THE "TEMPEST IN A TEAPOT": The South and Its Reaction to the Roosevelt- Washington Dinner at the in October, 1901

Takahiro Sasaki

The triumph of racism was one of the most significant social and political features of the life in Southern states at the turn of the century. The "settlement" of the race question was reaching its final stage by the establishment of legal segregation and disfranchisement. Absolute sepa- ration of races in all public places became the rule. Physical violence, in the form of lynching, was often employed against blacks who seemed to have crossed the color line, in the hope that such punishment would help to keep black Southerners reminded of their own "place" in so- ciety. Therefore, the news of President having taken dinner with a black educator, Booker Taliaferro Washington, at the White House in October, 1901, came as a great surprise to the South1). Roosevelt was severely criticized for unduly attacking the foundation of Southern white civilization. Why did the South react to the incident as violently as it did? What was its reasoning for its vehement criticism of the President? The excitement of the South over the dinner incidentlasted for about four weeks. During this period,practically all the newspapers published in the South joined the controversy,each explainingin its own way how the Southern positionfor the races could be justified. Through examinationof newspaper comments and editorials,this paper attemptsto describeand analyzethe prevailingracial attitudes of white Southernersliving at that time.

48 Theodore Roosevelt Invites Booker T. Washington On September6, 1901,while attending the receptionat the Pan- American Exposition in Buffalo, New York, President William Mc- Kinley was shot by Leon F. Czolgosz.Eight days later,his death promoted Theodore Roosevelt to the presidency. The South receivedthe news with mixed feelings.To many South- erners,Roosevelt had appeared too "radicar"to become a "safe"pres- ident. The Jackson (Mississippi)Daily Clarion-Ledger,for example, wrote on the day Roosevelt took the oath of office,that he was "a man of fairabihty" but also one "ofaction," and for that reason he was to be feared. "He is too radicalin his views,"asserted the editorial,"and representsthe most extreme wing of the Republican party." Therefore, the writerconcluded, he was "notthe man the businessinterests or the people at largewould willinglyentrust with power, as there is nothing in his past lifeby which to calculatehis future acts2)." Others,however, remembered Roosevelt'sSouthern family connec- tionsand hoped that for the firsttime since the CivilWar the South would have a presidentwho had an understandingof itsproblems. The Galveston (Texas) News wrote: "The fact should not be forgotten that the Presidentof the United Statesis halfSouthern, and, more than this,is betteracquainted with the Southern people,by a personalcon- tactwith them, than any Presidentsince the time of Andrew Johnson3)." The Wilmington Morning Star agreed, claiming that Roosevelt "has always spoken kindly of the South, from which his mother sprang4)." As soon as he became President,Roosevelt publicly announced his intentionof improving the qualityof federalappointments in the South by appointinga Democrat whenever a qualifiedRepublican could not be found. He tunred to Booker T. Washington, the principalof the Tuskegee Institute,for advice on Southern appointments. Shortlyafter he became President,Roosevelt invitedWashington to come to the White House "on eitherthe 27th or 28th" of September5), At this meeting,Roosevelt said franklythat he would not appoint a largenum- ber of blacks to officein the South, but added that those he would appoint would be men of high characterand abilitywho had the con-

49 fidence of their white and black neighbors. He also told Washington that he wanted to appoint native Southern white men of high character "regardless of political influences or political consequences6)." It was probably at this time that the name of Thomas G. Jones, a Democrat and ex-Governor of Alabama, was mentioned by Washington as a possible candidate for future appointment. John Bruce, a United Statesdistrict judge in Alabama, died on October 1. On the following day, Washington sent his secretary Emmett Jay Scottto the White House with his letterrecommending that the Presidentappoint Thomas G. Jones to the federaljudgeship vacated by the death of Bruce. Jones, Washington wrote, "is a gold democrat, and is a clean,pure man in every respect."Thus recommending Jones to Roosevelt,Washington added: "I do not believethat in allthe south you could selecta betterman through whom to emphasize your idea of the characterof a man to hold officethan you can do through ex-Gov- ernor Jones7)." The appointment of Jones was made public on October 7. The Southern press welcomed the news. Praisingthe courage and broad- mindedness of the new President,the Montgomery Advertiserwrote: "The selectionof so prominent a Democrat by a Republican President revealsat one bold strokeMr. Roosevelt'sgreat capacityfor the high officehe holds8)."The White House received"a floodof congratulatory telegrams"from allover the country9).Even the Jackson Daily Clarion- Ledger, which had been very criticalof Roosevelt,was beginning to change itsmind. The appointment of Jones was "a most courageous thing to do," and, in the opinion of the paper, was "to be attributed primarilyto the desireof the President"to become "the Presidentof the whole country" who "faithfullyand conscientiouslyadminister the affairsof the country" to the best interestsof the people10). After he recommended Jones to Roosevelt, Washington left the capitalon a speaking tour in Mississippi,where he receivedword that the Presidentwould liketo have another conferencewith him. Finish- ing his work in Mississippi,he hurried to Washington, D.C. Arriving therein the afternoonof , he went to the house of his friend, WhitefieldMcKinlay, a black businessman and Republican politician,

