Page 1 of 19
HATTON SUMNERS AND THE FIGHT AGAINST THE KU KLUX KLAN – Ed Sebesta 10/10/2020 Sumners is often portrayed as some courageous figure standing up for principles against overwhelming odds. The story of Sumners and the Ku Klux Klan in Dallas in the 1922 election shows instead a cowardly person trying to avoid getting involved in the fight against the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) in Dallas. It shows a person concocting excuses out of the grand language of governance to provide a cover for his actions. While reading this reflect that Sumners primary argument against federal anti-lynching legislation is that the localities in the South should take care of it and that it would take social change at that level to eliminate lynching. But in the early 1920s when the local establishment was fighting against the Ku Klux Klan and the battle was in doubt Sumners ran and hid. However, before telling the story of Sumners and the Ku Klux Klan it is necessary to demolish a fable that is sometimes put forth that those individuals who fought the Ku Klux Klan in Dallas as well as the Dallas Morning News were somehow civil rights advocates and also that those who fought the 1920s Klan were generally anti-Klan rather than being against a specific 1920s Klan. A typical condescending DMN article against African Americans trying to rename a street after a civil rights leader, was a Jan. 20, 2015, DMN article, “Hatcher/Heggins Street’s original namesake an anti-KKK crusader?” by Sharon Grigsby. Grigsby states, “We City Hall watchers suffer from street-naming fatigue, given the debates in recent years over these symbolic gestures.” What are the symptoms of this type of “street-naming fatigue”? Is it like anemia or do you lie in bed exhausted? There is the reference to these renamings as “symbolic gestures,” the use of the word “gesture” implies that the renamings are really not of significance. It might be that the editorial staff of the DMN is exhausted from trying to maintain the existing regime and keep the racism in Dallas from manifesting itself. That would be a really tiring task. For those not familiar with Dallas history “Grigsby” is a name prominent in Dallas history. There were the Grigsby surveys which encompassed much of the land of early Dallas. I don’t know if Sharon Grigsby is descended from these Grigsby, but if she is, it gives a special significance to her column. However, the major point of this article is that Hatcher Street might have been named after W. Gregory Hatcher who was against the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s. Grigsby asserts that Hatcher was a “civil rights hero.” Notable is that Grigsby goes with this even though the research on the street name origin isn’t finished and in a subsequent article she has to retract the possibility. The
Page 2 of 19
urgency of Grigsby to block a street name change overrides the need for a reporter to verify their facts. The agenda and purpose of these street name research becomes clear when in the first article Grigsby states: If, in fact, the street was named for Gregory Hatcher, one might say that we have removed the name of an attorney who was one of the courageous few in Dallas who publicly opposed the KKK1. Later in a Jan. 29, 2015 DMN follow up article when it has been discovered that the street was named after a different Hatcher, Grigsby will say: “If in fact, the original ‘Hatcher’ was a crusader against the KKK, renaming that street was, in effect, removing the name of one civil rights crusader to replace it with another.”2 Hatcher again is classified as a civil rights hero merely on the basis of him being against the Klan. Grigsby stated that the possibility that it was Gregory Hatcher came from the research from historian Darwin Payne. This is incorrect historical reasoning. As a journalist it could be expected that a person might have a confused understanding history of the KKK in America, for a historian it would be either gross incompetence or dishonesty and Grigsby was working with Darwin Payne, though I leave it to the reader to decide whether Darwin Payne could be called a historian. It needs to be understood historically that many white supremacists have opposed the KKK because they undermine white supremacy by giving it a bad reputation and resulting in support for civil rights legislation. The White Citizens Council during the mid-20th century civil rights era condemned the Ku Klux Klan and urged members not to join.3 The establishment in Texas was dead set against the Klan since it was a secret society which used violence and was a threat to law and order and the whole establishment. One obstacle in fighting the KKK was that the KKK of Reconstruction were considered exConfederate heroes by mainstream institutions in Texas. White supremacists get into conflicts with each other and just being an opponent of the KKK doesn’t mean that a person is an advocate of civil rights by any means.
1
Grigsby, Sharon, “Hatcher/Heggins Street’s original namesake an anti-KKK crusader?” Dallas Morning News, The: Blogs (TX), 20 Jan. 2015, Dallas Morning Views. NewsBank, Accessed 29 May 2018. 2 Grigsby, Sharon, “Hatcher Street revisited – a farm family is likely namesake,” DMN, 1/29/2015. Not able to find on www.dallasnews.com website. 3 Webb, Robert, “Citizens Council No Place for Klan; Leaders Place Guard Against KKK,” The Citizens’ Council, Vol. 1 No. 6, March 1956, pages 1,2.
