A DEMOGRAPHY OF COLUMBIA 1875-1930 VOLUME 4 COMMUNITIES LIKE MINE: A METHODOLOGIES PRIMER
Karen G. Strickland
Genealogist Columbia Archaeology Program
Recommended Citation Strickland, Karen G. (2016) A Demography of Columbia: Volume 4: Communities Like Mine: A Methodologies Primer. Columbia Archaeology Program, Columbia, South Carolina.
Published by Columbia Archaeology Program Freely available online at http://issuu.com/columbiaarchaeology Copyright Š 2016 by Columbia Archaeology Program This is an open access document, licensed under a Creative Commons By Attribution Share Alike license. Under this license, authors allow anyone to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute, and/or copy this document so long as the authors and source are cited and resulting derivative works are licensed under the same or similar license. No permission is required from the authors or the publisher. Statutory fair use and other rights are in no way affected by the above. Read more about the license at creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0
The cover illustration is copyright South Caroliniana Library, used under a Creative Commons By Attribution license (CD-BY).
Columbia Archaeology Program is a research and education organization dedicated to making contemporary historical thought freely available worldwide. Documents published under the Columbia Archaeology Program imprint are produced through a partnership between the City of Columbia and Historic Columbia Foundation. Columbia Archaeology Program 1601 Richland Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201 USA www.ColumbiaArchaeology.org
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS THE completion of any project is dependent upon contributions from a multitude of individuals. I am indebted to Columbia Mayor Steve Benjamin, who initiated the Columbia Archaeology Program. This demography of Columbia is the product of many months of labor. Volumes 1 (Introduction, Objectives, Methods), 3 (Photograph & Map Compendium), and 5 (Supplemental Analyses) were written by Jakob Crockett. The North Downtown data for Volume 2 (Raw Data) was compiled by Jakob Crockett, Angie Fuller, and Joseph Johnson; students in the American Urban History and the Modern South class (SCHC 332, Fall 2013) at the University of South Carolina, Honors College, compiled the Wheeler Hill data; the data for the Bottoms was compiled by Karen Strickland, Mathew Burge, and Vennie Deas-Moore; Mathew Burge did the primary formatting for Volume 2. Volume 3 was written by Karen Strickland. Volumes 6 and 7 were written by Mathew Burge with contributions by Jakob Crockett. Funding for this project came from the City of Columbia, South Carolina, during Fiscal Year 2014-2015 and Historic Columbia during calendar year 2016.
CONTENTS VOLUME IV ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...................................................................................................................iii FIGURES..........................................................................................................................................v TABLES...........................................................................................................................................vi PREFACE.......................................................................................................................................vii 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................1 2 US FEDERAL CENSUS ....................................................................................................................2 3 COLUMBIA CITY DIRECTORY .......................................................................................................3 4 RACIALIZATION .............................................................................................................................5 5 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................7 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................16
iv
FIGURES 1 DEMOGRAPHIC REPORT SPATIAL FOCUS ...................................................................................... IX 2 A DISCLAIMER FROM HILL’S COLUMBIA, SC CITY DIRECTORY, 1930 ..............................................5 3 WHITE OWNED BUSINESS ADVERTISEMENT IN THE COLORED DEPARTMENT .................................6 4 ADVERTISEMENT FROM A WHITE OWNED BUSINESS IN THE WHITE DEPARTMENT .........................7
v
TABLES 1 PUBLISHERS AND OTHER ELEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE COLUMBIA CITY DIRECTORY ..............8 2 ETHNICITY IN THE DIRECTORY ..................................................................................................11 3 ETHNICITY FROM THE 1900 CENSUS .........................................................................................15
vi
PREFACE FOUNDED in 2012 as a partnership between the City of Columbia and Historic Columbia, the Columbia Archaeology Program (CAP) is a city-wide archaeology research and education organization providing a focal-point for engaging scholarly, professional, and community perspectives on the social dynamics and historical legacies of Columbia’s diverse residents. We are particularly interested in those histories which lie outside the ‘official’ and ‘mainstream’, and those histories which challenge our existing ideas and under standings of the past. Archaeology allows us to understand the ways in which people made their own histories within the political-economic structures they inherited. Like today, some residents of Columbia had ac cess to a wider range of opportunities than did their neighbors, most of whom never made it into the history books. The result: the majority of people who contributed most to the fundamental making of Columbia have been disappeared to the margins by those who could – and can – control the spotlight of history. The role of CAP is to refocus the spotlight of history to illuminate the stories of those citizens whose past has been obscured in the shadows. MISSION
To promote alternative histories of underrepresented pasts in ways that challenge our existing ideas of the past and present. GOALS
1. Explore how the histories and experiences of individuals are shaped and informed by larger political-economic, gender, race, age, and class considerations. 2. Use the experiences of individuals within Columbia as a lens into what it means to be an American. 3. Create opportunities for individuals to participate in the production of history. 4. Explore innovative methodologies at the intersection of new media studies and traditional cultural heritage management. 5. Develop new understandings of how objects and humans interact to form society and history. APPROACH Despite the number and diversity of preservation-, scholarship-, and outreach-oriented activities that a multitude of stakeholders have enacted in Columbia, there remain gaps in our collective history. These gaps in history are the silenced voices of our neighbors past, disappeared from our narrative landscape by time and intent. Our guiding question behind our mission is simple: If this is your city, where are your stories?