50 with whom Washington often stayed during his visitsto the nation's capital. When he reached McKinlay's house, he found an invitation from Roosevelt to dine at the White House that evening at seven- thirty11).Washington went to the White House at the appointed time, and dined with Roosevelt, his wife, his daughter Alice, his three sons and Philip Bathell Stewart, a Republican politicianfrom Colorado and old friend of Roosevelt's12).After dinner they discussed the Southern question and Roosevelt's plans concerning the South. Later that night Washington leftthe White House and took a train to New York13). On the followingday the Washington Evening Star brieflyreported that "Prof.Booker T. Washington was in the cityyesterday, and dined with the Presidentlast night14)." Most other newspapers,either in the North or in the South,did not even mention the incident.But suddenly the next day, , the newspapers in the South were flooded with comments and editorialsconcerning the dinner at the White House. PresidentRoosevelt, wrote the Charleston (S.C.) News and Courier, "shocked severelyhis recentlyacquired Southern friendsand admirers by invitingProf. Booker T. Washing on to dine at the White House15)." "Nice things were said ," wrote the Jackson Daily Clarion-Ledger, "about the President'snew Southern policyand his expressionsof kind- ness for the Southern people were gratefullyreceived." The editorial continued: The Clarion-Ledger,which has frequentlyexpressed its dis- gust at the anticsand spectacularperformances of "Teddy the Terrible,"and said ithad no confidencein and littlere- spectfor him when he succeeded McKinley as President,had begun to believethere was more in him than "frothand fus- tian,"and often applauded his acts. It hoped for the best. But allthis is gone. Roosevelt has dashed allhopes to the ground, and the South, the land that gave his mother birth, now looks upon him with loathingand contempt16).

The Pattern of Southern Racial Thinking

The idea that Negroes are an inferior race had roots deep in the

51 experienceof the United Statesand had long been used as a basisfor the defense of slavery. Slavery demanded that Negroes as slaves be meek, faithfulpeople who would fitthe Sambo image createdin the slaveholders'mind. Above all,slaveholders believed that slaverywas performing the functionof racialcontrol. By the 1830's,Southerners were agreed thatthe civilizationthey enjoyed restedentirely upon pre- servationof order in theirplantation society. Any attempt to disturb the existingorder seemed to them a possiblethreat to theircivilization. The CivilWar ended slavery,but much of itsracial ideology survived. After Reconstruction,white Southernersturned to segregationin the hope that itwould fulfillthe functionof racialcontrol that slaveryhad performed in the ante-bellumsociety. When Theodore Rooseveltinvited Booker T. Washington to dinner, it aroused these Southern sentiments.As the Memphis Commercial- Appeal put it,the South "isa white man's country." It would continue to be as such "as long as clean blood flows through the veins of the white people." The civilizationof the South as a "white man's coun- try" rested upon effectivecontrol of blacks,who, if leftalone, could pose menace to the white civilization.Roosevelt's act, by breaking down the color line,was thereforeregarded as "a crime" againstthe South and its civilization17).Similarly, speaking before some four hundred young women, Joseph Harris Chappell, the presidentof the Georgia Normal and IndustrialCollege, said: A studyof the racesof mankind placesthe Southern Anglo- Saxon at thevery higheststate of developmentand thenegro at thelowest. The negroif left to takecare of himselfwould never attainanything like civilization.They have always been barbariansand savages.What God has so wiselysun- dered not ten thousand Teddy Rooseveltscan bring into socialequality. The bringingtogether of such unequalraces in socialunion white Southern women shouldloathe because of God-giveninstincts18).

In sum, those Southernerswho attackedTheodore Roosevelt based their argument on the followingassumptions:

52 1. Blacks are innatelydifferent from, and inferiorto, whites. 2. Blacks,because of theirinferiority, should be assigneda placesub- ordinateto thatof whites. 3. Civilizationrests upon socialorder which requirescomplete sepa- rationof theraces. Therefore, Negroes should be segregatedfrom whitesin allsocial circles. The colorline should be kept at all costs. 4. An attemptto break down the colorline by forcingthe inter- minglingof the raceswill result in miscegenation. 5. Miscegenationwill create a mongrel race,which is inferiorto pure whites and perhaps even to pure Negroes. Mixing of bloods,there- fore,means the lowering down of the standard of the American civilizationto the levelof Latin American countries. Dinner invitationshave served a specialfunction in the sociallife of the United States.The phrase "to break bread with someone" has a connotationof intimatefeelings shared by the persons involved. If dinner is stillconsidered a good occasionto expressdeep respectand kindly,fraternal feelings toward the guests,it was even more so at the turn of the century. Dinner was "the most important hour of the twenty-four,"shared by family members and their intimatefriends. Invitationsto a dinner,therefore, were regarded as "thehighest form of courtesy"and as "a sign of good will"displayed by the host of his guests19).The guests at the dinner had to be most carefullyselected. One popular book on etiquettein the latenineteenth century wrote:

Those invited[to the dinner]should be of the same standing in society.They need not be friends,nor even acquaintances, but, at dinner,as people come into closercontact than at a dance, or any other kind of a party, those only should be invitedto meet one another who move in the same classof circles20).