Page 3 of 19
The 1920s DMN opposition to the Klan consisted of contrasting what they held to be the good KKK of Reconstruction versus the current KKK of the present. The lengthy July 3, 1921, Dallas Morning News article, “Reconstruction Period Brought about K.K.K.,” has the subtitle, “The Original K.K.K. Worked for Order,” implying the current KKK was not like the KKK of Reconstruction and was bad. The article is a lengthy defense of the KKK being justified during Reconstruction. The article in summary was saying that the KKK of Reconstruction was good and the current KKK was bad, a fairly weak rejection of the KKK.4 Another article defending the Reconstruction KKK combined with an attack on the KKK of the 1920s, in the DMN was by Col. Charles L. Martin who was a member of the Ku Klux Klan during Reconstruction. Martin argued this good KKK vs. bad KKK in a DMN July 2, 1921 article, “K.K.K. Did Not Commit Offenses: No Bodily Harm Done,” which denounced the Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s in Dallas for being violent as opposed to the Reconstruction KKK which he claimed wasn’t. The article claimed that the Reconstruction Klan was sympathetic towards “negroes” and “consequently no violence was ever used towards the negroes.” This imaginary and wholly ahistorical Ku Klux Klan is contrasted to the contemporary 1920s Klan to condemn it as being lawless.5 During the 1936 Texas Centennial celebration at Fair Park the producers of the “Cavalcade” and the Dallas Morning News worked to give to the production the prestige of another white supremacist work by pairing the production with the pro-Klan movie “Birth of a Nation.” D.W. Griffith was the director and producer of one of Americans most notorious, if not the most notorious racist film “Birth of a Nation” which portrayed African American men as rapists and the KKK as the savior of white womanhood. Griffith visited Dallas during the Centennial. As a famous Hollywood director his visit was reported in the local news and also was used to promote the Centennial production “Cavalcade.” The DMN on 6/8/1936, the day before the Exposition opening, reported that D.W. Griffith is advising the producers of the “Texas Cavalcade”: Rumor that D.W. Griffith, great movie producer and creator of “The Birth of a Nation” and other cinema epics, was called to Dallas to advise on “The Cavalcade of Texas,” Centennial pageant, was give credibility by the fact that Mr. Griffith and his wife were guests Sunday of high Centennial officials.6
4
Gregory, Hon. Thomas W., address before a joint meeting of the Arkansas and Texas Bar Associations in Texarkana, July 10, 1906 and reprinted in the Dallas Morning News, July 3, 1921, pp. 10. 5 Martin, Charles L., “K.K.K. Did Not Commit Offenses,” Dallas Morning News, 7/3/1921, page 9, Sunday edition. The article was announced in a Dallas Morning News ad on 7/2/1921, page 10 as an “appealing feature.” 6 No author, “Griffith Entertained by Centennial Staff,” DMN, June 8, 1936, page 8.
Page 4 of 19
The article goes on to explain that Griffith was present at a rehearsal of the performance. On the same page was a photo with of D.W. Griffith being meet by Centennial officials as he disembarked from the train stating that he was in Dallas to see the “Cavalcade.” 7 The DMN, on 6/9/1936, the day of the opening of the Exposition, wishes readers to know that Griffith has had input into the production and has praised the “Cavalcade of Texas,” and reports David Wark Griffith, the first of the great movie directors and responsible for the immortal “Birth of a Nation,” Monday was furnishing the impetus which is expected to make the opening of the Cavalcade of Texas Saturday night among the more impressive events of the exposition. …. The cast and their performance were pronounced excellent by the noted director but he advised the additional expenditure on details to make the show outstanding in every particular.8 In the DMN on 6/11/1936 is an article, “Griffith Praises Lighting” in reference to the “Cavalcade.”9 On 6/17/1936 the DMN reports that the “Cavalcade” is almost ready and will open Saturday the article concludes with an explanation that D.W. Griffith praised the production as follows: D.W. Griffith, the motion picture producer and director, whose “Birth of a Nation” as made him immortal in film annals, left Dallas Monday with an explanation that he had no official connection with “Cavalcade” but made several suggestions when invited to do so. He warmly praised the magnitude of effects.”10 The DMN repeated hammers that D.W. Griffith, who they identify as the producer of “Birth of a Nation,” the 20th century’s most notorious American racist film, a film which is, according to the DMN, “immortal” and which according to the DMN, makes Griffith also “immortal,” approves the theatrical presentation and has helped make it even more than excellent. In short, the DMN is instructing its readers that most famous white nationalist movie director praises this white nationalist theatrical production.
