Danver Steven L. (Edited). Revolts, Protests, Demonstrations, and Rebellions in American History: An Encyclopedia (ENG)
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
assuming to chastise a man who had given his all for the life of the
Government, offered his all, for the protection of the flag of the United
States. He said his father said to him, “You had better go. They might take
out revenge on me and burn us out.” He was not wrong in telling that
young man to go away. The other young men had gone away. These cases
are not imaginary cases. These have happened.
Now, there are two points I wanted to make. One is will you continue to
teach the younger element of 12,000,000 of people to ask the question, Is
loyalty worth while? One you have driven out of the country. We are bereft of
our son, as I have told you. He made up his mind that he would not die like a
dog and that he would get out of it. Are you anxious to lose loyal citizens? If the
economic condition of the Negro was such, hundreds of them, would migrate
upon economic grounds, you may say, and go out as pioneers, but we have
been chained down in America for over 300 years, the sweat of our brow has
gone into the wealth of the Nation; it is undeniable because the statistics of
you own department records will show it. What we ask now is protection
under the flag that we have fought to keep aloft in as many wars as you have
engaged in. Well might we repeat what Carney said when he returned at Fort
Wagner, “The old flag never touched the ground,” you have never heard of a
Negro color bearer of the United States going to the rear unless ordered
there. That is a sample of the feeling of the colored people.
We are born here. “My Country, Tis of Thee,” I sing. You will find some
few colored people, and probably with just convictions, who will not sing it. I
sing it. Why? It is my country. Born here, my mother and father before me and
my grandmother and grandfather. And what they added in honest industry
went to help build up this Nation and to make it strong. It is my country. I will
not forsake it. Why? I will treat it very much as I will a leaking house. I will
repair the roof. I will not abandon it. The United States to the black man has a
leaky roof, and we are here to-day to ask you to repair that roof in order that
we may live in comfort and in peace, and the challenge that I spoke of o you
was a challenge to you who have not thought the matter out to think it out and
come on the side of justice. Let no man go out of here and say the Negroes are
arguing for social equality. What some people call social equality we call
disdain. I want my company and I never seek other company, which does not
want me, and so it is with every self-respecting colored man, but I tell you what
else I want, whether you want me or not, I want my civic political rights, and if
you call that social equality, I say that you have made a misrepresentation and
you give a wrong distinction. For me to be driven to travel from here to New
Orleans and forced to ride and sit in a dirty car is what I protest against. I do
not protest for social equality. I protest for civil rights, for civic privileges, for a
discharge of the contract on the part of the railroad people to give me what I
have paid for, and when you allow, as was done Sunday night, a man to step up
and put a pistol to the body of an attorney of the District of Columbia and say
788 Red Summer (1919)
to him, “You get out of this car or I will shoot you,” when you allow that,
gentlemen, you are only inviting the downfall of the Republic, because not only
will the 12,000,000 finally be affected by that, but the whole Nation will be
affected.
Some people speak of the unrest of the Negro. The Negro has always
been the most quiet man in the United States. There are a few criminals who
are among us, naturally, just like the white criminals, but the unrest in this
Nation is not only with Negroes, and I pray to Almighty God that when the
time comes for you to put down unrest in the form of anarchy, that the
12,000,000 of Negroes will have a just cause to be on the side of the United
States, and if that is not realized, then may God help, for my country is lost. Do
not misunderstand us. We are here to ask you to attempt to do something,
even though there is a doubt as to the constitutionality of it. Don’t I remember
when I walked down to pay my income tax? There were men who said it was
unconstitutional before you passed it, and you put it up to the Supreme Court
of the United States, and you remember there was some little juggling up there
and finally it was declared unconstitutional. Somebody changed. The inveighed
against it because there was some doubt. They all said let us do it, and to-day
what have you? An amendment to the Constitution for an income tax to be
operated. Now, let us for the hope of our common good and of justice to all
and for a fair understanding, let us pass some bill that will look toward stopping
the greatest crime that you have in the land, that of lynching.
