Forrest O. Wiggins's speech: The Ideology of Interest

An announcement of Wiggins's speech
Wiggins, Forrest Oran. Correspondence. (Box 1, Folder 3). 1946 - 1951-11. University of Minnesota Libraries, University Archives.

On January 22, 1951, Forrest O. Wiggins delivered his speech "The Ideology of Interest" at the Coffman Memorial Union at the University of Minnesota. Wiggins spoke as part of an event held as part of the university's Centennial Lecture Series. The event was titled "Conflict in the Social Order," and it was sponsored by student and professional organizations like Future Teachers of American and the Sociology Club. 

The purpose of the event was to provide students with an opportunity to study ideological problems related to social conflict. In addition to Wiggins, the political science professor Mulford Q. Sibley and the sociologist Benjamin N. Nelson also spoke, and a panel discussion between the three professors was moderated by the sociologist George B. Vold. About 150 to 200 people attended Wiggins's talk, mostly students and a handful of faculty. 

The text of Wiggins's speech is as follows:

In an extremely pessimistic mood at the time preceding the Civil War, when men seemed to be unable to become aroused over the contradiction between the expressed tenets of democracy and human slavery, Thoreau wrote: "What is the price current of an honest man and patriot today? They will wait, well disposed for others to remedy the evil, that they may no longer regret. At most, they give only a cheap vote and a feeble countenance and Goodspeed to the right, as it goes them by."

The new world situation which has come into being as a result of the defeat of fascism requires a reorientation in our ways of thinking. There seems to be no doubt that if we are to be entirety pragmatic, we should examine the fundamental ideologies which have led us into two world-embracing wars within a single generation and a situation where we did not get out of the last business depression except by means of war.

This means to say, and I shall repeat it ad nauseum that capitalism did not emerge from the last depression by any natural causes indigenous to capitalism itself.

If we are to examine some of the basic economic political creeds, we would find, I think, that we have accepted capitalism as the best economic system, democracy with its principles of majority-minority divisions, plus as a political and social philosophy bolstering and lending support to these political and economic systems. Furthermore, I think we should assume the hegemony of the white race over the backward and colonial peoples of the world. 

In the space of some thirty or forty years, and with a pace unparalleled in its rapidity since the close of the last war, these four basic assumptions are no longer valid, nor are they held by a majority of mankind throughout the world. At the very outset, let us enunciate in the clearest possible tones:

1. The present conflict in the world today is not a conflict between democracy and communism; the present conflict in the world today is between capitalism and socialism.
2. The proponents of capitalism are in a distinct minority.
3. The domination of the white race over the rest of the world is no longer possible.
4. The most powerful leader of capitalism is the United States; the most powerful leader of socialism is the Soviet Union.

Conflict of interest is telescoped and brought into sharp focus by means of war. We ought to ask ourselves, "Who are the people who want war at the present time?" The Koreans? Their towns and villages and cities and hospitals and schools and huts are reduced to rubble. More than three-fourths of Korea is destroyed. The population has suffered a loss of more than one hundred thousand casualties. The Koreans do not want war. The Chinese in a period of some twenty years, in which they have been struggling for independence, have lost more than ten million lives. They are only one year out of an internal civil war. The great job of the Chinese is that of reconstruction and industrialization. The Chinese do not want war. The German elections show that the German people will not shoulder arms in defense of Western democracies. The Russians don't want war. Who is it, then, who wants war.

The answer is that it is the capitalists and the militarists in the United States who want war.

I shall let the truth come out of the horses's mouth; I shall give you a series of quotations which will prove this thesis. We may lay down the general principle that American business standard for the proposition that the United States economy requires military spending inevitably leads to military action. And here I call upon the spokesmen of capitalism to speak for themselves.

In Barron's Financial Weekly, of August 7, we find this statement: "The United States has inherited an imperial mantle as order-keeper for the world.... In the past this was left to others, notably the British... In this century the task devolves upon United States leadership; there is no other. Wall Street has a part of play in the immediate re-arming of America... It will do so not just by supplying the Treasury with dollars, but supplying as in the part, intelligent and courageous leadership."

Dr. Palyi, former banker and professor of finance at the University of Chicago, writing in the Commercial and Financial Chronicle of August 12, 1950, states, "We have underwritten Europe's colonial empires as well as the highly artificial semi-totalitarian structures which grew out of them."

Dr. Virgil Jordan, president of the National Industrial Conference Board, says, "America has embarked upon a career of imperialism, both in world affairs and in every aspect of her life... At best, England will become a junior partner of the new Anglo-Saxon imperialism, in which the economic resources and military and naval strength of the United States will be the center of gravity. Southward in our Hemisphere and Westward in the Pacific the path of empire takes its way, and in modern terms of economic power as well as political prestige, the sceptre  [rec scepter] passes to the United States...

"We have no alternative, in truth than to move along the road we have been traveling in the past quarter century, in the direction we took with the conquest of Cube and the Philippines, and our participation in World War I."

Austin Kiplinger, in the Chicago Journal of Commerce, March 2, 1949, writes, "In ABC's, the facts are these: The United States can produce more than its present capacity to consume. Increased consumption at home will sop up some of this excess, but still more excess will remain.

"We sell this excess abroad. And since the rest of the world is not up to our standard of production, we must decide what to take in payment. We can let the deficit stand as a debt which will probably never be paid. Or... and this is where imperialism comes in... we can't take ownership of properties throughout the world, and help to run them. 

"And if we do this, we shall have to cooperate with our own government and foreign governments to arrange the political weather under which American ownership abroad will be carried out...

"Since we are going to be stuck with the role of the imperialists, let us dramatize the new imperialism as an extension of the American way of life, and the American productive system..."

But we could use our productive resources at home. United States News and World Report of April 22, 1949, says "Official planners estimate that a shelf of needed public works at this time could total as much as 127 billion dollars." A few of the things talked about in Washington include such items as road building, 60 billion; floor control, 13 billion; schools, 10,5 billion; waterworks, 9.5 billion; hospitals, 8.5 billion. In the same issue, it states, "Armaments is the new great program for pump priming."

But let us continue. Justice Douglas made this statement: "War is the only divide the government can design to give maximum production and full employment."

David Lawrence, editor of the United States News and World Report, wrote on January 1, 1949, "Present prosperity is underwritten by billions being spent for armaments. Ending the cold war could bring economic upheaval in the United States."

In the Los Angeles Times, October, 1950, speaking of the Koreans and speaking rather prematurely, I think we will agree now, we find this statement: "The United States has won another war... Despite the fiction of carrying out a United Nations police action [and of course that's completely inaccurate], we have a clearer claim to write out our own ticket than in 1918, or even in 1945. For we have not only become the mightiest of military nations, we also stand as the fountainhead of the world's diplomatic leadership, of the world's wealth... Who else dominates the seven seas and the air above them?... We truthfully bestride the world like a colossus. Well, somebody's got to be boss. What are we waiting for?"

Now, of course, a United States Senator will not speak with such bluntness, but the worlds of Senator Sparkman of Alabama before the United Nations Economic Committee on October 25, 1950, echo the same sentiments. Quoting from Senator Sparkman:

"I wonder how many people appreciate the significance of the war in Korea on the international investment picture. It is possible that the long-range effect of the Korean War will be beneficial to the international flow of private capital."

This country has embarked upon a career of Marshall Plan aid, Atlantic Pacts, and the arming of the free nations. After five years of a spending spree, which again has been unparalleled in the history of the world, Scott Nearing says that these are the two results:

1. "In various countries grabbers and exploiters threatened by popular movements have turned to the Truman administration for help. Many of them have got the money and arms they asked for. Each Washington grant of support to a minority of grabbers and exploiters has alienated the exploited majority. Are the Marshall Plan countries ready to stand by the U.S.A. in an atomic war against the U.S.S.R.? Britain, improbably. France and Italy, emphatically not.

2. "Since 1945, the United States has taken part in half a dozen undeclared wars in which imperialist landlords and capitalists were financed, armed, organized and directed by U.S. interests and personnel. This happened in Indonesia, Greece and China. Four other such wars are still in progress – in the Philippines, South Korea and Formosa. In each of these four wars, United States money, arms, equipment, and military advisers are helping to suppress popular movements. Such a policy could not win the support of the people, but only their masters and exploiters. Most notable among the examples of the outcomes which ultimately follows such a policy was the 1949 debacle for the Nationalists in China.