Itis against such backgroundof American cultureof diningthat the Southernreaction against the White House dinnercan be correctly understood."Even among whitemen," wrote the Houston Post,"the dinnerguest is recognized as the socialequal to everyparticular." A

53 person admitted into the home as a dinner guest is "free to propose marriage to a lady of the family of which he has been a guest." Invite

a Negro into the white man's home, the Post declared, "and the danger

line is crossed21)." The Macon Telegraph agreed with this opinion: "A dinner given by one man to another in the home and the privacy

of his family means that the guest or his son may woo and win the

host's daughter22)." The Times-Democrat asked: "White

men of the South, how do you like it? White women of the South,

how do YOU like it?…When Mr. Roosevelt sits down to dinner with

a negro, he declares that the negro is the social equal of the white

man23)." For the Richmond Times, the dinner meant simply that "the

President is willing that negroes shall mingle freely with whites in the

social circle-that white women may receive attention from negro

men24)."

Their fear of miscegenation was blended with a firm belief that the amalgamation of the races would inevitably lead to the destruction

of the white civilization. "A mixture of the races," wrote the Nashville

American, "would mean deterioration and degradation of the white

race…" Observe the Cubans. "What a miserable race of mongrels

they are, for the most part." Although "a mixture of the blood of the

white race of different nationalities" will often produce a splendid type

of man, this is not the case with a mixture of races. "The mongrel

race," the American assured the reader, "is always of an inferior

type25)." The New Orleans Times-Democrat also argued that misce-

genation would result in "the deterioration of both whites and blacks" and "the substitution of West Indian or Latin American standards of

civilization for the distinctly American standard26)." The South would

not allow this to happen. In order to protectthe South from miscegenationand race deteriora- tion,Southerners argued, the color linehad to be maintained as rigidly as possible.Granting of even a singleexception would endanger the Southern civilizationitself. "A leak in a dam is dangerous to the dam's safety,"wrote the NashvilleAmerican. "There is danger that the leak may grow largeruntil the dam is destroyed and hopeless havoc and ruin are wrought." The writeradmitted that Booker T. Washington

54 was an exceptionallyrespectable black citizen,but "to accord social equalityto negroes of Booker Washington's stamp would be a leak in a dam." More Negroes of lessrespectability would demand the same recognitionand the dam would be destroyed27). In time, the Northern newspapers ralliedto an almost unanimous supportof the President.As ferventadvocates of individualism,North- erners tended to minimize, or completely deny, the effectof racial differenceon the mind of an individualin his socialrelations. They claimed that every individualought to have perfectliberty in choosing his friendsregardless of color,and assertedthat any artificialattempt to interferewith thisnatural formation of socialrelations would be a violationof basic human rights.

The Chicago Tribune summarized this Northern mentality when it defended Roosevelt against virulent attack made by the Southern press: "Every private citizen has an undisputed right to invite whomsoever he pleases to take dinner with him. Such a right is denied to the President of the United States by certain citizens and papers of Memphis…

What business have they to assume to regulate the private invitation list of Theodore Roosevelt because he is President?28)" It is a most absurd idea, wrote the Independent, to solve the so-called Negro ques- tion "by not inviting the negro to dinner":

Negroes are not begging for social equality with anybody.

That is a matter of individual preference; it goes by favor,

not by right…

The discussion of the dinner question, the social equality

question, absolutely confuses the issue. Nobody demands, nobody has a right to demand social relations with anybody.

After stating this, the Independent proclaimed: "The attempt should be given up to keep anybody under. Let all rise, and if the Caucasian is abler than the negro, he will keep ahead29)." In replyto these Northern arguments,the Southern press generally argued that, in the words of the Memphis Scimitar,"Roosevelt the individual,and Roosevelt the President,are not to be viewed in the same light." In the opinion of the New Orleans Times-Democrat,

