measures were designed. It noted that
Georgia is taking steps to combat race bias among its
public school teachers. By banning membership in the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People,
Atty. Gen. [Eugene] Cook has incurred the wrath of NAACP
and other race spokesmen.
The same kind of fuss was made over attempts to root
communists and subversives out of government jobs.
“Interference with individual freedom” is the battle cry.
The _News and Courier_ is a firm believer in individual
freedom. For that reason we do not believe that teachers
should belong to the NAACP or any other militant group.
Such membership destroys freedom to teach the unbiased
truth.
The Charleston paper, however, would not achieve its objectives by
a law barring NAACP members from state employment. It suggested
instead that the matter be handled on the local level. Local school
boards knew best which teachers were “spreading the NAACP line. Such
teachers should be discharged, firmly but with as little fuss as
possible. Membership in the NAACP or any similar organization dedicated
to upsetting customs and laws of our state should be grounds for
dismissal.”[366]
In the contest to see who could introduce the most segregation
bills, Representative John Calhoun Hart of Union County won handily.
This rumple-haired legislative fire-brand introduced separately or
in conjunction with others the bill to remove tax exemptions from
churches used as meeting places for the Communist party or the NAACP
(not passed); the bill to require all public officials and employes
to take an anti-NAACP and anti-Ku Klux Klan oath (not passed); a
resolution asking that the legislature condemn Vice-President Richard
M. Nixon “in the strongest manner possible” for the Vice-President’s
resort “to the vilest and lowest politics imaginable” in “arousing
and causing dissension among the races” (not passed); a resolution
asking President Eisenhower to restore segregation in the armed forces
(passed); a bill to prohibit Union County schools from belonging to
any educational association approving of racially integrated schools
(passed); a bill to prohibit state agencies and institutions from
buying from firms which sponsored interracial television or radio
programs (not passed); the resolution asking that the NAACP be declared
a subversive organization by the federal government (passed); and
a resolution urging the state’s delegation to the 1956 Democratic
national convention to seek restoration of the ⅔ rule for nomination of
candidates (passed).[367]
Representative Hart became positively splenetic upon learning that
Clarence Mitchell, the Washington NAACP official, had used the white
waiting room at the Florence train station. Mitchell was arrested for
his action but Florence authorities prudently did not press the case.
For such seeming pusillanimity Representative Hart blasted Florence
officials. He deplored “the jelly fish manner in which they handled
Clarence Mitchell’s flagrant violation of South Carolina segregation
customs.” The teacher-legislator then indicated how he would educate
Mitchell:
Bashing Mitchell’s head would have had a highly salutary
effect on integration psychology in the Florence area....
We must have a showdown sooner or later and it is doubtful
that a better opportunity will ever present itself. A few
cracked heads here and there could easily avert bloodshed
on a large scale later on.... There’s more law and order
in a South Carolina night-stick than in sociological U. S.
Supreme Court opinion.[368]
One of the least laudable and most farcical of the legislature’s
actions was its lapse into book censorship. It arose from discovery
that a novel, _The Swimming Hole_,[369] written for eight to twelve
year olds, was being circulated throughout South Carolina by the State
Library Board. The following summary from the _Morning News_ indicates
the extent of the book’s threat to the South Carolina segregation
customs:
The story opens with three little white boys and a Negro
boy calling at the home of Larry, another Negro child, to
ask him to go swimming with them. Larry’s mother invites
the boys in, gives them each an apple and warns them not to
go in the water for a while after eating.
The boys troop off toward the swimming hole with one of the
Negroes leading the way in what apparently is a game of
“Follow the leader.”
Upon reaching the swimming hole, the children disrobe
together and the next page shows one of the Negro boys
first in the swim as another Negro child holds one of the
white boys off the diving board. In the background, several
other Negroes are mingled among the white boys.
After several hours of swimming, they dress together
and start home. Larry spots a new white boy in the
neighborhood, and the next day they invite the new boy to
join them in the swimming hole.
Steve, the new boy, isn’t a very good swimmer so he sits
all day in his trunks in the sun and acquires a bright red
sunburn. When the boys are dressing to go home, Larry finds
his clothing tied in knots. Bob, the other Negro boy, makes
a similar discovery.
Steve admits the prank, because “I don’t want to play with
anyone who’s colored.” Whereupon Steve turns his glowing
red back on them all and starts home.
Larry suggests they all tell Steve the next day they “don’t
want to play with anyone the color you are.” The others
agree “that’s a good idea.”
The plan is carried out the next day and the boys leave
Steve contemplating his sunburned reflection in a store
window. Apparently after some soul searching, Steve goes
to the swimming hole and tells Larry, “I won’t tie your
clothes again” because “it doesn’t matter what color people
are.”
“Of course it doesn’t,” Larry tells him. “Come on in the
water. I’ll teach you to swim.”
The last page concludes, “They all had a wonderful time
together.”
Discovery of the book in a state library evoked immediate and outspoken
criticism.[370] The head of the State Library Board argued that
the book was not aimed at integration, but designed to point out
that “human values are not to be judged by physical differences.”
Nevertheless, a resolution was introduced in the state legislature by
Representatives J. Henry Stuckey of Williamsburg County and Albert
W. Watson of Richland County to secure removal of the book and to
prevent recurrence of similar situations in the future. Books like _The
Swimming Hole_, according to the resolution, were “antagonistic and
inimical to the traditions and customs of our state,” and “serve no
constructive educational purpose but rather tend to confuse and warp
the thinking of our young children.”
Though calmer heads opposed the resolution, it was approved. Charges
of “book burning” and “Hitler tactics” were heard on the floor of the
legislature. Representative William H. Grimball, Jr., of Charleston
urged the House to “let reason combat whatever thoughts are in books
... in any free democracy you ought to be able to expound anything
you want.” To another lowcountry representative, Edward Huguenin of
Jasper, the resolution represented a “ridiculous extreme.” Supporting
the measure, Representative John M. Horlbeck of Charleston and
Representative John T. Gentry of Pickens declared that the question was
not one of “literary freedom” but of asserting the “attitude of the
General Assembly.”
Press reaction was generally unfavorable to this censorship. The
_Record_ said that it was “dangerous business when government gets
into the field of censorship of literature, business ‘antagonistic and
inimical’ to the traditions and customs of South Carolina.” Americans
had always thought that bad ideas could be controverted by good ideas.
The _Record_ urged South Carolina “to leave censorship to Russia and to
Boston.” But the _News and Courier_ was sympathetic. While conceding
that “books expressing all viewpoints should be available for adults,”
the Charleston paper declared,
But on the children’s shelves, it seems to us, propaganda
should be confined to such wholesome generalities as “good
is better than evil,” “crime doesn’t pay,” “be kind to
people and animals,” and “an industrious child gets more
done than a lazy one.”
... And there is no need to stand up for a book that tries
by subtle propaganda to make the South’s racial customs
appear to be hateful and wicked.
Although a cursory perusal of the anti-integration bills adopted by
the 1955 and 1956 sessions of the general assembly might infer that
the legislators had exhausted the possibilities along this line, such
was by no means the case. The 1957 session was only slightly less
productive than that of 1956. In attempting to plug by legislative fiat
every possible hole in the segregation dike the solons in 1957 ranged
from the petty and silly to the dangerous and ridiculous.
Falling into the first category were the attempt to ban the movie
_Island in the Sun_ and the proposal to require all blood banks to
label blood White or Colored. The movie is an adaptation of Alec
Waugh’s novel _Island in the Sun_ involving love affairs between
interracial couples. Though the cinema version of the story soft-pedals
its amatory aspects to the point that not a single interracial kiss
takes place on the screen, Representative John Calhoun Hart described
it as “a sickening, repulsive, indecent spectacle to which no one in
this state should be exposed or subjected.” The Union County lawmaker
introduced a bill which declared that the movie “openly” advocated
“breaking the miscegenation section of the state constitution” and
charged the movie industry with “attempting to foster moral depravity
by condoning the mixing of the races.” The bill would have fined any
theater showing the film $5,000. Hart’s effort to save “the young
people of the world” came to naught. Even the _News and Courier_
condemned it as censorship.[371]
Of a similar nature was the bill offered by Rep. George Sam Harrell
of Florence County which would have required that blood banks label
all stored blood “White” or “Colored.” Rep. Harrell decried the fact
that since 1951 blood had not been labeled by race. He said Negro and
white blood was now put on a desk and “you come along and they will
shoot” Negro “blood in your veins.” To his colleagues in the House,
he declared, “I don’t want any ... [Negro] blood in me and I don’t
intend to have any.” The bill, which passed the House but not the
Senate, carried provisions for $100 fine or 30 days in jail or both for
violators.[372]
Potentially the most dangerous of the many pro-segregation measures
was a recommendation by the Gressette Committee, subsequently enacted
by the legislature, that the governor be given almost dictatorial
injunctive police and military power “to prevent violence or threats
of violence.” Under provisions of the bill the governor can “by
proclamation declare that a danger exists.” Then to “cope with such
danger” he may enjoin any acts or planned acts by individuals,
associations or corporations, call in all state, county and local
law officers and call out the state militia “to maintain peace and
good order.” There was surprisingly little reaction to this proposal.
Said the _News and Courier_: “If they are used with discretion, such
police powers ... may be an effective method of combatting federal
discrimination against South Carolina.”[373]
The 1957 general assembly also considered many other pro-segregation
measures: a resolution creating a group similar to the State
Sovereignty Commission of Mississippi to acquaint non-Southerners
with the South Carolina position on racial segregation (not passed);
a resolution by Rep. Hart to impeach six of the nine justices of the
Supreme Court (not passed); an anti-barratry law aimed at the NAACP
(passed); and a bill repealing the 1956 statute which forbade public
employment to NAACP members and the enacting of a new requirement that
merely provided that all prospective employes list those organizations
to which they belong (passed).[374] This last law was the result of a
suit brought by a group of Elloree Negro teachers who refused to answer
a questionnaire under the 1956 law. As a result of the new law the
federal courts refused to hear the suit brought by the teachers.
In addition to these measures Rep. Hart introduced still another to
strengthen the position of South Carolina in its fight for states
rights. Reaching a new nadir, this proposal, which was not adopted,
declared that: “No executive order or directive of the President, and
no act or resolution of the Congress, and no judicial decision or
construction of the Supreme or any inferior Court, and no treaty with
any foreign power or international agreement of the United States in
conflict with, or diminishment of, or derogatory to the powers not
delegated to the United States and reserved to the States respectively
or the people, shall become effective as law in this State, except
through enactment only by the General Assembly pursuant to the
Constitution of the State of South Carolina, and otherwise the same
shall be null and void and of no effect in this state.”[375]
Use of official authority to coerce public school officials in
maintaining the segregation line intact has been a comparatively easy
matter. To move against private educational institutions which served
as focal points of disaffection or threatened to lower the segregation
barrier is more difficult. One such recent effort by Governor Timmerman
and a compliant State Board of Education bared a vicious form of
official infighting.
During the summer of 1957 rumor bruited around the campus of Allen
University, an African Methodist Episcopal Church school in Columbia,
that the Governor’s office had warned the institution’s recently
inaugurated president, the Reverend Frank Veal, that he would have to
dismiss three professors from the faculty or face the consequences.
The men proscribed were Professors John G. Rideout, chairman of the
division of humanities; Edwin Hoffman, chairman of the division of
education; and Forrest O. Wiggins of the department of philosophy.
All were holders of doctorates from leading American universities and
Rideout had been a Rhodes scholar. Rideout and Hoffman are white and
Wiggins a Negro. While no specific charges were made against the men
insofar as their professional competency was concerned--it is generally
agreed by the Allen students that they are among the most effective
teachers on the faculty--much was made of the fact that the names of
Wiggins and Rideout were in the files of the United States House of
Representatives Un-American Activities Committee.
President Veal, betraying an unprofessional sensitivity to academic
procedures, wilted under the pressure and without consulting the
members of Allen’s board of trustees wrote letters to the three men in
question demanding their resignations “for the good of the University.”
But Rideout, Hoffman and Wiggins would not resign and to confuse
matters further, the board of trustees not only refused to back Veal
but also announced that the three professors would continue on as
members of the faculty. A few days later, however, Veal reportedly
declared that his demand for the resignations of the three men still
stood and that they were in effect being given a year’s dismissal
notice. Although the Columbia press gave prominent headlines to Veal’s
statement, there was no indication that the board of trustees agreed
with it. But just on the eve of the new academic year Veal replaced
Hoffman as chairman of the division of education with Dr. Sylvia
Swinton, a former Negro field supervisor for the State Department of
Education.[376]
A few weeks later Allen again bounced back into the news headlines
with the announcement that five Hungarian refugees would be enrolled
at the University. Their admission would constitute the first modern
break-through in South Carolina’s segregation wall. And, as State
Attorney General T. C. Callison was obliged to acknowledge, the worst
part of the situation was that although it was “against public policy”
to integrate Negroes and whites in educational institutions, there was
“no law in South Carolina to reach” Allen, a private and church school.
Actually, only one of the five Hungarian “freedom fighters,” Andre
Toth, enrolled at Allen when its fall term opened.[377]
But the Governor and his advisors on the State Board of Education
still held a trump card to play. If Allen could not be dealt with
directly, it could be struck a low blow punch through withdrawal of
official approval of the University for teacher training. Accordingly,
the State Board of Education, on which the Governor sits as an ex
officio member, on September 9th sent notice to Allen that its
graduates would have teacher certification withheld “until such time
as the Board may determine that it is in the public interest to grant
approval.” The Board did not specify what if anything was wrong with
the education courses offered at Allen, courses that hitherto had had
its approval.
President Veal was conveniently out of Columbia, but Allen board
of trustees president, Bishop I. H. Bonner, cautiously took up the
gauntlet. To the consternation of several administrative officials
at the University of South Carolina, the Bishop opined that
Allen’s students requiring teacher certification would undoubtedly
seek admission to the University and other white state-supported
institutions of higher learning.[378] Should such applicants be
admitted to these schools by Federal court order, resort to which
would, of course, be imperative, state law would oblige the schools to
close.
The nadir of official hypocrisy came with the announcement of the State
Board of Education following its September 20th meeting, that it was
seeking to help Allen solve its internal problems. At the same meeting
a “bi-racial” committee consisting of six white members and one Negro,
B. C. Turner, president of the State college for Negroes at Orangeburg,
was appointed to review applications for teacher training courses in
South Carolina’s private and public universities and colleges.
Crocodile tears were copiously shed by “some state officials” over “the
plight of Dr. Veal” in light of his failure to rid his faculty of three
objectionable professors. These same persons allegedly asked how, for
instance, the State Board of Education could approve a teacher training
course at an institution whose academic head desired to dismiss members
of his faculty but could not do so because of the opposition of his
board of trustees. The logic of the state officials was that if the
president of an approved teacher training institution didn’t want
certain instructors because of lack of faith in them, then the state
could not accept a student who received certification for his work
under such a professor.[379]
So utterly gross were the actions of the Governor and the State Board
of Education that there was embarrassingly little discussion of the
affair in the editorial columns of the state’s press. Those few papers
that discussed the Allen situation either printed without comment the
decision of the Board of Education to withdraw accreditation or looked
askance upon it. The Florence _Morning News_, for example, found the
“handling of the Allen case unfortunate” particularly in the light of
the secrecy involved, the shortage of qualified Negro teachers, the
encouragement that it would give to Negroes to apply to the University
of South Carolina and the lack of data supplied to Allen officials as
to the reasons for the Board’s actions.[380]
The Allen situation stood at a standstill until mid-December with
neither the University officials nor the State Board of Education
changing their positions. But on December 17th, Bishop Bonner met with
the Governor in the latter’s office, at his own request so he said,
for a “cordial” talk and the fat was again in the fire. According
to Bonner, Timmerman maintained that the controversy over the three
professors was “non-political” and “non-racial” and then proceeded
to tell him “what was wrong.” Just what was wrong the Bishop did not
reveal.[381]
Two days later Bishop Bonner notified Hoffman, Rideout, and Wiggins
that he would recommend their dismissal when the trustees’ board of
control would be called for a special meeting on January 10, 1958. He
further informed them that they would receive their salaries for the
remainder of the year if they resigned and departed quietly but that if
they fought their dismissals, they would get nothing. The professors
declined to take any action pending the meeting of the trustees on
January 10th.
Meanwhile the American Association of University Professors entered
into the picture. General Secretary of the Association Dr. Robert K.
Carr wired Governor Timmerman requesting that he provide the AAUP
with information regarding the grounds on which the State Board of
Education had voted to withhold teacher accreditation approval of Allen
graduates. Carr at the same time told reporters that his organization
viewed with alarm the apparent relationship of the question of academic
tenure at Allen with that of political interference “with the internal
operations of private institutions.” “We are concerned,” he said, “lest
there be direct connection between the two matters--the dismissal of
the faculty members and the withholding of teacher certificates.” The
AAUP, he added, would support the professors to the hilt. Carr was
satisfied that the presence of the Hungarian white student on the Allen
campus was in no way related to the certification question.
Timmerman’s response to Carr’s request was completely in character.
He told the AAUP that the Allen affair was none of its business. “Our
state is concerned with protecting all of its people,” the governor
wired Carr, “and your authority to question its official actions is
without recognition. The resolution [of the State Board of Education]
speaks for itself.”
Carr expressed dismay at the brusque tone of the governor’s telegram.
“Governor Timmerman’s reaction is most unfortunate,” he declared.
“Our queries are usually received by state officials and institutions
respectfully and answered if possible.” For his part Timmerman, clearly
annoyed, replied that Carr’s “political whimpering” confirmed his
suspicion as to the motive behind the former’s telegram. Timmerman said
that Carr should “seek the answer to his questions from his own files”
thus implying that prejudicial information against the three professors
was at the disposal of the AAUP.[382]
The show-down on the Allen affair came at the board of trustees meeting
on January 10th and the results gratified all persons who still believe
in academic freedom. Bishop Bonner, who probably hoped to dominate the
meeting, found the spotlight taken away from him by Dr. R. A. Mance, a
former Columbia physician who lives in Washington, D.C. Mance, a member
of the Allen Board of Trustees, is also treasurer of the national
African Methodist Episcopal Church. When Mance spoke out in defense of
the three professors, those present at the meeting which was open to
the public were very much aware that he was voicing the sentiments of
the national church organization on which Allen heavily depends.
Bishop Bonner tried to defend his demand for the ouster of Wiggins,
Rideout and Hoffman in the face of an audience which booed him when
he said that Governor Timmerman impressed him as being “a very fine
man.” According to Bonner, who was demonstrably angry at the hostile
audience, Timmerman had told him that the State Board of Education
believed “that the three men could not possibly exert a good influence
on the university in view of their refusal to resign at the request
of the president following the recommendation by the dean of the
faculty.” The Bishop, disregarding all questions of intimidation and
of civil rights, based his position squarely on the ground that the
most important thing for Allen to consider was the certification of its
graduates by the state.
In the face of needling questions by Dr. Mance and other trustees, the
Bishop turned to President Veal for support. It was on Veal’s request,
according to Bonner, that the meeting had been called. But here the
Bishop was in for a rude awakening as Veal, not unmindful that an
investigation committee from the national AME church was present at
the meeting, suddenly announced that he would definitely not recommend
dismissal of the three professors “at this time.” Veal, who could
hardly deny that he had asked for the resignations of Rideout, Wiggins,
and Hoffman, said that any decision either to retain or to dismiss them
would be arrived at according to academic procedures. Bonner, left out
on a limb, accused Veal of having “backed out” on him. The meeting
broke up without any action being taken and with the parting comment
of Bishop Bonner that failure to dismiss the three controversial
professors “could mean death to Allen University.” But Allen’s student
body clearly did not share Bonner’s pessimism. A few hours after the
meeting had adjourned nearly three hundred students gathered in front
of Veal’s home and serenaded him. For the first time in months the
harassed president found himself genuinely popular amongst the students.
In the Allen battle, which as the trustee Reverend F. C. James of
Sumter pointed out “affects every private institution in America”
as well as the issues of “civil liberties and civil rights,” the
old “Uncle Tom” leadership, as personified in Bishop Bonner and his
supporters, went down to defeat before the new generation of American
Negroes. Whether the defeat will be thorough and permanent, only the
future will tell. But administrators of private colleges throughout
America owe a debt of gratitude to the courageous stand taken by
the African Methodist Episcopal Church in the face of political
intimidation.[383]
On January 15 Governor Timmerman officially spelled out to the people
of South Carolina why the State Board of Education had withdrawn its
approval of Allen for teacher training. In his annual message to
the state legislature he warned of the “communist menace” in South
Carolina [as of 1951 the Federal Bureau of Investigation could count
only seventeen alleged Communists in the State!] and pointed his
finger directly at Allen as a center of possible subversion. Borrowing
a trick from the late senator from Wisconsin, the chief executive
proceeded to read to the members of the legislature the “party-line”
records of the three Allen professors; he mentioned none of them by
name. The records, he said, had been procured from administration
officials at Allen and from “other” sources of information [the files
of the Un-American Activities Committee supplied through the office of
Congressman John Riley]. According to the Governor, the chairman of
the board of trustees at Allen, Bishop Bonner, was anxious to protect
the University’s student body from the noxious influences of “atheism”
and “communism” and it was for this reason that he had requested the
resignations of the three professors. The State Board of Education was
seeking to cooperate with Allen officials toward this end.
Having raised the spectre of communism and its threat to the Palmetto
State, Timmerman then suggested a means of coping with the problem,
one not very original, to be sure. He recommended establishment of a
“permanent legislative committee to investigate communist activities
in our state.” In addition, the Governor urged that “consideration
be given to the establishment of more realistic requirements for
admission to teach in state-supported institutions.” Applicants should
be screened more closely before they were employed. Concluding on the
following note Timmerman declared: “When academic freedom supersedes
loyalty to one’s country, to one’s state and to our trust in God, it
becomes an instrumentality of treason and profanes the faith of our
nation.”[384]
Senator Gressette of the state’s committee to preserve educational
segregation lauded the Governor’s recommendation for a new minor
league Un-American Activities Committee. So did other members of the
legislature. But the three Allen professors in a statement to the
radio and press services blasted the Governor. “The fact of the matter
is--and Governor Timmerman knows it well--the real need here in South
Carolina is the achievement of American democracy for all the state’s
citizens rather than a committee to investigate so-called communistic
activities.” The three professors, all church members, also struck back
at the Chief Executive’s atheist innuendo. “It comes with ill grace,”
they asserted, “for the Governor to question the religious faith of
others when he himself so openly repudiates the fundamental teaching
of Him who died that all men might dwell together as brothers.” Nor
did they think that Timmerman could pose as the shield and defender
of the Constitution. “It ill becomes a Governor who spends so much of
his time repudiating the Constitution of our country and endeavoring
to undermine the highest court of the land to pass upon the patriotism
of other Americans. If belief in racial segregation is to be made the
definition of loyalty, the vast majority of Americans become disloyal
in the eyes of Governor Timmerman.”[385]
On the same day that the Governor was reaffirming his determination to
maintain segregation in South Carolina, eleven Allen students appeared
on the campus of the University of South Carolina seeking application
blanks to permit them to take the University’s entrance examinations.
They were turned away by the director of the University’s examination
and counseling service who explained that his hands were tied by state
law. “According to the orders under which we operate,” he told the
students, “I cannot examine you and there is no purpose in supplying
you with applications.” Six days later a group of four students from
Benedict College, another Negro institution in Columbia, also applied
for examination application blanks and were similarly rebuffed.[386]
No effort was made to molest the Negroes when they were on the
University of South Carolina campus, though one USC student is said to
have leaned out a window and shouted, “Here come the niggers.” During
the evening, however, a cross was burned on the University’s athletic
field and an effigy of a Negro was hung up on the campus. Telephone
calls were received at Allen threatening the University with bombings
unless the Negro students desisted in their efforts to enter the
University of South Carolina.[387]
Governor Timmerman’s ill-tempered and ill-conceived pressure on Allen
opened the door for the very type of law suit that officials of white
state-supported universities have been dreading since 1954. The Allen
applicants, four of them ministers, indicated that they would resort to
“legal steps” to gain admission. “We plan to see this thing through,”
said one of their spokesmen. “We all feel that Negroes have been
ostracized by being kept out of the University and our cups are just
about to run over.”[388]
Only the future can tell, of course, what Governor Timmerman triggered
off in his effort to rid Rideout, Wiggins and Hoffman from the Allen
faculty. The question of admission of Negroes to white state-supported
universities had to be faced sooner or later, but officials of
the latter would have preferred to face it later. But to explain
Timmerman’s attitude toward the three professors is something else
again. The “communist” issue was convenient, if a bit dated, but those
who have closely followed the segregation question in South Carolina
since the Supreme Court decision of 1954 are inclined to believe that
the reason is less ideological than local.
Since the purge of the state Negro college at Orangeburg--the
institution is on probation with accreditation agencies because it does
not have a sufficient number of holders of the Ph.D. degree on its
faculty--Allen has been the chief center for Negro militancy in South
Carolina. The three professors who have been the target of official
attack have been prominent amongst those on the campus who have urged
the University’s students to assert their rights, including the right
to sit where they please on city buses. In all of the newspaper
accounts of the Allen affair, these facts have not been mentioned, but
it is suggested here that they have been governing. Also in the new
administration of President Veal and in the person of Bishop Bonner,
state authorities were quick to detect a lack of militancy present
in their predecessors. It would appear that they have sought to
exploit this “softness” and to repeat their disgraceful performance at
Orangeburg. But the Allen trustees were made of sterner stuff than the
Governor and the State Board of Education had supposed.
The Governor’s frustration was compounded by temporary failure to
bring about the dismissal of three white faculty members from Benedict
College, a Negro Baptist institution located directly across the
street from Allen. In a special message to the General Assembly on
January 29, Timmerman cited from the files of the House Un-American
Activities Committee the records of three Benedict professors. He
also told the legislators that Dr. J. A. Bacoats, president of
Benedict and highly respected by both whites and Negroes throughout
the state, had delivered a speech in 1941 at a “Protestantism
Answers Hate” dinner-forum allegedly sponsored by a “communist-front
publication.”[389]
Bacoats and two of the three professors cited, Dr. Lewis Smith and Dr.
J. Spencer Kennard, answered the Governor in statements to the press.
The former declared: “I have never been a communist nor held membership
in the Communist Party. And as I see it from where I now stand, I
shall never be a member of the Communist Party.” Smith, a professor of
English, said he had no intention of resigning and that he was being
attacked “by the same forces that would keep the Negro people from
achieving full equality.” Kennard, a Baptist minister and a member of
the Benedict history department, asserted that the Governor had “set
out deliberately to smear the character of a man who devoted his entire
life to serving the Master.”[390]
The governor’s attack on Benedict was successful only in uniting
the Negro community in defense of the College (far more so than had
been true of the Allen affair) and in alarming white conservatives.
The Inter-Denominational Ministerial Alliance of Columbia (Negro),
criticizing the Governor’s proposal for a state Un-American Activities
committee, held that such a group would be a “fascist gestapo” and
threaten Negro academic freedom. It also questioned the very legality
of such a committee in the light of recent Supreme Court decisions.
Likewise, John H. McCray, chairman of the South Carolina Progressive
Democrats, said: “Negro leadership in South Carolina has maintained
an eternal and vigorous alert against influence of communism among
its people....” And from R. Beverley Herbert, a conservative white
attorney of Columbia, came the warning against assuming that men were
communists because of past association with left-wing organizations.
But the crowning blow came when Benedict’s board of trustees, which
includes several white men, among them Dr. Paul Wheeler, a well known
clergyman; Dr. R. Archie Ellis, pastor of the Columbia First Baptist
Church and B. M. Edwards, a prominent South Carolina banker, issued a
public statement completely exonerating President Bacoats and the three
faculty members.[391]
White South Carolinians undoubtedly consider public education to be the
key issue in the Negroes’ drive for racial equality. Consequently other
aspects of the question have received less consideration in discussions
relating to the pros and cons of integration. Important developments,
however, have been occurring in other areas where attempts at
integration are being made, e.g. the armed forces, city buses, and
state operated recreation parks.
South Carolina officials can do little more than decry integration
in the nation’s armed forces. By the time the Supreme Court gave
its initial school desegregation ruling, integration in the armed
services had progressed to a point where it had become an accepted
fact to all except the most extreme die-hards. Nevertheless Governor
Timmerman lodged a futile protest with the National Security Council
in late 1955. Referring to statements by military leaders expressing
concern over low reenlistment rates among military personnel, the
Governor wrote: “So long as our basic training installations are used
as sociological camps for compulsory racial mixing, it is reasonable
to expect a continued lack of voluntary enlistments, and a continued
lessening of morale and _esprit de corps_ in our armed forces. The
officials of no other country in the world are so naive as to employ
racial integration among military personnel.” Commenting on the
Governor’s letter the _News and Courier_ asked editorially: “Is it
simply a coincidence that, at about the same time the government mixed
the races in the armed forces, enlistments started to sag?” Without
answering its question, the Charleston paper continued: “If integration
has hurt enlistments and morale, then it follows that integration has
harmed national defense.... Gov. Timmerman has courageously brought the
matter out into the open.”[392]
In 1956 the general assembly in its onslaught on all phases of
integration passed a resolution urging President Eisenhower to “restore
segregation of the races in the armed forces of this country which
would result in a return of the high morale, efficiency and _esprit de
corps_ which our armed forces have always heretofore enjoyed.”[393] The
resolution evoked no response in Washington.
Once the assault on armed forces integration had begun, others joined
in. From The Citadel, the military college of South Carolina, came a
booming verbal salvo from President Mark Clark, former United Nations
Commander in the Far East. “I did not feel that we should integrate
then [in 1950 when the Army order was placed in effect] and I do not
think so now,” said the transplanted general from the North. “I
looked at integration strictly as a military problem, not from the
sociological standpoint.... I wanted the best fighting unit possible
... politics or no politics.”[394]
South Carolina Negroes, following the lead set in Montgomery, Alabama,
have endeavored to bring about invalidation of both state and local
Jim Crow laws in the field of bus segregation. In this connection
Sarah Mae Flemming of Columbia instituted suit against the South
Carolina Electric and Gas Company, operators of the city bus system of
Columbia, asking $25,000 for alleged violations of her civil rights.
She charged that a bus driver had forcibly required her to go to the
rear of a city bus in conformity with the South Carolina law. In the
federal district court Judge Timmerman dismissed Miss Flemming’s suit
on the ground that the 1896 decision upholding separate but equal
facilities in transportation was still in effect and had not been
overruled by the school cases of 1954. (There was a curious lack of
logic in Judge Timmerman’s position since for years Southerners had
defended segregation in the public school on the basis of the _Plessy
v. Ferguson_ ruling which upheld the separate but equal doctrine in
transportation.) This decision was appealed and reversed by the federal
circuit court presided over by Judge John J. Parker. In an action which
the _Record_ considered “brusque arrogance,” the Supreme Court refused
to hear the appeal of the South Carolina Electric and Gas Company thus
in effect upholding the circuit court decision.[395]
The practical effect of this decision on South Carolina bus segregation
has been nil. Nowhere have traditional patterns of segregation ended.
Attorney General T. C. Callison considered the Supreme Court’s action
in this case “another unwarranted invasion of state and municipal
rights.” In early 1956 the state legislature resolved that it was
“unalterably opposed to the mixing of the races on common carriers” and
would “tolerate no violation of the laws of this State relating to the
separation of the races on common carriers.” The _News and Courier_,
strangely enough, foresaw no drastic results if bus segregation were
ended. However, it believed that “as a practical matter, they [Negroes]
suffer no hardship by observing regulations that reflect prevailing
customs of the community. Even if the laws were removed from the books,
good manners call for respect of fellow passengers’ preferences.”[396]
Editor Waring’s paper made no comment on the obligation of whites to
respect the preference of their Negro fellow passengers.