3. "In 1950, United States influence, based on the assumption that this country is a progressive force, has been all but dissipated. Particularly among the colonial people, the United States today is looked upon as imperialist and reactionary.

4. "Even though present United States policy may not guarantee peace, its advocates insist that it will surely bring victory – (a) victory by imperialists in an age which has repudiated imperialism; (b) victory by exploiters in an age which has repudiated exploitation; (c) victory by proponents of competition in an age which can survive only the basis of cooperation; (d) victory by an isolated,  even though industrialized, nation based upon military operations across two oceans and directed against the Eurasian heartland of the planet....

"... The Truman administration is making war on the emerging social order. Any such program is foredoomed to defeat."

That's the international picture. What is the domestic picture? For you cannot understand the international picture unless you see it as the reverse side of the coin of the domestic picture. If we look for persons who profit from the present war scares and hysteria as well as those that pay for the way, the answer becomes rather obvious. 

Corporation profits in 1939 were 6 1/2 billion dollars. Corporation profits in 1950 were 50 billion dollars. The working capital of United States corporations has increased 185 per cent since World War II began. From 1945 to 1949, in a space of four years, the corporations had piled up 135 billions in profits before taxes, and 78 billions after taxes. The farm income is down 2 billion dollars from last year. By a strange coincidence, Truman's defense war budget for 1950 was 50 billion dollars, which is exactly the estimated profits of corporations for the same year.

Now, where do these profit increases come from? First, they come from increased worker productivity. Worker productivity is 32 per cent greater than in 1939 and 65 per cent greater than in 1929. Secondly, it comes from a rise in prices. Profit after taxes rose 27 per cent in the first half of 1950 over the similar period in 1949, which was the highest in the history of our country. Although profits rose 27 per cent, sales rose only 8 per cent. In steel, the profit increase was 19 per cent over the corresponding period last year, and the sale rose only 3 per cent. I hope this gives a lie to the statement that increased profits are due to increased sales.

Here is a nice juicy item, and I will be through with quoting statistics for awhile, I hope. Today's report of the Standard Oil Company was really something. The company broke all records and with gross revenue of $3,322,000,000.00, it turned in a new profit of 365 million dollars which was obviously commented on as meaning that the Standard Oil Company had a profit of a million dollars a day throughout the year. Possibly prices could be lowered without hiring profits very much, in view of the big gross revenue. Possibly the directors may be thinking some time of splitting the stock.. for there would be an advantage... if profits per share do not look so large.

I shall not bore you with what is going on too much; this is an economic age, and I shall give you just a few more figures: Over the third quarter, profits after taxes (I shall give you just a few here) from 1949 to 1950 in food and baking goods have gone up 31 per cent; in iron and steel, 68 percent; in chemicals, 83 percent; in paper and paper pulp, 116 per cent; in textiles, 205 per cent; in mining and minerals, 563 per cent over last year. [Footnote cites "Wall Street Journal, November 8, 1950.]

What happened? The 1939 dollar is now only worth 59 cents in terms of purchasing power. The retail prices of consumers goods is 70 per cent higher than 1939.

Who profits by this? General Foods is owned by Morgan-Rockefeller interests, Standard Brands by Morgan, Continental Can by Morgan-Goldman-Sachs, American Can by Morgan, National Dairy by Morgan, National Biscuit Company by Morgan, Swift and Company by Kuhn, Loeb, Morgan, ad infinitum.

Each of these large financial empires has its representatives in key policy-making positions in the United States government. At the same time that these financial giants are systematically looting the country in the name of patriotism, the government is clamoring for controls and wage freezes, for the passage of an income tax which places the highest increases on the lowest incomes, and refuses to hold down rents and prices. Dewey says we must become like Spartans, give up conveniences. And Truman tells us we must tighten our belts, and, to give us a good example, according to Drew Pearson, within the last month he went on a diet and lost eleven pounds.

I would like to name a few of the men who control the political and economic destiny of this country. Number one is Mr. Charles E. Wilson, to whom Truman has given all of his powers granted under the emergency act. Who is Mr. Wilson. He is president of General Electric, one of the greatest monopolistic anti-labor corporations in the country.

General Lucius Clay, chairman of the board of Continental Can Company and former military governor of United States Occupied Germany, a many who was most instrumental in scrapping the decartelization programs for Germany.

William H. Harrison, president of International Telephone and Telegraph, who is now administrator of the National Production Authority. 

John D. Small, president of Maxson Food Systems, Inc., vice-president of Emerson Radios, now heads the Munitions Board. 

Winthrop W. Aldrich, brother-in-law of John D. Rockefeller, Jr., board chairman of Rockefeller's Chase National Bank, chairman of the National Advisory Committee on International Finance, which counsels the Secretary of the Treasury. He is now at the head of the President's Committee on International Trade with dominant influence on Mr. Truman's Point Four Program.

Paul Henry Nitze, vice-president of Dillon-Read, investment banks, head of the State Department Policy Planning Board since December, 1949.

General William Draper, vice-president of Dillon-Read, investment bankers. Dillion-Read [sic Dillon-Read] was closely associated with the German cartels. General Draper was chief economic officer in Germany from 1945 to 1947. He was the Under-Secretary of the Army from 1947 to 1949. [A footnote cites "James Stewart Martin, All Honorable Men, pp. 190ff."]

Dillon-Read is really something. Along with Brown Brothers and Harriman, they placed more than 86 per cent of the two billion dollars which the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis borrowed from the United States investors before the last war.

I shall not bore you any more with the listing of the connections between big business and the policy making positions in the government of the United States. But the Matthews, the Symingtons, the Perkins, the Johnsons, the Webbs – all of these are representatives of ig, monopolistic industries in the financial houses of American.

It was Woodrow Wilson who told us that if you wanted to understand modern wars, you would have to look at them in terms of their economic origin. In Taft's last speech before the Senate, he urges us to drop all pretense of idealism in our international affairs, and I would like to quote him. Mr. Taft says, "Its purpose [he means American foreign policy] is not to reform the entire world or to spread sweetness and light and economic prosperity to people who have lived and worked our their own salvation for centuries."

The war program is possibly only if American people are convinced that we are threatened from outside by an invasion by the Soviet Union and, more recently, we have added China. President Truman's message on the State of the Union said, "Our homes, our nation, all the things we believe in, are in grave danger." And although he explicitly names the Soviet Union as the aggressor in this conflict of interests, no Soviet armed forced have appeared anywhere on the scene.

The President and the Secretary of State have repeatedly given voice to the claim that the Soviet Union recognizes only force and, by implication, that the United States only recognizes only mercy, righteousness and justice. The President says that his policies will bring peace, security and prosperity to the world and freedom at the same time. He implements his peace policy by forcing a reluctant Europe to rearm, lay down plans for the re-militarization of Germany and Japan, calls for the draft of eighteen-year-old boys, and through the passage of the McCarran law, transforms the United States into a police state.

How real is the threat to our homes and to our way of life by the Soviet Union? Let me repeat the remark of a few minutes ago. The Soviet Union has not had a single soldier engaged in war since the cessation of hostilities. This is the only major power in the world of which this may be said.

Ehrenburg, speaking at the Warsaw Peace Conference[,] said, [sic omit comma] "Never has a single political leader, a single deputy, a single journalist or teacher in the Soviet Union called for war against the United States or any other power."

I would like to give you one more quotation from Senator Taft's recent speech, as reported in the Minneapolis Morning Tribute, January 6, of this year: "I do not myself see any conclusive evidence that (the Russians) expect to start a war with the United States. I see no reason for a general panic bn [sic "based"] the assumption that they will do so."

Mr. Dulles, along with Mr. Acheson, and perhaps even more than Mr. Acheson, is a director of a foreign policy of the United States. I would like to give you one or two quotations of Mr. Dulles. At the Federal Council of Churches Conferences on March 9, 1949, Mr. Dulles says, "I do not know any responsible official, military or civilian, in this or any other government, who believes that the Soviet Union now plans conquest by open military aggression."