55 Theodore Roosevelt,before being electedVice-President, had the right to dine with anybody he chose. But, when he, as the Presidentof the United States,invites a Negro to dinner at the White House, "he instantlypresents in concreteform the questionof racialsocial equality; and in presentingit, he attempts to throw the weight, the dignityand the authorityof his high officialposition on the affirmativeside of that question." He declares "tothe whole world that,in the judgement of the Presidentof the United States,the negro is the socialequal of the white man30)." A small minority of Southern newspapers supported the Northern doctrine of individualfreedom of choosing one's guests. "A man's home is his castle,"wrote the Raleigh (N.C.) News and Observer, "whether itbe a home in the White House or in an humble cabin. He has the rightto choose his guests,and sitdown at his own tablewith whomsoever he pleases to break bread with him." But Josephus Daniels,the editor,did not forgetto add: "Itis not a precedentthat will encourage Southern men to join hands with Mr. Roosevelt." The Columbia (S.C.) State also supported this view, but expressed more explicitlyits antipathy toward the President. "Theodore Roosevelt selectsa negro for his socialequal and associate,why, who is thereto say him nay?" asked the writer. Roosevelt had the right "to sitdown and dine with as many negroes as he may choose and as often,"but everyone else had "an equal right to think his taste bad31)." Some Southern newspapers directedtheir attentionto the Negro educator. They could not understand why Booker T. Washington, born and reared in the South, and who should have had the understanding of the racialprejudice in the South, acceptedthe invitationeven at the risk of losinghis respectabilityamong influentialwhites in the South. At Tuskegee, the New Orleans Times-Democrat wrote, Washington should have clearlyunderstood the Southern positionthat "socialequal- ityof the races was not even for an instant,or even in an individual instance,to be conceded." Apparently, the writer claimed, he could not resistthe temptationof vanity: "The invitationcame; the tempta- tion swept Washington off his feetand out of his mind; he yielded in obedience to a sense of personalconceit, and in doing so he neutralized

56 the wise efforts of a lifetime spent in actual service to his race and to his country32). The criticismWashington received,however, was very mild com- pared with the denunciation directedagainst Theodore Roosevelt. Washington had many defendersin the South. The Mobile (Alabama) Daily Registerwrote that "Roosevelt,and not ProfessorWashington, is the one criticized."The South may be disappointedin Washington "because he had not the force of characterattributed to him , but we cannot blame him for accepting socialattentions33)." The Houston Post statedthat it would not say "a word againstBooker T. Washington, who is a great negro educator,and for whom the Post entertainsthe very highestrespect." If Roosevelt had had to dine with a Negro, it continued,"he could not have picked a betternegro to have to dinner." The criticismshould be directedto the President,who, "withoutrea- son, has violateda custom of the country,the existenceof which is founded on the highest necessity34)." PresidentRoosevelt, on the other hand, was severelycondemned throughout the South. "PresidentRoosevelt," wrote the Memphis Commercial-Appeal, "has committed a blunder that is worse than a crime, and no atonement or future act of his can remove the self-im- printed stigma35)."Dr. Richard McIlwaine, presidentof Hampden- Sidney College,said indignantly: "If Roosevelt or any other Velt wishes to livewith niggers,I can'thelp it. If he is builtthat way, he can'thelp it.But he'sgot no business,as President,to be guiltyof any such criminalfolly. It's an outrage on officialdecency. It'scontempti- ble36)."The claim that Roosevelthad committed a crime againstthe South clearlyindicates the intensityof the anger of the South.

The Radicals and the Balltown (Louisiana)Race Riot A more radicalmind set was also revealed in the course of the con- troversy. Sharing the same basic assumptions with Southern white conservatives whose racial ideas have been discussed and analyzed so far, this mentality constituted the radical wing of the Southern racist ideology. The difference was mainly a matter of emphasis: whereas the moderate wing argued merely that Negroes should be kept separate

57 from whites, the radical wing asserted that the Negro's place in society should be kept as low as possible. It was not sufficient, radicals argued, to segregate blacks. Every possible means should be employed to sup- press Negroes so that they would never dream of "social equality" with whites. In the minds of radicals, lynching was justified as an effective way to keep blacks in their place, especially to prevent their com- mitting sexual crimes against white women. The introductionof Darwinian theory of evolutioninto the United Stateshad produced a profound effecton the racialthinking in this country. Darwinian theory provided to a greaterextent than previous theoriesa scientificbasis and justificationfor racistideologies in the United States.Now itwas possibleto argue confidentlythat the natural laws of the strugglefor existenceand the survivalof the fittestwere also applicableto the racesof man. The logicalconclusion of thisline of argument was that the Negro, being the inferiorrace, would soon disappear in the face of the stronger,and abler,Caucasian race, be- cause the abolitionof slaveryalso had ended protectionfor the black race. After Reconstruction,talk of the disappearingNegro flourished in the United States.The census figuresof 1880 and 1890, however, did not verify the expectation:the black population,instead of de- creasing,steadily increased during this period. In the meantime, another argument was set forth by Philip AlexanderBruce, well-known statistician of the time. In The Plantation Negro as a Freeman,published in 1889,Bruce argued on the basisof availablestatistics, that the Negro had degeneratedsince emancipation. The crime ratefor blacks,he pointedout, was increasingand would continueto increase.The good qualitiesof theold, faithful servant now survivedonly among the olderNegroes who had grown up under slavery.The new generationof blacks,reared without the benefitsof slavery,showed none of thesequalities. Bruce calledspecial attention to the "ever-increasing"rate of sexualassaults on whitewomen as an evidencefor blackdegeneration37). Bruce's image of degenerating blacks was popularized by many propagandists throughout the South. Rebecca Latimer Felton, speak- ing at the annual meeting of the Georgia State Agricultural Society

