|
Chapter Eight
Jim Crow
and The
Defeat of Populism
Dr. Dan L. Morrill
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
E-mail comments to
N4JFJ@aol.com
|
 |
|
This photo
was taken in the Baumgarten Studio presumably on June 6,
1881---the date of the marriage of John Rattley to Sarah
Butler. Stephen Mattoon of Biddle Univ performed the
ceremony in Clinton Chapel.
|
The 1890s and the first
decade of the twentieth century were tragic years for African
Americans and for working class whites in Charlotte and
Mecklenburg County and throughout the entire South. Events
occurred during those years that intensified racial and class
antipathies that persist until the present day. There are some
who think that the sad story of the rise of Jim Crow or racial
segregation laws and the defeat of Populism should be left
untold. This writer does not agree. The truth is the truth,
however disturbing and troubling it might be.
"If the psychologists are correct in their
hypothesis that aggression is always the result of frustration,
then the South toward the end of the 'nineties was the perfect
cultural seedbed for aggression against the minority race,"
asserts historian C. Vann Woodward. Woodward contends that
prejudice, hatred, and fanaticism have always existed in
America, as they have in practically any human society. What
allowed feelings of “extreme racism” to become dominant in the
South at the end of the nineteenth century, he argues, “was not
so much cleverness or ingenuity as it was a general weakening
and discrediting of the numerous forces that had hitherto kept
them in check.”
According
to Woodward, Northern liberals became more interested in the
late 1800s in fostering sectional reconciliation than in
continuing to champion the civil rights of African Americans.
“Just as the Negro gained his emancipation and new rights
through a falling out between white men, he now stood to lose
his rights through the reconciliation of white men,” explains
Woodward. The most obvious example of this shift in Northern
attitudes about civil rights was the United States Supreme
Court’s ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson
(1896). This seminal
judgment allowed states to establish “separate but equal”
facilities for whites and blacks and opened the floodgates for
legal racial segregation in the South.
Furthering weakening the North’s opposition
to racial equality was the country’s adoption of imperialistic
ambitions during and after the Spanish American War of 1898,
especially in the Philippines. How could the Yankees defend the
rights of the minority race in the South when they were at the
same time exploiting people of color on far distant islands?
“The North had a bloody shirt of its own,” says Woodward.
Finally, and most importantly, moderate, wealthy Southerners
abandoned their accommodating stance on race when they came to
believe that fanning the flames of racial bigotry once more
would be useful in holding onto white support for a continuation
of the elite’s political dominance of the South and for the New
South agenda of unending economic growth.
Many educated African Americans were still
hopeful about the future in the 1870s and 1880s. It was
certainly not a golden age of racial harmony. Fraud was rampant
in elections, and registrars were often capricious in performing
their official duties. But affluent whites did not hold a
monopoly on political power in North Carolina in those years.
"It is perfectly true that Negroes were often coerced,
defrauded, or intimidated," writes Woodward, "but they continued
to vote in large numbers in most parts of the South for more
than two decades after Reconstruction." Tar Heel voters, for
example, elected 52 African Americans to the North Carolina
House of Representatives between 1876 and 1894.
 |
|
Sarah Hutson Butler (1860-1895)
belonged to Charlotte's "finer" African American
community. |
It is true that Charlotte,
like most Southern cities, was largely segregated along racial
lines except for housing, but blacks and whites commingled
during the routine acts of daily living in much the same way as
people did in the North. Nobody can deny that there were
blatant examples of discrimination, such as at the Charlotte
Opera House, where African Americans had to sit in the
balcony. But whites routinely attended concerts in black
churches and listened to guest lecturers at Biddle Institute.
Black camp meetings in Dilworth ’s Latta Park
attracted “the best white and colored people.” Visitors from
outside the region often commented on the convivial atmosphere
of race relations in the South. "I think the whites of the
South are really less afraid to have contact with colored people
than the whites of the North," commented one African American
traveler in 1885. "I feel about as safe here as in Providence,
R.I.," he said while riding on a train in South Carolina. "I
can ride in first-class cars on the railroads and in the
streets. I can go into saloons and get refreshments even as in
New York."

