Chapter 12 -- The Association of Southern Women to Prevent Lynching

Page 1 of 7

CHAPTER ELEVEN ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHERN WOMEN TO PREVENT LYNCHING – Ed Sebesta 10/10/2020 Sumners and the Association of Southern Women for the Prevention of Lynching worked together to prevent the passage of federal anti-lynching legislation as not necessarily revealed in one communication but all of them in an aggregate.

In preparation for his speeches against the anti-lynching bill, Sumners writes Mrs. Jessie Daniel Ames, the executive director of the Southern Women for the Prevention of Lynching, in a Feb. 2, 1937 letter requesting their booklet on 1936 lynchings explaining he already has their booklets on lynchings for the years 1934 and 1935.1 In response to a Feb. 5, 1937 telegram sent by Sumners to Ames,2 Ames telegrams Sumners with other information on lynchings Feb. 5, 1937.3 This was followed by a lengthy letter from Ames to Sumners also dated Feb. 5, 1937 which included their 1936 count of lynching followed by a lengthy discussion on whether there had been eight or nine lynchings and what should count as a lynching and whether a particular lynching in Arkansas should be counted as a lynching. Ames also requests copies of the anti-lynching bills before congress. Ames concludes with the comment that their annual reports are, “showing progress throughout the country both in the change of attitude on the part of the citizens and an ever-increasing determination on the part of officers to eradicate lynching voluntarily will be in this report.” This is reference to their 1936 report.4 On Feb. 9, 1937 Sumners send Ames a very cordial letter thanking her for the information.5 Up to this point the correspondence is that of a U.S. House Representative requesting information from those who collect information on lynching. The letter of Ames to Sumners March 8, 1937 has a revealing sentence. After reviewing the statistics of declining lynching Ames states, “Of course, it makes awfully good propaganda to say that we have lynched 4,582 times but an analysis of the periods in which we lynched is most revealing.” This is a comment dismissing what evidently is a statement made by proponents of anti-lynching legislation have said.6

1

HWS to Mrs. Jessie Daniel Ames, Feb. 2, 1937. DHS Box 75.8.3. Ames didn’t use her legal name but instead used her husband’s name in her correspondence.

2 HWS to Mrs. Jessie Daniels Ames, Feb. 5, 1937. DHS Box 73.8.3. XXX 3 Mrs. Jessie Daniel Ames to HWS, telegram, Feb. 5, 1937. DHS Box 71.4.6.

4 Mrs. Jessie Daniel Ames to HWS, Feb. 5, 1937. DHS Box 71.4.6.

5 HWS to Mrs. Jessie Daniel Ames, Feb. 9, 1937. DHS Box 71.4.6.

6 Ames to HWS, March 8, 1937. DHS Box 75.8.3.

Page 2 of 7

However, it is a March 25, 1937 letter by Sumners to Ames which makes it clear what the agenda of Ames is regarding federal anti-lynching legislation.

My dear Mrs. Ames: Next Wednesday has been determined upon for the beginning of a hearing before the Committee on the Judiciary on Anti-Lynching bills. There are fifty-nine in number now pending.

A petition is on file with the Clerk of the House to discharge the Committee with almost two hundred signatures.

It seems to me a great pity when the States have reduced this crime practically to the vanishing point that the Federal Government should be permitted to come in and retard the development of local attitude and purpose and efficiency to deal with lynching and then to extend the power of the Federal Government into the general governmental structure fa[r]ther than it has ever gone and in fact to change the character of that Federal interference from a cooperative, helpful attitude to a governmental over-lordship, where in effect, the Federal Government institutes prosecution against the States. The support of the bill is, of course, well organized.

It is probably that you are best advised as to those who hold with you that the Federal Government should not intervene. I would appreciate it if you would advise them of that fact that this hearing is to take place and let me have a suggested list of those who might be induced to come to oppose that legislation. Of course, we want good, level headed, effective people. 7 [Boldface added.]

What is clear is that the Association of Southern Women for the Prevention of Lynching are not only against any federal anti-lynching legislation, but they are actively working with Sumners to prevent the passage of federal anti-lynching legislation. Sumners’ letter is written with the understanding that they will and want to help him block federal antilynching legislation. There is no question if they will actively helping him, just a request to help in a specific way.

On March 29, 1937, Sumners telegrams Ames to ask for a reply to an earlier letter and expresses his hopes that Ames will be at the hearings, presumably about the antilynching bill.8

7 8

HWS to Mrs. Jessie Daniel Ames, March 25, 1937. DHS Box 71.4.6.

HSW to Mrs. Jessie Daniel Ames, March 29, 1937. DHS Box 73.8.3.

