Page 1 of 23
CHAPTER A WHITE PRIMARY 1944 – Ed Sebesta 10/10/2020 Texas state law prohibited African Americans from voting in primaries if the party prohibited them, which meant they could not vote in the Democratic Party primaries. Lonnie E. Smith brought suit against this practice and in on April 3, 1944, in the case Smith v. Allwright, the Supreme Court eight justices ruled 8 to 1 that the exclusion of African Americans from the primaries was unconstitutional.1 It was front page news in the April 4, 1944 DMN which also carried the full text of the Supreme Court decision.2 The reaction to the decision is expressed in another DMN April 4, 1944 front page article title, “Stunned Southerners Varied in Reaction,” in which various white Democrats expressed how the Supreme Court’s decision might be circumvented and heated statements were quoted.3 In the correspondence between Hatton Sumner and his political supporters and Sumners to others, Sumners reveals very clearly that the purpose of his general philosophy about the American constitution, states’ rights, governmental centralization is to support white supremacy and oppose civil rights by using arguments that don’t involve race. That is to advance ideas about the Constitution and government that just happen to also preclude civil rights and permit the continuation of white supremacy in the American South. The complete texts of these letters will be in the Appendix. The correspondence to Sumners from his political confidants both ask him to make strong statements about the Supreme Court decision ending the all-white Democratic primary in Texas and also to join in a legal effort to ask for a rehearing before the Supreme Court. The letters to Sumners express a strong disappointment that Sumners hasn’t made strong statements regarding the recent Supreme Court decision and worry about his political situation for not doing so. On April 11, 1944, long-time political confident of Sumners, W.M. Holland, writes to him as follows: We were all hopeful that you might get by without an opponent. We believe that if you could get some favorable publicity at this time, showing your opposition to the Negroes voting in our Democratic Primary that this might enable you to get through without opposition. We wondered if you, because of your personal 1
Greenberg, Sanford, N., “White Primary,” Texas State Historical Association Handbook,
https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/wdw01pdf downloaded 5/20/2020. See also, Darlene Clark, “Black
Victory: The Rise and Fall of the White Primary in Texas,” Univ. of Missouri Press, Columbia, Missouri, 2 nd Edition, 2003. Also, John E. King, “Court Rules Negroes Eligible for Primaries; Texans Discuss Return to Convention Plan,” DMN, April 4, 1944, Pages 1,3, 2 “Text of Supreme Court Ruling on Negro vote,” DMN, April 4, 1944, page 4. 3 Associated Press, “Stunned Southerners Varied in Reactions,” DMN, April 4, 1944, page 1, 12.
Page 2 of 23
acquaintanceship with the members of the Supreme Court, of your chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee, and of your sponsorship of the retirement pay for members of the Court, might not be in a position to grant them permission to reargue the recent case decided by this Court in which, as you know, the Court held that Negroes are entitled to participate in Democratic Primaries in Texas. As you perhaps know, neither the Democratic Party nor the State of Texas was represented in the argument of this case before the Supreme Court. One of the assistants in the Attorney General’s Office of Texas did make an argument as amicus curiae, but he did not appear as a representative of the State of Texas or of the Democratic Party. Since the Supreme Court rendered its opinion the Chairman of the State Democratic Committee in Texas has announced that Dan Moody of Austin and Dwight Morrow of Houston have been retained to represent the State Committee in filing a motion for a rehearing in above case. I am fully aware of the fact that the Supreme Court seldom grants rehearings and rearguments in cases decided by it, but in view of the fact that this recent decision has created so much adverse criticism in the South at least, and in fact is such an outrageous and unlawful invasion of States rights, it has occurred to me that you are in a better position than anyone to secure a rehearing and right for Mr. Moody and Mr. Morrow to appear before the Court as legal representatives of the Democratic Party of Texas. I do not know of a greater Service any Southern statesman could render his country at this time than to aid in overturning this outrageous decision.4 Sumners has built up this reputation as being a great constitutional scholar and also is felt to have a cordial relation with the U.S. Supreme Court based on what he did in 1937 as part of blocking President Franklin D. Roosevelts’ effort to expand the Supreme Court. Holland wants Sumners to get involved with Moody’s attempt at a re-hearing. Holland writes this letter after a meeting of Sumners’ supporters in Dallas. On April 11, 1944 long-time political confidant to Sumners, J. Cleo Thompson writes to Sumners and also urges Sumner to get involved with Moody in getting a rehearing with the Supreme Court. Thompson also mentions that Sumners hasn’t made any public statement. As follows: You have no doubt received a letter from some of your friends regarding our discussion yesterday afternoon. We were all in agreement and therefore strongly urge you to cooperate with the Democratic Party in Texas with Dan Moody and Wright Morrow to obtain a rehearing and a reargument of the recent Supreme Court decision giving the negroes the right to enter the democratic primary of Texas. 44
W.M. Holland to HWS, April 14, 1944, DHS Box 106.2.5.