58 in 1897, said that the gravest problem facing the wives of farmers living in the rural areas was the danger of Negro rapists. "When there is not enough religion in the pulpit to promptly punish crime… if it needs lynching to protect woman's dearest possession from the raving human beasts," she exclaimed, "then, I say lynch; a thousand times a week if necessary38)." Benjamin Ryan Tillman expressed a similar view. He declared on the Senate floor: "As governor of South

Carolina I proclaimed that, although I had taken the oath of office to support the law and enforce it, I would lead a mob to lynch any man, black or white, who ravished a woman, black or white." When a Negro violated a white woman, he believed, even death by torture was too gentle a fate39). Toward the turn of the century,another "scientific"theory was introduced.This theory,popularized in the earlytwentieth century by psychologistslike George Oscar Ferguson, saidthat the Negro's mental growth is interruptedabruptly at puberty when the suturesof his skull get knit together,which preventsfurther growth of his brain. But, even though his mental development stopsat puberty,his physicaland sexual growth continues.Therefore, the adult Negro is physicallyand sexual- ly mature, but he is likea childin mental and intellectualdevelopment. He often becomes sexuallyaggressive, Ferguson claimed,because he lacks mental restraintsto controlhis sexual desires40). The White House dinner provoked these radicalracist arguments. Radicals were quick to point out that the dinner might produce some bad effecton the behaviorof blacks. The ShreveportTimes, for exam- ple,commented on the dinner:

As we see it, the greatest danger of the Roosevelt-Washington

dinner lies in the inspiration it may prove to the negro. It

will stimulate in the hearts of many a black or brown-faced

student a belief that a careful mental training will ultimately

lead to social equality between the races in this country…

With the White House dinner, the bars are being removed by

prominent hands, and sooner or later there will be an ethical equalization of the races41).

59 On , at the Broadway BaptistChurch, a white church in Louisville,Kentucky, two Negro women walked down the aisleand sat down in one of the front pews. "The colored women," reported the LouisvilleCourier-Journal, "paid no heed to the upturned noses of some of the women and scowls of some of the men," and remained seated throughout the service.The ministersaid that he did not re- member any Negroes attendinghis servicebefore. Those who con- demned the act of these black women, the newspaper reported,attrib- uted it to the reception of Booker T. Washington by President Roosevelt42)."The evilfruit of the act of PresidentRoosevelt in putting the negro upon a plane of equalitywith himselfis ripeningfast," wrote the Jackson Daily Clarion-Ledger.Stories were reported from across the country about "increasedself-assertion" on the part of blacks,who, "without any doubt , have been influenced by the dining of Booker Washington by the Presidentof the United States43)." In a similarvein, Benjamin Tillman commented on the dinner: "The act of Presidentin entertainingthat nigger will necessitateour killinga thousand niggersbefore they willlearn theirplace again44)." His suggestionof lynching "a thousand" blacks in order to put them back in their place was particularlysignificant, for it clearlydemon- stratedthe mentalityof the radicalwing of Southern racialthinkers whose ideas exerted great influencein the turn-of-the-centuryUnited States. On , the NashvilleAmerican commented on this statementof Benjamin Tillman: "What he clearlymeant was that the incidentwould probably lead some foolishnegroes into conduct which would naturallycause a clashbetween the individualsof the two races." Time might show, the American warned, that his statementwas "not wholly incorrect"after all. For, in the opinion of the writer, "itwill not be surprising,however deplorableit may be, ifa number of Negroes lose theirlives as a director indirectresult of the mistake which the Presidentand Washington have made45)." Meanwhile, a seriesof racialconflicts occurred in a small,sparsely populated town, Balltown, Louisiana. The detailsof these incidents were not clear,but the followingis a storybased on the reportsof the white newspapers in New Orleans. On , a Negro named

