The Poll Tax and Poll Taxers

Author(s): William M. Brewer

Source: The Journal of Negro History, Vol. 29, No. 3 (Jul., 1944), pp. 260-299
Published by: Association for the Study of African American Life and History, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2714819 .
Accessed: 02/04/2011 11:44

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asalh. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Association for the Study of African American Life and History, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to The Journal of Negro History.

http://www.jstor.org
 THE POLL TAX AND POLL TAXERS
The recent movement to repeal southern poll taxes stems
from Reconstruction history in general and specifically
from the period of depression. Some of the historical back-
ground of the present conflicting and opposing forces is
pertinent to an understanding of the issues which are in-
volved in the proposed legislation. The decision of the
United States Supreme Court on October 15, 1883, in the
Civil Rights Cases nullified the Civil Rights Bill which
guaranteed accommodations in inns, places of amusement,
and on public conveyances regardless of class or race. Mr.
Justice Bradley in the majority decree -said: "On the whole
we are of opinion that no countenance of authority for the
passage of the law in question can be found in either the
Thirteenth or Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution;
and no other ground of authority for its passage being sug-
gested, it must necessarily be declared void, at least so far
as its operation in the several States is concerned."'1 The
significance of this decree does not consist as much in its
fundamental principles as in the actuality which it accom-
plished. Within the first generation after the Civil War
Calhoun's theory that the States rather than the central
government should handle the ubiquitous race problem re-
ceived sanction.
This significant decision contained incidentally sugges-
tions which were used in developing a frame of reference in
which legislation could be designed to restrict southern suf-
frage and eliminate the participation of the Negro in poli-
tics. In the following twenty-five years the various southern
disfranchisement measures, which reflect similarity in their
purposes, were passed in the Solid South. These statutes
conformed ingeniously to a pattern whose constitutionality
1 United States Supreme Court Beports, 109, p. 25; Ralph H. Gabriel, The

Course of American Democratic Thought, pp. 135-136; Edward S. Corwin, Dic-

tionary of American Biography, III, p. 573; Paul Lewinson, Bace, Class, and
Party, pp. 46-97.

260
 THE POLL TAX AND THE POLL TAXERS 261

depended largely upon the interpretation of the Civil Rights

decision and occasionally transcended its most suggestive
limits. The future Senator Carter Glass expressed the cen-
tral theme of the southern restraining suffrage laws in the
Virginia Convention: "By fraud, no; by discrimination yes.
But it will be discrimination within the letter of the law.
... Discrimination! Why, that is precisely what we propose;
that, exactly, is what this convention was elected for-to
discriminate to the very extremity of permissible action un-
der the limitation of the Federal Constitution, with a view
to the elimination of every Negro voter who can be gotten
rid of, legally, without materially impairing the numerical
strength of the white electorate.... It is a fine discrimina-
tion, indeed, that we have practiced in the fabrication of
this plan. 1 2
This is an extreme statement of the rather uniform ideol-
ogy and opinion which derived from the bitterness of Re-
construction that dominated disfranchisement restrictions
which began in 1890 and were intensified by the Populist
threat to the Solid South. In the administration of codes
drafted with such intention there was unlimited opportunity
for even further extremity and harshness by registration
and election officials.
The sweeping effects of disfranchisement reveal possible
motives of some of its sponsors which strikingly resemble
those which the Slaughter House Cases unearthed and that
Roscoe Conkling contended were in the minds of the de-
signers of the Fourteenth Amendment for the protection of
corporations. Whether or not the crusaders for the disfran-
chisement of Negroes had also in mind the disadvantaged
poor white masses is not always clearly established. The
bourbon-agrarian struggles3 of the late 1880's and early
2 Ibid., Lewinson quotes this, which has been verified, from Virginia De-

bates, p. 68, 1901-1902, pp. 2972-2973, 3076-3077. This is the often cited Glass
Dictum.
3 Ibid., pp. 68, 70. Here is evidence of early suspicions among mass-whites.
262 JouRNAL OF NEGROHISTORY

1890's afford some evidence that restraint of mass-poor

whites was connived at. Populism revived the erstwhile
antagonism and hatred of the plantation aristocracy and the
Piedmont yeomen4 who suspected bourbon designs in the
literacy and poll tax requirements which were destined to
restrict millions of southern poor whites as well as colored
people.5 Singulary disfranchisement could not be and in
practice was not controlled and restricted to Negroes. In
time white men of disadvantage and meager opportunity
fell victims to the disfranchisers and saw the ballot which is
the symbol of freedom and shield of free men's liberties
withheld by the excesses of southern poll tax demands.
The course of southern political practices and insistence
upon the shibboleth of allegiance to one party made the dis-
senting opinion of Mr. Justice Harlan in the Civil Rights
cases of 1883 prophetic of what eventually materialized in
the Twentieth-Century South. He declared: "At some fu-
ture time, it may be that some other race will fall under the
ban of race discrimination. If the constitutional amend-
ments be enforced, according to the intent with which, as I
conceive, they were adopted, there cannot be, in this repub-
lic, any class of human beings in practical subjection to an-
other class, with power in the latter to dole out to the
former just such privileges as they may choose to grant."6
While this construction of the law is ethically and logically
obvious, it exerted no influence on the mores which slavery
had burned into the southern mind and the nation in devious
ways had accepted7 regarding the status of colored people
in the American civilization. Only recently vital humani-
tarian concern and the abuses of poll tax political power
4 Ibid., p. 73. Bourbon monopoly of ofifces aroused Carolinians in the
early 1880's.
5 Katherine D. Lumpkin, The South in Progress, p. 217.
6 United States Supreme Court Beports, 109, p. 62.
7 Gabriel, op. cit., pp. 248-250; William J. Cash, The Mind of the South;
Clarence Cason, 90 Degrees in the Shade; Bertram W. Doyle, The Etiquette of
Slavery.
 THE PoLL TAX AND THE PoLL TAXERS 263

have aroused interest in the consequences and incidence of

the poll taxes in the South during the last decade. The
orientation of this very brief and partial background ap-
pears necessary and relevant as a preface to understanding
of the contemporary movement to repeal poll tax voting re-
quirements.
The programs of reform have awakened the country and
produced cleavages of political power with particular ref-
erence to the South. There the white supremacy conven-
tions of the late 1880's and early 1890's were so alarmed at
the People's Party threat8 that they relentlessly sought to
keep the vote within the ranks of white Democrats. As a
result of these efforts by 1933, excepting the detour in the
election of 1928 when apostasy from the Solid South's faith
was frankly admitted on grounds of opposition to Alfred
Simth's religion, the South followed its tradition and ex-
erted powerful influence in dictating national Democratic
policies. The " Two-Thirds Rule" had long been a perplex-
ing issue in Presidential Democratic nominating conven-
tions and it was seriously questioned in the party conven-
tion of 1932.9 During the first administration of the New
Deal the majority leaders from the North and West con-
cluded that the rule should be abolished and they accom-
plished their purpose in the convention of 1936. Until this
time the South had held a sort of veto power which it had
stubbornly wielded to the exasperation of other sections
since the Civil War in selecting candidates for the Presi-
dency. The loss of this power was jarring.10 When it was
suggested that a "bonus of delegates" might be awarded
to appease the South, actual votes in National Elections
rather than census statistics of population were used as a
8 Hearing Before a Subcommittee of the Judiciary United States Senate
Seventy-Seventh Congress on S. 1280, Part I., pp. 266-267, March 15, 1942.
9Virginius Dabney, "Shall the South's Poll Tax Got" New York Times,
Magazine Section, February 12, 1939, p. 9.
10 John T. Graves, "The Solid South Is Cracking," IAmerican Mercury,
April, 1943, p. 405.
264 JOURNALOFNEGRO
HISTORY

basis of estimating quotas."' This focused attention upon

the franchise practices in the Solid South which had long
been known although little or no organized action was con-
sidered before the New Deal forced the elimination of the
"Two-Thirds Rule" in 1936.
Yielding power and prestige in National Democratic
Conventionswas not so serious as the far-reaching exposure
of vested interests of politicians in the poll tax States.12
Their political careers and fortunes had depended upon the
maintenance not only of one party, but upon a limited and
disinterested electorate that was destined to awake to its
exploitation under the encouragement and stimulation of
publicity. Huey Long used poll taxed constituents to make
himself czar of Louisiana1'and Eugene Talmadge thus rose
to supreme power in Georgia. None of these figures or their
contests threatened the sacred citadels of southern political
power as much as the proposed use of suffrage returns
which shook the very foundations. Twenty-nine distin-
guished southern financiers, labor leaders, newspaper men,
and other notables seized the issues in organizing the South-
ern Policies Committee in early 1939 that demanded the
abolition of the poll tax14as a franchise requirement. Ex-
amination of statistics revealed an estimated disfranchise-
ment of 64% of the white adult voters in the poll-tax States
and in every one of these jurisdictions more whites than
colored people were barred by this tax from voting.15 Ac-
tion took the form of meticulous investigation of election
returns and regional comparisons between the poll tax and
the non-poll tax States.
'1 "Editorial,'" Christian Century, May 11, 1938, p. 581.
12 Graves, loc. cit., p. 406.
13 Dabney, "The Poll Tax Stirs Revolt," National Municipal Review,
Oetober, 1942, p. 488.
14 Dabney, "SIhall the South Is Poll Tax GoI" loc. ct., p. 9.