Page 3 of 23
As you well know, that decision was very unpopular in Texas and so far as I know the papers have carried no statement with reference to your feeling about the matter although you are recognized and given credit as having more influence with the Supreme Court than any Texas representative. The people know that your advice is freely sought by Members of the Supreme Court with reference to Legislative matters and we feel that the time is ripe for you to join the attorneys for the democratic party in an effort to obtain a rehearing of the case. I know that your assistance would be welcomed by Messrs. Moody and Morrow and even though you were unable to obtain a rehearing and a reargument, if the people here knew that you were making a diligent effort to undo the wrong that has been done, you would certainly tie yourself to them and if I were in your place, I would see if something could not be done and I strongly urge you to do so.5 Again, Thompson is urging Sumners to work with Moody. But he is also bringing up the issue that Sumners hasn’t had in the newspapers a public statement about the Supreme Court ruling. Sumners replies to both Thompson and Holland with brief letters acknowledging he has received them.6 In reply to Thompson he states: I am convinced that there is no chance of getting anywhere with an effort to procure a reconsideration by the Supreme Court of the decision with reference to which you wrote. It might be however, that some good could result from the effort. Both Holland and Thompson reply expressing their strong discontent in how Sumners is responding to the Supreme Court ruling. In an April 19, 1944 Thompson’s discontent with Sumners’ response is blistering. As follows: I received your letter regarding the matter which I so urgently requested you to do. I am afraid that you are going to let the house burn down before anything is done about this matter which has stirred the people of Texas so much. Someone told me about an Article which appeared in one of the papers to the effect that you refused to make a comment to one of the reporters regarding your opinion of the Supreme Court Decision. As a matter of fact, it has been mentioned to me by several here in Dallas in the last several days. I think that the decision of the Supreme Court and the effort on the part of the negro to be elected to the School Board of Dallas is responsible for the opposition that you will have this year. 5 6
J. Cleo Thompson to HWS, April 11, 1944. DHS Box 106.2.5. HWS to W.H. Holland, April 14, 1944, DHS Box 106.2.5. HWS to J. Cleo Thompson, April 14, 1944, DHS 106.2.5.
Page 4 of 23
I am of the definite opinion that Frank Wilson expects to run and the moving cause of him making the campaign was, in my opinion, the vocal expression of the members of the various democratic Committeemen of the County. They resented the decision and they gave encouragement to Frank Wilson and they found him in a receptive mood. Frankly, I tell you, in my opinion, this opposition is formidable. I had hoped that you could see fit to help to do something about it or to let the people know, in no uncertain words, as to how you stood on the matter. Thompson is upset and he wants Sumners to make a strong statement about the Supreme Court ruling. Thompson is also warning Sumners that the failure to make a strong statement is the basis of the support for his opponent in the upcoming Democratic primary. Thompson is also familiar with Sumners’ strategy of using general philosophical arguments to oppose civil rights and explains that he doesn’t think that will work in this situation with the public and he is also personally upset with Sumners. He writes: Of course I realize that you are desirous of approaching the matter possibly in a different way but in doing that, the damage will have already been done and then it would be nothing more than a voice in the wilderness. The time was ripe and overdue when we urged you. You know the people like to hear cases discussed. Many times men who talk in generalities are not understood by the masses of the people, but when criticism of specific actions are made, the people know what the man is talking about, but when criticisms are made of general policies, as is very often done, the masses do not understand what the speaker is driving at. Frankly, I was disappointed at you not speaking out on this matter and it is likely to be serious. The letter concludes mentioning Texas U.S. Senator O’Daniels’ statements as follows: To make matters worse, Senator O’Daniels’ recent statements with reference to cleaning out Washington from the top to the bottom is in many quarters being well received. One of our most substantial citizens who had never supported O’Daniels in his life, discussing this matter with him recently, expressed the same view. I think it is going to require some real honest to God work and this view is shared by other of your close friends in Dallas and we are going to have to work overtime.7
7
J. Cleo Thompson to HWS. April 19, 1944. DHS Box 106.2.5.
Page 5 of 23
Thompson is telling Sumners that he is in danger of not being re-elected to the U.S. House. Thompson has another letter, April 21, 1944 to Sumners as follows: After receiving your call this morning as soon as I came to the office I attempted to contact Mr. Dan Moody and was advised that he was at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington and was not expected to return to Austin until next week. I then attempted to contact Mr. Grover Sellers and he was out of town. I certainly hope that you are successful in contacting Mr. Moody and that you will be able to be of assistance to him. Your friends are very anxious about this matter and indeed they are quite concerned over the situation in general. Every time I go down the street two or three men nearly always stop me. Some are optimistic and some are extremely pessimistic.8 Thompson is explaining that Sumners’ political supporters in Dallas are very concerned about this issue and so is the public. Sumners writes to Thompson and Holland and others explaining his strategy and reviewing his record and stressing the importance of getting him re-elected. In regards to Sumners being involved with an attempt to get a rehearing or being involved with a rehearing Sumners explains that it would discredit him. Sumners’ strategy in his opposition to civil rights has always depended on him being perceived as this great constitutional expert when he advocates an understanding of the Constitution which would preclude civil rights legislation. In an April 15, 1944 letter to Jeff D. Stinson, Sumners explains that there is no chance of a rehearing but also that it would discredit him. Also, Sumners explains that if he was discredited, he would lose credibility in his general Constitutional arguments that preclude civil rights legislation as he states in the last sentence of the following: I agree with what you have in your mind as a general proposition, but there is not the slightest chance, in my judgment – and it is not merely my judgement, to procure a rehearing in the matter with reference to which you have written. I talked with a man last night who is in a position to know what he is talking about. He is a friend of mine, and he expressed the opinion that the people who make the attempt will not get anywhere with it.