In its own enveloping attack on the segregation front South Carolina’s
Negro leadership has struck at the state operated recreation parks.
In 1955 the State of South Carolina maintained twenty-one recreation
parks, one of which was operated exclusively for Negroes. Of the other
twenty, four had separate areas reserved for Negroes. In view of such
obvious discrimination, Negroes brought suit to have Edisto Beach State
Park opened for all South Carolinians without regard to race or color.
In answering this suit the state attorney general’s office presented
a brief before the federal district court which declared that “due to
the natural inclination of each race at this time to associate and
engage in recreation and social activities with members of its own
race, and to the present natural, historical, cultural and deep-rooted
mental attitudes and feelings of each race against the social and
sexual mixing of the races, there exists potential and definite dangers
of unpleasantries, social friction, breaches of the peace and other
events leading to riot and bloodshed, which will surely result from an
enforced mixing of the races at such a park.”[397]
In the light of recent federal court decisions, state officials
realized that such arguments would carry little weight in federal
courts. Therefore in 1956, precluding a federal court order on the
case, the state legislature passed a resolution closing Edisto Beach
State Park to both white and colored. The park remains closed, “a
monument,” said the Columbia _State_, to the “vindictiveness” of race
agitators.[398]
With actions such as these the sovereign state of South Carolina has
combatted the “alien ideas” of racial equality and equal rights for all
men.
CHAPTER VIII
POLITICS AND SEGREGATION
In all parts of the Republic, thoughtful people
are talking about realignment of political
parties. On many issues, including appeal to
bloc-voting Negroes in the big cities, the
Republicans and the Democrats have grown too much
alike. The South can split them by voting against
both and setting up a climate for new political
alliances.--_News and Courier_
Following the Supreme Court’s desegregation decision, politics have
reflected South Carolina’s intense preoccupation with the integration
issue. The Negro, of course, has always been an important factor in
the state’s politics. However since the New Deal period the national
political parties and the federal government have no longer been
content to allow the white South to handle the race issue without
“interference.” Reflecting the sentiment of Northern liberal elements,
they have been insistent on the extension of civil rights to Negroes
in the South. This fact, increasingly important since World War II,
has been the principal cause for the reaction against the national
Democratic Party in South Carolina in the presidential elections of
1948, 1952 and 1956. Political factions were unable to solve their
differences within one party and, at least on the level of presidential
elections, rival groups emerged to challenge the supremacy of the
regular Democratic Party. They did not contest that party’s hold on
other levels.
In state wide elections of 1954-1956 the race issue transcended all
others with but one important exception, the J. Strom Thurmond-Edgar
Brown senatorial election of 1954. Both rabid segregationists and
“liberals” criticized this concentration on race. The _News and
Courier_ believed the constant political agitation of “the race issue”
since the Supreme Court decision had upset “an era of good will,
harmony and progress” in race relations in the South. “Tension ... and
danger of civil disturbance” had replaced the previous racial harmony.
It blamed “a small militant group of white and Negro radicals” who
had revived an issue which Southern politicians had “for years” kept
out of the political arena. On the other hand David D. Carroll of
Bennettsville, risking his “freedom from ‘assault and arson,’” accused
“inter-state lynch-leaders” of stirring up the issue for private
political gain. “Thus a truth-starved South,” he said, “tragically
believes that today’s issue is a spontaneous racial crisis, never
suspecting its partial origin in sinister politics.”[399]
Appeals to keep the segregation issue out of politics have gone
unheeded. Its political worth is too great to be ignored. Segregation
was “as surefire as political fuel as home, church, mother, and Wade
Hampton,” stated the _Independent_. As a consequence, the state
suffered from “crack pot oratory and poorly considered prosecutions and
impractical laws” at a time when “imponderable, quiet, reserved, never
relenting, never compromising resistance” was needed.[400]
While the full import of the segregation decisions of the Supreme
Court was not fully realized in state politics until the presidential
campaign of 1956, the gubernatorial election of 1954 provided a good
example of the use to which South Carolina politicians put the race
issue. In that election Lieutenant Governor George Bell Timmerman
Jr. opposed Lester Bates, a Columbia businessman and a novice whose
political experience was limited to service on the Columbia City
Council. Timmerman, the successful candidate, developed two campaign
themes--the race issue and Bates’ alleged business malpractices. In
a series of unproven charges, the Lieutenant Governor made good use
of smear techniques. On May 26, a few days after the Supreme Court’s
original decision, Timmerman charged Bates with “sleeping in the same
political bed” with South Carolina NAACP officials. He declared that
the school segregation problem could not be solved “under leadership
of the NAACP’s candidate [Bates].” The following day the _Independent_
carried a political advertisement by “friends” of Timmerman which asked
South Carolinians if they wanted as governor “a man who would owe a
political debt to Mojeska Simkins [then secretary of the state NAACP],
the _Lighthouse and Informer_ [a Columbia Negro newspaper now defunct],
James M. Hinton or the NAACP?” The advertisement also wondered whether
Bates was “ashamed to admit NAACP support or afraid to deny it.”[401]
By way of degrading Bates further for his alleged connections with
the NAACP, Timmerman, even before the Court decision, declared that
the “NAACP has degenerated into a subversive organization in South
Carolina” and “lives and breathes the ‘big lie.’” (To this James M.
Hinton replied that the charges were and would remain “political
demagoguery” unless Timmerman offered substantiating evidence. He urged
Timmerman to make available to Attorney General Brownell “any and
all information” in his possession which indicated subversion in the
NAACP.)[402]
Bates was not above these same tactics. He criticized Timmerman’s
proposal that the state establish three school systems--one white,
one Negro, and one integrated--and dismissed it as a “hastily devised
plan which would include mixed schools in South Carolina.” Bates
favored segregated schools “for the peace, happiness and contentment”
of both the white and Negro races. Offering no specific proposals
to the voters, he advocated establishment of a special committee
of distinguished South Carolinians to consider ways of meeting the
problem. Action should be based on the recommendations of that
committee. Characteristically, Timmerman replied with the allegation
that Bates’ plan was “proposed” by James M. Hinton.[403]
The campaign was not without its irony. In a statement that must have
been galling to Timmerman, the Columbia _Lighthouse and Informer_,
in reference to Timmerman’s triple school system proposal, said: “It
was more than astounding and gratifying that the younger Timmerman
should show the liberality to come out openly for the mixing of the
races in a segment of the South Carolina schools. We believe he is the
first candidate for high public office to take such a stand in South
Carolina. The _Lighthouse and Informer_ congratulates Mr. Timmerman
upon the advancement he has shown in this respect.” In the same vein
the Marion _Star_ asked if the triple school proposal had been made by
Timmerman in a bid for NAACP support.[404]
In 1954-55, while attitudes were hardening on the race issue, there
was increasing criticism of the national political parties and the
traditional role of the South in national politics. Many like the
late Senator Burnet R. Maybank, felt that both national parties had
sold the South down the river. Segregationists frequently blamed the
South itself. For too long, they cried, the solid South had forfeited
its right to political consideration by remaining “in the bag” of the
Democrats.[405]
In establishing the mood of political rebellion in 1956, segregationist
bitter enders intensified their criticism of the national parties.
“Political forces at the national level,” declared the _News and
Courier_, were “lined up against the Southern way of dealing with the
race question.” This Southern way had enabled the Negro, “a late-comer
in western civilization,” to meet the challenges of the white man’s
culture. The steady progress which the Negro had made in the past
was now in danger of being destroyed by these “misguided agitators”
from outside the South. Only through unity could the white South meet
this threat. Along the same line, the _News and Courier_ criticized
the national Democratic Party for seeking Negro votes in key Northern
cities and states. “How long will bribery of minority blocs” in the
name of “welfare” control national politics, it asked. “Ever since F.
D. Roosevelt lured the Negroes away from the Republicans with bigger
and better promises, the weak rather than the strong have been shaping
the course of the Republic.” The _News and Courier_ observed that “of
all the racial and nationality groups” subjected to such bribery, the
Negro was “most easily manageable.” He had always been “managed” by
whites.[406]
Wails of woe came from other quarters. Anyone selecting his national
party on the basis of its position on the racial problem “really
has no place to go today,” declared the _Record_. Yet the paper
found itself in a dilemma. Only lukewarm toward the idea of a third
party, it eventually endorsed Eisenhower in the 1956 campaign.[407]
More outspoken was Charleston’s Representative L. Mendel Rivers. He
thought it “tragic” to see President Eisenhower and leaders of both
parties “supinely bowed to the demands of an association which follows
the Communist line of lying, of vilification and untruth aided and
abetted by an iron curtain of a Northern press which is ceaseless and
relentless in its vilification of our people.” This “capitulation” the
Charleston solon thought to be “the most fraudulent and hypocritical
surrender of principle in the history of this republic,” which if
carried to its logical conclusion would “bring a flow of blood
unequalled since the tragic times of the War Between the States.”[408]
Thomas R. Miller of Florence expressed another extreme viewpoint when
he wondered
how any loyal, intelligent Southerner, or any other white
American for that matter, can vote for a man that openly
tells the South that the Supreme Court decision was right,
is the law of the land, and should be obeyed, is more
than we can see. Stevenson is the spiritual successor to
Roosevelt, who sowed the seeds of racial hatred and started
this country down the road to Communism, and to Truman,
the happy little piano-banger, who cultivated and nurtured
both--who administered the _coup de grace_ to Southern
white civilization, who consigned unborn children to racial
mongrelization and slavery under the Black Race, which is
what the Communist has in store for the South, and which
will be the lot of our children if our people don’t wake
up! If the people don’t believe it, let them take a little
time off from pleasure-seeking, money-making, starting new
organizations and clubs every day, and study it out for
themselves. If this country isn’t going straight down the
line of the Communist pattern, then “there ain’t a dog in
Georgia.”[409]
The political course that extremists would follow in 1956 depended on
the action of the state Democratic Party. They themselves, nominally
Democrats, entertained the hope that they would be strong enough to
control the party as the Dixiecrats had done in 1948. In South Carolina
the state Democratic convention is held much earlier than in other
states. Consequently, it was in early March when the county conventions
met as preliminaries to the state convention. In many of the county
conventions, generally in the lowcountry, extremists were in control.
This was illustrated by the actions of the Florence County Democratic
convention which adopted resolutions urging restoration of the ⅔ rule
in the national party nominations; reaffirming the delegates’ firm
support of states rights; praising the Citizens Councils and urging
Democrats to give them “whole-hearted support;” commending the _News
and Courier_ “for its constancy and unfailing zeal” in fighting racial
integration; and rendering the “heartfelt thanks” of the convention
to Editor Thomas R. Waring “for his courage, his fearlessness and his
devotion to duty.”[410] Other conventions adopted similar resolutions.
The state Democratic convention met in Columbia on March 21.
Approximately 525 delegates attended, of whom two--one from Richland
County and another from Beaufort County--were Negroes.[411] Governor
Timmerman reflected the mood of the delegates in his address to the
convention:
We meet today at a time when our freedom is imperiled--our
freedom to choose our associates and the associates of our
children--our freedom to make and enforce our own local
laws in accordance with the wishes of our electorate--our
freedom to establish and maintain our own local
institutions without interference or intimidation--these
freedoms and many more are threatened by the deliberate
attempt to destroy constitutional government and to invade
rights of the states and their people....
When we think in terms of racial mixing, remember that it
was first advocated in the United States by the Communist
Party. It was then and still is a part of the Communist
program to create dissension and discord. It is a tactic in
the Communist plan to divide and conquer. Racial mixing in
the South is a very real and very meaningful part of the
Communist conspiracy.[412]
The Democratic Party of South Carolina, while recognizing a nominal
affiliation with the national Democratic Party, considers itself
autonomous in state political affairs. In contemplating their course
of action in 1956, party leaders weighed the advantages of continued
amicable relations with the national party against the disadvantages
of a potential revolt against their leadership in the state. Elements
loyal to the national party dominated the state convention. They were
strongly anti-integrationist as was evidenced by a resolution adopted
on the second day of the convention. The delegates resolved that the
Fourteenth Amendment in no way applied to education; that the Supreme
Court’s decision was an “illegal and unconstitutional” verdict based on
“sociological and psychological works of comparatively unknown authors,
some of whom were foreigners;” and that the federal government was
guilty of encroachment on the rights of the states. The strength of
party loyalty was shown by the fact that the convention agreed that
“the remedies for the ills which beset us arising from usurpations,
encroachments, unprecedented actions without legal justification and
unreasonable centralization of government” could best be resolved
within the Democratic Party.
While professing complete loyalty to the party, the convention urged
“the States of the South and all others believing in constitutional
government” to counsel together, adopt a program of joint action and
present a united front at the national convention. The Palmetto State
Democrats also urged other states to follow the South Carolina example
of adjourning their state conventions to reconvene after the national
convention.[413]
In directing the efforts of South Carolina Democrats to achieve an
all-Southern pre-convention unity, the party convention appointed a
steering committee headed by Governor Timmerman. A second purpose of
the committee was to acquaint other Southern states with the efforts
and intentions of the South Carolina Democracy. As committee chairman,
the Governor wrote letters to all Southern senators, congressmen,
governors and Democratic national committeemen. All of the letters,
prefaced with the statement “South Carolina Democrats want to remain
in the National Democratic Party,” said substantially the same thing:
The South could expect an anti-Southern platform and nominees unless
pre-convention unity could be achieved and a united front presented at
the convention.
Response to the appeal was generally disappointing. Southern senators
and congressmen considered it a “sugarcoated” Dixiecrat movement.
However, the Governor was able to secure the calling of a convention
of state party chairmen at Atlanta in July. This meeting adopted
a resolution which urged unity but within the Democratic Party.
Toward this end, another conference was recommended, this time to be
attended by Southern governors, convention delegation chairmen and
vice-chairmen, and members of the convention platform and resolutions
committee.[414]
This second parley was also held at Atlanta in early August. Four
governors and three United States senators attended along with
approximately thirty other political officials. Again advocates of
“Southern independence” were in a minority and the convention adopted
a declaration which urged unity but again within the Democratic
Party.[415] For all their efforts, Southern Democrats achieved only a
minimum of unity.
The _Morning News_ and _Independent_ were skeptical of these maneuvers,
viewing them as posing the threat of a potential third party movement.
The _Morning News_, furthermore, pointed out the inconsistency of
Southern Democrats damning the national party for its attention to
minority groups and at the same time demanding special treatment
because of minority standing.[416] But the _News and Courier_, not
forgetful of Strom Thurmond’s leadership of the Dixiecrat movement
in 1948, thought South Carolinians should take pride in Governor
Timmerman’s emergence as leader of “Southern Independence” at a time
when other Southern politicians were shielding their timidity “with the
time worn cloak of party loyalty.”[417] Others were no less critical
of the emphasis on unity within the party. The _Record_ considered the
declaration by the second Atlanta conference “quite docile,” “timid in
tone,” and “disappointing.”[418]
At the Democratic National Convention in August the South Carolina
delegation was primarily concerned with securing an acceptable
platform. Governor Timmerman spoke for the delegation before the
platform committee. He warned that a civil rights plank infringing upon
the constitutional rights of the states, a pro-integration plank, or an
approval of the school desegregation decision would insure a Democratic
defeat in November. The basic issue was not “sectionalism, race _per
se_, or special privilege,” he maintained. It was whether “this great
Democratic party of individual freedom and states rights shall survive
or ‘rot with radicalism.’”[419]
The pleadings of the Southerners were not without success for the
civil rights plank adopted by the Democrats was much milder than
it might have been. In regard to the Supreme Court decision it was
nearer the Southern position than that of the Republicans. No direct
endorsement was given the decision, and force was rejected as a
method of accomplishing compliance. However the Democrats recognized
Supreme Court decisions in general as “part of the law of the land.”
Contrary to Southern wishes, the platform also endorsed previous
Democratic accomplishments in the field of civil rights, e.g., armed
forces integration, and urged the curbing of the filibuster in Senate
debates.[420] In the latter respects the Democratic platform was
further from the Southern position than was that of the Republicans.
Reaction to the platform varied with the more moderate elements
generally considering it a compromise or a Southern victory. However,
the _News and Courier_ thought that despite “some weasel words,” the
platform represented “a complete victory for Northern viewpoint and
complete defeat of the South.” To the Charleston paper the platform
added up to “FEPC, mixed schools, Federal investigation of white
Southerners and enthusiastic endorsement of integration in the armed
forces.” The trouble was that people had their terms confused, declared
the _News and Courier_. A “compromise” on the civil rights issue would
have been no civil rights plank at all. A Southern victory on the
issue would have been a platform expressing opposition to the court
decision, invasion of states rights, FEPC and integration in the armed
forces.[421] The _Record_ characterized the platform as “an effort
at straddling, not actually the fence but an area just left of the
fence.”[422]
Concerning nominees, the South was also not without success in that
Adlai E. Stevenson, the least objectionable of the leading contenders
to the South, won the nomination for President. However, the Tennessee
liberal, Estes Kefauver, loathed by Southern extremists as a traitor to
his section, was selected for Vice-President. The general strategy of
the South Carolina delegation was to vote for Governor Timmerman as a
favorite son in the hope that a candidate less enthusiastic about the
Supreme Court decision than Stevenson would be nominated.
The _News and Courier_, as was to be expected, blasted the Democratic
ticket. It described Kefauver as “an unprincipled opportunist, a
Southerner who sold out the South for a mess of NAACP votes.” As for
Stevenson, he was “another Franklin Roosevelt.” The rasping voice of
Charleston warned that the United States would be unable to survive
“another scholar-gentleman-socialist in the White House.” In general
agreement, the _Record_ thought Stevenson would be “under virtual
compulsion from the NAACP, CIO and other integrationist groups to act
federally against the South.”[423]
The upcountry _Independent_, on the other hand, heartily endorsed the
Democratic ticket. Stevenson was characterized as “a man of decision,
wisdom and an understanding of the basic problems confronting the
American people.” The addition of Kefauver gave the Democrats “an
exceptionally strong ticket.”[424] The _Morning News_, under Editor
Rogers, was noncommittal.
The reconvening of the state party convention was the next act in the
political drama. The delegates were about equally split as to whether
to support the national party nominees or to back an independent
movement. When one state party official after another endorsed party
loyalty, the convention, by a narrow vote of 167 to 152½, officially
agreed to stand by Stevenson and Kefauver.[425] The _News and Courier_
pictured the party crawling back “‘into the bag’ of the socialistic
integrators.” Governor Timmerman, who had urged party loyalty, received
a special share of _News and Courier_ wrath. Once “one of the South’s
most lucid supporters of States Rights,” he had descended to using
“unworthy demagoguery” in supporting “his retreat from the spirit of
Southern independence.”[426]
Endorsement of the national party platform and nominees by the state
convention set the stage for another political revolt against the
Democratic Party. Such a movement, the origins of which will be noted
subsequently in greater detail, developed immediately following the
state Democratic convention. A considerable division of opinion existed
within the state over the desirability of an independent movement.
In general terms it was one of lowcountry versus upcountry. Speaking
for the latter the _Independent_ opposed “the will-o-wisp of a ‘third
party,’” which would harm rather than aid Southern efforts to preserve
segregation. It found fallacious the argument of the independents,
namely, that the Southern states, by combining forces, could throw
the election into the House of Representatives. Past political
movements had shown that the South would not unite. Moreover, even
if the election were tossed into the House, either the Democratic
or Republican candidate would be elected; the South would gain
nothing. Questioning the motives of those leading the movement, the
_Independent_ suggested that the opposition to the Democrats was based
“less on the segregation issue” than on other considerations. These, it
said pointedly, were economic--special interests arraigned against the
welfare of the working public.[427]
The _Morning News_ was also outspoken in opposing the revolt. Editor
O’Dowd thought it “politic, advantageous and wise” for South Carolina
to preserve its ties with the national Democratic Party. He chided
those South Carolina Democrats who kept themselves “in a state
of permanent rebellion against the National Party.” Such persons
served only the cause of disunity. According to O’Dowd, criticism
of the national party’s liberalism was pointless. The secret of the
party’s strength traditionally was “the presence of liberal forces”
and the balance these struck with the conservatives. He noted that
Thomas Jefferson, who was “almost sacred” to Southern Democrats, was
“further ‘left’ for his day than [Michigan Governor G. Mennen] ‘Soapy’
Williams.” Picturing the Democratic Party as the political bailiwick
of “Harriman-Williams-Kefauver and the ADA” was simply waving the red
flag. The Democratic Party, O’Dowd noted, was also the party of “Walter
George, Sam Rayburn, Lyndon Johnson, Olin Johnston and the Southland.”
Under the new editor, James A. Rogers, the _Morning News_ changed its
political line. While not unsympathetic to the revolt, Rogers took
the common sense position that the most effective protest against the
Democratic Party was a vote for the Republican candidates.[428]
The _News and Courier_, the state’s leading press advocate of
“independence,” did not understate its editorial theme. The Democratic
Party had become infested with “goons, eggheads, radicals, and NAACP
agitators.” The Republicans were almost as bad. There was, in reality,
no place for “conservative white voters” to go. The South was not
bolting the Democratic Party; rather the party had long ago bolted the
South. The real third party was not that of the Southern Independents
but the Democratic Party gone Socialist. This situation had created
problems, not only in regard to public school integration, but also
“business interference and high cost government.” The South’s duty
was to redeem “the rest of the Republic from Negro politics” and
restore “honor, decency and liberty” to the political arena of the
nation. But the _News and Courier_ sadly acknowledged that the South’s
minority status left it in a position of such “helpless ignominy”
that its protest would probably be ineffective. Yet by voting against
both national parties Southerners could at least “preserve their self
respect.”[429]
Following refusal of the state Democratic convention to endorse
“independence,” the _News and Courier_ printed a lengthy series of
“letters to the editor” commenting on the political situation in
South Carolina. A majority of these advocated Southern independent
political action and held that the state’s delegates should have bolted
the national Democratic convention. Most urged formation of a new
Dixiecrat Party or presentation of a slate of independent electors as
a protest against both national parties. Various names were suggested
as nominees, most prominently Senator Harry F. Byrd of Virginia and
General Mark Clark. Another suggestion called for the formation of a
third national party which would appeal to “constitutionalists” and
conservatives like Governor J. Bracken Lee of Utah. It would oppose the
“socialism” of the other national parties.
A few of these letters were written by persons prominent in white
supremacy groups, including Micah Jenkins, state Citizens Council
president and chairman for South Carolina of the Federation for
Constitutional Government, and Stanley F. Morse, president of the Grass
Roots League of Charleston.[430] But most came from persons of no
particular significance in political circles. A sampling of quotations
taken from these letters reflects the state of mind of the writers:
Another John C. Calhoun is the crying need of this hour,
for whom we could all vote in full confidence to represent
us in Congress for constitutional government.
We don’t have any leaders in the nation today--we have
drivers. Southerners are being driven like cattle to the
slaughter.
If it ever was a time for a Ben Tillman it is now.
I am a Democrat, a follower of Jefferson, Cleveland,
Wilson, and Robert Taft. [!] I have nothing in common with
the present National Democratic Party whose name and
organization have been captured by the Radical Socialists
and semi-communists of the Northern city slums, assisted by
the crackpots, egg heads and pseudo-intellectuals of the
Northern colleges.
What the AFL-CIO is planning on doing to us is not
just “plain” brainwashing. We are in for a THOROUGH
brain-sudsing and scrubbing until every trace of our
Southern ways and traditions is gone and we come out
“integration bright.”
The complete subservience of a lot of our politicians to a
master such as party instead of principle is a deplorable
state of affairs for this nation.
Our timid and seduced politicians and their cohorts
endeavor to shield themselves by “working within the party.”
Among the letter writers the Democrats were not without their racist
supporters. One warned: “Vote Republican ... and you won’t have as
many rights as the Negro has ... the word ‘segregation’ will become
extinct.... If he [Eisenhower] is reelected you can expect worse.
Should he die, it will be ‘NIX-on’ whites and probably a desegregated
Supreme Court.”[431]
Efforts to organize an independent political movement in the state
began even before the decision of the state Democratic party to
support the national party nominees. In early June Micah Jenkins began
distributing petitions seeking the necessary 10,000 signatures to place
an independent slate of electors on the general election ballot. He
charged that the Democratic Party, made up of “radical, minority and
labor groups,” would be unable to protect the interests of the South
without alienating “the Negro, labor and the Americans for Democratic
Action radical elements.”[432] This early effort achieved negligible
success.
Following refusal of the state Democratic convention to endorse a
separate slate of independent electors, the dissident extremists
held a meeting in Columbia and organized the “South Carolinians for
Independent Electors.” Their immediate concern was to get 10,000
petition signatures which had to be in the office of the Secretary of
State not later than September 6; the organizational meeting was held
August 27. Chairman of the group was Farley Smith, son of the late
Senator “Cotton Ed” Smith. Prominent among those attending were Micah
Jenkins and S. Emory Rogers, leaders of the Citizens Council movement.
The organizational meeting issued a manifesto which declared that the
Independents were seeking to give voters of the state “an opportunity
to protest” against both national parties.[433] More than three times
the number of signatures needed were secured before the deadline, a not
inconsiderable achievement.
The Independent revolt, like that of the Dixiecrats of eight years
before, stemmed directly out of the segregation conflict. Editor Rogers
of the _Morning News_ stated flatly that the Supreme Court’s decision
was “the underlying cause” of the movement. Though there may have been
much truth to the Anderson _Independent’s_ statement that the real
reasons for the movement were economic, there was no gainsaying that
the Independents presented themselves as the champions _ne plus ultra_
of white supremacy. Such was admirably illustrated in a pamphlet which
they distributed. A brief summary is informative: A vote for Stevenson
was a vote for integration according to “the warning uttered by the
South Carolina Citizens Councils,” which were “representative of the
states rights thinking of thousands of South Carolinians.” The civil
rights platform of the Democratic Party was a “complete defeat” for
the South, adding up to “FEPC, mixed schools, Federal investigation
of white Southerners and enthusiastic endorsement of integration in
the armed forces.” (A verbatim quotation from a _News and Courier_
editorial of August 16, 1956, p. 16-A.) The regular Democratic Party
in South Carolina was a “scalawag” party, “to which most Negroes
belong.” The national Democratic Party was the mouthpiece for “Rep.
Adam Clayton Powell of Harlem, Walter Reuther of the AFL-CIO, Mrs.
Eleanor Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Adlai Stevenson and the turncoat
Southerner, Estes Kefauver,” all enemies of the South.[434]
On other occasions the Independents were prone to emphasize non-racial
issues and decry “the trend toward government centralized and
socialized, in Washington.”[435] Thomas P. Stoney, former mayor of
Charleston who was to become one of the Independent electors, declared
that “the time has come to serve notice on the left-wingers and
crystal-ball gazers of both national parties that we’ve gone just as
far as we’re going” toward “100 percent socialism.”[436] Harold Booker,
a Camden newspaper man, told an Independent rally: “In fighting for the
election, you are fighting for your homes, families and Southland.”[437]
Originally the Independent electors endorsed no candidate but in
October they decided to back Senator Harry F. Byrd of Virginia and
Representative John Bell Williams of Mississippi for President and
Vice-President respectively. That Byrd announced he was not a candidate
did not faze the Independents. The _News and Courier_ commented that it
“would rather have Harry Byrd president than any other man in public
life.” It described Representative Williams, whose claim to fame
included popularizing the term “Black Monday,” as a “distinguished
Southerner,” the type of man “whom South Carolinians respect.”[438]
The Independents announced their position in several political
advertisements in newspapers throughout the state. Typical was the
following, which, it might be observed, directly attacked Adlai
Stevenson but did not mention President Eisenhower:
Do you want mixing of the races in schools, factories,
shops, offices, restaurants--at the point of a bayonet if
necessary? If so vote for Stevenson and Kefauver.
Do you want to do away with unlimited debate (filibuster)
which is the only protection the South has against laws
that big cities of the North will force upon us? If so,
vote for Stevenson and Kefauver who unalterably oppose
freedom of debate.
Do you want the Right-to-work law in South Carolina
repealed? If so, vote for Stevenson and Kefauver who are
dedicated to repeal of the Taft-Hartley law.
Do you want a President who would stop tests of H-bombs and
enable Russia to dominate the world? Then Stevenson is your
man. He and Bulganin want to stop these tests in America.
Do you want Socialism to replace the free and independent
form of government under which America has become the
greatest nation in the world? Then vote for either national
party. Both are dedicated to Socialism.
Do you want to live under the domination of political
machines? Then vote for and with the politicians who place
party label above principle.
The prominence given economic issues is significant. Independent
leaders had two goals: to sound the tocsin for reactionaries and to
show to the country that their movement was premised on grounds other
than racial. Economic policies advocated by Stevenson and the national
Democrats were smeared as “a new America built on Socialistic and
Communistic theories.” In view of the wide use of the term “socialism,”
the _News and Courier’s_ definition is interesting. Socialism, it
said, “would give bigger ‘benefits’ to farmers, old people, veterans,
little business men, workers, unemployed persons, the disabled and
children.” This would mean “more handouts for everyone, except the
big corporations--and the government would run them.” Inflation,
controls and higher taxes accompanied such a program. The Independents
also criticized Kefauver’s advocacy of “World Government under which
the United States of America would become a satellite nation under
Communist control.”[439]
The Independents never attracted the active support of prominent
Democrats in the state. An important exception was James F. Byrnes.
In an address which the _News and Courier_ considered “the speech of
a statesman,” the former governor, senator, war mobilizer, secretary
of state and Supreme Court justice, urged South Carolinians to desert
both national parties and to back the Independents. He criticized
Eisenhower’s support of integration in the District of Columbia and
pictured the Democratic Party, whose nomination for the vice-presidency
he had once coveted, as being “dominated by the bosses of the big
cities, the Americans for Democratic Action, the CIO and the NAACP.”
The _Independent_ received Byrnes’ speech less sympathetically. The
up-country paper declared that “the spectacle of this aging and
embittered politician trying to explain unsuccessfully how he arrived
at this dead-end would merit sympathetic pity were it not part of
a calculated effort, based upon hatred for the Democratic Party
that fed and clothed him for over 50 years, to reelect a Republican
president.”[440]
During the course of the election campaign, the _Morning News_,
_Record_, _News and Courier_ and _Independent_ each took a different
position on the question of political revolt. With the exception of
the _Morning News_, which changed editors, the papers continued the
positions which they had taken in the pre-campaign period. The _Morning
News_, under Editor Rogers, was sympathetic to the Independents but
refrained from advising its readers as to how to vote. Rogers’ proposal
for an independent movement to support the Republican candidate went
unheeded. The _Record_, too, was sympathetic to the Independents but
ultimately endorsed the Republicans. It considered a vote for the
Independents as a less effective protest than one for the G.O.P. The
_News and Courier_, which luxuriated in its own world of perpetual
political frustration, gave unqualified endorsement to the Independents
as “a grass roots protest without professional leadership.” It
represented “the people of South Carolina standing up for their rights,
in a spontaneous movement which could overthrow the forces controlling
the State Democratic Party.” Out of it might “come a force to redeem
the Republic and reshape United States history.”[441]
The Anderson _Independent_ attacked the movement, its leaders and
its motives. The “agitation” was described as “another effort to
give aid and comfort to the Republican Party and its millions of
Negro adherents.” The Independents included “an unusually high
proportion of rejected office-holders and worn-out political hacks,”
“tub-thumpers” who were using the race issue as a screen for other
issues, mainly economic. When the Independents issued a statement
decrying “the perversion of taxation to a tool of social reform for
the redistribution of wealth,” the Anderson paper concluded that they
opposed “such laws as social security, old age pensions, federal wage
and hour laws to protect workers, federal funds for school lunches,
and numerous other activities designed to benefit the vast majority
of citizens who are not blessed with the status of the independently
wealthy.”[442] This statement was not without irony in view of the
_Independent’s_ violent opposition to labor unions and to the repeal
of the state’s right-to-work law.