| These are
the sons of a prominent white family posing with their
"Mammy," who had been born into slavery. The former
brick slave house was behind the main house on South
Tryon St. |
William C. Smith , editor of Charlotte’s first African American
newspaper, the Charlotte Messenger , shared the
belief of many citizens that blacks could gain acceptance by the
majority community if they demonstrated their commitment to such
values as good manners, self-discipline, hard work, and
financial responsibility. African Americans, he declared, must
“stop smoking cigars, drinking whiskey, pleasure riding” and
joining in other ungentlemanly activities. Henry Clinton , an
A.M.E. Zion preacher and bishop, expressed similar sentiments.
“Be quiet, gentlemanly, attentive to your own business and you
will find that you will get along much better than if you laugh
loud, swagger, smoke cheap cigars and drink cheap whiskey,” he
told his congregation. “Colored people must remember that this
is a white man’s country.”
 |
|
W. C.
Smith, editor of the Charlotte Messenger. |
In
her engrossing book Bittersweet Legacy, Janette Greenwood
describes how affluent whites and upper class blacks in
Charlotte did cooperate in the 1880s in a concerted effort to
close saloons and other venues for obtaining alcoholic
beverages. It was a formidable task. According to some
residents, Charlotte was "awash in booze." A.M.E. Zion Bishop
Henry Lomax reported that in 1881 “Charlotte was haunted
with more drunken men, in proportion of the population, than he
had ever seen and he had traveled in every State of the Union
except three.” A town of only some 7000 residents in 1880,
Charlotte had seventeen saloons and a beer garden, and drug
stores also sold liquor. On Christmas Day 1880 groups of young
men roamed through the town like participants in a “carnival of
intemperance.” Charlotte was “filled with reeling, drunken
youth,” complained one outraged observer.
 |
|
These are the students in 1887 at
Myers Street School, the first public school for blacks
in Charlotte. |
Prohibition was
particularly well suited as a political issue that could bridge
the racial divide in New South Charlotte. Wealthy whites, who
were becoming increasingly disgusted with the reckless and
flagrant disregard for common decency exhibited by many drunks,
were willing to form alliances with supporters wherever they
could find them, even if they were black. African Americans,
especially those who had been educated in freedmen’s schools or
taught by Northern missionaries, were likewise eager to join
hands with the majority community. C. C. Pettey , a minister and
graduate of Biddle Institute, described liquor as “the accursed
brutalizer and destroyer of humanity.”
In 1881, white prohibitionists in
Charlotte established the Prohibition Association to lobby the
State legislature to pass a law outlawing whiskey anywhere and
everywhere. Women, including Jane Renwick Smedburg Wilkes ,
were the backbone of the organization. During anti-whiskey
municipal election campaigns in Apri1, and again in State-wide
elections held later that year and in 1886 and 1888, the
Prohibition Association invited blacks to share the rostrum and
platform with whites at public rallies. Not to be outdone, the
pro-liquor crowd was also biracial.
Although
the “wets” eventually succeeded in keeping the saloons open,
prohibitionists like W. C. Smith and white lawyer E. K. P.
Osborne had demonstrated that both sides of the color line
could cooperate politically in Charlotte during the 1880s.
“Exploitation there was in that period,” says Woodward.
“Subordination there was also, unmistakable subordination; but
it was not yet an accepted corollary that the subordinates had
to be totally segregated and needlessly humiliated by a thousand
daily reminders of their subordination.”
It was
in the 1890s that extreme racism gained the upper hand again in
Charlotte and throughout the South. New South boosters like D.
A. Tompkins and Edward Dilworth Latta became deeply concerned
about the course of political events and feared that their
influence over governmental affairs in Mecklenburg County and
North Carolina might diminish or even end. They and their
compatriots therefore decided to marshal their considerable
resources and destroy this threat to their privileged positions,
thereby setting into motion a series of reforms that would
transform the nature of public affairs in this community and in
the South as a whole for more than 60 years.
There
were three groups involved in attacking the political status quo
in the 1890s -- impoverished farmers, disgruntled mill workers,
and unhappy blacks. They formed a political alliance that
sought to topple the political dominance of the Democrat Party
and its affluent leaders. The issues were essentially power and
money. “Small farmers felt themselves losing power to the
upstart railroad towns,” says historian Thomas Hanchett.