15 Barry Bingham, Southern Conference for Human Welfare Report, 1942,

P. 5.
 THE PoLL TAX AND THE POLL TAXERS 265

The southern suffrage laws were scrutinized and the na-

tion became aware of the shocking disparities of political
power and the disfranchisement of nearly 11,000,000 citizens
in the Solid South. The following table illustrates estimates:

ELECTION OF 1942
Whites Colored People Total
States Disfranchised Disfranchised Disfranchised
Alabama-815,000 685,000 1,500,000
Arkansas-730,000 320,000 1,030,000
Georgia-980,000 740,000 1,720,000
Mississippi-490,000 755,000 1,245,000
South Carolina- 650,000 570,000 1,220,000
Texas -2,220,000 570,000 2,790,000
Virginia -935,000 430,000 1,365,000
Total -6,820,000 4,070,000 10,890,000

These approximate figures do not include Tennessee, which

would make the total number of Southern disfranchised citi-
zens well over 11,000,000.16 Contrasts of the proportions of
poll tax States and non-poll tax States voting on the basis
of the 1940 Census in the elections of 1942 show that in the
former 3 out of every one hundred people voted and 25 out
of every one hundred people in the latter voted. The tables
on page 266 portray the actual percentages of the States.
The figures on disfranchisement and the comparative re-
gional percentages of voting illustrate the thoroughgoing
factual data which were employed in the movement to pub-
licize poll tax repeal. It should not be inferred, however,
that this record of voting in the South is due to poll taxes
alone. There are other complicated economic, political, and
social forces stemming from the very bottom of Southern
history and tradition even more responsible for the differ-

16National Committee to Abolish the Poll-Tax Bulletin, 1943, p. 4. Table

here presented was constructedfrom data and statisties in this bulletin.
 266 JoURNAL OF NEGRO HISTORY

NON-POLL TAx STATES

Percentage of 1940 Percentage of 1940
States Population Voting States Population Voting
Arizona 16 Nevada 36
California --- 28 New Hampshire 32
Colorado-- - 30 New Jersey 29
Connecticut _ 33 New Mexico __ 20
Delaware --- 32 New York 29
Florida 5* North Carolina 9*
Idaho _ 26 North Dakota - 28
Illinois __ 36 Ohio - -- 25
Indiana ---- 38 Oklahoma -- 19
Iowa - 26 Oregon - - 25
Kansas ---- 27 Pennsylvania -- 25
Kentucky 12 Rhode Island - 33
Louisiana _- 4* South Dakota 27
Maryland 19 Tennessee __ 5
Massachusetts 31 Utah --27
Michigan 22 Vermont - 16
Minnesota 27 Washington 25
Missouri __ 24 West Virginia 24
Montana 30 Wisconsin _ 24
Nebraska __ 27 Wyoming - 30
Average participation in voting for the Non-Poll Tax States 25%o
*Abolition of the poll-tax has not solved the voting problem in these States.

POLL TAX STATES

Percentageof 1940 Percentageof 1940
States Population Voting States Population Voting
Alabama - _- 2 South Carolina 1
Arkansas - - 5 Texas - 4
Georgia 2 Virginia - 3
Mississippi 2
Average participationin voting for the Poll Tax States- 3%7

ence.18 For example, the "one party system" precludes

competition of the kind which in the non-poll tax areas goes
after and brings out voters. Florida, Louisiana, and North
17Ibid., p. 1.
18Hearings Before a Subcommitteeof the Judiciary United States Senate,
Part I, p. 313, op. cit., March 15, 1942.
 THE PorI TAX AND THE POLL TAXERS 267

Carolina, where the poll tax has been repealed, are illustra-
tions of the presence and operation of other causes and
forces which curb voting in the South.
The sheer fact that for various reasons approximately
10,000,000citizens are disfranchised in the Solid South has
given the repealers strong arguments for action based upon
Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment. There the Con-
stitution says: "Representatives shall be apportioned
among the several States according to their respective num-
bers.... But when the right to vote at any election for the
choice of electors for President and Vice President of the
United States, Representatives in Congress .. . is denied to
any of the male inhabitants of such States, being 21 years
of age, and citizens of the United States, or ii any way
abridged . . . the basis of representation therein shall be
reduced in the proportion which the number of such male
citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens 21
years of age in such State."19 The "Force Bill" of 1890 was
based upon this constitutional ground which the poll tax
repealers have cited in their arguments. Section 5 of the
Fourteenth Amendment also states: "The Congress shall
have power to enforce by appropriate legislation the provi-
sions of this article."20 The poll tax repealers thus have
fundamental law on their side, but opposed to this are the
"Southern mores" previously mentioned. There public
opinion, tradition, and ideology to the contrary seem as
deep as life itself and since the passage of the above cited
amendment have by-passed its enforcement.
Were the Fourteenth Amendment invoked and enforced
in the poll tax States, their representation in the Congress
would be reduced according to the following table:

l9Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

20 Ibid.
268 OFNEGRoHISTORY
JOURNAL

Present Number ReducedNumberof Representatives

States of Representatives Based upon the 1942 Election
Alabama-9 1
Arkansas 7 1
Georgia 10 1
M'ississppi- 7 1
South Carolina-- 6 1
Texas 21 3
Virginia _ 9 1
Total - 69 921

The election of 60 Congressmen from the above jurisdic-

tions to represent voteless whites and colored people in the
Congress furnished the movement for poll tax repeal some
of its most convincing appeal and invaluable publicity
throughout the United States. Meanwhile, merely suggest-
ing the loss of 60 Representatives in Congress from the
Solid South (which is inconceivable in the light of history)
annoys Southern politicians profoundly by alleging that
their election and tenure rest on exploitation. Equally
shocking is Rhode Island's election of two Representatives
in Congress with 314,023votes from a population of 687,000
while Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina
elect 32 Congressmen with 264,419 votes from their total
populations of 9,300,000!2 Such information concerning
the actual results of suffrage practices in the Southern re-
gions is making the anti-poll tax movement a sort of cru-
sade in contemporary politics. This effort, however, is by
no means new. Senator Lodge made an issue of the matter
in the "Force Bill" fifty years ago. Congressman Tinkham
of Massachusetts continued the fight annually until his re-
cent retirement, but his proposals never emerged from the
committees.
The advocates of poll-tax repeal charge that the 69 Rep-
21 Table arranged from data assembled by the National Committee to
Abolish the Poll-Tax, Bulletin, 1943, p. 5.
22 National Committee to Abolish the Poll Tax, Fact Sheet, p. 1, April,
1943.
 THE POLL TAX AND THE POLL TAXERS 269

resentatives and 14 Senators from the seven States, in ad-

dition to exploiting the economic and social plight of the
poor whites, maintain a stranglehold and balance of power
in the Congress of the United States. These indictments
are based upon the records of Starnes and Hobbs of Ala-
bama, Cox and Vinson of Georgia, Dies and Summers of
Texas, Rankin and Bilbo of Mississippi, Smith of South
Carolina, and Smith of Virginia. The opponents of the poll
tax insist that these notables are ". . . the sponsors and sup-
porters of dangerous divisive legislation, the authors of
disruptive speeches, the destroyers of national unity.'
Long tenure enables the poll tax bloc to develop and main-
tain a balance of power in the Congress although they rep-
resent only seven States with a population of 21,000,000
against forty-one States with 369 Representatives, 82 Sena-
tors, and 111,000,000 people.
Ties of allegiance and loyalty to "Southern Ideals" bind
not only the 83 Representatives and Senators from the poll
tax States but 55 additional members of the upper and
lower Houses of Congress from Florida, Louisiana, Ken-
tucky, North Carolina, and Tennessee.24 Hence 24 Senators
and 114 Representatives constitute a permanent strategic
force in national legislatlon where the essential problems
involve a constant interplay of sectional and regional in-
terests in which cooperation and bargaining are fundamen-
tal. These 138 men and women know that accusation of the
slightest disregard of the "color line," which is the central
theme in southern history25 will be promptly punished with
a vengeance. Thus the movement for poll tax repeal faces
complex and subtle opposition which surpasses the ordcinary
ebb and flow of factors and issues in politieal action. It ap-
pears that U. B. Phillips' predietion still holds that ". . . un-
23 National Federation for Constitutional Liberties, Memorandum, p. 7,
June, 1943.
24 Ibd., p. 8.
25 Ulrich B. Phillips, "The Central Theme in Southern History," Amer-
can Historica Review, vol. xxiv, pp. 31-43, October, 1928.
270 JOURNAL OF NEGRO HISTORY