Source: “Anti-Lynching Hearings, ” Hearings before the Judiciary Committee, House of
Representatives, 66th Cong., 2nd sess., on House Judiciary Resolutio n 75; House Resolutions
259, 4123, and 11873, Serial No. 14, January 14 and 29, 1920, Part II, Anti-Lynching
(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1920), 8–10, 72–75.
Excerpts of Testimony from Laney v. United States Describing
Events during the Washington, D.C., Riot of July 1919 (1923)
Decided on December 3, 1923, Laney v. United States involved an appeal by William Laney,
an African American man convicted of manslaughter in the d eath of a white man during the
July 1919 riots in Washington, D.C. Laney sought a new trial based on the trial court’s refusal
to allow him to assert a defense based on self-defense. The excerpts of testimony reproduced
below include Laney’s description of what happened on the night of July 21, 1919, as well as
the supporting statement of his lady friend, Mattie Burke. The appeals court refused to overturn
Laney’s conviction, b elieving that he could have escaped without further incident, but instead
deliberately exposed himself to the crowd to provoke further violence.
VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice. This appeal is from a verdict and judgment of the
Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, adjudging appellant, defendant below
Red Summer (1919) 789
[William Laney], guilty of the crime of manslaughter. The indictment charged the defend-
ant with the crime of murder in the first degree, growing out of the killing of one Ken-
neth Crall, during a race riot in Washington on July 21, 1919.
The defense interposed was self-defense, and a large number of assignments of error
are based upon the refusal of the court to grant certain prayers offered by the defendant
relating to the law of self-defense. The court instru cted the jury on this subject, but we
think it will be unneces sary for us to consider the as signments of error in relati on to
the prayers offered, since in our opinion, viewing the evidence in the most favorable
aspect, self-defense does not enter into the case.
Defendant testified as follows:
“On the night of the 21st of July , 1919, I went to the theater with Mattie Burke, and
came back and went up on Seventh street as the request of Teresa Dobbins, to get Flor-
ence and Garfield Wood. On my return to 617 Massachusetts avenue, as I got to the cor-
ner where t he Home Savings Bank is located, a large crowd t hat was there started to
yelling ‘Catch the nigger!’ and ‘Ki ll the nigger!’ and started to chase me. I ran ahead of
them down Massachusetts avenue. When I got near to 617 Massachusetts avenue, I
pulled out my gun and the c rowd stopped chasing me. I went into the back yard, and
while trying to fix the safety on my gun it went off. I then put the gun in my pocket and
went to the front again, intending to go back to my place of employment. The mob was
attacking a house across t he street, and were coming both ways on Massachusetts
avenue, from the direction of Sixth and from the direction of Seventh street. While I
was in the areaway between 617 and 619, the mob came across from the south side of
the street, firing and hollering ‘Let’s kill the nigger!’ The mob was firing at me, and I shot
in the direction towards Seventh street. I fired to protect my life. I fired three shots. My
pistol had eight bullets in it at first. There were four bullets in it when it was taken by the
officials; three bullets having been fired in the front yard and one in the back yard.”
The witness Mattie Burke testified, in relation to the movements of the defendant, as
follows:
“Later he came running back, with a mob chasing him, throwing sticks and stones at
him, holle ring ‘Catch the nigger!’ I think Mr. Laney had his gun in his hand while he was
running, but I did not see him do anything with it. He ran into the areaway between
615 and 617. The crowd, consisting of 100 or more men, then started after a house on
the opposite side of the street. At that time William Laney went into the back yard and
tried his gun. I was with him in the back yard at the time. Then we came out to the front
again. After attacking the house on the opposite side of the street, the mob gathered in
the car track as though they were coming toward 617, and then Laney fired his gun. After
Laney had escaped through the back way, the crowd began to break into the house, and
then I escaped myself over the back fence, and I did not see any more.”
It is clearly apparent from the above testimony that, when defendant escaped from
the mob into the back yard of the Ferguson place, he was in a place of comparative safety,
from which, if he desired to go home, he could have gone by the back way, as he
790 Red Summer (1919)
subsequently did. The mob had tu rned its attention to a house on the oppo site side of
the stre et. According to Laney’s testimony, there was shooting going on in the street.
His appearance o n the street at that juncture could mean nothing but trouble for him.