Page 3 of 7

There comes from Ames in a March 29, 1937 letter to Sumners this following appalling reply. African Americans are characterized as emotional. Also, Ames states the letter is confidential and this letter was never intended to be seen by anyone else besides Sumners. It reveals the real agenda and attitude of the Association of Southern Women for the Prevention of Lynching. As follows: My dear Mr. Sumners: I have just sent you the following wire: Reply to letter delayed absence from office Stop Previous engagement prevents my being in Washington on thirty first Stop Sending air mail letter and material tonight.

There is something downright ironic in the insistence of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in the passage of an anti-lynching measure now. Of course, one reason for those in the South favor Federal intervention in lynching is that they want to pass on to the Federal Government both the burden and the unpopularity of an action that we ourselves should take.

It is all a matter of political expediency, on the part of those who are urging it in Congress and outside of Congress. It is one of the penalties that is exacted of use as a National party now instead of a sectional one.

Pressure can be brought to bear and no doubt will on the leaders of the House – as well as on the leaders of the Senate – who are Southern men, by those Democrats elected to the Congress from states where Negroes hold the balance of power. The Negros have been so worked upon emotionally in reference to this anti-lynching measure that it would take very little political action in these doubtful states to swing their vote against the present incumbents. How much the activities of the President in behalf of the Negro would offset the failure of the Congress to pass this anti-lynching measure, no one can say.

Personally, from my own contacts with Negroes and white people both in the South in the remoter areas, I believe that the anti-lynching measure will not be enforceable, I do not believe it will be enforced, and I do believe that for a period of time relations will be quite definitely strained. I could say a great deal more than but it is unnecessary. This letter to you personally and confidentially. The whole situation, to me, is as unfortunate as anything that has arisen since the days of Reconstruction. If the bill comes up and passes and becomes law it is harmful. If the bill comes up and fails to pass it is also harmful.

I hope that you will send me the copies of the hearings before your committee.9 9

Mrs. Jessie Daniel Ames to HWS, March 29, 1937. DHS Box 75.8.3.

Page 4 of 7

In another May 4, 1937 letter from Ames to Sumners it is revealed that she is active in working to prevent passage of federal anti-lynching legislation.

My dear Mr. Sumners: Thank you for the Gavagan Bill, which reached me in Dallas in time for the use I wished to make of it. Of course, the News carried your debate against the bill in rather full detail.

Then, this morning I find that you have sent me a Congressional Record carrying the full debate. I should like very much to have, if you could send them to me, as many as fifty copies. If there is a shortage in supply, send me as many as you can up to that number.

I spent Monday and Tuesday, April 26-27, in Mississippi, one day at Duck Hill and one morning with Governor White. In a day or two I am going to send you a report of the things I learned about that lynching, without editorial bias. As tragic as the lynching was, the circumstances surrounding it confirm my conviction that Federal anti-lynching legislation is not going to take care of our situation.

There is no need for me to tell you – for I am sure you know it – that failure on the part of Mississippi to act in this instance is turning many Southern people, out of sheer desperation, to advocate Federal action as the only way out. For a little while after this lynching I had the same feeling but I knew it would not stay with me because my convictions are built upon personal investigation and facts.

The Mississippi Council for the Prevention of Lynching is calling a public meeting on May twenty-seventh to discuss lynching and whether or not Mississippi can or will do anything about the lynching at Duck Hill. This public meeting is the first time in the history of the South that there has been any public meeting called as a result of lynching. They are going to give it a great deal of publicity and we have the tentative promise of the Governor to be present. Could you find it possible to come down?

Again thanking you for all the material you have sent me, I am10 However, it seems not everyone has gotten the message that the Association of Southern Women for the Prevention of Lynching is publically to be seen as neutral. Mrs. L.W. Alford chairman of the Mississippi Council of the ASWPL telegrams Sumners on May 1,

10

Mrs. Jessie Daniel Ames to HWS, May 4, 1937. DHS Box 75.8.5.

Page 5 of 7

1937 to speak at their public meeting asking him, “… will you address the group on why not federal anti lynching law …”11 However, on May 5, 1937 Sumners sends a letter to Alford that he is concerned about the topic of the meeting to be anti-lynching and not anti-federal anti-lynching legislation stating: Since writing you this morning, it has occurred to me that it would not be good strategy for me to make an address on the subject suggested at the Public Meeting to be held by your council at Jackson on May 27th. The meeting would be construed as being opposed to anti-lynching legislation; whereas, to be effective it should be a meeting opposed to lynching. This suggestion is very important.

There should be nothing connected with your meeting to indicate that you are trying to defeat the anti-lynching legislation; on the contrary, everything should indicate that you are trying to stop mob violence and that this is the whole purpose of the meeting.

I am very much interested in the success of this meeting and I shall appreciate having your views with the above suggestion.12 Though the ASWLP and Sumners are actively working together to defeat federal antilynching legislation it is important to Sumners that the ASWLP appear publically not to have a position on this legislation and appear to be a neutral disinterested party.

