Page 1 of 10
CHAPTER SIX RACE AND THE CONSTITUTION 1919 1924 -- Ed Sebesta 10/10/2020. On Nov. 15, 1919 U.S. Representative Martin B. Madden of Illinois submitted an amendment to the Railroad Bill H.R. 10453 which would have ended segregated railroad cars. Hatton W. Sumners spoke against it. In his speech in the U.S. House, Sumners asserts that it is inherent in white people a drive to violent rage in response to African Americans and further that a person who doesn’t have this drive to violent rage is a “racial degenerate.” Additionally he calls African Americans an “antagonistic race” in this speech showing that as in Sumners earlier comments on the Japanese in California, he saw racial conflict inherent between two races living in the same area and races basically opponents. Additionally Sumners is justifying lynching as an inherent unstoppable drive in white people. Not also Sumners statement against immigration from Europe, people who he feels are “trying to tear down the country,” as being comparable to the slave trade. Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I want to appeal to my friends on both sides of the House in behalf of both the white race and the colored race living in the South to defeat this amendment. I believe my colleagues on this side of the House will acquit me of any charge of being intensely partisan. My father was a Confederate soldier, and I used to hear him and his old comrades talk about the days of long ago, and when I was a little boy I made up my mind definitely that if I ever grew up I would get me at least one Yank if I had to pot shot him. [Laughter.] When I grew older and came in contact with the men on the other side of the line I found them to be the same sort of folks as my folks. [Applause.] Now, gentlemen, let me lay before you the situation. We are unfortunately situated in the South in that we are trying an experiment which has never before succeeded since time began. We are trying to have two races live in the same community where no white man is willing to imagine that day when his granddaughter will mingle her blood with the grandson of a black neighbor. We might just as well be honest about this. I do not know why, but when people live under a condition where there are a large number of an antagonistic race, with whose blood they are not willing to have their children mingle their blood, then there comes to me the call of the race. I am speaking to many a man who does not understand what I am talking about. Nature does not waste her energy, and unless you live in the presence of that danger you never hear the call. Why God has put that in the breast of the white folks I do not know, but it is there, and when that call comes men respond to a call hat is higher than the call of the law of self-preservation, because it is the call for the preservation of the race. I have seen many a man who came to the South from a part of the country where that condition did not obtain, and after he came to the South he heard the call. When that call comes – I am going to be honest with you – it will not yield to reason. I make another
Page 2 of 10
statement, and make it deliberately. It has no code of honor. It is the blind, unyielding, all-sacrificing purpose of the dominant race to control the situation, and you might just as well argue to the moon as argue to a white man who is not a racial degenerate not to listen to that call. [Applause.] I mean no offense when I make that statement. I am not talking about a theory. I am talking about what I have seen men do who came from New England, and I want you to listen to me, men. We have a hard situation in the South. We are partly responsible for it, and so are the other sections. We violated that great law of life which God announced to Adam at the gate of the Garden of Eden, and you people in the North and we of the South also are violating that law when we are bringing into this country to do our physical labor, the folks who are now trying to tear down the country, and you will have to pay a penalty also. We were not willing to do our own work; we brought an alien race to do it; we violated that law; and we of the South are paying most of the penalty. We are dealing with a hard situation. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for five minutes more. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman asks unanimous consent to proceed for five minutes. Is there objection? There was no objection. Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. Now listen to me, my countrymen. I am appealing to you as statesmen now. The South is a part of this country. We are undertaking to deal with a hard and a difficult situation. The races are compelled to commingle a great deal, but it is my deliberate judgment, and I state it not as a southern man, but as a man who has observed the situation, I make this statement deliberately and upon my responsibility as a Representative in the American Congress that those laws which separate the two races traveling upon the common carriers of this country are of a great if not greater service to the colored man than they are to the white man. [Applause.] I make that statement deliberately. And, gentlemen, when you interfere with the attempt of the people on the ground to deal with a difficult and dangerous situation, you do no good to the people who occupy a subordinate position racially. Mr. LAYTON. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Delaware.