In an off-the-record speech before the Overseas Writers' Association, January 10th of last year (this was at the time of the Berlin air lift, at the same time when the Senate of the United States was being asked to ratify the Atlantic Pact) , Mr. Dulles said, "There could be a settlement of the Berlin situation at any time on the basis of Soviet currency for Berlin and our right to bring in food, raw materials, and fuel to the Western sectors. The present situation is, however, to United States advantage for propaganda purposes. We are getting credit for keeping the people in Berlin from starving; the Russians are getting the blame for their privation. If we settle Berlin, then we have to deal with Germany as a whole. We will have to deal immediately with a Russian proposal for a withdrawal of all occupation troops and a return of Germany to Germans. Frankly, I do not know what we would say to that."

Let us go back to our fundamental thesis enunciated in the beginning. War is a telescoping and focusing of a conflict of interests. We have been told that interests must necessarily conflict, that man is by nature selfish in looking after his own interests. Suppose we grant this. Can we use the principle of interest as the basis for human organization? We have been following the principle of interest for over 200 years. The mess we are in seems to me to be an adequate answer to this question.

The task of the human race at the present time is to see that interest does not become a principle upon which we organize human society. Our task is to find another, more suitable, principle of human organization before all of us are blown to oblivion.

I can only give you the outline, very briefly, of a new principle of human organization. I call it a new principle, but it is as old as the human race. It has been the principle upon which we have organized our education, our religion, our science, and the family. That is, that goods, things and property[,] shall be used only as instruments in the service of humanity. The family has always been organized on socialistic lines; the same is true of science; the same is true of the president organization of industry as distinguished from business.

In the world today 700 million people have organized their lives according to socialist principles. Beginning at zero in 1917, socialist has brought a third of the human race under that form of social organization. I would like to recall to you that the population of the United States is only roughly 6 per cent fo the world's population.

Both capitalists and socialists agree that the conflict of interests is a thing to be deplored, for it leads to competition and competition is destructive. In the very period when we have been giving the most of our lip service to the doctrine of "free enterprise" and "competition", we have seen the growth of our largest corporations and monopolies. 

For the problem of the conflict of interests between the capitalists and socialist have different solutions. The capitalists say that the social means of production must remain in private hands, roughly, in the United States, in the hands of some 8 per cent of the population. The socialists say that the social means of production must be under social control and directed by the public authorities.

Let us note one thing: that in times of crises, such as depression and war, capitalism must repudiate its own principles. In the first place, it must go in for planning on a national scale and wage-fixing, all of which are contrary to the basic tenets of capitalism. Secondly, it says that its system is predicated on the premise tha 4th public good is enchanted when each unit is at warfare with the other; when each is in competition with the other. It says that the strength of the system depends on each getting as much as he can for himself. But in times of war, the individual is asked to surrender this privilege and innate right on which the strength of the system itself depends, to sacrifice himself for the national interest. I hope I am making ti clear as I go along with the fundamental issues that face mankind today are concerned with the problem of property and they are all reducible to the question of property. There are few indications at the present time in the Western World that we recognize this fact. All the organizations and the political parties which are strong enough to do anything about the problem of property seem oblivious to the fact that it is a problem. Labor in the United States accepts the fundamental tenets of the private property system, so that there is very little shop in that direction. The teaching profession itself stands indicted also. Teachers have become petty business men and accepted the principle of interest. There is perhaps no faculty in the United States that would go to bat on an issue involving the dignity and integrity of the profession. Everywhere a faculty member is a petty business man looking out after his own interest and security with a consequence that the educational function has largely disappeared, lost in the morass of writing articles, book reviews and textbooks and buying groceries. The faculty members do not seem to know enough to see that the integrity of the human race is involved as well as the institutions of culture.

The British and the American people will hold on to the private property system until they are forced to let go. But if it is necessary to fight another war over the system of private property, not only will the capitalist system go but civilization and culture will go down too. But since civilization and culture will go if capitalism survives, the alternatives aren't too happy in any case.

In Britain and in the United States, the business system is winning; socialism is triumphing everywhere else. Any move which threatens the right of legitimate business to profit will be opposed by the gun and the bomb.

I should like to state one elementary political axiom: Property always has and always will rule the state. From this axiom certain propositions may be deduced:

1. To the degree that interest can be made objective, it will assume the form of property.

2. Political freedom without economic freedom is a myth, since the only way in which the will can assert itself is through property objects. Political democracy which does not embrace economic democracy is empty.

3. The will of the people as expressed in political bodies can find expression only when property is publicly owned.

The people want peace and security, a life of abundance and decency. The monopoly capitalists who run and control the American government want scarcity and profits, a "Cold War" if possibly and a "hot war" if necessary. From a world-wide point of view, the system of capitalism has tottered so much that it would fall completely if it were not supported by the United States. There is no logical, organize or necessary connection between capitalism and democracy. In fact, capitalism reached its highest stage of development in fascist Germany. 

Where there is a sharp, clear-cut conflict between civil rights guaranteed by democracy and the demands of profit made by capitalism, the civil rights will be suppressed. I would like to repeat Judge Douglas' statement: "War is the only device that the government can design to given maximal production and full employment." [A footnote reads "Quoted in Fred Stover's 'Atomic Blessing or Atomic Blasting'."] It is clear that for the continuation for capitalism as an economic system we are paying for it not only in terms of the destruction of our way of life, but also the destruction of our material goods and our conveniences. For we cannot build hospitals and homes, we cannot provide medical care and pay adequate salaries to our teachers, we cannot eat adequately. We have to pay for the continuation of capitalism in terms of our very lives.

Now, the ruling classes in every epoch of the world's history have identified the fate of the family, religion, government and civilization itself with the continuation of their rulership. We must, therefore, look with very hypercritical eyes at the present rulers of American when they announce their pious platitudes. I challenge their claims that their way is the American way. Rather do I identify the American was with abundance, peace, and prosperity. I do not identify it with witch-hunt and oppression, the denial of opportunity, monopoly capitalism, and the continuation of colonialism and war. 

Verify, verify, I say unto you, that this is the hour of decision. A resurgence, a reawakening is taking place all over the world. A new day is aborning. For those o you with the desire to participate, I say unto you: "Be ye not afraid, for you are many."

When this speech was given, Wiggins had been teaching at the University of Minnesota for five years, and university officials had been receiving complaints about his political activities for the past two years. Administrators initially defended Wiggins on free speech grounds, but they had begun to reverse their stance by the time of the speech. 

An administrator's report on Wiggins's speech lends some insight into the administration's views at this time. A staffer in the department of university relations (William T. Harris) attended the talk and then wrote a report for the vice president of academic administration (Malcolm M. Willey). The staffer focused on Wiggins's political beliefs: "Dr. Wiggins may or may not be a member of the communist party, but he certainly is an apologist for Soviet Russian and a devoted apostle of 'socialism'. He made this very clear in his talk and in his answers to questions that were put to him."

On the content of Wiggin's speech, the staffer wrote that Wiggins was "no orator" but his presentation was "fairly effective." The talk, he wrote, was organized by first introducing a "plausible point," documenting the point in detail using reputable citations, and then "[sliding] in a wedge of communist dogma which he implies is related the point just made but for which he offers no substantiation whatsoever." The staffer criticized Wiggins for his "blind devotion to the soviet system." According to the staffer, the talk was received "politely" but with little sympathy or enthusiasm. 

By then end of the year, Wiggins was informed that his contact at the University of Minnesota would not be renewed. Initially no justification was offered, but when pressed on the issue, the administration claimed that Wiggins had not be re-appointed because his scholarship was lacking. Wiggins' speech was used to support this assessment. The negative evaluation of Wiggins' scholarship was made by the dean, and the dean claimed to have analyzed the text of the speech in detail and concluded that it demonstrated a serious lack of the qualities of good scholarship.

Wiggins tried to challenge his dismissal from the university, and he received significant support from students and faculty. They were successful in bringing the matter to the public's attention, but they were unsuccessful in having Wiggins reinstated. He left the university during the summer of 1952 and moved to South Carolina to teach at Allen University. 

J. S. Kennard: An American Baptist in Imperial Japan

J. S. Kennard
Harvard Class Album, 1913

Joseph Spencer Kennard Jr. was born on April 28, 1890 in the village of Ossining in Westchester County, New York (near New York City) to Joseph Spencer Sr, and Isabella B. Kennard. At the time, his father was working as a lawyer, but he would later achieve international fame as an author and lecturer. 

