A European Jew in the Jim Crow South: Prof Green in South Carolina

This blogpost continues the blogposts "Intro to Simon Grünzweig," "Lincoln in the 1940s," "Grünzweig at Lincoln," "Grünzweig gets his PhD," "Philander Smith in the 1950s," "Grünzweig in Little Rock," "Tulsa in the 1950s," and "Becoming Prof Green in Tulsa."

Cover of Green's first published textbook
Photo courtesy of author

Simon Green started working at the University of South Carolina in September 1958. He arrived alongside his Tulsa colleague William A. Rutledge. Moving to South Carolina was a major change for Green. He'd previously taught at small private universities and was now at a flagship state university. Academically, USC offered a much higher level of academics than the schools Green had previously taught at. However, compared to most other flagship universities, USC lagged behind. The state's social, economic, and political problems had dragged the university down for much of the century. Hiring Green and Rutledge was part of a decade long effort to raise the level of academics.

A campus-wide effort to improve academics had begun at the start of Donald Russell's university presidency. Russell was not an obvious choice to spearhead the effort as he was not an academic.  His studies hadn't advanced beyond the undergraduate level. Prior to arriving at the university, he'd worked in law and politics. Despite this, he evidently recognized the need to make USC into a more serious academic institution. He had achieved success, in part because his political experience allowed him to increase the resources provided by the state government. 

In 1952, the year that Russell assumed the presidency, USC student enrollment stood at a low of 2,860 students. This was slightly smaller than Tulsa's student body, and only a fraction of population at neighboring state university. (The same year, enrollment at the University of Georgia was 5,197). During Russell's time as president, enrollment grew annually by roughly 10%. By 1959, enrollment stood at 5,109 students, putting the university on par with its peer institutes. The university's physical plant grew along with the student body. A number of new buildings, including a student union (the Russell House) and a library (the Thomas Cooper Library), were constructed.

Russell's main focus was not on enrollment or the physical plant but rather on the quality of the faculty. He worked to increase faculty salaries and supported the hiring of a number of prominent senior professors. Among those hired was math professor Tomlinson Fort.

Professor Fort had long served as faculty at the University of Georgia. His service included a lengthy term as department head. Fort was also active on the national-level. He had served as Associate Secretary of the AMS and as Vice President of the MAA. 

Fort was an accomplished researcher, especially by the standards of southern universities. He'd received a PhD from Harvard University in 1912. He wrote a dissertation in analysis under the supervision of Maxime Bôcher. By 1958, he'd published about twenty papers and supervised seven PhD students.

Beyond his mathematical accomplishments, Professor Fort was well-suited for employment at a southern university as he had deep roots in the region. Not only had he grown up in Georgia, but his family was prominent within the state. For example, his grandfather had served as a U.S. Congressman during the antebellum. 

Tomlinson Fort in 1948
University of Georgia Yearbook

While Fort was the most prominent hire, the math faculty improved both in numbers and in training. In 1959, the faculty stood at five full professors, nine associate professors, and five assistant professors. This was four-times the size of the University of Tulsa's math department. Moreover, twelve professors (roughly half the department) held PhDs. By comparison, when Green arrived at Tulsa, only one of the math professors had completed a doctorate. Not counting Green and Rutledge, the PhD-holding faculty were the following:

• Wyman L. Williams: 1936 PhD from University of Chicago, 2 publications.
• Eucebia Shuler: 1934 PhD from Peabody College for Teachers of Vanderbilt University.
• Herman W. Smith: 1939 PhD from the University of Texas at Austin.
• Ernest A. Hedberg: 1936 PhD from the University of Missouri.
• Marguerite Zeigel Hedberg: 1932 PhD from the University of Missouri.
• Talmadge H Lee: 1953 PhD from the University of North Carolina.
• Raymond A Lytle: 1955 PhD from the University of Georgia.
• Johann Sonner: 1954 PhD from University of Munich, 9 publications.
• David D. Strebe: 1952 PhD from State University of New York at Buffalo, 2 publications.
• Robert Z. Vause: 1951 PhD from the University of North Carolina, 1 publication.

(The number of publications is taken from MathSciNet.)

Certainly, this faculty constituted a department largely focused on teaching, not research. In general, the math department lagged behind most departments in the region. For example, while both the University of Georgia and the University of North Carolina had well-established PhD programs, USC only offered a master's degree as the highest degree awarded. Nevertheless, the qualifications of the faculty were much higher than they'd been when Russell had been made president.

USC math faculty the year before Prof. Green arrived
Garnet and Black Yearbook, 1959

Green probably hadn't been hired during Russell's presidency. Russell resigned in December 1957, about half a year before Green arrived. However, his replacement, Robert L. Sumwalt, largely carried on Russell's program of improving the quality of the faculty.

Intriguingly, Green was not the only European that arrived in the math department in 1958. In addition to Green and Rutledge, the university hired Johann Sonner. Just before his hire, Sonner had been working for the U.S. military at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (in Ohio). However, Sonner was originally from Germany. He was about twenty years younger than Green. He'd been born in Munich, near the border with Austria (where Green was from). Sonner was a teenager when World War Two broke out. During the war, he had served in the military for Nazi Germany. He was in the signal corps but was captured and spent time in a Soviet POW camp. It is fascinating to speculate how the Sonner, a former Nazi soldier, interacted with Green, a Jewish refugee from National Socialism. Unfortunately, any speculation must remain just that as the historical record is silent on the issue.

What was Columbia like away from the university? Columbia was similar to Little Rock in important respects. Both cities were (and are) state capitals. Columbia had a larger population, and its population was growing much more rapidly. About a quarter of a million people lived in the greater metropolitan area. (The population was reported as 257,961 in the 1960 U.S. Census.) This represented an almost 40% increase over the past decade (from an estimated 186,844 in 1950). By comparison, Little Rock's population stood at around 180,000 and grown by less than 2% over the last ten years. 

Of the residents in the Columbia metro area, about a third were African-American. (More precisely, African Americans made up 32.4% of Richland county and 17.2% of Lexington county according to the 1960 U.S. Census.) This percentage was slightly higher than the population of Little Rock (which stood at roughly one-quarter).

Politically and socially, the atmosphere in Columbia was far different from anything Green had experienced before. Columbia, Tulsa, and Little Rock were all segregated cities, but Columbia was a segregationist stronghold, while Tulsa and Little Rock were minor outposts in comparison. In Oklahoma and Arkansas, public universities had been integrated on a limited basis since the 1940s. The 1957 Little Rock High School Integration Crisis had demonstrated that major and rapid integration efforts could provoke violent backlash. However, more limited efforts were accepted. For example, during his time at Philander Smith College, Green's colleague Georg Iggers had written a Letter to the Editor of the local newspaper urging the public library to integrate and had been active in the local NAACP chapter. The college also accepted its first White student, Dorothy Martin, during this time. None of this provoked a serious response, but in Columbia, such activities were met with an overwhelming rebuke. 

In the years before Green arrived, students and professors in Columbia had seen first-hand how strong the counter-reaction to integration efforts could be. In 1955 and again in 1957, USC faculty who publicly criticized segregation were dismissed from their jobs. The campus remained completely segregated. The semester before Green arrived (in spring 1958), African American students from nearby HBCUs had come to the USC campus to apply for admission. They were met by White USC students chanting pro-segregation slogans, and university officials refused their applications. After they left, USC students burned a cross and hung an African American in effigy as further protest against integration. 

USC's neighbor, the private HBCU Allen University, had integrated the year before Green arrived. That year the university admitted a White refugee from Hungary. This action had brought the wraith of state government down on the university. The State Board of Education (headed by the governor) had withdrawn certification of Allen's teaching programs, an action that prevented Allen graduates from teaching at public schools. Certification was only restored after the Hungarian student had left and several left-leaning faculty members were dismissed.

A student dormitory built during Russell's presidency

Just as he had at Lincoln and Philander Smith, Dr. Green largely largely stayed out of the public eye and focused on mathematics. In May 1958 (a few months before he started teaching), regional newspapers like The State announced USC's new hires. The announcement of Green's hire made no mention of the fact that he'd taught at Philander Smith College. It did mention that he'd taught at Lincoln. Lincoln was not identified as an HBCU, but certainly the university's name would have raised a few eyebrows. For many White South Carolinians, Lincoln was regarded as a tyrant who had waged an unjust and destruction war against the state.

