Chapter XI

THE LOST CAUSE RELOST

The racially pure ... Teuton on the American Continent has arisen to be its master; he will remain master so long as he too does not succumb to blood defilement.—Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

In 1954 historian Francis B. Simkins told the Southern Historical Association: “There is a reality about the South which historians with egalitarian standards find hard to understand or appreciate.” The South, said this native South Carolinian, should be judged by its own standards, not those of a liberal, equalitarian, democratic America.[547] Professor Simkins’ advice has not been followed in this study.

In contemplating the arguments advanced by white South Carolinians against integrating the races on any level, one is struck by the prominence given to expressions of fear that integration will inevitably lead to wholesale “amalgamation” and/or “miscegenation” which will result in turn in the destruction of Southern civilization. An excellent example of this reasoning is contained in the late Herbert Ravenel Sass’s article “Mixed Schools and Mixed Blood,” which appeared in the November 1956 issue of the Atlantic Monthly. “It is the deep conviction of nearly all white Southerners,” Sass wrote, “that the mingling or integration of white and Negro children in the South’s primary schools would open the gates to miscegenation and widespread racial amalgamation.” To guard against this “danger,” he declared, Southerners would maintain segregation in public schools at all costs. “The South must do this because, although it is a nearly universal instinct, race preference is not active in the very young. Race preference (which the propagandists miscall race prejudice or hate) is one of those instincts which develop gradually as the mind develops and which, if taken in hand early enough, can be prevented from developing at all.” If the South allowed its small children to attend integrated schools in which white and colored would be “brought together intimately and constantly” there would be many “in whom race preference would not develop.” This would be the ultimate tragedy for the South and for civilization. For “a very few years of thoroughly integrated schools would produce large numbers of indoctrinated young Southerners free from all ‘prejudice’ against mixed matings.” Negro leaders, he concluded, desired racial amalgamation; “they not only want the right to amalgamate through legal intermarriage but they want that right to be exercised widely and frequently.”[548]

The concern of South Carolinians with the “threat” of intermarriage is evidenced by the frequency with which this subject is mentioned in letters to newspapers in the state. Though the logic and factual accuracy of many of these letters leave something to be desired, they none the less are illustrative of a state of mind. For example, W. A. Morris of Charleston, referring to the mulattoes in the NAACP, said: “In the animal kingdom the mongrel is despised and outlawed, the good farmer uses only purebred stock and dog and cat fanciers insist on pedigreed pets. Should we expect less of man, made in the image of God, or attempt to improve on God’s work?”[549] Mr. Morris did not make it exactly clear how both whites and blacks but not mulattoes could be made in God’s image. Nor did he concern himself with how mulattoes got to be what they are.

Sentiments similar to those of Morris were expressed by Mrs. S. L. Blackman of Darlington: “Cross-bred animals lose the higher qualities of the parent stock,” she asserted, “and the low qualities always come to the fore. That’s a law of nature you can’t get away from.... If segregation is broken down everywhere, this world will be peopled by a mongrel race, eventually fit for nothing, not worth the air they would breathe, just scum of the earth.”[550] Mrs. Blackman’s dogmatic assertions are in direct contrast to the findings of the late Professor Franz Boaz, America’s greatest cultural anthropologist. Concerning attitudes such as those expressed by Mrs. Blackman, Boas wrote: “The claim has been made ... that mixed races ... are inferior in physical and mental qualities, that they inherit all the unfavorable traits of the parental races. So far as I can see, this bold proposition is not based on adequate evidence.” Going even further, he declared, “The few cases in which it has been possible to gather strictly scientific data on the physical characteristics of the half-bloods have rather shown that there may be a certain amount of physical improvement in the mixed race.”[551]

Stanley F. Morse, a chronic letter-to-the-editor writer and prominent in white supremacy circles, told the News and Courier that the progeny of “uncontrolled [interracial] crossings are mongrels which are more apt to be inferior than superior.” “The fall of the Egyptian, Roman and other great civilizations,” he continued, “was largely due to the development of a mongrel race caused by interbreeding with slaves and ‘barbarians.’” Furthermore, “planned mongrelization of a race in 740 B.C. produced the despised Samaritans.” Those who would condone such mongrelization were “breaking the Divine Laws.” Other writers also considered intermarriage a violation of the will of God. Mrs. E. R. Mansfield of Mt. Pleasant, for example, wrote the News and Courier editor that “naturally this process of maintaining racial purity and integrity at the same time that we make possible equality of opportunity, is going to impose a hardship and some personal tragedies, on some individuals. But this will not be the first hard thing that God in His infinite goodness has demanded for us.”[552]

Three principal conclusions result from this study: (1) South Carolina has not yet embraced democracy as the term is generally defined by Americans outside the South. (2) Many white South Carolinians still accept a racism which in its most extreme forms approaches that of Hitler and the Nazis. (3) Not a few of the arguments and defenses advanced by segregationists against the Court decision are so illogical and so riddled with inconsistencies that sometimes one is obliged to question not only the sincerity but also the intelligence of the spokesmen. These conclusions have been illustrated in the body of the study but a short summary is in order.

