One for Whites, One for Blacks: Public Parks and Desegregation in Charlottesville, Virginia

Margaret Sue Echols Keswick, VA

B.A., in History with Honors Research Distinction, The Ohio State University, 2015

A Thesis presented to the Graduate Faculty of the University of Virginia in Candidacy for the Degree of Master of Arts

Department of History

University of Virginia May, 2019

Table of Contents I. Formation of Public Space in Charlottesville...... 4 A. City Beautiful in Charlottesville ...... 4 B. Charlottesville’s First Parks ...... 8 C. The Creation of McIntire and Washington Parks ...... 14 II. Parks Management: The Colored Recreation Board and the Development of Public Space ...... 18 III. Civil Rights, Integration, and the Development of a Modern Parks System ...... 28 IV. Conclusion ...... 37

At the meeting of the city council on Monday night announcement was made of the gift to the city by Mr. Paul Goodloe McIntire of two tracts of land near the city for parks and playgrounds – one for white and the other for colored people.1 Charlottesville Daily Progress, 1926

In 1926, Paul G. McIntire donated two public parks to the city – one for whites, and one for blacks – and ushered in an era of public recreation in the city.2 In the deeds of the property to the city, McIntire included racially restrictive covenants to ensure that one park was legally for whites, while the other was legally for blacks.3 The segregated system created by McIntire was in place in the city until the 1960s.

Despite never being litigated against the city of Charlottesville, two legal questions operated behind the scenes of Charlottesville’s segregated parks system. The first question was whether the racial restrictions placed in the deeds were legally enforceable. In 1948, the

Supreme Court held in Shelley v. Kraemer that racially restrictive covenants were not judicially

1 M’Intire Gives City Sites For Two Parks, CHARLOTTESVILLE DAILY PROGRESS, (Jan. 21, 1926). 2 Id. 3 Deed of January 7, 1926, in 52 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEED BOOK 344, 347 (1926).

Page 1 of 38 enforceable because they violated the state action doctrine.4 Despite no apparent conversation about the role of the Supreme Court’s opinion, it was now illegal to enforce the language in the respective deeds that the tracts of land be used as a park and playground for white and colored people because doing so would have violated the state action doctrine.5

The second question, and like most cases of segregation, was whether segregation in public recreation violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Prior to the decision in Brown v. Board of Education, it seemed plausible that Charlottesville’s parks system was constitutional.6 After all, there were two parks systems, thereby eliminating the argument that blacks were excluded entirely from public recreation and consistent with the language used by the Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson.7 The Supreme Court’s affirmance of the Fourth

Circuit’s decision in Dawson v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City, however, declared segregation of public recreation unconstitutional.8 Thus, denying access of blacks to McIntire

Park would have violated the Equal Protection Clause.9

So, how could Charlottesville’s public recreation system remain racially segregated until the 1960s, even if it was no longer legally enforceable on two grounds? To answer this question, we must understand the history of public recreation in Charlottesville. It was not uncommon for localities to actively resist Supreme Court decisions declaring Jim Crow era laws unconstitutional. One need look no further than developments following Brown v. Board of

4 Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948). 5 Deed of January 7, 1926, in 52 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEED BOOK 344, 347 (1926). 6 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). 7 Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896). 8 Dawson v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City, 220 F.2d 386, 387 (4th Cir. 1955), aff’d 350 U.S. 844 (1955) (“With this in mind, it is obvious that racial segregation in recreational activities can no longer be sustained as a proper exercise of the police power of the State; for if that power cannot be invoked to sustain racial segregation in the schools, where attendance is compulsory and racial friction may be apprehended from the enforced commingling of the races, it cannot be sustained with respect to public beach and bathhouse facilities, the use of which is entirely optional.”)8 9 Id.

Page 2 of 38 Education to see how cities actively resisted the Supreme Court’s decision.1011 A careful look at this story reveals that despite being entrenched in racial politics, the dual system of public recreation created a workable system that would last well beyond its legal enforceability.

Legal historical scholarship too often focuses on how litigation shapes a story.12 This is often the case in the history of race relations in the South, particularly with regards to those surrounding segregation.13 These stories, while important to the development of race relations, are not necessarily the feature of how society worked. Rather, as historians like Robert W.