Factory workers, mostly tenant farmers who had been forced off
the land, grieved over their loss of status and the diminution
of their sense of personal independence. Blacks, explains
Hanchett, “looked for a way to finally attain the respect and
influence due them as free citizens.”
 |
| John
Edward Rattley (1855-1946) was a graduate of Biddle
Institute and the first principal of Myers Street
School. |
The
impetus for this bold political initiative of the 1890s arose in
the countryside. Times were hard for farmers. Cotton prices
plummeted in the 1870s and 1880s, putting many Mecklenburg
County farmers in dire economic straits. By 1880, 43 percent of
the agriculturists in Mecklenburg County were tenant farmers.
Country people were angry and felt impotent. They blamed
townspeople, especially bankers, storekeepers, and
industrialists like D. A. Tompkins and Edward Dilworth
Latta , for their plight. “ . . . when we farmers are in the
fields working hard in the summer, with the drops of sweat
falling from our brow,” complained one rural resident, “the
merchants are sitting around the store doors with their linen
shirts and black neckties on, waiting for us to bring in our
first bale of cotton.” Rural residents insisted that railroads
were getting wealthy by charging exorbitant shipping fees and
banks were prospering by levying excessive interest rates.
“Owing to legislation in favor of monopolies our lands are
gradually slipping from the hands of the wealth-producing
classes and going into the hands of the few,” lamented J. A.
Wilson , a Mecklenburg County farmer.
 |
| White
children stand atop a "Joggling Board," a favorite toy
of the day. Two black servants watch the children.
This picture was made in Charlotte. |
Believing
that collective action was their only means for relief,
Mecklenburg farmers established a local branch of the Farmers’
Alliance in 1888. The Alliance sponsored picnics where
rural families gathered to eat such "rural delicacies" as
collard greens, cornbread, black-eyed peas, and pork chops while
listening to speakers who would rail against the “enemies of the
countryside.” One “suspender-popping” orator warned his
audience that time for resolute action was at hand, “for if we
fail this time, the farmer’s doom is fixed, the merchants will
have us where they will hold us forever.” One wonders whether
the children playing in the barnyards paid any attention to what
the impassioned speakers were saying. Their mothers and fathers
certainly did.
In 1892, disgruntled farmers gave up on
their efforts to gain control of the Democrat Party and decided
to establish a separate People’s or Populist Party to advance
their agenda. Country folks were further embittered by the
Panic of 1893, the most severe economic downturn the country had
experienced up until that time. Determined to sweep the
Democrats aside and take command in North Carolina and other
agricultural states, the Populists set out to unite
rank-and-file whites, including those who worked in the
factories and the mills of the cities, with the Republican
Party, which was overwhelmingly black, to achieve a majority
coalition in upcoming elections.
The
prospects that the Populists could win broad support among
industrial workers looked promising, because they too were
dissatisfied with their station in life. Textile mills were
dangerous places. Accidents at D. A. Tompkins ’s Atherton Mills
were frequent, such as the mangling of a worker's hands in June
1893, or the death of an overseer who became entangled in a
belting apparatus in October 1902. Having come to town in hopes
of finding steady work, the millhands soon learned that they
could be let go at the whim of the owners. “Last week night
work shut down at the mill on account of a dullness in the
market,” reported the Charlotte Observer in March
1896. “It throws about 15 families out of work.”
The
Knights of Labor did organize a local union in 1886, but it was
largely ineffectual in its efforts to protect blue-collar
workers from the actions of their employers. According to
historian Thomas Hanchett, skilled millhands in Charlotte earned
between $1.00 and $1.40 per day in 1890, while unskilled men
made between 65 cents and 75 cents. Women and children made
even less – 40 cents to 65 cents per day. Usually having no
relatives in Charlotte who could provide emergency relief,
families often had no choice but to walk the streets looking for
jobs at other textile mills or in the local construction
industry. Laborers would frequently resort to begging if no
work was to be had. In October 1896, the Charlotte Democrat
complained about “the unusually large number of beggars and
tramps investing this place.”