Page 3 of 10
Mr. LAYTON. I have no objection to a word that the gentleman has uttered. The call of race is just as strong in me as it is in him, but I am going to put a frank question to hi, one that in my judgment lies at the heart of this whole matter. I believe that the North absolutely in its heart recognizes the conditions that prevail in the South, and the reason why the North has never attempted to exert political power in order to interfere with the government of the Anglo-Saxon race in the South is because they are in sympathy with the domination of the AngloSaxon race. [Applause.] But, gentlemen, this will always and eternally be a burning question in this country until you people are willing to be counted only for the white race in your representation in the political affairs of this country. Mr. RAYBURN. What was the question? The gentleman did not ask it. Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. That is a question which I can not discuss now, because within 20 minutes this House, by its vote, is to speak those words which shall determine whether or not the people of the South who understand this situation shall be privileged to do the best they can to handle a difficult situation, or whether by national legislation you will inject an irritating situation there that will make the streets of the southern cities run red with the blood of the people you are trying to serve. Gentlemen, do not misunderstand me. I do not mean that as a threat; I am trying to state the truth. If ever that time comes in the South, and you will find the same thing if you travel there, when this great horde of colored people, traveling to picnics, for instance, come crowding in with your wife and daughter, you will not like the situation. Bad Blood will be engendered and somewhere down the line there will come a reckoning. I hope, gentlemen, you will view this matter from the standpoint of statesmen, and I believe you will. I hope when you come to render a decision you will recognize the fact which I admit, that it is a bad situation down there. I do not know where the end of it is, but I do know that unless you permit us to draw some line of separation somewhere, so that we can prevent the friction which inevitably results, you add to the difficulty of both the whites and the blacks. Gentlemen, do not mistake this: When a large number of white people and large number of black people come together in intimate relationship friction does develop. Unless you give a chance to prevent the friction which inevitably develops, then upon you and upon you alone, when you put this amendment into effect, must rest the responsibility. [Applause.] Note: When there were two members of the U.S. House with the same last name they would be designated by state from which they were elected. Otherwise the state isn’t mentioned.
Page 4 of 10
The vote against the amendment was 142 noes to 12 ayes.1 The DMN account of the speech is slightly different, and reports the following: The South has a hard situation to deal with, both social and political.” Said Mr. Sumners, “and will countenance no alteration of the code that is not founded upon Anglo-Saxon supremacy.”2 The reporting doesn’t seem to have confused what Layton had said. The final version in the Congressional Record seems to be an edited version of what Sumners said. Sumners in a letter to Jno. E. Davis, Editor of The Texas Mesquiter, Nov. 16, 1919 explains his strategy behind the speech. What is important about the letter is that it reveals what Sumners sees as the potential weakness in maintaining white supremacy in the South. Sumners sees the need to develop non-sectional arguments which are credible to persons who are not what he feels are Southerners. The letter I as follows: I am taking the liberty of sending you herewith a part of The Congressional Record of yesterday which I trust gives an account of the last fight to be made in the American Congress to deprive the people of the South of the opportunity of dealing with other matters in which the race question injects itself. An amendment was offered to the pending Railroad Bill by Congressman Madden, of Chicago, the purpose of which was to nullify what is known as the “Jim Crow” Law of the South. There was a tendency for the debate to develop along the old sectional lines, and, of course, if it did develop along those lines, there is no question as to what the result would have been, because the Democrats are much in the minority and the South controls but little more than one fourth of the membership of the House. Under these circumstances I took the floor for the purpose of trying to give the people of the North a correct understanding of our difficulties and the problems which are involved, and especially to direct their attention to the philosophy and to the racial instincts which are involved. At the conclusion of my talk, as you will observe from the Record, everybody was anxious to close the discussion and to vote, and the result of the vote, as you will observe, was that only twelve were cast in its favor, 142 against. The explanation for the small vote is that a great many Republicans with a considerable constituency, unwilling to vote against it, left the
1
Congressional Record, 67th Cong. 1st Sess. Vol. 58 Part 9, Nov. 15, 1919. Sumners’ speech Pages 8576-77, Introduction of amendment by Madden on Page 8575. Vote against on page 8578. Railroad Bill brought up on page 8574. 2 No author, “Fight is Waged for State Rail Control,” HWS, Nov. 16, 1919, page 1, 8. Quote is from page 8.