The denial of equality of access or opportunity in any public area, function or facility by a “superior” group to an “inferior” group constitutes the antithesis of democracy. In this respect South Carolina, like all of the Southern states, is undemocratic, a condition which persons concerned with promoting integration have not failed to note. Clarence Mitchell, the Washington NAACP official, referred to South Carolina as “the frontier of democracy,” a place where “the real meaning of America” had not penetrated.[553]

The attitude of leading segregation spokesmen regarding democracy is more revealing than that of critics of the South. The News and Courier is the state’s most articulate expert on the “phony spiels about democracy.” The American people had gone “hog-wild in worshipping ‘democracy,’” complained this paper. Democracy with its “unrestricted franchise” did not guarantee good government. Indeed there was “ample precedent for requiring that those who vote on public issues be able to understand” what they were doing. Property, too, was a relevant qualification. George Washington himself had warned against the “‘dangerous multitudes without property and without principle.’” “Some persons” would object to the use of property as a qualification for voting but property was “still a gauge of competence.... Paupers are and should be excluded from deciding how other people’s money is to be spent.” Editor Thomas R. Waring’s editorials also argued that majority rule might be the essence of democracy but the United States was not a democracy. It was a republic. A mob might be a majority at certain times. “The condemnation of Jesus Christ had the approval of a majority. Throughout the history of the church there have been martyrs of majorities.”[554]

A democracy, according to the News and Courier, did not guarantee protection of sectional or local interests. But the United States—“a federal republic”—was especially designed for this end. Under the American constitutional system the parts were supposed to be equal to the whole. In this sense then it was not “the democratic way to force the majority of the people of a REGION to live in a manner that is repugnant to them. The democratic way should take into consideration the local as well as the national feelings of citizens.”[555] John C. Calhoun never better expressed these sentiments.

The Record, too, abhorred “absolute democracy.” The United States was never intended to be such. It was “a limited representative democracy.” The Record deplored constitutional flexibility. It maintained that the presumption on which the Supreme Court based its decision outlawing school segregation, namely, that the Constitution was “a growing document,” eliminated, “for all practical purposes,” the Constitution as “a safeguard of the people’s purposes,” as “a safeguard of the people’s rights and as a limitation upon government.” The Record maintained that the integration problem arose from the fact that “so many of the minority groups, who have been urging the abolition of segregation and other such ‘reforms’” were “not inheritors of the British tradition out of which the American Constitution grew.” These groups saw nothing to be feared in constitutional amendments by the Supreme Court. It was all “democracy” to them and by democracy they meant what the United States Constitution did not mean—absolute democracy.[556]

On this subject the State was equally vociferous. Referring to the term human rights as “meaningless,” the Columbia newspaper in 1957 declared: “The only right with which man is endowed at birth is the right to survive if he can. The right to vote, think freely and speak freely” and the right of representative government “are created by government and society.” Social Darwinism in its rawest form is not yet dead in South Carolina.

Not only do the segregationists deny the validity of many of the basic concepts of democracy but they also dispute the authority of the federal government to assure equal treatment under the laws of the United States to all Americans. They uphold what they consider to be the constitutional rights of the states above human rights as applied to the Negro. Democracy is denied to Negroes in the name of democratic government. Harking back to the conservative nature of the Constitution as originally written, the News and Courier thought it “ridiculous that a document which recognized slavery” was now being “brandished as a guarantee of all sorts of supposed rights. Did the framers of the Constitution, who approved of slavery, sit down and write a document guaranteeing to Negroes the right to send their children to mixed schools?” The question of the Charleston paper reveals more of its fetish for constitutionalism than does the answer: “The framers didn’t guarantee Negroes anything—not even protection from the whip!” The Record, at least recognizing that the Court based its decision on the Fourteenth Amendment and not the original Constitution, declared that “every student of the Constitution” knew that the amendment “was never constitutionally submitted to the states or constitutionally ratified” and was therefore “not today constitutionally a part of the Constitution.”[557] The Record’s arguments concerning the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment contain, of course, an element of historical truth, but only a warped approach to the problem of constitutionalism can hold that the Amendment is not part of the fundamental law of the land.

Not only is there a considerable body of anti-democratic opinion in the state but it is also safe to say that most white South Carolinians consider the Negro a member of an inferior race. Dr. E. Ryan Crow, chairman of the South Carolina education finance commission, observed, for example, that “the white man feels he belongs to a superior race.” To support this belief in racial superiority segregationists often resort to science or pseudo-science. The News and Courier thought it “curious” that many Americans had “abandoned the scientific approach to study of the human species.” “Leaders of public opinion,” it complained, had thrown overboard “the scientists’ cold appraisal” and had fallen back on “sentiment, on propaganda, on political catchwords.” Anything that tended to confirm “inherent differences among races,” was “frowned on as ‘racism.’ Yet a large body of scientific evidence indicates that important differences DO exist” between the races.[558]

These comments by the News and Courier brought a letter of agreement from Francis Fielding-Reid, M.D., of Charleston who warned South Carolinians against accepting “a certain type of pseudo-scientific balderdash.” Said the doctor:

Some years ago a so-called “prominent scientist” made a statement to the effect that the brains of people of various races had been examined anatomically and found essentially identical, and that this indicated that there were no essential intellectual nor emotional racial characteristics other than those caused by environment. Such statements are puerile or are made with intent to deceive....

