A Lynching in the Jim Crow South

[In this brief excerpt, my rather recounts a chilling tale of a southern lynching, as related by one of his Middlebury professors (“Prentice,” whom I believe was James S. Prentice, an assistant professor of economics). Of note, in addition to the racism and violence at the core of the story, is the professor’s characterization of black people as being little concerned about the “white man’s war,” World War II.  From a purely semantic perspective, I find it interesting that my father used both the then-common term “Negro” in his writing, as well as the “black man” descriptor. Perhaps the second was in broader use in the 1940s than I realized.]

February 12, 1943 (Middlebury College)

… I was chiefly interested, however, in [Prentice’s] stories of his recent trip around the US. The Negroes in the South are stirring as they’ve never stirred before. Lynchings are increasing. The black people are little concerned with the war – “It’s a white man’s war. What’s it got to do with us?” – Except they hope it’ll last a good long time, so that maybe “their” country at long last will have to call on them for help.

[Prentice] told of one lynching, – how a certain man went down from Birmingham on the train. The Jim Crow car was jam-packed, people standing in the aisle. The white car was almost empty. “Conductor,” said this man, “wouldn’t it be possible to fix up that other car like a trolley-car, with some of the seats in the back for black people?” The conductor stared, then went away and did nothing.

Once again the man asked if seats could be arranged for the Negroes. And again the conductor stared, turned away, and did nothing. But he came back soon and took the man’s ticket from his hatband. “Why?” the man asked the conductor. “Just checking up,” he said.

So at the next station they delivered the black man up to the police, who cursed and beat him. Then they gave him to the mob, and he was lynched.

Today is Abraham Lincoln’s birthday.

Read Full Post »

Max Lerner Lectures on the War

[Although this journal entry consists primarily of my father’s summary of a lecture by Max Lerner, I decided to include it as it demonstrates my father’s skill as a reporter — a skill that eventually led him to Columbia Journalism School and, then, to the Providence Journal in Rhode Island. Max Lerner was a writer and educator, who would go on, in 1949, to launch an influential column in the New York Post. As reported by my father, Lerner’s talk ranged from his growing optimism about the U.S.’s impact on the course of the war to his criticism that Jim Crow laws were negatively affecting America’s war efforts.]

December 2, 1942 (Middlebury College)

Max Lerner spoke here last night. In his introduction, Bob Rafuse spoke of him as one of the fighters in the front line of the battle of ideas. Lerner lived up to his characterization. I was not so much impressed with what he said as the way he said it. He spoke very clearly, in a pleasant voice, and knew just where he was every minute. He didn’t beat around the bush, but shot his ideas straight from the shoulder, so that there could be no doubt that he knew what he was talking about, and believed in it. “Name-calling can be a very good thing,” he said, “as long as you call the right people the right names.”

He began by saying that he felt better since the opening of [the] North African campaign than at anytime in the last decade. “Up until now we were worried as to whether the US would be able to gather itself for action in time. It is very late now, but it is in time. At long last I can see through the long dark tunnel to the clear air and sunshine ahead. We know now that we can win the war. But the tragic possibility is that we may not know what to do with the clear air and sunshine.”

“American business has handled production better than we had any reason to expect. But still there are too many men in high positions who are more interested in the plants with which they are connected than with the total war effort. Labor has still not been given the representation in the WPB [War Production Board] that it deserves, and that Donald Nelson [chairman of the WPB] promised to it some time ago.

“We are not making any apparent progress on our Negro problem. Industry refuses to hire black men. Baltimore imported 10,000 white laborers when there were that many negroes idle in the city. Jim Crow laws are still maintained in the Army. Henry Kaiser [whose Kaiser Shipyard built Liberty ships during the war] is a really great American businessman, but he is counteracted by too many men like the West Coast union leader who won’t admit negroes into his union.

“There are far too many of the men still in power who only a year ago were shouting that we could do business with Hitler, that we couldn’t get into a war against Fascism without becoming Fascist ourselves, that a European war was no concern of ours. Many of these men have just a month ago been returned to Congress, and have taken this as a mandate from the people to go right ahead with their program of opposition to the administration. These men are dangerous. They must be removed from power by intelligent voting on the part of American citizens.

“America has assembled a striking force stronger than Hitler’s, and done it without sacrificing the democratic liberties. A democracy can be strong, in peace as well as in war, and incomparably stronger than Fascism. Archibald MacLeish saw the true nature of our foe when he characterized it in The Fall of the City as an armored giant all empty inside. The sight of it is terrible only until you stand before it and fight.

“The military war is going well. Our real problem is in the diplomatic war and the idea war. This [François] Darlan deal can’t be stomached. It has shaken the faith of the French people in us, and can lose us many more lives in the long run than it may have saved us at present. Our State Department is showing an extremely dangerous tendency towards a Machiavellian diplomacy that puts the European powers to shame. Our victory must be morally sound all the way though, or it’s no victory at all. Apparently [Secretary of State Cordell] Hull, and possibly even FDR, regard the establishment of such Rightist regimes in Western Europe as a desirable counterpoise to the Leftist influence of Russia, which may well emerge from this war as the strongest European power. But such a policy can only lead to a perfect setup for another struggle.

“This, then, is the justification of our cause: To decide whether American democracy, and a world of democratic states, can exist and grow under the highly complicated conditions of our technical machine civilization.”

That was the main gist of his talk. He answered questions for an hour and half. The fine thing here was that he had his answers ready; he didn’t have to dig around for them, or retrench on what he had already said. He did say that Roosevelt has believed that it’s important to get things done without regard for the abstract principle, and that was disturbing. It’s what Emerson said about Napoleon.

Read Full Post »