Dr. Green and his family were quickly welcomed by the Jewish community of Columbia. At the start of the semester, as Green's teaching was starting, his wife was made a member of the local chapter of Hadassah, a volunteer organization for Jewish women. Later that year she was made a member of the local branch of B'nai B'rith.

Dr. Green began reaping the benefits of the work he'd done in Tulsa. He had spend several years working with Dr. Rutledge and Dr. Schwartz on writing some mathematics textbook. The first book, written with Rutledge, was published in December. Titled Introduction of Algebra for College Students, the book is a treatment of the elementary algebra. They had written their book for college freshmen, and it covers topics like irrational numbers and matrices. The book's publication was announced in regional newspapers. Rutledge told reporters that he and Green had written the book with a specific pedagogical goal in mind. Rather than teaching students algebra through memorization, they worked to present the topic conceptually, as developing out of ten basic ideas. University of Michigan Professor Charles Brumfiel reviewed the book for the American Mathematical Monthly. Brumfiel gave a mixed review. He applauded the goal of developing the subject conceptually and de-emphasizing memorization. However, he felt the authors neglected to provide full proofs of important properties and used language in a sloppy and potentially confusing manner. Brumfiel concluded his review by stating that the book could be used by a competent  instructor, but it should be carefully rewritten to address the issues he'd raised. The textbook seems to have been reasonably successful. It was reprinted multiple times with an edition being printed in 1968, almost a decade after the first printing.

The second book that Green published was Vector Analysis with Applications to Geometry and Physics. This book was authored with Rutledge and Schwartz. This textbook was more advanced. The book developed the theory of vector calculus alongside applications of the theory to topics in geometry and physics (e.g. electrostatics and magnetism). The book was also reviewed in the Monthly, this time by Wayne State Professor Melvin Henriksen. Henriksen expressed some frustration at the book's uneven level of mathematical rigor with the treatment alternating between a level appropriate for a physics course and a level more appropriate to an advanced math course.

During the winter break, Green traveled to the annual Joint Mathematics Meeting. That year the meeting while held at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. Also traveling to the meeting were Green's colleagues Dr. Sooner and Dr. Williams. Green gave a presentation in one of the session on Geometry. The talks in this session were a mix of algebraic geometry and convex geometry. For example, Ernst Snapper gave an algebraic geometry talk in which discussed a generalization of the theory of the Hilbert polynomial. The speaker following Green was the distinguished geometer H. S. M. Coxeter. Coxeter talked about some unusual phenomenon displayed honeycomb packings in three-dimensions and why this phenomenon doesn't occur in two-dimensions.

Green's own talk, titled "Regular Transformations in Euclidean 4-Space," was a presentation on work stemming from his dissertation. The abstract describes the material as joint work with Dr. Rutledge.  The talk appears to be an update on his dissertation work.

The University of South Carolina would appear to have been a good fit for Green. With its larger and better educated faculty, the math department provided him with more opportunities than any of the other universities he'd worked at. It also afforded him a chance to continue his collaboration with Dr. Rutledge. Outside of work, he and his wife seemed to have been warmed welcomed by the Jewish community. Despite all this, both Green and Rutledge left at the end of the year. Rutledge returned to Tulsa and returned to teaching at the University of Tulsa after spending the summer working for Douglas Aircraft. Green would move to Windsor, Canada. He left to hold a professorship at Assumption University. In the next post, we'll look at what he did there. 

Authors' bio on the backflap of the textook
Photo courtesy of author

Benedict College Mystery Solved, Part 4

This blogpost is preceded by

• "Timmerman attacks, Spring 1957"
•  "Timmerman attacks, Spring 1958"
• "Timmerman attacks: Allen University and Benedict College"
• "Timmerman attacks: the Benedict professors"
• "Timmerman attacks: the Allen University professors"
• Timmerman Attacks: Hoffman Update"
• "What was Forrest O. Wiggins up to?"
• "What's in an FBI record?"
• "Benedict College Mystery Solved, Part 1"
• "Benedict College Mystery Solved, Part 2"
• "Benedict College Mystery Solved, Part 3"

Horace B. Davis in 1961
The Shaw University Bear [1961]

"I have a letter with his name signed to it. He is teaching at Benedict College in Columbia, S. C., my State. . . . I don't know why he should keep that a secret. That is a colored college down in my state." These were the words of South Carolina Senator Olin D. Johnston upon reading the letter that Horace B. Davis had submitted to Judge Whittaker's nomination hearing.

Horace had asked his former lawyer Fyke Farmer not to tell the Senate Judiciary Committee where he was teaching. Fyke had not divulged this information, and it is not entirely clear how the Johnston obtained it, although it would not have taken a lot of work. Horace was listed in the Columbia city directory as "[teacher] Benedict College."

In any case, Horace certainly had good reason to keep his employer a secret. The day after Judge Whittaker's hearing (on March 19), someone in South Carolina, probably Senator Johnston or someone connected to him, contacted the FBI for information about Horace. The letter isn't currently available, but some FBI internal communications discussing it are. The letter stated that information was being requested "so steps deemed advisable may be taken for protection public interest and youth of state." However, FBI officials immediately connected the request to Judge Whittaker's hearing.

The person requesting the information did not limit his request to Horace. He also requested information on Forrest O.Wiggins, a professor at Allen University. It is unclear why Forrest was targeted. His name hadn't been mentioned at Whittaker's nomination hearing. His political activities had been subject to public scrutiny in 1952 when he was dismissed from the University of Minnesota, but the same was true of other professors such as John G. Rideout.

Photo of John G. Rideout that accompanied the newspaper article "Allen Professor Trouble Aired Before Legislature"
Florence Morning News [SC], January 16, 1958. pg. 1.

Whoever requested the information on Horace and Forrest received it from the FBI. On March 27 (about a week after the initial request), the FBI Director instructed the Savannah Field Office to provide the information over the telephone. The Director explained that the public should not know that the FBI was disclosing information: 

you should emphasize the fact that none of the information furnished is to be attributed to the FBI, that the information is furnished in the strictest confidence and no reference is to be made to the FBI in any manner in connection with any action taken upon the information being furnished. Additionally, you should clearly define to him the confidential nature of Bureau files and the responsibilities and jurisdiction of the FBI in the security field.

For Horace, the impact of the FBI's disclosure was limited. By the time the Bureau shared information, he'd already resigned from Benedict. He'd also been subject to intense scrutiny in the press. The day before Judge Whittaker's hearing, Senator Eastland informed the press of Horace's letter. In an article published the next day, The State newspaper not only reported on the letter, but they also identified Horace as a professor at Benedict College. Indicative of the newspaper's attitude on the matter is the title of an article announcing Judiciary Committee's approval of Whittaker: "Whittaker Okayed for Top Court. Benedict Man Raps Choice; Lawyer Rants."

The day of Whittaker's hearing, Senator Johnston announced that he planned to call Horace before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee (which the senator was a member of). He also made an implicit threat against Benedict College if they failed to dismiss Horace

I believe any eleemosynary institution or tax-free endowed school that insists on keeping in its employment a person that refuses to tell any state or federal investigative body whether or not he is or every has been a Communist could and should be required by a state to pay taxes and have its eleemosynary tax-exempt status revoked.

By March 25, Horace had resigned from Benedict College. Horace said that, once Benedict was put under public pressure, he offered his resignation to President Bacoats, and the president immediately accepted it.  According to Horace, many of his colleagues were sad to see him go. President Bacoats was supportive of him and helped Horace secure a job at Shaw University in North Carolina.

Senator Johnston told reporters that he'd ask to have Horace investigated even after he'd resigned from Benedict.  He said that he was still going to request that Horace be called before the Internal Security Subcommittee and that an investigator for the subcommittee was going to look into Horace's background. Nothing seems to have come of this, however. At least publicly, Johnston seems to have lost interest in investigating South Carolina Communists by April.

Allegations of Communists at Benedict and Allen would remain a topic of public interest for the next year. The issue would make national news in January 1958 after Governor Timmerman denounced Allen faculty at his state of the union address. Yet, on this issue, Johnston would remain out of the public eye. There was also little further mention of Horace. Although Horace's wife Marion was among those that Governor Timmerman publicly accused of promoting "racial hatred" with an "ultimate communist goal of creating civil and racial disorder," Timmerman only briefly mentioned Horace once in his speeches. (He said that Horace had aided Lewis Smith, one of the accused professors at Benedict.) The press said nothing about Horace after he'd left the state.