vii
A poverty of answers indicates a gap in our collective knowledge and the need to explore an underrepresented past. The subjects of our question come about through the following approaches to history: 1. BIOGRAPHIES We construct biographies of physical spaces and materialities. Spatial and material biographies differ from traditional approaches to the past in that particular places and materials remain in focus while people flow in and out of focus as they interact with these places and things. A traditional approach focuses on one or more individuals while objects and places flow in and out of their lives. In other words, a spatial and object biographical approach does not presuppose what human actors are worth paying attention to and which are not – all voices are equally important for understanding the biography of a place or object. 2. PARALLEL HISTORIES The idea that ‘the past’ is composed of multiple, fragmented histories viewed from situated vantage points moves interpretation away from a singular, linear chronology of events toward a multi-layed history with parallel, sometimes competing, truths. This understanding is a framework for constructing historical knowledge and a way of dealing with issues of voice, authority, and authenticity. 3. OBJECT-ORIENTED An object-oriented approach to the past gives equal initial weight to all historical actors – people, objects, places, and social organizations. Such an approach pays attention to practice, to object-mediated relations, to non-human agency, and to discourse materialized. 4. POLITICAL-ECONOMY A political-economic approach to the past is one that attends to localized social, political, economic, and cultural processes, which are understood to take place within a global-historical framework that transcends these localized contexts. Simply, a political economic approach is one that attends to structures of power. The goal is “to understand the formation of anthropological subjects (real people doing real things’) at the intersection of local interactions and … larger processes" (Roseberry 1988:163). 5. ARCHAEOLOGY Archaeology is often the most democratic source of information about the past available today because everyone, through the simple act of living, left behind material traces recoverable through careful excavation. As the history book of the everyday, these traces are often the only ‘voices’ we have for the vast majority of people. Not incorporating an archaeological understanding into historical investigations reinforces the idea that some people simply are not worth hearing. A DEMOGRAPHY OF COLUMBIA The past, philosopher of history Alun Munslow (1997) argues, is something that actually did hap pen – be it a political movement, an economic process, or an event as small as taking out the trash – but
viii
Figure 1. Demographic report spatial focus. Red denotes the North Downtown area; Yellow denotes The Bottoms; and blue denotes the Wheeler Hill area.
these happenings do not exist for us today apart from a few surviving bits of evidence—artifacts, documents, memories, oral histories, and the like. In contrast to the past, history is “a language-based manufacturing process in which the written historical interpretation is assembled or produced by historians” (Munslow 1997:5). The past and history are clearly not the same thing. Where the past is something that did happen, history is an epistemology, a knowledge of the past that can only exist for the reader (hearer, consumer) when someone writes (tells, produces) it in its obligatory form: the narrative. “A historical narrative,” Munslow (1997:10-11) goes on to explain, “is a discourse that places disparate events in an understandable or der.... Consequently, there are many different stories to be told about the same events, the same past.” New histories, then, depend on 1) old methodologies and new data or 2) new methodologies and existing or new data. Patterns of political-economic, gender, race, and class considerations are histories of what it means to be an American, part of the American experience. These patterns – histories – emerge from particular methodologies, which are dependent upon the structure of available data. In other words, the production of new patterns of historical experience requires a complimentary set of methodology and data. Patterns emerge from methodologies which are dependent upon the structure of available data. Unfortunately, no data set exists that matches the quantitative method of pattern recognition needed to produce new histories for Columbia. This is a problem if our goal as historians is to produce new understandings of the past. Since broad understandings of the past are unlikely to emerge from newly discovered, particulate data, new
ix
methodologies are required using existing, broad data sets familiar to historians: Federal Census reportss, City Directories, and Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps.
AIMS
This demography of Columbia aims to document every person and property living, working, or located within seven downtown Columbia, South Carolina, blocks for the years 1875-1930. In doing so, this report expands the resolution of the Federal Census to the city block and annual level by using City Directory and Sanborn Fire Insurance maps as data sources.
SCOPE OF THE REPORT
The temporal focus of this report is 1875-1930, a pivotal period in American history defined by the struggles of labor unions, the development of national advertising and brand names, the advent and availability of home electricity and telephones, Jim Crow legislation and political exclusion, and the growth of urban centers. The spatial focus is seven downtown blocks in three neighborhoods (Figure 1). Each neighborhood was once a collection of houses and work-spaces, locations where public and private spheres rested in uneasy tension along social lines of division. For most residents of these neighborhoods, these were the spaces of everyday life, of home and work, shopping and play. Defined as much by physical geography as by imagination and public discourse, these were the spaces of community. Today, they are the spaces of imagined communities—neighborhoods with empty lots, public buildings, new housing, and an expanding university. Like all major cities, urban renewal was a process of reconfiguration, displacement, and redefinition. 1.
North Downtown
Bounded by Elmwood, Bull, Richland, and Sumter streets Home to Historic Columiba’s Modjeska Monteith Simkins site and the Mann-Simons Site & Outdoor Museum, North Downtown remains a collection of domestic and commercial lots along what was originally the northern boundary of Columbia. 2.
The Bottoms
Bounded by Pickens, Taylor, Harden, and Gervais streets The area known locally as “The Bottoms” (due to its low elevation and bowl shape) was a predominantly black neighborhood that lost many businesses and homes throughout the 1970s and 1980s through eminent domain. Most of those lots remain empty today. 3.
Wheeler Hill
Bounded by Barnwell, Catawba, Wheat, and Pickens streets Outside the original city limits, Wheeler Hill became a predominantly black neighborhood during the 1890s. Expansion of the University of South Carolina forced, through eminent domain, the majority of residents to relocate during the 1970s and 1980s.
x
The archival focus is City Directory, Federal Census, and Sanborn Fire Insurance Map data for each individual and property living, working, or located within the above seven downtown blocks for the years 1875-1930.
STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT
This report is divided into seven volumes. Volume 1 provides an introduction to the study, including the objectives that framed our approach and the methodologies employed. Volume 2 is a compilation of all the raw data collected and used in following volumes. Volume 3 is a historic photograph and map compendium detailing each property available. Volume 4 is a methodologies primer. A non-residential structure survey for 1900 is presented in Volume 6 followed by a survey of vacant lots in 2016 in Volume 7.
xi
INTRODUCTION
THE Columbia Archaeology Program (CAP) compiled demographic data from three project areas in the city of Columbia, South Carolina during the years of 1875 through 1930. Those areas are North Downtown, “the Bottoms”, and Wheeler Hill. A large number of African American families lived in these project areas. CAP used several resources to learn about those who lived and worked in these neighborhoods. One source we used, the U.S. Census records from 1900 to 1930, taught us about the structure of families, home ownership, and literacy in the communities. Another source, the Columbia City Directory, confirmed residency in these communities, their ethnicity, and spousal information. Research further led us to find pictures from the University of South Carolina Joseph E. Winter, John Hensel, E. T. Start, and Armstrong Family collections, in addition to Richland Library’s Midlands Memories collection. Maps, such as the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps of Columbia (1888, 1897, 1904, 1910, 1919) and the Gray’s New Map of Columbia (1883), showed our project areas in relation to other areas of Columbia. Finally, local newspaper articles expanded our understanding of the social and professional lives within our project areas. In the end, our goal with this Demography of Columbia is to contribute a new understanding of urban life in Columbia during the Post-Reconstruction through the Depression eras. Our goal with Volume 4 – this methodologies primer – is to provide the reader with a clear understanding of the data sources we used for generating the statistical and narrative discussions found in Volumes 5, 6, and 7. After collecting this demographic information, we created a brief statistical analysis to compare differences within and between each of our three project areas. This information suggests that together these three communities are a microcosm of the larger Columbia community as a whole. We had many informal conversations with individuals who were either former residents or who currently lived in our project areas. In all areas, people told us about community leaders who once lived in their communities and the churches that provided a source of strength during their struggles. All of the project areas also had similar businesses. For example, between 1900 and 1901, residents of the Bottoms held jobs as Laborers 18%, Carpenters 6%, Nurses 2%, Pastors 1%, Teachers 3%, Blacksmiths 1%, Laundresses 1%, Seamstresses/Tailors 3%, Grocers/Other Businesses 4%, Masons 3%, Engineers 6%, Shoemakers 1%, and Porters/Waiters 3%. Of those residents listed in the directory and census, 48% of occupations were either undocumented or the respondent was unemployed. The process of collecting demographic data began with examining the information provided by the United States Census Bureau and the Columbia City Directory. Several strategies helped to locate more residents in an area. One of these strategies was visually scanning each census or city directory page for one resident on a street and then trying to locate other residents in that same area. This strategy increased the number of residents found since not all residents were included in all sections of the city directory (additional strategies are explained in the Columbia City Directory section). The columns headings found in Volume 2 – Raw Data – are Year, Address, Head of Household, Ethnicity, Spouse Name, Occupation, Employer, and Notes. To make the spreadsheets consistent, all columns were listed the same even though the data from publishers varied from year to year. The section labeled “Notes” included any additional information documented, including spousal occupation, home ownership, the number of children in the home, boarders/lodgers, or literacy of those in the home.
1
In the following sections, I explore our two primary data sources: the US Federal Census and the Columbia City Directory. Before concluding, I briefly explore the racialization of the City Directories during the first half of the Twentieth Century.
US FEDERAL CENSUS Several resources were used to obtain a representative sampling of demographics of the neighborhoods, but the census records and the city directories comprised the vast majority of our data. Demography is the science of population, which includes size, distribution, structure, and change over time. Beginning with the 1880 census, specially hired and trained census-takers (called enumerators) replaced the U.S. marshals. Door-to-door census by temporary census-takers was the primary method of conducting the census until the U.S. Census Bureau began mailing questionnaires to households in 1960 (census.gov, 2016). As more and more households received and returned their questionnaires by mail, the role of census-taker changed. Today, the majority of households are counted by mailed questionnaires (Ibid). The United States Federal Census Bureau collected characteristics of ethnicity, literacy, occupation, gender, marital status, age or date of birth, head of household, street address, home ownership, number of persons in the home, and the relationship to the head of the household. Information taken by the Census Bureau varied during the years and are not consistent. For example, in 1900 the census questionnaire asked for the occupation of citizens. In 1930, the questionnaire excluded occupation but inserted a question about what job industry that citizen worked. Other instances include differences in the questions of the date of birth or just asking for their age at the time of the census. Census data was taken decennially by enumerators walking door to door. Therefore, CAP collected information from census years 1900, 1910, 1920, and 1930. When asking the question concerning the resident’s race, enumerators had specific instructions for what to dictate. The census’ code for race was “B” for black or Negro decent, “Mu” for mulatto (a term used for any person having a trace of Negro blood in 1910), and “W” for white. Through 1910, descriptions for race also included “Ch” for Chinese, “Jp” for Japanese, and “In” for Indian (Native American). In 1920, census’ description for race included new codes. Those additions were “Fil” for Filipino, “Hin” for Hindu, and “Kor” for Korean. Instructions to dictate racial descriptions changed in 1930. Codes for race remained the same as 1920 