til an issue arise predominant over the lingering one of race,

political solidarity at the price of provincial status is main-
tained to keep assurance doubly, trebly sure that the South
shall remain 'a white man's country.' 1126 Poll tax reform-
ers do not pretend to suggest such an issue, but it is the
lethal weapon which the powerful Southern combination is
successfully using in the Senate against the abolition of the
system.
The poll tax repeal has come to excite vigilantes already
alarmed. The progressive social legislation of the Roose-
velt Administration caused apprehension and grave alarm
among Southern industrial and political leaders. It is esti-
mated that over 90 per cent of the South's corporate wealth
in finance, industry, and natural resources is owned in the
North.27 This was invited and encouraged by such distin-
guished sponsors of the New South as General Gordon,
Grady, and many others who envisaged the dire necessity
of capital in rehabilitating the wreckage of the Civil War
in developing virgin resources in agriculture, commerce,
manufacturing, mining, and transportation.28 Northern
capital flowed into the exploitation of these vast fields of in-
vestment opportunity and developed vital interests which
are only proportionally less formidable in their influence
and control of southern politics29than the psychological and
social factors previously mentioned among the Senators
and Representatives of the South. The Yankee promoters,
therefore, have stakes in poll tax opposition which may ad-
versely disturb the calm and peaceful operation of Southern
industry and labor. How much pressure, if any, the anti-
poll tax movement can expect from Northern interests is
unpredictable, but they are potential and must not be over-
26 Ibid,j p. 43.
27 Maury Maverick, " Let's Join the United States,"? The Nation, p. 593,
May 11, 1940.
28 Janet Marshall, "I The Ring Around the Ballot Box, "I The New Republic,
p. 207, September 28, 1938.
29 Report on Econoomic Conditions in the South, 1938, p. 54.
 THE POLL TAX AND THE PoLL TAXERS 271

looked. Politicians of the North are approachable and sus-

ceptible to influences beyond their districts.
The labor and security measures developed a new sense
of personal concern and worth among the southern white
masses. After the wages and hours legislation of 1937,
President Roosevelt appointed an able commission of rep-
resentative Southerners who studied economic and social
conditions in the South, and the National Emergency Coun-
cil published the findings in 1938.30 This was the first time
that a thoroughgoing investigation of Southern life and
labor had been undertaken. The findings were extensively
publicized in the newspapers of the region where clergy-
men, social workers, and educators extended the revelations
to sharecroppers, mine workers, and textile employees. The
results were far-reaching in that a new consciousness began
to dawn and the common white masses awakened to their
plight. In this awakening reformers discerned the neglect
in the South of the ballot and political power in remedying
the conditions which were extensively publicized. Here the
movement to abolish the poll tax took concrete form under
leadership of representatives of every rank and class. They
noted the stubborn opposition of their representatives in
Congress who fought and delayed the security measures un-
til the great masses of Southern agricultural and unskilled
workers were excluded from benefits.
The Southern politicians saw potential threats to their
power in this generation and the upsurge was different from
that of the Populist Revolt in that the poll tax movement is
less divisive and is conducting a frontal attack upon politi-
cal power in the South.31 Such anti-labor leaders as Con-
nally, Cox, Hobbs, and Smith (of Virginia) have introduced
numerous measures to obstruct and restrain unionism. The
30 Ibid. This document contains specific data on 15 areas of the South's
most vital economic and social problems.
31 National Federation for Constitutional Liberties Memorandum, p. 5,
June, 1943.
272 JOURNAL OF NEGRO HISTORY

last three of these Congressmen, as members of the all-

powerful Rules Committee with the cooperation of Dies,
have used their influence to throttle important national leg-
islation and to attack many of the most capable workers in
the federal service.82The following table shows the support
which they received in the Election of 1942 and probably
why they suspect serious dangers to their power in the anti-
poll tax movement:
OUTSTANDING POLL TAX BENEFICIARIES
From Percent-
age of his
Votes people
Cox, Leader of the Rules Committee- 3794 1 Ga.
Dies, Un-AmericanActivities- 10,128 3 Texas
Rankin, Anti-Negro and Anti-Semitic- 7079 3 Miss.
Hobbs, Anti-Labor - -7,468 3 Ala.
Smith, Anti-Labor - -15,448 5 Va.
Pace, Farm Bloc Leader - - 4324 1 Ga.
Brown, Farm Bloc Leader- -5,393 2 Ga.
Tarver, Anti-Labor - - 5172 2 Ga.
Starnes, Dies Committee - - 11,841 4 Ala.
Colmer, Rules Committee - - 7,562 2 Miss.
Fulmer, Farm Bloc Leader --4,448 1 S. C.
Summers,ChairmanJudiciary Committee 10,568 3 Texas
Bland, Anti-Union - - 5,309 2 Va.33

Three of these Representatives belong also to The 1%

Club in the next table:
ONE PER CENTPOLL-TAX CONGRESSMEN
Cox of Georgia Hare of South Carolina
Pace of Georgia Bryson of South Carolina
Whittington of Mississippi Richardsof South Carolina
Fulmer of South Carolina MeMillanof South Carolina34

This analysis of the support of 18 Congressmen from

the poll tax States is quite similar, with the exception of the
"4one percenters," to that of their 120 colleagues in the
32 Ibid., p. 6.
38 National Committee to Abolish the Poll Tax, Bulletin, p. 2, 1943.
34 Ibid.
 THE PoLL TAX AND THE POLL TAXERS 273

House and Senate whose support is less than 3 per cent35of

their constituents. That progressive social legislation and
its impacts upon the movement to abolish the poll tax should
be alarming to Southern politicians cannot be doubted.
The laws regulating wages and hours intensified south-
ern economicand political fears also because these measures
conflicted with the differentials which had exerted great in-
fluence in the migration to the South of such industries as
textiles and many sorts of manufacturing. In 1937 the fig-
ures from investigation showed that wages of cotton mill
workers were 12 cents less per hour in the South than in
the rest of the country. In the same year it was revealed
that lumber, furniture, iron and steel, coal mining and other
industries had a differential of 20 between the South and
the rest of the country.36Besides these factors, the " stretch-
out system" (requirement of operatives to tend an in-
creased numberof machines) operated extensively in South-
ern cotton mills. The minimum emergency recommended
family income in 1935 was $903.24 for the United States
while the average southern urban cost of living per family
was $863.28 or a difference of 5 per cent. Meanwhile, the
earnings of southern industrial workers were from 30 to 50
per cent below national wage averages.37 Industry was
shocked throughout the South and agriculture escaped the
incidence of the wages and hours legislation, but farm labor-
ers and share-croppers were potential voters whom the
anti-poll tax movement sought to arouse. A danger of tre-
mendous political possibilities therefore accompaniedthese
progressive changes and Southern mass-white awakening
which they might bring.
The labor movement invaded the Southern areas some-
what ahead of the New Deal to unionize the unorganized
35 National Federation for Constitutional Liberties, Memorandum,loc. cit.,
p. 8.
36 Beport on Economic Conditions in the South, op. cit., pp. 38-39.
37 Ibid.
274 JOURNAL HISTORY
OFNEGRO

masses of industrial workers. Its objectives were chiefly

economic and they inevitably clashed with the ideology of
"cheap labor" that derives from salvery. This Mitchell
claims also ". . . dispossessed the poor whites, pushing them
beyond the pale of profitable employment, and excluding
them from social sympathy. They had no part in the scheme
of things which slavery set up, except, indeed, to be a
nuisance to the large planters, or a downright danger to the
orderliness and subserviency of the Negroes.""8 Unionism
is the height of effrontery to many Southern employers and
they boldly charge that is imported through radical im-
postors from the North who are generally accused of Com-
munism. This charge proved effective in securing State
militia to put down strikes and to restrain the activities of
labor organizers often during the first years of the New
Deal. Between 1923 and 1937, 27 firms listed for the South
spent approximately $800,000 in the retention of industrial
spies, purchasing arms, and in strike breaking. From in-
complete records of detective agencies 78 other firms which
included textiles, oil, and coal corporations were revealed
by the United States Civil Liberties Committeeas operating
in the Southern States."9 The Wagner Labor Relations Law
was sustained by the United States Supreme Court to the
disappointment of Southern industrialists. Whether or not
there is any liaison between them and the ardent anti-labor-
poll tax Congressmenhas not yet been documented,but the
latter are the most persistent and relentless advocates of
labor restriction in the Congress. In these activities the
increasingly articulate labor-masses of the South are
meticulously observing and they find in the poll-tax repeal
38 Broadus Mitchell and George S. Mitchell, The Industrial B?evolutioq&in
the South, p. 121.
39 Senate Civil Liberties Report, Part III, p. 75, 1937. This document
contains the extensive investigation which was conducted by the United States
Senate to discover violations of civil liberty with special emphasis upon charges
of flagrant discrimination in the fields of labor.
 THE POLL TAX AND THE POLL TAXERS 275