Johnston's apparent loss of interest in South Carolina Communists is anomalous. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he was well-positioned to advocate on this issue. He could have remained silent during later developments because he recognized that Timmerman's accusations were groundless. Alternatively, he could have allowed Timmerman to act as the public face of anti-Communism in South Carolina for, say, personal or political reasons. 

Horace B. Davis in 1962
The Shaw University Bear [1962]

Benedict College Mystery Solved, Part 3

This blogpost is preceded by

• "Timmerman attacks, Spring 1957"
•  "Timmerman attacks, Spring 1958"
• "Timmerman attacks: Allen University and Benedict College"
• "Timmerman attacks: the Benedict professors"
• "Timmerman attacks: the Allen University professors"
• Timmerman Attacks: Hoffman Update"
• "What was Forrest O. Wiggins up to?"
• "What's in an FBI record?"
• "Benedict College Mystery Solved, Part 1"
• "Benedict College Mystery Solved, Part 2"

The start of the 1956-57 academic year was the start of Horace B. Davis's second year at Benedict College. Horace hadn't been particularly happy working at Benedict, but his first year here had passed uneventfully. This was no small thing. His experience at the University of Kansas City had demonstrated that his involvement with Communism made him a target for politicians. 

Politicians in South Carolina were especially interested in rooting out Communists like Horace. A central goal for politicians in 1950s South Carolina was the preservation of segregationist. Challenges by the nascent civil rights movement were alleged to be the result of "agitation" by Communist workers from out-of-state. As a Communist from the northeast who was working at an HBCU, Horace was a near perfect realization of their political fears. However, initially no one seems to have noticed his presence.

Horace's situation changed rapidly and dramatically in March 1957. That month Charles E. Whittaker, the Missouri judge that had ruled against Horace's reinstatement at KCU, reappeared on the national landscape. On March 2, President Eisenhower nominated Whittaker to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. Two days later (on March 4), the Senate Judiciary Committee approved of the nomination. The Committee Chair reported that the motion to approve had passed unanimously and without debate or any unfriendly comment. A committee hearing on the nomination was set for March 17.

Charles E. Whittaker (on the left)  at the White House shortly after being nominated to the Supreme Court
The State, March 3, 1957. pg. 1.

Whittaker seems to have been viewed by many as noncontroversial and apolitical. In an article discussing the nomination, The State quoted Whittaker as responding to a question about his political views by saying "I read the law only for understanding of its meaning, and apply and enforce it in accordance with my understanding of its meaning." A March 6 editorial in The State titled "Has Right Idea" approved of Whittaker's judicial philosophy and endorsed his nomination. Whittaker, the editor said, espoused "a doctrine sorely needed by the present highest court." 

Not everyone supported Whittaker's nomination. Horace was strongly opposed. He wrote a letter expressing his views to the Senate. His letter, which was quoted in part by The State newspaper, read

I was fired by the University of Kansas City for refusing to answer Sen. Jenner's (R-Ind) questions about Communism, when put by the trustees of the university (after Sen. Jenner had haled [rec hauled] me before him) in the year 1953.

He went on to explain that he had filed a lawsuit, but Whittaker had dismissed it and denied him a rehearing. Horace explained that

[Whittaker] said among other things that the public will not and should not stand for having teachers in the public schools, men who will not answer questions about Communism. This statement measures not only his judicial temperament but his attention to facts.  A private school is not a public school.

I feel that Judge Whittaker's brief record on the bench should be scrutinized with care. I feel further that whatever such examination discloses, the Senate should resound with the voice of someone who is concerned with civil liberties – for a change. 

He went on to discuss the recent appointment of William J. Brennan Jr. to the Supreme Court. Brennan had been attacked by Senator Joseph McCarthy, a staunch anti-Communist, because McCarthy viewed him as insufficiently anti-Communist. Horace said the questioning of Brennan

featured questions as to whether he was likely to be sufficiently severe on Communism. This is a sad commentary on the state of our liberties.

Horace sent his letter to Richard L. Neuberger, a Democratic senator from Oregon. It is unclear why Horace contacted Neuberger specifically. Horace had no ties to Oregon, and Neuberger was not on the Judiciary Committee. Neuberger had a reputation for strongly supporting liberal causes, so Horace may have thought he would be supportive of Horace's opposition.

Sen. Thomas C. Hennings
Pocket congressional directory. 83 Cong. 1953.

Neuberger passed Horace's letter on to Thomas C. Hennings Jr, a Missouri senator who sat on the Judiciary Committee. In turn, Senator Hennings shared the letter with the rest of the committee. 

Horace's former lawyer Fyke Farmer also opposed Whittaker's nomination. Fyke submitted his own letter and then traveled to Washington D.C. to participate in the hearing. Horace helped fund Fyke's trip, giving $50 for travel expenses. 

Except for Missouri's two senator who made brief statements in support of Whittaker, Fyke was the only person to appear at the committee hearing. 

Fyke Farmer
From  Peterborough K  via findagrave

At the hearing, Fyke did not find a receptive audience . The Committee Chair was Mississippi Senator James Eastland. Just one year ago Horace had seen Eastland speak at a rally in support of segregation. In fact, Eastland wasn't the only rally speaker at the hearing. Also present was South Carolina Senator Olin D. Johnston. 

Sen. Olin D. Johnston
Pocket congressional directory. 83 Cong. 1953.

Both Eastland and Johnston had also been on the Internal Security Subcommittee when it subpoenaed Horace. In fact, almost half of the senators from that subcommittee were at Whittaker's hearing. Also present were former subcommittee members John Marshall Butler and Arthur V. Watkins. None of them had been present for Horace's testimony (Jenner was the only senator who had been present), but their presence on the committee was indicative of their attitude towards communism.

Fyke's testimony went off the rails almost immediately. Fyke was first asked to provide basic biographical information like what he did for a living. When Fyke said that he was working for world government, senators began questioning him about his political activities. For example, Eastland asked if he'd been the author of a letter protesting the Smith Act that was published in the Daily Worker, the official newspaper of the Communist Party USA.

After answering preliminary questions of this nature, Fyke was able to deliver a prepared statement. In it, he provided a basic narrative account of Horace's experience with KCU and Whittaker's decision to dismiss his lawsuit. He then strongly criticized Whittaker, saying that his decision "lent judicial sanction to the rule" that "all members of the academic community must stand up and be counted or be fired." Whittaker's legal opinion, said Fyke, was "the most fell judicial blow that has been struck on this continent against human liberty." He went on to rhetorically ask how Whittaker's view of the fifth amendment rights of school teachers compared with his view of those rights for "gangsters, gamblers,... and persons charged with crimes involving fraud and violence."

Fyke's prepared statement seems to have done little except offend the senators. Senator Hennings seemed especially offended by Fyke's remarks about "gangsters" and "gamblers." He repeatedly asked Fyke to explain what he was saying. At one point, Hennings said "[I]n undertaking to illustrate your point, you suggest that gangsters, gamblers, and others who are beyond the law, criminals are in some way or another treated more benignly and more tolerantly by the justice-designate [i.e. Whittaker] than others." When Fyke denied meaning this, Hennings asked in exasperation, "Then why did you mention it?"

The senators asked some questions about Fyke's statement, but they spent most of the hearing asking him about his political activities. For example, Eastland pulled out a pamphlet published by the "Young Communist League." The pamphlet, Eastland explained, contained two articles: a defense of Stalin and another one titled "Is Sir John Pratt right?" Eastland asked Fyke to confirm that he'd written the second one. 

Sen. Arthur V. Watkins
Pocket congressional directory. 83 Cong. 1953.

Senator Watkins posed the question made famous by HUAC: "Have you ever been a Communist?" After the question was rephrased several times, Fyke denied being a member of the Communist Party USA but acknowledged being in sympathy with international communism. 

Fyke's testimony was followed by a statement by Judge Whittaker. The senators used the opportunity to question Whittaker as a chance to mock Fyke's objections and criticize his character. For example, upon learning that Whittaker had graduated from the University of Kansas City, Senator Hennings, with tongue-in-cheek, asked, "You were not admitted, Judge, I take it, by the spirit of devotion to the dear old alma mater in your decision?" Not realizing this was a joke, Whittaker began to respond seriously, but he was interrupted by Hennings who explained "I am being facetious."

After being asked a more serious question about Horace's lawsuit, Whittaker volunteered that he'd also decided on a second lawsuit filed by Fyke. The second was a personal lawsuit for the right to refuse full payment of federal taxes on the grounds that the funds illegally used to fund the Korean War (which Fyke felt was waged unlawfully). Upon hearing this, Hennings exclaimed in exasperation: "A graduate of Yale Law School?" 