except for two exceptions. Mulatto was deleted as a code and “Mex” for Mexican was added as a race. A new racial definition was given to classify African Americans. “A person of mixed white and Negro blood should be documented [sic] as Negro no matter how small the percentage of Negro blood” (Ibid). Therefore, “Mu” was eliminated in 1930. Enumerators were instructed to ask questions and obtain answers for all of those living in the district contained in the census schedules – including race. Secrecy was mandatory. Failure to have an obligation to secrecy was “punishable by a fine up to $5,000” (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1973). Enumerators were not allowed to use the information obtained from their district for any other purpose, “such as canvassing for directory publishers, soliciting subscriptions to newspapers or magazines or the sale or advertisement of any article whatever” (Ibid). Information from the census provides a snapshot in time of the social life in these communities. We collected data about literacy and home ownership from the census and, in some cases, we learned how much a family spent on rent or the value of their homes. We also learned how many individuals lived in the home, their ages, and their relationship to the head of the household. The census showed us not only household size, but the family structure as 2
well. For example, nuclear and extended families were among those listed in all communities. Also listed were female head of households. This is something we found particularly interesting because it raises the gendered question of why? Why, in some cases were females listed as the head when a male was still listed in residence? Included in the survey were all members living in the home at the time it was taken. Therefore, we learned any children’s names, ages, and if they attended school. Using the census data collected in our project areas, we compared occupations listed for residents in the city directories (although some of this information was inconsistent in its recording from year to year) to see if there were any differences or discrepancies between occupants over time. After looking through the census data, one trend that we noted was that almost all of the project areas had similar businesses. Between 1900 and 1901, the most diverse occupations came out of “the Bottoms”. Many of the residents there held jobs in the service industry (i.e., laundress or laborer). However, there were also a great many professionals living in this area (i.e., teachers and preachers). Occupations in “the Bottoms” were as follows: Laborers 18%, Carpenters 6%, Nurses 2%, Pastors 1%, Teachers 3%, Blacksmiths 1%, Laundresses 1%, Seamstresses/Tailors 3%, Grocers/Other Businesses 4%, Masons 3%, Engineers 6%, Shoemakers 1%, and Porters/Waiters 3%. Of those residents listed in the directory and census, 48% of occupations were undocumented. Occupations in the Washington Street Business District were as follows: Laborers 27%, Carpenters 2%, Barbers 2%, Coachmen/Drivers 2%, Midwifes 2%, Grocers/Other Businesses 2%. Of those residents listed in the directory and the census, 67% of occupations were undocumented.
THE COLUMBIA CITY DIRECTORY Within the city directory are categories that are similar to the census even though they were produced by different publishers for different reasons. Before the general listing of names is the introduction or preface. In earlier years, publishers included a statement of thanks for printing this publication. However, later years provided population statistics, infrastructure, and city life. The introduction also explained how the information was collected. In most cases the publishers used canvassers in each of the neighborhoods to collect and record the data. Next comes an index of abbreviations, a table of contents, and the street guide. Abbreviations are included directly before the general listings and remained somewhat consistent over the years with few changes in usage. After the general listings are usually the business guide and the government and professional guide. It’s important to remember that not all directories are created equally. Different publishers had different formats. At the onset of our research, we first went to the Street Directory to begin collecting the demographic data. Listed by street names in Columbia, each resident can be found by numbered addresses or alleyways and by city blocks. We encountered a few problems while collecting the data as many times the street addresses were inconsistent. In order to determine which residents lived within our project areas we used the Street and Avenue guide in conjunction with our working knowledge of the city’s ward boundaries and the numbering system used for listing addresses. In 1875, house addresses in the city increased moving from west to east. Ward boundaries increased from the south to the north (i.e. Ward One’s region began in the southern limits of the city). After recording the names of the residents in the Street and Avenue guide, we would go to parts of the General Directory (White or Colored Directory) and document their occupation, ethnicity, spousal information, and other relevant notes. It is important to note that occasionally a resident was not found in the General Directory even though they were previously listed in the Street and Avenue guide, and vis-versa. 3
Several strategic methods were used to locate and record residents in the census and the city directory. One strategy was to compare racial indicators or ethnicity. In the Street Directory, for example, if John Doe was listed as “colored” but cannot be found in the Colored Department the researcher was instructed to check the General Directory or the White Department. As one publisher stated, “Errors often creep in” (Walsh, 1922). Other strategies included locating residents by examining alternate spelling in the census and the city directory. An example of this can be found by searching the Pearson family. The family lived in “the Bottoms” since the late 1800s. In 1903, the Pearsons could be found in the Colored Directory on page 431. At the time, the canvassers spelled their name, Pierson. In the Colored Directory, Henry Pierson was married to Lella, and they lived on Gregg Street. A continued search in 1912 will show the Pearson family still lived on Gregg Street with other family members. Researchers noticed the spelling from Pierson to Pearson. Checking with the census similar problems occurred. In 1900, the census listed the Pearson’s ethnicity as white and living on Gregg Street. However, in 1910, the census listed the Pierson’s ethnicity as mulatto and living on Gregg Street. One can conclude that the Piersons and the Pearsons are the same family based on information from the census and the city directory. Today, the Pearsons are the owners of Pearson’s Funeral Home on North Main. Checking the alphabetical listing