This writer has heard pseudo-scientific sophistry to the effect that, since most deservedly prominent colored people have some white ancestry, mixing the races is desirable in order to produce more of these individuals. Such statements, too, are puerile and fraudulent.[559]

Other South Carolinians expressed similar opinions. Flora Bell Surles of Mt. Pleasant reported that ethnologists, whom she failed to name, had “shown” that the Negro race was “as yet ‘a childlike race.’” Gilbert Wilkes, also of Mt. Pleasant, described Negroes as belonging to a race which had “no history, or culture, or background of training in either social behavior or custom.” They were “only four generations removed from the trackless jungle” where they had lived “for countless thousands of years, without any development and in many cases without even having devised a language.”[560] Harold A. Petit of Charleston, vice-president and regional manager for the South Carolina Electric and Gas Company and past national president of Exchange Clubs, declared: “The Negro is irresponsible in every degree. I think it is a basic trait, although other conditions—environment, economics and education—contribute to his so-called lethargy.”[561]

A “Dirt Farmer” from “Rural South Carolina” expressed in the News and Courier the sentiments of the state’s most extreme racists. Conceding that segregation could not be “theoretically defended upon the basis of any code of ethics,” he nonetheless favored it because “like Hitler,” he believed “that the Aryan people are superior to any other who have yet trod the face of this earth during the period of recorded history, that they have the inherent ability to contribute more to the future well-being of mankind than any other.” What were the Aryan’s points of superiority, according to the “Dirt Farmer?” Their “curiosity: the desire to know for the sake of knowledge itself;” their “urge to reshape the world more to their own liking;” and their “seeking and finding newer and truer answers” to the problems of civilization. In the interest of impartiality he searched for points of superiority in the Negro. He could find only one—“a more highly developed sense of rhythm.” If the attributes of the Aryans were ever merged “with those of their inferiors, that fatal error can never be redeemed,” he concluded. Mankind’s slow progress would end “and the wave of the future” would push him “inexorably back into darkness and oblivion.”[562]

Logical inconsistency is the most striking characteristic of the many statements made in defense of racial segregation. The aforegoing pages have made this manifestly clear. But then who is logical when it comes to the question of racial superiority? Adolf Hitler, Joseph Goebbels and their like were living proof that logic really didn’t matter.

REFERENCES

CHAPTER I

CHAPTER II

CHAPTER III

CHAPTER IV

CHAPTER V

CHAPTER VI

CHAPTER VII

CHAPTER VIII

CHAPTER IX

CHAPTER X

CHAPTER XI

APPENDIX

The following is the text of the decision, read by Chief Justice Earl Warren, in the case of Briggs v. Elliott (in conjunction with cases from Kansas, Virginia and Delaware) on May 17, 1954:

These cases come to us from the States of Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware. They are premised on different facts and different local conditions, but a common legal question justifies their consideration together in this consolidated opinion.

In each of the cases, minors of the Negro race, through their legal representatives, seek the aid of the courts in obtaining admission to the public schools of their community on a nonsegregated basis. In each instance, they had been denied admission to schools attended by white children under laws requiring or permitting segregation according to race. This segregation was alleged to deprive the plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment. In each of the cases other than the Delaware case, a three-judge federal district court denied relief to the plaintiffs on the so-called “separate but equal” doctrine announced by this Court in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537. Under that doctrine, equality of treatment is accorded when the races are provided substantially equal facilities, even though these facilities be separate. In the Delaware case, the Supreme Court of Delaware adhered to that doctrine, but ordered that the plaintiffs be admitted to the white schools because of their superiority to the Negro schools.

The plaintiffs contend that segregated public schools are not “equal” and cannot be made “equal,” and that hence they are deprived of the equal protection of the laws. Because of the obvious importance of the question presented the Court took jurisdiction. Argument was heard in the 1952 Term, and reargument was heard this Term on certain questions propounded by the Court.

Reargument was largely devoted to the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. It covered exhaustively consideration of the Amendment in Congress, ratification by the states, then existing practices in racial segregation, and the views of proponents and opponents of the Amendment. This discussion and our own investigation convinced us that although these sources cast some light, it is not enough to resolve the problem with which we are faced. At best, they are inconclusive. The most avid proponents of the post-War Amendments undoubtedly intended them to remove all legal distinctions among “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.” Their opponents, just as certainly, were antagonistic to both the letter and the spirit of the Amendments and wished them to have the most limited effect. What others in Congress and the state legislatures had in mind cannot be determined with any degree of certainty.

An additional reason for the inconclusive nature of the Amendment’s history, with respect to segregated schools, is the status of public education at that time. In the South, the movement toward free common schools, supported by general taxation, had not yet taken hold. Education of white children was largely in the hands of private groups. Education of Negroes was almost nonexistent, and practically all of the race were illiterate. In fact, any education of Negroes was forbidden by law in some states. Today, in contrast, many Negroes have achieved outstanding success in the arts and sciences as well as in the business and professional world. It is true that public education had already advanced further in the North, but the effect of the Amendment on Northern States was generally ignored in the congressional debates. Even in the North, the conditions of public education did not approximate those existing today. The curriculum was usually rudimentary; ungraded schools were common in rural areas; the school term was but three months a year in many states; and compulsory school attendance was virtually unknown. As a consequence, it is not surprising that there should be so little in the history of the Fourteenth Amendment relating to its intended effect on public education.