From 1895 to 1898, Joseph's family lived in Europe, specifically in Switzerland, Italy, and France. They then returned to America and settled in Philadelphia for about two years but moved to England the next year (in 1901). They stayed there until 1904 when they returned to Westchester County, this time to live in the town of Greenburgh. However, Joseph did not stay there and instead left home to attend boarding school. He first attended St. Paul's School in Concord, New Hampshire, but he transferred to Mackenzie School in Dobbs Ferry, New York. He graduated from Mazkenzie School in 1909 and then matriculated at Harvard University. At Harvard, Joseph was a standout student. He was awarded a scholarship (the Class of 1817 Scholarship) and graduated cum laude with an A.B. degree in 1913. 

By the time he was a college student, Joseph had become deeply interested in Christianity and missionary work. In doing so, he was following in his grandfather's footsteps. His grandfather, also named Joseph Spencer Kennard, was a prominent Baptist preacher. Joseph Jr. would also remain with the Baptist church for most of his life.

Joseph shared some of his thoughts on religion in a 1911 article he wrote for The Harvard Illustrated Magazine. He wrote about the "missionary spirit" at Harvard. Simply stated, he found it lacking. While there was a society that had been formed to help organize missionary work, it was not very active, and students seemed indifferent to subject. He attributed this indifference to the nature of the education at Harvard. Unlike other American universities, Harvard did not emphasize the teachings of Christianity and instead promoted "a doctrine of mere ethics," which Joseph dismissively called "some new 19th century concoction."

After graduating from Harvard, Joseph enrolled at the Princeton Theological Seminary. At the seminary, Joseph was an exceptional student. He was awarded the Second Hodge Prize and the William Henry Green Fellowship in Semitic Philology. He received his S.T.B. degree in 1916.

J. S. Kennard, circa 1916
From passport application

Joseph began working as a church pastor in New York City after completed his degree at the seminary. However, he only did this for a short time. World War One had been raging for two years and left in June 1916 to do humanitarian work in Europe. He worked for the Y.M.C.A. in Germany, providing social and religious services to allied POWs.

During this time, tensions were rising between Germany and the United States. A tipping point was reached in February 1917 when the United States ended diplomatic relations in response to Germany's decision to resume unrestricted submarine warfare, a decision that put American sailors at risk. This development made Joseph's continued stay in Germany untenable. At the time, Joseph was living in Hannover, and he learned of the news while eating dinner at a restaurant after having spent all day visiting prison camps. Without even finishing his dinner, he left the restaurant, and a few days he had departed with other Y.M.C.A. workers on a special train for Switzerland.

After leaving Germany, Joseph ended up in France. He registered as a doctoral student at the Sorbonne, but he only studied there briefly as he was assigned to Bordeaux to provide services to American soldiers who were returning from Russia, where they had been supporting the Tsar in the Russian Civil War.

Joseph stayed in France for less than a year. That summer, he received a draft notice, so he was forced to return to America and join the army. He entered as a private on July 13, 1918 and was assigned to the Coast Artillery Corps. He served as a chaplain and spent the war at coastal forts in the northeast until December 1918, when he was honorably discharged.

After the war, Joseph attended Yale University's Graduate School to pursue advanced studies in philosophy and education. However, he left to work as a pastor in New York City after one year (the 1918-19 academic year). In New York, he continued his studies at Columbia University. However, in the summer of 1920 he would receive an appointment that would occupy him for the next two decades: missionary work in East Asia.

Joseph was sent to Japan by the American Baptist Convention, and he served as part of their Foreign Mission Society. He left New York City on August 18 and was stationed in Tokyo. Joseph moved to Japan at a time when militarism was on the rise. He would spend much of his time in the country opposing the growth of Japanese militarism. His activities attracted negative attention of internal security forces, and he was occasionally harassed by the police. Once a whole police squad was dispatched to his home.

Beyond politics, Joseph was in Tokyo when the city was struck by the Great Kantō earthquake of 1923. This massive earthquake destroyed large parts of the city and resulted in the deaths of over 100,000 people. Joseph's own home was narrowly spared destruction.

In 1925, Joseph was placed on furlough, so he returned to the west and resumed his education. He was able to complete his degrees from Yale and the Sorbonne, receiving a A.M. and a Ph.D. degree from Yale, a Doctorate of Literature from Université de Paris, and a Doctorate of the Protestant Faculty from the University of Strasbourg. All of his graduate work was on religious studies, especially the early history of Christianity. His doctorate from Université de Paris was awarded for his thesis "Politique et Religion chez les Juifs au temps de Jésus et dans l'Église primitive." At Yale, he wrote the 1927 dissertation "An Introduction To The National Consciousness Of Jesus"

Joseph returned to Tokyo in 1927. He was one of roughly five missionaries stationed in the city and was placed in charge of Mito Church, one of the ten Baptist church in Japan. In addition to serving at rural churches and teaching English, he founded the monthly periodical The Christian Graphic. The periodical was founded shortly after Japan invaded Manchuria in September 1931. The periodical was bilingual (in Japanese and English) and aimed to promote international understanding. By promoting internationalism, Joseph hoped to oppose militarism. 

Joseph's decision to found the The Christian Graphic was timely as Japan began to undergo a series of crises that would swing the nation further in the direction of militarism. One of the most serious crises was a wave of right-wing political violence. In the early 1930s, right-wing nationalists assassinated a number of politicians including the prime minister. Some of these assassinations were committed as part of an attempt to overthrow the government in a coup. The coup attempts were unsuccessful, but they did severely weaken the civilian government.

At the same time that the government was facing political violence, it was also facing dissension from the military. The army and navy sharply disagreed with the civilian government over foreign policy issues like armament treaties and relations with China. Unable to compromise, the military began to act independently. The cumulative effect of all this was that, by 1932, democratic government effectively broke down in Japan. While political institutions like the Imperial Diet (the national legislative body) remained in operation until the end of World War Two, the military largely controlled the nation.

While Joseph strongly opposed Japan's turn towards right-wing militarism, in his writings to western audiences he was sympathetic towards the Japanese and emphasized the impact of western imperialism on political developments. For example, in a 1935 report to the Mission Society, he acknowledged that Japan had been acting belligerent but explained that this was a response to westerners treating it as an inferior nation and discriminating against its people. He felt this treatment was unwarranted. As evidence, he pointed to Japanese achievement in horticulture and the fine arts. In music, for example, cultured Japanese showed a refined appreciation of western music like Beethoven and Bach and were developing their own music traditions. 

Joseph wrote that the trend to belligerency was primarily religious in nature. For example, Shinto and some sects of Buddhism "[exalted] the sword" and there was a widely held "belief in a world mission and the ultimate universal sway of the Imperial house." Being a religious issue, he wrote that American Christians should counteract it through religious acts. He encouraged Christians to (1) work to end racial discrimination against Japanese and (2) support missionary efforts as a way to counteract "the false in the nationalist cults of Japan." 

Joseph activities in Japan were not entirely political. He also published his first book Thinking in English. This was a textbook for learning English as a foreign language. The book was written with Harold E. Palmer, an English linguist who was teaching in Japan.

Mito Church
Japan Baptist Annual for 1933

Joseph time in Japan came to an abrupt end in October 1936. He had left Japan in winter 1935 to study at Union Theological Seminary in New York City. While he was in New York, the Japanese government became more hostile toward foreigners. Japanese officials stopped publication of the The Christian Graphic and forced the periodical's staff to leave the country. Later, one of the editors and his wife were killed by Japanese soldiers in the Philippines.

Joseph and his family became the target of this increased hostility foreigners in October 1936. That month, they tried to return to Japan by boat, but upon landing, they were told by the police that they were banned from the country. The police justified the ban on grounds that Joseph was a pacifist and a Communist. They made four specific accusations: (1) Joseph had been connected with the anti-war organization the Fellowship of Reconciliations, (2) he had proposed participating in a Shanghai peace conference that was to "open under Communist auspices," and (3) he edited a periodical (The Christian Graphic) that promoted anti-war principles "from the Communist standpoint," (4) he had been in contact with Alexander Buckman, an alleged Communist. Buckman was an American who had moved to Japan in 1933 and was deported later that year because of alleged Communist ties. 

Joseph publicly denied all the accusations except being a member of the Fellowship of Reconciliations, and he offered to resign from organization if its members were unwelcome in Japan. Despite Joseph's denial, government officials upheld the ban. This brought an end to Joseph's time in China, but it did not mark the end of his missionary work. He was assigned to teach history at the West China Union University in Chengdu, China. He and his family moved there in the spring. 