8
J. Cleo Thompson to HWS,, April 21, 1944. DHS Box 106.2.6.
Page 6 of 23
As to my opportunity in this case, you may recall that a short time ago I had been granted the right to appear as amicus curiae in the insurance matter pending in the Supreme Court. Immediately Senator O’Mahoney, who holds a different view, also applied for the right to appear. The Chief Justice was embarrassed by that situation and suggested the necessity to cancel the grant of permission in order to avoid the Supreme Court’s becoming a forum for Congressional disputants. I quite understood his embarrassment and the fact that this Court should not be made a forum for arguments between Members of Congress with reference to matters pending in the Court. This is a matter of recent occurrence, as you know. I believe the Court would consider any application to have me appear as friend of the Court, as a party to the brief, as having in it the same possibility of development as that which took place in the insurance case. It is well known I do not accept employment. There would be less reason for me to appear in this matter, because in the insurance case our Committee reported a bill dealing with the question involved. I was in a position where I might have been of help to the Court because I had peculiar knowledge of the subject matter, both factual and with regard to the legal aspects of it; whereas, in this case there would be nothing in the picture to indicate that I could add anything to what Dan Moody and his associates could present. The Court would know that I knew that. That would put my appearance under the suspicion that we thought I could exercise some influence with the Court aside from mere argument presented, and would place me before the country, as I see it, as being of the opinion I possessed such influence and was willing to attempt to exercise it. This would react unfavorably upon the possibility of my being able to be of some broader fundamental assistance both to the white people and the colored people in averting the consequences toward which we are headed, dangers to the whites and to the negroes themselves. [Boldface added.] Notice that Sumners sees civil rights as, “dangers to the whites and to the negroes themselves.” Sumners frames his opposition to civil rights as including a concern for the welfare of African Americans. Sumners in an April 24, 1944 letter to C.F. O’Donnell again explains why it would not be the correct thing to get involved with a rehearing before the Supreme Court and how it would undermine his credibility. I had a talk with Dan Moody Saturday, and he agrees fully with my strategy. My best friends there wanted me to get in on this attempt to procure a rehearing. But as I see it, that would put me before the country in the attitude of trying to play politics with this matter. The country would know that I could contribute nothing by being conspicuous in this connection, and I would be putting myself, as I see it, in the attitude of presuming that I could exercise some influence with the
Page 7 of 23
Court independently of what was incorporated in the brief. This, of course, would tremendously reduce the possibility of having the country at large consider what I may be able to say with reference to what is being done to bring on a serious crisis between the white and the black people of this country at this time, when we are at war and need all the solidarity and strength which we can command. [Boldface added.]9 Note that in this letter Sumners is concerned that there could be, “a serious crisis between the white and black people of this country.” He is talking about interracial peace and not the maintenance of white supremacy. The word “supremacy” will not appear in these letters. Sumners in a series of letters explains that the South is in a weak political position with only a minority of congressional representatives and what his strategy is to secure which supremacy and how he has used it over the years to maintain white supremacy. The key issue is that Sumners sees the South as being a minority with a need for allies and to avoid isolation in order to maintain its racial hierarchy. In the same April 15, 1944 letter from Sumners to Stinson he states: The South must recognize that it is in a minority political position. Each move it makes should be well considered with a definite objective in mind to strengthen its position, procure for itself allies beyond its border, against the time when that strength will be greatly needed. In an April 15, 1944 letter to Mr. C.T. Dean, president of the American Beauty Cover Co. of Dallas, Sumners explains the danger to the Southern racial order and his strategy to maintain it. Sumners states: I expect to discuss the whole matter somewhat analytically and fundamentally very soon, unless there is some change in the situation which would indicate such a discussion would be unwise now. The states where this problem is acute are, of course, very definitely in the minority from the standpoint of political strength. Every move we make ought to be carefully considered, and guided by sound judgment in every detail.10 Sumners is planning to give his philosophical reply in response to the civil rights program of the Federal government.
9
HWS to C.F. O’Donnell, April 24, 1944. DHS Box 106.2.6. HWS to C.T. Dean, April 15, 1944. DHS Box 51.4.2.
10
Page 8 of 23
Sumners in an April 24, 1944 letter to C.F. O’Donnell explains again how the South is a minority, the need for allies, and how an angry racial response to the Supreme Court ruling would undermine the Southern racial order. Sumners explains that the Supreme Court ruling is just a part of a larger assault on the Southern racial order and there needs to be a strategy oriented to this larger effort to undermine the racial order of the South. Sumners also explains that his successful opposition to civil rights has been all along to frame them in terms of constitutional issues such that they have broader support outside the South. Further Sumners explains that a lot of his supporters want an angry response to the Supreme Court ruling. So far as the House is concerned, I had the responsibility when we had these antilynching bills up. Twenty-odd years ago I had made argument with regard to the constitutionality and the policy behind the anti-lynching bill. It is considered here that the argument I made then has never been answered, and has been the basis for all the arguments that have been made since that time. I did a great deal of work on it. I am responsible for defeating the bill to destroy the Jim Crow law of the South, and the proposed legislation to reduce the representation of the South because of the alleged fact that the negroes were not permitted to vote. I have not done these things as a professional Southerner, nor as a negro hater, but in the interests of both the white and the colored people of the South; and, as I see it, clearly in the interests of the colored people, among whom I have many friends. This recent decision of the Supreme Court is only one of the many things being done which are influencing the development of the most serious inter-racial crisis that we have had since the most difficult of the days of reconstruction. The present situation presents difficulties because many of my friends are angry and want me to do a lot of head-cracking. That might be very entertaining and cheer-provoking. But we have got only one-fourth of the membership of the Congress. We are, therefore, in the same situation as a small power, a small nation, which has to have some allies. People in such situations have got to use strategy to keep their feet on the ground and move as good judgment suggests, having in mind their objectives and their own danger. As I have said, that is presenting to me a pretty difficult situation just now. Some of my best friends are getting impatient because they think that my failure to act immediately and in the spirit of their own attitude is doing to me political hurt. While I feel that it is my duty to come back to Congress if I can, this situation is too delicate and too dangerous to our section of the country for me to forget that thing is an attempting to do political service to myself. [Boldface added.] 11 11
HWS to C.F. O’Donnell, April 24, 1944. DHS Box 106.2.6.