Sumners is quick to alert Ames in a May 6, 1937 letter that the Mississippi branch of the ASWLP has made this suggestion and that the event shouldn’t discuss legislation.

Sumners states: I wrote urgently recommending that no reference made to the Federal AntiLynching legislation, and that this meeting be had solely in protest against lynching and in the development of ways and means, etc.

I wish you would second my suggestion. Of course, I would speak in opposition to Federal Anti-Lynching legislation as a means. As soon as I have some copies of my speech printed, I will send you fifty copies.13 Ames writes back May 17, 1937 about federal legislation. It isn’t clear if it is in response to Sumners May 6th letter or some other letter. Ames assures Sumners as follows: 11

Mrs. L.W. Alford to HWS, telegram, May 1, 1937. DHS Box 75.8.5. The telegram uses Alfords married name. The abbreviation is CHM for chairman.

12 HWS to Mr. L.W. Alford, May 4, 1937. DHS Box 75.8.5.

13 HWS to Mrs. Jessie Daniel Ames, May 6, 1937. DHS Box 75.8.5.

Page 6 of 7

We are not leaning toward support of Federal anti-lynching legislation and as long as I am Executive Director of the Association, we will not lean that way. The very fact that we have too many opportunities to do away with Negroes in the South on the general charge of “resisting arrest” or “trying to escape”, makes Federal anti-lynching legislation an extremely dangerous thing for Negroes and, I am afraid, a degrading influence on the whites.14 However, Ames wasn’t sure whether a Senate version of the anti-lynching bill was objectionable and wrote Sumners in a July 2, 1937 letter that an earlier letter by Sumners, “…. Seemed to indicate disappointment in me as well as surprise in my attitude on the Wagner-Van Nuys Bill.” Ames explains how she sees the Wagner-Van Nuys bill as not being objectionable as the Gavagan bill.15 Sumner sends the following July 7, 1937 letter in reply to Ames: My dear Mrs. Ames: I am in receipt of your letter of July 2d. You guessed my re-action the first time.

After receiving your letter I sent for a copy of the Wagner-Van Nuys Bill. I must confess that I did not discover anything in that Bill which seems to me to warrant its support by anyone who opposed the Gavagan Bill.

I can appreciate that the people who are supporting your organizations may be short-sighted enough to be willing for this radical extension of Federal power over the states, because either they have not considered the matter, or they are being govern by a sloppy sort of sentiment which has no place in the determination of governmental policies. But, it is difficult for me to understand how you, with the background of your experience and the back-ground of your achievement in removing the necessity for this legislation, could advocate it now at a time when the crime is disappearing.

I think to rob the states, and the people of the communities, of the deserved credit, the hard won credit, of this achievement, and give the credit to the Federal Government for the victory won, at this time when everyone is complaining of the extension of Federal power, is a tragic thing for which a foolish people are going to have to pay.16

14

Mrs. Jessie Daniel Ames to HWS, May 17, 1937. DHS Box 75.8.5.

Mrs. Jessie Daniel Ames to HWS, July 2, 1937. DHS Box 75.8.6.

16 HWS to Mrs. Jessie Daniel Ames, July 7, 1937. DHS Box 75.8.6.

15

Page 7 of 7

Again, the term “short-sighted” indicates that Sumners considers the chain of consequences of a piece of legislation might initiate. He also ties opposition to federal anti-lynching legislation to opposition to the New Deal.

After this exchange the ASWLP still sends information to Sumners about lynching and in the DHS papers there are letters as late as 1939, but there is no record of Ames working closely in cooperation with Sumners to defeat specific legislation. Though Box 99 on the topic of lynching has gone missing from the records. There has been new substantial acquisitions of materials, so it might be that additional letters will be discovered. One reason that the correspondence is less and is lacking in terms of cooperation in opposing federal anti-lynching legislation is that the ASWLP has adopted in 1939 a resolution supporting federal anti-lynching legislation.

In one of the DHS Boxes of the Sumners papers is a pink paper strip titled, “Objectives of the Association of Southern Women for the Prevention of Lynching adopted January 27, 1939.” At the bottom of the paper strip is published a “Resolution,” part of which states that they support a proposed bill mentioned in an Associated Press news item of January 22nd to have the Federal Bureau of Investigation investigate lynching and other forms of mob violence. In regards to this proposed federal bill they resolve.

THEREFORE, Be it resolved that this body is of the opinion that such a measure will be constructive step in the eradication of the evils of mob violence. 17 Going forward Sumners will be opposing federal anti-lynching legislation on his own.

But Ames and Sumners have accomplished their task and there won’t be another major push for anti-lynching legislation in the 20th century.

17

DHS Box 112.2.15. A pink slip of paper titled, “Objectives of the Association of Southern Women for the Prevention of Lynching adopted January 27, 1939.”