The futility Fyke's effort is demonstrated by the last question that Whittaker was asked: Senator Watkins asked him if a rode pony to school. Whittaker explained that he'd ridden the pony 6 miles each way, and Watkins said that he'd done the same "through mud and dirt." Whittaker was confirmed by the Senate two days later.

Benedict College Mystery Solved, Part 2

This blogpost is preceded by

• "Timmerman attacks, Spring 1957"
•  "Timmerman attacks, Spring 1958"
• "Timmerman attacks: Allen University and Benedict College"
• "Timmerman attacks: the Benedict professors"
• "Timmerman attacks: the Allen University professors"
• Timmerman Attacks: Hoffman Update"
• "What was Forrest O. Wiggins up to?"
• "What's in an FBI record?"
• "Benedict College Mystery Solved, Part 1"

Horace B. Davis's fight to retain his job at the University of Kansas City dragged on from the summer of 1953 to spring 1955. Judge Whittaker's dismissal of his lawsuit made his continued employment there unlikely. Horace ended up teaching at Benedict College in Columbia, South Carolina.

It is unclear when he started teaching at Benedict. The State newspaper announced that Horace had started working there in fall 1955. However, he may have moved to South Carolina before then. The Savannah field office of the FBI began collecting information on Horace in September 1951, more than a year before he was called before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee. The Savannah office was responsible for activities in Columbia, but normally they would not have been involved with activities in Kansas City. The earliest that Horace could have started work at Benedict is fall 1953. That semester he was still employed by KCU but he was on sabbatical.

Horace ended up at Benedict through sheer chance. Benedict was only one of the many school he applied to, and he initially did not receive a response. However, shortly before the fall semester started, Benedict found itself without a chair of its Humanities Department. The person they'd hired simply hadn't shown up. 

The chair of Benedict's Social Science Department, J. S. Kennard (one of the other professors who would later be dismissed), set about trying to find a replacement to serve as humanities chair. He ended up contacting a friend of Horace's (writer and leftwing activist Grace Hutchins) who suggested Horace as a candidate. While Horace had not written a dissertation in the humanities (he was an economist), Professor Kennard was able to persuade the college president to hire him. (At the time, many of Benedict's faculty did not hold a PhD, and the college focused on offering basic coursework, so lacking a humanities PhD was not an obstacle to hiring in the way that would be at a modern university.)

Horace appears to have found teaching at Benedict to be frustrating. In a later account of his time in South Carolina, he complained that the students were badly prepared for college coursework, many of the faculty were poorly educated and maintained low teaching standards, and the general campus atmosphere was one of acceptance of South Carolina's culture of white supremacy. He was especially critical of Benedict President Bacoats. Bacoats, he said, "had been chosen for his ability to balance the books; he did not know the difference between a monograph and a monogram."

When he moved first moved to South Carolina, Horace left his family behind. His wife Marian got a job teaching in northwestern Missouri, and the rest of the family remained in Kansas City. The separation from his wife must have been especially difficult for Horace. His wife had been diagnosed with cancer, and doctors predicted she only had six years left to live. Marion was able to join him in 1956, when she was hired as an English instructor.

Horace does not appear to have been particularly politically active while in South Carolina. It would have been almost impossible for him to have engaged in the sort of labor organizing that he had long been involved in. South Carolina was one of the worst places in the county for that sort of work. South Carolina had no large cities (Columbia, the state's largest city, had a population of only about 87,000 in 1950) and little industry.

There were, however, important political developments within the state that touched on Benedict College. The civil rights movement was beginning to gain strength. In spring 1955, students at S.C. State University (the public HBCU in Orangeburg) organized major protests in support of a NAACP selective-buying campaign. Protests escalated to the point that students went on strike and refused to attend class. Protests ended when the president threatened to expel protestors. The president retaliated against protest organizers by dismissing several faculty, suspending a number of students, and expelling the student leader Fred H. Moore. Moore moved to Columbia to attend Benedict's neighbor Allen University in fall 1956.

Fred H. Moore at a March 22, 2019 presentation
Facebook post by the UofSC Center for Civil Rights History & Research (@uofsccrc) on March 23, 2019.

In Columbia, Moore and other Allen University students tested laws segregating public buses. Unfortunately, their activism isn't well-documented, so it not entirely clear what happened. Busing became a major issue in the city in July 1954 (about a year before Horace moved to Columbia). That month an African-American woman, Sarah Mae Flemming, filed a lawsuit because she'd been forced to move to the Blacks-only section of a bus. Her suit was still making its way through the legal system when Horace moved to town.

In a later account, Horace says that Allen University students organized a campaign to challenge segregation by riding in the Whites-only section of buses. The campaign, he says, was a collective effort, and his colleagues Edwin D. Hoffman and John G. Rideout played leadership roles, for example by collecting money for bus fare. Horace dates the start of the campaign to shortly after the start of the Montgomery bus boycott (in December 1955). An AAUP account of the events at Benedict mentions the campaign, but only says that Fred Moore (the expelled S.C. State student) led a group of students who tested segregation by riding in the front of buses. Moore enrolled at Allen in September 1956, so he could not have started the campaign during the previous December. 

The legal issues surrounding bus segregation were largely decided by winter 1956. The U.S. Supreme Court's Browder v. Gayle decision (concerning bus segregation in Alabama) in November and the end of the Montgomery bus boycott in December marked the defeat of legal efforts to maintain bus segregation in the south. It is unclear what the practical impact was in South Carolina. The book Profile in black and white: a frank portrait of South Carolina reports that, even after the 1956 court decision, buses in Columbia remained segregated through social practice.

John G. Rideout in 1951
Iowa State University, the Wickiup Yearbook (1951), Ancestory.com, pg. 305.

While certainly sympathetic to the movement, Horace does not seem to have been particularly involved in civil rights issues. He did lend his support in small ways. In January 1956 (during his first year at Benedict), Horace attended a rally in support of segregation. He went at the request of some African American colleagues. His colleagues wanted to know what was said at the rally, but of course, their own presence at the event would have been highly unwelcome.

Mississippi Senator James Eastland speaking at  a 1956 rally
From The State, January 27, 1956. pg. 1.

The rally was a major event that was organized by the pro-segregation South Carolina Association of Citizen's Councils. The main speaker was Mississippi Senator James Eastland. Also participating were U.S. Senators Strom Thurmond and Olin D. Johnston and state Congressman Solomon Blatt. 

The (White-owned) newspaper The State reported on the rally. The newspaper reported that it drew a wide range of citizens from all over the state. Rally participants, the newspaper emphasized, were orderly, and there was none of the rabble-rousing that one might have expected. The speakers affirmed their intention to fight to preserve segregation, especially in light of recent Supreme Court decisions that had dismantled segregationist laws. The speakers said that the integration must be strongly resisted, but this must be done in a lawful manner. The newspaper reiterated the importance of lawful resistance, telling readers that other ways of protesting would "defeat [their] own purpose." The rally was described as a success. For example, the atmosphere was described as one of "unquestioned resoluteness."

Horace's own account confirms some newspaper details but contradicts others. Like the newspaper, Horace said that there was no rabble-rousing. For example, he described Senator Eastland as a "business-man type" rather than a "rabble-rouser."  However, he did not describe the atmosphere as one of resoluteness. Rather, he says there was a feeling of defeatism. He came away with the impression that the crowd felt that  "the ground was slipping from under them."

Principals at the 1956 rally. Left-most is speaker of the SC House Solomon Blatt

From The State, January 27, 1956. pg. 1.

In March 1956, Horace and other faculty presented a play that may have, in part, been an attempt to thumb their noses at segregationists. The play they presented was William B. Branch's "In Splendid Error." This was a recent play (written in 1954) about Frederick Douglas and his relationship with John Brown. Horace played the role of John Brown, and the role of Frederick Douglas was played by Forrest O. Wiggins. Wiggins was one of the other professors who were later dismissed. 

The play was announced in newspapers such as The State. The State offered no commentary on the play, but it would have been highly provocative in 1950s South Carolina. For example, the last act of the play is set after John Brown's execution, on the day that Lincoln's election as president is announced. On Brown's behalf, his widow presents Douglas with a musket, an American flag, and a message from Brown that reads "Tell Douglas I know I have not failed because he lives. Follow your star, and someday unfurl my flag in the land of the free." The play ends with Douglas hosting the flag as people sing "John Brown's Body." The average white South Carolinian viewed John Brown as a fanatical terrorist and, had they been in attendance, would have found the play's ending to be highly offensive. However, none appear to have been in attendance, and the play attracted no special notice. 