The same paper was no less critical of the Republicans. A vote for
either the Republicans or the Independents was “a vote for sending
South Carolina school trustees to jail.” Its editorials contained
such loaded and politically indelicate phrases as “‘Put’em in Jail’
Eisenhower,” “‘jailing judges,’” “Richard M. (for Mixer) Nixon,”
“naming Negroes to the South Carolina federal bench,” and “a vote for
Ike is a vote for integration.”[443]
In the campaign the Democrats made only slightly less use of the race
issue than did the Independents. Democratic strategy was to present
the latter as Republicans in disguise and then to attack the racial
policies of the Republicans. Democrats called Eisenhower “the greatest
integrator since Abraham Lincoln” for his endorsement of the Court
decision; his appointment of Chief Justice Earl Warren; his elimination
of segregation in the armed forces (“Except for this, it might not
be necessary to continue the draft.”); his abolition of separate
recruitments for Navy stewards; his abolition of segregation in the
Charleston Naval Yard; his abolition of segregation in all veterans
hospitals (“The helpless sick are denied any choice.”); and his
abolition of segregation in Washington. Indicative of the Democrats’
attitude was the use of a quotation from an NAACP report stating: “When
freedom, equality, and justice shall have been fully realized for every
citizen, historians of tomorrow may well look back to the year of 1953
as the beginning of the end of social discrimination and segregation in
the United States.”[444]
The Democrats made wide use of state officials in reassuring voters
that the South’s best hope lay with its traditional party. Congressman
William Jennings Bryan Dorn declared that the support of the national
Democratic Party by Senator Richard B. Russell and Herman Talmadge of
Georgia was sufficient proof for him. The Democrats also emphasized
such issues as Democratic control of Congress and the appointment of
federal judges. State executive committeeman E. P. Riley of Greenville
asked, “Do you want judges selected by our senators, who believe in our
way of life, or do you want them selected by Negro Congressman Adam
Clayton Powell ... [and] Dewey and Brownell, whose only thought of the
South is hatred?”[445]
The Republicans soft-pedalled the race issue and even made some efforts
to attract Negro votes. An undated open letter from State Republican
Chairman Oscar W. Pitts urged all South Carolinians, “regardless of
creed or color,” to support Eisenhower.[446] Barrington Parker, a
Washington attorney sponsored by the Republican National Committee,
told the Palmetto State Voters Association that “no thinking Negro
can go to the polls to vote the Democratic ticket.”[447] Political
advertisements of the only Republican candidate in the election,
Leon P. Crawford, the mayor of Clemson and the opponent of Senator
Olin D. Johnston, made no reference to the race issue. They noted,
however, Crawford’s belief in “firm aggressive pursuit of States
Rights measures.... Constitutional government of the people, for the
people and by the people ... [and] less Federal meddling in State
and local schools and other affairs.”[448] Henry Gaud, a Charleston
County Republican leader, told Carolinians that segregation was not the
issue in the election. Segregation had been used by the Independents
to get “prejudices aroused.” The real issue was “whether or not this
government is going to become totalitarian. Stevenson believes in
socialization.” He agreed with the Independents that “leftwingers and
racketeers” ruled the Democratic Party.[449]
Election results showed approximately 138,000 votes for the Democrats,
75,000 for the Republicans and 88,000 for the Independents. Generally
the upcountry counties voted strongly Democratic while the lowcountry
voted Independent. Eisenhower carried two counties, Aiken and
Beaufort in the lowcountry. The _News and Courier_, still frustrated,
expressed disappointment and indignation over the vote for Stevenson.
According to the voice of “independence,” white South Carolinians
again had betrayed themselves to the “compulsory race mixers, Northern
busybodies and professional South-baiters.” They were disloyal “to
their forefathers--such men as Wade Hampton and John Calhoun.”[450]
Some consolation was derived from the fact that for the first time
since Reconstruction, the Democratic Party in the state received less
than an absolute majority of the votes cast. Yet it should also be
noted that slightly more than 70 percent of the voters were against the
Independents.
The Negro vote cannot be evaluated accurately but indications are that
it was split fairly evenly between the Democrats and Republicans. For
example Columbia’s Ward Nine, a traditional bellwether precinct for the
Negro vote in the state, gave 551 votes to the Democrats, 504 to the
Republicans, 56 to the Independents. Many Negro dominated precincts
throughout the state went Republican, reversing the 1952 results.[451]
Then the Negroes had voted overwhelmingly Democratic.
Although most of the drive behind the Independents petered out with
the election returns, leaders of the movement endeavored to keep the
organization alive. In January 1957 a meeting was held in Columbia,
attended by 75 persons. Talk centered on plans for taking over control
of the state Democratic Party organization. Since this could not be
immediately achieved, the 75 had to be content with the establishment
of a permanent organization outside the party. Farley Smith was
reelected chairman of the Independents.[452]
Because of the large anti-Democratic vote in South Carolina in 1952
and 1956, many consider the state at last ready for a bona fide
two-party system. The more conservative, however, favor continuation
of a one-party system. M. H. Sass, in a revealing newspaper article,
thought that “the very last thing that would be desirable for South
Carolina in the foreseeable future” was the two-party system. Such, he
declared, would “result in the political fragmentation of the South
along social and economic lines.” Southern conservatives would be
aligned with non-Southern conservatives while “Southern workers and
smaller farmers would be in alliance with their national counterparts.”
Such an arrangement would not only be “a severe blow to the South’s
maintenance of its separate identity, culturally speaking,” but would
also give “the balance of political power ... to the Negro.” Under
these circumstances “questions of economic policy, labor relations,
etc., would become paramount issues.” The presence in South Carolina of
“an abundance of raw scalawag material,” said Sass, would insure chaos
if a two-party system were established.[453]
In the political arena, then, the Supreme Court’s desegregation
decision and the increasing Negro efforts to achieve integration have
resulted in a continuation and intensification of the use by South
Carolina politicians of the race issue. In 1958 indications are that
this situation will not end until the Negro vote becomes important
enough to be vied for by politicians.
CHAPTER IX
ANOTHER WAR OF YANKEE AGGRESSION
Though secession did not survive the Confederate
War, peaceful secession is by no means inconceivable
at some future date.--_News and Courier_
A featured part of the white South Carolina defense of the racial
_status quo_ is the allegation that the entire integration drive
constitutes a gigantic conspiracy of jealous Yankees against Dixie.
“South-baiting is currently a fad north of the Mason-Dixon line,”
said the embittered _News and Courier_. Along with other pro-South
spokesmen, the Charleston paper considers the integration crusade a
continuation of the spirit of abolitionism and the “waving of the
bloody shirt.” The South Carolina segregationist state of mind includes
the assumption that a “cold war” exists between the “beleaguered”
South and the rest of the nation. But the struggle of the 1950’8, as
contrasted with that of the 1860’s, is basically one of ideas. Hence
the success of Southern efforts depends upon effective presentation of
the pro-segregation story to the nation. But alas, in this respect,
segregationists face insurmountable handicaps. The South has to stand
alone in the fight to save segregation and such related principles
as “constitutional government, states rights, geographical spread of
governmental powers, unlimited debate in the U. S. Senate, harmonious
relations between the races, (and) separate and excellent school
systems.” Because of the importance of these principles, the _News and
Courier_ would have its readers remember that “a little integration” is
like “a little adultery.”[454] Southern opposition must be total.
In defending South Carolina against outside criticism, the press of
the state, led by the _News and Courier_, has sought to point out the
absolute superiority of the “Southern way of life.” Referring to the
South in Jeffersonian terms the _Morning News_ said: “An agrarian
society helps encourage fundamental decency and proper thinking.
People cannot be closely associated with nature and God’s bounty
without absorbing some appreciation for the proper order of things and
the love of God.”[455] The _News and Courier_ decried the fact that
“movies, popular novels, the Northern press, Northern colleges--and not
a few teachers in Southern educational institutions” hammered at the
theme that the South was “hopelessly out-of-date” and “ignorant and
backward.” To combat this point of view, parents of college students
were advised to “help their youngsters understand their traditions.
Traditions have to be taught. They aren’t automatically implanted in
the brains of 18 and 19 year-olds.”[456]
On another occasion the _News and Courier_, after “reluctantly”
concluding that “the organized campaign of vilification of the Southern
way-of-life and traditions has been partially inspired by malice,”
declared, not inaccurately, that the Southern resistance was the
result of “a unique and imperishable nationalism in the South.” This
nationalism was not aggressive, it asserted. “It was cradled in the
intense desire to be left alone.” It was rooted in the pride that
Southerners had in their unique way of life.[457]
The South as the defender of traditional American values was the
theme of a speech by Representative William Jennings Bryan Dorn.
Employing terminology reminiscent of his famous namesake, he referred
to his region as “the last frontier of Americanism.” It was the duty
and challenge of the South to sell its “political, industrial and
educational philosophy” to the rest of the country. “I’m proud I
represent people who live in the Bible Belt,” said Dorn. “I had much
rather represent the Bible Belt than some of the slums and confusion
that exist in many of our larger cities.”[458]
Just as the South’s efforts to preserve segregation are warmly
applauded, so are the North’s essays at integration roundly condemned.
Here, again, the _News and Courier_ is the leading though by no means
the only spokesman. Comparing the segregated South with the integrated
North, it stated:
Segregation in the South at least has prevented terrorism
in cities. Crime exists, of course, but nothing like these
reports from Northern cities. Undisciplined packs roam
their streets. In the South we have no packs of savages.
Though Negroes are more numerous, they are better behaved.
Yes, and more CIVILIZED! They stay to themselves. They
recognize and accept the limits set up for themselves and
for white people.
Released from social restrictions of the segregation code,
Negroes are running wild in the North. That is what the
North would inflict on a far greater scale on the people of
the South.[459]
On another occasion, the same paper indicated that its ideas on racial
superiority extended not only to Negroes but to many whites as well:
“Are these so-called Northern spokesmen actually Northern Americans?
Are they from good old New England Yankee stock? Are they solid inland
families, descended from pioneers who crossed the plains? Or are they
first-generation mal-contents, full of alien notions? Are they recent
immigrants from who knows where--Russia, perhaps?” Then in a not too
subtle type of innuendo the _News and Courier_ wondered “what kind of
schism are they trying to drive through the Federal Union of States?
Why, other than for Communist reasons, would they wish to split that
union?”[460]
Many white South Carolinians accuse the North of hypocrisy. Governor
Timmerman, for example, declared that “Northern propagandists are
as loud, obnoxious and untruthful today as the Abolitionists were a
century ago.” Integrationists, like the abolitionists, he asserted, are
hypocrites. Editor Waring of the _News and Courier_ stated that while
the South had always been “open and above-board” in its treatment of
Negroes, the North had been “sly and underhanded.”[461] Since the North
had preserved segregation practically intact despite absence of legal
sanction and non-discrimination laws, several spokesmen, including
James F. Byrnes, urged the Gressette School Segregation Committee to go
above the Mason-Dixon line to study Northern methods.
White South Carolinians are especially critical of Northern news
media--newspapers, periodicals, radio and television. Blithely ignoring
the pressure for conformity within the South, the _News and Courier_
criticized Northern leaders who allegedly parroted words which they
thought the public wanted to hear. The courage to tell the truth
outside the South, complained the lowcountry newspaper, was at one of
its lowest points in history.[462]
Alleged reluctance of national news media to present sympathetically
the pro-segregation cause has given rise to such terms as the “Paper
Curtain” and the “Integration Curtain” and the charge that the South is
being “brainwashed” into acceptance of the alien notion of integration.
In no other aspect of the desegregation controversy is the cornered
and minority status of the South more apparent. With ever increasing
frequency, complaints have arisen against pro-integration statements
and incidents appearing on national television and radio networks, in
national periodicals and in the Northern metropolitan press. Newspapers
such as the _New York Times_, the _New York Herald Tribune_, and the
_Washington Post and Times-Herald_ are subjected to constant attack.
Mass circulation periodicals such as _Saturday Evening Post_, _Look_,
_Time_ and _Life_ likewise receive special criticism. Among nationally
circulated periodicals only the _U. S. News and World Report_, whose
editor David Lawrence appeals to the most reactionary elements in the
South, has won South Carolina approval. The Columbia _State_, for
example, had the following to say of _Time_:
Through stupidity or malice _Time_ has repeatedly followed,
with the rest of the blackguard Northern press, this tone
of false witness, either directly or by innuendo, against
the South. _Time_ has consistently paraded the idea that
it is too stupid or malicious to recognize the fact that
the South is a part of the United States. Refusing to
accept the sword of Robert Lee tendered at Appomattox,
it continues by snide inference, malicious innuendo and
biased implication to fight the Confederate War against
this section, blind to the fact that _Time_ and the rest
of the inflammatory press is following the same line of
wild-eyed chatter that led to Secession in 1860--with grim
determination arraying section against section, gracelessly
exaggerating the faults of one, while cravenly covering up
those of the other.
_Time_ has double-crossed the American people on so many
important issues, through stupidity or malice, that a
better name for the weekly would be “Two-Time.”[463]
Instances of racial violence and incidents of discrimination against
Negroes in the North and West quite naturally, and rightly, afford
grist for the mill to editorial writers on South Carolina newspapers.
Statements such as “clean up the mess in your own back yard before
criticizing us” and “in the South there is frankness; in the North
hypocrisy” are interspersed with “you don’t see any race riots in the
South” or “the Northern states are finding that Southerners are not
the only ones concerned with maintaining racial barriers.” The racial
disturbances at Calumet Park in Chicago and the bigotry displayed by
some of the residents of Levittown, Pennsylvania in the summer of
1957 were eagerly seized upon by counter-attacking South Carolina
editors. That the great majority of people in the North deplored
such incidents--as was true of most Southerners in the Little Rock
affair--was carefully masked by editorial legerdemain and the views of
the rabidly intolerant minority presented as typical. News of racial
tension outside the South and in it--insofar as opposition to any and
all forms of integration was concerned--is featured by blazing front
page headlines that can only further incite South Carolina extremists.
Some South Carolina editors, like Thomas Waring of the _News and
Courier_, deplore the fact that similar editorial tactics are not
utilized in the Northern press. In a particularly biting editorial
Waring declared:
It is too bad no seismograph records the range of press
hypocrisy in the North. The handling of the Chicago race
riots would have registered severe shocks in some big
cities.
Editions of the _New York Herald-Tribune_ for Monday and
Tuesday ... contained not a line about a serious racial
clash in the country’s second largest city.
The _New York Times_ on Monday printed an Associated Press
dispatch seven inches long on page 10. The _Times_, with
unrivaled facilities of its own for gathering news all over
the world, did not see fit to print the full AP account.
Tuesday’s issue ... contained no story on all further
disorders occurring in Chicago on Monday.
The handling of the local story by the _Chicago Daily
News_ is also interesting. It was printed on page 3 under
a headline saying “Man Fined $50 in Race Flareup.” The
_Daily News_ devoted its entire back page to pictures of
the earthquake damage in Mexico City. No pictures showed
the race riots in the city where the _Daily News_ is
published. The riots were called “racial disturbances”
throughout.
Does any reader wonder how these newspapers would have
displayed “racial disturbances” had they occurred in South
Carolina, Mississippi, or elsewhere this side of the Paper
Curtain? Race riots aren’t news in the North.[464]
Of all the Northern newspapers, the _New York Times_ is the chief
_bête noire_ of the South Carolina press in general and the _News and
Courier_ in particular. The Charleston paper’s plaint is that the
_Times_ is a “liberal” paper which writes its own views into news
stories. As to the _Times’_ liberalism the _News and Courier_ summed it
up by saying that the New York paper “places its faith in government
and laws for rapid improvement of mankind. It is a concept much like
the totalitarian ideology.” The _News and Courier_, which professes
admiration for Cuba’s Batista and the Dominican Republic’s Trujillo,
proceeded to develop this idea further: “The history of the world does
not indicate that laws improve the breed. The best that can be hoped
from laws, as we see it, is to maintain law and order so that people
can live out their lives in some degree of safety and comfort. By
tampering with the laws and customs about race in the United States,
the ‘liberals’ have created disorder and discomfort both in the South
and in the North.... Today, as it has been doing for years, the _Times_
is pamphleteering for its cause--the intermingling of the races.”[465]
The summer of 1957 was a particularly fecund one for attacks on
conditions in the North by South Carolina newspapers. Revelations in
the Syracuse, New York press of filthy and abominable conditions in
migrant labor camps in the Empire State coupled with NAACP charges of
peonage and the ordering by Governor Averill Harriman of a sweeping
investigation by state authorities occasioned the _State_ to send staff
writer Bob Pierce northward on a “muckraking” expedition. Pierce, who
received full co-operation from the Syracuse _Post-Standard_ which
threw open its files to him, sent back to Columbia a series of stories
that were picked up by other papers of the state. They were like heady
wine for the embattled defenders of the Southern way of life. Enjoying
for the moment the luxury of having still another tangible social abuse
in the North to attack, the _State_ combined in several editorials
a mixture of Southern chauvinism, eloquence, and what it evidently
considered to be irony. Said editor Latimer on one occasion: “Now we
read a complaint that New York migrant camps are a twentieth century
slave racket. Well, the people up North should know how to operate such
a place. Their forbears were primarily responsible for the introduction
of slavery in this country.... Conditions up North must be getting
bad for the NAACP to admit that anything but racial harmony and fair
treatment to Negroes is to be found above Mr. Mason and Mr. Dixon’s
line.”[466]
That the national news media have been at least partially effective
in shaping public opinion in the segregation controversy is evidenced
by the repeated criticisms of their policies. The _News and Courier_
declared that freedom of the press as it related to “truth about race
matters” had already vanished “from a large segment of American daily
newspapers.” Race news was rarely reported outside the South without a
pro-NAACP bias. Also radio and television and Hollywood film producers
were “under the black curtain of race censorship.” “The other day, in
a Charleston theater, we saw a movie short in which John C. Calhoun
was pictured as a scheming, treasonous troublemaker,” the _News and
Courier_ indignantly exclaimed. In a letter to the same paper Fred
Grossman noted “a palpable spirit of antipathy” between the North
and South, a feeling which he blamed on the NAACP “and affiliated
organizations of equally dubious allegiance.” Southerners on national
television shows, he asserted, were “inevitably browbeaten, ridiculed,
outwitted by well-rehearsed MC’s.” In the movies, Southerners were
always villains. As a result of this slyly conducted campaign of
propaganda and insinuation, the mere mention of the word South
automatically brought to mind such “evil connotations as bigot,
demagogue, Simon Legree and the like.”[467]
The _News and Courier_, insisting that it does “not especially admire
a policy of pandering to popular views to please the subscribers,” and
summarizing its presentation of the race controversy as “the truth as
we see it,” proclaims itself as far more objective than its Northern
counterparts. In presenting “the truth as we see it,” the _News and
Courier_ commented in the following fashion on the segregation riots of
Clinton, Tennessee:
Truly, this is a tragic time in American history.... Who
would have thought that tyranny would come so quickly to
America, or that the federal government would seek to
restore all the brutality and oppression of Reconstruction
days? And yet the day of infamy has arrived....
Today the North approves the methods of Hitler in
attempting to force racial mixing upon a people who will
not mix. If Nazi techniques are upheld by the higher courts
and by public opinion in the North, one day the people of
the North themselves will feel the sting of tyranny.[468]
The newspaper chose to overlook the fact that “the brutality and
oppression” in Tennessee was being enforced by the National Guard of
the state, called out by the governor and not the federal government.
Ignored too was the parallel of “racial superiority” both in Nazi
Germany and in Tennessee.
That some white South Carolinians accept the Charleston paper at face
value as the fountainhead of truth is indicated by a letter to the
editor by C. H. Ruppert of Charleston. Ruppert wrote: “Each time I pick
up an issue of your paper, I thank God I live in a state where the
truth is printed regardless of personal views and I also know that both
sides are presented in any issue that may arise. If the truth could
be presented in the Northern papers, maybe the honest and worth while
people who live there could understand Southern people for what they
really are.”[469]
Frequently blame for the whole integration fight is placed on “Negro
politics.” “Afro-Americans,” said the _News and Courier_, “brought
in chains to the New World, are about to seek their revenge. They
are forging now the handcuffs whereby 10 percent of the population
would dominate 90 percent through the fluke of concentration.” This
observation concluded: “More than ever the Southern States seem
destined to play a role in eventual redemption of the rest of the
Republic from Negro politics.”[470]
South Carolina newspapers throughout the entire segregation-integration
controversy of the past four years have shown a peculiar insensitivity
in regard to the effort of the United States to win the support of the
nations of Asia and Africa. They have refused to see any connection
with the propaganda efforts of the nation’s diplomacy in behalf of the
democratic ideology and their espousal of racial supremacy doctrines
at home. A naked statement demonstrating lack of concern with this
particular problem came not surprisingly from the _News and Courier_
which entertains no special regard for the democratic credo: “We
are tired of manufactured nonsense about ‘propaganda’ overseas. The
suggestion that American laws and customs are subject to foreign veto
makes us sick. Our government should not look over its shoulder to
see whether it wins applause or boos from the peanut galleries of the
world.”[471]
Such an internationally myopic viewpoint could be expected from the
embattled _News and Courier_ but one could hardly anticipate it being
broadcast in a more sophisticated form by Donald S. Russell who when
he expressed it was president of the University of South Carolina, a
position which he resigned a few weeks later. Addressing the Bamberg
Lions Club, Russell lashed out against “the ill-advised efforts of
many heedless busybodies to inject the issue of school integration in
the South into American foreign policy.”[472] Conceivably Russell was
speaking strictly for home consumption as he was in the process of
preparing the ground for his announcement as a gubernatorial candidate.
Yet this outlook was hardly befitting a man who fancies himself to
be well informed in the realm of international diplomacy and who has
served as Assistant Secretary of State.
In recognition of the influence of mass communication, various
proposals have been advanced to overcome the absence in the South
of a single pro-segregation newspaper or periodical of nationwide
standing. The South, lamented the _News and Courier_, had lost its
voice in an age of miraculous means of communication. Consequently the
Southern arguments were not heard in the North. The “primary need” of
the South, then, was “a non-profit and non-political organization to
present the Southern viewpoint.” Financed by voluntary contributions
by Southerners, such an organization would employ lawyers to argue
segregation cases before the courts, issue press releases on the
position of segregationists, and furnish speakers to present the
Southern argument to the nation.[473] Ironically, it is largely on
these very grounds that South Carolinians have condemned the NAACP!
The _News and Courier_ has taken other steps to bolster the Southern
ramparts against the integrationists. It plugs W. E. Debnam’s
“handbooks for Southerners,” _Then My Old Kentucky Home Good Night_
and _Weep No More My Lady_. These would intellectually fortify those
Southerners who were “being brain-washed by experts” from the North.
Southerners who bought the books, furthermore, could send them to
Northern acquaintances. On another occasion the _News and Courier_
presented itself as covering the race controversy “more than any
other newspaper in the country.” In one of its own advertisements it
suggested three ways to pierce the “Paper Curtain”: (1) Southerners
could correspond with relatives, friends and business acquaintances in
the North and “tell the truth as they know it;” (2) better yet they
could “send pamphlets, clippings and other printed arguments through
the mail;” (3) “most effective of all would be to send _The News and
Courier_.” A gift subscription was at their command. In 1956 the paper
issued a twenty-five cent pamphlet, entitled “We Take Our Stand,”
containing thirty-two of its editorials on the race issue. Such methods
as these caused the _Independent_ to comment sourly: “The Charleston
_News and Courier_ ... constantly stirs the [race] issue with one
hand while reaching out with the other to cash in on the agitation by
advertising itself as a ‘Southern spokesman’ without peer, urging ‘buy
me, buy me.’ The theory seems to be: more strife, more profit.”[474]
W. D. Workman Jr. suggested establishment of a “Southern Foundation”
to foster “recognition of Southern achievements (and attitudes) in the
fields of industry, agriculture, politics and government, education and
sociology.” The foundation could “aid in breaking down the obvious
and discriminatory refusal of Northern publishers to print anything
out of the South which does not conform with their preconceived ideas
of ‘liberality in the New South.’” Finally it “could offset some of
the mealy-mouthed preachments of ‘dogooder’ organizations within
and without the South which seek to develop a guilt complex among
Southerners for simply being Southerners.”[475]
The “Bookworm,” writing in the _News and Courier_, suggested a boycott
against publications attacking segregation. He proposed that (1) all
Southern organizations “secede from their national affiliations,”
thereby taking large numbers of members and dues from national groups
which were attempting to “influence Southern thought and action”;
(2) Southerners discontinue subscriptions to national publications
unfriendly to the South; and (3) Southerners notify advertisers in
these publications that their products are no longer being used.[476]
Scion of an old Charleston family, Arthur Ravenel, Jr., a member of
the state House of Representatives, proposed to the Columbia Rotary
Club the creation of a fund to be used for the purpose of buying up
Northern newspapers and magazines and other media of information. The
fund would be financed by non-interest paying bonds subscribed to by
loyal South Carolinians. Through these captive magazines “the Southern
and conservative story” could be told to America. “You cannot win a
defensive battle or a defensive war,” said Ravenel. “South Carolina,
as we know her and love her, cannot survive another decade unless we
take the offensive quickly and maintain it vigorously. We alone among
the forty-eight states can do it. We have the wherewithal. Our assets
include a singleness of purpose among our people; geographical unity;
an illustrious history; a social system free of racial strife; two
societies complete and separate, living in mutual respect for one
another; and a community of real Americans.” South Carolina, continued
this young legislator, had “no ‘pinks,’ no reds, no ‘isms.’ We have the
type of people who form the backbone of the nation. We have a story
that can be told.” The battle to win men’s minds could be won, Ravenel
maintained. “That real American, David Lawrence, had proven with the
_U. S. News and World Report_ that America avidly seeks the truth.”[477]
Suggestions of this nature also reached into the state legislature. In
the 1957 session, Representative F. Mitchell Ott of Orangeburg County
introduced a resolution calling for the creation of a nine-member
commission which would interest other Southern states in sending
delegations to visit Northern and Western state legislatures. The
purpose of such visits would be to arouse these states to the threat
of “continuing and accelerating invasion of states rights by the
federal government.”[478]
The successfully waged battle for passage of a federal civil rights
act revealed the extent of the South’s isolation from the rest of
the country. It was looked upon in South Carolina and the other deep
South states as but another campaign in the insidious war of Yankee
aggression. The first skirmishes occurred in the spring of 1956
when the Eisenhower administration asked Congress to enact a civil
rights law which would include creation of a bipartisan commission to
investigate individual grievances and creation of a new civil rights
division in the Department of Justice. The proposals also provided that
any citizen who felt that his constitutional rights had been infringed
might go directly to a federal court with his complaint, bypassing the
state courts.[479]
Reaction to these proposals ranged from indignation to outright
defiance. Senator Olin D. Johnston considered them “a brazen attempt
to abolish all states rights and to establish a form of dictatorship
government.” Never before had the nation come “as close to creating
a Hitler or Stalin type dictatorship.” The _Independent_ compared
them to the “‘force bills’ Black Republicans put into effect”
during Reconstruction. Their purpose was to “create more strife”
and to “capitalize on such strife to create more Negro votes for
the Republican Party.” The _News and Courier_ also considered the
proposals “force bills aimed at the South.” The purpose was “political
reconstruction, in an all-out attempt to capture the Negro vote.” They
meant “invasion of liberties guaranteed under the Constitution.”[480]
The 1956 Civil Rights Bill died in the Senate; consequently, in 1957 a
new and stronger bill was introduced into Congress. Again state leaders
bellowed their opposition. Representative L. Mendel Rivers charged that
the 1957 proposals were based on “a contemptible, malicious, dastardly
lie” about conditions in the South. Such a law “is not only not needed
but violates every guarantee the Constitution gives us.” Passage of
the bill would drench the nation with more “blood than ever a mutinied
ship.” All Americans, not only Southerners, would lose their rights
with passage of the bill. Senator Thurmond warned the House Judiciary
Committee that adoption of the “so-called civil rights” proposals would
“turn neighbor against neighbor,” deprive citizens of their rights to
trial by jury and “keep our people in a constant state of apprehension
and harassment.”[481]
An organized campaign of resistance developed in the state to the
1957 civil rights proposals. Appearing for South Carolina before the
Judiciary Committee of the national House of Representatives were
Senator Thurmond; Representative Dorn; state Representative Robert E.
McNair of Allendale, chairman of the South Carolina House Judiciary
Committee; Thomas A. Pope of Newberry, former state House Speaker,
currently chairman of the South Carolina Bar Association Executive
Committee; state Representative James A. Spruill from Cheraw, member
of the House Education Committee; and Columbia attorney Clint T.
Graydon. Each in turn made impassioned pleas that the bill not be
passed and that the South be left alone to deal with the race problem
as it saw fit. Their arguments were generally based on legalistic and
constitutional grounds.[482] They gave increased significance to a
statement by _Morning News_ editor O’Dowd that in the South democracy
and states rights had come to mean that all men were equal but some
less equal than others.
Commenting on the testimony of the state’s representatives the
_News and Courier_ said that South Carolina could “be proud” of its
legislators and private citizens who spoke before the committee.
“Clarity, honesty, dignity and understanding” characterized their
addresses. “South-haters picture Southerners as Stone Age men,
roughnecks and demagogues. They must have been bitterly disappointed
when our spokesmen, in cool, intelligent tones, warned of perils
threatening freedom in all 48 states.”[483]
South Carolina’s delegation in Congress opposed the civil rights
bill _in toto_ but they were unhappily aware they could not prevent
passage of an act in 1957. Senate majority leader Lyndon Johnson, it is
rumored, had told Southern Senators in January that a bill was going
to be enacted and that they had better forget about their usual “corn
and pot liquor” arguments and consider the legislation on its own
merits.[484] Under such circumstances the strategy of Southerners in
Congress was to take a last ditch stand against the most vulnerable of
the bill’s provisions, namely that violators of Federal court orders
be subject to punishment by a judge of the court without benefit of
jury trial. By insisting on a jury trial amendment to the bill, the
Southerners could present themselves as the real defenders of civil
rights.
Yet the spectacle of the Southerners in Congress presenting themselves
as champions of jury trials was ironic in light of the fact that jury
trials were not guaranteed those similarly accused in state courts.
South Carolina law, for example, provided that disobedience of a court
order “may be punished by a judge as for a contempt.” Also, circuit
courts might punish “by fine or imprisonment, at the discretion of the
court, all contempts of authority in any cause or hearing before the
same.”[485]
Both in the House of Representatives and the Senate South Carolina’s
delegation fought a last ditch battle for total rejection of the civil
rights bill. Speaking for his fellow House members from South Carolina,
Representative Dorn argued that the bill was not needed and that it
would further centralize power in Washington and pave the way for a
“federal dictatorship.” Nor would South Carolina representatives accept
any part of the jury trial compromise, said Dorn. An identical opinion
came from Senator Thurmond who believed it “entirely wrong to make
any concession on the jury trial amendment or any part of the bill.”
The Constitution, he said, “specifically provides for jury trials
in all criminal cases and the Constitution cannot be compromised.”
Senator Johnston was equally adamant. He complained of not having been
consulted on the compromise measure and accused the leadership in both
the House and the Senate of high-handed and illegal procedures. In
the closing debate on the bill Johnston declared: “The cornerstone of
human liberty is being shattered.... This is the most backward looking,
retrogressive compromise that has ever issued from any self-appointed
committee within my knowledge, memory, or understanding.”[486]
Both South Carolina representatives and other Southern members of
the Congress were engaged in a fruitless struggle. The civil rights
bill, largely rewritten by Democratic senators and their advisers, was
accepted by the House of Representatives which previously had approved
a more stringent Administration measure. With this hurdle surmounted,
only Senate approval remained. Since Reconstruction days, however, the
Senate had been the graveyard for civil rights bills.