Page 9 of 23
Note that Sumners is arguing his opposition to civil rights is of benefit to interracial peace and out of concern for African Americans when he states, “I have not done these things as a professional Southerner, nor as a negro hater, but in the interests of both the white and the colored people of the South; and, as I see it, clearly in the interests of the colored people, among whom I have many friends.”
Sumners in an April 24, 1944 letter to Thompson acknowledges Thompson being upset, stating: As I have said, I know how interested you are, and I can appreciate your being provoked at my delay. I hope you will be just a patient with me as you can be. Give me the benefit of your judgment always, and while I may not be able to carry out your instructions literally, I recognize that I do need badly the punching up which you give. I am aiming to start out this week on the thing, and if you had not punched me I probably would not have done it. In fact, I am expecting to have a word to say today. Sumners then points that the South is a small minority and that Sumners has a long history of successfully blocking civil rights legislation. When he points out the danger of “ourselves being jockeyed into a position of isolation,” he is stating that the South needs allies. As follows: I agree with what you have in your mind, but I know that we are very much in numerical minority. We in the South have got one-fourth of the vote of the House and Senate, and we have to exercise the most deliberate and the best strategy which we can possibly command to prevent ourselves from being jockeyed into position of isolation. It has been my responsibility almost ever since I have been in Congress to protect the South in so far as the House is concerned, and to a definite degree in so far as the Congress is concerned, and to a definite degree in so far as the Congress is concerned, against the policies and the measures directed definitely against it. We has the proposition to destroy the Jim Crow law of the South, another to reduce our representation on the score that we did not permit negroes to vote, the antilynching bill, the poll tax bill, and all the rest of them, which we have not been able to defeat in the House but they have gone to the Senate pretty groggy. We have got the most serious situation now that we have had since the days of reconstruction, dangerous to the solidarity of the country as a whole and to the security of the races, especially in the South, and more especially the colored people. Sumners then explains that the Supreme Court ruling on the Texas Primary is, “… just one of the incidences hastening the crisis. But the attention of the county must be directed to the whole program.” That is there is a broader effort to undermine the racial
Page 10 of 23
hierarchy of the South and there needs to be a response in opposition to the entire civil rights agenda. Sumners then states that he has talked to Dan Moody who he claims agrees with his strategy. Sumners then explains why he will not be involved in the attempt for a Supreme Court rehearing and how he needs to position his arguments in terms of general constitutional philosophy rather than Southern racial ideology as follows: Of course, there is no chance to get the Supreme Court to reverse itself, and there is a good deal of delicacy in discussing the situation while this motion is still pending. If I am able to be influential in this general situation my influence has got to be exerted not from the standpoint of a partisan Southerner but from the standpoint of the general public’s interest. The “general public’s interest” as oppose “partisan Southerner” is about Sumners talking about the Constitution and government centralization or interracial peace rather than directly about white supremacy or asserting African American inferiority in order to maintain white supremacy in the South. However, Sumners also states that he is willing and feels obligated to share his racist views when useful stating: Of course, coming from the South I do possess a knowledge of the matter which people from other sections do not have, and I have legitimate right, as well as a duty which I believe is apparent, to give the country the benefit of that knowledge.12 Sumners has explained that to halt the civil rights movement white racist Southerners will need support outside the South from those who aren’t interested in specifically supporting the Southern racial order, but will be interested in a general philosophical view of the Constitution which also meets their concerns while at the same time support the continuation of the Southern racial order. Also, note that Sumners asserts that his opposition to civil rights legislation is done also out of concern for African Americans in the South when he expresses concern for, “the security of the races, especially in the South, and more especially the colored people.” Who might be those “allies” that Sumners hopes to have and what might be their common interest? Sumners’ ideas regarding the Constitution and American government will prove to be very useful to those who are opposed to the New Deal program of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Sumners needs a federal government so limited in its powers that it can’t endanger the Southern racial order and New Dealers would want a federal government with limited powers also. 12
HWS to J. Cleo Thompson, April 24, 1944. DHS Box 106.2.6.
Page 11 of 23
On April 27, 1944 Sumners gave a speech in the U.S. House attacking the civil rights program as causing disunity during war time, World War 2 was still underway. This speech will be reviewed later. Sumners in correspondence still continues to explain his strategy. In a May 3, 1944 letter to Nathan Adams, president of First National Bank he explains his ideas. I am sending you herewith a copy of my speech recently delivered dealing with the effect of race agitation upon our national solidarity and upon our interracial problems. I endeavored to handle this matter so as to reach the sane considerations of people of both races, and especially the sane consideration of people outside the South. The South is so definitely in the minority that if it ever permits itself to be “jockeyed” into a position of sectional isolation, it will be too bad. These intemperate, ill-considered statements by professional Southerners do us great hurt.13 Sumners wants, “the sane consideration of people of both races,” again defining his opposition to civil rights in terms of peaceful interracial relations and not white supremacy. However, Sumners still seems to be working to convince Thompson of his strategy. In his May 12, 1944 letter writes to Thompson about campaign matters and in the letter states: … I have spent a lot of time and money in trying to arouse and solidify our people by making them conscious of our danger. There never was a time when the South was in greater danger of being “jockeyed” into a position of isolation than right now.14 Cleo Thompson is however still upset and Sumners in a May 17, 1944 letter in response to an earlier communication from Thompson makes it very clear what his strategy is and states: I can appreciate the dissatisfaction to which you refer with reference to my attitude, but it has been my job since I have been in Congress, more or less by common consent, that I should protect our section of the country from being jockeyed into a position of isolation. I defeated the attempt to destroy our Jim Crow law, and the attempt to reduce our representation on the score that the 13 14
HWS to Nathan Adams, May 3, 1944. DHS Box 106.2.7. HWS to J. Cleo Thompson, May 12, 1944. DHS Box 106.2.8.