in another section of the directory, like the White Department, can provide additional clues. This practice of cross-referencing was also used with the census records. Enumerators were required to record the street address on the census sheets (although in some cases this information was missing). By searching records for a resident on Barnwell Street, for example, one may find relatives and neighbors on the same street or area. Since the census is taken decennially, cross-referencing residents was important to see patterns in migration, literacy rates, and occupational changes. We made sure to look for the census that was closest to the time period researched in order to access the most accurate and up-to-date information. Columbia City Directory information was collected as it became available either from either digital records or from the Richland County Public Library and University of South Carolina South Caroliniana Library from 1875 to 1930. The type of information included in the directory was listed as the homeowner or resident, ethnicity, spousal information (if provided), and the address. If the resident owned a business, it may be noted. More often, if the resident was solicited in the directory, it was noted what page he or she was listed in the general directory. This was in large part because it was the responsibility of the publishers of the directories to do their own research and canvassing. According to Walsh in the preface of the 1910 directory, canvassing was performed by trained experts and special emphasis was placed on those collecting information in order to ensure its reliability and was “correspondingly dependable” (Walsh, 1910). Whereas the United States Federal Census employed enumerators, some of the publishers of the city directories mailed forms to residents and businesses for them to fill out themselves. Information from the South Carolina State Gazetteer and Business Directory 1880 – 1881, contained names, businesses, and addresses of the merchants, professionals and business men in the state and how to reach them. Different from the Columbia City Directory, the Gazetteer did not contain information on local residents or their addresses. To obtain information for the Gazetteer, it forwarded “letters, dispatches and other important communications straight to their destinations” for advertisements (South Carolina Gazetteer and Business Directory, 1881). Businesses from across the county would also advertise in the Gazetteer. Other publishers of city directories, such as Walsh’s and the Lutheran Board of Publications mailed forms and pamphlet supplements to businesses. Many publishers of the city directory hired researchers, similar to census enumerators, to canvass and collect information for inclusion into the directory. The Hill
4
Directory Company stated, “Information is gathered by an actual canvass and is compiled in a way to insure maximum accuracy” (Hill Directory Company, 1909). We collected data from at least seven publishers of city directories and gazetteers. Those included The Southern Directory Agency of Columbia, SC, The Walsh Directory Company, Hills Directory Company, Maloney Directory Company, Beaslely & Emerson’s Columbia Directory, Power Press of W. W. Figure 2. A Disclaimer from Hill’s Columbia, SC City Directory, 1930, page 6 Deane and the South Carolina State Gazetteer, 1880 – 81. These publishers (courtesy of Richland County Library). seemed to keep a similar format. All of the
publications had a preface or introductory, street directory, a general directory, and a government and business/professional directory. There is one difference that is glaring, and it can be seen year after year – that is identifying race.
RACIALIZATION The Columbia, South Carolina City Directories always listed race until 1952. Abbreviations in the city directories were mostly similar; some publishers used “c” for colored and others used an asterisk (*) beside the residents’ name to denote the color or race of that individual as a minority. “W” for white was never used as an indication of race in the directory. The directory stated if there was not a mention of race, the resident was white. Virtually all publishers for the city directory separated race in one way or another. For example, the Maloney’s Columbia City Directory was the first to create a separate race section in the 1897 – 98 edition. In other sections of the directory, such as the Miscellaneous Directory, the publisher included “colored” categories. If there was a church listing, there would also be a listing for “Colored Churches.” The same would apply for social groups, schools, and businesses. The only city directories found during the Reconstruction Era were published in 1868 and 1875. Publishers were Power Press of W. W. Dean in 1868 and Beasley and Emerson in 1875. In the 1868 directory, the only mention of race was in the Appendix for City and District Officers. On page 24, only two city officers were identified as colored in the entire directory. Mr. Wm Smith was the Alderman for Ward 1, and Mr. Wm Simons was the Alderman for Ward 4. The abbreviation, “col.” was used by the publisher. However, The Honorable Francis L. Cordozo, the only African American elected as Secretary of State, was not identified as colored in the directory. It seems that the researcher must already know the race of the individual in order to identify him. In the 1875 directory, Beasley and Emerson included African American leaders in the Appendix (City Government) but did not identify them as such. Mr. Wm Simons held several positions on different committees as a City Alderman (Beasley and Emerson, 1875). The directory also printed that he served in the state legislature. This information was confirmed with a search in the 1870 census. In 2007, the 117th Session of the SC General Assembly passed House Bill 3695. This bill recognized those 5