In the first cases in this Court construing the Fourteenth Amendment, decided shortly after its adoption, the Court interpreted it as proscribing all state-imposed discriminations against the Negro race. The doctrine of “separate but equal” did not make its appearance in this Court until 1896 in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, supra, involving not education but transportation. American courts have since labored with the doctrine for over half a century. In this Court, there have been six cases involving the “separate but equal” doctrine in the field of public education. In Cumming v. County Board of Education, 175 U.S. 528, and Gong Lum v. Rice, 275 U.S. 78, the validity of the doctrine itself was not challenged. In more recent cases, all on the graduate school level, inequality was found in that specific benefits enjoyed by white students were denied to Negro students of the same educational qualifications. Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305. U.S. 337; Sipuel v. Oklahoma, 332 U.S. 631; Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629; McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637. In none of these cases was it necessary to re-examine the doctrine to grant relief to the Negro plaintiff. And in Sweatt v. Painter, supra, the Court expressly reserved decision on the question whether Plessy v. Ferguson should be held inapplicable to public education.

In the instant cases, that question is directly presented. Here, unlike Sweatt v. Painter, there are findings below that the Negro and white schools involved have been equalized, or are being equalized, with respect to buildings, curricula, qualifications and salaries of teachers, and other “tangible” factors. Our decision, therefore, cannot turn on merely a comparison of these tangible factors in the Negro and white schools involved in each of the cases. We must look instead to the effect of segregation itself on public education.

In approaching this problem, we cannot turn the clock back to 1868 when the Amendment was adopted, or even to 1896 when Plessy v. Ferguson was written. We must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout the Nation. Only in this way can it be determined if segregation in public schools deprives these plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws.

Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.

We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other “tangible” factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does.

In Sweatt v. Painter, supra, in finding that a segregated law school for Negroes could not provide them equal educational opportunities, this Court relied in large part on “those qualities which are incapable of objective measurement but which make for greatness in a law school.” In McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, supra, the Court, in requiring that a Negro admitted to a white graduate school be treated like all other students, again resorted to intangible considerations:

“... his ability to study, to engage in discussions and exchange views with other students, and, in general, to learn his profession.” Such considerations apply with added force to children in grade and high schools. To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. The effect of this separation on their educational opportunities was well stated by a finding in the Kansas case by a court which nevertheless felt compelled to rule against the Negro plaintiffs:

“Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law; for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the Negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to retard the educational and mental development of Negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racially integrated school system.”

Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority. Any language in Plessy v. Ferguson contrary to this finding is rejected.

We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of “separate but equal” has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. This disposition makes unnecessary any discussion whether such segregation also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Because these are class actions, because of the wide applicability of this decision and because of the great variety of local conditions, the formulation of decrees in these cases presents problems of considerable complexity. On reargument, the consideration of appropriate relief was necessarily subordinated to the primary question—the constitutionality of segregation in public education. We have now announced that such segregation is a denial of the equal protection of the laws. In order that we may have the full assistance of the parties in formulating decrees, the cases will be restored to the docket, and the parties are requested to present further argument on Questions 4 and 5 previously propounded by the Court for reargument this Term. The Attorney General of the United States is again invited to participate. The Attorneys General of the states requiring or permitting segregaion in public education will also be permitted to appear as amici curiae upon request to do so by September 15, 1954, and submission of briefs by October 1, 1954.