Page 5 of 10
Hall. Many Members from the New England section have asked me to have this speech printed and furnish them with some copies for use in their District.3 The final paragraph is that he leaves it to Davis as to whether his readers will find the proceedings of the Congressional Record regarding the Madden amendment of interest. What also is interesting, is that Sumners observes that the House Republicans don’t really support civil rights for African Americans and exited the chamber to avoid having to take a vote for the amendment yet not antagonize their “considerable negro constituency.” Note also that Sumners makes reference to “philosophy.” Sumners will in the future make reference to having a non-sectional philosophy to appeal to persons outside the South because as he notes the South only has “one fourth” of the U.S. House votes. Sumners House speech in defense of Jim Crow railroad cars got attention elsewhere. Hugh W. Roberts praises it in a Birmingham Age-Herald article of Nov. 20, 1919, titled, “Texan Speaks Plainly on Race Issue in South.”4 Sumners’ strategy to get support outside the South for Jim Crow seems to have been recognized in the press. In an article by the Washington Bureau of The Oklahoman, dated March 28, (1920?) with the title, “Modest Texan’s Appeal Saved Jim Crow Law: Political Lines Broken Down When Congressman Cited Psychology of the Races.” The article states: Because of his strong belief in the phenomena of race psychology, Hatton Summers, one the young members of congress from Texas saved the Jim Crow law. It was during the passage of the railroad bill when the Madden amendment was offered, which had for its purpose the abolishment of the Jim Crow law. Things had been lagging. The members were sleepy and tired. Many of them were reading their home papers while discussion was going on. But long before the clerk had finished reading this amendment, things begun to hum. The members from the south began to rally to the call – the very atmosphere became tense. Mr. Madden spoke in favor of his amendment. A southern member in a characteristic speech replied with the battlecry of southern whites. Brave of heart,
3
HWS to Hon. Jno. E. Davis, Editor of The Texas Mesquiter, Mesquite, Texas, Nov. 16, 1919. DHS Box 70.2.1. Roberts, Hugh W., “Texan Speaks Plainly on Race Issue in South,” Birmingham Age-Herald, Nov. 20, 1919. Typed copy supplied by Birmingham Age-Herald. DHS Box 70.2.6. In some of the DHS Sumners collection a clipping has Feb. 2, 1920 written on the clipping, but this is wrong. DHS 70.2.1 has letter from HWS requesting 11/20/1919 and the typed copy has the correct date. 4
Page 6 of 10
but few in numbers they seemed doomed to overwhelming defeat, when suddenly Hatton Summers, ??? democrat member from Texas – rose to his feet. Before Mr. Summers had finished his short appeal – for it only lasted three minutes – he had both sides of the house with hi. He had broken down every barrier and overturned tradition and the response for his appeal was practically unanimous. For the first time since the Civil war, a southern congressman succeeded in crossing the chasm of section and of party division and speaking to the entire membership of the house in the mystic language of their race, which was more profound than words. The article then goes on to say it demolished Madden’s arguments and quotes from the speech.5 Sumners was not a prominent figure in the defeat of bills in the U.S. Congress attempting to establish a federal department of education. However, his reasons which he gave for opposing it, which varied markedly depending on the individual being written to are very illuminating of his thinking. In particular how he connects his opposition to the expansion of the responsibilities of the federal government, his concerns over what he called “centralization” to the maintenance of white supremacy and how he considered carefully the eventual consequence of any action regarding the federal government to the maintenance of white supremacy. That is how something that might not seem related to the issue of white supremacy might have a series of consequences such that eventually there would be a threat to white supremacy. Further his general theory regarding government is directly connected to his support for white supremacy. During World War I the first attempts to establish a federal department of education when surveys of U.S. soldiers revealed a rate of illiteracy of 24.9%. The National Education Association (NEA) drafted a solution and introduced it to congress in 1918. The effort ultimately failed and faced opposition and support from many different groups for different reasons which won’t be discussed in this article. The bill had different names such as the Towner-Smith bill and Towner-Sterling bill.6 Earliest record of the issue in the Sumners papers at the DHS is a July 5, 1921 letter by T.P. Hayes of Dallas, Texas to Sumners, asking for his support. Reply wasn’t found in DHS records.7
5
No author, Washington Bureau March 28, The Oklahoman. Newspaper clipping in DHS Box 70.2.6.”???” is an unreadable part of the text due to a crease in the article clipping. 6 Dumenil, Lynn, “‘The Insatiable Maw of Bureaucracy,’ Antistatism and Education Reform in the 1920s,” The Journal of American History, Vol. 77 No. 2, Sept. 1990, Oxford Univ. Press, pp. 499-524. Items measured on pages 499-500. 7 T.P. Hayes to HWS, July 5, 1921. DHS Box 70.2.3.