60 William Morris broke into a country store and assaulted Mrs. John Ball who was alone in the store. After he abused her, Morris hit her on the head with a pine knot and ran away leaving the victim uncon- scious. Soon Mrs. Ball recovered consciousness , and the hunt for the "black beast" was beg un. William Morris, the accused, was found at his home. On the 24th, after admitting his guilt, Morris was taken to the scene of his crime and chained to a pine tree. Pine knots and straw were piled about his body. Over this, kerosene was poured, and the whole was set fire. The next day, the 25th, a camp meeting was held at the nearby Live Oak Baptist Church, attended by severalhundred blacks. The meeting was to continuefor a week. It is likelythat the lynchingof Bill Morris was discussedamong the blacks who attendedthe meeting. The ministerof the church, Parson Connelly, made some referencein his sermon to the burning of BillMorris, declaringthat itwas an outrage upon humanity and decency. Among the executionersof Morris had been one Negro, and this angered blacks in the neighborhood. They talked of lynching this Negro as a traitorof his race. On the 28th, it was found that a Negro named Crea Lott had opened a restaurantat this camp without having a license.When a posse of white men came to arresthim, the excitedblacks refusedto surrenderLott and a shootingbattle followed. Two white men and nine blacks,including Lott and the black preacherof the church,were killed. Nobody knew for certainhow many people were wounded46). At the order of the governor of Louisiana,William W. Heard, troops were held in readinessin case any furtherbattle followed. There was some talkamong whites in the town of punishingthe Negroes for the affair, but no more lynchingstook place. Horrifiedblacks hastened to leave the town afterspending a sleeplessnight, and the districtlost much of itsblack population47). Deserving of specialmention is the fact that the race riot in Louisiana stimulatedboth the radicaland moderate mentalitiesof Southern racistideology. Arguments were set forth from both sides. The New Orleans Daily Picayune,for example, believedthat the racial disturbancewas a naturaloutcome of the Washington dinner. "There

61 is no doubt," the Daily Picayune stated, "that the negroes have been lately aroused to aggressiveness by the intemperate expressions in both the northern and the southern press over the recent Booker Washington dinner with the President, and doubtless not a few have been told that the affair means an active revival of federal interference and interven- tion in their behalf48)." The Shreveport Times supported this view:

With such a remarkable example of social equalization as

President Roosevelt afforded , the black men [sic.] is be- coming intolerant of social inequality in the South . The Pres- ident has made him believe that his color is not a bar to social

intercourse with the whites and a sense of being oppressed

and denied the natural privileges is now latent in his heart … It would be unjust to accuse President Roosevelt of being

directly responsible for this Balltown tragedy , but his gra- ciousnessto a full-bloodedSouthern negro unquestionably accentuatedthe feelingbetween the races in the South and had itseffect on the negroes of Washington [parish]. "A fe w more such social functions as the black and white dinner" at the White House, the Times declared , "and we will have the South overrun with lawless and bloodthirsty negro criminals49)." TheNew OrleansTimes-Democrat, on the other hand, represented the moderate wing of the racist ideology . Commenting on the race riot, the Times-Democrat denounced lynching as an enemy to the law and order. "It is idle," the editorialist wrote , "for people of Louisiana to attempt to blind themselves to the enormity of this tragedy ." He continued:

It is unreasonablein them to imagine that one crime may be justlypunished by the commission of another crime, differing perhaps in kind, but not in degree. The burning of a human being at the stake,no matter how heinous may be the crime with which he is charged,or of which he may have been con- victed,should never even for an instantbe countenanced by a community supposed to be civilized50).

62 The Balltown race riotclearly illustrated the two differentmentalities of Southern racialthinking that existed at the turn of the century. The moderate wing emphasized law and order, while radicalslaid all the blame on the blacks who became "aroused" as a resultof the White House dinner.

Aftermath of the Dinner Episode

By the end of the year 1901, the whole excitementin the South had passed and the dinner incidenthad become an episode of the past. The Sourten press had found other topicsto discuss,and the subjectof the White House dinner had quicklydisappeared from the printedpages of newspapers in the South. But the "tempestin a tea- pot," the term Theodore Roosevelt and Booker T. Washington used in theircorrespondence to describethe Southern reactionto the dinner, had some lastingimpact51). An image of Theodore Roosevelt as a Northern "radical"president who sanctionedsocial equality at the White House became fixedin the minds of white Southerners.Roosevelt could never erase this"radical" image and regainthe popularityin the South he had enjoyed in the firstmonth of his presidency. Booker T. Washington recorded an interestingepisode that illus- tratesthis Southern mentality. While he was making a trip through Florida "some weeks" afterthe dinner,he met a white man in a train. After shaking hands "very cordially"with Washington, the man told him emphaticallythat he was the greatestman in the country. When Washington told him that he thought Theodore Roosevelt was the greatestman in the country,the white man replied "withconsiderable emphasis in his voice": "I used to think that Roosevelt was a great man untilhe ate the dinner with you. That settledhim for me52)." As timewent by,it became increasinglyclear to Rooseveltthat the WhiteHouse dinnerhad been a politicalerror. It earnedhim a reputa- tionfor being "tooradical" on therace question. Although Roosevelt had insistedshortly after the dinner that he would have Washington"to dine justas often"as he pleased,he never againinvited the black educatorto dinner53).Throughout his firstterm, he was concerned with his decliningPopularity in the South and on severaloccasions