West China Union University

West China Union University was a private university that had been founded by western church missionaries in the 1910s. During the time that Kennard was teaching, the population grew fivefold. Much of the growth was driven by Chinese Civil War and China's war with Japan. Chengdu was a major center for the Kuomintang, or Chinese nationalists. Many Chinese supportive of the nation's government fled to the city to escape war and general political disorder.

Kennard was still working in Chengdu when the Second World War broke out. Kennard's views on the war were nuanced. In a 1939 Letter to the Editor that was published in The Christian Century, a major periodical of American Protestantism, he expressed his views on the matter. Despite his anti-militarism and advocacy for peace, he argued that war with Japan was necessary as this was the only way to stop Japan military conquest of Asia. However, he argued that, for "psychological" reasons, defeat needed to come at the hands of the Chinese. America, he argued, should stop fighting against China, presumably meaning Chinese Communist Party. In contrast, he remarkably was against war in Europe. He wrote that, in "the balancing of the two sets of evils the moral degeneration attending armed resistance would seem to very nearly balance that of allowing Hitler's expansion into Poland." He contrasted this with what he felt was the greater evil of allowing Japanese militarists to "drug, debauch and enslave the people of China." 

Joseph remained at the university for most of the war, seven years in total. However, the situation in the Chengdu became increasingly unstable as war dragged on. Finally, in 1944, Joseph and his family were evacuated out of the country and returned to America. 

Upon returning to America, Joseph settled in the northeast. He remained deeply engaged in developments in Asia. During his first year back, he traveled the country and gave lectures on Asia, focusing on his experiences there. He also published several Letters to the Editor in national newspapers expressing his views on political developments. Having seen Chinese nationalist government up close in Chengdu for several years, Joseph was highly critical of it and felt the U.S. government should not offer it support. Joseph's criticism centered on two points. First, he simply felt that the nationalist government was a feudalist one that failed to need the needs of the Chinese people. Second, he felt that U.S. support for the nationalists was counterproductive because, with anti-imperialist sentiment growing in Asia, it would only drive the Chinese towards Communism. He advocated for the withdrawal of military and financial support for the nationalist government.

For a brief time, Joseph considered taking an active part in the Second World War. In early 1945, he was considered for service with the Office of Strategic Services (a precursor to the CIA) for a proposed operation in the South Seas. The operation was canceled, and in its place, Joseph suggested that he be parachuted into the mountains of north-central China so that he could support General Nieh Jung-chen fight against the Japanese. However, the proposal was vetoed by the nationalist leader Chiang Kai-shek, presumably because Jung-chen was part of the communist opposition.

Beyond his continued engagement with Asian politics, Joseph turned to teaching and scholarship. He taught for a semester at the State Teachers College at New Paltz (now SUNY New Paltz) and published several papers. All of his publications were on the early history of Christianity. He published two articles in the Jewish Quarterly Review (Gleanings from the Slavonic Josephus Controversy and Judas of Galilee and His Clan) and three in the Journal of Biblical Literature ("Hosanna" and the Purpose of Jesus, Nazorean and Nazareth, and Was Caparnaum the Home of Jesus). He also published the book Render to God; a study of the tribute passage. This marked Joseph's greatest period of scholarly activity.

J. S. Kennard in 1945
The Plain Speaker [Hazleton, PA], November 12, 1945. p. 7.

J. S Kennard (second from left) at a 1946 protesting anti-Semitic statements made by British politician Ernest Bevin
The Worker newspaper, June 23, 1946. p. 2.

In fall 1952, Joseph left the northeast for Columbia, South Carolina to teach at Benedict College. Unfortunately, Joseph never wrote about his reasons for moving to Columbia, and even omitted discussion of his time at Benedict in a 1963 autobiographical account he wrote for an alumni publication. Joseph likely was drawn to Benedict for religious reasons. The university is closely affiliated with the Baptist church and, historically, many of its faculty had been white Baptists from the north. However, in many ways Joseph's employment was anomalous. The position at Benedict was his first at an American university, and by this time, Joseph was quite old to be starting a new job; he was in his sixties. Moreover, the position at Benedict was a challenging one as the faculty was faced with the task of educating African American students coming out of South Carolina's underfunded Black high schools and doing so under the constraints of the Jim Crow south. Some of Benedict's faculty relished the opportunity to effect political change in South Carolina, but while he certainly would have been sympathetic to their plight, Joseph does not seem to have had any particular interest in civil rights for African Americans. His political interests centered on Asia. Unless new records are found, Joseph's move to South Carolina remains somewhat of a mystery.

Joseph was hired to head Benedict's Social Science Department. His hire was announced in The State newspaper, albeit without any particular fanfare. Despite the impressive credentials that he brought, he was simply included in a list of the new hires that held advanced degrees. 

Location of Joseph's home at 1408 Senate St. in Columbia, SC
Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Columbia, Richland County, South Carolina

The professors of the Radical University: Anson W. Cummings, Part 1

A. W. Cummings
Memoirs

Anson Watson Cummings (b. February 23, 1815; December 7, 1894)

NY.  White.
Education: Wesleyan University (honorary M.A.), Indiana Asbury University (honorary D.D.)
Occupation: merchant, preacher, professor, teacher.

Anson W. Cummings was born in 1815 in Trenton, New York to John Dean and Mary Dorothy Cummings. His mother Mary was an immigrant from Ireland. It is unclear where his father John was from. Census records state that he was born in Canada, but Lamb's Biographical Dictionary states that he was born in Connecticut.

After Anson was born, his family moved to Canada, and he grew up in the town of Brockville in Ontario. Anson's teenage years were marked by hardship as his father died when Anson was only fifteen years old (in 1830). At age 18 (in 1833), he left Canada for school. He attended a school in Boonville (a town in upstate New York) and the Cazenovia Seminary (also located in the upstate, in the town of Cazenovia). The seminary was run by the Methodist Episcopal Church, although it was an academic seminary (similar to a high school) rather than a purely theological seminary.

His attendance at the Cazenovia Seminary was part of a life-long engagement with the Methodist church. He had joined the church at age ten, received an exhorter's license at nineteen (in 1834), and was licensed to preach at age twenty-one (around the time he completed his education at the seminary). However, most of his career was spent working as an educator rather than as a preacher. His first job, which he started in spring 1836, was as the principal of the Collinsville Institute in Lewis County, New York. He left the next year to teach at the Gouvernor Wesleyan Seminary, a seminary run by the ME church. Anson served as the seminary's teacher of mathematics and English.  He remained at the seminary for the next seven years, serving as principal during the last two years. In 1842 (the year he was elected principal), Anson was awarded an honorary A.M. degree from Wesleyan University. 

In 1844, Anson left the seminary and served as a pastor. He was stationed in Fairfield, New York. That year was an important one for the Methodist church. The church had become deeply divided over the issue of slavery. While the founder of Methodism, John Wesley, had strongly opposed the practice, the church compromised on the issue during the early 1800s.  Its' official position was that it opposed slavery, but it also regarded the practice as a political and civil issue that was outside the church's purview. However, church officials continued to debate over what the church's position on slavery should be.

The matter came to a head in 1844 when a bishop in Georgia received a slave through his marriage. The national governing body voted to suspend him until he gave up ownership, but this decision was strongly criticized by Methodists in the south. The next year (in May 1845) southern Methodists split off and formed their own church, the Methodist Episcopal Church, South.

Anson commented on the regional split in a biography he wrote about his first wife. He expressed  sympathy for southerners and blamed the division on political developments in the north: "A state of things existed in the North that rendered a longer union of Methodists in the South with the North, dangerous to the prosperity of the Church." Methodists in the north, he felt, had further inflamed things by "violently assailing" efforts to split the church in two. In debates over the matter, he wrote, "Much intemperate zeal was displayed, and much bitterness entered into the discussion."

Later, during Reconstruction, Cummings strongly advocated for the rights of African Americans, but in the biographical account, he displays little interest in the issue. He lumps abolitionism in with a nascent millennial movement (Millerism) and regards both as disrupting proper religious activities: 

Admidst the angry strife the spirit of revival could now dwell. Few revivals occurred in the North. In Fairfield there was no revival: Abolitionism, Millerism, and the division of the Church absorbed the attention of the people. The pastor was branded as pro-slavery because he would not allow the use of his pulpit to abolition fanatics, or permit them, rebuked, to slander his Church in other pulpits of the town.

