Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-n7pht Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-11T22:09:32.613Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The White Primary: 1944–1948

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

O. Douglas Weeks
O. Douglas Weeks
Affiliation:
University of Texas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The closing chapter in the history of the white primary in the South has seemed since 1944 to be in process of being written. In that year, the United States Supreme Court, by invalidating in Smith v. Allwright the white primary rule of the Texas state Democratic convention, dealt a stunning, if not immediately mortal, blow to this most significant political custom or practice of the Southern states. The refusal of this court on April 19, 1948, to review a federal circuit court decision invalidating the white primary arrangements of South Carolina, created in 1944 to circumvent the effect of the Allwright decision, seems to have administered the judicial coup de grâce. It would, however, be unsafe to predict when “finis” may be set down for all states, political areas, counties, and voting precincts where by one means or another the Negro has long been barred from participation in the all-important primaries of the Democratic party. The remaining suffrage requirements, registration restrictions, and election provisions, and the political and administrative methods of applying them which still are employed in some Southern states and in parts of others in order to render it difficult for Negroes to vote will not be immediately eliminated. Moreover, the effects of political action have not been fully tested by the Democratic leaders of the South. At the present moment, plans for united efforts on their part are under consideration; and these could have far-reaching results before the end of the current presidential election year. Whatever the abstract justice of the situation, traditional attitudes and customs cannot be uprooted easily and have a way of resisting judicial or legislative fiat, particularly when it is honestly felt by many that such fiat has been imposed from the outside and by people unaware of the difficulties and adjustments involved.

Type
American Government and Politics
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 42 , Issue 3 , June 1948 , pp. 500 - 510
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1948

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Smith v. Allwright, 321 U. S. 649 (1944); Rice v. Elmore, 68 S. Ct. 905 (1948).

2 Austin (Texas) American, Feb., 4, 1948, p. 1.

3 To Secure These Rights; Report of the President's Committee on Civil Rights (Washington, 1947), submitted Oct. 29, 1947.

4 New York Times, Feb. 2, 1948, p. 1.

5 Democratic Platform, 1944, Sec. VII.

6 For the previous history, variations, and legal status of the white primary, see Weeks, O. Douglas, “The White Primary,” Mississippi Law Journal, Vol. 8, pp. 135–153 (Dec., 1935).Google Scholar

7 295 U. S. 45 (1935).

8 Waples v. Marrast, 184 S. W. 180 (Tex., 1916); Bell v. Hill, 74 S. W. 2d 113 (Tex., 1934); Robinson v. Holman, 26 S. W. 2d 66 (Ark., 1930); Norton v. State, 63 S. E. 662 (Ga., 1909); State v. Huntley, 166 S. E. 637 (S. C., 1932); and Wood v. State, 142 So. 747 (Miss., 1932).

9 The issue was met indecisively in Newberry v. United States, 256 U. S. 232 (1921).

10 313 U. S. 299 (1941).

11 Rehearing denied, May 8, 1944.

12 Both delegations were seated in the Democratic national convention of 1944, although the “regular” delegates had threatened to bolt unless the national platform supported “white supremacy.”

13 Stanford v. Butler, 181 S. W. 2d 269 (Tex., 1944); Seay v. Latham, 182 S. W. 2d 251 (Tex., 1945).

14 Registration Laws of Louisiana, 1946, Art. II, Secs. 1, 6. See also Courtney v. Singleton et al., 27 So. 2d 448 (La., 1946), and Hall v. Nagel, 154 F. 2d 931 (1946).

15 Davis v. State ex rel. Cromwell, 23 So. 2d 85 (Fla., 1945).

16 New York Times, Jan. 13, 1946, p. 37.

17 Amendment to Sec. 181, Constitution of Alabama, General Laws, Alabama, 1945, pp. 551–552; New York Times, Nov. 6, 1946, p. 8. Recent reports from Alabama indicate that the N.A.A.C.P. has plans under way to undermine the Boswell amendment. Ibid., Oct. 5, 1947, p. 56.

18 Mitchell v. Wright et al., 69 F. Supp. 698 (1947); Mitchell v. Wright, 154 F. 2d 924 (1946); Wright v. Mitchell, 329 U. S. 733 (1946). See also Williams v. Wright et al., 29 So. 2d 295 (Ala. 1947).

19 New York Times, July 9, 1944, p. 30, and Sept. 17, 1944, p. 40.

20 Acts of Arkansas, 1945, Act 107, p. 253.

21 Acts of Arkansas, 1947, Act 14, pp. 23–24.

22 Adams et al. v. Whittaker et al., 195 S. W. 2d 634 (Ark., 1946).

23 New York Times, Apr. 7, 1946, p. 36, and July 15, 1946, p. 14.

24 Ibid., Aug. 5, 1946, p. 5.

25 Constitution of Georgia, 1945, Art. II, Sec. 1, Par. 5.

26 New York Times, June 8, 1944, p. 38.

27 Quoted in Chapman v. King, 154 F. 2d 460 (1946).

28 King v. Chapman, 62 F. Supp. 639 (1946).

29 Chapman v. King, 154 F. 2d 460 (1946).

30 Chapman v. King, 66 S. Ct. 905 (1946).

31 Consult New York Times, Jan. 13, 1946, p. 3; Feb. 13, 1946, p. 7; June 15, 1946, p. 3; July 4, 1946, p. 32; July 12, 1946, p. 15; July 14, 1946, p. 29; July 18, 1946, p. 1; and Sept. 7, 1946, p. 28.

32 Talmadge was nominated, but died before taking office. The dispute over his successor need not be considered here.

33 To operate under the county unit system. New York Times, Oct. 10, 1946, p. 24.

34 Acts and Resolutions of the General Assembly, Georgia, 1947, pp. 23–66. Attempts to repeal primary statutes in several other Southern states have failed for reasons similar to those expressed by the governor of Georgia.

35 Sept. 22, 1947.

36 Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Senatorial Campaign Expenditures, 1946, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., Report No. 1 (Washington, 1947), Part II, p. 14.

37 Mississippi Code, 1943, Sec. 3129.

38 Report, Part II, p. 23.

39 General Laws of Mississippi, 1947, H. B. 36, H. B. 38.

40 On February 29, 1944, the lower house had reaffirmed its belief in “established white supremacy.” Immediately after the decision, Senator Maybank of South Carolina warned the United States Senate that his state would retain its political and social institutions, “as we believe them to be in the best interests of our people, regardless of any Supreme Court decision or any law that may be passed by Congress.” Governor Johnston, in his proclamation calling the special session, stated: “I know that the white Democrats of South Carolina will rally behind you in the matter of repealing all primary laws…. Should this prove inadequate, we South Carolinians will use the necessary methods to retain white supremacy in our primaries to safeguard the homes and happiness of our people.” See New York Times, Apr. 14, 1944, p. 1, Apr. 18, 1944, p. 13.

41 Acts and Joint Resolutions, South Carolina, 1944, Sec. 2323, p. 2241.

42 Ibid., p. 2344, Constitution of South Carolina, Art. II, Sec. 10.

43 72 F. Supp. 516 (1947).

44 Rice v. Elmore, 165 F. 2d 387 (1947), 68 S. Ct. 905 (1948).

45 Italics added.

46 Report, pp. 151–173.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.