As
already noted, the 1870s and 1880s had been a time of
“tremendous hope” for African Americans in Charlotte, but by the
early 1890s blacks were becoming increasingly frustrated by the
lack of on-going progress in race relations. J. C. Price ,
president of Livingstone College in Salisbury, spoke to a
biracial audience at the Charlotte City Hall in April 1893. He
described “the Southern race problem from the Negro’s point of
view.” African Americans, said Price, were “denied equal
accommodation for the money on the railroad trains; he cannot
get justice in the courts; he is lynched on slight provocation;
he is denied equal participation with the white man in the
affairs of government.”
 |
| Some of
Charlotte "finest" African Americans belonged to Grace
A.M.E. Zion Church, which is in the background. |
A
particularly unsettling event occurred at the Richmond and
Danville Railroad Station on West Trade Street in
October 1893. A group of students from Biddle Institute went
there to assist some young black female friends in gathering
their luggage and getting on the train. Even though they broke
no laws and were not arrested, several of the young men were
boisterous and exuberant in their behavior. Whites at the
station became upset and angry. “There is a disposition among
them,” said the Charlotte Observer about
blacks in general, “when they are superfluous numbers in public
places – as railroad stations and cars, streetcars, etc. –
particularly on gala occasions, to make themselves offensive to
the whites about them by loud talking and such characters of
misbehaving – good natured as it may be.” The newspaper went on
to suggest that the railroad provide “separate accommodations
for whites and blacks at the depot.” It was not long before the
Richmond and Danville Railroad complied. Although alarmed,
Charlotte’s African American community did not openly oppose
this move. The Star of Zion , the newspaper of the
A.M.E. Zion Church, did express its “regret . . . of the
proposed action of the Richmond and Danville Railroad
authorities.”
“The pent-up frustrations of farmers,
blacks, and ordinary North Carolinans whose interests had been
ignored by the Democrat party exploded in the 1894 state
elections,” writes historian Paul Escott. The so-called
“Fusionists” elected 74 members to the North Carolina
legislature and sent two of their backers to the United States
Senate. The insurgents controlled 62 percent of the seats in
the General Assembly in 1894 and 78 percent in 1896.
It did not take long for the defenders
of the status quo to realize that the Populists and their
Republican allies represented a grave threat to the economic and
political hegemony traditionally held by the New South elite.
The Fusionists passed legislation that put elected county
commissions back in charge of local government. They capped
the interest rate banks and merchants could charge at 6
percent. They increased funding for public schools in hopes
that education would improve the economic standing of the
masses. They made it easier for rank-and-file citizens to vote
by reducing the discretionary power of local registrars to
exclude them from the polls. They distributed ballots that even
the illiterate could understand. Most ominously for the likes
of D. A. Tompkins and his pro-business cohorts, the Fusionists
elected Daniel L. Russell as governor in 1896 and backed his
attacks against corporate privilege. The first Republican
governor since Reconstruction, Russell lashed out at the
“railroad kings, bank barons, and money princes” and called for
much higher taxes on business. The people were not “the serfs
and slaves of the bond-holding and gold hoarding classes,” the
governor proclaimed.
The
New South elite decided it had to fight back and regain control
of the State legislature in 1898. What they needed to succeed
was a way to convince rank-and-file whites, mainly tenant
farmers and mill workers, to quit cooperating with the
Republicans, the majority of whom were black. The answer was
for wealthy whites to “play the race card” again just as they
had in the late 1860s and early 1870s. “They persuaded
themselves that the crisis of the ‘nineties was as desperate as
that of the ‘seventies had been,” explains C. Vann Woodward.
“The South must be redeemed again, and the political ethics of
redemption – which justified any means to achieve the end – were
pressed into service against the Populists as they had been
against the carpetbaggers.” Woodward continues: “The same
means of fraud, intimidation, bribery, violence, and terror were
used against the one that had been used against the other.”
Most
of the local leaders of the campaign to intimidate and
disenfranchise African Americans were members of the Young
Democrats Club . Composed mainly of middle class professionals
in their thirties or early forties, such as attorneys Heriot
Clarkson and Charles W. Tillett , the “Young Democrats”
organized torchlight parades and held mass rallies to
demonstrate their “bare-knuckle style” of determination to
subdue the Populists and terrorize black voters. As many as
1500 “Young Democrats,” bedecked in flamboyant red shirts, rode
periodically down Tryon Street at night on horseback,
brandishing their weapons, thrusting their chests defiantly
toward onlookers, and proclaiming the superiority of the white
race.