Page 12 of 23
negroes were not permitted to vote. I was not able to defeat the anti-lynching measure in the House, but it was sent to the Senate pretty groggy. Those things have been possible because I have dealt with the whole matter philosophically, which enabled me to cross the sectional lines and appeal to people who did not feel so intensely as many people in our section felt. I have received a letter from Worcester, Massachusetts, for which I quote: “This is to advise you that I have read, with much interest and full appreciation, your very excellent address delivered by you on April 27, 1944, as reported in the Congressional Record of that date. It breathes a saving note of political sanity in the partisan-charged atmosphere of the Capital.” We have got to win or lose by that sort of appeal. [Boldface added.]15 Sumners gave two speeches in the U.S. House and had a telegram of his read in the House in opposition to civil rights. These speeches show his strategy of framing his opposition to civil rights in terms of national unity and interracial peace. This concern for interracial peace is based on Sumners’ beliefs that there is an instinctive racial antipathy between races and that normally it will lead to a conflict of racial extermination. Sumners believes that people outside the South, since they don’t have a large number of African Americans present don’t feel this racial instinct and hence don’t understand the South. Sumners also represents himself as being concerned for the welfare of both races. Sumners asserts civil rights legislation is against local control and is outside interference. He asserts that it is unconstitutional and represents excessive authority. He carefully avoids discussion of racial superiority. Sumners address in the U.S. House on April 27, 1944 as follows:
******* The SPEAKER. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Texas [Mr: SUMNERS] is recognized for 30 minutes. RACE RELATIONS Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, recently the Secretary of the Navy, in a public statement sought to impress upon us the imperative necessity of guarding our national solidarity as we move toward the real test of our strength to win this war. He
15
HWS to J. Cleo Thompson, May 17, 1944. DHS Box 106.2.9.
Page 13 of 23
emphasized that our real danger, our only danger, is that we may weaken internally and within the Allied international structure. He put his finger on the point of danger. I am taking this time to try to 1mpress upon the people of this country, especially upon the leaders both of the white and colored races to whom the people of these races will listen, the fact that we are rapidly moving in this country toward a serious crisis in the relationship between the white and the colored races and doing that at a time when we are at war. All .the signs of the times support this conclusion. I do not know anybody who doubts it. I am certain that I speak without racial prejudice in this matter. I speak to the people of this country of this thing now because it is a matter so important, so dangerous to the solidarity of the country, to the happiness of the two races and even to the possibility of their continuing to live in large numbers in the same communities. It challenges the most serious, deliberate, just, consideration of everybody; a candid, factual, examination. I am persuaded that this danger can be averted, but only if we appreciate its existence, recognize its causes, and the fundamental difficulties which confront the two races, especially in those communities where they are living side by side in large numbers. While the difficulties and dangers developing are more far-reaching in those States where the colored race lives in the larger numbers, the danger is no longer localized. Everywhere one sees evidences and hears expressions of opinion and judgment, and recitation of personal experiences, showing conclusively the existence of general interracial antagonism and the general dangerous trend to which I have referred, and the rapidity of the movement all over the country. I appreciate the difficulties of the situation with which we must deal. I do not excuse white people at all for their share in this general responsibility. Some of them have rendered a great "disservice to the country, and especially to the colored people of this country, in arousing their antagonism, racial prejudices, and doing all they can to provoke acts and attitudes which inevitably will react to their hurt. White people who inflame members of their own race do a disservice also. In the Southern States, due to the interracial friendship—strong personal friendships— violent general interracial conflicts have up to this time been practically unknown. Colored people have not done violent things there to, members of the white race because they are white, and white people have not done violent things to members of the black race because they are black. But white and black people of the South are not blind to this danger. They dread that the stress which is rapidly being increased may reach the point when it will exceed the ability of the sane, thoughtful leaders in the communities, black and white, to control, that the situation will get out of hand, and the blind, hideous, merciless passions of race hatred, such as recently swept through sections of a great northern city, will sweep through our communities and destroy the attitude of
Page 14 of 23
friendship and sympathetic concern which makes the residence of the two races in the same communities possible. People ignorant of what they were dealing with, irresponsible people—vicious, some of them, I fear—have been sowing the seed of interracial hate and disunity in this country at these times when we are at war, and they have gone un-scourged by the lash of public condemnation. I want to make it clear I do not claim the white people are doing all they ought to do in this picture. Practical people, with common sense, recognize that we are trying an experiment in this country which has never before succeeded in the history of the world—that of trying to have two basically dissimilar races live together in large numbers in the same communities. The historical background with regard to this interracial relationship produces both difficulties and elements of advantage. While the progress in adjusting their difficulties, which are fundamental, has not advanced as rapidly as some people might desire, there can be no question that before this dangerous development was brought about we were moving definitely and consistently toward better interracial relationship. That is the important thing. We were progressing as a result of natural adjustment made by white and colored people themselves, undisturbed and unretarded by the influences of outside interference. How rapidly natural adjustment among the races living together can take place nobody can' forejudge. It is certain, however, that is the only adjustment which can endure. Nobody can question that statement. And neither will any informed person question the statement that the movement is now in the opposite direction. The lines of interracial cleavage are becoming broader and deeper and more dangerous. I want to repeat that I am not attempting to justify attitudes. I am trying to state them, without regard to whether or not they are justified, because this situation has to be dealt with factually and realistically. It may be thought by some people that I am prompted to make this statement because of the recent decision of the Supreme Court with regard to the Democratic primaries in Texas. Long before that decision was rendered this condition to which I refer was developing. Shortsighted, reckless people were sowing the seed of interracial discord and danger, deepening and widening the lines of interracial cleavage; accentuating racial antagonism and prejudice, and arresting the natural processes of interracial adjustment. This decision of the Supreme Court, however, without regard to the question of constitutional basis, did interpose a Federal power as against local policy and local judgment of the members of the Democratic Party of that State, and intensified the then already existing strain in our interracial relationship to which I am referring. Its immediate results and the results of that which probably will follow will add to the difficulty to which I have referred. The Federal power and the activities of these outside people attempting to put a prohibition on the opportunity of the white people to segregate themselves if they want to in places of residence, of work, and in their political party organizations will not help the situation which I am discussing.