In all, Horace's presence at Benedict does not seem to have attracted significant attention. Horace's lawsuit against the University of Kansas City had made national news and been reported on by regional newspapers like The State. However, no newspaper connected the Horace B. Davis that had been dismissed from KCU for ties to Communism to the Horace B. Davis that had been hired at Benedict. All this would change in Spring 1957.

Benedict College Mystery Solved, Part 1

This blogpost is preceded by

• "Timmerman attacks, Spring 1957"
•  "Timmerman attacks, Spring 1958"
• "Timmerman attacks: Allen University and Benedict College"
• "Timmerman attacks: the Benedict professors"
• "Timmerman attacks: the Allen University professors"
• Timmerman Attacks: Hoffman Update"
• "What was Forrest O. Wiggins up to?"
• "What's in an FBI record?"

Horace B. Davis in 1953
University of Kansas City, the Kangaroo Yearbook (1954), Ancestory.com, pg. 56

The mystery of why South Carolina Governor George Bell Timmerman Jr. attacked the HBCUs Allen and Benedict may be solved! One of the dismissed Benedict professors Horace Davis wrote an autobiography Liberalism is Not Enough that discusses his time in South Carolina. His account suggests that the governor's attacks have a rather obscure origin: Horace's opposition to a Supreme Court Justice appointment. Moreover, the issue had nothing to do with South Carolina. Rather, it was related to his time in Missouri.

Horace and his wife Marion were academics from the east coast. (They'd met as graduate students in the economics department at Columbia University.) However, they had unusual career trajectories. Both were very politically active and involved with the labor movement. While both had taught both at the college and high school level, Horace had also spent considerable time working for the labor movement. He even worked as a steelworker for a period. Of the college professors in South Carolina, Horace and Marion appears to have been only ones that were actual card-carrying Communists. (KCU officials claimed Horace had been a Communist since 1929, but I've had a hard time tracking down the specifics.)

In 1947, after several years of working in labor, Horace decided to return to academics and accepted a faculty position at Kansas City University (now University of Missouri–Kansas City) in Kansas City, Missouri. Starting in the late 1940s, tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union began to rise, and university professors who were supportive of Communism began to be regarded with suspicion. Horace became concerned that he might lose his job because of his past political activity.

Horace's fears were realized in 1953, after he'd been at KCU for six years. In June of that year, he was subpoenaed to appear before the Senate Internal Security (SIS) subcommittee. This subcommittee was charged with investigating Communist activities, and it was essentially the Senate equivalent of the more familiar House Un-American Activities Committee. At the time, SIS was headed by Indiana Senator William E. Jenner, a staunch supporter of McCarthyism. 

When Horace appeared before the subcommittee, most subcommittee members weren't present. Of the nine senators, only Jenner was in attendance. He was joined by two staffers, Chief Counsel Robert Morris and Director of Research Benjamin Mandel. 

Horace was very combative at the subcommittee hearing. His testimony began with Senator Jenner asking him to state his name. Horace responded by explaining why he thought the subcommittee was operating illegally. Horace never ended up stating his name, and this set the tone for the hearing. After answering some questions about his current employment (that he was an associate professor at KCU and was teaching two classes, one with ten students and one with eighteen), Chief Counsel Morris asked Horace if he had been faculty at Columbia University. Horace refused to answer the question, citing his fifth amendment right (against bearing witness against himself) and his first amendment right (to the freedom of assembly). He proceeded to refuse to answer all further questions except a question about where he'd obtained his college degrees. 

Most of the subcommittee's questions were about whether he'd been involved in alleged Communist activities ("Were you active in the Workers Alliance of the United States?"). Earlier, the subcommittee had met with Horace in executive session, so presumably they expected him to refuse to answer their questions and were asking them to get them into the public record. 

Horace continued to challenge the subcommittee after his testimony. Later in the hearing, when the subcommittee was questioning another professor, Horace passed out a written abstract of his testimony (about the illegality of the subcommittee) to people in attendance. When the hearing was over, Horace told reporters that the subcommittee's activities was nothing other than an illegitimate attempt to control education.

Senator William E. Jenner
From Wikipedia

Horace's testimony attracted the attention of the KCU trustees. A month after the hearing the University President's Advisory Council recommended to the trustees that Davis be investigated. Later that month Horace was asked to meet with trustees. 

Horace met with the trustees, along with university administrators, in early August. At the meeting, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees explained to Horace that no charges had been filed against him, but they wanted to discuss his SIS testimony with him. Horace responded by reading a prepared statement about academic freedom. The chairman then directly asked Horace if he'd been a member of the Communist Party or otherwise had supported Communist activities. He also asked whether Horace had been a college faculty member during the period from 1941 to 1946. (The chairman was likely trying to get Horace to admit that he'd been faculty at the School for Democracy, a school SIS had identified as a "Communist school.") Horace refunds to answer the questions. Six days later Horace was presented with charges that were proposed as the basis for terminating his employment. 

The charges against Horace were as follows:

1. that he had failed to disclose "pertinent information in regard to [his] prior teaching experience" when he applied to KCU.
2. that he refused to answer the trustees' questions.

A hearing on the charges was held in December. At the hearing, university counsel explained that the first charge related to Horace's employment at the School for Democracy. Horace had taught there part-time in spring 1942, but in his KCU job application, he had not disclosed this. Instead, he described his employment during this period as "work as Research Director of three different national unions" and "staff on two civic organizations." University counsel then proceeded to spend the first two days of the hearing describing how the school was "Communist-created" and served as a "[adjunct] of the Communist Party."

At the hearing, university counsel also elaborated on second charge. He explained that Horace's refusal itself was not grounds for termination, but it established that Horace had "commitments which render him unfit to continue in a position of educational trust." Upon being asked to clarify the nature of those commitments, counsel stated that he would prove Horace was a Communist.

Horace responded to the university's charges by reading a prepared statement. In his statement, he denied (1) engaging in any conspiracy against the government, (2) having any commitment that would interfere with his duties, and (3) engaging in propaganda in the classroom. He further explained that he was refusing to answer questions on general principle. 

Most of the hearing was spent with university general counsel submitting evidence to establish that Horace was a Communist. Horace's lawyer asked for a four-week continuance of the hearing in order to address the allegation. The request was denied. Horace's lawyer proceeded to present evidence demonstrating Horace's fitness as a teacher. For example, one of his former students testified that Davis taught subjects objectively and fairly. Predictably, the hearing tribunal was unconvinced. They unanimously recommended his dismissal. 

The university announced its decision in mid-December. A university official explained the decision to reporters as follows:

No member of this institution may refuse to state his position on a matter of such fundamental importance [i.e. membership in the Communist party] not only to this academic body but to all of American society. Dr. Davis has therefore disqualified himself for further membership in the faculty of the University of Kansas City.

Horace tried to challenge the trustee's decision in court. He filed a lawsuit claiming that KCU, certain trustees, and Senator Jenner had conspired to keep him from speaking out on political issues by removing from his professorship. He claimed his removal was wrongful and asked the court to order the university to either reinstate him or pay him for damages. The university responded by filing a motion to discuss the complaint on the technical grounds (that Horace had failed state a claim upon which relief could be granted).

Horace's case was greatly weakened by his lack of legal resources. He received help from Fyke Farmer, a lawyer based in Nashville, Tennesse. However, Farmer was not a member of the Missouri bar, so he could not practice law in the state, and Horace ended up representing himself. In filing the suit, Horace appears to have made basic legal errors. For example, in his lawsuit, he asked the court to give him a judgement for full damages, but he neglected to specify the amount of money this amounted to.

It is unclear why Horace didn't receive better legal representation. He may have found it difficult to find a lawyer willing to represent him. At the time, lawyers who represented alleged Communists sometimes faced serious professional and social repercussions. Fyke Farmer was very active in leftist politics, and he may have simply been the only lawyer Horace found willing to represent him. 

Horace's lawsuit attracted a great deal of public attention, but as a matter of law, it was easy to resolve because of the sloppy legal work Horace had done. The suit came before Charles E. Whittaker's U.S. District Court in spring 1955. In considering KCU's motion to dismiss, Judge Whittaker considered the issue of whether Horace's dismissal had been proper. He observed that Horace was tenured and thus could be dismissed for "adequate cause." Horace had been presented with formal charges that his refusals constituted cause for dismissal, and he'd been given a hearing prior to his dismissal. Judge Whittaker concluded that KCU had shown "adequate cause" and sustained KCU's motion to dismiss. 