Gordon have noted, law and society may be inextricably linked.14 In Gordon’s view, trying to distinguish between the two is incorrect as all of this is law.15 Law, while omnipresent, did not drive the story of the Charlottesville’s separate parks system. Social norms and the city’s desire to manage race relations did.16

The central argument of this paper is that the creation of two parks systems in

Charlottesville ultimately led to its workable nature, largely reducing the role of law in a traditional sense in its operation. While racial politics have been a feature of Charlottesville’s public space since its inception, legal enforcement of racial segregation, or for that matter

10 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). 11 For examples of resistance to Brown v. Board of Education, see e.g. Michael J. Klarman, How Brown Changed Race Relations: The Backlash Thesis, JOURNAL OF AMERICAN HISTORY, June 1994 at 82 (arguing Brown’s indirect and more consequential contribution to race relations was one of racial backlash); MICHAEL R. BELKNAP, FEDERAL LAW AND SOUTHERN ORDER: RACIAL VIOLENCE AND CONSTITUTIONAL CONFLICT IN THE POST-BROWN SOUTH xxxi, xxxii (arguing the failure of state and local authorities in the South to control acts against the civil rights movements was challenge to American federalism). 12 See e.g. GERALD N. ROSENBERG, THE HOLLOW HOPE: CAN COURTS BRING ABOUT SOCIAL CHANGE? (2d 2008) (arguing it is nearly impossible to generate significant reform through litigation due to the weakness and ineffectiveness of American courts). 13 See e.g. VICTORIA W. WOLCOTT, RACE, RIOTS, AND ROLLER COASTERS: THE STRUGGLE OVER SEGREGATED RECREATION IN AMERICA (2012); Christopher Coleman, Laurence D. Nee, Leonard S. Rubinowitz, Social Movements and Social-Change Litigation: Synergy in the Montgomery Bus Protest, 30 LAW & SOC. INQUIRY 663 (2005), Robert B. McKay, Segregation and Public Recreation, 40 VA. LAW REV. 697 (1954) (examining the integration of public recreational facilities). 14 Robert W. Gordon, Critical Legal Histories, 36 STAN. L. REV. 57, 58 (1984). 15 Id. 16 J. DOUGLAS SMITH, MANAGING WHITE SUPREMACY: RACE, POLITICS, AND CITIZENSHIP IN VIRGINIA 17 (2002).

Page 3 of 38 desegregation, is not why Charlottesville’s parks system remained segregated for decades after being declared unconstitutional nationally. As a result, Charlottesville’s parks went form de jure segregation, to de facto segregation, to integration with relatively minimal action by traditional legal forces. Certainly the legal creation of segregated parks created the structure, but the law did not change the norms of Charlottesville when the Supreme Court declared racially restrictive covenants and segregation unconstitutional. As a result, the norms created by the law were much more powerful than the law itself. This is a story of how the law operated behind a system of segregation for decades in Charlottesville’s public parks system.

Part I explains how public recreation became a part of Charlottesville and how its parks system was developed. This section explores early recreation planning and the City Beautiful

Movement, and provides a history of the formation of public recreation within in the city. Part II examines how recreation was administered by the city, first through community action and later from by government boards presiding over the presence of white and black recreation in

Charlottesville. Part III discusses the gradual pace of integration in the parks system, and outlines how the workable nature of the dual parks system contributed to the slow pace of desegregation. Part IV details how the history of public space in Charlottesville fits into the broader narrative of race relations in the city, and argues that racial politics have been embedded in public life for decades.

I. Formation of Public Space in Charlottesville

A. City Beautiful in Charlottesville

Charlottesville was not all too different in its creation of public space at the turn of the century than the rest of the nation. Throughout the United States, prominent political leaders and wealthy citizens began campaigns to clean up their cities. With this came improved streets and

Page 4 of 38 neighborhoods, as well as public spaces. During the Progressive Era, many leaders sought to cure societal ills facing cities and the City Beautiful movement was ushered into urban America.

These proposed changes were supported by prominent community members, as well as political leaders within the community.17 In particular, as the population of urban centers were rising during the Industrial Revolution, city leaders sought clean, green spaces to rectify the impacts of industrialization and to provide outdoor spaces for its citizens.18 As the 1880s came to a close, parks for both cities and neighborhoods were used as a common spaces for the community and made neighborhoods aesthetically pleasing.19 As urban park planning pioneer Fredrick Law

Olmstead noted, these newly created public spaces could serve as a meeting point for all members of society, regardless of class.20

The first comprehensive City Beautiful Movement plan came from Washington, D.C. in the early 1900s, and resulted in the National Mall, featuring monuments and open space on a several-mile tract of land. Soon after, cities across the country followed suit, famously with

Olmstead’s creation of Central Park in New York City.21 This creation inspired other major cities to create similar parks, gradually spreading throughout cities of all sizes.22 Despite

Olmstead’s desire for these parks to bring together individuals of diverse backgrounds, the City