Cummings' expressed views may reflect his efforts to join the southern church. The biography containing his remarks was published in 1856. That year he had moved to Tennessee left the northern church for the M.E. Church, South. He published the biography with a printer associated with the southern church.

Cummings only spent two years in Fairfield. In 1846, he left for the midwest. One biographical account states he resigned from the pulpit because he was experiencing health problems. 

Anson moved to the town of Lebanon in southern Illinois to teach at McKendree College (now University). The college had been founded and, at the time, was run by the Methodist Episcopal Church. Anson arrived at the college as it was emerging from a crisis. During the previous few years, the college had experienced financial difficulties. Many faculty and students departed, and courses were suspended for a few months in early 1846. The board of trustees hired a new faculty to replace the departed professors. Because of financial constraints, the new faculty were not paid a salary and instead were given a "preacher's allowance" funded by contributions of money and provisions by local church members. After this restructuring, the trustees elected a new president, Erastus Wentworth. Wentworth's family was close to Anson's. Wentworth was married to the older sister of Anson's wife, and the two men had taught together at Gouvernor Seminary.

Anson began teaching at McKendree in fall 1846. He served as professor of mathematics and natural sciences. During Anson's time at McKendree, the college managed to overcome its financial problems and maintained stability. By 1852, a few hundred students were enrolled, although most were preparatory students (as opposed to college students). Alumni that graduated during this time included Silas L. Bryan, the father of William Jennings Bryan.

President Wentworth left McKendree in 1850 to become a professor at Dickinson College. Anson was elected to replace him as president. Anson was a natural choice for the trustees as he had served effectively as a professor and as the college's fiscal agent. That same year Anson was awarded an honorary D.D. degree from Indiana Asbury University (now DePauw University).

Anson served as president until 1853. His time at McKendree saw a few notable developments. The campus newspaper the "Lebanon Journal" (later called the "Illinois Advocate and Lebanon Journal") was established. Anson served as the newspaper's first editor. The college also made its first steps towards admitting women. At the time, the college was male-only, but in 1852, Anson presented a resolution to admit women at a meeting of Joint Board. However, the motion was laid on the table and then forgotten. Women were only admitted to the college long after Cummings had left, in 1869.

After stepping down from the McKendree presidency, Anson withdrew from connection with the Methodist Episcopal Church. According to an account of a minister who later worked with Anson, he resigned from the ministry after having charges (presumably of misconduct) brought against him. He then moved to St Louis, Missouri and worked as a druggist for a time. While there, he joined the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. Other sources corroborate that Anson lived in Missouri for a time and that he joined the southern church, but otherwise the minister's account is the sole source of this information.

In autobiographical accounts, Anson does not mention his time in Missouri or discuss his reasons for leaving the church. Instead, he writes that he left Illinois for health reasons. He'd long suffered from asthma, and he hoped a milder climate would alleviate it. Anson first moved to Rogersville, Tennessee to serve as president of the Odd Fellows' Female College. Anson soon became a source of local controversy. Many town residents were Presbyterians, and some objected to having a Methodist like Cummings serve as college president. Following a misunderstanding between Anson and the Presbyterian college steward, acrimonious debate broke out within the local Odd Fellows Lodge that controlled the college. The debate was resolved by Anson's resigning from his presidency. Anson then left the state for Asheville, North Carolina. He moved to North Carolina to serve as president of the Holston Conference Female College.

Anson arrived at the Holston Conference Female College around 1854. The college was originally founded as the Asheville Female Seminary, but during the early 1850s, the college became the property of the Holston Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. When Anson arrived, the college was experiencing financial problems. The problems stemmed from a scholarship program that had been created. The Conference had created the program to increase enrollment, but the funding for the program was not sufficient to put the college on a stable financial footing. 

As college president, Anson was lauded for improving the college's finances. For example, he organized new classes in music and art that brought in additional tuition money. Student enrollment at the college  reached about two hundred students during his time. 

Anson's work at the college was disrupted by the Civil War. In 1863, the college was suspended, and Anson resigned from his presidency. However, he remained in Asheville for the duration of the war. In addition to working at the college, he performed editorial duties for Asheville News and was active in the church.

Anson supported the Confederacy. After the war, he explained his position by saying that he had opposed the war, but once the war broke out, he wished for a Confederate victory and generally was sympathetic to the South. Anson himself had a personal interest in the outcome of the war as he owned slaves. At the outbreak of the war, his household included two enslaved adult women and five children.

Anson was forty-six years old when the war broke out, so he was too old to serve in the military. Most of his sons were too young, but his oldest son Parish was just old enough at the war's end. Parish served in a cavalry unit for about half a year in 1864.

During the war, church members hotly debated the role that the Methodist Episcopal Church, South should play. Some argued that the church should be apolitical, while others felt religious rights were closely tied to the Confederacy. The Holston Conference was largely dominated by church leaders who felt the church should actively support the Confederacy. Anson was among those supporters.

In 1862, Anson introduced a motion to appoint church members to serve as chaplains in the Confederate army. Later, in 1864, he served on a five-man special committee charged with deciding whether church members accused of being disloyal to the Confederacy should be discharged. For example, the committee considered whether to discharge three church members living in Knoxville who were accused of joining the Methodist Episcopal Church (North) and then attempting to transfer property owned by the Holston Conference. The committee also considered the case of five members accused of taking an oath of loyalty to the United States. One committee member, sympathetic to many of the accused, was critical of Anson for being overly enthusiastic in discharging church members. Anson, he said, "out Heroded Herod in his persecution of the disloyal brethren."

Anson also played a role in less controversial church activities. He was appointed to a six-person commission charged with establishing a Conference journal. Before the war, the Holston Conference had published the Christian Advocate. However, that journal was based in Nashville, and publication was suspended once the city became occupied by federal troops. In its place, the committee established the Holston Journal.

Anson left North Carolina about a year after the war's end. According to one account, he had angered several political powerful individuals within the state over financial matters. For example, both state Governor Zebulon Baird Vance and Asheville Mayor Edward J. Aston became upset because they felt Anson had treated them unfairly in business dealings. Things came to a head when Anson was accused of misconduct while college president. The church tried him on the charge of attempting to "defraud the trustees of Holston Conference Female College by erasing from one of their account books entries of money received by him at sundry times to the amount of several hundred dollars." Anson was found guilty and suspended from the ministry for twelve months.

Despite his evidently controversial departure from North Carolina, Anson remained in good standing with the Asheville community. He visited the town in 1890 (decades after he'd left) to visit some relatives (his son Parish and his brother-in-law J. W. Israel). His visit was approvingly reported in the Asheville Weekly Citizen newspaper. The newspaper described him as "the popular and successful president of Asheville Female College." In contrast, after Reconstruction, Anson was largely regarded with scorn and contempt by White South Carolinians. 

Anson left North Carolina for South Carolina. He settled in the town of Spartanburg in April 1866. There he first worked at the Spartanburg Female College. The college had closed during the Civil War, and it reopened under his presidency. In addition to serving as president, Anson acted as "Teacher of Mathematics and Lecturer of Natural Science, &c." His wife Isabella served as the "Teacher of Rhetoric, Mental and Moral Science." The college offered a college preparatory program and a four-year college course. In addition to Anson and his wife, four other women were also on the faculty. Running the college under the difficulty economic conditions of post-war chaos proved difficult. The college ran into financial difficulties two years after it reopened. The trustees went into bankruptcy, classes were suspended, and the college became private property. 

After the college closed, Anson remained in Spartanburg, farming and working as a merchant. He also worked for the state government in 1868 and 1869. In the first year, he assessed personal property for the county Auditor. The next year he was formally appointed to the position by Governor Scott. He also served as a tax collector under the county Treasurer Peter Quinn Camp.

In general, tax collectors were often a magnet for criticism as many White South Carolinians were outraged at the taxes imposed by the Reconstruction government. Anson was no exception. In July 1869, a grand jury criticized him for his performance as tax collector. The grand jury found that Anson had made substantial errors in his assessments, and those errors were "almost invariably in [his] favor." The jury foreman further criticized Anson for keeping his office open only for limited periods of time.