South Carolina political leaders continued to hope that the Senate
would perform its traditional role and that Southern senators in
general and their own in particular would resort to the filibuster,
the ultimate weapon of beleaguered minorities. They clung to this hope
in face of the fact that the Democratic leadership in the Senate had
exacted an agreement from a caucus of Southern senators against use of
such a tactic. Yet South Carolinians knew that a filibuster at best
would merely delay passage of the bill and at worst invoke a move for
cloture and result in the adoption of a more drastic act.[487]
True to form, Governor Timmerman called on “American citizens ... to
demand that their representatives stand up and fight for what is right
or step aside and let there be elected men with political courage who
will.” The bill, he charged, was a “sell-out of principle for the evil
of political expediency.” Should Southern senators “at this late
hour falter or fail to filibuster,” they would be held accountable
for “compromising the inalienable rights of the American people.”
Similarly, Representative Mendel Rivers of Charleston stated that “if
I were a senator, I’d talk until hell freezes over before I’d accept
this bill.... I’d filibuster whether Lyndon B. Johnson is elected
President or not.” Representative Robert Hemphill hoped that the Senate
would “filibuster til Christmas if necessary.” Other South Carolina
representatives expressed like sentiments.[488]
Senator Johnston did not heed the pleas of those urging resort to the
filibuster; he had left Washington temporarily to attend the marriage
of his daughter in Columbia. But the state’s junior senator responded
nobly. Obtaining the floor of the Senate at 8:45 p.m. on August 28th,
J. Strom Thurmond began a record-breaking filibuster that finally
terminated twenty-four hours and eighteen minutes later. It was a
prodigious effort and brought congratulations from Senator Wayne Morse
of Oregon, the previous record holder.[489] But it only delayed passage
of the compromise civil rights bill; more important, it brought an
avalanche of adverse criticism on Thurmond’s balding head, particularly
from infuriated fellow Southern senators who charged him not only with
violating the caucus agreement, but also of making a grandstand play
for personal political advantage.[490]
Back home, reaction to Thurmond’s filibuster was on the whole favorable
though hardly enthusiastic. Many persons privately acknowledged that
he had made a complete fool of himself. Particularly was this true in
Columbia where local leaders were making a strenuous effort to retain
Fort Jackson. It was feared that Thurmond’s action might ultimately
hurt the city’s cause. Governor Timmerman, fighting mad, was the
Senator’s principal defender. He was “shocked” to learn that Thurmond
had received no help in his heroic battle. “When the going got rough,”
he growled to a press conference, the Southern senators had “fallen
down on the job.” He resented for Thurmond “the effort to belittle what
he did.” The Senator, he said, “hasn’t broken faith with anyone; he’s
the only one who didn’t break faith.... I’m commending, not condemning,
what Strom Thurmond did.” Timmerman was sure that the people of the
Palmetto State “didn’t send Senator Thurmond to Washington to be a
political flunky for Johnson, Knowland or Eisenhower.” In what could be
interpreted only as a rebuke to Senator Johnston, the irate Governor
asserted that when the next election time came, he “would take a second
look at the man who turned his back on his constituents” before he
would support him. Finally, lashing out in another direction, Timmerman
called President Eisenhower “a disgrace to the office he holds.”[491]
Timmerman’s remarks were resounded in _News and Courier_ editorials
which observed that while Thurmond had made himself unpopular with
many Americans and his fellow Senators, he spoke for the overwhelming
majority of South Carolinians. “An occasional sneer that Senator
Thurmond was putting on a personal play to the grandstands merits
no attention,” said the Charleston paper. “When personal conviction
tallies with the demands of the people, why shouldn’t a senator stand
up and say so even though he stands alone?” The _News and Courier_,
like the _Morning News_, hesitated to say that the other Southern
senators had compromised with principle, as had Governor Timmerman.
But it did not believe that “others should blame Thurmond for acting
alone.” The _State’s_ editor, Samuel Latimer, seemingly caught with his
editorial directive down, could muster only a brief nine line comment
on Thurmond’s filibuster, the gist of which was that it was a futile
but creditable performance.[492]
From Anderson, however, came a bitter blast against Thurmond from
the _Independent_: “The very junior senator from South Carolina, Mr.
‘Stand-On-Head’ Thurmond was all steamed up this week in opposition to
the Ike, Nixon, Brownell civil rights bill. All his ‘oratory’ in the
Senate will not erase the fact that Thurmond helped put the present
anti-South Republican Party in power. He can change his colors--and his
speeches--but the folks back home will always remember that he is one
of the forces that have plunged a dagger into the heart of the South.
South Carolina voters will be waiting--and ready--when ‘Stand-On-Head’
comes up for reelection. Any good Democrat can trim him and he knows
it. That’s why all the smoke at the moment. Something is urgently
needed by the little man to divert attention from his support of the
Republicans....”[493]
Passage of the civil rights bill did not mean its acceptance in any
way, manner or means by South Carolina leaders. Governor Timmerman
immediately let it be known that he would not co-operate with any civil
rights investigation commission that might come to South Carolina.[494]
The worst crisis in the current “war of Yankee aggression” on the South
came, of course, in the early autumn of 1957 with the Little Rock
affair. South Carolina resounded with praise for Governor Orval Faubus
and condemnation of President Eisenhower. As in all of the deep South
states, white South Carolinians were aghast at the President’s use
of troops to enforce the integration decree of the “northern judge,”
Justice Ronald N. Davies. The state’s press, its politicians, and its
self-appointed spokesmen joined in a crescendo of verbal abuse on
President Eisenhower, Attorney-General Herbert Brownell, Mayor Woodrow
Wilson Mann of Little Rock, Vice-President Richard Nixon, Presidential
aide Sherman Adams, and Adlai Stevenson--the last named for supporting
the President.[495] Governor Timmerman made the state’s outstanding
gesture of protest by resigning his commission as an officer in the
United States Naval Reserve, a gesture which apparently did not disturb
the Navy in the least.[496] Someone scrawled “Ike is a nigger-lover” on
the door of the children’s entrance to the Richland County library in
Columbia. In university classrooms, students who only a year before had
“liked Ike” were asking professors how they “could get rid of him.” If
Little Rock had been in South Carolina, white South Carolinians could
hardly have been more concerned.
In placing the hero’s laurels upon the brow of Governor Faubus, his
admirers rarely if ever were willing to face up to the fact that the
Arkansas chief executive, by calling out the state’s national guard
to prevent Negro children from enrolling at Central High School, was
preventing the execution of the law of the United States. Nor was it
acknowledged that his utterly reckless statements had anything to do
with creating the atmosphere of tension that nourished the violence
which engulfed Central High School on the first day of the new term.
South Carolina post-mortem editorial comment criticized resort to
violence but, with a curious twist of logic, those guilty of violence
were less condemned than those who allegedly had created it. The thugs
who kicked and beat Negroes and newsmen and the sideburned adolescents
whose faces reflected their hatred as they jeered or struck at the
Negro students were never really denounced outright. Instead the
villains of the piece were declared to be the leaders of the NAACP and
the “Northern agitators” who were accused of inciting the violence.
South Carolina editorialists in deploring use of violence, as they
invariably did, always left an escape door for those who resorted to
it. Illustrative are the following editorial comments:
The _News and Courier_ deplores terror tactics in any
cause. Yet men have used them to promote all kinds of
efforts both worthy and unworthy--including religion.
People of good will do not want violence and bloodshed
over integrating the schools of the South. Yet many of
those people would rather be dead than integrated. Shall
white people be exterminated to make room for colored? They
outnumber the colored and they will not give up easily.
(Sept. 19, 1957, p. 8-A.)
Efforts to enforce the court’s integration edict already
are resulting in violent acts by hoodlums, bedsheet
gangsterism and vandalism. This is deplored by the vast
majority of Southerners as injurious to the cause of the
South.... Yet it does not seem to have gotten through
the thick heads in Washington and elsewhere in the North
and West that Southerners will not quail in the face of
bloodshed, if bayonets are directed against them by
hogwild racist South-baiters. (Anderson _Independent_,
Sept. 21, 1957, p. 4).
Decent citizens everywhere abhor violence; [the] South is
not lawless.... The South has a right to try to maintain
its way of life by any and all lawful means. It has done
so for a hundred years despite the outcome of the war that
prevented them [sic] from seceding from the Union, when
that seemed to many of them the only way to uphold it.
(Florence _Morning News_, Sept. 19, 1957, p. 4).
_The State_ cannot condone violence. It never has, and
never will. Neither can it condone the actions of agitators
and others who bring about violence.... There was no
disorder until the judge caused the Arkansas Guard to be
removed. The disorder came after the judge and Mayor Mann
of Little Rock took charge.... We want to keep the record
straight as to under whose auspices the rioting occurred.
(Sept. 26, 1957, p. 4-A).
No thinking citizen of the South will condone the violence
that erupted in Little Rock when federal, city, and
school authorities and the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People disregarded Governor Faubus’
advice to allow for a cooling-off period before attempting
the integration of nine Negroes into Little Rock’s Central
High School. Mob violence is not the answer to anything
anywhere, except as an instrument of revolution. It solves
nothing. (_Record_, Sept. 25, 1957, p. 4-A).
In none of the above editorial excerpts was a word of sympathy extended
to the victims of violence or an express denunciation made against
those engaged in the particular acts. One is reminded of the old
condemnations of lynching. No one “approved” the practice in principle,
but.... On the other hand, when an Arkansas segregationist, C. E.
Blake, was struck on the head with the butt of a rifle which he was
trying to wrest away from a federal soldier standing guard, there
was more admiration for than censure of his action. Senator Johnston
suggested to Governor Faubus that “warrants be issued for the arrest of
federal soldiers responsible for unnecessary bludgeoning of Arkansas
citizens and unlawful invasion of their homes.”[497]
In fact, the state’s senior senator had considerable gratuitous advice
for Governor Faubus. “If I were governor of Arkansas,” said Johnston,
“I would ignore the President and call out the National Guard in the
name of the State of Arkansas to defend life and property and to defend
the state against all alien influences and forces especially the NAACP
and troublemakers who wish to force a division upon the country.”
From his Washington office the Senator told the press that it was “a
known fact that subversive elements in this country support the NAACP
in inflaming the issue of integration and their ultimate goal is to
conquer us through division. If the President were tolerant of the
tolerant South’s position and less tolerant of the intolerant NAACP the
grave situation at Little Rock would never have occurred.”[498]
Other South Carolina political leaders expressed themselves with
varying degrees of vigor on the Arkansas situation. In a prepared
speech at Bennettsville, elder South Carolina politician James F.
Byrnes voiced complete confidence in the President’s integrity but
maintained that he was being “misled” by Attorney General Brownell. He
believed that Governor Faubus had been vindicated by events and called
the assignment of Judge Davies to the case highly “unwise.” Byrnes
declared that the Arkansas affair was staged purely for political
reasons as a means of outbidding the Democrats for the Negro vote.
That South Carolina had avoided such difficulties resulted from
the high quality of Negro schools in the state--better than those
provided for whites--and the sensible attitude of the “real” Negro
leaders. The former governor called on the Southern states to desert
their allegiance to the Democratic Party and to unite for southern
independent action.[499]
Byrnes’s call for southern political independence echoed the plea made
earlier by Farley Smith, leader of the South Carolina Independent
Democrats. By sending troops into Arkansas, said Smith, the President
had “succumbed to integration extremists” and “silenced the voice
of moderation and understanding.” Smith declared further: “We are
now fair game for every Negro baiter and South hater and wild-eyed
fanatic on both sides of this momentous question. God only knows
where this will all end. But one thing should be crystal clear by
now--the South has had enough.” With this last statement James P.
Richards, former South Carolina Congressman and Chairman of the House
Foreign Affairs Committee, agreed. “It’s about time they realize that
an issue like this can’t be handled by the federal government,” he
asserted. Richards, whose job it then was as President Eisenhower’s
roving ambassador to make friends for the United States amongst the
dark-skinned peoples of the Middle East, observed that “the Russian
provinces ... have a form of segregation between the Russians and the
others. When you ask why, they say because the people prefer it that
way.”[500]
Governor Timmerman, who had sent a telegram of encouragement to
Governor Faubus, pointed out that the Little Rock incident could never
have occurred in South Carolina because of the state’s educational
segregation laws.[501] The same position was taken by State Senator
Marion Gressette who heads the state committee entrusted with the
preservation of racial segregation in the schools. The law of South
Carolina, Gressette pointed out, would automatically shut off state
funds to any school ordered by a court to accept a Negro and also the
school from which the latter came. “Our law ... would permit a cooling
off period in South Carolina,” Gressette observed. “Where we would go
from there would depend upon the circumstances and no one can predict
what the circumstances would be.” He divulged that his committee had a
plan for such a contingency but refused to reveal its contents. He did
give notice, though, that the federal government “would be absolutely
helpless in trying to force a person or persons into South Carolina
schools. The federal government has no power to compel the General
Assembly of South Carolina to appropriate funds for the operation of
schools.”[502]
Not all of Senator Gressette’s colleagues shared his opinion that
Little Rock couldn’t happen in South Carolina. On October 6th, Senator
John D. Long announced that the legislative delegation of Union County
had arranged the purchase of nine new Browning sub-machine guns with
1000 rounds of ammunition to beat back “any invasion of federal troops”
such as took place at Little Rock. “Anyone violating our laws,” said
Long, “will be arrested, jailed and treated the same as any other
accused persons.” Senator Long was confident that Union County Sheriff
J. Harold Lamb and his eight deputies could handle any situation that
might arise.[503]
Of the many causes for which South Carolinians blamed the renewal and
intensification of the integration efforts of the 1950’s, few have
been more prominent than the economic. The integration drive of the
post-World War II period coincided, of course, with the unprecedented
industrial growth of the South. At the same time, national labor
organizations, which previously had made discouragingly little progress
in South Carolina, began increased “agitation” to unionize the labor
force of the state. Since essentially the same forces are opposed to
both integration and unionization, it is natural that these two aspects
of the new Yankee aggression should be presented to the public as
different phases of the same thing.
South Carolina’s principal industry is cotton textiles. Only a small
percentage of textile workers in the state are unionized and nowhere
does there exist equality of employment opportunities for Negroes in
South Carolina textiles. In fact state law on labor and employment
contains the following provisions:
It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in the business
of cotton textile manufacturing in this state to allow or
permit operatives, help and labor of different races
(a) to labor and work together within the same room,
(b) to use the same doors of entrance and exit at the same
time,
(c) to use and occupy the same pay ticket windows or doors
for paying off its operatives and laborers at the same time,
(d) to use the same stairway and windows at the same time,
or,
(e) to use at any time the same lavatories, toilets,
drinking water buckets, pails, cups, dippers or
glasses.[504]
In blaming integration and unionization efforts on Northern
jealousy and resentment of Southern economic progress, the Anderson
_Independent_ has been the leading voice in the state. The paper
presents itself as the friend and champion of the working man and,
in truth, is prepared to go much further than most South Carolinians
in supporting minimum wage laws, social security benefits, and other
benefits for the working classes. However, labor unions have no more
implacable an enemy. In stating its position on the connection between
Republican politics, organized labor and integration, the upcountry
newspaper declared:
We said then [1952], and repeat the opinion now, that the
forces behind the integration campaign are the true lineal
descendants of Black Republicanism that forced the South
into secession and war in the 1860’s and for the same
reasons--money and industry.
In the 1850’s there were the Abolitionists. In the 1950’s
there is the NAACP. In the 1850’s the South’s economy was
becoming too strong to suit New England interests. In the
1950’s the migration of industry poses the same challenge
to the North and East.
The Republican party was founded upon Abolitionist
agitation and the same party today is staking its hopes of
retaining power on the modern-day Abolitionists who also
are in unholy alliance with the big labor unions.[505]
Shortly after making this statement, which exhibited lack of concern
for historical accuracy, the same newspaper further spelled out its
stand on organized labor:
This time the issue is not the abolition of slavery.
Rather, it is the demand that industrial slavery in the
form of labor unions be allowed to dictate the allocation
of industry and jobs.
The South’s position today in relation to the rest of the
U. S. in its constitutional resistance to integration
may be strengthened by placing heavier emphasis upon the
fact that, unlike the 1850’s the South is on the side of
liberty in a battle against a peculiarly insidious type of
slavery.[506]
The _Independent_ is by no means alone in speaking of the “conspiracy”
between the integrationists and organized labor. Lieutenant Governor E.
F. Hollings warned against the combined efforts of CIO labor unions and
New England politicians in collusion with the NAACP to “cut the flow of
industry” into South Carolina and the South. Likewise, Attorney General
T. C. Callison hinted at “some unholy alliance between the NAACP and
enemies of ours who would be rejoiced to bring about the condition of
confusion, which would interfere with the migration of industry to our
state.”[507] Shortly after Congress’ passage of the Civil Rights Act
the _News and Courier_ ran the following editorial note under the
title of “Know Your Enemy”: “Every South Carolinian who is employed
in a textile mill should know that William Pollock, president of the
Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, has petitioned President
Eisenhower to appoint immediately civil rights commissioners for the
South. The man who wants to collect the dues of textile workers in
South Carolina can’t wait for the New Reconstruction to begin.”[508]
National labor unions have been, of course, among the most consistent
and militant supporters of full civil rights for Negroes. This fact,
together with such actions by the national unions as condemning the
activities of the Citizens Councils, have been used against the
cause of organized labor. The _News and Courier_ commented with much
validity that the “traditional viewpoint” of Southerners on separation
of the races accounted for the resistance to labor organization in
the state. South Carolina’s industrial workers, it maintained, would
have to choose between heeding “the orders of union officials who are
brainwashed with the popular creed of mixing the races” and declaring
“their independence as free citizens.” Noting that the South was
traditionally “pro-segregation and anti-union,” it declared that to the
“union member who has already parted with one tradition the question
is whether he can part with the second, and still be accepted in the
community.” In a not very subtle attempt to alienate the South Carolina
worker from the labor union, the _News and Courier_ declared that “the
white man who wishes to preserve his culture, his civilization, as he
and his fathers knew it, is in the minority as the national union labor
leaders count noses.”[509]
Anti-union elements have been not unsuccessful in using for their own
ends the pro-integration stand of national labor unions and their
leaders. In some areas union members support Citizens Councils or other
white supremacy groups. And the implication of statements by a number
of labor leaders in the state, notably among those of the Textile
Workers Union of America, is that these members put loyalty to the
Citizens Councils above that of their labor unions. Oversimplifying the
case, Representative John Calhoun Hart of Union, one of the leaders
of a weak and unsuccessful effort to repeal the state’s right-to-work
law, told George Meany, president of the AFL-CIO: “Organized labor will
never make any substantial progress in the South until national labor
leaders stop uttering such rot and drivel on racial matters in the
South. Any Southerner who would go along with you on such things is not
worth his salt and could not be elected dogcatcher.”[510]
One of the most curious developments in the integration controversy
has been the creation of the United Southern Employes Association,
a pro-segregation labor organization imported from North Carolina.
Leaders of the new labor group acknowledged that they were reacting
against the pro-integration tendencies of the old unions and against
“the trend toward concentration of too much power in the hands of ‘a
few big-shots.’” Applicants for membership were required to sign a
promise to attempt “in a legal manner, to maintain and support the
Southern tradition of segregation in education and society of the
white and Negro races without discriminating against or violating
the civil rights of any other person or persons.” The movement also
aimed at the establishment of a member-controlled labor movement and
the bringing about of “good friendship” and good relations between
workers and industries. The United Southern Employes Association
supported amendments to the state’s right-to-work law which would
require the approval by secret ballot of union members before any
strike could be called by a local union, thus preventing “wildcat
strikes by unions without the approval of their members”; prohibit
national or international unions from levying more than a seventy
cents per month tax on members without membership approval by secret
ballot; ban a national or international union from controlling local
funds or property; require membership approval, by secret ballot, of
all contracts and work agreements before such become binding; allow
any union member to withdraw his membership upon ten days notice to
the local union; and require that union members be notified ten days
in advance of any union elections; investigate labor disputes; and in
general serve as a state labor board. Though the dedication of such
an organization to the real welfare of the working class might be
questioned, the United Southern Employes Association presented itself
as labor’s hope in the South. By early 1957 the group had only one
office in the state, at Rock Hill, but it had grandiose plans for
establishment of others.[511]
The close association of the United Southern Employes Association with
conservative elements in the state came to light in January, 1957,
when W. A. Somersett, one of its organizers, was asked to address
the meeting in Columbia of the South Carolina Independent political
movement. Somersett presented the Association as being dedicated to
the preservation of racial segregation. He condemned the national
Democratic party as being “socialist” and listening overmuch “to
persons such as Walter Reuther.”[512]
Somersett descended a few steps down the South Carolina social ladder
when he addressed a meeting of the Fort Mill Klan Klavern. According to
a report by the American Civil Liberties Union, he asserted that any
klansman was automatically considered a member of the USEA and could
be sent across an AFL-CIO picket line. This statement, it is said, was
greeted by a chorus of boos and a walkout of most of the klansmen who
were themselves textile operators.[513]
Thus the segregationist elements of the state reacted to the diverse
phases of the renewed war of Yankee aggression. It is a war in which
the South appears doomed to lose again, although at a much slower pace
than the struggle of the 1860’s. The growing disagreements between
North and South spotlight the ever increasing isolation of the latter,
not only in the nation but in the free world. It is evident, by 1958,
that the time has come for Southerners to undergo an “agonizing
reappraisal” of their traditional concepts of the relationships between
the races. It is also evident, however, that South Carolina’s white
spokesmen are not yet prepared to do this. On the face of things it
appears that white South Carolinians would settle down to a long and
slow process of chopping off the dog’s tail a bit at a time: The end
result will not change but the process will be much more painful.
CHAPTER X
COLLABORATORS, EGGHEADS,
DO-GOODERS, AND APPEASERS
As for the local liberal--there are not too
many among us. Either they are idealistic, good
hearted people who have been led astray; or they
are exhibitionists with the warped idea that to
be “progressive” is to destroy all experience
and teaching the centuries have given us.--“The
Bookworm” in the _News and Courier_
Only a small proportion of South Carolina’s white population, it would
appear, has accepted the Supreme Court’s desegregation decision in
good faith. In any event few whites have been willing to face “the
venom of extremism and give expression to right and reality.” At most
“some ministers, fewer newspapers, an occasional public figure, and
some proper public organizations” have spoken out affirmatively with
respect to the Court ruling.[514] The effectiveness of their efforts
has been even more limited than their number. Two of the most important
individuals who advocated compliance with the decision, Dean Chester
C. Travelstead of the University of South Carolina School of Education
and _Morning News_ Editor Jack H. O’Dowd, were both forced out of their
positions. Similarly, those clergymen who have accepted and have been
vocally articulate regarding the Court ruling have been subjected in
some instances to strong pressures. Several have been obliged to give
up their pastorates.
Extreme segregationists recognize that those Southerners who urge
acceptance of the decision are a greater potential threat than “outside
agitators.” Consequently they direct some of their sharpest attacks
against these Southern moderates. (The term moderate is used here to
designate those South Carolinians who accept the Court decision as
the law of the land and urge its implementation with varying degrees
of speed. They range from those who would begin the process of
integration at once to those who simply accept the decision but would
delay implementation.) James F. Byrnes, the state’s “elder statesman,”
disparaged the moderates as “‘appeasers’ comparable to the ‘scalawags’
of Reconstruction.” He fumed against those white Southerners who were
“so anxious for unity of a political party” that they would surrender
in the fight for continued segregation.[515]
The _News and Courier_, the principal newspaper critic of the
moderates, believed too many Southerners were inclined to “swallow
unwholesome and impractical poisons” dispensed by Northern liberals.
Editor Thomas R. Waring castigated those elements of the Southern
press which were lending “solace to the do-gooders.” Such “scalarags”
(_sic_), according to Waring, did “not represent the sentiments of the
vast majority of the Southern people” and their editors might “live
to regret their betrayal.” The _News and Courier_, indeed, did not
contend that “all editors should think” as it thought; nevertheless,
it said, there came “a time to be counted.” “Timid newspapers, showing
signs of brainwashing by do-gooders and eggheads,” were causing the
North to misjudge the temper of the South on the segregation question,
thus doing a disservice to the South as well as the North. In a none
too oblique attack on the moderates, the _News and Courier_ pointed
out that “in certain European countries during World War II, some
natives ‘collaborated’ with the enemy. They got better food rations.
Others resisted. Some of these were imprisoned. Some were tortured or
shot.”[516]
The sentiments of the _News and Courier_ were repeated throughout the
state. Dorothy Moore Guess of White Hall, a biology, history and Sunday
school teacher, had this advice for the moderates:
To all those who do not like American free enterprise and
dependence on the individual, I say go back to socialistic
England, Sweden, or to lands dominated by Russian
communism. To all those who do not like life in South
Carolina as native South Carolinians have shaped it, I
say, leave immediately for New York, Michigan, California,
Oregon or any other state that you believe to be an
improvement on South Carolina.
The Garden of Eden was a wonderful place as long as Adam
and Eve accepted it as it was. South Carolinians, and
Americans in general, should think well before they destroy
forever their own gardens of freedom.[517]
According to the _News and Courier_ the appeal of the moderates stemmed
from a misunderstanding and faulty definition of the term “moderate”
and the consequent gulf which existed between Northern and Southern
moderates. It recognized the existence of a “group of Southerners who
call themselves moderates.” This group believed that the decision was
the law of the land and that integration was inevitable and hence ought
to be accepted in good grace. Such persons were “mere echoes of the
Northern moderates” and represented only a small minority of “white
Southern opinion.” According to the Charleston paper’s understanding
of the term, a Southern moderate was one who believed that there was
no “valid law requiring states to mix the races in their schools” and
who thought the Supreme Court had exceeded its authority in declaring
segregation unconstitutional. The Southern moderate maintained that
integration wasn’t legal and that the South wouldn’t attempt it. “So
why don’t you meddlesome Yankees be reasonable men of good will and
let us alone,” he would ask. The _News and Courier_ included in the
category of Southern moderates not only itself but also “Southern
Legislatures which have passed interposition resolutions, ... senators
and representatives who recently signed the historic [anti-integration]
manifesto in Washington” and most members of the Citizens Councils. To
surrender to the integrationists was not moderation; it was “acceptance
of racial suicide” for the Southern white people.[518]
The organization in the state which concerns itself most prominently
with interracial understanding is the South Carolina Council on Human
Relations. It was affiliated with the Southern Regional Council, an
association dedicated to “equal opportunity for all peoples of the
South,” and has been financed in part by the Fund for the Republic.
The South Carolina Council has no specific solution to the segregation
issue but has expressed the conviction that the answer would “demand
the best thought and action from responsible leaders of both races.”
It maintains, however, that “the state must move in the direction
of compliance with the Supreme Court decision.” Sparkplug of the
organization is Mrs. Alice N. Spearman of Columbia, formerly executive
director of the South Carolina Federation of Women’s Clubs. The Rev.
J. Claude Evans, editor of the South Carolina Methodist _Christian
Advocate_, was the Council’s president until 1957 when he was succeeded
by Courtney Siceloff of Frogmore. The Council has fewer than a half
dozen local chapters throughout the state. The most active is at
Sumter. The Rock Hill chapter has been “stimulated” by a strongly
anti-segregationist Catholic priest, the Very Rev. Maurice Shean.
In Rock Hill the Council enjoyed a degree of official recognition
since former Mayor Emmette Jerome, now a member of the state House
of Representatives, was a member of the state board and appointed a
Mayor’s Committee on Human Relations.[519]
South Carolina had a few other similar but short-lived organizations.
In Anderson a Christian Council of Human Relations was established
in July, 1954. An interracial association, it adopted a declaration
of principles which asserted that the Supreme Court decision was
“in keeping with the highest traditions of American justice and
freedom.... [and was] consistent with the spirit and teaching of Jesus
of Nazareth.” The practical question confronting the state, according
to the Council, was “not whether the Court was socially wise or legally
correct in their judgment.” Rather the problem was how best to adjust
to the decision in such a way “that the majesty and force of the law
may be upheld and good will among men may be advanced.” Good faith
in implementing the decision would “relieve the conscience of many
white Christians who have long been uneasy and troubled by conflict
between the teaching of Jesus and the inequalities of our racial
situation.”[520]
Another such group is the South Carolina chapter of United Church
Women. This organization, which, in truth, has little influence, is
composed of women from most Protestant denominations. Mrs. James M.
Dabbs of Maysville is state president. In a letter to Governor Byrnes
shortly after the original desegregation decision, Mrs. Dabbs declared
that “enforced segregation had no place in Christian activity and
constituted a very real threat to our Democracy.”[521]
The position which these organizations have held in the state has not
been particularly enviable. Commented the Rev. J. Claude Evans: “I
think the solution is a long term process of human relations down the
moderate road. At the moment, the moderates are not very popular and
walk a razor’s edge.” The moderates, he observed, would have “to bide
their time” until “the legal aspects” of segregation were clarified and
“the social attitudes of the people jell.”[522]
The plight of those who urge moderation was further illustrated in the
summer of 1957 when five Protestant ministers from the Pee Dee section
of the state organized themselves into a group called “Concerned South
Carolinians.”[523] They were the Reverends John Lyles, Presbyterian of
Marion; John Morris, Episcopalian of Dillon; Joseph Horn, Episcopalian
of Florence; Larry Jackson, Methodist of Florence; and Ralph Cousins,
Episcopalian of Marion. The Concerned South Carolinians issued a
prospectus of their aims and objectives. They urged publication of
a booklet of articles written by prominent Carolinians pleading for
moderation in the race controversy--“a course between the excesses of
certain Citizens Councils, on the one hand, and extreme actions of the
NAACP [_sic_] on the other hand.”
We feel [declared the prospectus] that extreme positions
have dominated the picture in our state. Organized groups
are feeding the flames of racial hate. We believe, however,
that a large group of South Carolinians disagree with these
positions on the racial problem. We desperately need the
leadership of men and women who will debate the issues
rationally, who will counter the voices of extremism with
words of moderation, and who will have the humility and
courage to see a goal in the future toward which we in
South Carolina must be working gradually.
... It is imperative that persons in South Carolina who are
honored and respected in their several communities speak
words of calmness and moderation. This is the conviction
which has drawn us together as ministers of Christ and as
concerned citizens of South Carolina. We also believe that
you are such a leader as is now needed and that you may
share some of this concern.
The ministers continued by stating their basic beliefs and assumptions:
1. That God created all men in His own image and therefore
all races are equal in His sight.
2. That although there is no “superior” race certain
differences are to be recognized because of environment,
but these differences are not due to an inherent
inferiority.
3. That the public school system must be maintained for all
the people.
4. That any solution to the present dilemma must be sought
within the framework of Supreme Court decisions, which are
legally binding and morally valid.
5. That, nevertheless, cultural patterns cannot be changed
quickly and the reality of this cannot wisely be ignored in
seeking solutions.
6. That neither of the extreme pressures of the NAACP nor
the Citizens Councils offers the best direction for the
South.
7. That personal freedom of choice and association in
social relations must be maintained within the bounds of
a democratic society, even if desegregation becomes the
accepted procedure for tax supported institutions.
8. That all Southerners should explore the situation
thoughtfully in the light of Christian love and our
democratic heritage, believing that we can go forward
together even though slowly.
Sentiments such as these, of course, had little chance of winning
friends and influencing segregationists in South Carolina. Among those
receiving the prospectus was Governor Timmerman. Although specifically
asked not to make the contents of the prospectus public, the Governor
handed his copy to the press. He explained his action in the following
manner: “In the belief that it is of interest generally to the public,
I am making it [the prospectus] available for publication. All South
Carolinians, not just these self-appointed few, are ‘Concerned’ South
Carolinians.”