Judge Whittaker could have justified his decision on the formal grounds that KCU had properly followed their procedure for dismissing a tenured professor. However, he chose to go further and issued a full-throated defense of anti-communism. In his judgement, he not only dismissed the lawsuit, but he praised KCU for firing Horace:

[Horace B. Davis] had a lawful right ... to refuse to answer. But he did not have a constitutional right to remain a public-school teacher. And the refusal of a teacher in a most intimate position to mould the minds of the youth of the country to answer to the responsible officials of the school whether he is a member of a found and declared conspiracy by a godless group to overthrow our government by force, constitutes "adequate cause" for the dismissal of such a teacher. The public will not stand, and they ought not to stand, for such reticence or refusals to answer by the teachers in their schools. And the University officials would have been derelict in their duties had they not asked plaintiff. . . whether he . . . ever had been a member of the Communist Party, ... and would have been derelict in their duties, and would have destroyed the University, had they not dismissed him.

Judge Charles E. Whittaker
From Wikipedia

Horace could have appealed Judge Whittaker's motion to dismiss his lawsuit, but he took no further legal actions. By fall 1955, Horace had moved to Columbia, South Carolina to work at Benedict College.

While Horace did not take further legal action, he would later take political action against his treatment by Judge Whittaker. It was this political activity that would cause major problems, not only for Horace but also for Benedict and Allen.

Marian Rubins Davis in 1920

Smith College, Class Book (1920), pg. 80.

Hoffman's speech "History and Political Science – The Foundation of Freedom"

Edwin D. Hoffman in 1960
University of North Carolina at Pembroke Yearbook The Indianhead [1960]

The following text is a March 14, 1958 "Chapel Address" that Edwin D. Hoffman delivered at Allen University in Columbia, SC. Hoffman had moved to Allen in 1954. That year the U.S. Supreme Court announced its Brown v. Board of Education decision desegregating education. When the decision was announced, Hoffman was teaching at Long Island University in New York City. He left New York to teach at Allen because he thought teaching at a southern HBCU was a good way to get involved in the nascent civil rights movement.

Hoffman delivered his speech during a difficult time for Allen. The state government had been pressuring the university to dismiss Hoffman and two other faculty members. The governor had publicly accused the faculty members of being Communist workers in his annual address, and Board of Education (which was controlled by the governor) was withholding teaching certification of Allen graduates until the faculty were dismissed. The university president responded to this by vacillating between trying to force the faculty out and defending their continued employment. 

At the time of his speech, Hoffman had been fighting to retain his position for about a year, and he'd been in the public spotlight for a month-and-a-half. In delivering his speech, Hoffman appears to have been trying to rally the university community to continue to their resistance to the governor's attacks.

The object of this talk is to increase your interest in the social sciences.  Most particularly in history and political science.  I hope to show the study of these subjects equips you to meet the problems we face today and how the mind is stimulated to the point of passionate concern for great ideals.

In the social science we deal with the real world.  We face up to real problems with frankness and boldness.

I intend to speak frankly – to call a spade a spade

Last September the State Board of Education took from Allen students the right to teach in the South Carolina public schools.

In January, Governor Timmerman attacked Allen for employing three professors.

In February bills were introduced in the General Assembly establish a legislative committee to investigate so-called "communist activities" in education.

Those are the facts – frankly stated. I could have made vague reference to "troubled times" and "ill winds" and "difficulties we are now going through." But that is not the method of the social scientist. If you want to understand problems – if you want people to help you solve problems – you put them right out on the table in the clearest possible manner.

How can history and political science help us to understand and meet such problems?

Let us begin by labeling the problems for what they are. These are problems in civil liberties. We must speak of such basic democratic rights as freedom of speech, academic freedom, due process of law and equal protection of the laws. We speak of the rights of man, the inalienable rights, to use the words of Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. The question we must ask is whether the State of South Carolina is not doing violence to our constitutional liberties, and if it is abusing our democratic liberties, what must be our attitude and action.

Living in South Carolina, we are accustomed to think more in terms of civil rights than civil liberties. We want an end to Jim Crow and our efforts have been centered on achieving equality of opportunity. Equal pay for Negro teachers, an end to the white primary, and school integration have been the big campaigns in recent South Carolina history.

We sometimes forget that question[s] like freedom of speech are intimately tied to the winning of such rights. Yet it is a glaring fact that one of the biggest problems that the NAACP faces is the denial of freedom of speech. I need only mention how unfree Negro teachers feel in the public schools of South Carolina today.

Indeed, the issues of civil rights and civil liberties have always been intertwined in our history. Recall the threats to opponents of slavery made by William C. Preston, Senator from South Carolina, before the Civil War. "Let an Abolitionist come within the borders of South Carolina. If we catch him, and not standing all the governments on earth, including the Federal government, we will hang him." Surely here was a grave problem of free speech. 

What exactly is freedom of speech? We usually define it as the right of every man to say and write what he thinks. Many men have called it the queen of freedom. The great English poet, John Milton, said, "Above all liberties, give me liberty to know, utter, and to argue freely according to conscience."

We enjoy that freedom most moments of our lives. When we would talk about the weather, or about the date we had last night or the new shoes we plan to buy we are perfectly free to speak our minds. It is only when we would express unpopular views, when we would criticize the "powers that be," that our right to speak is challenged. If every South Carolina Negro were an Uncle Tom, if all of us here at Allen said only what the White Citizens Council would like to hear, no one would try to silence us. We would enjoy perfect freedom of speech. And what an empty freedom it would be!

Louis Blane, in Letter on England, tells a story of such a freedom. 

    "A sailor related that he was once on board a vessel with a passenger who had frequently made the same voyage. The passenger told the captain about a rock ahead which was hidden beneath the waves, but the captain would not listen to him. On his insisting on it, the captain had him thrown into the sea. The energetic measure out an end to all remonstrances, and nothing could be more touching than the unanimity which reigned an [sic on] board. Suddenly the vessel hit the reef and was wrecked. They had got rid of the giver of the warning, but the rock remained."

The rock remained! you may silence men, but the truth remains. And since we need know the truth to act with wisdom, we need the brave voices of dissent to dare always to point to the rock ahead. As an [sic a] historian I cannot help but remark that the independent, non-conforming mind has been one of the glories of human history.

Where would Christianity be without the non-conformity of Jesus and Paul? Where would Judaism be without its Moses and Jeremiah?

Where would science be without the dissent of Copernicus and Galileo?

Where would American democracy be without Roger Williams and Tom Paine, Frederick Douglass and John Brown?

Each os [sic of] these had to speak at the risk of displeasing the rulers of their day – and how much poorer the world would have been if they had not excercised [sic excercised] their right of free speech.

Freedom is not safety. It is the opportunity to say something meaningful.

In times like ours, in South Carolina today, it is our courage that shows we are alive. In the words of Edward Arlington Robinson "Because we move and breath, and say a few complacent words with tongues that are afraid to say our thoughts, we think we are alive. But we are dead."

It is because our forefathers would be alive, would know the truth, that freedom of speech was proclaimed in Article I of our Bill of Rights. That First Amendment, as we call it, erects a fence inside which man can talk. Lawmakers and government officials are told to stay outside that fence.

Unfortunately some men in authority feel impelled to climb over the fence, and even at times to break the fence down. They identify their own policies with truth and punish those who disagree with them. I suspect these men in power have no confidence in their own ideas, and seek to silence others because they fear they will not win in a fair and square debate. I say with Milton, "Let Truth and Falsehood grapple; who ever know [sic knew] Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter?"

I remarked that some men in authority feel impelled to silence those who disagree with them. Some, but not all. Listen to this quotation, as as [sic] you do, guess who might have said the words.

"Here in American we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels – men and women who dared to dissent from accepted doctrines. Without exhaustive debate, even heated debate, of ideas and programs, free government would weaken and wither. But if we allow ourselves to be persuaded that every individual or party that takes issue with our convictions is necessarily wicked and treasonable, then, indeed, we are approaching the end of freedom's road.

Is this the voice of some harried liberal or radical? No. The speaker is Dwight D. Eisenhower, President of the United States.

Sometimes we forget that democracy means that public officials are to be the people's servants and not the people's master. We allow government to be dominating and hesitate to challenge it when it goes beyond its powers. We would be better off if we kept in mind the injunction of Justice Black of the Supreme Court of the United States.