movement opportunity for revenge which the domination of

one party restrains or precludes.
The agencies and issues which are promoting poll tax re-
peal are Southern in particular and national in general.
Those sponsors who are supporting this legislation are out-
standing representatives of various classes in American
life. Some of its most crusading and dynamic leadership
has organized the Southern Electoral League with branches
which are actively working throughout the South. Such
distinguished southerners as Frank P. Graham, Jennings
Perry, Harry Bingham, Howard Davis, Evelyn Smith, Ray-
mond B. Bottom, John Chamberlain,William F. Cochran,
Virginia Durr, Clark Foreman, David G. George, Richard
W. Hogue, Frank McAllister, James H. McGill, William
Mitch, James J. Morrison, Claude Pepper, Moss A. Plun-
kett, and Arthur Raper are the officers and general board
of this organization which is working in the South for poll
tax repeal. These notables have working with them national
sponsors in Mrs. Sherwood Anderson, Samuel L. M. Bar-
low, Harry Elmer Barnes, George Gordon Battle, Alfred
M. Bingham, Paul Blanshard, Wm. E. Bohn, Dorothy D.
Bromley, Van Wyck Brooks, Mrs. Jacob S. Cohn, John
Dewey, Mrs. Hiram Elfenbein, Walter Frank, Arthur Gar-
field Hayes, Sidney Hollander, the Rev. Lawrence T. Hosie,
Quincy Howe, B. W. Heubsch, Gardiner Jackson, Paul Kel-
log, Frank Kingdon, Harry W. Laidler, Florina Lasker,
Algernon Lee, Mrs. John T. Lewis, Max Lewis, Robert
Morss Lovett, Lenore G. Marshall, Lucy R. Mason, Mary
R. Millis, David K. Niles, Elizabeth L. Otey, Eliot D. Pratt,
A. Philip Randolph, Upton Sinclair, Whitney N. Seymour,
Wm. J. Schieffelin, George C. Stoney, Norman Thomas, Os-
wald G. Villard, and L. Hollingsworth Wood.40 In coopera-
tion is a large group of Southern and Northern leaders in
the Southern Conference on Human Welfare that has many
40Fact Sheet of the Southern Electoral Beform League, Richmond, Va.,
July, 1943, p. 2.
276 JOuRNAL OF NEGROHISTORY

of the same prominent men and women as well as many

others from various seetions North and South. The Amer-
ican Council on Public Affairs with a similar long list of
notables is working with the Southern Electoral Reform
League in the poll tax repeal cause.
The National Committee to Repeal the Poll Tax has
headquarters in Washington, D. C., and consists of the fol-
lowing officersand sponsors: Jennings Perry, Will Alexan-
der, Virginia F. Durr, Sylvia Beitscher, Eleanor Roosevelt,
Mrs. Sherwood Anderson, Jos. C. Baldwin, Harry C. Bates,
Geeorge H. Bender, Mary McLeod Bethune, Barry Bing-
ham, Mrs. Louis D. Brandeis, Rabbi Barnett Brickner, Ar-
thur Capper, Rufus Clement, William F. Cochran,Dale De-
Witt, Thomas H. Eliot, Judge Henry Ellenbogen, Marshall
Field, Harry Emerson Fosdick, Jos. A. Gavagan, Rev.
Frank J. Gilligan, Frank P. Graham,William Green, Knute
Hill, the Rt. Rev. Henry W. Hobson, Mordecai W. Johnson,
Paul Kellog, Robert W. Kenney, Bishop Paul Kern, J. G.
Luhrsen, the Most Rev. Robert Lucey, Dorothy S. McAl-
lister, Bishop W. F. McConnell, Vito Marcantonio, George
Meany, the Rev. A. J. Murphy, Philip Murray, James
O'Connor, the Rt. Rev. Edward L. Parsons, James Patton,
A. Philip Randolph, Emil Rieve, Ried Robinson, Father
John A. Ryan, Donald 0. Stewart, the Rev. John B. Thomp-
son, R. J. Thomas, Channing Tobias, Francis E. Townsend,
Oswald G. Villard, William Allen White, A. F. Whitney,
and J. Finley Wilson.41Working at Washington in addition
to the above national figures is the Congressional Commit-
tee to Abolish the Poll Tax under the chairmanship of Rep-
resentative George H. Bender, Congressman at Large from
Ohio. This committee has rendered indispensable service
in forcing the Geyer-Pepper Bills from committees where
they were shelved three years. Through vigilance the same
41Fact Sheet of National Committee to Abolish the Poll Tax, p. 1, May,
1943; The Poll Tax; Bulletin of the Southern Conference on Human Welfare
and the American Council on Public Affairs, p. 1, 1940.
 THE PoLL TAX AND THE POLL TAXERS 277

committee secured similar action on the Mercantonio Bill

in the House, where it was passed with dispatch May 24,
1943.
The following national organizations are supporting the
poll tax repeal: the American Civil Liberties Union, Amer-
ican Federation of Labor, American Federation of Labor
Women's Auxiliaries, Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen,
Church League for Industrial Democracy, Colored Voters'
League, Congress of Industrial Organizations, Congress of
Women's Auxiliaries, CouncilAgainst Intolerance in Amer-
ica, Farmers' Educational and Cooperative Union, Frater-
nal Council of Negro Churches, International Labor De-
fense, League of Women Shoppers, National Association
for the Advancement of Colored People, National Confer-
ence of Social Work, National Council of Negro Youth, Na-
tional Federation for Constitutional Liberties, National
Intercollegiate Christian Council,National Lawyers' Guild,
National Negro Congress, National Urban League, National
Women's Trade Union League, Railway Labor Executives'
Association, Southern Conference for Human Welfare,
Southern Women's Committee to Abolish the Poll Tax,
Townsend Plan, United Christian Council for Democracy,
Women's Christian Service Division of the Methodist
Church, Young People's Religious Union, and the Young
Women's Christian Association.42
These partial long lists of civic, labor, religious, politi-
cal, fraternal and social leaders and organizations are sam-
ples of the forces that are leading the anti-poll tax move-
ment. The cause seems unique and unlike any previous
political crusade in American history. Many of the slogans
and symbols strikingly resemble those of various political
parties which have risen and declined. To what extent the
major political parties at present will capitalize the pros-
pects afforded by the appeals of these representative Amer-
42 Fact Sheet of National Committee to Abolish the Poll Tax, p. 2, May,
1943.
278 JOURNAL OF NEGRO
HISTORY

icans and organizations of practically every class remains

to be seen. It appears at present that there is very much
more behind the anti-poll tax movement than most minor
sporadic political parties have ever been able to claim.
These leaders and organizations have staying power and the
issues which they are championing rise from the depths of
American democratic life. The anti-poll tax repeal also
consists of the stuff which is most fundamental in the na-
tional tradition which is being reexamined and tried in the
crisis of world war.
Some of the abuses of poll tax political power have been
previously mentioned in this discussion, but they warrant
further examination to show more clearly the national
awakening which they have produced. The protracted
tenure of poll tax Representatives and Senators enables
them under the Seniority Rules of Congress to gravitate to
the chairmanships of strategic committees where they are
accused of obstructing progressive legislation and reforms.
The following assignments show the first and second places
which were occupied in June of 1943. Seventeen out of 47
standing committees in the House and ten out of 33 similar
committees in the Senate were headed by functionaries from
poll tax regions with prospects of increasing assignments
on the basis of sheer longevity regardless of statesmanship.
CHAIRMEN OF SENATE COMMITTEES
Agriculture-Ellison D. Smith-South Carolina
Appropriations-Carter Glass-Virginia
Enrolled Bills-Hattie Caraway-Arkansas
Expenditures, Executive Department-Lister Hill-Alabama
Finance-Walter F. George-Georgia
Immigration-Richard B. Russell-Georgia
Foreign Relations-Tom Connally-Texas
Irrigation and Reclamation-John H. Bankhead,2nd-Alabama
Pensions-Theodore G. Bilbo-Mississippi
Rules-Harry F. Byrd-Virginia
NUMBER Two MAJORITY POSITIONS ON SENATE COMMITTEES
Banking and Currency-Carter Glass-Virginia
Commerce-Hattie W. Caraway-Arkansas
 THE PoLL TAX AND THE POLL TAXERS 279

District of Columbia-Carter Glass-Virginia

Interstate Commerce-Ellison D. Smith-South Carolina
Manufactures-Ellison D. Smith-South Carolina
Patents-Ellison D. Smith-South Carolina
Privileges-Ellison D. Smith-South Carolina
CHAIRMEN OF HousE, COMMITTEES
Agriculture-Hampton F. Fulmer-South Carolina
Banking and Currency-Henry B. Steagall-Alabama
Civil Service-Robert Ramspeck-Georgia
Claims-Dan R. McGehee-Mississippi
Judiciary-Hatton W. Summers-Texas
Merchant Marine and Fisheries-Schuyler 0. Bland-Virginia
Naval Affairs-Carl Vinson-Georgia
Public Buildings and Grounds-Fritz G. Lanham-Texas
Patents-Frank W. Boykin-Alabama
Rivers and Harbors-Joseph Mansfield-Texas
World War Veterans' Legislation-John E. Rankin-Mississippi
NUMBER Two MAJORITY POSITIONS ON HOUSE COMMITTEES
Accounts-Patton, Second Position (Texas); Boykin, Third Posi-
tion (Alabama); McMillan, Fourth Position (South Carolina)
Appropriations-Woodrum, Second Position (Virginia)
Census-Rankin, Second Position (Mississippi); Gosett, Third Po-
sition (Texas)
District of Columbia-McGehee, Second Position (Mississippi)
Foreign Affairs-Johnson, Second Position (Texas)
Labor-Ramspeck, Second Position (Georgia)
Military Affairs-Thomason, Second Position (Texas)
Pensions-Patton, Second Position (Texas)
Roads-7Whittington, Second Position (Mississippi
Rules-Cox, Second Position (Georgia); Smith, Third Position
(Virginia)
Territories-Peterson, Second Position (Georgia); Patton, Third
Position (Texas) 43
The disproportionate number of Representatives and
Senators on the committees outlined in the foregoing tables
from the poll-tax States is from 32 to 80 per cent greater
than their numbers in the Congress warrant. When esti-
mated in terms of the influence which these legislators are
43 National Federation for Constitutional Liberties Memorandumn,pp. 8-9,
June, 1943. These tables are constructed from data in the memorandum briefly
and concretely to show the strategic power and positions which poll-taxers hold
in the Senate and House on the basis of longevity.
280 JOURNAL OF NEGROHISTORY