The Florence Citizens Council wasted little time in replying to the
“Concerned South Carolinians.” In a press release, it accused the
clergymen of organizing “under a cloak of secrecy” and boasted by way
of comparison that it was an “open” association. The Florence Council
maintained that the ministers misrepresented the facts in classifying
it as an “extremist” organization along with the NAACP. It challenged
the “Concerned South Carolinians” or any other group “to prove when
and where the Citizens Councils have acted contrary to law or in
extreme.”[524]
When the publication of the “Concerned South Carolinians” finally
came out in October, it had a brisk sale.[525] The very fact that it
appeared on newsstands throughout the state was in itself a victory for
its sponsors. Former Congressman James P. Richards praised publication
of the booklet as a “real contribution to freedom of expression.”[526]
Few South Carolina whites, however, saw fit to endorse the pamphlet and
from public officials, aside from Richards, there was a wall of dead
silence.
The booklet contained a dozen essays or statements ranging from the old
fashioned segregationist arguments of Columbia attorney, R. Beverley
Herbert, to the hard hitting integrationist editorials of Arthur Locke
King, another attorney, from Georgetown, and Andrew McDowd Secrest,
the outspoken editor and publisher of the weekly _Cheraw Chronicle_.
Anthony Harrigan, reviewing the booklet for the _News and Courier_,
found little of value in the collection of opinions save in the
case of Mr. Herbert’s essay. The other authors, he maintained, did
not represent the views of South Carolinians as were expressed at
elections.[527]
Among the contributors to the little volume was Mrs. Claudia Thomas
Sanders, wife of a Gaffney physician. Mrs. Sanders suggested that
desegregation could be accomplished in the public schools of the
state by starting with the first grades. “Children are not born with
prejudice,” wrote Mrs. Sanders. “If adults could only learn from
children their ability to judge character and worth without regard
for externals,” she continued, the desegregation process “would be
immeasurably lighter.”[528]
No one could accuse Mrs. Sanders of being one of those Northerners who
could never understand the “Southern way of life.” Born in Charleston,
the state’s “Holy City,” she can trace her ancestry back to the early
colonial period. Moreover, she is a leading Episcopal churchwoman and
is engaged in such eminently socially acceptable activities as the
American Association of University Women, the Home and Garden Club,
the Gaffney Hospital Auxiliary and the Cherokee County Public Library
Board.[529]
But Mrs. Sanders had not counted on possible retaliatory action on
the part of white supremacy bedsheet brigadiers who haunt the upper
part of the state. On the night of November 19th an explosion rocked
the Sanders house tearing a gaping hole near the chimney, breaking
six windows, and cracking a wall in the living room. Dr. and Mrs.
Sanders and their house guests, Mr. and Mrs. Carl B. McLaughlin of
Louisville, Kentucky, were in another part of the house at the time of
the explosion and escaped injury.[530]
Police officials investigating the explosion discovered that this was
the third attempt to dynamite the Sanders home, two other efforts
having failed because of the bungling of the perpetrators. Moreover,
within three weeks the State Law Enforcement Division had arrested
five men in connection with the bombing. With all due respect to the
extremely efficient SLED, it required neither a Sherlock Holmes nor a
Dick Tracy to track down the culprits, for the trail led directly to a
Ku Klux Klan group operating in the area. The five men arrested were
factory workers and mill hands. Their ages ranged from twenty-four to
thirty-five.[531]
“Respectable” South Carolinians were appropriately shocked by the
Gaffney episode and newspaper editorials uniformly called for the
arrest of the culprits and later expressed satisfaction when they were
apprehended. Yet few if any of the public officials in the state, who
were so vocal on the Little Rock “oppression,” saw fit to comment on
the bombing, a fact that did not go unnoticed by the Reverend John
B. Morris of Dillon, one of the clergymen who helped prepare the
“Concerned South Carolinians” booklet. In a letter to papers throughout
the state the Reverend Morris, who opposes immediate integration in the
public schools of the deep South, wrote: “When big men in public office
have hitherto talked loosely on the race issue, very little men have
been incited to plan acts of violence. The big men deplore the violence
and realize it only hurts their cause, but until they use their
influence before the violence occurs, they bear some responsibility
for it. When the emotions of simple folk are stirred by emotional talk
from public figures, they come to feel that they must take the law
into their own hands. Let segregationist politicians realize they can
maintain their position calmly and with reason. Otherwise incendiary
talk will prompt incendiary action.”[532]
The arrest of the five men in no sense chastened them or made them
realize the enormity of their act. Nor did the Klan seek to cover its
tracks in the affair. On the contrary, the local Klansmen held a rally
at Blacksburg to collect funds to defray the cost of the legal defense
of the accused, two of whom, Luther E. Boyette and Robert P. Martin,
openly boasted of their affiliation with the nightshirt brigade.
Present at the rally, attended by 20 robed Klansmen and approximately
250 onlookers, was the grand dragon of the South Carolina Independent
Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. “We do not wish Mrs. James H. Sanders any
harm,” he told the crowd. “If we could, we would send her back [sic] to
Africa so she would be with her Negro friends.” The Independent Klan
would back the accused “all the way,” he asserted. “They have already
proved their innocence so far as I am concerned, and of course the
first consideration was in proving it to the Klan.”[533]
James McBride Dabbs, whose wife is president of the state United Church
Women, has also been prominent in the activities of interracial groups.
He is president of the Southern Regional Council. Immediately after the
original decision, Dabbs, a one time college professor, urged South
Carolinians to “proceed now to implement this ruling with whatever
skill and wisdom we have.” He considered segregation “nonsense” and
believed that under desegregation “Negroes would still associate almost
entirely with Negroes, white people with white people.” The row over
desegregation, he maintained, was a tempest in a teapot. It is time
“for the white man to realize that he is just a human being; he’s been
playing God so long,” declared this modern Old Testament prophet. “The
majority of white South Carolinians today are waging a fight which they
will lose as surely as the sun will rise tomorrow, and about which,
when they have lost it, they will wonder why they fought so hard to
stave off so small a change.”[534]
The Rev. G. Jackson Stafford, who was pastor of the First Baptist
Church of Batesburg until his resignation was forced, typifies in a
very real sense those clergymen who opposed segregation. He believed
that the Court decision was “in keeping with the constitutional
guarantee of equal freedom to all citizens, and ... in harmony with
the Christian principles of equal justice and love for all men.” But
he also realized that “the people of the South need time to become
adjusted to the changing social and political climate with regard to
race relations.” Racial tensions, he believed, would be greatly reduced
if the politicians would cease their efforts to make a political
football out of the problems involved in improving race relations.[535]
Occasionally other South Carolinians publicly expressed support for
integration. John Bolt Culbertson, a Greenville attorney who had
“been interested in liberal causes and in the labor movement” since
his student days at the University of South Carolina, was a strong
supporter of the NAACP. He considered the denial of “the fundamentals
of democratic government” to Negroes a “mockery” of democracy. In
a similar vein D. M. Harrelson of Gresham protested “as a Southern
white man” against the “Nazi-Ku Klux Klan climate” fostered in
the South by “demagogic politicians, citizens committees, [and]
a Metropolitan press.” This agitation, he felt, appealed “to the
ignorant, unthinking, whose minds are filled with native prejudice.”
E. M. Martin of Charleston, too, was critical of segregation. “Any
institution supported by public funds ought to be for all citizens
excluding none,” he thought. Segregated school systems were “contrary
to the Constitution of the United States.” Another Charlestonian, W.
Ernest Douglas, believed that “most white people have such a terrific
mental block concerning segregation that, in this matter at least, they
forfeit their right to be called rational animals. They become simple
animals moving in whatever direction their herders prod them.”[536]
The influence of the segregation issue on freedom of thought in South
Carolina was illustrated by the nationally publicized Travelstead
affair.[537] Dr. Chester C. Travelstead, a native of Kentucky, was
appointed Dean of the School of Education of the University of South
Carolina in 1953. According to Dr. Travelstead, he made known to
University President Donald S. Russell his views on segregation before
his appointment. With the developing resistance to integration in
the period following the Supreme Court’s ruling, Travelstead became
“distressed to observe that only one side of this whole issue was being
presented to the public.” He believed that segregation deprived the
Negro of his “right to first class citizenship.” Even more important,
he felt that South Carolina was “fast developing an autocratic police
state.” In the late spring of 1955, he decided to speak his piece.
In April Governor George Bell Timmerman Jr. had addressed the South
Carolina Education Association and strongly condemned attempts at
integration. Shortly thereafter Travelstead wrote a long and, on the
face of it, imprudent letter to the Governor:
You said in your speech, Governor, that “the opinion
of the Supreme Court of the United States in the
school-segregation cases upholds for the first time
in judicial history that equality of treatment is
discriminatory.” It is my considered opinion, Governor,
that it was not the intent of the Court to say that
“equality of treament is discriminatory.” Rather did
it say in effect that segregation is in and of itself
discriminatory....
You have said, Governor, that the recommendation [to
the General Assembly of South Carolina] to abolish the
[state’s] Compulsory Attendance Law “has not weakened
ourselves in this respect.” Apparently, Governor, it is
the firm belief of most educators and leaders in state
and national government that compulsory school attendance
at public or private schools has been the backbone of our
democracy.
You have attacked, Governor, the integrationist and have
said that he is “seeking to abolish parental rights in
education....” It is without evidence to say that those who
in 1955, for moral, civic, and legal reasons believed that
segregation is outmoded and should therefore be abolished
are men of “little character” attempting, as you say, “to
lynch the character of a fourth of our nation.” It is my
opinion, Governor, that many men of great stature are
sincerely convinced that the Supreme Court’s ruling was
both timely and sound....
You have said: “No precedent, no parallel, can be found
for compulsory integration. It is new. It is novel. It is
contrary to the divine order of things. Only an evil mind
can conceive it. Only a foolish mind can accept it.”
It seems to me that there are many parallels and
precedents....
... Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia do have
school systems in which the races are integrated. The other
17 states, now practicing segregation of the races in their
schools, still practice compulsory integration within each
race by requiring that boys and girls of widely different
socio-economic and cultural backgrounds go to the same
schools in spite of these differences.
It is my opinion, therefore, that the phrases, “evil mind”
and “foolish mind,” quoted above, have been ill used and
are without foundation.
On May 31 President Russell, while not advising Travelstead to desist
from writing such letters, cautioned him that “such controversial
matters make politicians mad.” Despite the argumentative letter to the
Governor, Travelstead was notified on July 28 of his reappointment as
education dean for the 1955-56 school year with a substantial salary
increase.
On August 2 Travelstead again attacked segregation. In a speech before
the student body of the summer school, he declared:
As I study the Judaic-Christian concept prevalent
in Western Civilization; as I examine the bases of
our own government--the Bill of Rights and all other
pronouncements of our forefathers--I find nothing
which requires, justifies, or even allows a notion
of second class citizenship for any group. I find
no conclusive evidence that one group of men is
foreordained to be superior or inferior to other
groups of men. I find that this notion of race and
national superiority came to ruinous end in Nazi
Germany. For races or nations of men to think and act
upon the assumption that all other groups are inferior
is to invite disaster and downfall.... The fact that
we have practiced segregation on the assumption that
it was right and just, does not _make_ it right and
just.
Three days later President Russell told Travelstead that he had
received complaints concerning the speech. (It is generally presumed
that these came from the Governor’s office). Two weeks later, August
19, Travelstead received notification of his dismissal as Dean. “The
executive committee of the board of trustees,” it said, “is of the
opinion that it is not in the best interest of the university to renew
your appointment as Dean of the School of Education.” At a hearing
before the executive committee which Travelstead requested, the
committee allegedly told him that persons employed by the university
should not engage in discussion of controversial issues. In response to
Travelstead’s request that the committee issue a statement with respect
to its policy concerning academic freedom and free discussion by
university employes, the committee refused. According to Travelstead,
the committee replied that “a person should have enough common
sense to know what he should and should not discuss--without any
clear-cut policy about such matters.” Following his dismissal as Dean,
Travelstead received an appointment as Education Dean at the University
of New Mexico.
Reaction of the student body of the university to Travelstead’s
dismissal was varied.[538] The _Gamecock_, the student newspaper,
and most of its columnists strongly condemned the action. So did a
majority of those students who expressed their opinion in letters to
the _Gamecock_ editor. However at least one columnist and a number
of the letters to the editor supported the dismissal. Editor Carolyn
McClung considered the dismissal “a hard and definite blow to the
University.” If University officials took upon themselves to squelch
persons with unpopular ideas, it was “no place for students with
intellectual curiosity.” Similarly, columnist Herbert Bryant believed
that “the University’s escutcheon” bore a deep scar as a result of the
trustees’ apparent “ban on freedom of academic thought and expression
at the University.” Jack Bass, another columnist, considered the action
“rash and shortsighted.” He believed that “at least 90 percent” of
the University faculty agreed with the sentiments expressed by Dr.
Travelstead; hence, the Dean was fired not for having an opinion but
for expressing it openly.
On the other hand, columnist Billy Mellette supported the removal
of Travelstead: “People who work for any university or college know
they must be careful, or they should know it. You say the policy is
not written, and how then are you expected to know what to say?--You
use your damned head, that’s how you know. The school doesn’t go
around sneaking up on people and trying to find people to fire.... If
he [Travelstead] did not know to be quiet--as head of the education
department of all positions--then he has now learned.... The University
did not invade the castle of free thought. It was challenged and forced
to commit itself.”
In a similar vein Fred LeClerq respected Travelstead’s “right as an
individual to believe in integration,” but he did not think that he
should “occupy a position through which he could mold the opinions
of prospective teachers of a state where race purity and segregation
are essential to the well-being of its citizens.” LeClerq believed
“integration to be as diametrically opposed to the welfare of this
state as communism is to the welfare of the nation.” For this reason he
thought the ouster both “justifiable and commendable.”
Supporters of segregation generally upheld the board of trustees. The
_News and Courier_ pointed out that the issue of academic freedom had
two sides--“the freedom of a professor to speak his mind” and “the
freedom of a university to choose the lines of education it wishes
to follow.” Since Travelstead was out of line with both university
policy and the desires of the people of South Carolina, his usefulness
as a teacher was over. “He easily can exercise his academic freedom
elsewhere,” concluded the Charleston paper.[539]
On the other hand, the _Morning News_ was critical. Editor O’Dowd
stated that if the university were “to teach conformity in all
schools of thought” it would no longer be a university. It would
then be “a machine for making mimeographed mentalities.... If the
University of South Carolina rejects a valuable educator because he
has one unpopular idea, then our university is not a place for hungry
minds.”[540]
A second notable example of this urge to conformity was the case of
Jack H. O’Dowd himself. The nephew of _Morning News_ publisher John
M. O’Dowd, he almost alone amongst South Carolina news editors had
attempted to steer a middle course in the segregation controversy. His
difficulties were testimony to the fate of an honest and courageous
dissenter. A native of Florence and a graduate of the Citadel, O’Dowd
termed himself not a pro-integrationist but an anti-pro-segregationist.
Under O’Dowd’s editorship the _Morning News_, as already has been
noted, opposed all attempts to destroy the “social necessity” of
segregation by court order. If segregation were to be eliminated,
it had to be done “by the consent of the people and as a result of
an evolutionary process.” Segregation was incorrectly defended on
the grounds of states rights and constitutionalism. Such arguments
indicated to the rest of the world that American democracy meant that
“all men are equal but some are less equal than others.”
The Florence editor accepted the decision as the law of the land and
urged his readers to do likewise. Since segregation was illegal, it was
only a matter of time before it would be a thing of the past. Public
schools would have to be desegregated. Those who were thinking in
terms of continued segregation under a system of voluntary separation
were engaging in “self-delusion and false hope.” “Within too short
a period of time,” segregation would be “a legal memory” in the
South. Desegregation was not a problem to be considered “in some hazy
tomorrow”; it had to be confronted immediately. A policy of adopting
expedients, which could at best provide only temporary segregation,
would not change the final picture but it would make it more painful
and expensive. There had to be a maximum price beyond which the South
would be unwilling to go to preserve segregation temporarily.
During the period of adjustment to changes wrought by the Court
decision, the greatest danger confronting South Carolina, warned
O’Dowd, was “the growth of a new era of demagoguery.” Such would
allow “the great racial issue to get out of perspective and past
the point of sane solution.” Too many segregationists were already
“advocating something akin to secession.” O’Dowd insisted that there
was a difference between “honest opposition to the Court’s decree and
demagogic reaction that borders on sedition and violates the respect
and honor implicit in the theories of our national government.”[541]
In early 1956 O’Dowd made what were to be his last clarion calls to
common sense and level-headed thinking on the segregation issue.
On February 26 he appealed for a policy of “militant moderation” to
counter the extremists. The latter were carrying the day. Extremists,
crying “traitor,” “coward” or “brainwashed,” discredited all
attempts at moderation. Casting a plague on the houses of both white
supremacists and the NAACP, O’Dowd believed that most South Carolinians
must know “that truth and proper action lies between the sentiments”
of these groups. The only true solution was for the moderates to step
forth and lead the way.[542]
O’Dowd’s plea went unheeded. Instead, the _Morning News_ became more
and more the object of extremist wrath. The young editor received a
threatening telephone call from a man who identified himself as “the
Klan.” Attempts were made to force off the road both his car and that
of assistant sports editor L. B. Ballard. The latter, who was also a
Baptist minister, had the rear tires of his car slashed. City editor
Charles Moore was “punched” and chased from a Klan meeting which he was
covering for the paper. In February 1956 the _Morning News_, for the
first time in several years, experienced a drop in circulation. Reader
complaints mounted. The Florence County Democratic convention denounced
the _Morning News_ as a “carpetbagger press.” O’Dowd, nominated as a
candidate for delegate to the state Democratic convention, ran 45th in
a field of 45.[543]
On March 11 in a lengthy editorial, O’Dowd announced his “retreat from
reason.” Because of pressure from white supremacists and silence from
the moderates, the _Morning News_ would no longer discuss segregation
in its editorial columns:
In order for a newspaper to maintain its proper position
of influence for good, its editorial policy must meet with
good will and its position must be accepted as expressions
of good faith.
Such has not been the case with this newspaper’s
expressions of opinion in the field of segregation. It
is now possible that the lack of support gained for this
position could lessen the paper’s effectiveness in other
fields of thought and action.
To avoid this possibility, the _Morning News_ must make a
retreat from reason. It has become obvious that to maintain
effectiveness in other important areas of thought, this
newspaper must abdicate its position in the segregation
controversy....
Our editorials have never advocated integration. Our
editorials have opposed NAACP extremism as militantly as
they have opposed absolutism on the other side of the
equation....
Men seeking the fair solution have not, in two years, come
forward. They do not exist or they have been unwilling to
face the scorn and abuse of those in the extreme fringes of
both groups.
Only the few extremists have spoken; and their voice has
been accepted as that of the majority. Moderation has been
intimidated by hatred, and men of calm, good will have
decided that the fight is not their concern.... Today’s
South is becoming dominated by those unable or unwilling to
accept the good sense or even good faith of a conflicting
or modifying idea.
... By and large, our appeal to reason has brought
expressions of hatred, bigotry, unreason and filth.
Our plea for moderation has been greeted with threats,
lies, rumor and lack of good will. Our honest efforts to
present the news--as it happens--have met with charges of
distortion and collusion and with words of malice. Those
who know better have not seen fit to consider this fight
their concern....
Most of those who would be heard in this matter are
evidently unwilling to hear thoughts of hope and peace.
Editorials that do not speak sedition, bigotry, white
supremacy and incitation to legislative folly and physical
violence are not accepted as “honest” or “courageous.”[544]
Reaction varied to O’Dowd’s “retreat,” or more accurately his admission
of defeat. A number of letters to the editor expressed sympathy with
his moderation policy; others were highly critical. _Time_ magazine,
in an article favorable to O’Dowd, brought to national attention the
plight of the _Morning News_ and its editor. Praise by a magazine
such as _Time_, of course, merely increased the condemnation of white
supremacists. Joe B. Powell of Florence, for example, said he “sure
would hate to be on the side of TIME or any other lousy YANKEE magazine
or newspaper” while living in the South among his “southern white
friends.” Florentines, he said, were “sick and fed up” with O’Dowd’s
ideas on segregation. In line with the advice of Dorothy Moore Guess to
unhappy Southerners, he suggested that O’Dowd “move to the North” where
he would feel at home.[545] The _News and Courier_ considered the whole
affair “a grandstand play” to enable O’Dowd to reap “publicity as an
integrationist advocate.”[546]
O’Dowd remained as editor of the _Morning News_ until August 3 when
he accepted a position on the news and editorial staff of the Chicago
_Sun-Times_. The announcement of his resignation contained no mention
of the segregation controversy. In the summer of 1957 he was appointed
Dean of Students of the University of Chicago’s university college.
In incidents such as these white South Carolina demonstrated its
opposition to those few white dissenters who would accept integration
or who would admit that there is an element of right on the side of
those who oppose the racial _status quo_.
CHAPTER XI
THE LOST CAUSE RELOST
The racially pure ... Teuton on the American
Continent has arisen to be its master; he will
remain master so long as he too does not succumb
to blood defilement.--Adolf Hitler, _Mein Kampf_
In 1954 historian Francis B. Simkins told the Southern Historical
Association: “There is a reality about the South which historians
with egalitarian standards find hard to understand or appreciate.”
The South, said this native South Carolinian, should be judged by
its own standards, not those of a liberal, equalitarian, democratic
America.[547] Professor Simkins’ advice has _not_ been followed in this
study.
In contemplating the arguments advanced by white South Carolinians
against integrating the races on any level, one is struck by the
prominence given to expressions of fear that integration will
inevitably lead to wholesale “amalgamation” and/or “miscegenation”
which will result in turn in the destruction of Southern civilization.
An excellent example of this reasoning is contained in the late
Herbert Ravenel Sass’s article “Mixed Schools and Mixed Blood,” which
appeared in the November 1956 issue of the _Atlantic Monthly_. “It
is the deep conviction of nearly all white Southerners,” Sass wrote,
“that the mingling or integration of white and Negro children in the
South’s primary schools would open the gates to miscegenation and
widespread racial amalgamation.” To guard against this “danger,” he
declared, Southerners would maintain segregation in public schools at
all costs. “The South must do this because, although it is a nearly
universal instinct, race preference is not active in the very young.
Race preference (which the propagandists miscall race prejudice or
hate) is one of those instincts which develop gradually as the mind
develops and which, if taken in hand early enough, can be prevented
from developing at all.” If the South allowed its small children to
attend integrated schools in which white and colored would be “brought
together intimately and constantly” there would be many “in whom race
preference would not develop.” This would be the ultimate tragedy for
the South and for civilization. For “a very few years of thoroughly
integrated schools would produce large numbers of indoctrinated young
Southerners free from all ‘prejudice’ against mixed matings.” Negro
leaders, he concluded, desired racial amalgamation; “they not only want
the right to amalgamate through legal intermarriage but they want that
right to be exercised widely and frequently.”[548]
The concern of South Carolinians with the “threat” of intermarriage
is evidenced by the frequency with which this subject is mentioned
in letters to newspapers in the state. Though the logic and factual
accuracy of many of these letters leave something to be desired, they
none the less are illustrative of a state of mind. For example, W. A.
Morris of Charleston, referring to the mulattoes in the NAACP, said:
“In the animal kingdom the mongrel is despised and outlawed, the good
farmer uses only purebred stock and dog and cat fanciers insist on
pedigreed pets. Should we expect less of man, made in the image of God,
or attempt to improve on God’s work?”[549] Mr. Morris did not make it
exactly clear how both whites and blacks but not mulattoes could be
made in God’s image. Nor did he concern himself with how mulattoes got
to be what they are.
Sentiments similar to those of Morris were expressed by Mrs. S. L.
Blackman of Darlington: “Cross-bred animals lose the higher qualities
of the parent stock,” she asserted, “and the low qualities always
come to the fore. That’s a law of nature you can’t get away from....
If segregation is broken down everywhere, this world will be peopled
by a mongrel race, eventually fit for nothing, not worth the air they
would breathe, just scum of the earth.”[550] Mrs. Blackman’s dogmatic
assertions are in direct contrast to the findings of the late Professor
Franz Boaz, America’s greatest cultural anthropologist. Concerning
attitudes such as those expressed by Mrs. Blackman, Boas wrote: “The
claim has been made ... that mixed races ... are inferior in physical
and mental qualities, that they inherit all the unfavorable traits of
the parental races. So far as I can see, this bold proposition is not
based on adequate evidence.” Going even further, he declared, “The few
cases in which it has been possible to gather strictly scientific data
on the physical characteristics of the half-bloods have rather shown
that there may be a certain amount of physical improvement in the mixed
race.”[551]
Stanley F. Morse, a chronic letter-to-the-editor writer and prominent
in white supremacy circles, told the _News and Courier_ that the
progeny of “uncontrolled [interracial] crossings are mongrels which
are more apt to be inferior than superior.” “The fall of the Egyptian,
Roman and other great civilizations,” he continued, “was largely due
to the development of a mongrel race caused by interbreeding with
slaves and ‘barbarians.’” Furthermore, “planned mongrelization of a
race in 740 B.C. produced the despised Samaritans.” Those who would
condone such mongrelization were “breaking the Divine Laws.” Other
writers also considered intermarriage a violation of the will of God.
Mrs. E. R. Mansfield of Mt. Pleasant, for example, wrote the _News
and Courier_ editor that “naturally this process of maintaining racial
purity and integrity at the same time that we make possible equality of
opportunity, is going to impose a hardship and some personal tragedies,
on some individuals. But this will not be the first hard thing that God
in His infinite goodness has demanded for us.”[552]
Three principal conclusions result from this study: (1) South Carolina
has not yet embraced democracy as the term is generally defined by
Americans outside the South. (2) Many white South Carolinians still
accept a racism which in its most extreme forms approaches that of
Hitler and the Nazis. (3) Not a few of the arguments and defenses
advanced by segregationists against the Court decision are so illogical
and so riddled with inconsistencies that sometimes one is obliged
to question not only the sincerity but also the intelligence of the
spokesmen. These conclusions have been illustrated in the body of the
study but a short summary is in order.
The denial of equality of access or opportunity in any public area,
function or facility by a “superior” group to an “inferior” group
constitutes the antithesis of democracy. In this respect South
Carolina, like all of the Southern states, is undemocratic, a condition
which persons concerned with promoting integration have not failed to
note. Clarence Mitchell, the Washington NAACP official, referred to
South Carolina as “the frontier of democracy,” a place where “the real
meaning of America” had not penetrated.[553]
The attitude of leading segregation spokesmen regarding democracy
is more revealing than that of critics of the South. The _News and
Courier_ is the state’s most articulate expert on the “phony spiels
about democracy.” The American people had gone “hog-wild in worshipping
‘democracy,’” complained this paper. Democracy with its “unrestricted
franchise” did not guarantee good government. Indeed there was “ample
precedent for requiring that those who vote on public issues be able
to understand” what they were doing. Property, too, was a relevant
qualification. George Washington himself had warned against the
“‘dangerous multitudes without property and without principle.’”
“Some persons” would object to the use of property as a qualification
for voting but property was “still a gauge of competence.... Paupers
are and should be excluded from deciding how other people’s money is
to be spent.” Editor Thomas R. Waring’s editorials also argued that
majority rule might be the essence of democracy but the United States
was not a democracy. It was a republic. A mob might be a majority at
certain times. “The condemnation of Jesus Christ had the approval of a
majority. Throughout the history of the church there have been martyrs
of majorities.”[554]
A democracy, according to the _News and Courier_, did not guarantee
protection of sectional or local interests. But the United States--“a
federal republic”--was especially designed for this end. Under the
American constitutional system the parts were supposed to be equal to
the whole. In this sense then it was not “the democratic way to force
the majority of the people of a REGION to live in a manner that is
repugnant to them. The democratic way should take into consideration
the local as well as the national feelings of citizens.”[555] John C.
Calhoun never better expressed these sentiments.
The _Record_, too, abhorred “absolute democracy.” The United States
was never intended to be such. It was “a limited representative
democracy.” The _Record_ deplored constitutional flexibility. It
maintained that the presumption on which the Supreme Court based its
decision outlawing school segregation, namely, that the Constitution
was “a growing document,” eliminated, “for all practical purposes,”
the Constitution as “a safeguard of the people’s purposes,” as “a
safeguard of the people’s rights and as a limitation upon government.”
The _Record_ maintained that the integration problem arose from the
fact that “so many of the minority groups, who have been urging the
abolition of segregation and other such ‘reforms’” were “not inheritors
of the British tradition out of which the American Constitution grew.”
These groups saw nothing to be feared in constitutional amendments by
the Supreme Court. It was all “democracy” to them and by democracy
they meant what the United States Constitution did not mean--absolute
democracy.[556]
On this subject the _State_ was equally vociferous. Referring to the
term human rights as “meaningless,” the Columbia newspaper in 1957
declared: “The only right with which man is endowed at birth is the
right to survive if he can. The right to vote, think freely and speak
freely” and the right of representative government “are created by
government and society.” Social Darwinism in its rawest form is not yet
dead in South Carolina.
Not only do the segregationists deny the validity of many of the basic
concepts of democracy but they also dispute the authority of the
federal government to assure equal treatment under the laws of the
United States to all Americans. They uphold what they consider to be
the constitutional rights of the states above human rights as applied
to the Negro. Democracy is denied to Negroes in the name of democratic
government. Harking back to the conservative nature of the Constitution
as originally written, the _News and Courier_ thought it “ridiculous
that a document which recognized slavery” was now being “brandished as
a guarantee of all sorts of supposed rights. Did the framers of the
Constitution, who approved of slavery, sit down and write a document
guaranteeing to Negroes the right to send their children to mixed
schools?” The question of the Charleston paper reveals more of its
fetish for constitutionalism than does the answer: “The framers didn’t
guarantee Negroes anything--not even protection from the whip!” The
_Record_, at least recognizing that the Court based its decision on
the Fourteenth Amendment and not the original Constitution, declared
that “every student of the Constitution” knew that the amendment “was
never constitutionally submitted to the states or constitutionally
ratified” and was therefore “not today constitutionally a part of
the Constitution.”[557] The _Record’s_ arguments concerning the
ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment contain, of course, an
element of historical truth, but only a warped approach to the problem
of constitutionalism can hold that the Amendment is not part of the
fundamental law of the land.
Not only is there a considerable body of anti-democratic opinion in
the state but it is also safe to say that most white South Carolinians
consider the Negro a member of an inferior race. Dr. E. Ryan Crow,
chairman of the South Carolina education finance commission, observed,
for example, that “the white man feels he belongs to a superior race.”
To support this belief in racial superiority segregationists often
resort to science or pseudo-science. The _News and Courier_ thought it
“curious” that many Americans had “abandoned the scientific approach
to study of the human species.” “Leaders of public opinion,” it
complained, had thrown overboard “the scientists’ cold appraisal” and
had fallen back on “sentiment, on propaganda, on political catchwords.”
Anything that tended to confirm “inherent differences among races,”
was “frowned on as ‘racism.’ Yet a large body of scientific evidence
indicates that important differences DO exist” between the races.[558]
These comments by the _News and Courier_ brought a letter of agreement
from Francis Fielding-Reid, M.D., of Charleston who warned South
Carolinians against accepting “a certain type of pseudo-scientific
balderdash.” Said the doctor:
Some years ago a so-called “prominent scientist” made
a statement to the effect that the brains of people of
various races had been examined anatomically and found
essentially identical, and that this indicated that there
were no essential intellectual nor emotional racial
characteristics other than those caused by environment.
Such statements are puerile or are made with intent to
deceive....
This writer has heard pseudo-scientific sophistry to the
effect that, since most deservedly prominent colored people
have some white ancestry, mixing the races is desirable
in order to produce more of these individuals. Such
statements, too, are puerile and fraudulent.[559]
Other South Carolinians expressed similar opinions. Flora Bell Surles
of Mt. Pleasant reported that ethnologists, whom she failed to name,
had “shown” that the Negro race was “as yet ‘a childlike race.’”