Beautiful movement largely failed to unify communities.23 These parks were largely

17 See, e.g. Patricia Lowry, Big Plans for City Started in 1880s, PITTSBURGH HISTORY & LANDMARKS FOUNDATION (December 19, 2007 at 7:20 PM) https://phlf.org/2007/12/19/big-plans-for-city-started-in-1880s/ (arguing that in Pittsburgh, the City Beautiful Movement featured a combination of city planning efforts after the city hired Fredrick Law Olmsted to study downtown, and leaders like Andrew Carnegie donated money and statues to the city.) 18 Thomas L. Daniels, A Trail Across Time, 75 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 177, 178-179 (2009). 19 Id. at 180. 20 Id. 21 Frederick L. Olmsted, The Town Planning Movement in America, 51 THE ANNALS OF AMERICAN ACADEMY OF POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE. 172, 172-181 (1914). 22 Id. at 177-178. 23 Kristen David Adams, Can Promise Enforcement Save Affordable Housing in the United States? 41 SAN DIEGO L. REV 643, 717 (2004).

Page 5 of 38 inaccessible for the poor as they were often far from their own neighborhoods and most working class individuals lacked time for leisure. As a result, the City Beautiful Movement was largely driven by white, upper class men and the desired results were only felt by those fortunate enough to be able to access them.

Beyond the desires for city beautification, Progressive Era reformers began supporting the concept of neighborhood parks as well. These parks were smaller, and their purpose was largely to serve as a safe place for children to play.24 Often referred to as “reform parks,” these spaces brought together communities of different backgrounds and offered more youth activities for neighborhoods throughout the country.25

Like many other cities, Charlottesville’s parks were largely created from philanthropy.

Paul Goodloe McIntire was born in Charlottesville in 1860. His father, George, was the mayor of Charlottesville during the Civil War, and ultimately surrendered the city to Union troops.26

McIntire attended the University of Virginia, although never graduated, and later moved west to work on the C&O railroad.27 Eventually McIntire found himself living in Chicago, where he had amassed enough wealth to purchase a seat on the Chicago Stock Exchange in 1896.28 He later moved to Manhattan and purchased a seat on the New York Stock Exchange.29 During his time in New York, McIntire ran in the same circle as individuals like Andrew Carnegie and Nelson

Rockefeller, and developed a love for the arts and literature.30 While it is unclear how much time McIntire spent around the likes of Carnegie, he seemed to be very inspired by Carnegie’s

24 Galen Cranz, Urban Parks of the Past and Future, PBS (Jan. 1, 2009), https://www.pps.org/reference/futureparks/. 25 Id. 26 WILLIAM R. WILKERSON & WILLIAM G. SHENKIR, PAUL G. MCINTIRE: BUSINESSMAN AND PHILANTHROPIST 1(1988). 27 Id. 28 Id. 29 Id. 30 Id.

Page 6 of 38 approach to charity, which involved using one’s wealth to provide for his community during his lifetime and supporting arts and recreation.31 In turn, McIntire returned to his hometown and began purchasing land to create public spaces and monuments throughout the city of

Charlottesville.

Charlottesville’s parks combined both a sense of the City Beautiful Movement and the reform parks movement. McIntire’s commitment to public space demonstrated both of these movements. Following his time spent in New York City, McIntire sought to bring the City

Beautiful Movement to his hometown. The importance of sculptures and statues to beautification inspired McIntire to commission a statue to Lewis and Clark downtown. On

November 21, 1919, a statue of Lewis and Clark in downtown Charlottesville was unveiled.32

Meriwether Lewis and William Clark had both been residents of Albemarle County, and

McIntire viewed the City Beautiful Movement as an opportune time to dedicate a memorial to two of America’s most famous explorers. McIntire’s desire to erect a monument in honor of these explorers, however, is not just an homage to some of Charlottesville’s most known citizens. Rather, it appeared to be a concerted effort to place Charlottesville on the nation’s map and modernize an old southern community. As a result, this effort was made to make

Charlottesville distinctly national and not Southern, as it glorified national heroes as opposed to famous Southerners. Thus, began an era of beautification improvements in Charlottesville that served as a mechanism for modernizing the city.

31 See Andrew Carnegie, The Gospel of Wealth, and Other Timely Essays, New York Publishing, 1900 at 8. 32 Lewis and Clark in Noble Bronze, CHARLOTTESVILLE DAILY PROGRESS (November 22, 1919).