INDEX

A

Adams, Sherman, 159

AFL-CIO, 51, 185, 187, 189, 141, 168, 164, 166

Agnew, E. H., 27, 84, 96

Allen University, 116-124

American Association of University Professors, 119-120

American Civil Liberties Union, 165

American Council of Education, 101

American Dilemma, 22, 27

American Educators, Incorporated, 88, 45

Americans For Democratic Action, 136, 138, 141

Anti-Defamation League, 89

Anti-Semitism, 40, 43, 86

Armstrong, Ben J., 74

Ashmore, Robert J., 26-27, 49, 101

Association for Preservation of Southern Traditions, 88

Association of School Administrators, 99

Atkins, Alford, 79

Atlantic Monthly, 80, 181

Atomic Energy Commission, 102

B

Bacoats, J. A., 124, 125

Ball, W. W., 2

Ballard, L. B., 179

Baptist Church, 60-61

Baruch, Bernard, 39

Bass, Jack, 177

Bates, Lester, 129-130

Bates, W. T. C., 53

Batista, Fulgencio, 149

Bellinger, G. Duncan, 37

Benedict College, 122, 124-125

Bethune, Mary McLeod, 110

Bickley, J. H., 39, 40, 41, 192

Blackman, Mrs. S. L., 182

Blake, C. E., 160

Blatt, Solomon, 95

Blease, Cole, 9, 189

Blease, Eugene S., 27

Boas, Franz, 182

Bob Jones University, 65

Bonner, I. H., 118, 119, 120, 121, 123

Booker, Harold, 139

Bostwick, Margaret, 67

Bowles, Bryant, 12, 42-43

Bowling, H. L., 193

Boyette, Luther E., 178

Boyle, Gaston, 64

Brabham, A. McKay, Jr., 57

Brabham, P. Eugene, 100

Bragg, W. W., 34

Brailsford, James M., 41

Brameld, Theodore, 27

Breeland, Richard, 103

Brown, Edgar, 128

Brown, Gary, 196

Brown, Giles G., 76

Brown, Millie Lewis, 41

Brown vs. Baskin, 4, 5-6

Brownell, Herbert, 19, 22, 25, 129, 142, 158, 159, 161

Bryant, Herbert, 177

Buchanan, George, 28

Bulganin, Nikolai A., 140

Bunche, Ralph J., 110

Byrd, E. L., 44, 56, 64

Byrd, Harry F., 187, 189

Byrnes, James F., 4, 8, 15-16, 17, 22, 27, 31, 33, 50, 83, 93, 96, 100, 101-102, 140, 141, 147, 161, 167, 170

C

Calhoun, John C., 1, 21, 38, 63-64, 79, 105, 109, 137, 143, 150, 184

Callison, T. C., 18, 19, 22, 25-26, 42, 86, 117, 126, 168

Cardozo, Benjamin N., 12

Carr, Robert K., 119-120

Carroll, David D., 128-129

Catholic Church, 52

Central High School (Little Rock), 159, 160

Chalmers, Allen Knight, 110

Cheraw Chronicle, 172, 208

Chicago Daily News, 148-149

Chicago Sun-Times, 180

Childs, Margaretta P., 48

Christian Advocate, 169

Christian Council on Human Relations, 169

Citadel, The, 125, 178

Citizens Council, 32, 37, 38, 41, 45-53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 63, 64, 65, 75, 83, 84, 86, 89, 92, 98, 105, 132, 187, 188, 189, 164, 169, 170, 171, 192-193

Citizens Council, The, 48

Civil Rights Act (1957), 154-158, 163

Civil Rights Bill (1956), 154

Clarendon County Case (Briggs et al vs Elliott, et al), 10, 12-20, 21, 28, 76-77, 81, 82, 90, 94, 95, 189

Clarendon County Civic League, 74

Clark, H. B., 29, 68

Clark, Mark, 125-126, 137

Clement, A. J., Jr., 71, 81, 90, 96

Clemson College, 11, 102-103

Cleveland, Grover, 137

Coker, Robert R., 27

Colvin, E. E., 38, 66, 79

Committee of 52, 27-28

Communism (including Communist Party), 24, 28, 39, 40, 43, 44, 45, 57, 62, 65, 67, 102, 111, 121, 122, 123, 124, 131, 132, 138, 140, 147, 168, 196, 200

“Concerned South Carolinians”, 170-173

Cook, Eugene, 112

Cook, Pierce E., 57-58

Corbit. Lynn. 62

Cousins. Norman, 110

Cousins, Ralph, 170

Crawford, Leon, 143

Criswell, W. A., 60-61

Crosswell, W. M., 193

Crow, E. Ryan, 93, 185

Cruell, Claude and Fannie, 40-41

Culbertson, John Bolt, 174

D

Dabbs, James M., 173-174

Dabbs, Mrs. James M., 170, 173

Daniels, G. G., 76

Davies, Ronald N., 109-110, 158, 161

Davis, Henry E., 86, 98

Davis, James B., 66

Davis, John W., 18

Debnam, W. E., 152

DeLaine, J. A., 86

Democratic National Convention (1936), 6, 7;

(1956) 113

Democratic Party, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15, 22, 24, 80, 128, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 161, 165

Dewey, Thomas, 25, 142

Dixiecrats, 131, 133, 134, 138

Dobie, Armisted M., 17, 20

Dorn, William Jennings Bryan, 6, 27, 49, 142, 146, 155, 156

Douglas, W. Ernest, 174

Dulles, John Foster, 25

E

Eastland, James O., 27, 50

Edisto Beach State Park, 88, 104, 127

Education and Race Relations, 34

Edwards, B. M., 124

Edwards, E. L., 26, 39

Eisenhower, Dwight D., 8, 23, 26, 39, 95, 105, 131, 138, 140, 142, 143, 154, 157, 158, 161, 164, 208, 204