Page 15 of 23
This is one of them. Where there is a small number of a race different from the more established race living in a community, apparently there is no racial reaction. But when large numbers of the race which differs from that which constitutes the more established race come into the community, there seems to develop a sort of instinctive racial reaction, a definite development of racial entities, the forerunner of racial conflict unless wise, sane people of both races recognize the fact, and develop a policy with that fact in consideration, which makes possible their living together with the minimum of racial irritation and conflict. All my life I have lived in the South. I have studied this matter. I have many friends among the colored race. I know who will suffer most if this trend is not arrested before it reaches a climax. These outsiders have been having a big time, apparently believing they were dealing only with the South, but they were sowing the seeds of racial conflict throughout the land. They are doing a serious; dangerous thing in this country. Of course, everything is not right. As stated, I do not exempt the white people in these communities from responsibility. I want to be fair in this matter. Colored people in our section of the country are getting better schools, better opportunities, better attention, better recognition. That is the direction of movement. Colored people are making their own contribution toward these results, working with their white neighbors. Maybe these results are not coming as fast as many would wish; but the progress made is supported by the purpose and approval of the people in the community which gives assurance of further progress. This antagonism and racial hatred being engendered perils the whole program. People who live in these communities can talk plainly with each other, and there is no resentment. Long before I came to Congress I began to use what influence I had to suppress the crime of lynching. It is a crime which can be protected against only by the communities in which the danger develops. I recall that in 1937 a very bad lynching took place in one of the Southern States. I sent this telegram to the Governor of the State: If the press reports are even approximately correct and they seem to be these lynchings both with regard to lynchers and the officers involved were as dastardly a crime as cowardice could devise and brutality execute. It is the sort of thing which makes it hard for us who are here trying to protect the governmental sovereignty of the States. It will be effectively seized upon as a demonstration of the inability of the States to govern. As one Southern man to another I hope I will not be considered impertinent by stating candidly my own reaction and that is that the State cannot escape this reflection upon its governmental capacity, in fact cannot escape in effect becoming an accessory after the fact unless it is able to and does bring these lynchers and officers to speedy and adequate punishment.
Page 16 of 23
The entire telegram was not printed in the papers. I got several denunciatory letters from the South. I recall one in particular. The writer lived in Memphis. Among other things, he said I could not go down South and repeat what I had said. I replied to him that I was the son of a Confederate soldier; that I had lived all my life in the South; that I expected to make a speech very soon in the capital of the State where this lynching had occurred. He replied very promptly, apologizing for what he had written, explaining that he thought I was from Pennsylvania. I have not attempted an analytical discussion of this matter, the difficulties of which are rooted in fundamental racial differences increased in some respects and lessened in others by the comparatively recent relationship of master and servant. That relationship insured protection against many of the white man's vices and established an intimacy of contact from which a primitive people could learn with a rapidity not possible under any other relationship. It established a mutual interest and affection which the violence of the War between the States and the subsequent experience of reconstruction weakened but could not disestablish. History affords no parallel in progress in so short a time as these people have made. What the future holds no one can judge. No one can doubt, however, that this present rapidly increasing racial antagonism casts a mighty dark shadow over the possibilities of that future and imperils the solidarity and weakens the strength of the Nation at a time when we are poised for the great invasion where the issues of the centuries are to be decided. Mr. MARCANTONIO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. I yield. Mr. MARCANTONIO. I realize that the gentleman is speaking with much feeling on the subject. I believe I would be unfaithful to the views I entertain if I remained silent in this Chamber without taking issue with the opinions that the gentleman has so strongly expressed. The gentleman is very apprehensive over unrest in certain sections of the country. May I say to the gentleman that as long as any group of people in a democracy or anywhere in this world are deprived of the right to vote, are segregated, Jim Crowed, discriminated against, and treated as second-class citizens, so long will there be unrest; so long will those conditions cause unrest, and what is more, those conditions are intolerable as long as we remain a democracy. Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. I think the gentleman is illustrating what I have been talking about. We are at war. The gentleman and the people who hold his views, not recognizing the situation that obtains, not recognizing that these people are making progress under cooperation with the people among whom they have lived, have been going out into the country and preaching hatred of their white neighbors to these colored people, until a condition is developing in the country of interracial hatred and conflict; unwilling to permit the natural processes of adjustment which are in progress.