7
No author, “Movie Master and Bride Arrive,” DMN, June 8, 1936, page 8. “75,000 Expected to Attend Centennial during Week,” DMN, June 9, 1936, page 1, 9. 9 “Griffith Praises Lighting,” DMN, June 11, 1936, page 16. 10 “Cavalcade Almost Completed and Ready to Open Saturday,” DMN, Jun 17, 1936, page 4. 8
Page 5 of 19
The DMN is enthusiastic about Griffith because Griffith’s film, “Birth of Nation,” glorifies the KKK of Reconstruction. They aren’t anti-KKK, they are just against a certain KKK of the 1920s, because it isn’t led by an elite like the Reconstruction KKK. They are in no way against the KKK in general. Furthermore, the DMN had a hand in creating the conditions for the revival of the KKK with its praise of the Reconstruction Klan and organizations that praised the Reconstruction Klan. In a 1902 article, “Vindicate the Past,” the DMN reported that the United Confederate Veterans (UCV) Historical Committee had issued a report adopted by the whole organization as to how young people are to be educated about the Civil War and Reconstruction. The report states that the Civil War was about “State sovereignty and a nicely balanced system of Federal government.” The report also states: In conclusion we would call favorable attention to a book recently published entitled, “The Leopard Spots,” by Thomas Dixie Jr., of Virginia. Many favorable and extended notices of this wonderful book have appeared in the press, both North and South. Of it the Manufacturer’s Record, of Baltimore, says: “In following the many lines laid thorough the romance, and tracing the events of the wreck of war, the reign of terror induced by the carpetbag rule, with its radical cure, the Ku-Klux-Klan, the subsequent revival of many of the evils of reconstruction under scalawagism and the desperate revolution which restored the whites to power, the reader is convinced that he is dealing with history, and history presented in a guise which out to be effective for a better understanding by men and women of other sections of the great fight which the Southern whites, crippled and hampered as they have been, have made for civilization.”11 In a 1906 DMN article, “Meetings of Veterans,” it is reported that at a meeting of the Robert E. Lee chapter of the UCV in Fort Worth that Historian C.C. Cummings read a short article on the ‘Ku Klux Klan’ in Texas,’” and that “Comrades J.I. Wright and Dr. A.P. Brown spoke on the benefits accrued to the South by the Ku Klux Klan.”12 The Fort Worth, Texas R.E. Lee Camp in 1908 is again reported in the DMN discussing the Klan, in an article titled, “R.E. Lee Camp Meeting: Two Veterans Enliven Occasion with Their Ku Klux Klan Experiences.” From the article:
11 12
Lee, Stephen D. et al, “Vindicate the Past,” DMN, 4/26/1902, pp. 4,5. No author, “Meeting of Veterans,” DMN, 6/25/1906, page 7.
Page 6 of 19
Two statements by aged Confederate soldiers, that they were members of the famous Ku-Klux Klan of reconstruction days and praise for this band of “home-protectors” was the principle feature of the regular meeting Sunday afternoon of R.E. Lee Camp United Confederate Veterans. The speaker Bud Daggett was there to discuss his experience in the “beef department of the Southern army,” but members wanted to ask him about his Klan experiences. As the article reports: “Well, yes, I was a member of the Ku Klux, and I am proud of it. The Ku Klux accomplished a great work and was the salvation of the Southland It used to be none would admit being members of the clan, but others older than I have since admitted it, and I might as well, also. Today they would be considered outlaws, but not so in the reconstruction days.” A little later that venerable veteran, Comrade Brooks, arose and spoke of reconstruction days. He recalled the terrors of that period in Tennessee, saying he preferred four years of war to one of reconstruction. “We were having a terrible, unbearable time in Tennessee,” said he. “Negroes and carpetbaggers were in control, and our families were not safe. The Ku Klux were born. I now acknowledge that I affiliated with them, and their operations, rigid but just, were all that saved us.” Applause followed these remarks, and those Confederate present, including those who were not members of the clan, if such they were, evinced their positive approval of the career of this band. 13 The DMN was an enthusiastic supporter of neo-Confederate organizations during the 20th century which had a lengthy record of praising the Reconstruction Klan. Also, when the movie, “Birth of a Nation,” by D.W. Griffith came to Dallas in 1915 the DMN had an article with the subtitled, “Great Film Drama Presented in Dallas First Time.” The article compares the movie to the “Iliad of Homer.” It is called “history in motion.” The article also states: Also there are glimpses into a black inferno which we would in free choice avoid, but back of each incident, and all of them, is substantial historic justification, and it may be that we should not flinch at the sight in pictures of that which our forebears felt in every fiber of the being. In an article section subtitled, “Best Order of Americanism,” the DMN states: 13
No author, “R.E. Lee Camp Meeting,” DMN, 6/8/1908, pp. 7.
Page 7 of 19
Throughout the whole rolling panorama there are opportunities to indulge the most satisfaction, for into it is woven with every thread that order of Americanism which is best interpreted by those Americans who experienced in fact those tragedies which we of a later generation experience only in pictures. 14 In another article the DMN was gushing how great the movie was. An Oct. 10, 1915 DMN article titled, ‘‘The Birth of a Nation’ at Dallas Opera House,” tells the reader: This realistic picture of history in the making is of untold value to both old and young. Besides the historical worth of this great spectacle, the constant emotional throb of the romantic story thrills the hearts of all. It is the supreme achievement of modern histrionism in its new guises untrammeled by the limitations of the theater. And: The North accepted long ago the Griffith spectacle as a true picture of the Southland, and the enormous success of the spectacle in such cities as Boston and Chicago wrote new chapters in stage history.15 Similarly, when the movie came back to Dallas for a second run the DMN gushed out praise in a Jan. 30, 1916 article, “‘Birth of a Nation’” Making Second Run.” As in other cities where “The Birth of a Nation” has been repeated, the audiences are composed largely of the same people who saw the spectacle before. This is one of the remarkable features in the history of Griffith’s masterpiece, and proof positive of its intrinsic worth as opposed to faddish. The article explains why the movie can be seen again and again because it is so great.16 When the movie was shown at the Hippodrome in 1919, again the DMN praised it profusely and credited it with promoting unity between the North and South.17 The movie “Birth of a Nation,” is adapted from the novel and play by Thomas Dixon Jr., “The Clansman.” When the play “The Clansman” was presented at the Dallas Opera House in 1905 the DMN was very enthusiastic in their praise and recounts a white supremacist history of Reconstruction.18 14