The Charlotte Observer enthusiastically endorsed the
campaign to wrest the vote away from blacks and accordingly
called upon the people of Charlotte-Mecklenburg to cast their
ballots for the Democrats. "No Northern State or community
would permit itself to be governed by its ignorance and poverty
and no more can Southern states or communities afford this," the
newspaper declared on January 14, 1898. The ballot, wrote a
reporter several days later, "becomes in the hands of the
ignorant and the vicious classes a most destructive and
dangerous element." The Charlotte Observer
claimed that the Populists and their Republican allies had
established a regime in Raleigh "as corrupt as the crypt of
Hades" and predicted that on Election Day, November 8, 1898, the
people would "bury its corrupters beneath an avalanche of
ballots." Click here to see racial illustrations from D. A.
Tompkins's
History of Mecklenburg County.
The
Democrats understood that the support of factory workers would
be crucial in the upcoming election. Consequently, they
established the Workingmen's Democratic Club and dispatched
speakers to preach the mantra of white racial unity. John D.
Bellamy , a Democrat candidate for Congress, spoke to the
laborers at Highland Park Manufacturing Plant No. 1 on
September 27th. He told the mill hands that the election would
determine whether the affairs of North Carolina would “be
controlled by the vicious, or whether they shall be put in the
hands of the intelligent people of the State – the white
people.” The Republicans, Bellamy proclaimed, had “put the
counties and towns of eastern North Carolina in the hands of the
Negroes, who compose 95 percent of the Republican Party.”
 |
|
Textile
works would become supporters of Jim Crow Laws. |
The
Populists
and the Republicans attempted in vain to stem the tidal wave of
white racial antipathy that was running against African
Americans. On March 31, 1898, a lecturer at Biddle Institute
told his audience that politicians “should guard and
protect” the interests of black citizens. “Negro colonization,
expatriation and similar schemes should be repudiated,” he
insisted, “and the issues confronting the race should be met in
a manly way.” Oliver H. Dockery , a Republican
candidate for Congress, speaking at a political meeting at the
old courthouse on West Trade Street, was even more direct in his
denunciation of what he believed the Democrats were attempting
to accomplish. According to a newspaper reporter who covered
the event, Dockery insisted that his opponents “tried to narrow
the issues down to one – the miserable cry of n…..! n…..!”
It is important to emphasize that the
leaders of the Democratic Party did not consider themselves to
be enemies of African Americans. Indeed, to their way of
thinking, all citizens, including blacks, would benefit from
orderly government. What historian Paul Escott derisively calls
the privileged “better half” claimed that it alone was fit to
rule. “Be it our work, the work of all of us, to hasten the day
when the dream of Southern supremacy through Southern prosperity
shall be realized in all its fullness,” declared the
Charlotte Observer on March 6, 1898.
Heriot Clarkson discussed the issue of race while addressing a
large Democratic rally held in Dilworth's Latta Park on October
14th. According to the local press, Clarkson contended that the
“white people had done much for the Negroes.” They had built
schools for African Americans. They had founded hospitals for
African Americans. They had established charitable institutions
for African Americans. But African Americans, Clarkson
reportedly said, “had always allied themselves most solidly
against the whites, and hence the white voters were bound, in
self defense, to stand together.”
The
Charlotte Observer appealed ever more directly
to the racial prejudices of white voters as Election Day
neared. On October 22, 1898, the newspaper claimed that “the
eyes of the nation” were upon North Carolina. “ . . . unless
the State rights itself at the coming election we are likely to
fall under that contempt which is always visited upon cravens,”
the editors proclaimed. “These lines are being printed just a
little more than forty-eight hours before the opening of the
polls," the Charlotte Observer declared on November 6th.
Calling Governor Russell "vicious and vindictive beyond
any man in the State, the newspaperwent on to assert that the
governor had “appointed rascals to office, knowing them to be
rascals.” “No one has written or told what momentous
consequences are involved in the result of the balloting of
Tuesday,” the editor wrote, “because no one can.”
The
Democratic Party emerged victorious from the balloting on
November 8th. Predictably, the Charlotte Observer was
overjoyed by the outcome. "Tkhe people of North Carolina were
true to themselves yesterday," the newspaper declared on
November 9th. "The white people got together and won the
election." The shift in votes by precinct was actually
relatively small, but Democrat totals did rise in every box in
Charlotte Township, including the two mill boxes and the three
rural boxes. Just enough whites had abandoned the Populists
and the Republicans to produce a Democrat victory. Statewide,
the balloting put 134 Democrats in the General Assembly and only
36 Fusionists. "Being in power again," said the Charlotte
Observer about the Democrats, "the real people of North
Carolina will proceed to enact laws which will be for the well
being of all of our people, and we know that hereafter there
will be peace and good government in our borders."