Page 17 of 23
I grant you, and I grant anybody, that they do not have everything they need or ought to have, but the big point is they are progressing in better schools, better living conditions, and the whole thing is improving. The gentleman and his crowd are doing the very thing that will destroy the possibilities of cooperation between these races, and casting a black shadow over the whole picture I am just as honest about that as I can be. Mr. MARCANTONIO. Will the gentleman be good enough to yield again? Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. I yield. Mr.: MARCANTONIO. Does the gentleman MARCANTONIO. Will the gentleman be good enough to yield again? Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. I yield. Mr.: MARCANTONIO. Does the gentleman believe that continuing to deprive the people of their right to vote is going to ameliorate the condition and bring about better racial conditions? Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman allow me to answer that? Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Texas. Mr. RUSSELL. I wonder what section the gentleman is referring to. I do not know of it and he does not know of it, because it does not happen to be true, where anyone is deprived of the right to vote. Mr. MARCANTONIO. I think we all have a very good idea of the poll tax, and we all have knowledge of the white primary law, which deprives people of their democratic rights. That condition certainly does not make for better racial relations. Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. May I say to the gentleman from New York, he and his crowd have gone down there and preached to these people that if a husky, able-bodied man, white or black, is required to pay a poll tax, make a couple of dollars' contribution to the expenses of our Government under which he lives and upon which he depends for protection, roads, schools, and everything else, before he can sit in the councils of the Government that he is having a great injustice done to him. The tax, of course, is to be paid by people both white and black. He is preaching that an ablebodied man in this country, a democracy, a government of the people, supported by public tax, ought to have a free Government ride, and that if he does not get it, there is something wrong being done to him by the white people. That is a hurtful thing to the citizen. He could not belong to a lodge, or club, or the C. I. O. and vote for the officers without paying something for its support. That is exactly the point. A democracy is a government of the people. There is no king. There is no hereditary governor. If a man joins a lodge or labor
Page 18 of 23
organization, he pays something to support it, does he not? I am not defending the poll tax. I am not saying a word about the poll tax. I am saying something about the hurt done the self-respect of any able-bodied person by making him believe that if he is not permitted to have a free governmental ride a great injustice is done to him. That does not make for good citizenship in a democracy. That is my honest conviction of the hurt which the gentleman and his crowd are doing by moving out from New York in the attempted take-over.16
******* This is the telegram by Sumners about the Federal Employment Practice Commission (FEPC) which was read in the house by Texan U.S. House Rep. Gossett.
******* Mr. CANNON of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [MR. GOSSETT]. Mr. GOSSETT. Mr. Chairman, I want to corroborate what my colleague has said about this Fair Employment Practice Committee. I happened to be at home when this outrageous unjustifiable directive from the regional director of F. E. P. C. was issued to the Dallas morning newspapers, that they could not mention the color of an employee whom they seek. The next step of such radical, communistic interference with private enterprise would be to say to the person who advertises for an employee that, "You must accept the first one who calls." Bear in mind this advertisement sought a colored employee. The regional director insists that that was a discrimination against white employees. Many people down in our part of the country prefer colored maids. The next step in line with this policy is this: You advertise for a maid. You cannot specify whether you want a white or colored maid. Suppose a white maid shows up at your home and she possesses all of the qualifications except as to color. Then you have got to hire her. If you do not hire the white maid then you have violated the policies laid down by this F. E. P. C. I submit to you such a thing would not take place in communistic Russia. I doubt that Hitler would issue such an edict to the people in the Reich. I say to you we should call a halt to such practices. The F. E. P. C. promotes unfair practices, it breeds discrimination, it stirs up trouble, it constitutes a menace to democracy. Mr. Chairman, I have here a telegram received from the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House, now in Dallas, Tex., which reads as follows: I have just come in contact with one of the activities of the Committee on Fair 16
Congressional Record, 78th Congress, Second Session, Vol. 90 Part 3, pages 3762-3763.
Page 19 of 23
Employment Practice and the result of its hurtful interferences in the affairs of this community. The Dallas Morning News, engaged in the ordinary activities of publishing a newspaper, printed in its paper recently this advertisement: "Wanted colored man to work at night as paper handler. Essential industry." The paper received a letter from the regional director here with regard to this advertisement from which I quote: "The Committee on Fair Employment Practice, operating under Executive Order No. 9346, a copy of which 1s attached, considers that such advertisement 1s a violation of the order. It limits applications to a narrow field described 1n the advertisement, and automatically bars persons of other race or color from applying, even though these latter may also possess skill needed for your establishment. You are therefore requested to take immediate steps to remove from this and from any other advertisement for employees any features which are discriminatory as to race, creed, color, and nationality. You are further requested to advise your personnel office or hiring agent that they should disregard such specifications in considering applications for employment. This includes the United States Employment Service." Other employers have been similarly directed. Many of them have complied under apprehension of adverse governmental action should they refuse. The confusion, accumulating resentment, inconvenience to people seeking employment, and interracial irritation from the activities of this agency has become a most serious matter. Pair me against continuing appropriation for this activity. HATTON W. SUMNERS Mr. Chairman, if this is a democratic country, then we will strike from this appropriation bill any money whatsoever for any such outfit. We must get rid of such ridiculous bureaucratic meddling with the reasonable and orderly proceedings of legitimate business.17
******* Sumners’ telegram of opposition to the FEPC is based on the idea that it is federal intrusion into local affairs and that it is causing interracial antagonism. Again, white supremacy isn’t mentioned. The issues are local control, excessive federal government and interracial harmony. 17
Congressional Record, 78th Congress, Second Session, Vol. 90 Part 4, page 5049.
Page 20 of 23
On June 15, 1944 in the U.S. House Sumners speaks out against appropriating money for the Federal Employment Practices Commission. Note that he is speaking as someone who wants unity and interracial peace. Again his opposition to civil rights is claimed to include concern for African Americans. Again, Sumners sees outside interference with local control. Being that he is specifically criticizing the FEPC, he is seeing local control being attacked by the federal government.