African Americans who served in South Carolina’s executive, judicial, and legislative branches of government. Wm Simons served two terms: from 1868 – 1872 and from 1874 – 1876 he was a member of the state legislature. Some publishers used abbreviations and symbols to state the color or race of the individual but they Figure 3. White Owned Business Advertisement in the Colored Department. 1905, were not used consistently. However, in The Walsh Directory, Colored Department, page 461 (courtesy of the Richland 1904, Walsh’s Publishing Company first County Library). separated race as the “White Department” and the “Colored Department” and continued this practice until 1952. This became a popular trend other publishers used for their format. Prior to that, residents’ ethnicity was listed next to their name and before their address. In 1922 and later, the city directory renamed these sections as “White Population” and “Colored Population”. As a means of protection from legal action, several directories included a disclaimer in the event errors may be found (Figure 2). In 1922, for example, Walsh’s city directory stated, “We assume no responsibility for its wrong use” (Walsh, 1922). They also stated when speaking about identifying colored persons or firms that “errors often creep in” (Ibid). Nearly every directory published made a statement concerning errors since 1879. Still, in 1950, as the country was moving toward integration, the Directory of City of Columbia, SC no longer separated race by Colored Population; however, residents’ ethnicity was identified. Later, in 1952 the city directory no longer identified any residents by race or ethnicity. Another item we looked at during our research was advertisements. Advertisements in the Columbia City Directory were printed throughout the directory. Advertisements for white-owned local businesses were throughout the city directory. They were printed on either white paper or on bright colored paper. However, there were no full page ads appearing in the Colored directory. Another type of advertisement used was on one inch portions of the top, bottom and sides (usually outer edge from the seam of the page). These were called top, bottom, and side lines. This type of advertising was not restricted to black only businesses. Most African American-owned businesses appeared in the back of the directory, although a very few were printed in the front of the directory as well. For example, the Maloney 1897 – 1898 city directory listed the “Colored Undertakers’ Company”. Their ½ page ad was located on page 356 behind the colored population in the back of the directory (Maloney, 1897). This advertisement was the next to last page of the Business Classified Directory. Yet, in the 1904 – 1905 Walsh’s city directory, page 7 listed T. T. Henry, black man, as an attorney and insurance agent for NC Mutual & Provident Association of North Carolina. NC Mutual was the first largest, African American-owned insurance company in the nation. Mr. Henry’s office was at 1118½ Washington Street near the corner of Assembly Street. A historic marker is currently located at the former site on Washington Street. Later, Walsh’s 1905 city directory listed an advertisement from John R. Cornwell’s barber shop on page 5. Mr. Cornwell was a black man whose business served white customers. Mr. Cornwell may have been considered a celebrity among barbers during his lifetime in Columbia. On January 1, 1930, The State published an article, “JOHN 6
CORNWELL HAS SERVED MANY: Prides Himself on Well Known Men Who He Has Shaved.”. The article stated that some of his customers were well known citizens of Columbia. They included N.G. Gonzales, the first editor of The State, bankers, clergy, and the superintendent of the Figure 4. Advertisement from a White Owned Business in the White Department. 1906, The Walsh Directory, Appendix, page 75 (courtesy of the Richland County Library).
Southern Railway (The State, 1930). His notoriety also drew national acclaim as the barber for
the president of the American Hotel Association of the United States and Canada (Ibid). At the time of his death, Mr. Cornwell had been in business nearly 30 years. Beginning in 1904, Walsh and other city directory publishers identified Columbia city residents by race and placed them into separately titles sections. This is how the White Directory and the Colored Directory were created. Publishers even distinguished them from one another by printing them in the directory using different ink colors or on different colored paper (i.e., red, blue, yellow, or pink). Walsh states the reason for this practice was “in order to ascertain information wanted with rapidity” (Walsh, 1912). In 1905, McMillan’s Drug Store, a white owned business, placed an ad on page 461 of the Colored Department (Figure 3). He used the slogan “EVERYBODY KNOWS HIS PLACE” in the top lines of the directory that are seen easily. However, in 1906, McMillian’s used a slightly different slogan in the Appendix and White Directory (Figure 4). This section was in the front of the directory, near the White Directory. On page 75, the drug store used the slogan “EVERYBODY KNOWS The Best Soda Water Comes at McMillian’s”. Using our strategy of cross-referencing, we identified Mr. Millan’s drug store as a white owned business. On page 302 of the White Directory, Mr. William C. McMillan and spouse Sarah, lists their residence and business on Main Street. It also states his business advertisements are on the “top lines”. This practice of separating races in the directory continued for many years. Finally, in 1952 around the beginning of the civil rights movement, there was no identification of race at all in the city directory.
CONCLUSION Of all the data collected, the Columbia City Directory was the most helpful in understanding neighborhood and community life. Each directory contained an introduction or preface which contained pictures of Columbia, population statistics and other interesting facts. However, we learned from other sources, too. When the city directory listed males as heads of households, the US Federal Census showed women supporting their families as laundresses and small business owners. We also learned how race was included as an important factor in all of the documents we researched. History has taught us of the struggle and success that came from the time of Reconstruction through Jim Crow. Race was always documented. Maybe this is a lesson from the past to the future when looking at communities like mine. 7
TABLE 1. PUBLISHERS AND OTHER ELEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE COLUMBIA CITY DIRECTORY YEAR
PUBLISHER
PREFACE or INTRODUCTION, and Other Information
1875-76
Beasley and Emerson’s; Columbia, Richland County, SC
“Introductory”, p. 14; expression of thanks.
1879-
Chas. Emerson & Co; Charleston, SC
“Introductory”, p. 10; states that other contents
1880
include a post office directory, the census of Columbia, and a gazetteer of Richland County.
1897-
Maloney Directory Company; the Office of the
“Prefactory”, p. 3; contains population totals for
1898
Librarian of Congress at Washington, DC
the Columbia and states “every name in the directory is 3 white persons to every 3⅓ colored persons”.
1899
Wm. H. Walsh, publisher; Charleston, SC
“Introductory”, p. 10; states that Columbia’s population has increased to more than 26,000.
1901
W. H. Walsh Directory Co.; Charleston, SC
Incomplete directory on line. No preface or introduction was found.
1903
W. H. Walsh Directory Co.; Charleston, SC
Preface, p. 16; states that the city’s population increased. Nearly “9,000 more people make their homes within the same radius” than the previous year. Columbia is a “great railroad centre” according to the directory.
1904
W. H. Walsh Directory Co.; Charleston, SC
Preface, p. 12. The directory admits to making a “radical decision” to separate the races on tinted paper to rapidly access the information.