No author, “‘Birth of a Nation’ History in Motion,” DMN, Oct. 5, 1915, page 7. No author, “‘Birth of a Nation’ at Dallas Opera House,” DMN, Oct. 10, 1915, page 4. 16 No author, “‘Birth of a Nation” Making Second Run,’” DMN, Jan. 10, 1916, page 3. 17 No author, “‘Birth of a Nation’” Hippodrome Today,” DMN, April 13, 1919, page 3. The movie had been brought back multiple times before 1919, and this is a response that the DMN had in 1919. 18 No author, “Gets Fine Reception,” DMN, Dec. 28, 1905, page 4. 15
Page 8 of 19
The DMN glorified the KKK for a generation at least to its readers and as might be expected, when there was a proposal for a revived KKK in Dallas it would be enthusiastically received and it was. The DMN fought the very problem it had created. The Confederate Reunion, headed by the United Confederate Veterans, an organization that was always praised by the DMN, was held in Houston from October 6 to 9, 1920 and there are descriptions of the Klan participation the reunion parade. In the parade train of dignitaries in automobiles there were some automobiles with “plastered banners” saying “Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Atlanta, Ga.,” with one of them carrying “Imperial Grand Wizard” William Joseph Simmons. Later in the parade was a Ku Klux Klan contingent with marchers and horsemen and a float. The appearance of the Klan in the Confederate Veterans’ parade generated interest and that night, Oct. 9, 1920, the first chapter, “Sam Houston Klan No. 1” was formed. From Houston the Klan grew rapidly in Texas.19 One of those places where it grew was Dallas. Another fable is that the defeat of the KKK was a progressive step towards the future in the direction of civil rights. The KKK in the 20th century was destabilizing of white supremacy with its excesses. With the victory of the establishment in this battle with the KKK, this establishment who were able managers of a regime of white supremacy were able to continue into the future and were only defeated by the power of the federal government in the passage of legislation and victories by civil rights leaders in the courts. The defeat of the KKK in the 1920s was part of maintaining a regime which was much more competent and able to maintain white supremacy. Had the KKK won their battle likely the resulting chaos and disorder would have brought intervention of the federal government and would have discredited the regime of white supremacy in the former Confederate states. There was no step forward for civil rights in this power struggle between white supremacists. It was just a victory for much more competent managers of white supremacy. These fables, these historical macaroons, putting forth that the DMN was some hero in the struggle against the KKK in the 1920s needs to be recognized as the frauds they are.
19
Alexander, Charles C., “Crusade for Conformity: The Ku Klux Klan in Texas, 1920-1930,” Texas Gulf Coast Historical Association, Publication Series, Vol. 6 No. 1, August, 1962. The participation in the parade are pages 1-2, organizing of first Klan chapter pages 4-5, and rapid expansion in Texas, 5-10.
Page 9 of 19
The following is a brief summary of the KKK in Dallas in the 1920s taken from the chapter on Dallas in Kenneth T. Jackson’s book “The Ku Klux Klan in the City”20 to provide the historical context of Sumners’ actions regarding the KKK. The KKK in Dallas was organized in 1920 by Bertram Christie and it became known as Klan No. 66. On May 21, 1921 they had a march of 789 people left the Majestic Theater and marched down Main Street and back up Elm Street into the Majestic Theater. The next day in the DMN was published their proclamation threatening vigilante justice against those they deemed offenders. They waged a campaign of terror, the New York World in a series of 1921 reporting that there were at least 60 floggings. However, the violence seemed to have public support. When two businessmen were a flogged and identified three policemen as their assailants a grand jury was called to address vigilante justice but no indictments were brought forth. Police Commissioner Louis Turley was a prominent Klansmen who made known his lack of concern about Klan vigilante violence. With rumors that the Texas Rangers might be sent to Dallas mobilization against the Klan started. Judge C.M. Smithdeal called twenty-five business and church leaders together discuss how to oppose the Klan. A public meeting was called for on April 4, 1922 and the anti-Klan organization, the Dallas County Citizens League was formed to oppose all Klan members from public office. Dallas mayor Shawnie R. Aldredge endorsed the Citizens League in an April 6, 1922 proclamation. Other prominent individuals to publically oppose the Klan were former attorney general Martin M. Crane, Judge Joseph Cockrell, Judge Robert B. Seay, Southern Methodist Univ. (SMU) professor C.A. Nichols, and Rev. Charles S. Field. Rev. Charles E. DeBow of First Methodist Church preached a sermon against the Klan. The Dallas American Legion opposed the Klan. The Klan amassed both members and a considerable amount of money and were set up to dominate the elections of 1922. There was the support of prominent religious figures such as Rev. T.O. Perrin of Westminister Presbyterian Church, Rev. W.H. Wynn of Forest Avenue Baptist Church, and Rev. Alonzo Monk of the First Methodist Church in Arlington. In the 1922 elections the Klan sought to dominate local government by running Klan backed candidates. Texas Railroad Commissioner Earle B Mayfield was the Klan candidate for the U.S. Senate. In Dallas county as many as twenty electoral contests were also contests of strength between the Klan and the Dallas Citizens League. The 20
Jackson, Kenneth T., “The Ku Klux Klan in the City, 1915-1930,” Ivan R. Dee Inc., Elephant paperback edition, Chicago, 1992, pp. 66-80. Originally published by Oxford University Press, 1967. There very well might be in 2020 more recent and more informed scholarship on the KKK in Dallas. However, for the purpose of providing a context for Sumners actions this source will serve to provide the brief summary which is needed.