in position to exert and the votes which they have received,

the proportion is 300 to 400 per cent44larger than it should
be. It is a matter of record and normal procedure that mea-
sures on which the two houses of the Congress have dis-
agreed are sent to committees. Here "Frequently these
conferences involve highly controversial and extremely im-
portant issues. Hence, members of such committees have
great power in shaping vital legislation. These conferees
are normally appointed in the order of seniority from the
available members of standing committees to which the bill
in question was originally referred."45 Automatically the
poll tax members, who seldom if ever face Republican or
third party competition, become through tenure chairmen
and majority leaders who may control whatever action
may be taken.
Much of the most persistent and uniform opposition to
federal relief, public spending, wages and hours laws, the
National Labor Relations Act, and the major portion of
New Deal reforms has come from such well-knownmembers
of the House as Dies, Smith, Woodrum, and Cox.46 For ex-
ample, Congressman Cox succeeded in holding up the Wages
and Hours Bill 18 months in his committee by refusing to
allow it a rule until he was forced by a sufficient majority
to do so.47 The power of such chairmen is so great that they
can individually push or throttle the most progressive legis-
lation which a majority of the people desire and urgently
need.48 Even Congress must marshal a sufficient majority
to override the subtle forces which operate in committees.
Such tremendous power is understandable if the 30-year
44 Senate CommitteeHearing on S. 1280, op. cit., Part I, p. 438, March 14,
1942.
45 Ibid., pp. 316, 317.
46 Allan Fletcher, "Poll Tax Politics," The Nation, p. 665, March 20,
1940.
47 Stanley Rowan, "American Rotten Districts," Common Sense, p. 8,
October, 1940.
48Ibid., p. 9. See also Senate Hearings on S. 1280, op. cit., p. 249, July
30, 1942.
 THE PoLL TAX AND THE POLL TAXERS 281

tenure and freedom of concern about reelection of typical

chairmen like Representatives Summers and Vinson and
Senator Ellison D. Smith are examined. These leaders and
their colleagues have little or no fear of competition at home
and they always manage to please the extremely small con-
stituency that safeguards their return to Washington. That
the practices of these notables should awaken interest in the
poll tax repeal movement is not difficult to understand.
The poll tax Representatives and Senators work not
merely in committees; they speak a "common language'"
and there is considerable cooperation. For example, the 21
members of the Texas delegation in the House have lunch
together every Wednesday afternoon in the private dining
room of Speaker Rayburn of that State. Texas politicians,
bankers, oil men, plainsmen49as well as others may be in-
vited. The average tenure of this delegation in March, 1943,
was 6.7 terms in contrast to the 4.1 terms of the 366 non-
poll tax members of the Congress. The Texans have also
one member on 36 of 47 Standing Committees of the
House.50 This is the pattern of cooperation which is main-
tained wherever any such "vital interests of the Solid
South" are involved as the Poll Tax Filibuster of Novem-
ber, 1942, in the Senate. Moreover, the record of voting in
the recent passage of the Poll Tax Bill by the House in May
of 1943 shows ardent cooperation. Although Florida, Lou-
isiana, and North Carolinahave abolished the poll tax, their
Representatives voted unanimously against the Anti-Poll
Tax measure.5" Failure to cooperate wholeheartedly or not
to serve as "watchmen on the wall" for encroachment on
" Southern mores " is the major anxiety which poll tax Rep-
resentatives and Senators regard with eternal vigilance.
Congressman Cox has received so much publicity this
49 National Federation for Constitrtional Liberties Memorandum, p. 9,
June, 1943.
50Ibid. Also the New York World Telegram, Peter Edson, May 26, 1942.
51 "Reaction in Congress," ISpecial Section, New Republic, pp. 158-161,
August 2, 1943.
282 JOURNALOF NEGROHIsTORY

year because of his relations with the FCC that his record
of helping himself and his family at the expense of Ameri-
can taxpayers deserves notice in this study of the movement
to abolish poll taxes. To what extent this Congressman
used his "good offices" in behalf of his relatives cannot be
authentically established from available information. The
following tables illustrate federal salaries of the Cox fam'ily
in June, 1941, and July of 1943:
FEDERAL SALARIES OF THE Cox FAMLY, JUNE, 1941
Relation and Position Salary
Lamar Cox, son, Counselfor the E.H.F.A.-$ 4,800
Ode Cox, brother,Ass't House Disbursing Clerk-3,900
Chas. M. Cox, nephew, Administratorof A.A.A.-3,800
Another nephew, Library of CongressClerk 1,620
Another nephew, Clerk im S.E.C 1,740
Sister, Cox's Secretary -3,380
Sister, Postmistress, CaMila, Ga . - 2,400
Brother-in-law,Ass't House DocumentRoom _ - 1,860
Son-in-law,Architect Housing Project, Macon,Ga- 23,000
Cox, Member of Congress - - 10,000
Total ------------- ---------$56-50

FEDERALSALARIESOF'THE Cox FAMILY, JULY 24, 1943

Rosa Cox, sister, Cox's Secretary-$ 3,380
J. Chaney Robinson,brother-in-law,Ass't House Clerk 2,120
Grace Cox, wife, Clerk in Cox's Office- 3,120
Robin Cox, brother,Postmaster,Donaldsville, Ga.- 2,400
Mrs. Jim Cox Hoggard,sister, Postmistress,Camilla, Ga.,
Cox's home- ---- 2,550
Chas. M. Cox, nephew, Senior Administrator,Agr. Dept. 5,000
Cox Memberof Congress -- 10000
Total -- - $30,12053
The above salaries of Cox's relatives are, of course, not
representative of the benefits of all poll tax Congressmen,
but they illustrate an extreme case which has been exten-
52 Whtman Wilson, "Georgie Bottleneeks,"NI N Republic, p. 786, June
9, 1941.
53 Drew Pearson, "IWashington Merry-Go-Round"Column,July 24, 1943.
These two tables were constructed from data in the sources cited.
 THE POLL TAX AND THE PoLL TAXERS 283

sively publicized to the discredit of those Representatives.

Machines like these combatting progress are nothing
new in American politics, and they are not now confined to
the poll tax areas; Boss Hague of New Jersey and Kelly of
Chicago are well known. The laws, however, give the poll
taxers a free hand in requiring the payment of poll taxes
several months in advance of the elections where receipts
must be presented at the ballot boxes.54 Hence politicians
have supplied funds for blocks of voters to pay their poll
taxes with a view to controlling elections in municipalities
and some urban-rural districts. This is not unique but the
tax ". . . by strengthening political machines, which are able
to elect the same Congressmen year after year, has placed
the balance of power in many Congressional Committees in
the hands of representatives of poll tax States.'"5 The
Crump organization in Memphis, Tennessee, holds 100,000
votes which are used in throwing elections in any direction
which the machine desires, including further influence upon
the governor and legislators.56 San Antonio, Texas, has for
many years been in the grip of poll tax control which re-
tired liberal and progressive Maury Maverick from Con-
gress. In that municipality hordes of the most disadvan-
taged and poverty-stricken citizens have been bought and
racketeers have found the purchase of poll tax receipts
profitable.57 The Alabama Bankers' Mortgage machine
warned all farmers who had received loans that they would
face foreclosure unless they voted against the progressive
and helped to reelect the poll tax candidate.58 When the
F.S.A. was making advances in behalf of the voters for lib-
erals in Alabama, Senator Byrd summonedthe Administra-
54 National Lawyers' Guild Quarterly, p. 103, July, 1940.
55 Ibid., p. 107.
56 Dabney, National Municipal Review, loc. cit., p. 490.
Iuffrage in the South," Survey Graphic, p. 5, Janu-
57 George C. Stoney, "S
ary, 1940.
58 Janet Marshall, New Republic, loc. cit., p. 209.
284 JOURNAL OF NEGRO HISTORY