1905
The Walsh Directory Co.; Charleston, SC
Preface, p. 8; contains census total population information of the city in 1900, 1905, and 1910 (projected). The directory states that Columbia’s population has increased more than 31% since the 1900 census. It also encourages the city to make improvements on the city’s landscapes. The publisher suggests paving Main Street from the Capitol to the Post Office. Also, sidewalks should be laid on principal streets.
1906
Walsh’s Columbia, South Carolina City Directory;
Preface, p. 6; contains census total population
Charleston, SC
information of the city in 1905 & 1906 (projected). Walsh states there are 12,492 names listed (not including the names of wives). The publisher continues to ask Columbians to beautify the city.
1907-08
Walsh’s Columbia, South Carolina City Directory;
Preface, p. 14; contains census total population
Charleston, SC
information of the city in 1900, 1905, 1906, 1907. The publisher also estimates the white
8
population increased 1,425 from the total number of names in the directory. The colored population increased by 800 from the previous volume. 1909
Walsh’s Columbia, South Carolina City Directory;
Preface, p. 18; contains census total population
Charleston, SC
information of the city in 1909. Also, includes an appendix (miscellaneous directory) for government, churches, social clubs, etc. The publisher admits having a decrease of names from the previous volume (about 773 names).
1910
Walsh’s Columbia, South Carolina City Directory;
Preface, p. 6; contains city populations,
Charleston, SC
including white and colored. The publisher states that the time of canvassing will be made during the winter months.
1911
Walsh’s Columbia, South Carolina City Directory;
Preface, p. 16; contains total city population;
Charleston, SC
mentions 8 tributary territories. They include Eau Claire, College Place, Colonial Heights, Hyatt Park, Waverly, part of the Mill Villages, and Brookland as a part of the City.
1912
Walsh’s Directory Company; Charleston, SC
Preface, p. 12; contains population statistics for “Greater Columbia”; mentions that 64 regular passenger trains and 65 regular freight trains travel in and out of Columbia daily. Home telephone numbers are published in the White Directory only.
1913
The Walsh Directory Co.; Charleston, SC
Preface, p. 14; gives brief description of infrastructure, population increases, and total amounts of taxable property. Also states that Columbia has a “get together spirit”. The publisher admits a new feature to the directory. This is the first year telephone numbers are included with person’s names in the White and Colored Directory. However, home telephone numbers were included in the previous volume.
1914
The Walsh Directory Co.; Charleston, SC
Preface, p. 10; continues to include home telephone numbers with names in the directory in the White and Colored Directory.
1915
The Walsh Directory Co.; Charleston, SC
Preface, p. 10; states “there are about 130 regular passenger and freight trains in and out of Columbia daily”.
1916
The Walsh Directory Co.; Charleston, SC
Incomplete directory; No preface found.
9
The directory continues to include home telephone numbers in the White and Colored listings. 1917
The Walsh Directory Co.; Charleston, SC
Preface, p. 12; states the increase in white and colored names in the directory. The directory continues to include home telephone numbers in the White and Colored listings.
1922
Walsh’s Columbia, South Carolina City Directory; Compiled by Ernest H. Miller, The Miler Press, Ashville, NC
1927
Preface, p. 8, written by “The House of Directories”. This is the 27th edition of the Columbia City Directory by Walsh.
The State Company Printers and Publishers; Columbia,
This directory does not contain a preface or
SC
introduction; however, a statement appears on page 6 of the directory. The publishers state they are making an attempt to condense the directory by making it more compact and by “eliminating less bulky paper stock”. The street Directory appears on page 19. A Business and Classified Directory is included on page 693. A calendar (1927 & 1928) is included on page 746. A South Carolina map (including county boundaries and railroads) on page 747.
1928
The State Company Printers and Publishers; Columbia,
Although not identified as a preface or
SC
introductory, page 2-3 provide the reader with similar information. Discusses Columbia’s connection with Inter-State Commerce.
1930
Hill Directory Co., Inc. Publishers; Richmond, VA
Introduction, p. 12 Contains an extensive description on city life, government, major industry, churches, etc.
10
TABLE 2. ETHNICITY IN THE DIRECTORY YEAR
1875-76
RACIAL NOTATIONS
DETAILS in the SEPARATION OF RACES
and ABBREVIATIONS
and ADVERTISEMENTS
Used “c” to identify colored persons.
African American owed businesses are not identified in advertisements or in the business sections of the directory. African Americans in government are not identified.
1879-
Italicized “c” to identify colored persons.
1880
No separation of the races appears in this directory other than identifying colored persons. African American owned businesses are not identified in the business directory.
1897-98
Used “c” for colored persons in the Street and Avenue
Publishers includes the Columbia Directory
Department and Classified Business Directory.
(but does not state this section is for “white persons”) and Colored Population (page 265). The Miscellaneous Directory including businesses, churches, cemeteries, secret organizations, etc. are separated by race into categories.
1899
Used “c” to identify colored persons in General
No separation of the races appears in this
Directory.
directory other than identifying colored persons. The publisher indicates “colored” listings in Miscellaneous Directory and identifies them as “c” in the Business Directory.
1901
Italicized “c” to identify colored persons in General
No separation of the races appears in this
Directory.
directory other than identifying colored persons. Incomplete general directory; list residents through “O”.
1903
Used an asterisk to identify “colored” persons.
No separation of races appears except in some parts of the Miscellaneous Directory (Appendix).
1904
Separates names by General Department of White
The Appendix (the same as miscellaneous for
Names and General Department of Colored Names.
most directories) separates races into categories such as, the state government departments listings, board of education commissioners, colored churches, parks, colored societies, etc. An asterisk (*) for colored listings appears in the Street and Avenue Department for business listings.