Page 10 of 19
Klan priority was to support Dan Harston as sheriff, Shelby S. Cox as district attorney, and Felix Robertson as criminal court judge. The Dallas Citizens League sent a questionnaire to all the candidates asking for their beliefs regarding the Ku Klux Klan. This was a questionnaire which Sumners would refuse to acknowledge or respond to it as will be discussed later in this chapter. Victory on July 22, 1922, in the Democratic primary went to the Klan. Earle B. Mayfield polled 27 percent of the vote statewide and 42 percent in Dallas and qualified for the runoff against Texas ex-governor James E. Ferguson though he would lose in the runoff. Locally eighteen of nineteen of the Klan supported candidates were victorious. Sheriff Dan Harston was re-elected and Felix D. Robertson nominated for criminal court by the Democrats which was equivalent to being elected. For district attorney a runoff was necessary for Shelby S. Cox, had a plurality of the votes, versus incumbent Maury Hughes. As it became apparent that the Klan backed candidates were winning the runoff, on August 26, 1922 the Klan had a parade through downtown Dallas which ended up at the Dallas Times Herald building where they had speeches. Judge Felix Robertson was in the march and Shelby Cox told cheering crowds that he had marched with the Klan in Dallas and other North Texas cities. Shelby Cox who had admitted he was a Klan member defeated Maury Hughes by 14,000 to 10,000. Hughes it turned out had been a Klan member and had resigned from it early in its Dallas history. Earle B. Mayfield won the runoff and as Democratic nominee was easily elected in Nov. 1922 to the U.S. Senate.21 George C. Purl was elected to the Texas House. Later in 1923 the entire Klan slate was elected to the Dallas city commission including Louis Blaylock was elected mayor. Locally in Dallas the Klan had strong support in the 1924 elections but started to decline since then and by 1926 wasn’t considered to be politically important. However, the organization continued to function in Dallas and commit acts of violence. In 1922 when the establishment was out in full force against the Klan onslaught in politics, Sumners was doing everything he could to avoid getting involved. From the archives there are a couple letters to Sumners bringing up the subject of the Klan. A Jan. 9, 1922 letter from a Jeff D. Stinson writes Sumners asking if he should seek Klan support in his race for the legislature.22 In a Jan. 13, 1922 letter Sumners in reply to Stinson avoids any mention of the Klan and states that, “As you know, during
21
For laughs go see the entry in the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, at https://bioguideretro.congress.gov/Home/MemberDetails?memIndex=m000281. The Klan isn’t mentioned. 22 Jeff D. Stinson to HWS, Jan. 9, 1922, DHS Box 101.2.3.
Page 11 of 19
the past several years I have largely been out of touch with the local situation,” and can’t advise Stinson.23 The earliest letter in the archive asking whether Sumners was a member of the Klan is from a Dick O’Bannon, Feb. 11, 1922.24 A reply hasn’t been found in the archive.25 It isn’t until June and July in 1922 when in the correspondence in the archives shows intensive correspondence on the topic and an effort by local journalists to get Sumners to take a stand. Sumners replies in letter marked “Personal” to a letter from Judge Wm. R. Harris dated June 9, 1922 and in regards to the Klan issues replies as follows: There is a question, of course, as to how it is best to proceed; whether I should drift into Texas and get in touch with these various groups or let you boys handle it for a while. Some time ago I received a questionnaire from General Crane with regards to the Ku Klux Klan. There were a great many questions propounded, which it seem to me impossible to answer without becoming directly involved in the controversy. At least, I have seen no way to answer them without becoming so involved. Of course, I have no affiliation with the Ku Klux Klan, have never had any shape or form, and this seems to be so thoroughly understood or assumed by my constituents that I have no received a single communication other than that of General Crane with regard to the matter. It has not seemed wise form the standpoint of public policy and the efficiency of official service for one undertaking to represent the people of a district in the national Congress to turn aside from the heavy duties which are now involved and participate in a matter of community controversy when the matter is one concerning which the public official, as such, can have nothing to do. General Crane has always been a good friend of mine and I am sure has some appreciation of what I have just said. I have had no further communication from him about the matter. I, of course, meant no personal discourtesy in not replying to the questionnaire. As a matter of fact I have never answered a questionnaire; they are coming now from so many sources and the country is so divided into antagonistic groups, it seems to me impossible to properly represent a district except to leave one’s self in a situation where, when the time for action comes, he can use his latest and best judgment as to what is the right and the best thing to do at that time.