"Public Officials cannot be constitutionally vested with powers to select the ideas people can think about, censor the public views they can express, or choose persons or groups people can associate with. Public officials with such power are not public servants, they are public masters."

Most important of all, we must insist that our government allow the free encounter between truth and falsehood to go on unhampered in our schools and colleges. This is the meaning of the term academic freedom.

Do we have the right to insist that our schools be free? Do we have the right to tell the government of South Carolina, for example, to leave education alone?

The story of Galileo tells us that we must insit [sic insist] on freedom to study, to learn and to teach. This great scientist and professor – as a result of his scholarly research – was convinced that the earth moved around the sun. But the rulers of 1630 condemned his teaching as dangerous lies and threatened him with death unless he admitted he was wrong. They called him up before the investigating committee of his day, called the Inquisition, tortured him and forced him to confess his errors. So Galileo said the earth stood still.

In our day we still have the investigating committees that call teachers before them to force them to conform or lose their jobs. Indeed, some committees have sought to jail teachers who would not answer their questions. But today education has a firm ally in the United States Supreme Court. Let be quote briefly from the Supreme Court decision in the Sweezy case in 1957.

"The essentiality of freedom in the community of American Universities is almost self-evident. No one should underestimate the vital role in a democracy that is played by those who guide and train our youth. To impose any straitjacket upon the intellectual leaders in our colleges and universities would imperil the future of our nation. No field of education is so thoroughtly [sic thoroughly] comprehended by man that new discoveries cannot yet be made. Particularly is that true in the social sciences, where few, if any, principles are accepted as absolutes. Scholarship cannot function in an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust. Teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding, otherwise our civilization will stagnate and die."

Thus speaks the Supreme Court. There is the case for academic freedom. There are those in South Carolina who are terribly angry with the Supreme Court of late. It speaks for free speech, for academic freedom, and it has spoken for integration. But we at Allen respect the Court and praise its good judgement in our day. 

In 1954, before the Sweezy decision, Dr. Robert M. Hutchins, former president of the University of Chicago and then head of the Funds for Republic said, "The entire teaching profession of the United States is now intimidated." I suspect, as McCarthyism is gradually vanishing today, that Dr. Hutchins would not make as sweeping a statement now. And I trust that the spirist [sic spirit] of independence shown at Allen will further encourage teachers to stand on their own hind legs and be men

What does a scholar do when called before one of today's investigation committees? Must he prostrate himself before it as Galileo was forced to do? What are his obligations as citizen and teacher?

Let us start by saying that investigation is a proper stop in lawmaking and all of us should assist a legislature in getting the facts it needs to create intelligent laws.

But we must say, as the Supreme Court says, in its Watkins decision, that investigation is only justified as a stop in lawmaking. A committee no right to investigate in areas where it can make no law, and it has no right to investigate merely to expose the ideas and private lives of witnesses. The Supreme Court emphatically states that investigating committees may not encroach upon an individual's right to privacy nor abridge his liberty of speech.

The Court has also held that no man need be a witness against himself. He may properly plead the Fifth Amendment to our constitution. Keep in mind that the Fifth Amendment is for the innocent as well as the guilty and that every man is innocent until proven guilty. Indeed, some prominent Americans well known to be utterly innocent, have chosen to take the Fifth Amendment for the very purpose of protecting the civil liberties of all Americans. Dean Griswold of Harvard Law School calls the Fifth Amendment a good friend and an old friend of freedom – a shield for freedom of thought and "a hindrance to any government which might wish to prosecute for thoughts and opinions alone."

In the idea of freedom of speech is the right not to speak, the right to be silent. For how can a man hold whatever ideas he wishes, how can he save a free conscience, if government has the power to pry thoughts out of his mind. This, too, is the meaning of the Fifth Amendment. 

To really appreciate the value of the Fifth Amendment – to recognize it as a protector of men's liberties, it is helpful to recall the history of why it was put into our constitution. We go back to English history to the time the Stuart Kings and the persecution of men for their religious ideas.

The first men to refuse to answer the questions of investigating committees are Protestants – Puritans. Let us recall for a moment the ordeals of John Udall and John Lilburn in 17th century England.

Udall was a distinguished minister who was hounded to tell who wrote unsigned pamphlets criticizing the King's bishops.

"Will you take the oath" (to tell us all we want to know), he was asked when called before the Privy Council.

"I dare not take it" replied Udall.

"Then you must got to prison, and it will go hard with you, for you must remain there until you be glad to take it."

"God's will be done" said Udall. I had rather to go to prison with a good conscience than be at liberty with an ill one."

He went to prison – under sentence of death.

John Lilburn was no distinguished man. Rather he was a humble apprentice persecuted for refusing to name Protestants who had brought banned books into England from Holland. Like Udall he refused to tell the investigators what they wanted.

Lilburn was tied to the tail of a cart and whipped as he was dragged through the streets of London. He was put in the pillory and gagged when he spoke for freedom. He was put in jail, chained, and refused food for ten days. Thirty months latter [sic later] he was freed from jail when a new government came to power.

Americans know the story of Udall and Lilburn and other [sic others] like them. They were determined that such cruel treatment not happen in America. So they put the Fifth Amendment into our National Constitution. South Carolinians knew the stories too, and the same words are found in the South Carolina Constitution.

These are our liberties – these are our rights. Brave men established them at great risk. Today it still takes courage to exercise them. But when we lack that courage we become helpless tools of tyrants – we cease to be men and we betray our country's precious heritage of freedom.

A college student gets a sorry education when he does not learn of his rights and does not develop the will to defend them. In college they are learned most in the student of history and government. Come on in and learn. The water is fine. It is the fountain of freedom.

Text from a document in the William D. Workman, Jr. Papers at the South Carolina Political Collections Repository.

C. C. Scott Speech: Submission, Emigration, or What?

In 1907, C. C. Scott gave a speech at a "race conference" that was titled "Submission, Emigration, or What?" The text of the speech, which is reproduced below, was published in The State newspaper. Part of the text appears to be missing. Specifically, the section titled "Three Elements" appears to be missing text after paragraph two.

In the brief space of 15 minutes, the time allowed me for a discussion of this question, it will be impossible to say much that I desire to say; and yet I have no complaint to make on this score for the reasons that another speaker will discuss this same subject, and the committee on program doubtless felt that two speakers, each seeking 15 minutes on the same subject, would be apt to say more that will be helpful and beneficial, and at the same time will give opportunity for a larger representation throughout the State on the programme than one speaker would have done. This subject is a suggestive one. While it is not the one I would have selected as my theme for this occasion I cheerfully accepted it when I found it was the judgement of the committee that I should do so.

I feel that before proceeding to say anything bearing on the subject I ought to say that I have given it prayerful and careful consideration and have asked Him who knoweth our thoughts before we have framed them into words, to so direct what I shall say that nothing shall be uttered by me that shall have the slightest tinge of unkindness or malice or uncharitableness. The occasion that calls us together is too serious to allow any feelings of selfishness or spirit of resentment to enter our breasts, but should inspire each of us to say what he feels will meet the approval of his God.

Two things are suggested to me to discuss and the other or others I am, by implication, to suggest and discuss. They are 'Submission, Emigration, or What?'

In other words, Shall we submit to the conditions confronting us and overpowering us, sapping our manhood and womanhood and bringing us down to the verge of despair and desperation; or shall we take steps to indicate the wholesale emigration of our people; or what shall we do?

The first thing to consider is what are the conditions?

A Review of Causes

With the triumph of the Union forces and the fall of the Confederacy came the emancipation of nearly 4,000,000 of slaves, and in an incredibly short space of time all the male members of the slave population who were 21 years of age and over given the right of franchise. Prior to the Civil War, South Carolina, like every slave-holding state, was ruled by what may be properly termed an oligarchy.

The class of people designated as "poor whites" had but little to do with the government. The white people, too poor to own slaves, in many instances fared worse than many of the slaves. 

Among the wealthier class of slave owners, a sort of paternalism maintained on the plantations, which constituted their chief wealth, and some of the slaves enjoyed a degree of freedom that made their condition but a nominal slavery.

The close of the war found this slave-holding, property-owning class crushed in spirit, bankrupt, conquered, but not subdued.

They believed that slavery was a divine institution just as truly as do the Mormons believe that Mormonism is a divine institution. They felt and believed that the wrestling from them by force of arms this large mass of ignorant human beings whose value was estimated in the inventory with their other chattels, and placing them on a civil footing with themselves was a degradation they could not submit to.