Gilbert Wilkes, also of Mt. Pleasant, described Negroes as belonging
to a race which had “no history, or culture, or background of training
in either social behavior or custom.” They were “only four generations
removed from the trackless jungle” where they had lived “for countless
thousands of years, without any development and in many cases without
even having devised a language.”[560] Harold A. Petit of Charleston,
vice-president and regional manager for the South Carolina Electric
and Gas Company and past national president of Exchange Clubs,
declared: “The Negro is irresponsible in every degree. I think it is
a basic trait, although other conditions--environment, economics and
education--contribute to his so-called lethargy.”[561]
A “Dirt Farmer” from “Rural South Carolina” expressed in the _News
and Courier_ the sentiments of the state’s most extreme racists.
Conceding that segregation could not be “theoretically defended upon
the basis of any code of ethics,” he nonetheless favored it because
“like Hitler,” he believed “that the Aryan people are superior to any
other who have yet trod the face of this earth during the period of
recorded history, that they have the inherent ability to contribute
more to the future well-being of mankind than any other.” What were
the Aryan’s points of superiority, according to the “Dirt Farmer?”
Their “curiosity: the desire to know for the sake of knowledge itself;”
their “urge to reshape the world more to their own liking;” and their
“seeking and finding newer and truer answers” to the problems of
civilization. In the interest of impartiality he searched for points
of superiority in the Negro. He could find only one--“a more highly
developed sense of rhythm.” If the attributes of the Aryans were ever
merged “with those of their inferiors, that fatal error can never be
redeemed,” he concluded. Mankind’s slow progress would end “and the
wave of the future” would push him “inexorably back into darkness and
oblivion.”[562]
Logical inconsistency is the most striking characteristic of the many
statements made in defense of racial segregation. The aforegoing pages
have made this manifestly clear. But then who is logical when it comes
to the question of racial superiority? Adolf Hitler, Joseph Goebbels
and their like were living proof that logic really didn’t matter.
REFERENCES
CHAPTER I
[5] George B. Tindall, _South Carolina Negroes 1877-1900_,
(Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1952), pp.
291-293.
[6] _Ibid._, pp. 54, 59, 73, 89, and 91. See also Tindall,
“The Campaign for the Disfranchisement of Negroes in South
Carolina,” _Journal of Southern History_, XV (May 1949),
212-34.
[7] Tindall, _South Carolina Negroes 1877-1900_, p. 303.
See also Tindall, “The Question of Race in the South
Carolina Constitutional Convention in 1895,” _Journal of
Negro History_, XXXVII (July 1952), 277-303.
[8] In 1905 the Charleston _News and Courier_ was sued by
a white man whom the _News and Courier_ had referred to
in a news story as a Negro. In awarding damages to the
plaintiff the court held that “when we think of the radical
distinction subsisting between the white man and the black
man, it must be apparent that to impute the condition of
the Negro to a white man would affect his (the white man’s)
social status, and, in case anyone publish a white man to
be a Negro, it would not only be galling to his pride, but
would tend to interfere seriously with the social relation
of the white man with his fellow white men.” Gilbert T.
Stephenson, _Race Distinctions in American Law_, (New York:
Association Press, 1911), p. 28.
[9] Quoted in Tindall, _South Carolina Negroes 1877-1900_,
p. 238.
[10] Full inaugural address quoted in Lewis K. McMillan,
_Negro Higher Education in the State of South Carolina_,
(Privately published, 1952), pp. 249-251.
[11] Gustavus M. Pinckney (ed.), Carlyle McKinley, _An
Appeal to Pharaoh: The Negro Problem and its Radical
Solution_, (Columbia: The State Co., 1907), p. 107.
[12] Anthony Harrigan (ed.), _The Editor and the Republic:
Papers and Addresses of William Watts Ball_ (Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press, 1954), pp. 30, 72.
[13] _New York Times_, Mar. 1, 1944, p. 13. The Negro
Citizens Committee of South Carolina condemned this
resolution as “astonishing to the Negroes of South
Carolina.”
[14] _Ibid._, Mar. 1, 1944, p. 13. Senator “Cotton Ed”
Smith congratulated the House for its passage of this
resolution, saying, “We are damned tired of these butterfly
preachers who do not know conditions in the South.”
_Ibid._, Mar. 2, 1944, p. 34.
[15] In 1932 the Chairman of the Columbia Board of Election
Commissioners ruled that Negroes were excluded from voting
in primary elections unless they had voted for Wade Hampton
for governor in 1876 and presented ten witnesses to
substantiate it. _Ibid._, Apr. 21, 1932, p. 24.
[16] “Why South Carolina Keeps the Poll Tax,” _Christian
Century_, LXIII (Feb. 6, 1946), 166. The author of this
article considered the above quote evidence that “the real
issue is not race,” but that race was only a “smoke screen”
which “a little oligarchy” used to maintain control of the
state through the one-party system. However, it is the
opinion of informed observers that although the “little
oligarchy” does exercise more effective control through a
one-party system, the real issue is race. The one party
system is simply the most effective method of political
control by whites.
[17] _New York Times_, Dec. 5, 1952, p. 14.
[18] _Independent_, Aug. 28, 1956, p. 2.
[19] See George S. Parthemos, _The Supreme Court and the
Rights of Negroes Under the Reconstruction Amendments_,
(Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Political
Science, University of South Carolina, 1949), Chapter VII.
[20] _New York Times_, Apr. 14, 1944, p. 1.
[21] Quoted in _To Secure These Rights_, Report of the
President’s Committee on Civil Rights, (New York: Simon and
Schuster, 1947), p. 36.
[22] Parthemos, _op. cit._, p. 191.
[23] Judge Waring is one of the most interesting
personalities encountered in the study of the race issue
in South Carolina. Senator “Cotton Ed” Smith’s campaign
manager in 1938, he was representative of the most
“respectable” elements of Charleston society, was “a
descendant of Confederates,” and had the support of the
most orthodox of white supremacists when he was made a
federal judge by President Roosevelt. After his decisions
outlawing the white primary (and also after his divorce
and remarriage to an “outsider” with “radical” views on
the race question) he was completely ostracized by white
Charleston and South Carolina society. He and his wife
became complete integrationists. “The Southern advocates
of white supremacy,” he said, “are mentally sick.” “We
don’t have a Negro problem in the South, we have a white
problem.” _New York Times_, Feb. 27, 1950, p. 17. See also
“Judge Waring on the Civil Rights Issue,” _Nation_, CLXXIV
(June 7, 1952), 540-541. For Mrs. Waring’s views see “Mrs.
Waring Meets the Press,” _American Mercury_, LXX (May
1950), 562-569.
[24] _To Secure These Rights_, p. 36.
[25] Parthemos, _op. cit._, pp. 192-195.
[26] _Ibid._, pp. 194-195.
[27] _New York Times_, Apr. 20, 1948, p. 1.
[28] _Ibid._, July 28, 1948, p. 5.
[29] _Ibid._, Aug. 23, 1938, p. 5.
[30] Cassandra M. Birnie, “Race and Politics in Georgia and
South Carolina,” _Phylon_, XIII (Sept., 1952), 241.
[31] David D. Wallace, _South Carolina: A Short History_,
(Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1951), p.
679.
[32] _New York Times_, July 8, 1950, p. 14.
[33] _Ibid._, Feb. 29, 1948, p. 9; July 17, 1948, p. 3;
Oct. 3, 1948, p. 40; Feb. 24, 1949, p. 15.
[34] _Ibid._, Feb. 7, 1952, p. 21.
[35] Other considerations, of course, entered into the
revolt. Economic factors were important, for example,
in the opposition of Southern financial and industrial
interests to Truman’s proposal for repeal of the
Taft-Hartley Act, which contained provisions for state
right-to-work laws. Other economic interests, e.g. oil
interests, also supported the movement. Nevertheless
the revolt was sold to the rank and file white South
Carolinians on the grounds of race and they undoubtedly
thought, this was the main consideration.
[36] _New York Times_, July 20, 1948, p. 1; Oct. 3, 1948, p.
40.
[37] _Ibid._, Aug. 1, 1948, p. 44; Aug. 12, 1948, p. 44.
[38] _Ibid._, Dec. 5, 1952, p. 14.
[39] Tindall, _South Carolina Negroes 1877-1900_, p. 222.
[40] Simkins, “Race Legislation in South Carolina since
1865,” _South Atlantic Quarterly_, XX (June 1921), 170.
[41] Quoted in McMillan, _op. cit._, pp. 257-58. Gov.
Blease also wanted to secure as texts for the public
schools “books, especially histories [written] by Southern
authors for Southern children.”
[42] Grace Graham, “Negro Education Progresses in South
Carolina,” _Social Forces_, XXX (May 1952), 431-432.
[43] Figures quoted below were taken from Harry S. Ashmore,
_The Negro and the Schools_, (Chapel Hill: University of
North Carolina Press, 1954), pp. 152-53, 156-59.
[44] _Ibid._, pp. 115, 147, 160, 166.
[45] McMillan, _op. cit._, p. 219.
[46] _Ibid._, pp. 268, 199, 207, 211.
[47] _Ibid._, pp. 211-212.
[48] Parthemos, _op. cit._, pp. 94-96.
CHAPTER II
[49] _New York Times_, June 3, 1951, Section IV, p. 7.
[50] Julian Scheer, “The White Folks Fight Back,” _Nation_,
CLXXXI (Oct. 31, 1955), 10.
[51] _New York Times_, June 3, 1951, Section IV, p. 7.
[52] Scheer, _loc. cit._, p. 10. For a competent account of
the Clarendon situation see John Bartlow Martin, _The Deep
South Says Never_ (New York: Ballantine Books, 1957), pp.
43-77.
[53] _News and Courier_, May 18, 1954, p. 11.
[54] _New York Times_, May 29, 1951, p. 27; May 30, 1951,
p. 12.
[55] Walter White, _How Far the Promised Land_, (New York:
Viking Press, 1952), p. 47.
[56] _New York Times_, May 29, 1951, p. 27.
[57] _Ibid._, May 30, 1951, p. 12; _News and Courier_, May
18, 1954, p. 11.
[58] “Human Rights are Now,” _Nation_, CLXXIII (July 14,
1951), 24; _New York Times_, June 24, 1951, p. 72.
[59] _New York Times_, June 26, 1951, p. 40.
[60] _Ibid._, Mar. 19, 1951, p. 18; June 25, 1951, p. 19;
July 10, 1951, p. 21; also Ashmore, _op. cit._, p. 96.
[61] _New York Times_, Dec. 11, 1952, p. 44.
[62] _Ibid._, May 27, 1951, p. 40.
[63] Howard G. McClain and Henry G. Ruark, “Education or
Segregation?” _Christian Century_, LXX (Apr. 1, 1953), 378.
[64] First interim report of the Gressette Committee, July
28, 1954, quoted in S. C. Senate _Journal_ (1955), p. 14;
also _News and Courier_, June 16, 1954, p. 1.
[65] McClain and Ruark, _loc. cit._, p. 377; also _New York
Times_, Mar. 14, 1952, p. 16.
[66] _New York Times_, Dec. 11, 1952, p. 44.
[67] Supreme Court of the United States, “Brief of
Appellees on Reargument,” Case of Harry Briggs, Jr.,
_et al._, Appellants, against R. W. Elliott, _el al._,
Appellees, October Term 1953, pp. 1-2.
[68] For full reply of the state to the question see
_ibid._, pp. 8-83; see also p. 84.
[69] Full text of the Court’s opinion is quoted in Appendix
I.
[70] _News and Courier_, Sept. 16, 1954, p. 1.
[71] _Record_, Nov. 15, 1954, p. 1.
[72] Full text of the implementing decision is quoted in
_New York Times_, June 1, 1955, p. 26.
[73] _Morning News_, July 16, 1955, p. 1.
CHAPTER III
[74] _Morning News_, May 18, 1954, p. 1; May 20, 1954, p.
5-A; Mar. 2, 1956, p. 10-A.
[75] _Ibid._, Dec. 16, 1955, p. 1.
[76] _Record_, Jan. 24, 1957, p. 7-A.
[77] _Independent_, May 18, 1954, p. 1.
[78] _News and Courier_, May 18, 1954, p. 1; May 19, 1954,
p. 4; May 21, 1954, p. 4-A; May 26, 1954, p. 4-A; Nov. 23,
1954, p. 14-A.
[79] _Record_, May 18, 1954, p. 4-A; May 19, 1954, p. 4-A;
May 22, 1954, p. 4-A; May 26, 1954, p. 4-A; Nov. 23, 1954,
p. 4-A.
[80] _Independent_, May 18, 1954, p. 4; May 25, 1954, p. 4;
Dec. 1, 1954, p. 4.
[81] _Morning News_, May 18, 1954, p. 4; May 19, 1954, p.
4; Apr. 16, 1955, p. 4.
[82] _News and Courier_, May 28, 1954, p. 8-A.
[83] _Independent_, June 9, 1954, p. 8A [Italics mine].
[84] _News and Courier_, May 21, 1954, p. 10-A; May 24,
1954, p. 2.
[85] _Record_, June 20, 1955, p. 1; _Independent_, June 28,
1955, p. 1.
[86] _Record_, June 1, 1955, p. 4-A; _Morning News_, June 1,
1955, p. 4; _Independent_, June 2, 1955, p. 4; _News and
Courier_, June 4, 1955, p. 6-A.
[87] _Morning News_, June 1, 1955, p. 1.
[88] _Record_, Jan. 27, 1956, p. 1; Mar. 23, 1956, p. 8-A;
_Independent_, Aug. 13, 1956, p. 3; Mar. 8, 1956, p. 20.
[89] _News and Courier_, May 24, 1956, p. 12-A; May 25,
1955, p. 10-A; Nov. 25, 1954, p. 8-A; Nov. 13, 1954, p.
4-A; Dec. 5, 1954, p. 14-A.
[90] _Record_, Oct. 28, 1955, p. 4-A; Apr. 27, 1955, p. 4-A.
[91] _Independent_, Dec. 1, 1955, p. 4.
[92] _State_, June 27, 1957, p. 4; July 5, 1957, p. 4.
[93] _Record_, June 26, 1957; _State_, July 16, 1957, p. 4.
[94] James F. Byrnes, “The Supreme Court Must be Curbed,”
_U.S. News and World Report_, XL (May 18, 1956), 50-58.
[95] _News and Courier_, Aug. 19, 1955, p. 10-A.
[96] _State_, Aug. 21, 1955.
[97] _News and Courier_, July 17, 1955, p. 9-A; Oct. 30,
1955, p. 1-E; _Record_, May 29, 1956, p. 4-A.
[98] _News and Courier_, Oct. 7, 1954, p. 4-A.
[99] _Ibid._, Aug. 1, 1955, p. 7-A.
[100] _To Secure these Rights_, Report of the President’s
Committee on Civil Rights pp. 81-82.
[101] Thomas R. Waring, “The Southern Case against
Desegregation,” _Harper’s_, CCXII (Jan. 1956), 39-45.
[102] Herbert R. Sass, “Mixed Schools and Mixed Blood,”
_Atlantic Monthly_, CXCVIII, (Nov. 1956), 45-49.
[103] Oscar Handlin, “Where Equality Leads,” _ibid._, pp.
50-54.
[104] _News and Courier_, Sept. 14, 1956, p. 12-A; Apr. 28,
1955, p. 16-A; Nov. 17, 1954, p. 10-A.
[105] _Record_, Sept. 23, 1954, p. 4-A; Oct. 2, 1956, p.
4-A.
[106] _Morning News_, May 13, 1954, p. 4-A; Aug. 11, 1954,
p. 4; Aug. 5, 1956, p. 4-A; Aug. 30, 1956, p. 4-A; Sept. 1,
1956, p. 4.
[107] _Ibid._, Jan. 19, 1955, p. 1; Apr. 7, 1956, p. 5;
_Record_, Oct. 5, 1956, p. 1.
[108] _Morning News_, Sept. 2, 1955, p. 4-A.
[109] _News and Courier_, Sept. 5, 1954, p. 8-A.
[110] _Record_, Nov. 22, 1955, p. 4-A; _News and Courier_,
July 20, 1955, p. 1-B.
[111] _News and Courier_, Mar. 15, 1956, p. 2-B; May 15,
1956, p. 1-B; Dec. 16, 1956, p. 8-C.
[112] _Morning News_, Sept. 2, 1954, p. 3-A; _News and
Courier_, Aug. 14, 1955, p. 12-A.
[113] _Morning News_, Sept. 23, 1956, p. 4-A; also James F.
Byrnes, “The Supreme Court Must be Curbed,” _U.S. News and
World Report_, XL (May 18, 1956), 58; _News and Courier_,
June 6, 1954, p. 4-A.
[114] _News and Courier_, Aug. 28, 1955, p. 10-A.
[115] _Ibid._, April 28, 1956, p. 1; June 27, 1955, p. 6-A;
July 2, 1955, p. 6-A.
[116] _Ibid._, Dec. 3, 1954, p. 10-A.
[117] _Record_, Nov. 26, 1954, p. 1.
[118] _Ibid._, May 31, 1954, p. 4-A; June 17, 1955, p. 4-A;
July 11, 1955, p. 4-A; Oct. 12, 1956, p. 4-A.
[119] _Independent_, Dec. 1, 1954, p. 4.
[120] _Morning News_, Aug. 5, 1955, p. 1; _News and
Courier_, Aug. 24, 1955, p. 10-A; Aug. 31, 1956, p. 18-A.
[121] _News and Courier_, July 19, 1955, p. 1-B.
[122] _Record_, Dec. 29, 1955, p. 3-B.
[123] _Ibid._, Oct. 17, 1957, p. 10-A; _State_, Oct. 18,
1957, p. 2-B.
[124] _News and Courier_, Jan. 15, 1957, p. 1.
[125] _State_, June 25, 1957, p. 1.
CHAPTER IV
[126] _News and Courier_, Sept. 21, 1956, p. 1-B.
[127] According to a _News and Courier_ reporter, Eldridge
Thompson, Klan membership rocketed during 1956 and 1957.
In addition to Bickley’s organization the other principal
Klan groups are the Association of South Carolina Klans
with headquarters in West Columbia and the National Ku Klux
Klan of South Carolina which operates out of Greenville.
_Ibid._, Oct. 27, 1957, p. 12-A.
[128] _Morning News_, Aug. 21, 1955, p. 1
[129] _Ibid._, June 12, 1955, p. 1.
[130] _Ibid._, Mar. 25, 1956, p. 1; July 29, 1956, p. 1.
[131] _News and Courier_, Aug. 20, 1956, p. 2.
[132] _Morning News_, July 29, 1956, p. 1.
[133] _State_, July 26, 1957, p. 2-D; Aug. 5, 1957, p. 5-A;
Aug. 10, 1957, p. 1-B; Jan. 15, 1958, p. 1-B; Jan. 21,
1958, p. 1-B; Jan. 22, 1958, p. 1; _Record_, Aug. 3, 1957,
p. 1; Aug. 9, 1957, p. 1; Jan. 15, 1958, p. 8-A; Jan. 22,
1958, p. 1; Jan. 23, 1958, p. 1.
[134] _Morning News_, July 1, 1956, p. 4-A; _Independent_,
Jan. 27, 1956, p. 4; _News and Courier_, June 11, 1954, p.
4-A; June 17, 1954, p. 12-A.
[135] _Independent_, Feb. 3, 1956, p. 4.
[136] _Morning News_, Aug. 23, 1955, p. 1.
[137] _News and Courier_, Aug. 30, 1955, p. 8-A.
[138] _Ibid._, Aug. 1, 1957, p. 8-A.
[139] _Morning News_, July 16, 1954, p. 1.
[140] _Ibid._, July 21, 1954, p. 1; July 17, 1954, p. 4.
[141] _Ibid._, Aug. 6, 1954, p. 4; _News and Courier_, Oct.
8, 1954, p. 4-A.
[142] _Morning News_, Mar. 11, 1955, p. 1.
[143] _News and Courier_, Feb. 4, 1955, p. 11-A.
[144] _Morning News_, Mar. 22, 1955, p. 4; June 11, 1955,
p. 1; Aug. 19, 1955, p. 4-A.
[145] _Ibid._, Aug. 12, 1955, p. 9-A; June 17, 1955, p. 1.
[146] _News and Courier_, July 8, 1955, p. 10-A.
[147] _Ibid._, Aug. 13, 1955, p. 8-A.
[147] _Ibid._, July 1, 1955, p. 14-A; Feb. 10, 1957, p.
13-A.
[149] _Ibid._, Sept. 9, 1955, p. 14-A.
[150] _Record_, Dec. 29, 1955, p. 1; _News and Courier_,
Dec. 31, 1955, p. 6-A.
[151] _News and Courier_, May 26, 1955, p. 14-A; Mar. 18,
1956, p. 2-C; Oct. 4, 1955, p. 8-A.
[152] _Ibid._, Sept. 15, 1955, p. 1; Sept. 16, 1955, p. 1;
Sept. 17, 1955, p. 1.
[153] S. C. Senate _Journal_ (1956), pp. 248-249.
[154] _Morning News_, Feb. 11, 1956, p. 7.
[155] _News and Courier_, Sept. 23, 1955, p. 10-A.
[156] _Record_, Sept. 6, 1955, p. 1.
[157] _News and Courier_, July 1, 1956, p. 14-C. By
this date there were councils in the counties of Aiken,
Allendale, Bamberg, Beaufort, Calhoun (2), Charleston (6),
Clarendon (3), Darlington (4), Dorchester (2), Fairfield,
Florence (7), Georgetown, Jasper, Kershaw, Lee (2),
Lexington, Orangeburg (9), Richland (2), Spartanburg,
Sumter and Williamsburg (7).
[158] By February 1957 there were 58 local councils in
South Carolina. By this time leadership in the state
organization had changed. Thomas D. Keels of Sumter was
state chairman, Dr. W. M. Croswell of Timmonsville,
vice-chairman and H. L. Bowling of Elloree, treasurer.
_News and Courier_, Jan. 18, 1957, p. 1-B; Feb. 15, 1957,
p. 10-A.
[159] _Ibid._, July 1, 1956, p. 14-C.
[160] _Ibid._, Feb. 24, 1957, p. 2-A.
[161] _Ibid._, Mar. 4, 1957, p. 12.
[162] _Morning News_, Aug. 30, 1955, p. 1.
[163] _News and Courier_, July 1, 1956, p. 14-C; Jan. 9,
1956, p. 12.
[164] _Ibid._, May 6, 1956, p. 1.
[165] _Ibid._, May 27, 1956, p. 14-A.
[166] _Record_, Jan. 27, 1956, p. 1. Another indication
of the support given the Council was the resolution
unanimously adopted by the state legislature commending the
formation of the Councils and offering the legislators’
“approval and encouragement” to the movement.
[167] _News and Courier_, Aug. 31, 1955, p. 10-A; Oct. 6,
1955, p. 6-A.
[168] _Morning News_, Aug. 16, 1955, p. 12.
[169] _Ibid._, Aug. 28, 1955, p. 1.
[170] _Record_, Feb. 11, 1956, p. 1.
[171] _News and Courier_, Oct. 10, 1955, p. 1.
[172] _Morning News_, Aug. 17, 1955, p. 12; Aug. 21, 1955,
p. 3-A.
[173] This summary of the Orangeburg boycott was taken
largely from Edward Gamarekian, “The Ugly Battle of
Orangeburg,” _Reporter_, XVI (Jan. 24, 1957), 32-34, and
an article written by W. D. Workman, Jr., in the _News and
Courier_, Dec. 3, 1955, p. 1-E; see also _Record_, Apr. 13,
1956, p. 2-A.
[174] Gamarekian, _loc. cit._, pp. 32-34.
[175] _Morning News_, Jan. 25, 1956, p. 7; S. C. House
_Journal_ (1956), p. 101.
[176] _Record_, Mar. 26, 1956, p. 1.
[177] _Ibid._, Apr. 7, 1956, p. 1.
[178] _Morning News_, July 18, 1956, p. 6.
[179] Gamarekian, _loc. cit._, pp. 32-34.
[180] _Record_, Aug. 25, 1955, p. 4-A.
[181] _News and Courier_, Aug. 31, 1955, p. 10-A.
[182] _Ibid._, Aug. 24, 1955, p. 10-A.
CHAPTER V
[183] _News and Courier_, May 6, 1956, p. 16-A; July 1,
1956, p. 14-A.
[184] _Morning News_, Mar. 6, 1955, p. 4-A; May 19, 1955,
p. 4-A.
[185] _Independent_, Oct. 22, 1954, p. 1.
[186] _News and Courier_, Oct. 24, 1954, p. 4-A.
[187] _Ibid._, Aug. 31, 1955, p. 10-A.
[188] _Record_, Sept. 6, 1955, p. 7-A.
[189] _Morning News_, Oct. 3, 1955, p. 1.
[190] _Ibid._, Sept. 15, 1955, p. 1.
[191] _News and Courier_, Sept. 6, 1955, p. 1-B.
[192] _Morning News_, Aug. 29, 1955, p. 4.
[193] _Ibid._, Dec. 28, 1955, p. 5.
[194] _Morning News_, Dec. 23, 1955, p. 5.
[195] _News and Courier_, Aug. 27, 1954, p. 1.
[196] _Record_, Aug. 15, 1957, p. 1; _News and Courier_,
Aug. 16, 1957, p. 1.
[197] _Morning News_, Nov. 10, 1954, p. 5.
[197] _Independent_, Feb. 5, 1956, p. 1.
[199] _Record_, Feb. 21, 1956, p. 7-A.
[200] _Ibid._, Feb. 22, 1956, p. 10-A.
[201] _State_, June 27, 1957, p. 1; Sept 10, 1957, p. 7-A;
Sept. 27, 1957, p. 3-A; _News and Courier_, Oct. 17, 1957,
p. 1-B.
[202] _News and Courier_, May 8, 1956, p. 7-A.
[203] _Independent_, Apr. 19, 1956, p. 1.
[204] _News and Courier_, May 8, 1956, p. 7-A.
[205] _Ibid._, Oct. 7, 1955, p. 1-B.
[206] _Morning News_, Nov. 7, 1955, p. 1.
[207] _News and Courier_, July 15, 1955, p. 12-A.
[208] _Morning News_, Sept. 2, 1954, p. 1.
[209] _News and Courier_, Oct. 14, 1956, p. 14-A.
[210] _Ibid._, Sept. 19, 1954, p. 14-D; Sept. 8, 1954, p. 1.
[211] _Ibid._, Aug. 16, 1955, p. 8-A; _Independent_, Oct.
26, 1954, p. 14.
[212] _Morning News_, May 27, 1954, p. 4; May 29, 1954, p.
2.
[213] _Record_, Sept. 8, 1955, p. 1.
[214] _News and Courier_, July 18, 1956, p. 1-B; Aug. 28,
1955, p. 10-A.
[215] _Morning News_, Mar. 5, 1956, p. 5.
[216] _News and Courier_, May 30, 1954, p. 3-B.
[217] _State_, July 20, 1956, p. 10-B; _News and Courier_,
Dec. 18, 1956, p. 10-B.
[218] _News and Courier_, Feb. 16, 1957, p. 9-A.
[219] _Morning News_, Sept. 2, 1954, p. 3-A.
[220] _Independent_, May 25, 1954, p. 6; June 1, 1954, p.
14.
[221] _News and Courier_, July 19, 1954, p. 4.
[222] _Ibid._, Feb. 5, 1956, p. 4-A.
[223] _Ibid._, Sept. 12, 1954, p. 4.
[224] _Ibid._, Sept. 11, 1955, p. 2-C.
[225] _Ibid._, Oct. 24, 1954, p. 12-A.
[226] _Ibid._, Sept. 4, 1955, p. 8-A; Feb. 13, 1956, p.
8-A; Aug. 31, 1954, p. 4-A.
[227] _Morning News_, May 13, 1954, p. 4.
[228] _News and Courier_, Feb. 28, 1956, p. 8-A.
[229] In this summary the following _News and Courier_
editorials were considered: June 3, 1954, p. 4-A; Aug.
8, 1954, p. 4-A; Aug. 26, 1954, p. 4-A; Feb. 8, 1955, p.
8-A; June 12, 1955, p. 14-A; June 5, 1955, p. 14-A; Aug.
14, 1955, p. 12-A; Feb. 19, 1956, p. 12-A; May 6, 1956, p.
16-A; July 1, 1956, p. 14-A.
[230] _Ibid._, Aug. 31, 1954, p. 4-A.
CHAPTER VI
[231] _Morning News_, Sept. 4, 1955, p. 4-A.
[232] _Ibid._, Feb. 28, 1955, p. 1; _News and Courier_,
June 29, 1954, p. 4-A.
[233] _News and Courier_, Dec. 7, 1955, p. 12-A; Aug. 26,
1955, p. 12-A; also Thomas R. Waring, “The Southern Case
Against Desegregation,” _Harper’s, CCXII_ (Jan., 1956), 43.
[234] _News and Courier_, Dec. 5, 1955, p. 3.
[235] _Record_, Aug. 5, 1954, p. 4-A.
[236] _Independent_, Feb. 27, 1956, p. 13-A. For
comparison, 71 percent of the people outside the South (35
states) approved the decision, 24 percent disapproved it
and five percent were undecided.
[237] _News and Courier_, Mar. 1, 1956, p. 13-A; Mar. 15,
1956, p. 2-B.
[238] _Independent_, June 13, 1956, p. 37.
[239] _News and Courier_, Mar. 16, 1956, p. 1-B; Nov. 24,
1955, p. 1-B.
[240] _Record_, Nov. 10, 1955, p. 1-B; _Morning News_, June
15, 1954, p. 10-B; _Record_, Jan. 14, 1955, p. 1.
[241] _News and Courier_, June 1, 1954, p. 6; May 26, 1954,
p. 1; May 21, 1954, p. 10-A.
[242] _Morning News_, Mar. 7, 1956, p. 2; June 24, 1955, p.
6-B; Sept. 19, 1955, p. 8-A.
[243] _News and Courier_, Sept. 20, 1955, p. 8-A; Sept. 22,
1955, p. 14-A; _Independent_, Sept. 29, 1955, p. 4.
[244] _News and Courier_, Mar. 16, 1956, p. 1-B; Oct. 22,
1955, p. 1-B; Oct. 19, 1955, p. 12-A.
[245] _Independent_, May 6, 1954, p. 16.
[246] _News and Courier_, Dec. 5, 1955, p. 3; _Record_,
Apr. 26, 1956, p. 2-B.
[247] _News and Courier_, Sept. 19, 1954, p. 14-D; May 4,
1956, p. 16-A.
[248] _Independent_, May 18, 1954, p. 1; _News and
Courier_, May 20, 1954, p. 15-B.
[249] _News and Courier_, Oct. 7, 1955, p. 1-B.
[250] _Record_, June 22, 1955, p. 1.
[251] _Independent_, June 13, 1956, p. 37.
[252] _Morning News_, Feb. 26, 1956, p. 1; _News and
Courier_, Dec. 5, 1955, p. 3; _Record_, Aug. 5, 1954, p.
4-A.
[253] _News and Courier_, Jan. 20, 1955, p. 11-A; Sept. 6,
1955, p. 1-B; _Independent_, July 5, 1954, p. 4.
[254] _News and Courier_, Sept. 4, 1955, p. 8-A;
_Independent_, Nov. 14, 1956, p. 4; _Morning News_, Aug. 5,
1956, p. 4-A.
[255] _Morning News_, Aug. 5, 1956, p. 4-A; Aug. 30, 1956,
p. 4-A.
[256] _Ibid._, Sept. 23, 1956, p. 4-A.
[257] _News and Courier_, May 28, 1956, p. 6-A; Sept. 8,
1955, p. 1-B; Aug. 30, 1955, p. 1-B; July 15, 1955, p. 12-A.
[258] _Ibid._, Nov. 21, 1955, p. 10.
[259] _Morning News_, Sept. 2, 1954, p. 3-A.
[260] _News and Courier_, Feb. 19, 1955, p. 8-A; Jan. 12,
1955, p. 8-A.