Page 7 of 10
Sumners did reply to others giving different reasons. In a May 10, 1922 letter to Herbert M. Greene, of Dallas, Texas he states that he appreciates Greene’s letter and is giving it special attention and is going to speak “candidly” to him. I note what you have to say concerning the fact that this proposed legislation does not violate state rights. In so far as I am concerned, I have never regarded states rights -- that is the right of the States to govern -- as primary importance. I have regarded always as being of primary importance the preservation of the necessity to govern and the holding of that necessity as close to the people as possible. I am taking the liberty of sending to you under a separate cover copy of a speech delivered by myself on the “Anti-Lynching” Bill, in which my ideas with regard to that phase of the matter is fairly well set forth. It is my judgment that if we shift the responsibility to any considerable degree from the States to the Federal government, with regard to education, we will have the absorption by the Federal government of the powers of the States regard thereto, and will have great Bureau here in Washington entirely beyond the reach of the collective influence of the individual citizen located back in the States. Sumners then give a reason that the money will just be re-cycled from the states to the federal government and back with the expense of federal management of the money. Sumners states: But aside from that there is this difficulty. I note your statement that the money is to be expended under State control provided certain general principles are adopted which, it may be assumed, will be adopted. So we will have a situation where we will be sending to the States to collect this money by taxation, because the Federal government can get no money into its Treasury except that which it procures through taxation. Then we bring that money from the States to Washington, clear it through the Federal Treasury, deducting from the amount of money collected the expense of collection and distribution, and then we must deduct from that fund whatever is required for supervision in distribution and expenditure.8 All taxation has expenses in collection and management, why this would be exceptional for federal taxation versus locally collected and dispersed isn’t explained by Sumners. Also, Sumners misrepresents the flow of money. The federal government taxes individuals and corporations and these entities do reside in states, but it isn’t a flow from states through the federal government back through states. There would be the potential of wealthier areas to aid poorer areas.
8
HWS to Herbert M. Greene, May 10, 1922. DHS Box 70.1.11.
Page 8 of 10
In 1919-1920 the average salary of teachers, principals, and supervisors combined was $871 with New Jersey the highest with $1,282 and Mississippi the lowest at $291.9 There was the potential for a tremendous amount of aid to the southern states not only benefiting education but providing input into the local economy. Given that the southern states were greatly impoverish they would have paid significantly relatively less than states in the industrialized regions of the United States with their great sources of industrialized wealth. To represent it as Mississippi sending a little money to the federal government and getting that money back with a deduction of for the expenses of administration of that money was a gross misrepresentation of the proposed legislation. In a May 27, 1922 letter to Prof. K. Reginald Boley, Superintendent of the Bardwell Public Schools in Bardwell, Texas, Sumners gives the same explanation about the expansion of federal government and the needless recycling of money from the states to the federal government and back.10 However, in a latter Feb. 5, 1923 letter by Sumners to Helen G. Groce of Waxahatchie we find another concern of Sumners, and what is motivating his denial of the southern states of a great benefit. Sumners does mention loss of local control of educational spending, but then leads to another concern in the letter. There is another thing which I have hesitated to say, because a great many people who do not have the opportunity to see what I see might think I am suggesting it merely to scare people off, but I saw last year the board of local control of the schools here put into effect a regulation which authorized the negro children to use the libraries of the white schools, and vice versa. I saw last year men vote for the so-called “Anti-Lynching” Bill under the coercion of the organized negro vote in their Districts, who are ashamed beyond measure of that vote. For the first time the negro vote is organized along racial lines and they are demanding of the Republican party, as the price of their continued support, the right to fix the racial question in the South. The negroes now constitute the balance of political power in many of the States. They are growing with continued rapidity in all sections of the North. They will soon constitute the balance of political power in many more States, and when the States shall have surrendered to the Federal Government the right to levy taxes for the maintenance of the schools, and therefore provide the regulations under which the States may participate in the distribution of the money raised by taxation, it will require only one little act of the national Congress to compel the South to break down the racial barriers, in total in part, in its school systems, before it is entitled to receive its share of this money. 9
Dumenil, Lynn, “‘The Insatiable Maw of Bureaucracy,’ Antistatism and Education Reform in the 1920s,” The Journal of American History, Vol. 77 No. 2, Sept. 1990, Oxford Univ. Press, pp. 499-524. Items measured on page 505. 10 HWS to K. Reginald Boley, May 27, 1922. DHS Box 71.1.11.