Three Elements

The close of the war brought to the surface three political and social elements, the governing class of whites, the poor whites and the negro freedman. Much has been said and written about this mistake made by the national government in giving the ballot to the negro. I believe the day will come when the consensus of opinion will be that the real mistake was in so soon giving the South, the entire South, irrespective of class, color,  or condition, the right to take part in the affairs of government. History makes but little mention of it, but it was nevertheless a fact that that there was, at the close of the Civil War, a respectable number of negroes of intelligence and property worth, and they, with others of their race, waited on their former masters and political rulers and requested them to take the reigns of government under the new order of things but their overtures were spurned and their requests treated with scorn. Instead they gave them the black code, which discriminated between whites and blacks as citizens and even in the courts of justice and put the former slaves practically into a condition of second slavery. This compelled congress and the president to provide for the State a military government.

The next attempt on our part was to nominate and elect to office some of the best and most liberal Southern white men in the State but many declined to serve, and the few who were farseeing enough to realize that that was the only salvation for the South were hounded and ostracized until they were either driven from the State or out of politics. Then pandemonium reigned, and the disgraceful conduct of the political crew composed for the most of a few of the wealthier Southern whites, some of the Southern poor whites, and white and colored carpetbaggers and ignorant negroes gave pal- [text omitted?]

forcible overthrow and practical suppression of the Republican Party throughout the South. 

Promise was made at that time by the most respectable element of the Southern whites to give equal and exact justice to the negroes if they would join them in overthrowing the then dominant party. This promise has never been kept.

The Negro's Rights

Step by step nearly every right of the negro, civil and political, has been either abridged or completely wrested from him.

He is denied the right to vote. He is practically denied the right to sit on a jury. He is denied fair treatment by the railway and steamboat companies. In fact, he is not even given decent treatment by any of the common carriers. The jim crow car is, as a matter of fact, not a separate car for negroes, but a car for all classes of white men and the low-bred negroes to lounge in and to smoke in, for the transportation of poor unfortunates of both races who are from time to time sent to the lunatic asylum, and for transportation of the chain-gang and the penitentiary convicts, while their waiting rooms are the resting places for not only the white and colored railway employees, but for any and every tramp and street loafer.

Sad and extensive experiences have convinced me that, as a rule, an appeal to the conductors or agents is more apt to provoke an insult than to obtain redress. The negro is not even allowed his pro rata share of the funds he pays into the treasury for the education of his children, and if surprised when he sees men of the South who are presumed to know better proclaim to the public that the white South is burdened with the education of the black South. In some instances, he is not even allowed to have teachers of his own race to instruct his children. The negro is the South's chief assert in trade. Take him out of the South and you will bankrupt it. And yet he is the South's scapegoat. Blatant politicians whose chief stock in trade is abuse of the negro, say the South does not want him and does not need him; and yet this same class of politicians enact laws to prevent his leaving, and punish by imprisonment and fines men who have the temerity to undertake to transport him elsewhere. As a tenant on the farm he has done surprisingly well under most adverse conditions, but has not been a success in the line of accumulating or acquiring property for himself or building up the land of the landlord. Under him the farm lands are becoming poorer, and between him and the landlord, the relation is becoming more strained.

Crime among negroes is on the increase. Laws especially framed and enacted for his punishment, disfranchisement and degradation are being enacted and punishment for his offenses are gradually becoming more severe.

Lynchings and other inhuman and unlawful treatment of negroes has become an epidemic.

Such, briefly and in part, is his condition.

Emigrate? No!

Shall we emigrate? No.

Emigrate where? Emigrate how? Emigrate when? Emigrate why, or for what?

When some practical business statesman who understands the situation shall suggest for our consideration some feasible plan for our emigration it will then be in order for us to consume the time in considering it. Shall we submit to our present conditions? Well might we quote Hamlet's soliloquy: "To be or not to be; that is the question: whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take up arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing end them?"

Submit? No!

Again I ask, "Shall be [we?] submit?" I answer a thousand times no.

If not submission, then what?

Aye, there's the rub.

A few things seem clear to my mind.

The negro's, in fact the whole South's, greatest enemy is the politician. The influence that has dominated the South during the past 16 years has been a gall of bitterness to the negro, and as blighting a curse to the morals of the South as a heavy frost to the soil in midsummer. It has sown dragons' teeth and the time of reaping seems at hand. Permit me to suggest a few things. I feel that each race may do towards relieving the tension and improving conditions for I verily believe that a few more outbreaks will bring about results that will be distressful and surprising to both races. God forbid that any further outbreaks take place. But let us as negroes be frank and outspoken and manly, and say that in the event of such outbreaks we do not intend to submit to have our persons and premises searched without due process of law, in some instances by the mob in military uniform, and our wives and children beaten and outraged with impunity and our and their bodies kicked about the streets without hazarding our lives in their protection. Much can be done by us who are gathered here, and other like us to improve existing conditions.

The Alternative

Let us resolve, as many of us have resolved, to be even more temperate in speech and action, especially in times of intense excitement. Let us preachers say nothing from our pulpits or in private to our membership about white people that we do not think it would be wise or proper to say to their faces. Let us cultivate and inculcate in our people a greater spirit of friendliness for Southern white people. This does not mean a spirit of servility or toadyism or hypocrisy. Some white people like the negro of cringing looks and humble mien, showing his teeth and bowing and scraping, with hat in hand, and proclaiming that the Southern white man is his best friend, and all such twaddle, but others, and most of them, generally size up that class of negroes and may use them but will never trust and respect them.

Let us cultivate the spirit of the golden rule, not only in our dealings with our own race, but also with our white neighbors. The rule will solve the South's problems. That rule will solve the nation's problem. That rule will solve all human problems.

Let us have more faith in and respect for one another. Wise or unwise it may be, but I make it a point not to vilify or abuse a man of my race, prominent or lowly, to a white man. I feel that if the intelligent white people take the intelligent negroes at the estimate they and others of their race have put upon one another in public print and speech and in private conversation they will conclude that our preachers are a class of adulterers, our women a class of prostitutes, and that we are generally a race of degenerates and reprobates. Let us talk one another up. Let us forever quit our denominational controversies and abuses. And then again we must arise our standard of morality. Do not misunderstand me. I say we must.

A man chided me recently for saying in public that the white people are our superiors, mentally, morally, intellectually and financially. And they are. God did not make them so, but a thousand years of training did it. We have had but a little more than 40 and have been heavily handicapped but we have had Jehovah's pillar of cloud by day and His pillar of fire by night. Sometimes I have also felt that we have found our Moses and sometimes I have felt that I have been mistaken. Perhaps he has not yet come down from the mountain, and perhaps he has. We have certainly had too many Aarons along certain lines. Then again let us not only encourage but seek to have among us, in our churches and Sunday schools, in our school commencements and anniversaries and Emancipation day celebrations our best white people. Let us command rather than demand their respect. Seek their cooperation and moral support in saving our boys and girls from lives of sin. Seek their help in our efforts to establish and maintain law and order leagues, and in other matters that pertain to our moral and spiritual welfare, and let us show proper appreciation and gratitude. Let us help our people to more fully appreciate the fact that it is far better and more honorable, enumerative and satisfactory to have our children be the servants of decent, respectable white people in their homes than to serve on chaingangs and in prisons. Let is also train and encourage one another to feel and believe that it is not dishonorable or humiliating to be the servants or one another, but that we ought to feel special pride in serving one another.

I have read somewhere that there is a Jewish proverb that says "He who fails to give his child a trade teaches him to steal." The negro is woefully neglecting this essential part of his child's training, and the result is an increasing number of street loafers, tramps and criminals. Compel our children to learn trades.

Seek and if possible secure the moral support of the best white people in your community. You will find them valuable friends in time of need. Remember, character is your greatest asset, and that everybody can possess it. Let organized effort be made in each community to keep our women, especially our young women, off the streets at night. Above all, let us remember: "There is a divinity that shapes our ends rough hew them as we may be." If God made us to be inferior to our white brethren and fixed our capacities and capabilities within certain bounds we can never go beyond them; and if, on the other hand,  He has made of one all nations of the earth, giving each individual member capacities and capabilities limited only by circumstances and environments, it will only be a question of time when conditions will change and development will expand and enlarge until the negro, freed from baneful influences and unfavorable environments, will develop in culture and character til he shall arrive at the fullness of the stature of a man.