A RUMBLING IN THE MUSEUI^t: THE OPPONENTS OF VIRGINIA'S MASSIVE RESISTANCE James Howard Hershman, Jr. Leesburg, Virginia B.A., Lynchburg College, 1969 M.A., Wake Forest University, 1971 A Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Faculty of the University of Virginia in Candidacy for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Corcoran Department of History University of Virginia August, 1978 0 Copyright by James Howard Hershman, Jr 1978 All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT A Rumbling in the Museum: The Opponents of Virginia's Massive Resistance James Howard Hershman, Jr. University of Virginia, 1978 This dissertation is a study of the blacks and white liberals and moderates who opposed Virginia's policy of mas- sive resistance to the United States Supreme Court's school desegregation ruling in the Brown case. The origin of and continued demand for desegregation came from black Virginians who were challenging an oppressive racial caste system that greatly limited their freedom as American citizens. In the 1930's they b^gan demanding teacher salaries and school facilities equal to their white counter- parts. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People provided lawyers and organizational assistance as the school protests became a mass movement among black Virginians. In 1951, the protest became an attack on public school segre- gation itself. /V The Brown decision and the response to it split white opinion into three groups. A few white liberals publicly ac- cepted racial integration as good; extreme segregationists vehemently rejected any change in the racial caste system; a third group occupied the more complex middle or moderate posi- tion. The political leadership of the moderates came from a diverse group of figures drawn from all of the state's major political factions and parties. The moderate leaders favored 2 modernization o£ state government, rapid industrial and economic growth, and a strong system of public education. Before the Brown ruling, many moderates were prepared to make some con- cessions to black Virginians and to ameliorate the blatant humiliations of the racial caste system. Their response tq^. Brown was conditioned by their belief in obedience to consti- tutional authQritY^.th£±iL_c.Qmiiii-tme4Vt—to, public education and economic growth, and their concern for the international image of the United States as a democratic society. In practical terms, their response to Brown was to compromise, allow some desegregation, preserve the public schools, and, in general, to limit and slow down the changes in the racial caste system. Moderate plans centered on the use of pupil assignment procedures by local school boards to limit desegregation. In contrast to the massive resistance program, which required a state-wide unity of defiance, the moderates believed that localities should determine their own adjustment to desegrega- tion. The diverse and highly individualistic moderate leaders, however, failed to provide a unified opposition leadership and were unable to overcome the emotional appeal of the extreme segregationists. The repressive and obstructionist tactics of massive resistance, however, did not stop the black demand for desegre- gation, and NAACP attorneys fought and defeated in the federal courts the various legal bulwarks of the resistance plan. In 1958, with the prospect of closed public schools an approach- ing reality, massive resister control over public opinion and 3 the political arena began to slip. Middle class white citizens in several communities threatened by school closing organized "save our schools" committees. These citizens, "joined'by the managers of some of the industries that had recently entered the state, formed an effective state-wide lobby group, the Virginia Committee for Public Schools. In January, 1959, when the federal and state courts struck down the school closing laws, moderate forces were strong enough to back successfully Governor Almond's retreat from the resistance camp and block any attempt to continue the defiance of the federal courts. Moderate thinking prevailed when the Perrow Commission formu- J lated a new plan to deal with desegregation. In the 1959 primary election, moderates, backed by liberals and blacks, decisively turned back a massive resister political offensive. Catching the shift in public sentiment, significant leaders of the Byrd Organization adopted the public education issue and other moderate issues, thus keeping the Byrd Organization in power another decade while jettisoning many of its tradi- tional policies. After briefly allying in 1959, moderates^ and liberals split and, ironically, the moderate school plan became the next obstacle in blacks' struggle for full school desegregation. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This dissertation is the result of six years of research and writing. I have received assistance in its research and preparation from many persons whose contributions can be men- tioned only briefly in this statement. Professor Paul M. Gaston directed the study and was a source of valuable sug- gestions and comments in each stage of its development. The editing and comments of Professor Carl M. Brauer, Professor D. Alan Williams, and Mr. Staige Blackford of the Virginia Quarterly Review helped greatly in the final preparation of the dissertation. This study owes much to a group of archivists who have diligently and vigorously gathered material on modern Virginia history. Mr. William Ray, Mr. Douglas Tanner, and Mr. Michael Plunkett of Alderman Library of the University of Virginia and Dr. James Sweeney of Old Dominion University have given special attention to my research needs and have been an unfailing source of encouragement. The staff of the Southern Historical Collection at the University of North Carolina also provided assistance. Many Virginians have been generous in giving me their time and in opening their private papers for me. I would like especially to thank Dr. James Bash, Mr. Armistead L. Boothe, Mrs. J.L. Blair Buck, the late Dr. Ralph Cherry, Mr. and Mrs. Edmund D. Campbell, Mr. George Ferguson, Dr. E. E. Haddock, Mr. Oliver Hill, Mr. Henry E. Howell, Jr., Mr. William M. Lightsey, Dr. Peter Mellette, Mr. Francis P. Miller, Mr. H. Graham Morison, the late Mr. Paul Schweitzer, Dr. 0. Glenn Stahl, Mr. S. W. Tucker, and Mr. T. H. Wilson, II. iv Dr. Joseph R. Washington, Dr. Vivian Gordon, Dr. Alfred L. Cobbs, and especially the students in Afro-American Studies at the University of Virginia expanded my understanding of the perspective of black Virginians. Two other Virginians, Mr. and Mrs. James H. Hershman of Hampton, were always con- cerned about my education and made sacrifices to provide it. My greatest debt, however, is to my wife, Deborah. A relentless foe of split infinitives and convoluted writing, she has edited and typed each draft and made innumerable cor- rections and suggestions in the interest of clear expression. I would like to thank her in the language she likes best. Zu meiner Frau, herzlichen Dank, fllr alles. All errors of fact or interpretation are, of course, my responsibility. CONTENTS PAGE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii INTRODUCTION 1 Chapter I. Black and White in Virginia Before 1954. ... 10 II. The Second Reconstruction Begins: Virginia Receives the Brown Decision 39 IIJ> Charting the Course of Compromise: The Moderates 69 IV. Delay and Division 101 V. Resistance Turns Massive 146 VI. The Path of Greatest Resistance 192 VII. Suppression of White Dissent 233 VIII. The Public Schools Imperiled 271 TV Massive Resistance Meets its Match 320 X. Moderation and Adaptation 371 EPILOGUE 416 BIBLIOGRAPHY 423 MAPS AND TABLES Preceding Map Page Virginia Counties, Principal Cities, Mountains, and Rivers (1950) 10 Tables I. Black Population Percentages in Virginia Counties and Independent Cities (1950) ... 10 II. School Enrollment in Virginia: Total Enrollment 1955-1956 10 "There's a worrisome suspicion among the best people down in Virginia that the social revolution is about to catch up with them at last. Whether it's the psychological aftermath of war eWorld War II, that is); the pernicious and cumulative influence of the New Deal, or even perhaps a delayed reaction to that faintly disreputable old free- thinker, Tom Jefferson, a rather disconcerting change seems to impend and Virginians are facing the prospect with mixed emotions." Cabel Phillips (1949)* "Of all the American states, Virginia can lay claim to the most thorough control by an oligarchy. Political power has been closely held by a small group of leaders who, them- selves and their predecessors, have subverted democratic institutions and deprived most Virginians of a voice in their government. The Commonwealth possesses characteristics more akin to those of England at about the time of the Reform Bill of 1832 than to those of any other state of the present- day South. It is a political museum piece." ---V. 0. Key, Jr. (1949)** *"New Rumblings in the Old Dominion," New York Times Magazine June 19, 1949, p. 10. ^ ' **Southern Politics in State and Nat ion (New York, 1949), p. 19. Introduct ion For five years after the Supreme Court's 1954 Brown de- cision, Virginia prevented enforcement of the ruling in the state's public schools by delay and by outright defiance. Under the sway of its most conservative elements, the polit- ically dominant Byrd Organization led the campaign of defiance called massive resistance. Most studies of this turbulent and crucial era have focused on those who formulated and sought to carry out the massive resistance program. No one has yet told the story of those who were on the other side. This is such a study--of the diverse people and organizations that opposed massive resistance. An analysis of the opponents, I believe, gives a different perspective on the period and pro- vides an illuminating look at those who advocated or, at least, accepted change during the initial reaction to the momentous Brown ruling. The issue of public school desegregation and massive re- sistance to it thoroughly dominated Virginia's public life from the Brown decision until 1960.