23
HWS to Jeff D. Stinson, Jan. 13, 1922, DHS Box 101.2.3. Dick O’Bannon to HWS, Feb. 11, 1922. DHS Box 101.2.4. 2525 In going through Box 101 no reply was found, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a reply somewhere in the 141 boxes which are in imperfect order. 24
Page 12 of 19
I would be glad if you would get a bunch of the boys together and go over the situation, and I would like you personally to make some investigation with regards to this group attitudes. It is very evident that Ballowe will try to get the soldier vote, the light wine and beer vote, and the anti-Ku Klux Klan vote. I realize, of course, that things are very abnormal; people are disposed to become intensely concerned about one matter and forget everything else. Under such a situation, it is necessary, I think, to have our friends on guard; at least watching developments.26 Sumners here argues that a violent white terrorist group doing extra-judicial whippings and torture isn’t a congressional concern though it is an overthrow of constitutional government, a thing he would make a career of promoting himself as an expert. Also, he is arguing in the last paragraph that people are being too concerned about the Ku Klux Klan and their campaign of terror. Also his statement that no constituent had been interested in the topic is false. Dick O’Bannon had written him. It is probably very likely there were other letters by constituents, but if so it seems that Sumners didn’t save them. Local researchers should keep a look out for correspondence to Sumners in regards to the Klan in the 1920s. Sumners sent a June 9, 1922 letter in reply to a June 6, 1922 letter from Clement M. Whitehurst. Whitehurst had discussed the issues about the Klan, but Sumners letter in reply doesn’t mention the Klan at all, but instead refers to the “general disturbed situation” and states that it can’t be “ignored” but also that the response “be done rather diplomatically.” Sumners also asks whether he should return to Dallas or stay in Washington, D.C.27 Clement Whitehurst in a June 10, 1922 letter to HWS in reply has an answer to the question about Sumner returning to Dallas as follows: There is no occasion for the slightest apprehension. Talked to Will Harris today at noon and he is of the opinion that you should not under any circumstances come down here and get drawn into the issue. I believe this is true, provided Congress stays in session and you have business there; however, you could not afford to be put in the attitude of being afraid to come back and face the issues. … I have consulted quite a few people with regard to the matter. W.F. Skillman, brotherin-law to Cullen Thomas told me a man is a fool to bow to the demands of the Citizens League and meet certain requirements which they laid down.28 26
HWS to Wm. R. Harris, June 9, 1922. DHS Box 101.2.8. Clement M. Whitehurst to HWS, June 6, 1922. DHS Box 101.2.8. HWS to Clement M. Whitehurst, June 9, 1922. Box 101.2.8. 28 Clement M. Whitehurst to HWS, June 10, 1922. DHS Box 101.2.8. 27
Page 13 of 19
Sumner in a letter to F.P. Holland, editor of Farm & Ranch, June 12, 1922 repeats his argument against responding to Crane’s questionnaire or taking a stand on the Klan. I see a great deal in the papers with regard to the Ku Klux and anti-Ku Klux Klan agitation. Speaking generally with regards to my constituents, I assume that they have not desired me to become involved in the controversy because I have received no communication from anybody with reference to the matter except I did receive a questionnaire from General Crane, which, in so far as I could see, could not be answered without directly involving myself in the controversies there with regard to the matter, which matter, of course, is one concerning which, as a representative of the people in Congress I can have nothing to do, and which involvement would of necessity, whatever may be my disposition, demand time and attention which would have to come from time and attention which out to be given to the public service. It does not seem to me to be in line with a sound public policy, and I speak only with reference to my own views, for me to involve myself in this matter, putting myself in a position where I would have to watch the papers, and generally playing the part throughout the controversy. And, speaking personally, I don not believe that any man ought to run for office on an issue with regards to which, if elected, he can have nothing to do. I, of course, do not have an never have had any connection with this organization, directly or indirectly, nor the members of the organization as such, or any affiliation of the organization. I am kept mighty busy trying to attend to the business which the people have hired me to attend to.29 Sumners’ June 13. 1922 letter to Judge W.R. Harris explains how he is going to play both sides of the Klan issue. Sumners comments that he concludes from a letter from Whitehurst that Ballowe is a member of the Klan and the Dallas Dispatch, a newspaper, was wrong that Ballowe that Ballowe was seeking the anti-Ku Klux Klan vote. So he concludes that his failure to answer General Crane’s questionnaire isn’t the reason for Ballowe’s announcement to see office. Sumners then lays out a strategy to get support from the anti-Klan faction without alienating Klan members. I hardly believe General Crane and his associates would have their personal pride hurt by reason of my failure to reply to the extent they would undertake to get such a man as Ballowe out, hoping to punish me by what opposition they could develop, expecting Ballowe to carry their side of the question and get a large number of the votes of the other side.
29
HWS to F.P. Holland, June 12, 1922. DHS Box 101.2.8.