Page 9 of 10
Evidently Groce was a supporter of the education bill who had written to Sumners since in the letter he writes the following paragraph: I sometimes wonder if something is not wrong with my judgment when people like you and my other friends in Texas practically all seem to be in favor of this bill. Of course I may be wrong, and when I find so many people of sound judgment who differ with me, I want more and more to look into the reasons upon which my inclinations rest. Sumners says that when he returns to Dallas they will talk this whole thing over, but states, “… but when you come to discuss it, you must do it with the a sense of sharing full responsibility as to the consequences, because this country is our’s in common.” That is Groce will share responsibility in putting white supremacy in the South at risk.11 Sumners in a March 20, 1924 letter to George W. Walton of Dallas, discusses the Towner-Sterling Bill. Sumners discusses this bill initially explaining that the federal government is getting too much power, it is becoming too big, and it will be wasting money. Then it gets into the issue of race. Sumners writes: Not only that, but the Southern people had better think more than once before they consent that the Federal government should have the power to control the schools within the Southern States. For the first time since the negro came to America, he is organized along racial lines. He has come to hold the balance of political power in a vast section of the United States. In fact, he holds the balance of political power to a very large degree in the nation itself. More and more he is demanding as the price of his continued allegiance to the Republican Party that he be permitted to determine the policy of the national government towards the race question in the South. I will not undertake to discuss this matter in detail, but to give you a glimpse into the various difficulties which confront me and the things which make me hesitate before agreeing to surrender to the Federal government control of the public schools of any State. I am quite aware of the fact that the terms of the bill do not provide that, but if this bill is enacted, that result is inevitable. About that I have no question. I am sending you under a separate cover copy of a speech delivered by me with reference to a bill which the Association for the Advancement of the Colored Race is responsible for and which the influence of that Association put through the
11
HWS to Mrs. Helen H. Groce, of Waxahachie, Texas, Feb. 23, 1923. DHS Box 71.1.13.
Page 10 of 10
House of Representatives by a vote of almost two to one. It was defeated in the Senate only by a long filibuster.12 The Sumners’ speech which Sumners mentions is his speech against the Dyer antilynching legislation which was advanced by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, was passed by the U.S. House, and was block by filibustering in the U.S. Senate. Again Sumners shows that he evaluates legislation in terms of whether it might impact directly or indirectly white supremacy in the South, either immediately or through a chain of events resulting in some future consequence. Also, he is raising the issue that the racial order of white supremacy in the South is now actively under attack by organized African Americans who will be looking to see if some federal legislation or power can be used to bring down white supremacy. With politically organized African Americans seeking to use federal power to overthrow the racial order of the South, any expansion of federal power or activity would be a potential threat to that order. Any governmental philosophy or political position against the expansion of the federal government and its powers and activities would be simultaneously a philosophy and political position in support of white supremacy. Sumners, opposition to the expansion of the federal power in general is inherently his program to maintain white supremacy. They are the opposite sides of the same coin as the cliché goes. Filibustering isn’t in the American constitution, but is a ruse by which democracy can be thwarted when there is a desire that a bill not be passed, but many U.S. Senators don’t want to go on record voting against the bill. With filibustering, a minority can go on record opposing something and other U.S. Senators who are glad some legislation will not get passed can publically lament that they wanted it passed but that it was blocked by some minority by a filibuster. Filibustering allows U.S. House members to vote for some bill which has strong support in their district, but for which they are opposed, knowing that a filibuster will block it in the U.S. Senate. It is an obvious manifestation of an intent by the establishment that there will be very little legislation approved of which they are opposed and to insure that the constitution is never dangerous to their interests.
12
HWS to Geo. W. Walton, of Dallas, Texas, March 20, 1924. DHS Box 70.1.13.