tor before his committee for investigation.59 Meanwhile,

the Senator's own machine was sponsoring the reelection of
Howard Smith in Virginia by seeing that the poll taxes of
the faithful were paid on time for the 1942 primaries
through the "court house crowd" that directs local opera-
tions in the Old Dominion."
National interest is keen in the consequences of poll tax-
machine corruption because liberals and progressives are
occasionally outvoted or have their votes nullified by repre-
sentatives from "Rotten Districts. "6' It is not that irregu-
larities have not always existed in other regions; there is
full cognizance of this and that the tax is not the only cause
of the peculiar control which the Southern machines exert.
Collins found that "many employers at sawmills and fac-
tories pay the tax, then file the receipts away; on Election
Day the receipts are turned over to employees with explicit
instructions on how to vote."62 When Rhode Island, one
of the smallest States, casts more votes in the choice of two
Representatives than Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and
South Carolina do in the selection of thirty-two members of
the Congress, the poll tax machines become a matter of
serious national concern." Add to this the manipulation of
political power and the strangleholds which southern poli-
ticians of long experience maintain in determining Congres-
sional legislation and the nation-wide interest in the repeal
movement becomes clear. Again, the lower standards of
achievement and life, infinitely less wealth, and complicated
nuclear political alliances based upon such Southern dis-
parities and projecting into Congress arouse in non-poll tax
regions the bitterest resentment. These sections of the
59 T. R. B., New Bepublic,p. 636, May 11, 1942.
60 Time, p. 18, September 14, 1942.
61 Stanley Rowan, CommonSense, loc. cit., p. 9.
62 Herbert R. Colins, "IPol Tax Corruption," The Nation, p. 463, April
19, 1941.
63 Henry Collins, Senate Hearings on S. 1280, Part I, p. 145, op. cit.,
March 14, 1942.
 THE PoL TAX AND THE POLL TAXERS 285

country hold that national policies are interstate affairs64

and that in so far as poll taxes or any other abuses"5of po-
litical power produce stalemates in Congress democratic
rights are jeopardized.88
At Richmond, Virginia, the Southern Electoral Reform
League was founded to implement the anti-poll tax move-
ment as a going concern to educate southern public opin-
ion.67 This organization publishes Democracy for Dixie,68
a news and information bulletin which has become the voice
of the repeal movement, and is being circulated in every
section of the South. Local groups are working and forming
organizations and liberal newspapers of the South are hear-
tily supporting the campaign for enlightenment. The fol-
lowing general board shows the outstanding leaders:
Maryland, William F. Cochran, Victor Weybright; Vir-
ginia, Colonel LeRoy Hodges, David G. George; North
Carolina, President Frank P. Graham,Mrs. May T. Evans;
South Carolina, Julia Peterkin, Dr. Josiah Morse; Georgia,
Mrs. Josephine Wilkins, Dr. Arthur Raper, Mrs. Margot
Gayle; Florida, Senator Claude Pepper, Frank McAllister;
Alabama, WVilliamMitchell, Mrs. Albert Thomas, Mrs. Vir-
ginia Durr; Mississippi, Governor Paul B. Johnson, Miss
Linda Ramey, Dr. Harold Hertz; Tennessee, Jennings Per-
ry, Mrs. Carl V. Stafford; Kentucky, Barry Bingham; Ar-
kansas, William F. Huchins; Louisiana, Professor James
Morrison; Oklahoma, Senator Josh Lee; and Texas, Dr.
64 Editorial, New York Timest, p. 24, May 7, 1940.
G5Editorial. Christianr Centttry, p. 581, May 11, 1938.
6dNational Lawyers' Guild Quarterly, p. 106, July, 1940. Virginlus Dab-
ney, Soith of the Potomac, p. 111, refers to substantial evidence which C. Van
Woodward published on the motives which actuated the Georgia disfranchisers
in 1908,
61 Eleanor Bontecu, The Poll Tax, pp. 2-3, 1942. This pamphlet by the
American Association of University Women contains publication of extensive
research which this national body of women conducted on all phases of the poll
tax.
68 Dixie for Democracy. This is the official organ of the Southern Electoral
Reform League which was founded at Richmond, Virginia, in 1941.
286 JOURNALOF NEGROHISTORY

Robert Montgomery, Miss Gaynel Hawkins, and Mrs. Judd

Collier.69 The power and influence of this group on the
mass-opinion of the South are far-reaching and they lend
additional significance to the repeal movement.
The United Chlristian Council for Democracy70stated
before the Senate Hearings on May 20, 1943: "The signers
(476) of the appeal include outstanding spokesmen of the
church from 44 States, including church leaders of every
poll tax State and nearly every denomination.... We Amer-
ican Churchmenof many communions throughout the Na-
tion urge the passage of anti-poll tax legislation at once.
. . . We shall be in much stronger moral position to be the
champions of freedom and democracy among the nations if
this injustice in our own country is corrected at once.1'71
Walter White speaking for the largest American minority
group and the one most intimately identified with disfran-
chisement, said: "Extension of the franchise will mate-
rially improve the quality of Members of the Congress, Gov-
ernors and other officials elected from Southern States.
Less frequent will be the appeals on the floor of Congress
to racial and sectional prejudice. Less frequent will be the
opposition to socially enlightened legislation which is des-
perately needed in times of crisis like these to preserve the
democratic way of life.... *When the influence of such
civic, labor, racial, religous, and women's organizations
upon public opinion is considered, forces from the bottom of
contemporary life are enlisted and mobilized for the sup-
port of the poll tax repeal movement.
The seven State-wide Southern Women's Organizations
with 150,000 members in the poll tax States warrant more
69 Ibid., p. 3, February 1, 1941.
70 Senate Hearings on S. 1280, Part I, p. 330, March 14, 1942. Nathan E.
Cowan speaks for 5,000,000 C.I.O. men and women. John L. Lewis, Philip
Murray, and William Green have given their unqualified endorsement of the
movement.
71 Congressional Becord, p. A 2683, May 20, 1943.
72 Senate Hearings on S. 1280, Part I, p. 337, March 14, 1942.
 THE POLL TAX AND THE PoLL TAXERS 287

than passing notice in this limited account of the instru-

ments which are being used to create and cultivate favor-
able opinion in behalf of the anti-poll tax movement.73 The
impacts of the activities of this large group of Southern
women upon opinion in their section should be considerable
because of their acquaintancethere with the most determined
and obstinate opposition which the repeal faces. This body
of civic-minded women reflects high courage as it is far
more difficultto champion a despised cause in a hostile en-
vironment than it is from afar. At the same time, much
local support adds incalculable strength to the movement in
that it is thus free from charges of outside interference-
always the major premise of the "Fighting South." In this
connection the Women's Trade Union League of America
with 1,000,00074members deserves mention because of its
far-flung influencein the entire nation and especially among
the mass workers of the North whose good will and approval
are only less proportionately important in moulding public
sentiment for causes than that of the Southern women's or-
ganizations. Any movement which has the unqualified ap-
proval and blessings of such aggregations of women is
fortunate to say the least.
The working of the poll tax appears in revelations of re-
lief and investigations which have crystallized opinion and
focused attention upon corroding poverty and ignorance in
Southern life and labor. Dr. John Caldwell of Vanderbilt
University, after making extended investigations of various
phases of the incidence of the poll tax in different parts of
the South, concluded: "I think that cumulative burden,
$36.00 in Alabama and $47.37 in Georgia, takes on quite a
very different significance from the fact that eight remain-
ing poll tax States are all located in the South, that six of
these have the lowest family incomes of any average in-
73 George C. Stoney, too. cit., p. 40.
74 Senate Hearings on S. 1280, Part I, p. 199, March 10, 1942.
288 JOURNAL OF NEGRO HISTORY

comes of any State in the Union."75 Many of the families

in these areas have incomes of less than $100 a year and the
poll taxes for the family heads alone in Mississippi would
amount to 4 per cent or more of that income.76 While taxes
for Georgia and Aalabama are $1.00 and $1.50 respectively,
their possibilities of accumulation make voting prohibitive.
Thousands of tenant and other rural and urban families re-
ceived relief in the depths of depression during the 1930's
and the Federal Government's awards and grants in aid for
seeds, stock, food, and housing were made after investiga-
tion.
The commission investigating the South found in 193777
that the average income there was $314.00 while that of the
rest of the nation was $604.00 and that of Southern farm
people in the prosperous year of 1929 was $186.00 in con-
trast to $528.00 for the farmers of the remainder of the
United States. From this $186.00 southern farmers had
met such basic expenses as those of tools, fertilizers, seed,
taxes, and interest on debts.78 Excessive political county
subdivisions in the South further aggravate the situation
by making governmental expenses several times what they
should be. Georgia, which is typical, has 159 counties with
separate staffs of officials which consume at least three
times the budget which would with substantial income be
justifiable. In the absence of other available sources of
revenue, the bulk of the burdens of expense is piled upon
poverty-stricken masses in the form of sales taxes.79Efforts
of the Southern States to spread the tax burdens meet pow-
erful opposition from outside vested interests which own or
control most of the wealth80in the South.
The poll tax connects naturally with the tragedy of the
75 Ibid., Dr. John Caldwell, p. 100, March 13, 1942.
76 libid., Henry Collins, p. 260.
77Report on Economic Conditions in the South, op. cit., p. 4.
78 Ibid., pp. 21-22.
79 Ibid., p. 23.
80Ibid., p. 23.
 THE PoLI TAX AND THE POLL TAXERS 289