Page 14 of 19
I am sending herewith a list of the members of the Advisory Committee of the Dallas County Citizens’ League. It would seem to me that the strategy of this situation would be to establish in the minds of the members of this Committee two things: One, that I am not a member of the Klan, never have been, and have no relationship or affiliation with it, but that I am just trying to do the best I can to make a good Congressman and am disposted to regard this controversy as a matter which must be settled by the private citizenship of the community, especially since it is a matter which cannot possibly have any Federal developments and second, that Ballowe is a member of the Klan. I realize that this is a pretty difficult thing to deal with but it does have this possibility. My failure to answer General Crane’s questionaire and involve in the matter leaves me in pretty fair shape in so far as my personal friends who happen to be Klansmen are concerned, and Ballowe’s membership in the Klan puts me in pretty fair shape in so far as my friends who are affiliated with the Dallas County Citizens’ League are concerned. I have a great many personal friends on this list; in fact, practically all of them are my personal friends.30 During the campaign Sumners wasn’t saying publically whether he was or wasn’t a member of the Klan. These communications to the Citizens’ League were to be private. During the campaign the Dallas Dispatch and Dallas Morning News were publishing articles which were putting pressure to force Sumners to make a statement. Wm. R. Harris in a July 5, 1922 letter to Sumners discusses one such Dallas Dispatch article and makes the suggestion that Sumners in a non-formal statement state he isn’t a Klan member. After telling Sumners that he shouldn’t come to Dallas, Harris writes: When you reach Atlanta it may be wise to have a dispatch sent to the Dallas papers stating that you are visiting your mother, giving her address. I make this suggestion because the Dallas Dispatch in its political column the other day made substantially this statement: “Congressman Sumners is returning to his district via Atlanta”. However, even this may emphasize the impressing they are trying to create. While they must know that you are not a member of the Klan, this was evidently intended as a suggestion that you had to visit the Imperial Wizard before returning here. It might be wise if you could do it in some informal way for you to make a statement that you are not and have never been a member of the Klan. The Dispatch for some reason seems to be trying to create the impression that you have some connection with it. If you do not return here, it might be well for you to authorize me if the occasion demands it to make a public statement to the effect that you are not a member of the Klan.31 30 31
HWS to Wm. R. Harris, June 13, 1922. DHS Box 101.2.8. Wm. R. Harris to HWS, July 5, 1922. DHS Box 101.2.12.
Page 15 of 19
There would no need to make a statement formally or informally if it was known that Sumners was or wasn’t a member. Sumner is quick to reply with a July 8, 1922 letter regarding making public the fact that he wasn’t a member of the Klan. Sumner states that he is going to come up with a “very brief communication” to his district for the papers hopefully in one or two days. Regarding this communication Sumner writes: I realize that it is a matter which has to be just right and I shall not turn it loose until I have gotten it just right. It may be that I can cover the Klan issue in a general way, without specifically mentioning the Klan, and make it entirely clear that I am not seeking the support of the District through any intermediary agency or in groups. I realize this statement may give you some concern, but I believe you can trust me not to “spill the beans” on this point.32 However, it doesn’t seem that Sumners was able to come up with a communication that “was just right,” because on July 12, 1922 Wm. R. Harris writes another letter advising Sumners to make some type of statement that he isn’t a member of the Klan writing: It might be adviseable for you to come home and make the statement that you are not a member of the Klan and have never been such a member. This is a fact known by all Klansmen. However, it may be that the newspaper men would propound further questions to you that are foreign to the issues involved in your race. The situation is extraordinary. …33 The Democratic primary was on July 22, 1922. In the Sumners papers there is no further correspondence that was found on Sumners making public his not being a member of the Klan. XXX. Check newspapers. The Dallas Dispatch in particular applied pressure in reporting claims that Sumners had dealings with the Klan to put pressure on Sumners to take a stand. F.P. Holland in a June 21, 1922 letter to Sumners discusses an article in the Dallas Dispatch as follows: I suppose you get the Dispatch of this city, and have read what was said last night as having occurred at the Ku Klux meeting here. The preacher, if the Dispatch quotes him properly says that while you are not a member of the Ku Klux Klan, that you have promised him that after the coming election you will not run again, but keep out of the race to make way for a Klan
32 33
HWS to Wm. R. Harris, July 8, 1922. DHS Box 101.2.12. Wm. R. Harris to HWS, July 12, 1922. DHS Box 101.2.12.
Page 16 of 19
member. That under your claimed promise he tried to get Ballowe to withdraw in your favor, but he refused to do it.34 Sumners in a reply dated June 21, 1922 to Wm. R. Harris states that he doesn’t know why Dr. Jones would try to get him mixed up in what Sumners calls “this local situation.” Sumners stated that he was not going to reply to Dr. Jones letter to Sumners, a copy which he enclosed with his letter to Harris. He also states that with Jones letter was a blank application for membership in the Klan.35 In a July 6, 1922 letter from HWS to Wm. R. Harris, Sumners complains about the Dallas Dispatch as follows: I notice in the Dallas Dispatch of Monday, July 3rd, that Balloee has spoken at Royse City and at Garland, and the Dispatch also makes therein a statement to the effect that I have been endorsed by the Klan “eliminating committee.” Of course, I do not know anything about this. I imagine about what has happened is that the Klan has said they would not stand for a man of Ballowe’s sort. It is very evident that the Dispatch is trying to cause me embarrassment in this situation and seems quite disposed to make very little investigation to ascertain whether or not that which is publishing is the truth. Colonel Holland has always heretofore been a very close friend of Mr. Anderson, and I am inclined to believe he is yet. It seems to me that it would probably be a good idea if you could have a conference with the Colonel with reference to this paper. It is probable that he could locate what influences are working in Ballowe’s behalf in that direction. … Sumners also mentions in the beginning of the letter than he had received newspaper clippings titled “No Place for Pussyfooters in Klan Fight,” but what newspaper they were from or what they said Sumners doesn’t mention. 36 It doesn’t occur to Sumners that the Dallas Dispatch isn’t working for Ballowe but is trying to get Sumners to take a stand on the Klan or just sell copies. Sumners in a July 8, 1922 letter to Wm. R. Harris complains that, “I have noticed some statements in one of the papers from which it would seem that an effort is being made to create the impression that I have been dickering with the Ku Klux Klan for its support in the coming primary election.” Sumners denies it.37 The paper was the Dallas Dispatch which Sumners notes in an earlier letter of July 1, 1922 to Harris.38