Ellis, R. Archie, 124

Elmore, George, 5, 82

Episcopal Church, 61-62

Evans, J. Claude, 169, 170

Evans, J. Walker, 85

F

Faubus, Orval, 109, 158, 160, 161, 203

Federal aid to education, 99-100, 102-103, 198

Federal Bureau of Investigation, 121

Federation for Constitutional Government, 38, 45, 137

F.E.P.C., 134, 135, 139

Fielding-Reid, Francis, 185

Figg, Robert McC., 13, 14, 20

Fitzhugh, George, 79

Flemming, Sarah Mae, 126

For America, 45

Ford Foundation, 13

Ford, Henry, II, 40

Fort Jackson, 102, 157

Frazier, E. Franklin, 27

Fugitive Slave Law, 105

Fund for the Republic, 169

G

Gallup Poll, 72-73

Gamecock, The, 176-177

Garrett, Charles G., 89

Gaud, Henry, 143

Gentry, John T., 114

George, Walter, 136

Goebbels, Joseph., 186

Golden, Harry, 91

Grant, Ulysses S., 25

Grass Roots League, 24, 38, 44-45, 137

Graydon, Clint T., 155

Gressette, L. Marion, 17, 77, 79, 95, 107, 109, 122, 161-162

Gressette School Segregation Committee, 17, 93, 96-97, 103, 105, 115, 147, 161

Grimball, William H., Jr., 114

Grossman, Fred, 150

Guerry, Edward B., 27, 65

Guess, Dorothy Moore, 168, 180

H

Haigh, Charles D., 81

Hammerstein, Oscar, II, 110

Hammond, James H., 26

Hampton, Wade, 129, 143

Handlin, Oscar, 30

Harlan, John Marshall, 26

Harman, H. Odelle, 63

Harmon, Nolan B., 59

Harper’s, 29-30, 72

Harrell, George S., 26, 108, 115

Harrelson, D. M., 174

Harrigan, Anthony, 172

Harriman, Averill, 136, 149

Hart, John Calhoun, 103, 112, 113, 115, 116, 164

Hartford Convention, 92, 105

Hastie, William, 110

Hemphill, Robert, 157

Herbert, R. Beverley, 27, 124, 172

Hilton, Henrietta, 73

Hilton, Leroy, 73

Hilton, Morgan, 73

Hilton, William, 73

Hinton, James M., 6, 22, 74, 76, 77, 80, 81, 82, 87, 110, 129, 180

Hitler, Adolf, 62, 150, 181, 183, 186

Hoffman, Edwin, 117-128

Holler, J. C., 59

Hollings, Ernest F., 31, 77, 86, 95, 97-98, 163

Holmes, J. Arthur, 76

Horlbeck, John M., 108, 114

Horn, Joseph, 170

Hughes, Jerry M., 58

Hutchins, Guy, 86-87

I

Independent (Anderson), 23-24, 25, 26, 35, 42, 50, 66, 75, 77, 85, 101-102, 103, 107, 109, 111, 128, 133, 135, 136, 139, 140, 152, 154, 158, 160, 168, 203

Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance (Columbia), 76, 124

Interposition, 105-110

Island in the Sun, 115

Ivey, G. L., 43, 86, 88, 96

J

Jackson, Larry, 170

James, F. C., 121

James, William, 77

Jefferson, Thomas, 136, 137, 145

Jenkins, Micah, 44, 45, 47, 48, 137, 138

Jerome, Emmette, 169

Johnson, Lyndon, 136, 155, 157

Johnston, Olin D., 4, 6, 22, 50, 136, 143, 154, 156, 157, 160, 203, 204

Jones, Bob, 65

Jones, E. S., 58

K

Keels, Thomas D., 193

Kefauver, Estes, 40, 135, 136, 139, 140

Kennard, J. Spencer, 124, 125

Kilpatrick, James J., 105

King, Arthur Locke, 172

Knights of Columbus, 89

Knowland, William, 157

Ku Klux Klan, 7, 12, 26, 38-42, 46, 51, 87-88, 111, 112, 165, 178, 174, 179, 192

L

Lamb, J. Harold, 162

Lane, J. M., 64

Latimer, Samuel, 110, 149-150, 158

Lawrence, David, 147, 153, 202

Le Clerq, Fred, 177

Lee, J. Bracken, 137

Lee, Robert E., 92, 148

Life, 147

Lighthouse and Informer, 129, 180

Lincoln, Abraham, 142

Lines, Stiles B., 86-87

Little Rock Affair, 109-110, 148, 158-162, 178, 208

Living Church, The, 62

Long, John D., 162

Look, 147

Lutheran Church, 68

Lyles, John, 170

M

Mance, R. A., 120

Mann, Woodrow Wilson, 159, 160

Manning, Wyndham, 27

Mansfield, Mrs. E. R., 182-183

Marshall, Thurgood, 13-14, 15, 18, 51, 83, 88, 90

Martin, E. M., 174

Martin, Robert P., 178

Mason, E. R., 65, 86

Maybank, Burnet R., Jr., 50

Maybank, Burnet R., Sr., 4, 9, 22, 180

Mays, Benjamin E., 71, 110

Mdodana, P. B., 82

Meany, George, 164

Mein Kampf, 181

Mellette, Billy, 177

Mencken, H. L., 49

Methodist Church, 50-51, 55, 56-59

Methodist Church, Southeastern Jurisdiction, 55

Miller, Thomas R., 181

Mitchell, Clarence, 113, 183

Moore, Charles, 179

Moore, Fred, 54

Morehouse College, 71

Morning News (Florence), 24, 25, 30-31, 33, 41-42, 43, 50, 56, 58, 67, 68, 71, 77, 84, 85, 88, 92, 96, 99, 101, 102, 106, 111, 113, 119, 133, 134, 135, 136, 139, 141, 145, 155, 158, 160, 167, 177, 178, 179, 180, 203