The
consequences of putting Democrats in control of both houses of
the General Assembly were not long in coming. Beholden to its
elitist, anti-democratic constituencies, the majority party
moved quickly to change the election laws so that most African
Americans, hence Republicans, would not be able to continue to
cast ballots. Specifically, on February 18, 1899, the General
Assembly proposed a constitutional amendment, modeled on a
Louisiana statute, that would establish literacy requirements
for voting except for those whites whose grandfathers had been
able to vote. Clearly, if approved by a referendum of the
people, these new requirements for exercising the franchise
would render the Republican Party politically impotent. Charles
B. Aycock , who would become the Democrat candidate for governor
in 1900, knew exactly what was going on. The amendment, he
maintained, would be "the final settlement of the Negro problem
as related to the politics of the state."
The
Democratic Party mounted another aggressive White Supremacy
campaign during the months preceding August 2, 1900, which was
the day set aside for the referendum on the disenfranchisement
amendment. Red Shirts rode the streets again, and huge rallies
were held to embolden whites and to intimidate blacks.
Thousands of Democrats gathered on July 31st to
witness a parade that wound through the streets of Charlotte and
eventually ended at Latta Park , where "leaders of the
community" addressed the crowd. Charlotte lawyer Hamilton C.
Jones was the first speaker. "Another and the last great
crisis to the State is reached," he proclaimed. "North Carolina
proposes to lift up the cloud that has rested upon her for 30
years, and it is determined that North Carolinians shall take
their rightful place in the world -- freemen among freemen,
Anglo-Saxon among Anglo-Saxon." The Charlotte Observer
understood what the referendum was about. "The white man or
the Negro -- that is the proposition that will be settled
rightfully by night," said the newspaper on Election Day. The
constitutional amendment was approved by a margin of 59 percent
to 41 percent Statewide.
The
future electoral impact of the disenfranchisement amendment of
August 1900 was profound. "North Carolina had returned to an
undemocratic political system that guaranteed the powerful in
society effective means of protecting their power," writes Paul
Escott. "The state's elite minority was secure against
democratic challenges once more." The Republican Party was
divested of its largest group of supporters, and the Populists
faded into obscurity. With African Americans no longer able to
win seats on elected bodies, the Democrats were able to
superintend a one-party political system in the South. Indeed,
despite substantial growth and development over the next sixty
years, Charlotte did not fundamentally change in the years from
1900 until the mid-1950s, at least in terms of the locale of
political authority. Rich white men and their minions were in
charge. An early consequence of this circumstance, especially
since racial prejudice against blacks had been a fundamental
component of elite's campaign to regain power, was the enactment
by the Democrats of so-called "Jim Crow Laws."
The
origin of the term "Jim Crow " is obscure. It most likely
appeared in 1832, when Thomas D. Rice composed a song and dance
routine called "Jim Crow" for a minstrel show. Regardless, by
1900 it had become a derogatory nickname for African Americans.
Mostly enacted by city ordinances and other local regulations,
Jim Crow laws appeared across the South in the early 1900s as a
principal means to guarantee racial separation. "The extremes
to which caste penalties and separation were carried in parts of
the South could hardly find a counterpart short of the latitudes
of India and South African," writes C. Vann Woodward.
Charlotte was no exception. Imagine how the black citizens felt
when the all-white Board of Aldermen passed an ordinance in 1907
instituting racial segregation on Charlotte's streetcars. Fancy
how they reacted emotionally to the announcement that the owners
of Lakewood Park , a popular amusement complex, would not extend
the fall season for a week in 1910, so the black residents of
Charlotte could visit the facility, because the "fear existed
that such a course might injure the resort in some manner, or
might lesson the prestige."
 |
|
Bishop
George Wiley Clinton of Little Rock A.M.E. Zion Church
would host leading members of his congregation at an
annual Christmas celebration. |
At almost
every turn, the black men and black women of Charlotte
encountered developments that threatened their sense of
self-esteem. In November 1911, the Board of School Commissioners
announced that it was abandoning plans to construct a black
school in Third Ward because of the "objections which have been
forthcoming from the citizens." In April 1911, black Sunday
School teachers were invited to the Mecklenburg County Sunday
School Association, but they had to sit in the balcony. Even a
play entitled "The N…." was performed on the stage of the
elegant Academy of Music on South Tryon Street. Within this
cultural milieu, the black church served as a haven from the
white man; there black men could exhort their congregations to
persevere in the face of adversity and scorn.