Page 7 of 38 B. Charlottesville’s First Parks

The first park purchased by McIntire was Lee Park in 1917 (later known as Emancipation

Park, presently and hereinafter known as Market Street Park).33 Records indicate that McIntire purchased the 43,435 square-foot property between First and Second Streets, NE in 1917.34

William O. Watson on behalf of McIntire acquired the property from the Venable family on May

30, 1917 for $25,000.35 Upon purchasing the property, McIntire demolished the longstanding

Southall-Venable home there in preparation to create the park.36 In a letter dated February 5,

1918, McIntire’s attorney R. A. Watson wrote to the Charlottesville City Council, Mayor E. G.

Haden, and University of Virginia President Alderman informing them of the donation to the city on behalf of McIntire. The letter reads:

Dear Sir: I am directed by Mr. Paul G. McIntire to say that he will be glad to present to the City of Charlottesville, as a memorial to his parents, the property known as the “Venable Property” opposite the Post Office, for the purpose of establishing a park. This property embraces the square between 1st and 2nd and Jefferson and Market Streets. Mr. McIntire will put the square in good condition and erect in the center thereof an equestrian statue of General Robert E. Lee, of which the City can feel justly proud. It will require about three years to complete this monument but other improvements can be made at an early date. Mr. H. N. Shrady, of New York, the noted sculptor, who was selected by the United States Government to erect the statue and monument to General Grant at Washington, now nearing completion, and which is said to be the handsomest memorial in America, has been awarded the commission to make the Lee Statue. The property will be given with the Understanding that it will be used as a park and that no buildings will be erected thereon.

33 Deed of May 30, 1917, in 30 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEED BOOK 298-299 (1917). 34 THE HISTORY AND GARDENS OF MARKET STREET PARK, http://www.charlottesville.org/departments-and- services/departments-h-z/parks-recreation/parks-trails/city-parks/emancipation-park-formerly-known-as-lee- park/history-and-gardens-of-emancipation-park (last visited April 29, 2019). 35 Deed of May 30, 1917, in 30 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEED BOOK 298-299 (1917). 36 Id.

Page 8 of 38 The conveyance of the property will be made as soon as the acceptance by the City of this offer. Very truly yours, R. A. Watson37

The letter both demonstrates McIntire’s intent towards the creation of the park, but also shows how McIntire viewed parks creation in Charlottesville. As seen in the

City Beautiful Movement writ large, McIntire sought to make his city “justly proud,” by creating a statue at the heart of the downtown community. While modernizing the city with a statue to a Confederate General may seem incongruous, it seems to embody just how McIntire viewed beautification – embracing the culture of the city and erecting monuments and public space that embody it.

McIntire officially deeded Market Street Park to the city on July 2, 1918.38 The deed conveyed the property to the city on the condition that the land be “used in perpetuity by said city as a public park.”39 The park would be city property from thereon, but the Lee statue would not be unveiled for several years.

Shortly after acquiring the land for Market Street Park, McIntire acquired land nearby for Jackson Park (later known as Justice Park, presently and hereinafter known

Court Square Park).40 McIntire purchased the property known as McKee Row near the courthouse with the desire to erect another public park thereon.41 By the early 1900s,

McKee Row had become a predominately African-American community.42 The property

37 Id. 38 Deed of June 14, 1919, in 32 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEED BOOK 7-8 (1919). 39 Id. 40 HISTORY AND GARDENS OF COURT SQUARE PARK HTTP://WWW.CHARLOTTESVILLE.ORG/DEPARTMENTS-AND- SERVICES/DEPARTMENTS-H-Z/PARKS-RECREATION/PARKS-TRAILS/CITY-PARKS/JUSTICE-PARK-FORMERLY-KNOWN-AS- JACKSON-PARK/HISTORY-AND-GARDENS-OF-JUSTICE-PARK (last visited April 29, 2019). 41 Id. 42 DANIEL BLUESTONE, BUILDINGS, LANDSCAPES, AND MEMORY: CASE STUDIES IN HISTORIC PRESERVATION, 218 (2011).

Page 9 of 38 had largely been owned by John West, a Charlottesville barber and real estate developer.

West was one of the most prominent black property owners in the city, and rented most of the property to black tenants. Despite being a center for housing for blacks in a largely segregated community, the city viewed the property as problematic. Unsurprisingly,

McIntire purchased the entire McKee Row with the intention of creating a park.43

McIntire, via his trustee W.O. Watson, made four separate purchases of land to acquire the now Market Street Park.44

As a result, McIntire had quietly purchased the entire McKee Row, and deeded the property back to the city on December 24, 1918.45 The four properties acquired by

McIntire were offered to the city in consideration of $10.00 on the condition that the property be held and used in perpetuity as a public park named Jackson Park.46 Much like the Lee statue, McIntire commissioned the statue for the property. Despite Lee being donated to the city first, it was the Jackson statue that was first finished and placed in the park.