Morris, John B., 170, 178

Morris, W. A., 182

Morse, Stanley F., 24, 41, 86, 137, 182

Morse, Wayne, 157

Murray J. B., 57

Myrdal, Gunnar, 22, 26, 27, 89

Mc

“McCarthyism”, 111, 121

McClary, Webster, 75

McClung, Carolyn, 176

McCord, L. B., 24, 47, 57, 64

McCray, John, 6, 80, 124

McFaddin, James H., 54, 203-204

McFaddin, T. H., 98

McKinley, Carlyle, 2

McLaughlin, Mr. and Mrs. Carl B., 172

McMaster, J. G., 33

McMillan, John L., 50

McMillan, Lewis K., 11

McNair, Robert E., 155

McQueen, Cleveland M., 11

N

Nation, The, 12

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, 3, 5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 17, 19, 22, 28, 30, 32, 36, 39, 40, 43, 45, 46, 50, 51, 52, 53, 58, 64, 65, 67, 68, 71, 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 81-91, 96, 104, 110-111, 113, 116, 129, 130, 135, 137, 141, 142, 149, 150, 152, 159, 160, 163, 170, 171, 174, 179, 182, 183, 196

National Association for the Advancement of White People, 12, 38, 42-43, 96

National Council of Churches, 40, 52, 69

National Education Association, 101

Neff, Lawrence, 67

Negro Baptist State Convention, 76

Negro Citizens Committee of South Carolina, 187

New York Herald Tribune, 147, 148

New York Times, 32, 73, 147, 148, 149

News and Courier (Charleston), 2, 7, 22-23, 24, 25, 26, 27-28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33-34, 35, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 49, 50, 54, 56, 57, 63, 64, 67, 68-69, 72, 75, 77-78, 79, 84, 86, 87, 88, 92, 93, 96, 98, 99-100, 101, 102-103, 107, 108, 109, 112, 114, 116, 126, 128, 130-131, 132, 134, 135, 136-137, 139, 140, 141, 143, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 158, 159, 163-164, 167, 168, 169, 172, 177, 180, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187

Niebuhr, Reinhold, 65

Nixon, Richard M., 112, 138, 142, 158, 159

O

O’Dowd, Jack H., 24, 30-31, 56, 58, 77, 85, 96, 99, 111, 136, 155, 167, 177, 178-180

Orangeburg boycotts, 51-54

Ott, E. Mitchell. 153-154

Oxnam, G. Bromley, 40

P

Palmetto Education Association, 73-74, 96, 199

Palmetto State Voters Association, 80-81, 148

Parker, Barrington, 142-143

Parker, John J., 13, 14, 20, 126

Patrick, J. J., 64-65

Peale, Norman Vincent, 68

Petit, Harold A., 186

Pierce, Bob, 149

Pitts, Oscar, 142

Plessy vs. Ferguson, 3, 22, 26, 126

Poag, Fred V., 64

Pollock, William, 164

Poole, Robert E., 102

Pope, Thomas H., 27, 155

Powell, Adam Clayton, 139, 142

Powell, Joe B., 180

Pridgen, Paul M., 68

Pritchett, Carl, 64

Progressive Democratic Party, 6-7, 73, 75, 80, 124

R

Randolph, A. Philip, 110

Rankin, Henry, 63

Ravenel, Arthur, Jr., 153

Rayburn, Sam, 136

Rea, C. A., 42

Record, (Columbia), 23, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 32, 34-35, 50, 54, 72, 76, 77, 81, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 101, 106, 109, 111-112, 114, 126, 131, 134, 135, 141, 160, 184, 185

Record, Wilson, 196

Reid, Frank Madison, 75-76

Reporter, The, 52

Republican Party, 8, 24, 128, 130, 131, 134, 137, 138, 141, 142, 143, 163

Reuther, Walter, 139, 165

Rice vs. Elmore, 4

Richards, James P., 106, 161, 171, 172

Richmond News Leader, 105

Rideout, John G., 117-123

Riley, E. P., 142

Riley, John J., 49, 50, 121

Rivers, L. Mendel, 45, 49, 50, 106, 131, 154, 157

Rochester, A. Marshall, 41

Rockefeller, Winthrop, 203

Rogers, James A., 31, 33, 77, 135, 136, 139, 140

Rogers, S. Emory, 13, 20, 46, 48, 55, 89, 106, 138

Roosevelt, Eleanor, 39, 139

Roosevelt, Franklin D., 8, 39, 130, 131, 135, 188

Rowell, Robert, 67

Ruppert, C. H., 151

Russell, Donald S., 100, 151-152, 175, 176

Russell, Richard B., 142, 203

Rutledge, Archibald, 69

S

Sanders, Claudia Thomas, 172, 173

Sanders, Dr. James H., 172

Sass, Herbert Ravenel, 27, 30, 181

Sass, M. H., 144

Saturday Evening Post, 147

School Boards Association, 99

Secrest, Andrew McDowd, 172

Shean, Maurice, 169

Siceloff, Courtney, 169

Simkins, Francis B., 9, 181

Simkins, Mojeska, 129

Sinkler, Huger, 25

Smith, Edna M., 68

Smith, Ellison D. (“Cotton Ed”), 6, 46, 138, 187

Smith, Ellison D., Jr., 27

Smith, Farley, 27, 46, 138, 144, 161

Smith, Lewis, 124, 125

Smith vs. Allwright, 4

Somersett, W. A., 165-166

South Carolina Citizens Committee, 74

South Carolina Conference of Education, 100

South Carolina Council on Human Relations, 169

South Carolina Education Association, 99, 175

South Carolina Electric and Gas Co., 126, 186

South Carolina Farm Bureau Federation, 34, 96

South Carolina Federation of Women’s Clubs, 99, 169

South Carolinians for Independent Electors (South Carolina Independent Democrats), 80, 138-144, 161, 165