[261] For example there were only two Negro delegates to
the state Democratic convention in 1956. _Morning News_,
Mar. 22, 1956, p. 1.
[262] _Independent_, Aug. 2, 1956, p. 11.
[263] _Morning News_, Aug. 11, 1956, p. 1; _News and
Courier_, May 4, 1956, p. 1-B.
[264] _News and Courier_, Dec. 30, 1954, p. 12-A.
[265] _Independent_, Mar. 18, 1956, p. 1.
[266] _NAACP Civil Rights Handbook_ (New York, Apr., 1953),
p. 5.
[267] _Record_, Mar. 29, 1956, p. 4-A.
[268] _Ibid._, Mar. 26, 1956, p. 1.
[269] _News and Courier_, Mar. 29, 1956, p. 1-B; Nov. 7,
1954, p. 8-A.
[270] _Independent_, May 25, 1954, p. 5.
[271] _News and Courier_, Oct. 16, 1954, p. 7-A.
[272] _Record_, Sept. 12, 1955, p. 1.
[273] _Morning News_, June 30, 1955, p. 1.
[274] _Ibid._, July 1, 1955, p. 4-A; _News and Courier_,
Aug. 11, 1955, p. 14-A.
[275] _Morning News_, Aug. 21, 1955, p. 3-A.
[276] _Record_, Sept. 1, 1955, p. 1; Sept. 14, 1955, p. 5-A.
[277] Evans to A. J. Clement, Jr., printed in program of
13th annual session of the state NAACP (1953).
[278] _Morning News_, Aug. 20, 1955, p. 4-A.
[279] _Ibid._, Aug. 20, 1954, p. 4-A; May 25, 1954, p. 4;
_Independent_, Nov. 18, 1955, p. 4; _Record_, May 26, 1954,
p. 8-A.
[280] _Record_, Oct. 11, 1955, p. 3-A; _News and Courier_,
Apr. 2, 1956, p. 6-A; Feb. 15, 1956, p. 10-A.
[281] _Record_, June 30, 1956, p. 4-A; _State_, July 20,
1956, p. 5-A.
[282] _Record_, Dec. 12, 1955, p. 1. In a paper delivered
at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Society
in Washington, D. C. on August 29, 1957, Professor Wilson
Record of Sacramento State College showed the wide
divergences between the NAACP and the Communist Party in
structure, methods, and basic ideology.
[283] _Morning News_, Aug. 30, 1955, p. 1; Apr. 28, 1956,
p. 1; Aug. 19, 1955, p. 4-A.
[284] _News and Courier_, Oct. 14, 1954, p. 15-A; May 30,
1954, p. 4-A; July 17, 1955, p. 6-A.
[285] _Ibid._, Aug. 25, 1955, p. 1-B.
[286] _Record_, Mar. 29, 1956, p. 4-A.
[287] In connection with the use of this system against
labor organizers, Rep. Gary Brown of Abbeville County said,
“As for unions we don’t have any trouble in the county....
We are expecting to get some new industry and I would pass
50 bills to protect it.” _News and Courier_, Apr. 22, 1957,
p. 8.
[288] _Independent_, Aug. 24, 1955, p. 6.
[289] _Morning News_, Aug. 19, 1955, p. 4-A; Mar. 12, 1956,
p. 4.
[290] _News and Courier_, July 20, 1955, p. 1-B; _Record_,
Nov. 22, 1955, p. 4-A.
[291] _News and Courier_, Nov. 22, 1955, p. 1-B; _Morning
News_, Aug. 30, 1955, p. 1; S. C. House _Journal_ (1956),
p. 450.
[292] _Record_, Aug. 11, 1955, p. 4-A; Nov. 4, 1955, p. 7-A.
[293] _Morning News_, Sept. 22, 1955, p. 4-A.
[294] Myrdal, _An American Dilemma_, pp. 831, 820, 830.
[295] _Record_, Feb. 13, 1956, p. 1; _News and Courier_,
Feb. 25, 1956, p. 10-A; Dec. 19, 1954, p. 14-A.
[296] _Record_, Aug. 30, 1955, p. 1; Sept. 12, 1955, p. 1.
CHAPTER VII
[297] _Morning News_, Aug. 7, 1956, p. 5.
[298] _News and Courier_, May 19, 1954, p. 4; May 20, 1954,
p. 4.
[299] _Morning News_, May 22, 1954, p. 4.
[300] _News and Courier_, May 30, 1954, p. 8-A.
[301] _Morning News_, May 21, 1954, p. 1; July 16, 1954, p.
3-A; Sept. 1, 1954, p. 1.
[302] _Record_, Jan. 4, 1956, p. 1; _Morning News_, Jan.
15, 1956, p. 3-B.
[303] _News and Courier_, July 30, 1956, p. 1.
[304] _Independent_, July 29, 1955, p. 1; Nov. 4, 1955, p.
28.
[305] _News and Courier_, Oct. 20, 1954, p. 8-A.
[306] S. C. Senate _Journal_ (1956), p. 55.
[307] _News and Courier_, Jan. 20, 1955, p. 11-A.
[308] _Record_, Nov. 4, 1955, p. 7-A.
[309] South Carolina Senate _Journal_ (1955), p. 15.
[310] _Independent_, June 26, 1956, p. 7.
[311] _Morning News_, Apr. 27, 1956, p. 10-A.
[312] _News and Courier_, Jan. 13, 1955, p. 14-A.
[313] _Morning News_, July 9, 1954, p. 4-A; Aug. 4, 1954,
p. 4.
[314] South Carolina Senate _Journal_ (1955), p. 15.
[315] _News and Courier_, May 21, 1955, p. 6-A.
[316] _Ibid._, Nov. 29, 1955, p. 1-B; Sept. 8, 1955, p.
1-B; also South Carolina Senate _Journal_ (1955), pp.
14-27; South Carolina Senate _Journal_ (1956), pp. 38-44.
[317] _Independent_, May 26, 1954, p. 3.
[318] _News and Courier_, Aug. 9, 1954, p. 4.
[319] _Independent_, July 25, 1954, p. 4.
[320] _News and Courier_, Aug. 7, 1954, p. 16.
[321] _Ibid._, May 30, 1954, p. 8-A; Oct. 29, 1955, p. 8-A;
May 25, 1956, p. 4.
[322] _Morning News_, Apr. 28, 1956, p. 1; Aug. 7, 1956, p.
5.
[323] _News and Courier_, Aug. 1, 1955, p. 7-A.
[324] _Morning News_, May 28, 1954, p. 4.
[325] _News and Courier_, May 25, 1954, p. 6.
[326] _Ibid._, Oct. 10, 1954, p. 2-A.
[327] _Morning News_, Aug. 12, 1955, p. 1; Aug. 7, 1955, p.
1.
[328] _News and Courier_, June 30, 1955, p. 10-A; S. C.
Senate _Journal_ (1956), pp. 52-53.
[329] _Independent_, Jan. 9, 1956, p. 1.
[330] _News and Courier_, Mar. 29, 1957, p. 1.
[331] _Independent_, Oct. 26, 1955, p. 14.
[332] _Ibid._, Jan. 7, 1956, p. 5. According to the annual
report of the state Superintendent of Education for 1953-54
South Carolina received $8,216,840 from the federal
government for education in 1952-53 and $5,946,597 for
1953-54. These figures represented 8.88 percent and 4.38
percent respectively of the total school budget.
[333] _News and Courier_, Feb. 26, 1956, p. 8-A; _Record_,
May 24, 1954, p. 4-A; _Morning News_, Aug. 26, 1955, p. 4-A.
[334] _Independent_, Dec. 17, 1955, p. 4; _Morning News_,
July 15, 1956, p. 4-A.
[335] _Record_, Aug. 15, 1957, p. 1; _State_, Aug. 19,
1957, p. 4-A; _News and Courier_, Aug. 17, 1957, p. 6-A.
[336] _News and Courier_, Nov. 29, 1955, p. 1-B; South
Carolina Senate _Journal_ (1955), pp. 19-27.
[337] _Morning News_, Feb. 9, 1955, p. 1; Mar. 2, 1955, p.
1; _Independent_, Feb. 23, 1955, p. 1.
[338] _Independent_, Feb. 11, 1955, p. 4.
[339] _News and Courier_, Mar. 12, 1955, p. 6-A.
[340] _Ibid._, May 28, 1955, p. 1.
[341] South Carolina Senate _Journal_ (1955), pp. 134, 652.
[342] _Morning News_, May 26, 1956, p. 10. A further
example of the frame of mind of the legislature was the
passage of a resolution which declared that the Confederate
Battle Flag symbolized “the divine cause of human freedom
for which our forefathers fought and for which the men,
women and children of the South displayed a courage and
devotion to duty unparalleled in the history of the world.”
South Carolina Senate _Journal_ (1956), p. 1185.
[343] _News and Courier_, Dec. 18, 1955, p. 1.
[344] _Morning News_, Dec. 29, 1955, p. 1; Feb. 15, 1956,
p. 6.
[345] _News and Courier_, Feb. 7, 1956, p. 1-B.
[346] _Record_, May 1, 1956, p. 4-A.
[347] _Ibid._, Jan. 10, 1956, p. 4-A.
[348] _Morning News_, Dec. 30, 1955, p. 4.
[349] _Independent_, Feb. 1, 1956, p. 4; Feb. 5, 1956, p. 4.
[350] _News and Courier_, Feb. 3, 1956, p. 16-A; Dec. 17,
1955, p. 6-A; Apr. 26, 1956, p. 16-A.
[351] South Carolina Senate _Journal_ (1956), p. 164.
[352] _Ibid._, pp. 150-155.
[353] _Morning News_, Jan. 11, 1956, p. 1.
[354] South Carolina House _Journal_ (1956), p. 322.
[355] _News and Courier_, Feb. 3, 1956, p. 1.
[356] _Independent_, Feb. 9, 1956, p. 4.
[357] _Record_, Feb. 3, 1956, p. 4-A.
[358] _Morning News_, Feb. 3, 1956, p. 1.
[359] _News and Courier_, Sept. 4, 1957, p. 10-A; _State_,
Sept. 5, 1957, p. 4-A; Sept. 7, 1957, p. 4-A.
[360] South Carolina Senate _Journal_ (1956), pp. 387-388.
[361] _News and Courier_, Jan. 24, 1957, p. 12-A. Most,
though not all of South Carolina’s Negro teachers
apparently answered these questions satisfactorily. Those
who did not lost their jobs. However, when considering
this fact one should also bear in mind that the Palmetto
Education Association, which represents the state’s
approximately 7,000 Negro teachers, adopted a resolution
in 1955 stating its approval of the Supreme Court’s
desegregation decision and offering its assistance to
white school authorities in “discussing, outlining, and
implementing plans for universal public education” in South
Carolina “within the framework of the recent ruling of the
United States Supreme Court.”
[362] _Morning News_, Jan. 18, 1956, p. 1.
[363] _Ibid._, Feb. 10, 1956, p. 4-A; Jan. 20, 1956, p. 4-A.
[364] _Independent_, Feb. 21, 1956, p. 1. The quotation
from the Walterboro _Press and Standard_ appears in this
article.
[365] _Record_, Feb. 16, 1956, p. 4-A.
[366] _News and Courier_, July 15, 1955, p. 12-A; Jan. 21,
1956, p. 6-A.
[367] _Morning News_, Jan. 18, 1956, p. 1; Feb. 18, 1956,
p. 7.
[368] _Ibid._, Mar. 1, 1956, p. 2.
[369] Jerrold Beim, _The Swimming Hole_, (New York: Morrow
and Co., 1950).
[370] This summary of the _Swimming Hole_ affair was taken
from _Morning News_, Mar. 2, 1956, p. 1; Mar. 7, 1956, p.
1; and Mar. 9, 1956, p. 1; South Carolina House _Journal_
(1956), pp. 936-937; _Record_, Mar. 10, 1956, p. 4-A; and
_News and Courier_, Mar. 8, 1956, p. 16-A.
[371] _News and Courier_, Apr. 24, 1957, p. 1-B; Apr. 27,
1957, p. 8-A; _State_, Apr. 17, 1957; Apr. 24, 1957.
[372] _State_, Apr. 17, 1957; Apr. 24, 1957.
[373] _News and Courier_, Mar. 1, 1957, p. 1; Mar. 2, 1957,
p. 8-A.
[374] _Ibid._, Feb. 10, 1957, p. 3-A; Apr. 25, 1957, p. 1;
Apr. 8, 1957, p. 12; Jan. 17, 1957, p. 14-A; Mar. 8, 1957,
p. 1-B.
[375] _Record_, May 2, 1957.
[376] _State_, Aug. 6, 1957, p. 1; Sept. 10, 1957, p. 1;
_Record_, Aug. 6, 1957, p. 1.
[377] _Record_, Sept. 21, 1957, p. 10-A.
[378] Radio WIS broadcast, Sept. 14, 1957.
[379] _State_, Sept. 21, 1957, p. 3-B.
[380] _Morning News_, Sept. 24, 1957, p. 4.
[381] _Record_, Jan. 10, 1958, p. 1; _State_, Jan. 11,
1958, p. 1; Baltimore _Afro-American_, Jan. 11, 1958, p. 2.
[382] _State_, Jan. 1, 1958, p. 1; Jan. 3, 1958, p. 1;
_Record_, Jan. 2, 1958, p. 1; _New York Times_, Jan. 3,
1958, p. 14.
[383] _Record_, Jan. 10, 1958, p. 1; _State_, Jan. 11,
1958, p. 1; _News and Courier_, Jan. 11, 1958, p. 1-B.
[384] _Record_, Jan. 15, 1958, p. 8-B. On April 9 the South
Carolina general assembly provided for a 6 man committee,
3 members from the Senate and 3 from the House, to probe
Communism and Communist activities in the state. _Ibid._,
April 9, 1958.
[385] U.P. Wire, Jan. 16, 1958.
[386] _State_, Jan. 16, 1958, p. 1; _ibid._, Jan. 17, 1958,
p. 1-B; _ibid._, Jan. 23, 1958, p. 8-A; _Record_, Jan. 17,
1958, p. 3-A.
[387] _State_, Jan. 16, 1958, p. 1; _Record_, Jan. 17,
1958, p. 3-A.
[388] _State_, Jan. 17, 1958, p. 1-B.
[389] _Record_, Jan. 29, 1958, pp. 1, 6-A.
[390] _State_, Feb. 5, 1958, p. 8-B; Feb. 8, 1958, p. 1-B;
Feb. 4, 1958, p. 9-B; _Record_, Feb. 1, 1958, p. 10-A.
[391] _Record_, Feb. 14, 1958, p. 6-A; Feb. 20, 1958, p. 1;
_State_, Feb. 25, 1958, p. 9-A.
[392] _News and Courier_, Dec. 1, 1955, p. 1-B; Dec. 2,
1955, p. 8-A.
[393] S. C. Senate _Journal_ (1956), pp. 226-227.
[394] _News and Courier_, Apr. 28, 1956, p. 1.
[395] _Record_, Apr. 23, 1956, p. 1; Apr. 26, 1956, p. 4-A;
_Morning News_, Apr. 24, 1956, p. 1.
[396] _Morning News_, Apr. 24, 1956, p. 3; _News and
Courier_, Dec. 8, 1955, p. 8-A; S. C. House _Journal_
(1956), p. 15.
[397] _Independent_, July 24, 1955, p. 1; July 25, 1955, p.
3; Aug. 18, 1955, p. 1.
[398] _State_, June 26, 1957, p. 4-A.
CHAPTER VIII
[399] _News and Courier_, Feb. 14, 1956, p. 8-A; Sept. 15,
1956, p. 9-A.
[400] _Independent_, Mar. 11, 1956, p. 2.
[401] _Ibid._, May 26, 1954, p. 3; May 27, 1954, p. 22.
[402] _Morning News_, May 2, 1954, p. 1.
[403] _Independent_, May 9, 1954, p. 28; May 16, 1955, p.
22; May 19, 1954, p. 2; _Morning News_, May 2, 1954, p. 1.
[404] Quoted in _Independent_, June 3, 1954, p. 18.
[405] _Record_, May 22, 1954, p. 4-A.
[406] _News and Courier_, Jan. 9, 1956, p. 12; July 31,
1956, p. 8-A.
[407] _Record_, Apr. 23, 1955, p. 4-A.
[408] _News and Courier_, Mar. 10, 1956, p. 1-B.
[409] _Morning News_, Oct. 11, 1956, p. 4-A.
[410] _Ibid._, Mar. 6, 1956, p. 1.
[411] _Ibid._, Mar. 27, 1956, p. 1.
[412] S. C. House _Journal_ (1956), pp. 1303-1304.
[413] _Record_, Mar. 22, 1956, p. 11-C.
[414] _Ibid._, June 20, 1956, p. 1; July 16, 1956, p. 10-A.
[415] _Ibid._, Aug. 2, 1956, p. 1; Aug. 3, 1956, p. 4-A.
[416] _Morning News_, July 13, 1956, p. 4-A.
[417] _News and Courier_, June 26, 1956, p. 8-A.
[418] _Record_, Aug. 3, 1956, p. 4-A.
[419] _Independent_, Aug. 11, 1956, pp. 1, 3.
[420] _Morning News_, Aug. 16, 1956, p. 2-A.
[421] _News and Courier_, Aug. 16, 1956, p. 16-A; Aug. 21,
1956, p. 8-A.
[422] _Record_, Aug. 17, 1956, p. 4-A.
[423] _News and Courier_, Aug. 19, 1956, p. 14-A; _Record_,
Oct. 31, 1956, p. 4.
[424] _Independent_, Aug. 17, 1956, p. 4; Aug. 18, 1956, p.
4.
[425] _Morning News_, Aug. 28, 1956, p. 1.
[426] _News and Courier_, Aug. 28, 1956, pp. 1, 8-A.
[427] _Independent_, Feb. 10, 1956, p. 4; Mar. 7, 1956, p.
4.
[428] _Morning News_, Mar. 21, 1956, p. 4; June 26, 1956,
p. 4; Aug. 22, 1956, p. 4.
[429] _News and Courier_, Mar. 11, 1956, p. 14-A; May 23,
1956, p. 12-A; June 25, 1956, p. 6-A; Aug. 2, 1956, p.
14-A; Aug. 9, 1956, p. 14-A; Aug. 24, 1956, p. 12-A.
[430] _Ibid._, Aug. 23, 1956, p. 8-A.
[431] Quotations in order are from _News and Courier_, Aug.
26, 1956, p. 15-A; Aug. 30, 1956, p. 17-A; Sept. 1, 1956,
p. 6-A; Sept. 9, 1956, p. 12-A; Sept. 14, 1956, p. 12-A;
Aug. 27, 1956 p. 7-A; Aug. 28, 1956, p. 10-A; Sept. 2,
1956, p. 11-A.
[432] _Independent_, June 6, 1956, p. 8.
[433] _Morning News_, Aug. 28, 1956, p. 1; _News and
Courier_, Aug. 28, 1956, p. 1.
[434] _News and Courier_, Oct. 2, 1956, p. 8-A.
[435] _Ibid._, Oct. 4, 1956, p. 1; Sept. 21, 1956, p. 1.
[436] _Record_, Oct. 25, 1956, p. 2-B.
[437] _Morning News_, Sept. 28, 1956, p. 6-B.
[438] _News and Courier_, Oct. 17, 1956, p. 10-A; Oct. 22,
1956, p. 6-A.
[439] _Independent_, Nov. 4, 1956, p. 28; Oct. 31, 1956,
p. 11; _News and Courier_, Oct. 28, 1956, p. 4-C; Nov. 4,
1956, p. 12-A.
[440] _Morning News_, Oct. 27, 1956, p. 2-A; _News and
Courier_, Oct. 28, 1956, p. 14-A; _Independent_, Oct. 27,
1956, p. 1.
[441] _Record_, Aug. 31, 1956, p. 3-A; _News and Courier_,
Sept. 3, 1956, p. 6-A; Oct. 24, 1956, p. 10-A.
[442] _Independent_, June 7, 1956, p. 4; Oct. 19, 1956, p.
4; Oct. 24, 1956, p. 4.
[443] _Ibid._, Oct. 19, 1956, p. 4.
[444] _Ibid._, Oct. 21, 1956, p. 28; _Morning News_, Oct.
9, 1956, p. 8; Nov. 2, 1956, p. 9-B.
[445] _Independent_, Oct. 31, 1956, p. 10; Nov. 2, 1956, p.
5.
[446] Open letter from South Carolina Republican Party,
signed by Oscar W. Pitts, chairman, undated.
[447] _Morning News_, Nov. 1, 1956, p. 1.
[448] _Ibid._, Oct. 31, 1956, p. 2.
[449] _News and Courier_, Oct. 22, 1956, p. 8-A.
[450] _Ibid._, Nov. 14, 1956, p. 12-A.
[451] _Morning News_, Nov. 8, 1956, p. 9-A.
[452] _News and Courier_, Jan. 16, 1957, p. 1-B. At the
state Democratic Party Convention on March 25, 1958, the
“Independent” faction made a bid to capture the party
chairmanship but was decisively defeated.
[453] _State_, Nov. 27, 1956, p. 6-B.
CHAPTER IX
[454] _News and Courier_, July 18, 1955, p. 6-A; Sept. 21,
1956, p. 15-A; Mar. 27, 1957, p. 10-A.
[455] _Morning News_, July 1, 1956, p. 4-A.
[456] _News and Courier_, June 30, 1956, p. 10-A.
[457] _Ibid._, June 17, 1955, p. 12-A.
[458] _Ibid._, Jan. 26, 1957, p. 1-B.
[459] _Ibid._, Jan. 30, 1956, p. 12.
[460] _Ibid._, Apr. 15, 1955, p. 12-A.
[461] _Ibid._, May 12, 1956, p. 1; July 3, 1954.
[462] _Ibid._, Nov. 20, 1954, p. 14.
[463] _State_, July 15, 1957, p. 4.
[464] _News and Courier_, Aug. 1, 1957, p. 8-A.
[465] _Ibid._, Aug. 27, 1957, p. 8-A.
[466] _State_, Aug. 20, 1957, p. 4-A.
[467] _News and Courier_, Dec. 13, 1954, p. 8-A; July 3,
1955, p. 14-A; May 8, 1955, p. 14-A.
[468] _Ibid._, Mar. 3, 1955, p. 14-A; Dec. 18, 1956, p.
10-A.
[469] _Ibid._, Jan. 30, 1956, p. 12.
[470] _Ibid._, Aug. 2, 1956, p. 12.
[471] _Ibid._, Sept. 24, 1957, p. 8-A.
[472] _State_, Oct. 2, 1957, p. 1.
[473] _News and Courier_, May 8, 1955, p. 14-A; Oct. 29,
1954, p. 4-A.
[474] _Ibid._, July 13, 1955, p. 10-A; Feb. 19, 1956, p.
4-A; _Independent_, Mar. 11, 1956, p. 4.
[475] _News and Courier_, July 6, 1955, p. 1.
[476] _Ibid._, July 23, 1955, p. 4-A.
[477] _Ibid._, Sept. 24, 1957, p. 10-A. Much to the disgust
of many members of the faculty, the University of South
Carolina awarded David Lawrence an honorary degree in June,
1957.
[478] _Ibid._, Feb. 1, 1957, p. 1-B.
[479] _Record_, Apr. 9, 1956, p. 1.
[480] _Independent_, Apr. 10, 1956, p. 1; Apr. 13, 1956, p.
4; _News and Courier_, Apr. 11, 1956, p. 10-A.
[481] _News and Courier_, Feb. 6, 1957, pp. 1, 15-A; Feb.
27, 1957, p. 1.
[482] _Ibid._, Feb. 27, 1957, p. 1; Feb. 15, 1957, p. 1.
[483] _Ibid._, Feb. 28, 1957, p. 6-A.
[484] See Walter F. Murphy, “Some Strange New Converts to
the Cause of Civil Rights,” _Reporter_, (June 27, 1957), 13.
[485] Douglass Cater, “How the Senate Passed the
Civil-Rights Bill,” _ibid._ (Sept. 5, 1957), 9.
[486] _State_, Aug. 12, 1957, p. 1-B; Aug. 24, 1957, p. I;
_Independent_, Aug. 29, 1957, p. 1.
[487] _State_, Aug. 28, 1957, p. 1-B.
[488] _Ibid._, p. 1; Record, Aug. 28, 1957, p. 1.
[489] _Record_, Aug. 30, 1957, p. 1.
[490] _New York Times_, Aug. 31, 1957, p. 1; _State_, Aug.
30, 1957, p. 1; _Record_, Aug. 30, 1957, p. 1. Thurmond
maintained that only purpose of the filibuster “was to
arouse the American people.” He denied that he had broken
any agreement with his fellow Southern senators. He
contended that the caucus had agreed against an organized
filibuster but permitted each individual Senator to “oppose
the bill in his own way.” According to Thurmond, “Senator
Russell said it would be up to each Senator as to how long
he would talk, so a Senator was free to make a long speech
if he chose to do so. I chose to make a long one and told
Senator Russell in his office the following Wednesday that
I was going to make a long speech face.... I spoke 24 hours
and 20 minutes and do not think it was too long to talk
against such a dangerous bill.” _State_, Sept. 5, 1957, p.
1-D. Senator Johnston, nettled by the filibuster of his
colleague, sent out a circular letter to constituents which
by indirection slapped hard at Thurmond. Without comment
of his own, Johnston referred to the various criticisms of
Thurmond’s action made by his Senatorial colleagues from
the South.
[491] _Record_, Aug. 31, 1957, p. 1; _News and Courier_,
Aug. 31, 1957, p. 1.
[492] _News and Courier_, Aug. 31, 1957, p. 8-A; _Morning
News_, Aug. 31, 1957, p. 4; _State_, Aug. 30, 1957, p. 4-A.
[493] _Independent_, Aug. 31, 1957, p. 4.
[494] _Record_, Aug. 30, 1957, p. 3; _News and Courier_,
Aug. 31, 1957, p. 1.
[495] _State_, Sept. 26, 1957, p. 4-A. The _Record_
entitled its editorial comment on President Eisenhower’s
sending of troops to Little Rock: “General Eisenhower
Succumbs to Hysteria,” Sept. 25, 1957, p. 4-A. “Governor
Faubus chose to follow the course of ultimate legal
resistance. He made it clear that he would exhaust all
avenues of appeal to overturn the injunction,” commented
the _Morning News_, Sept. 22, 1957, p. 4. The _Independent_
praised Governor Faubus for standing up to the pressure of
Winthrop Rockefeller and other Arkansas businessmen who
allegedly tried to get him to submit to integration without
resistance and thus not discourage industrialists from
investing in Arkansas. The _Independent_ termed them the
“Don’t Rock-the-Boat-Crowd.” Sept. 17, 1957, p. 4; _ibid._,
Sept. 25, 1957, p. 4. Of South Carolina newspapers only
the weekly Cheraw _Chronicle_, which has been an editorial
voice of moderation in the state, censured Faubus.
“Whatever his motives, Governor Faubus must be curbed,” it
asserted. Quoted in _News and Courier_, Sept. 23, 1957, p.
12.
[496] _Record_, Sept. 28, 1957, p. 1. State Senator James
Hugh McFaddin of Clarendon County also resigned his
commission in the U. S. Army Reserve. In a letter to
President Eisenhower he wrote: “In good conscience I could
not obey the orders now being issued by you to bayonet
innocent people and to force school children to eat lunch
with undesirables, when the lunch is paid for by their
parents.” _Ibid._, Sept. 30, 1957, p. 1.
[497] _State_, Sept. 27, 1957, p. 1.
[498] _Ibid._, Sept. 25, 1957, p. 1-B. The _Washington
Post and Times Herald_ editorially blasted Johnston for
his remarks which it considered as seditious in character.
Cited in _Record_, Sept. 27, 1957, p. 3-A.
[499] _State_, Sept. 27, 1957, p. 1.
[500] _Ibid._, Sept. 26, 1957, p. 1-B.
[501] _Ibid._, p. 1.
[502] _Ibid._, p. 1-B.
[503] _Ibid._, Oct. 7, 1957, p. 1-B.
[504] _News and Courier_, May 17, 1956, p. 1-B.
[505] _Independent_, Mar. 29, 1956, p. 4.
[506] _Ibid._, May 14, 1956, p. 4.
[507] _News and Courier_, Feb. 25, 1956, p. 8-A;
_Independent_, Dec. 13, 1955, p. 8.
[508] _News and Courier_, Sept. 3, 1957, p. 10-A.
[509] _News and Courier_, Apr. 4, 1955, p. 12; July 1,
1956, p. 14-B; Mar. 8, 1955, p. 8-A.
[510] _Morning News_, Mar. 3, 1955, p. 8-A.
[511] _News and Courier_, Oct. 4, 1956, p. 1-B; Jan. 15,
1957, p. 1-B.
[512] _Ibid._, Jan. 16, 1957, p. 1-B.
[513] _Ibid._, Apr. 13, 1958, p. 10-B.
CHAPTER X
[514] _Morning News_, Feb. 26, 1956, p. 4.
[515] _Record_, Oct. 5, 1956, p. 1.
[516] _News and Courier_, May 30, 1954, p. 4-A; July 18,
1955, p. 6-A; Aug. 24, 1955, p. 10-A; Oct. 6, 1955, p. 6-A;
Feb. 2, 1956, p. 14-A.
[517] _Ibid._, Aug. 29, 1955, p. 6-A.
[518] _Ibid._, Mar. 16, 1956, p. 16-A; June 20, 1956, p.
12-A.
[519] _Ibid._, Aug. 10, 1955, p. 1-B.
[520] _Independent_, July 10, 1954, p. 2.
[521] _Record_, May 24, 1954, p. 12-A.
[522] _News and Courier_, Feb. 5, 1956, p. 5-D.
[523] _Record_, July 2, 1957, p. 1.
[524] _Morning News_, July 16, 1957, p. 1.
[525] _South Carolinians Speak: A Moderate Approach to Race
Relations_ (Dillon, S.C., 1958).
[526] _Record_, Nov. 20, 1957, p. 1-A.
[527] _News and Courier_, Oct. 23, 1957, p. 10-A.
[528] _South Carolinians Speak_, p. 72.
[529] _Ibid._, p. 69.
[530] _Record_, Nov. 20, 1957, p. 1.
[531] _Ibid._, Dec. 7, 1957, p. 1.
[532] _State_, Nov. 28, 1957, p. 9-A.
[533] _Ibid._, Jan. 4, 1958, p. 1-B; _Record_, Jan. 13,
1958, p. 2.
[534] _Ibid._, May 19, 1954, p. 4; Feb. 5, 1956, p. 5-D;
Mar. 26, 1957, p. 5.
[535] _Ibid._, Feb. 5, 1956, p. 5-D.
[536] _Morning News_, Dec. 5, 1956, p. 6; _News and
Courier_, Aug. 8, 1955, p. 7-A; Oct. 12, 1954, p. 4-A;
Sept. 3, 1955, p. 6-A.
[537] This summary of the Travelstead affair was taken
largely from Chester C. Travelstead, “Turmoil in the Deep
South,” _School and Society_, LXXXIII (Apr. 28, 1956),
143-147; and Harry L. Golden, “No Dissent in Dixie,”
_Nation_, CLXXXI (Dec. 17, 1955), inside cover page.
[538] This summary of student reaction was taken from the
_Gamecock_ (University of South Carolina), Dec. 2, 1955, p.
2; Dec. 9, 1955, pp. 2, 6.
[539] _News and Courier_, Nov. 25, 1955, p. 12-A.
[540] _Morning News_, Nov. 26, 1955, p. 4.
[541] _Ibid._, May 13, 1954, p. 4; June 2, 1955, p. 4-A;
June 3, 1955, p. 4-A; June 17, 1955, p. 4-A; Jan. 29, 1956,
p. 4-A; May 2, 1956, p. 10.
[542] _Ibid._, Feb. 26, 1956, p. 4.