34
F.P. Holland to HWS, June 21, 1922. DHS Box 101.2.11. HWS to F.P. Holland, June 21, 1922. DHS Box 101.2.11. 36 HWS to Wm. R. Harris, July 6, 1922. DHS Box 101.2.12. 37 HWS to Wm. R. Harris, July 8, 1922. DHS Box 101.2.12. 38 HWS to Wm. R. Harris, July 1, 1922. DHS Box 101.2.12. 35
Page 17 of 19
None of these tactics seemed to work and Sumners’ views of the Klan, whether he was a member of the Klan, or had any dealings with the Klan did not come out before the primary. In Texas at that time winning the Democratic Primary was equivalent to winning the general election there being no significant opposition political party at that time. From the correspondence reviewed and searching the Newsbank database of DMN articles there isn’t a record that he ever made a public statement about the Klan. Sumners in his letters gave to some correspondents a long rationalization about why he was avoiding the issue of the Klan. They are instructive in that they show how Sumners’ invocations of political philosophy of governance are used as a cover for his failure in moral leadership to oppose the Klan in this particular case and are part of his more general practice of using discussions of the constitution to oppose civil rights. The following is from Sumners’ letter to F.P. Holland, June 24, 1922, in which he thinks it is “dirty politics” for people to try to get him to take a stand on the Klan. I am in receipt of your letter of the 21st inst., as well as yours of the 15th, received some days ago. I have not seen a copy of the Dispatch referred to in your letter, but I received a wire from it, a copy of which is enclosed herewith. It seemed to me that this wire required an immediate reply, so on the day of its receipt, I sent the answer which is also attached hereto. And, I have also received a wire fro Mr. Parker, copy of which is also enclosed herewith. This would seem to me nothing more than a lot of dirty politics. As a matter of fact, I have been trying my best to take care of the duties which the people have employed me to discharge. The responsibilities these times upon those clothed with the duty of representing the people in national legislation and shaping national policy is greater, in my judgement, than it has been since the formative period of this government. I do not believe there has been a period in the world’s history where the fundamentals of civilization are in as great peril as they are in at this time. The discord and the unrest which we find now are those things which have been characteristic of the great blood-letting periods of history, resulting from internal disorder. In such a time somebody must stand for things which are fundamental and for that which is right, and in my judgment it is necessary for them to hold themselves free from the suspicion of being actuated by any other motive than the broad and impartial desire and unyielding purpose to serve the country’s interests and, if possible, preserve its peace until our people shall have returned to normal mental conditions. For that reason, and because it is not possible for one 1700 miles from the place where a controversy among the people
Page 18 of 19
is being waged to discharge properly his public duties when his attention is necessarily detracted, I have sought to hold myself free from any involvement. Of course, you realize as a matter of fact that there is no possible development which could bring the question most agitating the community’s mind within the reach of Federal responsibility, and you know too that the limitations imposed upon human nature would not permit any man, I do not care who he is, to devote his time undividedly to the discharge of his public duties, especially with an approaching election, who must be giving attention to the political developments of a controversy with regards to which he has made himself a party. I do not make this statement in criticism of anybody, but merely an expression of my own views and attitude, with regard to the soundness of which I feel absolutely certain. To say that I have been dickering with anybody or any organization for its support or their support, or making any pledges or promises to anybody to get in or stay out of any contests against me, it would seem to me, is the heighth of absurdity. My own attitude towards the matter is that when the people – I mean the individual votes – do not want me, it is their duty to send someone else to Congress, and whenever my relationship to the individual who controls his own ballot is such that I cannot appeal directly to hi for his political support, then I no longer want this office. The only thing which makes the position which I hold attractive to me is the possibility for greater usefulness which it affords than I perhaps could find in private life. That possibility depends upon my being privileged to devote myself with undivided interest and undivided thought to the public service. When the possibility of undivided service and undivided thought is destroyed, then the thing which makes this position attractive to me will have been destroyed and I do not want the position any longer. The letter closes with the statement that Sumners is, “… writing to you in the confidence and candor of our long friendship …”, that is the letter is confidential.39 The self-serving rationalizations and grandiosity of the letter would be an ongoing characteristic of Sumners’ rhetoric. This explanation why Sumners was avoiding the issue of the Klan was largely repeated in a July 6, 1922 letter by Sumners to E.F. Phillips of Waxahatchie. Sumners explains that it is confidential, “Of course, this is all for your own eyes …” 40 During the 1922 election Sumners did campaign on his record against civil rights and additionally started denouncing Jazz culture which would have been a racially coded
39 40
HWS to F.P. Holland, June 24, 1922. DHS Box 101.2.11. HWS to E.F. Phillips, July 6, 1922. DHS Box 101.2.12.
Page 19 of 19
message at the time, but this will be discussed in the chapters about his opposition to civil rights. Interestingly enough D.W. Bowser in his June 13, 1922 to Sumners mentions that his father was a member of the Klan. That would be O.P. Bowser, member of the Sterling Price United Confederate Veterans and for whom Bowser Avenue in Dallas is named after.41
41
D.W. Bowser to HWS, June 13, 1922. DHS Box 101.2.13.