63 expressed his regretabout the Southern opinion of him54). In 1904, Roosevelt admitted that probably "itwould have been better"for him "not to have had Booke r Washington at dinner." Eleven years later, when he looked back at the White House diner, he was convinced thatwhat he had done was "a mistake." The diner, he said,was "mis- interpretedby the white men of the South and by the black men of the South." It was a mistake only because he had assumed that "the Southern whites were much furtheradvanced intellectuallyand morally than was actuallythe case." In principle,Roosevelt asserted, his action could be justified;in practice,however, it cost him dearly in political standingin the South55). The declineof his popularityin the South also produced a far- reachingeffect on TheodoreRoosevelt's policy toward that region. With many localparty organizations being controlled by Marcus A. Hanna, Roosevelthad desperatelyneeded Southerndelegations to securehis nominationfor the presidencyin 1904. Thus Roosevelttuned to Booker T. Washingtonfor advice on federalappointments in the South, hoping thatthrough patronage he couldundermine Hanna's organiza- tionsand rebuildthe partyalong his lines. During hisfirst month in office,this policy seemed to be workingwell. The Washingtondinner , however,changed this.Not only did Rooseveltlose popularity with Southernwhites, but he was severelycriticized in the South. His popu- larityfurther suffered severe losses in 1903 when he insistedon William D. Crum's appointmentin SouthCarolina , and when he closedthe post officein Indianola,Mississippi, in supportof the black postmistress Minnie Cox. Facedwith this difficult situation in the South, Roosevelt began to have second thoughts about the wisdom of the original line of his Southern policies.Not only did he admit that the White House dinner was a politicalmistake, but, whenever he considered it politicallyad- vantageous, he supported lily-whitefactions in the South against the advice of Booker T. Washington and James S . Clarkson, Surveyor of the Port of New York, who believed that blacks should be represented in the Republican party56). After he secured the nomination and was re-electedin 1904, he was free to take a more pronouncedly anti-black

64 stance. In this sense, the dinner episode marked the turning point in the development of Theodore Roosevelt's policy toward the South.

NOTES 1) For a generalreview of the subject,see Dewey W. Grantham, Jr.,"Din- ner at the White House: Theodore Roosevelt,Booker T. Washington and the South," TennesseeHistoricat Quarterly, 17 (June 1958), pp. 112-130; John K. Severn and William Warren Rogers, "TheodoreRoosevelt Enter- tains Booker T. Washington: Florida'sReaction to the White House Dinner," Florida HistoricalQuarterly, 54 (January 1976), pp.301-318. See alsoLouis R. Harlan,Booker T. Washington:The Making of a Black Leader (New York: Oxford UniversityPress, 1972), pp. 304-324; Harlan, Booker T. Washington:The Wizardof Tuskegee,1901-1915 (New York: Oxford UniversityPress, 1983), Chapter 1 and passim. 2) Jackson Daily Clarion-Ledger,September 14, 1901. For similarcom- ments, see also CharlotteObserver, September 17, 1901; Raleigh News and Observer,September 16, 1901. 3) Quoted in LiteraryDigest, 23 (, 1901), p.428. 4) Wilmington Morning Star,September 15, 1901. 5) Theodore Roosevelt to Booker T. Washington, September 24, 1901, Theodore Roosevelt Papers, Library of Congress. Hereaftercited as TR/LC. 6) Booker T. Washington, My Larger Education: Being Chapters from Ex- perience (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, Page, 1911), pp. 170-171; Roosevelt to James Ford Rhodes, December 15, 1904, Elting E. Morison, ed., Letters of Theodore Roosevelt (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univer- sity Press, 1951-1954), IV, pp. 1072-1073. Hereafter cited as Roosevelt Letters. 7) Washington to Roosevelt, October 2, 1901, Louis R. Harlan, ed., The Booker T. Washington Papers, VI (Urbana: University of IllinoisPress, 1977), p.221. 8) Montgomery Advertizer, October 8, 1901. 9) Washington Evening Star, October 8, 1901. 10) Jackson Daily Clarion-Ledger, October 8-10, 1901. 11) Washington, My Larger Education, pp. 174-175; Washington to Roosevelt, October 16, 1901, TR/LC. Washington recalled ten years after the dinner that the appointed time was eight o'clock, but this is probably incorrect, because his letter to Roosevelt, written on the day he received the in- vitation,clearly stated that he would be happy to accept the invitation for dinner "this evening at seven-thirty." 12) Harlan,Booker T. Washington:The Making of a Black Leader,p.311. 13) Washington, My Larger Education,pp. 175-176. 14) Washington Evening Star,, 1901. 15) Charleston News and Courier,October 18, 1901.