Another source of controversy was a federally funded project that Anson was also involved with. In 1870, he received a federal contract to build a schoolhouse for "Freedman & Refugees." Shortly after it was built, a representative for the Air-Line Railroad company, the prominent local Democrat Gabriel Cannon, informed school officials that the company wanted to replace the schoolhouse with a railway depot. Cummings proposed to the school's (largely Black) trustees that he serve as the school's agent in negotiations with the railroad company. Cummings hoped to negotiate for funding that would allow the trustees to build a larger school in a different location. 

The ultimate outcome of the dispute between the school trustees and the railway company is unclear as the event is only recorded in correspondence between Cummings and state officials. Cummings wrote that, rather than allowing him to negotiate with the railway company, the trustees entrusted the matter to a Black Zion Methodist preacher. Under the preacher's supervision, legal action was taken, resulting in a jury assessment that the railway company owed the school $499.25 in damages. Cummings felt this was a poor outcome and that the property should have been assessed at $1,000 or more. He blamed the trustees for acting irresponsibly, and he wrote that the preacher they had trusted was "a very bad man." The state attorney general (Daniel Chamberlain) investigated the issue, and agreed that trustees had received poor financial compensation, but he attributed this to the "neglect" or "incompetency" of the trustees and their agent.

Anson's service in the state government is anomalous in light of his prior support for the Confederacy. Governor Scott's administration was generally hostile towards former Confederates. Moreover, during his administration, people who had supported the Confederacy were barred from holding state or federal office. Indeed, under the 14th Amendment (passed in 1868), individuals who had taken an oath of office to support the U.S. Constitution and then violated that oath by supporting secession were disqualified from office. Although Anson does not seem to have held political office before the war, it appears that the political disability applied to him as he appeared on a 1870 list of individuals whose disabilities had been removed (via an act of Congress). In appointing Anson, the governor might have simply disregarded the  disability clause as it often was unenforced.

Anson's government work appears to have marked a change in political affiliation. His gubernatorial appointment suggests that he had become a Republican by 1868. However, he later stated in later testimony to Congress that this was not the case. Anson testified that he largely voted the Democratic ticket in the 1868 election. However, he claimed that he did not consider himself a supporter of either political party. Rather, he had voted for the Democrats because he personally knew the presidential candidate Horatio Seymour from his time in New York state. (Seymour had served in the New York state legislature.) 

Anson may have been downplaying his past involvement with the Democrats. At the same Congressional hearing, local Democratic leader Gabriel Cannon gave a different account of Anson's political activity. He said that Anson not only had been a member of the Democratic party, but he in fact was appointed to give speeches on the party's behalf.

Anson seems to have fully embraced the Republican Party by the early 1870s. He joined the local (pro-Republican) Loyal League around October 1870, although he only remained a member for a few months. By 1872, he was publicly identified as a Radical Republican in newspapers such as the Edgefield Advertiser. 

Anson changed his church affiliations around the time that he changed political parties. In December, 1870, he rejoined the Methodist Episcopal Church (that is, the northern church). He would remain in the church for the rest of his life. 

In the summer of 1871, Anson visited the Claflin University, a newly opened HBCU founded by the Methodist church. He was one of several visitors invited to attend "anniversary exercises" (possibly a ceremony similar to gradation). Anson wrote an account of his visit that published in the Vermont newspaper the Christian Messenger. The newspaper's readership had supported the founding of Claflin, and Anson wrote his letter to inform the readership of the fruits of their support.

Anson's account of Claflin is notable as it contains the earliest extent statement of his views on African Americans:

The examinations [at Claflin] . . . showed faithfulness and skill on the part of the teachers, and on the part of the pupils a much higher degree of mental capacity, than many believed them to possess. The recitations would have been highly creditable to white pupils of the same ages in our best public schools. This is remarkable when it is remembered that but a short time since some of them were mere chattels, and had been bought and sold in the market. . . . Some may look with scorn and contempt upon those engaged in this noble work, but it is to go forward. The colored people, as a people, are anxious for improvement. In the education of their children, they manifest a commendable zeal

In the statement, Anson also criticized white elites in South Carolina. Many of them, he wrote, were opposed to Claflin University and, more generally, to efforts to educate African Americans. He said their opposition was "cruel, impolite, and unchristian." 

The year 1871 was a difficult one for Anson. That year Spartanburg county became a center of Ku Klux violence. Ku Kluxers became active in South Carolina in 1868 (when the state constitution enfranchising freedmen was ratified). Activity dramatically increased in 1871. What exactly occurred isn't entirely clear as the Ku Klux was shrouded in secrecy, but the increase appears to have been a response to the election that had occurred the previous year. Republican governor Robert K. Scott had ran for re-election. Scott was hated by Conservatives, and his activities in the lead-up to the election were a particular source of anger. Scott had organized a largely African American state militia. Not only were White Conservatives upset at the sight of former slaves bearing arms, but they were also concerned that Scott was using the militia to help get re-elected. Militia units held public drills during the election campaign, and these drills were interpreted by many Conservatives as an effort to intimidate voters. 

The election saw Scott re-elected. What followed was some of the worst Ku Klux violence seen during the 19th century. Conservatives later justified the violence as an effort at self-defense against the state militia and, more generally, the lawless manner in which the state government operated.

Ku Klux violence focused in the upstate, especially in the counties of Union, York, and Spartanburg. Anson said that he had long heard reports of the Ku Klux in South Carolina, but he regarded them a "hoax" or "phantom" until around the time of the election, in October or November. By then, Ku Klux violence in the upstate was becoming so prevalent that it was impossible to ignore.

Within Spartanburg county, violence largely occurred in rural areas and targeted prominent African Americans who were active in the Republican party. A typical attack involved a group of disguised men visiting someone's home at night, whipping them, and then threatening worse violence if they remained active in politics. In parts of the county, violence was pervasive. Anson said that, in Limestone township,  "nearly every colored man who has remained there has been whipped unless he was an avowed democrat."

Whites were also attacked, and the violence could escalate to murder. One of the most infamous incidents was a March 1871 attack on John Winsmith. Winsmith was a prominent planter-physician. He was a native South Carolinian and had served the Confederacy, but after the war, he became a Republican. White Conservatives viewed Winsmith with particularly suspicion and scorn because they thought he was helping arm Black militia units. In late March 1871, Winsmith was attacked at his home at night by a group of disguised men. The men fled after Winsmith met them outside and fired on them with his pistol. However, before they left, they shot Winsmith seven times. Winsmith was severely injured, although he survived the attack despite being in his 60s.

The town of Spartanburg itself only saw a few Ku Klux attacks. In testimony to Congress, Anson said he only knew of two incidents: an (unsuccessful) attempt to rescue from jail a White prisoner who had murdered a Black man and a visit to the home of a Black man (Charles Moore) to seize firearms he was storing.

Anson himself felt threatened by Ku Kluxers. The most serious incident occurred in late March. On Tuesday March 14, a friend of Anson's, one "Mr. Flemming" (possibly the merchant Don Fleming), sent a letter advising him that he should avoid being at home on Saturday night. Anson believed Flemming was a member of the Ku Klux, and the warning concerned an upcoming raid. 

Anson left town for North Carolina the day after the letter was sent (on Wednesday), so Flemming was only able to warn him when he returned on Saturday. Upon Anson's return, an "agitated" Flemming met him and showed the letter. Anson's family had already seen the letter and were greatly distressed. 

Anson heeded the warning and left his home that night. However, no visit was made. Anson believed this was because of military intervention. Shortly after the warning letter was sent, U.S. troops (probably about one hundred soldiers, mostly cavalry) arrived in town to protect residents. Anson thought the Ku Kluxers had canceled their plans after learning of the presence of the troops.

In general, while there were no major Ku Klux raids on the town of Spartanburg, Republican residents lived in fear during this time. Anson said he thought everyone felt "entirely insecure almost constantly." Before the arrival of U.S. troops, the young men from Republican families spent much of their time away from home. Either they slept outside to avoid Ku Klux raids, or they helped guard people's homes. Anson was convinced that it was only the arrival of U.S. troops that averted a major Ku Klux attack.

Representative of the atmosphere in town after the arrival of troops is an item that was published in the Spartan newspaper. On April 28, the Spartan published the following under the editorial heading:

A Reverend Gentleman's Evening Prayer

("Suppose to have been uttered on the evening of the arrival of the United States cavalry at this place)

"Now I lay me down to sleep

I pray thee, Grant, my body keep.

Just let thy soldiers round me stand,

And drive away the Ku-Klux band;

That I may have one night of rest,

With consciousness of safety blessed.