sharecroppers and tenants of the South which has been ex-

tensively publicized by writers, on the stage and screen, and
in the public press. The cotton kingdom extends about 300
miles North and 1,600 miles from the Carolinas to Texas.
Approximately 8,000,000 individuals may well be classified
as belonging to these categories in the Solid South.81 In
this vast region bitterness between poor whites and Negroes
was born of economic frustration in slavery; the former
hated the planting aristocracy only proportionately less
than they did the slaves. Reconstruction and Populism re-
vealed the strength of the white masses and rising Southern
middle classes whose just grievances were played off by the
bourbons from themselves upon the Negroes who became
the universal scapegoat of all woes of that area.82
King Cotton has suffered from sporadic illness through
three generations and he has experienced nearly chronic in-
validism since 192383because of the development of cotton
production in Brazil, India, China, Egypt, the Anglo-Egyp-
tian Sudan, and other parts of the world. The depression
of the 1930's intensified the malady. The millions previously
mentioned represent both white and colored who became
fellow-sufferers in a nearly hopeless cause. The returns
from cotton production did not yield enough to balance ex-
penses and the landlords were in a plight similar in many
respects to that of the laborers, sharecroppers, and tenants.
An attempt to organize sharecroppers by the Southern Ten-
ant Farmers' Union84aroused some of the most bitter re-
sentment in American labor history. The atmosphere was
so charged with tension over the suggestion and attempts
of outsiders to unionize white and colored sharecroppers
that bloody riots broke loose in Arkansas with considerable
81 Howard Kester, Revolt of the Sharecroppers, p. 17.
82Ibid., p. 20.
83 Claudius Murchison, King Cotton Is Sick, p. 3.
84 Kester, op. cit., p. 72.
290 JOURNAL OF NEGRO HISTORY

loss of life among the Negroes in the reign of terror during

the spring of 1935.85
The Report on Economic Conditions in the South showed
that "Earnings of sharecroppers ranged from $38 to $86
per person, and an income of $38 annually means only a lit-
tle more than ten cents a day."86 Under such income con-
ditions these millions existed rather than lived. Attempts
in other parts of the cotton-South to unionize farm workers
met with more ruthless suppression than such endeavors
faced in industry because there was no color-line in "all-
white enterprises" to be disregarded or defied. The Grapes
of Wrath and Tobacco Road have presented extremes of the
disadvantaged whites on the stage and screen. The anti-
poll tax movement insists that the ballot in the hands of
these nearly inarticulate millions is fundamental for the
advance of education, progress, and democracy.
The constitutional issues in poll tax repeal show differ-
ences of opinion as to whether or not the Congress under the
Constitution has the authority to intervene in the control
and regulation of State suffrage laws. The defenders of
the poll taxes argue that Congressional action will violate
State Rights. Mark Sullivan speaking for this group says:
"Fixing the qualifications for voting is the most fundamen-
tal right a State has.... Taking this right from the States
would be the beginning of a process by which the States
would become little more than geographical designations
such as New England and the Middle West."87 Constitu-
tional lawyers for the poll taxers contend that the supreme
law has not delegated to the Congress power to regulate
suffrage qualifications of the States.88 They further insist
851Ibid., pp. 84.
86Beport on Economic Conditions in the South, op. cit., p. 22.
87 Congressional Record, p. A 4263, November 16, 1942. Insertion by Sen-
ator Bilbo ("The Man Bilbo") of an article by Mark Sullivan in the Wash-
ington, D. C., Post of the same date.
88 Senate Hearings on S. 1280, Part I, p. 380, Attorney General Abram S.
Staples, of Virginia, September 22, 1942.
 THE POLL TAX AND THE POLL TAXERS 291

that any infringement of the citizen's Constitutional rights

by the States may be redressed in the courts. The States'
rights argument continues with the declaration that poll
tax qualificationfor suffrage is a purely local problem which
can better be handled by States than by a "Force Bill" of
Congress.89 On this traditional theory, the opponents of
poll tax repeal by the Congress aver that the privileges of
voting do not derive from the Constitution, but are con-
ferred by the States, which may condition the suffrage re-
quirement as they deem fit and proper.90 Judge J. S. Ed-
wards injects some of the Calhoun doctrine in saying " ...
that unless the States have in the Constitution surrendered
to the Federal Government the right to decide who may
vote in the several States, the right to control the qualifica-
tions remains in the several States, not subject to control by
the Federal Government, unless the qualifications should
violate the fourteenth, fifteenth, and nineteenth amendments
to the Constitution."91 This seems to contain the essence of
the States' Rights objection which derives from pre-Civil
War history and is invoked against what is construed to be
in the anti-poll tax movement an encroachmentupon South-
ern rights.
Another argument of the opponents of the anti-poll-tax
action by the Congress is that the time is inopportune while
the nation is facing the greatest crisis in its history. They
charge that the whole movement is a continuation of deep-
seated determination of outsiders to interfere in the affairs
of the Southern States.92 Dire warnings are expressed that
the economic and social structure of the South will be de-
89CongressrionalRecord, p. 9318, November 20, 1942. Editorial from the
Atlanta, Georgia, Journal inserted by Senator Russell of that State.
90Ibid., p. 9365. November 21, 1942. An opinion which Judge J. S.
Edwards securedPirtle vs. Brown, Sixth United States Circuit Court of Appeals.
Inserted in the Congressonal Bcord by Senator George of Georgia.
91 Ibid.
92 CongressmanJames Domeugeux. CongressionalRecord, p. A 2830, May
27, 1943.
292 HISTORY
JouRNALOFNEGRO

stroyed. The prospects of filibusters of long and bitter de-

bates in the Senate where animosities and hatreds will dis-
tract attention from the war effort are deprecated. This
faction does not stress at great length issues of constitu-
tional law in defense of their opposition; they demand that
other sections leave these matters to the discretion of the
States that can in their own time and ways best adjust suf-
frage grievances submitted by the anti-poll tax movement.93
Governors Frank M. Dixon of Alabama and R. M. Jeffries
of South Carolina, and Attorneys General John M. Daniel
of South Carolina and Greek L. Rice of Mississippi fol-
lowed this line of argument in their long hearings before the
Senate Sub-Committeeon the Judiciary.94 They do not un-
dertake any abstruse constitutional defense of their position
and simply state that the suffrage laws do not operate un-
fairly and that any citizen who desires may qualify within
the framework of their State suffrage statutes.
Probably the most powerful opposition to removing the
poll taxes by the States or Congress consists of the social
and political reasons in which there appear basic elements
of Southern history and tradition. The "white supremacy
shibboleth"95has been used as a rallying slogan for three
generations when there has really never been any threat.
To the masses of poor whites emancipation was nearly as
great liberation as it was for the slaves. Southern politi-
cians prefer limited suffrage and hard restrictions because
they do not desire competition of the masses of voters.
"White supremacy," therefore, is emphasized because the
poll taxers know it is a smoke screen which may easily be
thrown over just grievances of poor whites who prize ex-
tremely the stimulating sense of personal worth which at-
taches to belonging and being included. Again, poll taxes
93 Congressional Becord, p. A 3001, June 5, 1943.
94 Senate Hearings, Part II, pp. 477-514, October 13, 1942.
95Dabney, New York Times, Magazine Section, op. cit., p. 20, February
12, 1939.
 THE PoLL TAX AND THE POLL TAXERS 293

and other restraints upon suffrage keep political power in

the hands of the wealthy96or shrewd designing leaders who
succeed or hope to rise the erstwhile coveted ideal of the
white yeoman who yearned to own "slaves and a planta-
tion. " This was and still is a sort of conspicuous distinction
which restricted suffrage encourages. Finally, the extreme
poverty97previously described in this study prevents educa-
tional opportunity and produces inarticulateness or indif-
ference to political participation. The struggle for bare
existence is so hard that concern about matters of govern-
ment is necessarily precluded among large numbers of po-
tential voters.
The opponents of anti-poll-tax action by the Congress
are not in agreement regarding the power of State legisla-
tures to abrogate the tax. The State legislature of Ten-
nessee abolished its poll-tax in the spring of 1943, but the
Supreme Court of that State in Biggs vs. Beeler on July 3,
1943, declared this action unconstitutional. The court asked
the question: "When the legislature in execution of a trust
conferred on it by the Constitution, has, by appropriate leg-
islation, executed that trust and put into operation and
effect a constitutional mandate, may the legislature at a
subsequent session revoke and qualify that which it had
done ?" 98 The court reported ". . . failure to find any re-
ported case directly in point; any case in which the courts
of any State have had occasion to consider the power of a
legislature; . . . to strike down a constitutional mandate
which the legislature, . . . has put in execution and effect
..99 Chief Justice Green and an Associate Justice of
the court, in dissenting, said that there is no precedent in
English or American law for this peculiar dictum and that
96 Ibid., p. 20.
97 Ibid., p. 20.
98 Biggs vs. Beeler. Tennessee Supreme Court Decision, July 3, 1943.
99 Ibid.
294 JOURNAL OF NEGROHISTORY