Hence, when he adjusted his gun and stepped out into the areaway, he had every reason
to believe that his presence there woul d provoke trouble. We think his conduct i n
adjusting his revolver and going into the areaway was such as to deprive him of any right
to involve the pleas of self-defense. Of course, the extent to which a person assailed may
go, under a given state of fact s involving self-defense, is always a question of fact for the
jury; but whether or not self-defense can be invoked under the evidence adduced is a
question of law for the court to determine. If the facts, in the judgment of the court,
are not such as to admit of this defense, the issue should not be left to the mere specu-
lation of the jury.
Source: Laney v. United States , No. 4000, Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, 54
App. D.C. 56; 294 F. 412 (1923).
Red Summer (1919) 791
Battle of Blair Mountain (1921)
The Battle of Blair Mountain was the largest armed insurrection within the borders
of the United States si nce the Civil War. It resulted from a culmination of violent
events that began with the Matewan Massacre. Following the deaths of the
Baldwin-Felts detectives in Matewan, tensions grew extremely high within Logan
and Mingo countie s in West Virginia. Emotional and violent responses erupted in
the coalfields when Baldwin-Felts detectives exacted their revenge for the Matewan
Massacre with the murders of Sid Hatfield and Ed Chambers in McDowell County,
WestVirginia,onAugust1,1921.
Coal miners from the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) District
17 met in C harleston, West Virginia, on August 7, 1921, to protest the deaths of
the t wo men and the imposition of martial law in their home county of Mingo.
Law enforcement officials allied to the coal companies had used martial law as
an excuse to imprison many UMWA supporters. Following the meeting in
Charleston, union miners began gathering in the town of Marmet for the expressed
purpose of avenging Hatfield’s murder, ending martial law in Mingo County, free-
ing jailed miners and UMWA activists, unionizing the coal fields of Logan and
Mingo counties, and hanging Logan County sheriff Don Chafin. Chafin was par-
ticula rly hated by UMWA members because he had more than 300 deputies who
worked on behalf of the coal industry. On August 24, 1921, t he heavily armed
men le ft on what is now known as the “Miners March” and began a 65-mile trek
toward Logan County. It is unknown how many individuals participated in the
march, but estimates range from 7,000 to 20,000. The marchers, many of whom
were World War I veterans, organized themselves in military fashion under the
command of William “Bill” B lizzard. During the march, the miners began don-
ning red bandanas around their necks to identify themselves as an insurgent army,
which resulted in their becoming known as “red necks.”
Officials in West Virginia quickly mobilized to confront the miners. Sheriff
Chafin was put in charge of a force comprised of law enforcement officials, state
militia, and coal company enforcers such as the Baldwin-Felts Detective Agency.
The sheriff also acquired three biplanes, ostensibly for air reconnaissance. Recog-
nizing that Chafin was vastly outnumb ered by the approaching miners, Governor
Ephraim Morgan made a request of President Warren Harding that federal troops
be sent to suppress the insurrection.
793
The miners encountered Sheriff Chafin’s men at Blair Mountain, near the bor-
der of Boone and Logan counties. Details of the battle vary widely, but it is known
that miners made their first assault on August 30, 1921. By September 1, they had
managed to break Chafin’s lines at Crooked Creek Gap. In desperation, Chafin
committed his reserve forces to the fight and ordered the pilots of the biplanes to
drop bombs a nd tear gas on the miners. Fortunately for the miners, the effort s to
gas and bomb them proved ineffectual. The miners were unable to capitalize upon
the breaking of Chafin’s lines because General Harry Bandholtz ordered federal
troops into the fray to bring the fighting to an end. Sporadic fighting continued
for several days, but most of the miners had been disarmed by September 4,
1921. Despite the ferocity of the fighting between August 30 and September 1,
1921, it is estimated that only 16 people were killed.