1905
Separates names by White Department and Colored
The Appendix (the same as miscellaneous for
Department.
most directories) separates races, contains categories such as, the state government
11
departments listings, board of education commissioners, colored churches, parks, colored societies, etc. Used “c” for colored persons in the Street and Avenue Department and in the Business and Professional Department. 1906
Separates names by White Department and Colored
The Colored Department is printed on red
Department. Used “c” for colored persons in the Street
paper (page 415). The Appendix (the same as
and Avenue Department and in the Business and
miscellaneous for most directories) separates
Professional Department.
races. Also uses an asterisk (*) in the Street and Avenue Department for business listings. The Business and Professional Department uses “c” for colored listings.
1907-08
1909
Separates names by White Department and Colored
The Colored Department is printed on red
Department. Used “c” for colored persons in the Street
paper (page 445). Also uses an asterisk (*) in
and Avenue Department and in the Business and
the Street and Avenue Department for business
Professional Department.
listings.
Separates names by White Department and Colored
The Colored Department is printed on red
Department. Used “c” in the Street and Avenue
paper (page 335). An Appendix (the same as
Department and in the Business and Professional
miscellaneous for most directories) separates
Department.
races by categories. An asterisk (*) is used in the Street and Avenue Department for business listings.
1910
Separates names by White Department and Colored
The Colored Department is printed on red
Department. Used “c” in the Street and Avenue
paper (page 347). A “c” identifies “colored” in
Department and in the Business and Professional
the Street and in Business Directory. An
Department.
asterisk is used in the Street and Avenue Department for business listings.
1911
Separates names by White Department and Colored
The Colored Department is printed on red
Department.
paper (page 357) and uses “c” to identify
*Business and Professional Department does not separate the races but recommends to refer to the General Department.
“colored” in the Street and in Business Directory. An asterisk in the Street Directory indicates a business. The Miscellaneous Directory (page 85) separates categories by colored schools, colored organizations, colored churches, colored societies, etc.
1912
Separates names by Colored Department and White
The White Department (page 163) includes
Department.
home telephone numbers in the listings. The
*Business and Professional Department does not separate the races but recommends referring to the General Department.
Colored Department is printed on red paper (page 367) and does not include home telephone numbers with the names of persons. An Appendix (the same as miscellaneous for most directories) separates categories by race. The Business and Professional Directory (page
12
465) does not separate categories by race, but uses “c” to identify colored persons. 1913
Separates names by White Department and Colored
The White Department (page 165) includes
Department Directory.
telephone numbers. This is the first year the publishers include home telephone numbers in the Colored Directory (page 393). The Street and Avenue Department (page 101) uses “c” to identify colored persons. An asterisk identifies businesses. In the Business and Professional Department (page 489), “c” is used to identify colored persons.
1914
Separates names by White Department and Colored
The White Department (page 167) and the
Department.
Colored Department (page 393) include home telephone numbers in the listings.
1915
Separates names by White Department and Colored
The White Department begins on page 165
Department.
and includes home telephone numbers. The Colored Department begins on page 383 and also includes home telephone numbers. An asterisk (*) identifies a business in the Street Directory. A “c” identifies colored persons in the Street and Business directories.
1916
Separates names by White Department and Colored
The White Department begins on page 171
Department.
and includes home telephone numbers. The Colored Department begins on page 417 and also includes home telephone numbers. An asterisk (*) identifies a business in the Street Directory. A “c” identifies colored persons in the Street and Business directories. Within the Miscellaneous Directory (Appendix) organizations, churches, schools, etc. are separated by race.
1917
Separates names into White Department and Colored
The White Department of Names (page 171)
Department.
and the Colored Department of Names (page 433) include persons addresses and home telephone numbers (page 171).
1922
Separates names by Colored Department – Directory of
An asterisk (*) identifies colored persons in the
the City of Columbia, SC on page 429. The White
Street and in Business Directory (page 21).
Department is not identified as such on page 101, but is
However, in the Miscellaneous Directory (page
identified in the general index.
13), colored organizations, churches, schools, etc. are separated. For the Colored Department (page 429), residents are printed on white paper using red ink.
1927
Separates names by Directory of White Persons and
An asterisk (*) identifies “colored” in the Street
13
Directory of Colored Persons.
and in Business Directory (page 19). However, in the Miscellaneous Directory (page 7), colored organizations, churches, schools, etc. are separated. The Directory of White Persons (page 111) list home telephone numbers. The Directory of Colored Persons (page 549) also provided home telephone numbers.
1928
Separates names by Directory of White Persons and
The City and Suburban Street Directory states
Directory of Colored Persons.
a disclaimer that the person or firm is colored but they “assume no responsibility for its wrong use” and “in spite of utmost care, errors at times occur”. Home telephones are listed in the Directory of White Persons (page 117). Unable to find home telephone numbers in the Directory of Colored Persons (page 537).
1930
Separates names by Alphabetical List of Names - the
Telephone numbers are not listed in either the
White Population and the Colored Population.
White Population (page 69) or in the Colored Population (page 543). Telephone numbers are only listed in the Classified Business Guide (page 889). In the Street and Avenue Guide, “c” denotes colored.
14
TABLE 3. ETHNICITY FROM THE 1900 CENSUS YEAR
PROJECT AREA
AFRICAN AMERICAN
WHITE
1900
The Bottoms
82%
18%
1900
Wheeler Hill
100%
0%
1900
North Downtown
42%
58%
15