it is "unsound in principle."100 This means that an amend-

ment will have to be submitted to the poll tax minority of
voters in that jurisdiction unless the decision is reversed
by the United States Supreme Court to which it will prob-
ably go. In the State of Virginia, repeal is contingent upon
passage by two legislatures that have been elected by voters
who have paid their poll taxes'0l and then submitted to a
referendum of the same voters. Obviously there are diffi-
culties in repeal by some States.
The advocates of repeal of the poll tax argue that Con-
gress has the power to prescribe the rules and to regulate
the election of Representatives and Senators. The follow-
ing ten legal scholars prepared a memorandum in which
they attest the power of the Congress to intervene and re-
peal the poll tax laws: "George Gordon Battle of North
Carolina and Virginia, leading Southern member of the
New York Bar; Walton Hamilton of Tennessee, now pro-
fessor of Constitutional Law in the Yale Law School; My-
ers McDougal of Mississippi, also of the Yale Law School;
Leon Green of Louisiana and Texas, now dean of North-
western University Law School; Robert K. Wettach and
M. T. Van Hecks, dean and former dean of Law School of
the University of North Carolina; Lloyd K. Garrison, dean
Wisconsin Law School Faculty; Walter Gellorn of Colum-
bia University Law School; and Edwin Borchard, special-
ist in Public Law and professor in the Yale Law School."102
These Constitutional lawyers, several of whom are from the
poll-tax States, have examined the proposals in the poll-tax
measure now pending in the Congress and they aver that it
is not only constitutional but that Congress has the power
to take action.
100 Jennings Perry, "Hillbilly Justice in Tennessee," The New Bepztblic,
p. 68, July 19, 1943.
101 Jonathan Daniels, "Dictators and Poll-Taxes," The Nation, p. 213,
February 22, 1941.
102 The Case for the Constitutionality of the Pepper Anti-Poll Tax Bill,
pp. 3-4, 1942.
 THE POLL TAX AND THE POLL TAXERS 295

James T. Morrison, long professor of Constitutional

Law in Tulane University, New Orleans, in defending the
constitutionality of the action by Congress in repealing the
poll tax, states as his ground, "This Constitution and the
laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof . . .
shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every
state shall be bound thereby; anything in constitution or
laws of any state, to the contrary notwithstanding.11103
Stemming directly from the famous decree of Chief Justice
John Marshall in McCulloch vs. Maryland in 1819, the
lawyers hold that a federal function cannot be taxed by the
States.'04 It would appear that in so far as the poll tax im-
poses a tax upon the federal function of voting, the Marshall
decision is specifically relevant. More recently in Pitman
vs. Home Owners' Loan Corporationl05the State of Cali-
fornia imposed a prohibitive tax upon migrants to that
State during the depression. Chief Justice Hughes said,
in reversing the California court decision, "In this in-
stance Congress has undertaken to safeguard the operation
of the Home Owners' Loan Corporation by providing the
described immunity. As we have said, we construe this
provision as embracing and prohibiting the tax question.
Since Congress had the constitutional authority to enact
this provision, it is binding upon this court as the supreme
law of the land. '106 Thus defenders of repeal of the poll
tax by Congress claim that the poll tax is an imposition
upon the federal function of voting and the States cannot
tax the function.
The Constitutional advocates of repeal go to Article IV
and Section 4 of the Constitution and allege that the Con-
gress has authority to guarantee a republican form of gov-
103 James T. Morrison, Senate Hearings on S. 1280, Part I, op. cit., p.
235, July 30, 1942.
104 National Lawyers' Guild Quarterly, loc. cit., p. 107, July, 1940.

105 United States Supreme Court Reports 308, pp. 21, 32-33, 1939.
106 United States Supreme Court Reports 308, pp. 21, 32-33, 1939.
296 JOURNAL OF NEGROHISTORY

ernment and that the poll tax prohibits this pattern of gov-
ernment. Since the Constitutional provision is in the form
of a guaranty, the Congress has power to pass legislation
for its protection.107 Under the circumstances, the matter
of whether or not a State maintains a republican form of
government would seem to fall within Congressional author-
ity to determine. Instances of inquiry into the election of
Senators are cited to show that Congress has within com-
paratively recent years occasionally examined expenditures
of campaign funds and other alleged irregularities in the
elections of Senators and Representatives. The Newberry
decision of the United States Supreme Court contains the
following citation from the dissenting opinions of Justices
Brandeis, Clarke, and Pitney: "For the election of Sena-
tors and Representatives in Congress is a Federal function.
Whatever the States do in the matter they do under author-
ity derived from the Constitution."1108 Poll tax repeal by
the Congress seems to have sanction both in Constitutional
interpretation and in the precedents of actual inquiries
which have been conducted by Congress.
Finally, the sponsors of repeal by the Congress hold that
vested interests and controls in the retention of the poll
taxes cannot be successfully attacked or restrained except
through Congressional intervention. The examples of Ten-
nessee and Virginia show that the opponents of repeal con-
trol power over their limited voting constituencies that can
be restrained or induced to support the status quo. Wealth
and affiliatedmachines like that of Byrd in Virginia prefer
the poll tax restraint because of reasons previously set
forth in this study. This type of political machine has for
years easily controlled State and local politics in the poll
107 Louis B. Boudin, Virginia Law Beview, Volume XXVIII, pp. 8-9, No-
vember, 1941.
108IrvingBrant, Senate Hearings on S. 1280, Part I, op. cit., p. 209.
 THE POLL TAX AND THE POLL TAXERS 297

tax regions.109 Next to this is the weird interest in white

supremacy which is probably the most profound and abused
motivating force in Southern history and tradition. Poli-
ticians of the Blease, Heflin, Long, Talmadge, Tillman, and
Vardaman variety and their legions of imitators have for
years used this slogan. It is still potent and can quickly be
invoked against any attempt to undermine restrictions on
suffrage. Since Congressional action is legitimate, the
sponsors of poll tax repeal have staked their hopes in action
by that body.
The conclusions which may be drawn from this partial
examination of the movement to repeal the poll tax are nec-
essarily tentative at present, but they fall into several
groups, three of which appear to be reasonably possible.
The constitutionality of repeal by the Congress seems ob-
vious, but there are vested inter-sectional and inter-regional
exchanges of legislative cooperation and support which will
permit a filibuster to sabotage final action in the Senate.
Senator Bilbo has expressed confidencethat he will be able
to hold the floor for eighteen months.110While cloture could
be invoked, the influences brought to bear induce Senators
to absent themselves rather than to risk the possibility of
incurring the displeasure of their colleagues who can re-
taliate in devious ways any action of Senators from other
regions.
The concern about colored people in the movement to
repeal the Southern poll tax is a highly moot question which
is absent or extremely negligible in the Lower South, but in
the Border States and Northern States, this issue portends
much in the balance of power where two parties or a third
party may function in determining national elections. A
study by the Harvard Law Review claims that "it is true
109 Barry Bingham, "The Poll-Tax" Pamphlet of the American Council
on Public Affairs and the Southern Conferenceon Human Welfare, pp. 6-7.
110 Editorial, Christian Century, p. 685, July 9, 1943.
298 JOURNAL OF NEGRO HISTORY

that action which stems from local initiative in the South

cannot yet be expected to enfranchise the Negro. But in so
far as the poll tax is concerned, this consideration is unim-
portant, for abolition of the exclusionary device would en-
franchise a great number of whites but few if any Ne-
groes."1""The Democratic white primary, invalidated in
Smith vs. Allright by the U. S. Supreme Court in April,
1944, would remain and in that Southern States could, with
one party, bypass colored people. Mr. Justice Cardozo's
opinion in Nixon vs. Condon sanctioned the consideration
of a political party as a voluntary organization'12which en-
ables the State to escape liability under the Bradley deci-
sion of 1883. On the other hand, the migration of large
numbers of colored people North has given the balance of
power to them in several States. When the Democrats won
this in 1932,l13 the Southern domination of the party began
to wane and the Two-Thirds-Rule had gradually to go.
The actual results of repeal by Congress would probably
be resentment against unpopular national legislation for
Southern jurisdictions similar to that of Reconstruction and
prohibition."14 There is the difference, however, in the pow-
erful support which anti-poll tax is receiving among South-
erners. Still, enforcement will be a local problem and until
the one-party domination of the South is changed, this
study does not reveal that removing the poll tax alone will
1II The Harvard Law Beview, Volume V, p. 652, February, 1940.
112 Mr. Justiee Cardozo, United States SuspremeCourt Beport 286, p. 89,
1932. This decision was invalidated in Smith vs. Allright by the United States
Supreme Court in April of 1944.
113 John T. Graves, Zoc.cit., p. 401. See also Beaction in Congress, Spe-
cial Section of the New Bepusblicfor August 2, 1943, pp. 158-161, 162-163, for
voting by Senators and Representatives from States like Illinois, Maryland,
Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania and others which have considerable or large
numbers of colored voters. This supplement also contains evidenees of the
unanimity of the Solid South on all issues which even remotely concern vital
interests of that region.
114 The Christian Century,loc. cit., p. 685.
 THE POLLTAXANDTHEPoLL TAXERS 299

very appreciably solve the southern problems of suffrage.

Enfranchisement of millions of poor whites would probably
restrain some excesses of reactionary politicians from the
South and pave the way for greater party competition there,
which alone seems to be the eventual way out. The move-
ment to abolish the poll tax, with the endorsement of the
best leadership and thought of the South, is the most for-
ward political step there since the Civil War and as such it
represents progress.
WILLIAM M. BREWER
Miner Teachers College