The Battle of Blair Mountain marked the concl usion of th e Mi ne War of
1920–1921. Although the protracted con flict brought national attention t o the
plight of coal miners, it ultimately provided a setback for the UMWA. The eco-
nomic and political elites that had industrialized West Virginia had demonstrated
that they had the will and ability to impose their view of law and order in the
coalfields. What force they lacked within their borders to maintain order was
available through federal authorities. State officials also utilized the court system
to wage war o n the UMWA and its miners. More than 500 miners and UMWA
officials were tried for charges such as treason and murder as a result of the Bat-
tle of Blair Mountain. While only a few miners were ever convicted on offenses
related to the incident, the legal battles v irtually ba nkrupted the UMWA’s Dis-
trict 17. Subsequently, the UMWA was expelled from all of southern West Vir-
ginia’s coalfields and would not prove able to return to power in the region
until the mid-1930s.
—John R. Burch Jr.
See also all entries under Molly Maguires (1870s); Great Railroad Strikes (1877);
Haymarket Riot (1886); Seattle Riot (1886); H omestead Strike (1892–1893); Pullman
Strike (1894); Lattimer Massacre (1897); Black Patch War (1909); Ludlow Massacre
(1914); Boston Police Strike (1919); Bonus Army (1932); Toledo Auto-Lite Strike
(1934); World Trade Organization Protests (1999).
Further Reading
Bailey, Rebecca J. Matewan before the Massacre: Politics, Coal, and the Roots of Conflict in
a West Virginia Mining Community. Morgantown: West Virginia University Press, 2008.
Corbin, David Alan. Life, Work, and Rebellion in the Coal Fields: The Southern West
Virginia Miners, 1880–1922. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1981.
794 Battle of Blair Mountain (1921)
Hennen, John. The Americanization of West Virginia: Creating a Modern Industrial State,
1916–1925. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1996.
Savage, Lon. Thunder in the Mountains: The West Virginia Mine War, 1920–21. Pittsburgh,
PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1990.
Shogan, Robert. The Battle of Blair Mountain: The Story of America’s Largest Labor
Uprising. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2004.
Battle of Blair Mountain (1921) 795
Coal Mining
Coal has been mined in Appalachia si nce before the birth of the United States. It
can be found in an area ranging from Alabama to Pennsylvania. The early coal
mining operations were usually small scale, since the coal extracted was either
used locally or shipped to nearby markets. The available technology, which pri-
maril y consisted of horse-drawn scrapers, black powder, picks, and sh ovels, also
limited production.
Following the conclusion of the Civil War, the nature of coal mining changed.
Local political and economic elites began working with wealthy capitalists from out-
side the region to industrialize Appalachia. Millions of acres of land were acquired
by individuals who were to become absentee landholders. Railroads were con-
structed that linked the coalfields to markets around the United States. Coal mining
technology began to improve, most notably with the introduction of the undercutting
machine. The cost of this development on the countryside was catastrophic, as defor-
estation occurred rapidly and mine drainage polluted the environment.
Industrialization also changed the lives of Appalachians, who had previously
tended to rely on subsistence agriculture to meet their needs. The insatiable land
lust of the outside capitalists resulted in many mountaineers selling the farms that
had been in their families for generations in exchange for a job in the coal mines
and housing in company towns. In many areas of Appalachia, the local workforce
was not sufficient to meet the labor needs of the mines; thus, the coal compan ies
began recruiting African Americans and European immigrants to the mines. The
coal operators were careful to segregate the groups from each other and used their
ethnic and racial prejudices to keep the miners distrustful of each other. Despite
the efforts to forge divisions among the labor force, shared grievances against their
employers led the miners to begin enrolling in unions.
In the early 1900s, the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) began to
infiltrate coal mining operations in West Virginia. The refusal of coal operators
across the state to recognize the UMWA as the bargaining agent for its miners
led to extremely violent strike episodes. One of the most notorious events was
the Paint Creek–Ca bin Creek Strike of 1913–1914, where representatives of the
Baldwin-Felts Detective Agency that had been deputized by local sheriffs had
used machine guns on striking miners. The miners were likewise well armed and
held pitched battles on occasion with guards employed by the coal companies.
Governor Henry Hatfield forced a settlement of the Paint Creek–Cabin Creek
Strike by addressing some o f the miners’ grievances, including the institution of
a nine-hour workday, but did not grant the UMWA the right to organize the miners.
The solution proved temporary as the Mine War of 1920–1921, whose events
797