And though my conscience sting no more,

And keep me wakeful evermore,

I think I can make out to snore,

A grateful song I will then raise,

Thy soldiers and the grace to praise.

Amen.

It was generally understood that the "Reverend Gentleman" was an oblique reference to Anson. The Sparten was regarded as a Democratic paper, so the item was almost certainly published as a way to mock Anson and his fear of Ku Kluxers.

Anson worked to fight against the Ku Klux in Spartanburg. He and Peter Quinn Camp (the county Treasurer) compiled a list of people who had been subject to Ku Klux attacks. The origin of the list is slightly unclear. P. Q. Camp later recalled that he had been discussing Ku Klux attacks with Anson and some other Spartanburg residents (possibly also Enoch Cannon, the local postmaster ). Over the course of their discussion, they realized it would be helpful to maintain a list of Ku Klux victims, and Anson and Camp agreed that they would begin to do this.

Anson recalled events slightly differently. He recalled that the assistant adjutant general, General Anderson, visited Spartanburg a few months after the election (in November or December) to investigate reports of Ku Klux attacks. He interviewed Anson about the matter and asked for a list of all attacks that Anson knew of. Anson provided a list of forty or fifty cases, and he then began maintaining a list, adding cases as he learned of them. Word evidently spread throughout the county that Anson and Camp were collecting this information as many Ku Klux victims made reports to them. By summer 1871, Anson had compiled a list of over two hundred victims. 

As a way to help combat the Ku Klux, Anson provided his list to politicians. During the winter, he wrote a letter to Spartanburg's congressman, Alexander S. Wallace. Wallace, a White scalawag who played a lead role in trying to get Congress to take action against against Ku Kluxers. Congress ended up passing three bills, the Enforcement Acts, designed to help the federal government fight Ku Kluxers. They also created an investigative committee charged with investigating reports of Ku Klux violence in the south.

The Congressional investigating committee was organized in April 1871. In June and July, it sent a subcommittee to South Carolina to collect testimony. The subcommittee traveled to the Columbia as well as the towns of York and Spartanburg (two major Ku Klux centers). Anson testified before the subcommittee. His testimony focused on the list of Ku Klux victims that he had complied.

Ku Klux violence died down by the end of 1871. The reasons for this remain contested. Historian Eric Foner attributes this to the intervention by the federal government. Using powers granted by the Enforcement Acts, President Grant suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus (providing protection against unlawful confinement) in nine upstate counties including Spartanburg on October 17. Federal marshals, working with the U.S. army, then proceeded to arrest hundreds of alleged Ku Kluxers. The most arrests, two hundred and thirty, were made in Spartanburg County. Foner credits this federal intervention with ending Ku Klux violence. 

The historian Richard Zuczek disputes Foner's account. He argues that Ku Klux violence had already subsided before Grant suspended habeas corpus. He attributes the end of violence to White conservatives influential among Ku Kluxers. By summer, Ku Kluxers had achieved many of their political goals, and continued activities threatened to create civil disorder and provoke a stronger federal response. Recognizing this, White conservative leaders directed Ku Kluxers to end their activities. 

In the spring of 1872, Anson traveled around New England and lectured on Ku Kluxism in South Carolina. The lecture tour was held to collect funds to build a Methodist meeting house in Spartanburg. Anson's lectures appear to have been somewhat dramatic. He had acquired a Ku Klux disguise, consisting of a mask and black robes, and a young man wearing the disguise appeared during his lectures. Anson had also acquired a copy of the constitution and by-laws for the Ku Klux, and he read from them during his presentation. His lectures appear to have been popular. For example, when he lectured at the Tremont Temple in Boston, the Boston Post reported that the temple was "well filled and the lecture may be called a success financially."

Anson left Spartanburg in 1872. He moved to Columbia to hold a professorship at the University of South Carolina. 

Publications

1. The Hidden Life Exemplified in the Early Conversion, Pious Life, and Peaceful Death of Mrs. Florilla A. Cummings. E. Stevenson & J.E. Evans, for the Methodist Episcopal church, South: Nashville, Tenn (1856).

2. The Early School of Methodism.  New York: Phillips & Hunt. Cincinnati: Cranston & Stowe (1886).

3. Cummings, A. W. “Free Schools in South Carolina.” New England Journal of Education 3, no. 25 (1876): 289–289.

Sources

1. 1830; Census Place: Boonville, Oneida, New York; Series: M19; Roll: 99; Page: 305

2. 1840; Census Place: Gouverneur, Saint Lawrence, New York; Roll: 334; Page: 102; Family History Library Film: 0017204

3. 1850; Census Place: Lebanon, St Clair, Illinois; Roll: 126; Page: 505b

4. 1860; Census Place: Asheville, Buncombe, North Carolina; Page: 245; Family History Library Film: 803889

4. 1860 U.S. Federal Census - Slave Schedules

5. 1870; Census Place: Court House, Spartanburg, South Carolina; Roll: M593_1508; Page: 410A

7. 1880; Census Place: Scio, Allegany, New York; Roll: 809; Page: 349D; Enumeration District: 024

8. Centennial History of McKendree College. Lebanon, Illinois, McKendree College. (1928)

9). Fox, Henry J. and William B. Hoyt.  Fox and Hoyt's Quadrennial Register of the Methodist Episcopal Church And Universal Church Gazetteer, 1852-6. Hartford: Case, Tiffany & Co. 1852. p. 208.

10) Price, Richard Nye (1903). Holsten Methodism from Its Origin to the Present Time, Vol. IV: From the year 1844 to the year 1870. Nashville, Tenn., Dallas, Tex.: House of the M.E. Church, South. Smith & Lamar Agents (1906).

11) "Letter from Buncombe." The Spirit of the Age (Raleigh, NC). July 28, 1862. p. 3. 

12) "Spartanburg Female College." Charleston Daily News (Charleston,SC). September 18, 1867. p. 4.

13) "Holston Conference." New Era (Greenville,  TN). September 30, 1865. p. 1.

14) "Spartanburg Female College." The Daily Phoenix (Columbia, SC). March 20, 1866. p. 1.

15) "Editorial Summary." Wilmington Daily Dispatch (Wilmington, NC) April 13, 1866. p. 2.

16) "Female College." The Rutherford Star (Rutherfordton, NC). June 27, 1866. p. 3.

16) "Advertisement: Spartanburg Female College." Charleston Daily News [Charleston, SC]. September 18, 1867. p. 4.

17) "Taxes! Taxes!" Spartan (Spartanburg, SC). June 3, 1869. p. 3.

18) "The Removal of Disabilities." The Charleston Daily News (Charleston, SC). July 13, 1870. p. 1.

19) "South Carolina Conference." Edgefield Advertiser (Edgefield, SC). December 25, 1867. pp. 3–4.

20) "Dr. Cummings' Lectures." The Daily Phoenix (Columbia, SC). March 31, 1872. p. 1.

21) "Claflin University." Vermont Christian Messenger [Montpelier, VT]. August 3, 1871. p. 2.

21) "The South Carolina University." Charleston Daily News (Charleston,SC). June 21, 1871. p. 1.

22) "Professor Cummings." Charleston Daily News (Charleston, SC). July 15, 1872. p. 4.

23) "Petty Spite." Edgefield advertiser [Edgefield,  SC], August 8, 1872, p. 2.

24) "The Methodist Conference." The Charleston daily news [SC], January 2, 1872, p. 1.

25) "Professor Cummings." The Charleston daily news. [SC], July 15, 1872, p. 4.

25) The Asheville Weekly Citizen [Asheville, NC]. March 27,  1890.  p. 1.

26) "Minutes of the Annual Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church for the year 1871." New York: Carlton & Lanahan. Cincinnati: Hitchcock & Walden. (1871). p. 10.

27) Eelman, B. W. , Entrepreneurs in the Southern Upcountry: Commercial Culture in Spartanburg, South Carolina, 1845-1880, University of Georgia Press, Athens. (2008).

28) Congressional testimony on KKK violence

29) "The South Carolina Ku Klux." Harrisburg Telegraph [Harrisburg, PA]. September 4, 1871. p. 1. 

30) "Lectures." Boston Evening Transcript [Boston, MA]. February 13, 1872. p. 3.

31) "Dr Cummings Lectures." The Daily Phoenix [Columbia, SC]. March 31, 1872. p. 1.