[543] “Retreat from Reason,” _Time_, LXVII (Apr. 2, 1956),
85.
[544] _Morning News_, Mar. 11, 1956, p. 4-A.
[545] _Ibid._, Apr. 1, 1956, p. 4-A.
[546] _News and Courier_, Mar. 30, 1956, p. 12-A; Nov. 26,
1956, p. 6-A.
CHAPTER XI
[547] Francis B. Simkins, “Tolerating the South’s Past,”
_Journal of Southern History_, XXI (Feb. 1955), 5.
[548] Herbert R. Sass, “Mixed Schools and Mixed Blood,”
_Atlantic Monthly_, CXCVIII (Nov. 1956), 45-49.
[549] _News and Courier_, Sept. 3, 1955, p. 6-A.
[550] _Ibid._, Apr. 24, 1955, p. 10-A.
[551] Franz Boaz, _Race, Language, Culture_ (New York,
Macmillan Co., 1940), pp. 19-21.
[552] _News and Courier_, Apr. 14, 1955, p. 16-A; Sept. 6,
1955, p. 9-A.
[553] _Morning News_, Feb. 28, 1956, p. 10.
[554] _News and Courier_, May 8, 1955, p. 14-A; Feb. 19,
1955, p. 12-A; Feb. 25, 1956, p. 8-A.
[555] _Ibid._, July 3, 1955, p. 14-A; July 14, 1954, p. 4.
[556] _Record_, Aug. 20, 1954, p. 4-A; May 20, 1954, p. 4-A.
[557] _News and Courier_, Feb. 27, 1956, p. 12; _Record_,
July 7, 1956, p. 4-A.
[558] _Morning News_, Dec. 16, 1956, p. 11-A; _News and
Courier_, Dec. 10, 1954, p. 12-A.
[559] _News and Courier_, Dec. 13, 1954, p. 8-A.
[560] _Ibid._, July 7, 1955, p. 15-A; Sept. 5, 1954, p. 8-A.
[561] _Morning News_, Dec. 16, 1956, p. 11-A.
[562] _News and Courier_, June 26, 1954, p. 4.
APPENDIX
The following is the text of the decision, read by
Chief Justice Earl Warren, in the case of _Briggs
v. Elliott_ (in conjunction with cases from Kansas,
Virginia and Delaware) on May 17, 1954:
These cases come to us from the States of Kansas, South Carolina,
Virginia, and Delaware. They are premised on different facts and
different local conditions, but a common legal question justifies their
consideration together in this consolidated opinion.
In each of the cases, minors of the Negro race, through their legal
representatives, seek the aid of the courts in obtaining admission to
the public schools of their community on a nonsegregated basis. In each
instance, they had been denied admission to schools attended by white
children under laws requiring or permitting segregation according to
race. This segregation was alleged to deprive the plaintiffs of the
equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment. In each of
the cases other than the Delaware case, a three-judge federal district
court denied relief to the plaintiffs on the so-called “separate but
equal” doctrine announced by this Court in _Plessy v. Ferguson_, 163
U.S. 537. Under that doctrine, equality of treatment is accorded when
the races are provided substantially equal facilities, even though
these facilities be separate. In the Delaware case, the Supreme Court
of Delaware adhered to that doctrine, but ordered that the plaintiffs
be admitted to the white schools because of their superiority to the
Negro schools.
The plaintiffs contend that segregated public schools are not “equal”
and cannot be made “equal,” and that hence they are deprived of the
equal protection of the laws. Because of the obvious importance of the
question presented the Court took jurisdiction. Argument was heard in
the 1952 Term, and reargument was heard this Term on certain questions
propounded by the Court.
Reargument was largely devoted to the circumstances surrounding the
adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. It covered exhaustively
consideration of the Amendment in Congress, ratification by the states,
then existing practices in racial segregation, and the views of
proponents and opponents of the Amendment. This discussion and our own
investigation convinced us that although these sources cast some light,
it is not enough to resolve the problem with which we are faced. At
best, they are inconclusive. The most avid proponents of the post-War
Amendments undoubtedly intended them to remove all legal distinctions
among “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.” Their
opponents, just as certainly, were antagonistic to both the letter and
the spirit of the Amendments and wished them to have the most limited
effect. What others in Congress and the state legislatures had in mind
cannot be determined with any degree of certainty.
An additional reason for the inconclusive nature of the Amendment’s
history, with respect to segregated schools, is the status of public
education at that time. In the South, the movement toward free common
schools, supported by general taxation, had not yet taken hold.
Education of white children was largely in the hands of private
groups. Education of Negroes was almost nonexistent, and practically
all of the race were illiterate. In fact, any education of Negroes
was forbidden by law in some states. Today, in contrast, many Negroes
have achieved outstanding success in the arts and sciences as well
as in the business and professional world. It is true that public
education had already advanced further in the North, but the effect
of the Amendment on Northern States was generally ignored in the
congressional debates. Even in the North, the conditions of public
education did not approximate those existing today. The curriculum
was usually rudimentary; ungraded schools were common in rural areas;
the school term was but three months a year in many states; and
compulsory school attendance was virtually unknown. As a consequence,
it is not surprising that there should be so little in the history of
the Fourteenth Amendment relating to its intended effect on public
education.
In the first cases in this Court construing the Fourteenth Amendment,
decided shortly after its adoption, the Court interpreted it as
proscribing all state-imposed discriminations against the Negro race.
The doctrine of “separate but equal” did not make its appearance in
this Court until 1896 in the case of _Plessy v. Ferguson_, _supra_,
involving not education but transportation. American courts have since
labored with the doctrine for over half a century. In this Court, there
have been six cases involving the “separate but equal” doctrine in the
field of public education. In _Cumming v. County Board of Education_,
175 U.S. 528, and _Gong Lum v. Rice_, 275 U.S. 78, the validity of the
doctrine itself was not challenged. In more recent cases, all on the
graduate school level, inequality was found in that specific benefits
enjoyed by white students were denied to Negro students of the same
educational qualifications. _Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada_, 305.
U.S. 337; _Sipuel v. Oklahoma_, 332 U.S. 631; _Sweatt v. Painter_, 339
U.S. 629; _McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents_, 339 U.S. 637. In none
of these cases was it necessary to re-examine the doctrine to grant
relief to the Negro plaintiff. And in _Sweatt v. Painter_, _supra_, the
Court expressly reserved decision on the question whether _Plessy v.
Ferguson_ should be held inapplicable to public education.
In the instant cases, that question is directly presented. Here, unlike
_Sweatt v. Painter_, there are findings below that the Negro and
white schools involved have been equalized, or are being equalized,
with respect to buildings, curricula, qualifications and salaries of
teachers, and other “tangible” factors. Our decision, therefore, cannot
turn on merely a comparison of these tangible factors in the Negro and
white schools involved in each of the cases. We must look instead to
the effect of segregation itself on public education.
In approaching this problem, we cannot turn the clock back to 1868 when
the Amendment was adopted, or even to 1896 when _Plessy v. Ferguson_
was written. We must consider public education in the light of its
full development and its present place in American life throughout the
Nation. Only in this way can it be determined if segregation in public
schools deprives these plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws.
Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and
local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great
expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the
importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in
the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service
in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship.
Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural
values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in
helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is
doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life
if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity,
where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be
made available to all on equal terms.
We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in
public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical
facilities and other “tangible” factors may be equal, deprive the
children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We
believe that it does.
In _Sweatt v. Painter_, _supra_, in finding that a segregated
law school for Negroes could not provide them equal educational
opportunities, this Court relied in large part on “those qualities
which are incapable of objective measurement but which make for
greatness in a law school.” In _McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents_,
_supra_, the Court, in requiring that a Negro admitted to a white
graduate school be treated like all other students, again resorted to
intangible considerations:
“... his ability to study, to engage in discussions and exchange views
with other students, and, in general, to learn his profession.” Such
considerations apply with added force to children in grade and high
schools. To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications
solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to
their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds
in a way unlikely ever to be undone. The effect of this separation
on their educational opportunities was well stated by a finding in
the Kansas case by a court which nevertheless felt compelled to rule
against the Negro plaintiffs:
“Segregation of white and colored children in public
schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children.
The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the
law; for the policy of separating the races is usually
interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the Negro group.
A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to
learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has
a tendency to retard the educational and mental development
of Negro children and to deprive them of some of the
benefits they would receive in a racially integrated school
system.”
Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the
time of _Plessy v. Ferguson_, this finding is amply supported by modern
authority. Any language in _Plessy v. Ferguson_ contrary to this
finding is rejected.
We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of
“separate but equal” has no place. Separate educational facilities
are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and
others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are,
by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal
protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. This
disposition makes unnecessary any discussion whether such segregation
also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Because these are class actions, because of the wide applicability of
this decision and because of the great variety of local conditions, the
formulation of decrees in these cases presents problems of considerable
complexity. On reargument, the consideration of appropriate relief was
necessarily subordinated to the primary question--the constitutionality
of segregation in public education. We have now announced that such
segregation is a denial of the equal protection of the laws. In order
that we may have the full assistance of the parties in formulating
decrees, the cases will be restored to the docket, and the parties are
requested to present further argument on Questions 4 and 5 previously
propounded by the Court for reargument this Term. The Attorney General
of the United States is again invited to participate. The Attorneys
General of the states requiring or permitting segregaion in public
education will also be permitted to appear as _amici curiae_ upon
request to do so by September 15, 1954, and submission of briefs by
October 1, 1954.
INDEX
A
Adams, Sherman, 159
AFL-CIO, 51, 185, 187, 189, 141, 168, 164, 166
Agnew, E. H., 27, 84, 96
Allen University, 116-124
American Association of University Professors, 119-120
American Civil Liberties Union, 165
American Council of Education, 101
_American Dilemma_, 22, 27
American Educators, Incorporated, 88, 45
Americans For Democratic Action, 136, 138, 141
Anti-Defamation League, 89
Anti-Semitism, 40, 43, 86
Armstrong, Ben J., 74
Ashmore, Robert J., 26-27, 49, 101
Association for Preservation of Southern Traditions, 88
Association of School Administrators, 99
Atkins, Alford, 79
_Atlantic Monthly_, 80, 181
Atomic Energy Commission, 102
B
Bacoats, J. A., 124, 125
Ball, W. W., 2
Ballard, L. B., 179
Baptist Church, 60-61
Baruch, Bernard, 39
Bass, Jack, 177
Bates, Lester, 129-130
Bates, W. T. C., 53
Batista, Fulgencio, 149
Bellinger, G. Duncan, 37
Benedict College, 122, 124-125
Bethune, Mary McLeod, 110
Bickley, J. H., 39, 40, 41, 192
Blackman, Mrs. S. L., 182
Blake, C. E., 160
Blatt, Solomon, 95
Blease, Cole, 9, 189
Blease, Eugene S., 27
Boas, Franz, 182
Bob Jones University, 65
Bonner, I. H., 118, 119, 120, 121, 123
Booker, Harold, 139
Bostwick, Margaret, 67
Bowles, Bryant, 12, 42-43
Bowling, H. L., 193
Boyette, Luther E., 178
Boyle, Gaston, 64
Brabham, A. McKay, Jr., 57
Brabham, P. Eugene, 100
Bragg, W. W., 34
Brailsford, James M., 41
Brameld, Theodore, 27
Breeland, Richard, 103
Brown, Edgar, 128
Brown, Gary, 196
Brown, Giles G., 76
Brown, Millie Lewis, 41
_Brown vs. Baskin_, 4, 5-6
Brownell, Herbert, 19, 22, 25, 129, 142, 158, 159, 161
Bryant, Herbert, 177
Buchanan, George, 28
Bulganin, Nikolai A., 140
Bunche, Ralph J., 110
Byrd, E. L., 44, 56, 64
Byrd, Harry F., 187, 189
Byrnes, James F., 4, 8, 15-16, 17, 22, 27, 31, 33, 50, 83, 93, 96,
100, 101-102, 140, 141, 147, 161, 167, 170
C
Calhoun, John C., 1, 21, 38, 63-64, 79, 105, 109, 137, 143, 150, 184
Callison, T. C., 18, 19, 22, 25-26, 42, 86, 117, 126, 168
Cardozo, Benjamin N., 12
Carr, Robert K., 119-120
Carroll, David D., 128-129
Catholic Church, 52
Central High School (Little Rock), 159, 160
Chalmers, Allen Knight, 110
_Cheraw Chronicle_, 172, 208
_Chicago Daily News_, 148-149
_Chicago Sun-Times_, 180
Childs, Margaretta P., 48
_Christian Advocate_, 169
Christian Council on Human Relations, 169
Citadel, The, 125, 178
Citizens Council, 32, 37, 38, 41, 45-53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 63, 64, 65,
75, 83, 84, 86, 89, 92, 98, 105, 132, 187, 188, 189, 164, 169,
170, 171, 192-193
_Citizens Council, The_, 48
Civil Rights Act (1957), 154-158, 163
Civil Rights Bill (1956), 154
Clarendon County Case (Briggs _et al_ vs Elliott, _et al_), 10,
12-20, 21, 28, 76-77, 81, 82, 90, 94, 95, 189
Clarendon County Civic League, 74
Clark, H. B., 29, 68
Clark, Mark, 125-126, 137
Clement, A. J., Jr., 71, 81, 90, 96
Clemson College, 11, 102-103
Cleveland, Grover, 137
Coker, Robert R., 27
Colvin, E. E., 38, 66, 79
Committee of 52, 27-28
Communism (including Communist Party), 24, 28, 39, 40, 43, 44, 45,
57, 62, 65, 67, 102, 111, 121, 122, 123, 124, 131, 132, 138,
140, 147, 168, 196, 200
“Concerned South Carolinians”, 170-173
Cook, Eugene, 112
Cook, Pierce E., 57-58
Corbit. Lynn. 62
Cousins. Norman, 110
Cousins, Ralph, 170
Crawford, Leon, 143
Criswell, W. A., 60-61
Crosswell, W. M., 193
Crow, E. Ryan, 93, 185
Cruell, Claude and Fannie, 40-41
Culbertson, John Bolt, 174
D
Dabbs, James M., 173-174
Dabbs, Mrs. James M., 170, 173
Daniels, G. G., 76
Davies, Ronald N., 109-110, 158, 161
Davis, Henry E., 86, 98
Davis, James B., 66
Davis, John W., 18
Debnam, W. E., 152
DeLaine, J. A., 86
Democratic National Convention (1936), 6, 7;
(1956) 113
Democratic Party, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15, 22, 24, 80, 128, 130,
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142,
143, 144, 161, 165
Dewey, Thomas, 25, 142
Dixiecrats, 131, 133, 134, 138
Dobie, Armisted M., 17, 20
Dorn, William Jennings Bryan, 6, 27, 49, 142, 146, 155, 156
Douglas, W. Ernest, 174
Dulles, John Foster, 25
E
Eastland, James O., 27, 50
Edisto Beach State Park, 88, 104, 127
_Education and Race Relations_, 34
Edwards, B. M., 124
Edwards, E. L., 26, 39
Eisenhower, Dwight D., 8, 23, 26, 39, 95, 105, 131, 138, 140, 142,
143, 154, 157, 158, 161, 164, 208, 204
Ellis, R. Archie, 124
Elmore, George, 5, 82
Episcopal Church, 61-62
Evans, J. Claude, 169, 170
Evans, J. Walker, 85
F
Faubus, Orval, 109, 158, 160, 161, 203
Federal aid to education, 99-100, 102-103, 198
Federal Bureau of Investigation, 121
Federation for Constitutional Government, 38, 45, 137
F.E.P.C., 134, 135, 139
Fielding-Reid, Francis, 185
Figg, Robert McC., 13, 14, 20
Fitzhugh, George, 79
Flemming, Sarah Mae, 126
For America, 45
Ford Foundation, 13
Ford, Henry, II, 40
Fort Jackson, 102, 157
Frazier, E. Franklin, 27
Fugitive Slave Law, 105
Fund for the Republic, 169
G
Gallup Poll, 72-73
_Gamecock, The_, 176-177
Garrett, Charles G., 89
Gaud, Henry, 143
Gentry, John T., 114
George, Walter, 136
Goebbels, Joseph., 186
Golden, Harry, 91
Grant, Ulysses S., 25
Grass Roots League, 24, 38, 44-45, 137
Graydon, Clint T., 155
Gressette, L. Marion, 17, 77, 79, 95, 107, 109, 122, 161-162
Gressette School Segregation Committee, 17, 93, 96-97, 103, 105, 115,
147, 161
Grimball, William H., Jr., 114
Grossman, Fred, 150
Guerry, Edward B., 27, 65
Guess, Dorothy Moore, 168, 180
H
Haigh, Charles D., 81
Hammerstein, Oscar, II, 110
Hammond, James H., 26
Hampton, Wade, 129, 143
Handlin, Oscar, 30
Harlan, John Marshall, 26
Harman, H. Odelle, 63
Harmon, Nolan B., 59
_Harper’s_, 29-30, 72
Harrell, George S., 26, 108, 115
Harrelson, D. M., 174
Harrigan, Anthony, 172
Harriman, Averill, 136, 149
Hart, John Calhoun, 103, 112, 113, 115, 116, 164
Hartford Convention, 92, 105
Hastie, William, 110
Hemphill, Robert, 157
Herbert, R. Beverley, 27, 124, 172
Hilton, Henrietta, 73
Hilton, Leroy, 73
Hilton, Morgan, 73
Hilton, William, 73
Hinton, James M., 6, 22, 74, 76, 77, 80, 81, 82, 87, 110, 129, 180
Hitler, Adolf, 62, 150, 181, 183, 186
Hoffman, Edwin, 117-128
Holler, J. C., 59
Hollings, Ernest F., 31, 77, 86, 95, 97-98, 163
Holmes, J. Arthur, 76
Horlbeck, John M., 108, 114
Horn, Joseph, 170
Hughes, Jerry M., 58
Hutchins, Guy, 86-87
I
_Independent_ (Anderson), 23-24, 25, 26, 35, 42, 50, 66, 75, 77, 85,
101-102, 103, 107, 109, 111, 128, 133, 135, 136, 139, 140, 152,
154, 158, 160, 168, 203
Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance (Columbia), 76, 124
Interposition, 105-110
_Island in the Sun_, 115
Ivey, G. L., 43, 86, 88, 96
J
Jackson, Larry, 170
James, F. C., 121
James, William, 77
Jefferson, Thomas, 136, 137, 145
Jenkins, Micah, 44, 45, 47, 48, 137, 138
Jerome, Emmette, 169
Johnson, Lyndon, 136, 155, 157
Johnston, Olin D., 4, 6, 22, 50, 136, 143, 154, 156, 157, 160, 203,
204
Jones, Bob, 65
Jones, E. S., 58
K
Keels, Thomas D., 193
Kefauver, Estes, 40, 135, 136, 139, 140
Kennard, J. Spencer, 124, 125
Kilpatrick, James J., 105
King, Arthur Locke, 172
Knights of Columbus, 89
Knowland, William, 157
Ku Klux Klan, 7, 12, 26, 38-42, 46, 51, 87-88, 111, 112, 165, 178,
174, 179, 192
L
Lamb, J. Harold, 162
Lane, J. M., 64
Latimer, Samuel, 110, 149-150, 158
Lawrence, David, 147, 153, 202
Le Clerq, Fred, 177
Lee, J. Bracken, 137
Lee, Robert E., 92, 148
_Life_, 147
_Lighthouse and Informer_, 129, 180
Lincoln, Abraham, 142
Lines, Stiles B., 86-87
Little Rock Affair, 109-110, 148, 158-162, 178, 208
_Living Church, The_, 62
Long, John D., 162
_Look_, 147
Lutheran Church, 68
Lyles, John, 170
M
Mance, R. A., 120
Mann, Woodrow Wilson, 159, 160
Manning, Wyndham, 27
Mansfield, Mrs. E. R., 182-183
Marshall, Thurgood, 13-14, 15, 18, 51, 83, 88, 90
Martin, E. M., 174
Martin, Robert P., 178
Mason, E. R., 65, 86
Maybank, Burnet R., Jr., 50
Maybank, Burnet R., Sr., 4, 9, 22, 180
Mays, Benjamin E., 71, 110
Mdodana, P. B., 82
Meany, George, 164
_Mein Kampf_, 181
Mellette, Billy, 177
Mencken, H. L., 49
Methodist Church, 50-51, 55, 56-59
Methodist Church, Southeastern Jurisdiction, 55
Miller, Thomas R., 181
Mitchell, Clarence, 113, 183
Moore, Charles, 179
Moore, Fred, 54
Morehouse College, 71
_Morning News_ (Florence), 24, 25, 30-31, 33, 41-42, 43, 50, 56, 58,
67, 68, 71, 77, 84, 85, 88, 92, 96, 99, 101, 102, 106, 111,
113, 119, 133, 134, 135, 136, 139, 141, 145, 155, 158, 160,
167, 177, 178, 179, 180, 203
Morris, John B., 170, 178
Morris, W. A., 182
Morse, Stanley F., 24, 41, 86, 137, 182
Morse, Wayne, 157
Murray J. B., 57
Myrdal, Gunnar, 22, 26, 27, 89
Mc
“McCarthyism”, 111, 121
McClary, Webster, 75
McClung, Carolyn, 176
McCord, L. B., 24, 47, 57, 64
McCray, John, 6, 80, 124
McFaddin, James H., 54, 203-204
McFaddin, T. H., 98
McKinley, Carlyle, 2
McLaughlin, Mr. and Mrs. Carl B., 172
McMaster, J. G., 33
McMillan, John L., 50
McMillan, Lewis K., 11
McNair, Robert E., 155
McQueen, Cleveland M., 11
N
_Nation, The_, 12
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, 3, 5, 9,
10, 12, 13, 14, 17, 19, 22, 28, 30, 32, 36, 39, 40, 43, 45, 46,
50, 51, 52, 53, 58, 64, 65, 67, 68, 71, 74, 75, 77, 79, 80,
81-91, 96, 104, 110-111, 113, 116, 129, 130, 135, 137, 141,
142, 149, 150, 152, 159, 160, 163, 170, 171, 174, 179, 182,
183, 196
National Association for the Advancement of White People, 12, 38,
42-43, 96
National Council of Churches, 40, 52, 69
National Education Association, 101
Neff, Lawrence, 67
Negro Baptist State Convention, 76
Negro Citizens Committee of South Carolina, 187
_New York Herald Tribune_, 147, 148
_New York Times_, 32, 73, 147, 148, 149
_News and Courier_ (Charleston), 2, 7, 22-23, 24, 25, 26, 27-28, 29,
30, 31, 32, 33-34, 35, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 49, 50, 54, 56, 57,
63, 64, 67, 68-69, 72, 75, 77-78, 79, 84, 86, 87, 88, 92, 93,
96, 98, 99-100, 101, 102-103, 107, 108, 109, 112, 114, 116,
126, 128, 130-131, 132, 134, 135, 136-137, 139, 140, 141, 143,
145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 158,
159, 163-164, 167, 168, 169, 172, 177, 180, 182, 183, 184, 185,
186, 187
Niebuhr, Reinhold, 65
Nixon, Richard M., 112, 138, 142, 158, 159
O
O’Dowd, Jack H., 24, 30-31, 56, 58, 77, 85, 96, 99, 111, 136, 155,
167, 177, 178-180
Orangeburg boycotts, 51-54
Ott, E. Mitchell. 153-154
Oxnam, G. Bromley, 40
P
Palmetto Education Association, 73-74, 96, 199
Palmetto State Voters Association, 80-81, 148
Parker, Barrington, 142-143
Parker, John J., 13, 14, 20, 126
Patrick, J. J., 64-65
Peale, Norman Vincent, 68
Petit, Harold A., 186
Pierce, Bob, 149
Pitts, Oscar, 142
_Plessy vs. Ferguson_, 3, 22, 26, 126
Poag, Fred V., 64
Pollock, William, 164
Poole, Robert E., 102
Pope, Thomas H., 27, 155
Powell, Adam Clayton, 139, 142
Powell, Joe B., 180
Pridgen, Paul M., 68
Pritchett, Carl, 64
Progressive Democratic Party, 6-7, 73, 75, 80, 124
R
Randolph, A. Philip, 110
Rankin, Henry, 63
Ravenel, Arthur, Jr., 153
Rayburn, Sam, 136
Rea, C. A., 42
_Record_, (Columbia), 23, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 32, 34-35, 50, 54, 72,
76, 77, 81, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 101, 106, 109, 111-112,
114, 126, 131, 134, 135, 141, 160, 184, 185
Record, Wilson, 196
Reid, Frank Madison, 75-76
_Reporter, The_, 52
Republican Party, 8, 24, 128, 130, 131, 134, 137, 138, 141, 142, 143,
163
Reuther, Walter, 139, 165
_Rice vs. Elmore_, 4
Richards, James P., 106, 161, 171, 172
_Richmond News Leader_, 105
Rideout, John G., 117-123
Riley, E. P., 142
Riley, John J., 49, 50, 121
Rivers, L. Mendel, 45, 49, 50, 106, 131, 154, 157
Rochester, A. Marshall, 41
Rockefeller, Winthrop, 203
Rogers, James A., 31, 33, 77, 135, 136, 139, 140
Rogers, S. Emory, 13, 20, 46, 48, 55, 89, 106, 138
Roosevelt, Eleanor, 39, 139
Roosevelt, Franklin D., 8, 39, 130, 131, 135, 188
Rowell, Robert, 67
Ruppert, C. H., 151
Russell, Donald S., 100, 151-152, 175, 176
Russell, Richard B., 142, 203
Rutledge, Archibald, 69
S
Sanders, Claudia Thomas, 172, 173
Sanders, Dr. James H., 172
Sass, Herbert Ravenel, 27, 30, 181
Sass, M. H., 144
_Saturday Evening Post_, 147
School Boards Association, 99
Secrest, Andrew McDowd, 172
Shean, Maurice, 169
Siceloff, Courtney, 169
Simkins, Francis B., 9, 181
Simkins, Mojeska, 129
Sinkler, Huger, 25
Smith, Edna M., 68
Smith, Ellison D. (“Cotton Ed”), 6, 46, 138, 187
Smith, Ellison D., Jr., 27
Smith, Farley, 27, 46, 138, 144, 161
Smith, Lewis, 124, 125
_Smith vs. Allwright_, 4
Somersett, W. A., 165-166
South Carolina Citizens Committee, 74
South Carolina Conference of Education, 100
South Carolina Council on Human Relations, 169
South Carolina Education Association, 99, 175
South Carolina Electric and Gas Co., 126, 186
South Carolina Farm Bureau Federation, 34, 96
South Carolina Federation of Women’s Clubs, 99, 169
South Carolinians for Independent Electors (South Carolina
Independent Democrats), 80, 138-144, 161, 165
Southern Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools, 10
Southern Baptist Convention, 55, 60, 61
Southern Historical Association, 181
Southern Manifesto, 40, 169
Southern Methodist Church, 62-63
Southern Presbyterian Assembly, 55
Southern Regional Council, 169, 173
Spearman, Alice N., 169
Spingarn, Arthur B., 110
Spruill, James A., 155
Stafford, G. Jackson, 60, 174
Stalin, Joseph, 8
_Star_ (Marion), 130
_State_ (Columbia), 26, 102, 109-110, 127, 147-148, 149, 158, 160, 184
State Agricultural and Mechanical College for Negroes, 11, 53, 82,
95, 104, 111, 118, 128
State Board of Education, 116, 117-118, 120, 121, 123
State Law Enforcement Division, 53, 172-173
State Library Board, 104, 113, 114
States Rights League, 38, 43-44, 45
Stevens, Thaddeus, 25
Stevenson, Adlai, 131, 135, 139, 140, 143, 159
Stoney, Thomas P., 139
Strobel, Hydrick, 76
Stuckey, J. Henry, 114
Summers, S. J., Jr., 63
Supreme Court (United States), 3, 17-20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28,
29, 31, 32, 33, 35, 37, 38, 43, 44, 58, 60, 61, 62, 65, 72, 74,
76, 85, 86, 92, 93, 95, 96, 97, 98, 103, 104, 108, 111, 116,
123, 124, 125, 126, 128, 129, 131, 132, 134, 139, 144, 167,
169, 170, 171, 173, 175, 178, 183, 184, 185, 199
Surles, Flora Bell, 186
_Swimming Hole, The_, 113-114
Swinton, Sylvia, 117
_Syracuse Post-Standard_, 149
T
Taft, Robert A., 137
Taft-Hartley Act, 140, 188
Talmadge, Herman, 142
Textile Workers Union of America, 164
_Then My Old Kentucky Home Good Night_, 152
Thomas, Albert S., 27, 67
Thompson, Eldridge. 88, 192
Thurmond, J. Strom, 7, 8, 22, 26, 35, 50, 128, 134, 154, 155, 156,
157, 158, 203
Till, Emmett, 86
Tillman, Ben, 137
_Time_, 147, 148, 180
Timmerman, George Bell, Jr., 4, 31, 36, 42, 53-54, 60, 77, 80, 89,
90, 93-95, 100, 102, 106, 107, 108, 116-125, 129-130, 132, 133,
134, 147, 156-167, 158, 161, 171, 175
Timmerman, George Bell, Sr., 13, 14, 20, 60, 93, 126
Tobias, Channing, 83, 110
Toth, André, 117, 119
Travelstead, Chester C., 167, 175-177
Truax, Carlton, 25
Trujillo, Rafael Leonidas, 149
Truman, Harry S., 7, 8, 15, 29, 131, 139, 188
Turner, Benner C., 54, 95, 118
Turner, Sherwood, 40-41
Turnipseed, Barnwell Rhett, 59
U
Un-American Activities Committee, 27, 40, 110, 117, 124
United Church Women, 170
United Southern Employees Association, 165-166
University of Chicago, 180
University of South Carolina, 2, 11, 100, 118, 122, 123, 167, 174,
175, 176, 177, 202
_U. S. News and World Report_, 147, 158
V
Vanwright, James, 76
Veal, Frank, 117-118, 120, 121, 123
Victory Savings Bank, 52
Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, 105
W
Wallace, David Duncan, 7
Wallace, Lewis, 103
_Walterboro Press and Standard_, 111
Waring, George W., 45
Waring, J. Waties, 5-6, 7, 13, 15, 17, 188
Waring, Thomas R., 7, 23, 29-30, 46, 72, 126, 132, 148, 168, 183
Warr, O. L., 98
Warren, Earl, 19, 22, 23, 26, 142
Washington, Booker T., 77, 79
_Washington Post and Times-Herald_, 147, 204
Watson, Albert W., 114
Waugh, Alec, 115
We The People, 43
Wheeler, Paul, 124
_Weep No More My Lady_, 152
White, Walter, 14
Wiggins, Forrest O., 117-123
Williams, Norton, 28-29
Wilkes, Gilbert, 31-32, 79, 186
Wilkins, Roy, 84, 89
Williams, Ashton H., 88
Williams, G. Mennen, 136
Williams, John Bell, 139
Williams, Marshall, 79
Williams, Ransome J., 27
Wilson, Woodrow, 137
Woodson, M. A., 65
Workman, W. D., Jr., 24, 27, 28, 32, 35, 72, 77, 88, 93, 98, 108-109,
152-153
Wrighten, John, 11
Transcriber’s Note:
This book was written in a period when many words had not become
standardized in their spelling. Words may have multiple spelling
variations or inconsistent hyphenation in the text. These have been
left unchanged unless indicated below. Misspelled words were not
corrected.
Words and phrases in italics are surrounded by underscores, _like
this_. Footnotes were renumbered sequentially. Obvious printing errors,
such as backwards, upside down, or partially printed letters and
punctuation were corrected. Final stops missing at the end of sentences
and abbreviations were added. Duplicate letters at line endings were
removed.
The following was changed:
“as” to “is”: ... is, in itself, unconstitutional,...
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PROFILE IN BLACK AND WHITE ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when
you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has
agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