Clearly, the behavior of elite whites toward the black citizens
of Charlotte at the turn of the last century was in direct
opposition to today's sense of equity and fairness. Nothing can
mitigate the essential wrongness of White Supremacy
. However, just as in the
case of apologists for slavery, the defenders of "Jim Crow
" laws believed that disenfranchisement and racial
segregation would work ultimately for the benefit of society as
a whole. Fundamental to the thinking of New South leaders like
D. A. Tompkins and Heriot Clarkson was the belief that blacks
should focus their attention upon educational and economic
advancement, not the attainment of political prerogatives.
 |
|
Carnegie
Library at Biddle Memorial Institute, now Johnson C.
Smith University. |
On November
15, 1911, Tompkins and Clarkson attended the cornerstone-laying
ceremony for the new Carnegie Library at Biddle Memorial
Institute . Happily the building still stands. Dr. Henry L.
McCrorey ,
the college president, was master of ceremonies. McCrorey
lauded Tompkins for the latter's unselfish interest in the
prosperity of Biddle Institute. Tompkins thanked McCrorey and
told the crowd that Biddle was a "model school" that
contributed mightily to "the solution of the race questions
existing throughout the world" by promulgating "conservative
influences." Heriot Clarkson also praised the school and its
graduates.
The message of the White Supremacists was
unmistakable. They contended that what they called Anglo Saxon
values must rein supreme because in their minds such beliefs
alone would assure the advancement of all Southerners. Tompkins
maintained that any man, black or white, could succeed in
achieving the American Dream if he worked hard enough. By
practicing self-discipline and becoming educated, African
Americans might one day demonstrate their worthiness to
participate on an equal footing with whites in the political
realm; but for now they must be subservient to whites in
governmental affairs.
A.M.E. Zion Bishop Henry Lomax , who died
on March 31, 1908, was the type of individual whom the New South
leaders thought African Americans should aspire to become. Lomax
invested heavily in real estate in Charlotte, especially in
Second Ward, and possessed an estate of approximately $70,000 at
the time of his death. "He had remarkable business talent," the
Charlotte News proclaimed, "and set an example to his
people of how power and respect come to a man from thrift and
industry." The Charlotte Observer also commented
editorially upon Lomax's death. "In the death of T. H. Lomax of
this city, the colored race and the community lose a valuable
member and the A.M.E. Zion Church a shining light," the
newspaper asserted. "His example and counsels always made for
good and by all colors and classes his death is to be
regretted."
Factory
workers also suffered discrimination at the hands of the New
South leaders in the opening decades of the twentieth century.
Unlike most of Charlotte's earlier manufacturing establishments,
which had had relatively few workers, factories like Latta's
Charlotte Trouser Company (1883) and the Alpha , Ada , and
Victor Cotton Mills (1889) attracted hundreds of laborers to
town. Most were newcomers who had little, if any, loyalties to
local elites. It became increasingly difficult within this
cultural milieu to maintain the feelings of cordiality that had
characterized social relationships between classes in
pre-industrial Charlotte. For the first time residential
enclaves filled exclusively with cottages for mill workers began
to appear on the outskirts of Charlotte. To quote Hanchett, "The
close-knit relationships of the small workplace were giving way
to less personal interactions between the factory owner and his
numerous and interchangeable employees."
The
disenfranchisement amendment approved in 1900 stipulated that
the infamous "Grandfather Clause" would last for only seven
years and that thereafter illiterate whites would also be
prevented from voting unless they had already registered.
This provision resulted from the elite's skepticism concerning
the likelihood that industrial workers would remain loyal to the
Democrat Party. Strikes reinforced these feelings of
distrust. In 1905, typographical workers struck the local
newspapers, machinists walked off their jobs at D. A. Tompkins
Company, and messengers vacated Western Union. It was not
uncommon for prosperous Charlotteans to refer to millhands and
their families as "white trash" or the "ignorant factory set,"
says Hanchett.