65 16) Jackson Daily Clarion-Ledger, , 1901. 17) Memphis Commercial-Appeal, October 18, 1901; New Orleans Times- Democrat, , 1901; Houston Post, October 20, 1901. 18) Quoted in Jackson Daily clarion-Ledger, October 24, 1901. 19) John M. Young, Our Deportment: Or the Manner, Conduct, and Dress of the Most Refined Society (Springfield,Mass.: King, 1882), pp. 106, 119; S.L. Louis, Decorum: A Practical Treatise on Etiquette of the Best American Society (New York: Union Publishing House, 1882), p.91; Lillian Eichler, The New Book of Etiquette (Garden City, N.Y.: Garden City Publishing Co., 1924), p.196. 20) Young, Our Deportment, p.106. 21) Houston Post, October 20, 1901. 22) Quoted in Raleigh News and Observer,, 1901. 23) New Orleans Times-Democrat,October 18, 1901. 24) Quoted in LiteraryDigest, 23 (November 2, 1901), p.523. 25) NashvilleAmerican, October 23, 1901. 26) New Orleans Times-Democrat, October 24, 1901. 27) Nashville American, October 23, 1901. A similar argument was set forth in the Augusta (Georgia) Chronicle, October 18, 1901. 28) Chicago Tribune,October 19, 1901. 29) "Confusing the Issue,"Independent, 53 (November 21, 1901), pp. 2788- 2789. 30) Memphis Scimitar, October 18, 1901. New Orleans Times-Democrat, October 18, 1901. 31) Raleigh News and Observer,October 18, 1901; Columbia State,quoted in Raleigh News and Observer,October 24, 1901. 32) New Orleans Times-Democrat, October 20, 1901. 33) Mobile Daily Register, November 5, 1901. 34) Houston Post, October 20, 1901. 35) Memphis Commercial-Appeal, October 19, 1901. 36) Washington Post, October 20, 1901. 37) Philip Alexander Bruce, The Plantation Negro as a Freeman: Observa- tions on His Character, Condition and Prospects in Virginia (New York: Putnum, 1889), passim. 38) AtlantaJournal, August 12, 1897,quoted in JosephineB. Bone, "Rebecca Latimer Felton, Social Reformer and Feminist Leader," unpublished M.A. thesis,University of North Carolina,1944, p.68. 39) Francis B. Simkins, Pitchfork Ben Tillman, South Carolinian (Baton Rouge: LouisianaState UniversityPress, 1944), pp.396-397. 40) Idus A. Newby, Jim Crow's Defense: Anti-Negro Thought in America, 1900-1930 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State UniversityPress, 1965), pp. 39-40 and passim. 41) ShreveportTimes, October 24, 1901. 42) LouisvilleCourier-Journal, , 1901.

66 43) Jackson Daily Clarion-Ledger,October 30, 1901. 44) Mark Sullivan,Our Times, III (New York: Scribner's,1930), p.136. 45) Nashville American, October 29, 1901. 46) It was once reportedthat almost thirtypeople were killedin the riot.It was not untilOctober 30 that the accuratenumber was obtained. 47) For the detailsof the Bill Morris lynchingand the race riot,see New Orleans Daily Picayune, -November 2, 1901; New Orleans Times-Democrat, October 25-November 2, 1901. 48) New Orleans Daily Picayune, October 30, 1901. 49) Shreveport Times, October 30, 1901. 50) New Orleans Times-Democrat, October 29, 1901. 51) The phrase "tempest in a teapot"first appeared in an editorialin the Montgomery Advertiser,and referred,of course,to the violentreaction of the South to the White House dinner.Both Rooseveltand Washington used the phrase in their correspondence.See Montgomery Advertiser, October 20, 1901; WhitefieldMcKinlay to Booker T. Washington, Octo- ber 28, 1901, and Washington to McKinlay, , 1901, Whitefield McKinlay Papers, Carter G. Woodson Collection,Library of Congress. 52) Washington, My Larger Education, pp. 177-178. 53) Roosevelt to Curtis Guild, , 1901, Morison, ed., Roosevelt Letters, III, p.184. 54) See, for example, Roosevelt to Thomas G. Jones, July 30, 1903, TR/LC; Roosevelt to Albert Shaw, February 3, 1903, TR/LC. 55) Roosevelt to Henry Smith Pritchett,December 14, 1904, Morison, ed., Roosevelt Letters, IV, p.1071; Roosevelt to Charles Grenfill Washburn, November 20, 1915, Roosevelt Letters, VIII, pp. 981-982. 56) For Roosevelt's policy toward blacks, see Seth M. Scheiner, "President Theodore Roosevelt and the Negro, 1901-1908," Journal of Negro His- tory, 47 (July 1962), pp. 169-182; Willard B. Gatewood, "Theodore Roosevelt and Southern Republicans: The Case of South Carolina, 1901- 1904," South Carolina HistoricalMagazine, 70 (October 1969), pp. 251- 266; Gatewood, "Theodore Roosevelt and the Indianola Affair," Journal of Negro History, 53 (April 1968), pp. 48-69; Gatewood, Theodore Roosevelt and the Art of Controversy: Episodes of the White House years (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1970); David Crosson, "James S. Clarkson and Theodore Roosevelt: A Study in Contrasting PoliticalTraditions," Annals of Iowa, 42 (Summer 1974), pp. 344-360; Ann J. Lane, The Brownsville Affair:National Crisis and Black Reaction (Port Washington, N.Y.: Kennikat Press, 1971).

67