Southern Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools, 10

Southern Baptist Convention, 55, 60, 61

Southern Historical Association, 181

Southern Manifesto, 40, 169

Southern Methodist Church, 62-63

Southern Presbyterian Assembly, 55

Southern Regional Council, 169, 173

Spearman, Alice N., 169

Spingarn, Arthur B., 110

Spruill, James A., 155

Stafford, G. Jackson, 60, 174

Stalin, Joseph, 8

Star (Marion), 130

State (Columbia), 26, 102, 109-110, 127, 147-148, 149, 158, 160, 184

State Agricultural and Mechanical College for Negroes, 11, 53, 82, 95, 104, 111, 118, 128

State Board of Education, 116, 117-118, 120, 121, 123

State Law Enforcement Division, 53, 172-173

State Library Board, 104, 113, 114

States Rights League, 38, 43-44, 45

Stevens, Thaddeus, 25

Stevenson, Adlai, 131, 135, 139, 140, 143, 159

Stoney, Thomas P., 139

Strobel, Hydrick, 76

Stuckey, J. Henry, 114

Summers, S. J., Jr., 63

Supreme Court (United States), 3, 17-20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 35, 37, 38, 43, 44, 58, 60, 61, 62, 65, 72, 74, 76, 85, 86, 92, 93, 95, 96, 97, 98, 103, 104, 108, 111, 116, 123, 124, 125, 126, 128, 129, 131, 132, 134, 139, 144, 167, 169, 170, 171, 173, 175, 178, 183, 184, 185, 199

Surles, Flora Bell, 186

Swimming Hole, The, 113-114

Swinton, Sylvia, 117

Syracuse Post-Standard, 149

T

Taft, Robert A., 137

Taft-Hartley Act, 140, 188

Talmadge, Herman, 142

Textile Workers Union of America, 164

Then My Old Kentucky Home Good Night, 152

Thomas, Albert S., 27, 67

Thompson, Eldridge. 88, 192

Thurmond, J. Strom, 7, 8, 22, 26, 35, 50, 128, 134, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 203

Till, Emmett, 86

Tillman, Ben, 137

Time, 147, 148, 180

Timmerman, George Bell, Jr., 4, 31, 36, 42, 53-54, 60, 77, 80, 89, 90, 93-95, 100, 102, 106, 107, 108, 116-125, 129-130, 132, 133, 134, 147, 156-167, 158, 161, 171, 175

Timmerman, George Bell, Sr., 13, 14, 20, 60, 93, 126

Tobias, Channing, 83, 110

Toth, André, 117, 119

Travelstead, Chester C., 167, 175-177

Truax, Carlton, 25

Trujillo, Rafael Leonidas, 149

Truman, Harry S., 7, 8, 15, 29, 131, 139, 188

Turner, Benner C., 54, 95, 118

Turner, Sherwood, 40-41

Turnipseed, Barnwell Rhett, 59

U

Un-American Activities Committee, 27, 40, 110, 117, 124

United Church Women, 170

United Southern Employees Association, 165-166

University of Chicago, 180

University of South Carolina, 2, 11, 100, 118, 122, 123, 167, 174, 175, 176, 177, 202

U. S. News and World Report, 147, 158

V

Vanwright, James, 76

Veal, Frank, 117-118, 120, 121, 123

Victory Savings Bank, 52

Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, 105

W

Wallace, David Duncan, 7

Wallace, Lewis, 103

Walterboro Press and Standard, 111

Waring, George W., 45

Waring, J. Waties, 5-6, 7, 13, 15, 17, 188

Waring, Thomas R., 7, 23, 29-30, 46, 72, 126, 132, 148, 168, 183

Warr, O. L., 98

Warren, Earl, 19, 22, 23, 26, 142

Washington, Booker T., 77, 79

Washington Post and Times-Herald, 147, 204

Watson, Albert W., 114

Waugh, Alec, 115

We The People, 43

Wheeler, Paul, 124

Weep No More My Lady, 152

White, Walter, 14

Wiggins, Forrest O., 117-123

Williams, Norton, 28-29

Wilkes, Gilbert, 31-32, 79, 186

Wilkins, Roy, 84, 89

Williams, Ashton H., 88

Williams, G. Mennen, 136

Williams, John Bell, 139

Williams, Marshall, 79

Williams, Ransome J., 27

Wilson, Woodrow, 137

Woodson, M. A., 65

Workman, W. D., Jr., 24, 27, 28, 32, 35, 72, 77, 88, 93, 98, 108-109, 152-153

Wrighten, John, 11

Transcriber’s Note:

This book was written in a period when many words had not become standardized in their spelling. Words may have multiple spelling variations or inconsistent hyphenation in the text. These have been left unchanged unless indicated below. Misspelled words were not corrected.

Footnotes were renumbered sequentially. Obvious printing errors, such as backwards, upside down, or partially printed letters and punctuation were corrected. Final stops missing at the end of sentences and abbreviations were added. Duplicate letters at line endings were removed.

The following was changed: “as” to “is”: ... is, in itself, unconstitutional,...