******* A DANGEROUS SITUATION Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to call to the attention of the country and the responsible administrative agencies of the Government a very important and very dangerous situation developing in this country. For several years now many influences have been at work to make the white people and the colored people of this country, especially those in the Southern States, hate each other. And now, when that result has been accomplished to an alarming degree, it is being added to by a policy to force the people of these races to work together in close proximity, with every occasion and opportunity for individual irritation and conflict which easily could spread in this attitude as the flame of a match spreads in a dry prairie. I do not suppose anybody in this country has any doubt as to what has been done to make these races antagonistic to each other, or the effect upon that antagonism of this policy to force them to work all mixed up with each other. Recently one of the leading newspapers in my section of the country wanted a colored paper handler and advertised for such an employee. Why not, that was what they wanted? The local agent of F. E. P. C., however, served notice on the paper that it must not print such an advertisement, that it was discriminatory on account of color. Yesterday I had a letter from a man who wrote me that it is being insisted that the F. E. P. C. clause be included in all rental contracts made by the Government, regardless of the character of activity. The other day in Cleveland, so an Associated Press dispatch tells us, 7 colored people were sent under armed guard into a plant producing war material where only white people were at work. Between 12,000 and 15,000 white people walked out. The fact that these colored people were sent in under armed guard shows the racial attitude there, and that it was anticipated by those who sent these colored people in that disorder and
Page 21 of 23
possible 1 disruption of plant activity would result. The plant was paralyzed for 4 days. Six hundred strikers were discharged. They were told they would not receive certificates of availability unless they could show extenuating circumstances. The activities in the plant were renewed after this experience, but the deep-seated antagonism which resulted is there yet, liable to explode at any time and possibly a repetition of what happened in Detroit last year. Of course, the situation is difficult at best, and dangerous at best, especially in the Southern States. It should be a sobering fact that the experiment which we are trying in this country of having two dissimilar races, each retaining its identity, live in large numbers in the same communities, has never succeeded in the history of the world. Considering how short a time in the life of a nation is the time which has intervened since the War between the States, our interracial adjustment, which the white people of the South have participated in—this improvement of the status of the colored people to which both races have contributed—better schools, better facilities, better opportunities, and the big fact that this all rests upon community approval and community interest, is perhaps the outstanding achievement of its kind of all time. This is all being imperiled by a combination of shortsighted outside interference, some doubtless well-meaning people, and by a well-organized, shrewdly directed, abundantly financed, communistic influence hungry for power, antagonistic to our form of government, and deeply resentful toward the white people of the South because their communistic, alien political philosophy has never been able to make any substantial headway.18
******* Sumners’ letters to his supporters explain directly that his opposition to civil rights will be framed in terms of his general philosophical ideas about government and local control and how peace is to be maintained between races. As he states he isn’t going to oppose civil rights as a “negro-hater” or “professional Southerner.” It becomes clear that his opposition to the federal government and what he sees as excessive government power is to have a federal government with powers so limited that it can’t change or be a risk to the racial hierarchy of the South. This general philosophy of limited federal power will also be of use to those who oppose the New Deal program of a federal government actively involved in the economy. Given how Sumners frames his opposition it will allow a white racist South to be in alliance with an anti-New Dealer movement without either having to state or recognize that it there is an alliance between these two political forces. Sumners’ philosophical ideas about government being really about race isn’t just revealed in these letters of 1944 and some others, but also in his racializing issues in his discussions of the constitution and government where he argues for an Anglo-Saxon 18
Congressional Record, 78th Congress, Second Session, Vol. 90 Part 5, pages 5972-73.
Page 22 of 23
tradition in government versus what he calls jazz philosophy and ideas about government and society. In a 1932 speech given to the American Bar Association he castigates what he calls jazz ideas and makes reference to “watermelon time,” and states, “We have jazzed off into the jungles.”19 These racializations of political and cultural ideas by Sumners will be discussed in another chapter. Even without Sumners’ private correspondence the fact that Sumners ideas always happened to preclude civil rights would have been obvious to any perceptive individual. Surely the many professional and business societies that requested him as a speaker understood that they were promoting a governmental philosophy that both blocked civil rights and blocked or restrained the New Deal activist government programs. However, whatever the American Bar Association perceived, it didn’t prevent them from giving Sumners their annual medal for conspicuous service to the cause of American jurisprudence. The award was started in 1928 and it was the first time it had ever been awarded to a lawyer who was a legislator.20 Given that Sumners in his 1932 speech To the American Bar Association was talking about “watermelon time” and “jazzing off to the jungles,” this group of individuals, known for their shrewdness and surely understood where he was coming from. Nor did Sumners obvious racial views about the constitution preclude the Southwestern Legal Foundation, then located at Southern Methodist University, from hiring him as their research director.21 While being director of the Southwestern Legal Foundation his book, “The Private Citizen and His Democracy,” was published in 1959. It is about his ideas concerning government and the American constitution. The book doesn’t refer to race at all, but the ideas presented would surely preclude any civil rights as well as an activist federal government working on other social problems. It is a stealth tool in supporting white supremacy and all the more effective as since it would not be recognized as such. 22 Surely the Southwestern Legal Foundation, an institution which still exists, knew of Sumners’ history of opposition to civil rights and understood the implications of Sumners’ book.
19
Congressional Record, 72nd Congress, 2nd Sess., Vol. 76 Part 1, Dec. 7, 1932, page 147. The speech he gave was published in the Congressional Record. 20 No author, “National Bar Cites Sumners for his Service,” DMN, Sept. 14, 1944, page 16. 21 No author, “Hatton Sumners to Direct Research at Legal Center,” DMN, March 29, 1944, page 1. 22 Sumners, Hatton W., “The Private Citizens and His Democracy,” Southwestern Legal Foundation, Dallas, Texas, 1959.
Page 23 of 23
These letters of 1944 in which Sumners explains to his supporters his strategy to defeat civil rights provides an understanding of Sumners’ history and legacy.