The most
dramatic incident of labor unrest in Charlotte at the turn of
the last century occurred in 1903. Serious trouble began on
December 2nd. On that day forty-eight streetcar conductors and
motormen who worked for the Charlotte Street Railway Company
walked off the job and marched from the car barn on South
Boulevard in Dilworth to the Square, where they milled about,
explained their grievances, and sought public support.
The
ostensible reason for the walkout was a dispute regarding the
company's refusal to turn on electric heaters in the trolleys.
The strikers generally received public support for their refusal
to continue to operate unheated streetcars. "The people here in
Charlotte are with the strikers and they are sure to win if they
are orderly and well behaved," the Charlotte Observer
predicted. The Charlotte News also supported the action
of the motormen and conductors, insisting that the citizens were
"overwhelmingly with the men on the main question that the cars
ought to be heated." Edward Dilworth Latta , who was in New
York City when the strike broke out, arrived in Charlotte on
December 3rd to find many townspeople wearing buttons that
boldly proclaimed, "I walk."
Latta
responded to the labor crisis with characteristic firmness and
dispatch. Indeed, he had already sent a telegram to his elder
son, Nisbet Latta , who was becoming increasingly active in his
father's businesses, instructing him to announce that the
conductors and motormen no longer worked for the Charlotte
Street Railway Company and that replacements for the entire
work force would be hired immediately. In response, the mood of
the strikers turned ugly as they gathered at the Square and
hurled insults at the "scabs" who were taking their jobs. A
rally was held on the night of December 3rd in Typographical
Hall, where the leaders of the labor unions in Charlotte pledged
their support for the employees of the trolley system and
contributed funds for their struggle. Cheers erupted when the
audience learned that the majority of the businessmen of the
city had signed a petition requesting that the Four Cs turn on
the electric heaters and reinstate the men. F. C. Abbott , an
influential realtor, headed a citizens' committee that met with
Latta and attempted to resolve the dispute. The motormen and
conductors agreed to return to work when the company activated
the heaters.
Latta,
however, remained adamant in a letter to the Charlotte News
published on December 5, 1903:
I regret,
beyond expression, the exigency of the situation, causing me to
part with a body of men for many of whom I hold a personal
attachment; but it could scarcely be expected by any thoughtful
fair-minded person that on my return I would dismiss those who
had graciously rallied to our interests and reinstate others
who, without provocation during my absence, elected to abandon
their position with no other expectation than that the company
and the public would be without service.
The situation
worsened on December 8th, when Latta announced that the Four Cs
was turning on the heaters in the cars but that the former
motormen and conductors would not be reinstated. The
Charlotte News proclaimed in a blistering editorial that
the "only honest and manly thing to do under God's heaven" was
for the company to admit that it was wrong and restore the men
to their jobs. The newspaper challenged Latta directly,
questioning the status of the Charlotte Consolidated
Construction Company as a reputable corporate citizen and
suggesting that the Charlotte Board of Aldermen might want to
review carefully the gas, electric, and trolley franchises it
had awarded in the 1890s to the Four Cs. The editorial writer
minced no words in his conclusion: "The company has already
given the strongest impetus to municipal ownership of the public
utilities of this city that could have been given. And if the
company wins, it will be a dear victory in the end."
Violence
exploded on December 10, 1903, when a rowdy mob gathered on
South Boulevard in Dilworth after dark and fired pistols in the
air as the streetcars passed. That same night rocks pummeled
through the windshield of a trolley in Piedmont Park , a
streetcar suburb bordering Central Avenue,. one hitting the
conductor's ankle. Although strikers were not implicated, their
public support began to evaporate. The Charlotte News ,
attempting to reverse the tide, sponsored a benefit performance
on December 21st featuring Gilbert Warren, a humorist. But the
situation was irredeemable. Edward Dilworth Latta and the
Charlotte Consolidated Construction Company triumphed, and the
former motormen and conductors were forced to seek other
employment.
In his
refusal to negotiate with or reinstate the striking streetcar
workers, Latta behaved with the traditional hostility to labor
organization that was characteristic of most capitalists who
came to the forefront in the New South. Such men, for the most
part, were committed to laissez-faire capitalism; they viewed
actions on the part of workers to organize or to strike or to
bargain collectively as a conspiracy to restrain natural and
productive economic activity. Latta's approach to labor
relations was at worst self-serving and at best only
paternalistic. |