Profile in black and white

by Howard H. Quint

Endorsement of the national party platform and nominees by the state convention set the stage for another political revolt against the Democratic Party. Such a movement, the origins of which will be noted subsequently in greater detail, developed immediately following the state Democratic convention. A considerable division of opinion existed within the state over the desirability of an independent movement. In general terms it was one of lowcountry versus upcountry. Speaking for the latter the Independent opposed “the will-o-wisp of a ‘third party,’” which would harm rather than aid Southern efforts to preserve segregation. It found fallacious the argument of the independents, namely, that the Southern states, by combining forces, could throw the election into the House of Representatives. Past political movements had shown that the South would not unite. Moreover, even if the election were tossed into the House, either the Democratic or Republican candidate would be elected; the South would gain nothing. Questioning the motives of those leading the movement, the Independent suggested that the opposition to the Democrats was based “less on the segregation issue” than on other considerations. These, it said pointedly, were economic—special interests arraigned against the welfare of the working public.[427]

The Morning News was also outspoken in opposing the revolt. Editor O’Dowd thought it “politic, advantageous and wise” for South Carolina to preserve its ties with the national Democratic Party. He chided those South Carolina Democrats who kept themselves “in a state of permanent rebellion against the National Party.” Such persons served only the cause of disunity. According to O’Dowd, criticism of the national party’s liberalism was pointless. The secret of the party’s strength traditionally was “the presence of liberal forces” and the balance these struck with the conservatives. He noted that Thomas Jefferson, who was “almost sacred” to Southern Democrats, was “further ‘left’ for his day than [Michigan Governor G. Mennen] ‘Soapy’ Williams.” Picturing the Democratic Party as the political bailiwick of “Harriman-Williams-Kefauver and the ADA” was simply waving the red flag. The Democratic Party, O’Dowd noted, was also the party of “Walter George, Sam Rayburn, Lyndon Johnson, Olin Johnston and the Southland.” Under the new editor, James A. Rogers, the Morning News changed its political line. While not unsympathetic to the revolt, Rogers took the common sense position that the most effective protest against the Democratic Party was a vote for the Republican candidates.[428]

The News and Courier, the state’s leading press advocate of “independence,” did not understate its editorial theme. The Democratic Party had become infested with “goons, eggheads, radicals, and NAACP agitators.” The Republicans were almost as bad. There was, in reality, no place for “conservative white voters” to go. The South was not bolting the Democratic Party; rather the party had long ago bolted the South. The real third party was not that of the Southern Independents but the Democratic Party gone Socialist. This situation had created problems, not only in regard to public school integration, but also “business interference and high cost government.” The South’s duty was to redeem “the rest of the Republic from Negro politics” and restore “honor, decency and liberty” to the political arena of the nation. But the News and Courier sadly acknowledged that the South’s minority status left it in a position of such “helpless ignominy” that its protest would probably be ineffective. Yet by voting against both national parties Southerners could at least “preserve their self respect.”[429]

Following refusal of the state Democratic convention to endorse “independence,” the News and Courier printed a lengthy series of “letters to the editor” commenting on the political situation in South Carolina. A majority of these advocated Southern independent political action and held that the state’s delegates should have bolted the national Democratic convention. Most urged formation of a new Dixiecrat Party or presentation of a slate of independent electors as a protest against both national parties. Various names were suggested as nominees, most prominently Senator Harry F. Byrd of Virginia and General Mark Clark. Another suggestion called for the formation of a third national party which would appeal to “constitutionalists” and conservatives like Governor J. Bracken Lee of Utah. It would oppose the “socialism” of the other national parties.

A few of these letters were written by persons prominent in white supremacy groups, including Micah Jenkins, state Citizens Council president and chairman for South Carolina of the Federation for Constitutional Government, and Stanley F. Morse, president of the Grass Roots League of Charleston.[430] But most came from persons of no particular significance in political circles. A sampling of quotations taken from these letters reflects the state of mind of the writers:

Another John C. Calhoun is the crying need of this hour, for whom we could all vote in full confidence to represent us in Congress for constitutional government.

We don’t have any leaders in the nation today—we have drivers. Southerners are being driven like cattle to the slaughter.

If it ever was a time for a Ben Tillman it is now.

I am a Democrat, a follower of Jefferson, Cleveland, Wilson, and Robert Taft. [!] I have nothing in common with the present National Democratic Party whose name and organization have been captured by the Radical Socialists and semi-communists of the Northern city slums, assisted by the crackpots, egg heads and pseudo-intellectuals of the Northern colleges.

What the AFL-CIO is planning on doing to us is not just “plain” brainwashing. We are in for a THOROUGH brain-sudsing and scrubbing until every trace of our Southern ways and traditions is gone and we come out “integration bright.”