On October 19, 1921, the statue of General Stonewall Jackson was unveiled during a Confederate Reunion.47 Thousands convened in Charlottesville for the parade and to see the debut of the statue.48 Speaking on behalf of McIntire, President Alderman

43 The property of McKee Row was acquired through multiple transactions. See Deed from Sept. 11, 1918, in 32 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEED BOOK 188-190 (1918) (conveying the property of Birdye and J.J. Letterman to W.O. Watson, Trustee); Deed from Sept. 16, 1918, in 32 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEED BOOK 187-188 (1918) (conveying the property of W.R. and E. Vernon Burnley to W.O. Watson, Trustee); Deed from Dec. 9, 1918, in 32 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEED BOOK 190-191 (1918) (conveying the property of D.S. and John West to W.O. Watson, Trustee); Deed from Dec. 14, 1918, in 32 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEED BOOK 215-216 (1918) (conveying the property of R.H. Wood, Special Commissioner, to W.O. Watson, Trustee). 44 Id. 45 Deed of Dec. 24, 1918, in 32 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEED BOOK 241 (1918). 46 Id. 47 Jackson Statue Is Unveiled, CHARLOTTESVILLE DAILY PROGRESS, (October 19, 1921). 48 Id.

Page 10 of 38 presented the gift to the City of Charlottesville.49 Prior to withdrawing the veil over the statue, Alderman said:

It is my honor and privilege, speaking on behalf of Paul Goodloe McIntire, to present to the City of Charlottesville, and in a high spiritual sense, to the valiant souls now living who fought beneath the Stars and Bars, this statue of Stonewall Jackson in the belief that it will stand here forever a symbol of victorious might in war, or single heartedness in conduct, and an inspiration to those “who love their country well but freedom more.”50

This clear revisionist language demonstrates how the city viewed these leaders of the

Civil War. Despite making a conscious effort to modernize the city, it was hanging on to the very antiquated notions that kept it from seeming truly modern. At its core, the city both sought to beautify and memorialized Confederate leaders.

Charlottesville’s desire to rewrite history is not all that surprising, however.

Throughout the South, leaders were perpetuating ideas of the Civil War that honored those who bravely fought in battle, rather than acknowledging the role slavery played in the conflict.51 Honoring Stonewall Jackson, and Alderman’s own words, demonstrated how Charlottesville viewed the Civil War nearly seventy years later in a manner comparable to leaders throughout the former-Confederacy.

Nearly three years later, the Lee statue was ready to be unveiled. When the statue was unveiled on May 24, 1924, the city similarly partook in a Confederate Reunion on the date of the reveal of the new statue. According to the Daily Progress, thousands joined the processional from the campus of the University of Virginia and marched

49 Id. 50 Id. 51 See, e.g. DAVID W. BLIGHT, RACE AND REUNION: THE CIVIL WAR IN AMERICAN MEMORY (2002).

Page 11 of 38 towards the statue.52 Students at Virginia Military Institute, military marching bands, local elected officials, university presidents, and members of the community came to

Charlottesville to see the statue.53 Perhaps the highlight for many was seeing Mary

Walker, General Robert E. Lee’s great granddaughter. The master of ceremonies, Judge

R. T. W. Duke introduced her as “the great granddaughter of the greatest man who ever lived.”54

While this paper does not intend to add to the current scholarship on the meanings behind Confederate Monuments, a discussion of the role of race and public space cannot be avoided. The creation of monuments honoring the Confederacy in Charlottesville coincides with the larger historical movement of monuments during at the turn of the twentieth century.55 By this time, the Southern version of the history of the Civil War was a conflict over states’ rights, rather than slavery.56 Discussion of the role of race in the Civil War had largely been erased from most Southern accounts of the story. Many scholars have argued that these statues were never intended to honor those who died in the war, but rather to assert and celebrate white supremacy.57 The story of the

Confederate Reunion in Charlottesville during the unveiling, or the placement of these markers in intimidating spots for African Americans demonstrates just that. As a result,

52 Lee Statue Is Unveiled, CHARLOTTESVILLE DAILY PROGRESS, (May 21, 1924). 53 Id. 54 Id. 55 See e.g. Sarah E. Gardner, What We Talk About When We Talk About Confederate Monuments, ORIGINS: CURRENT EVENTS IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE (Vol. 11, Issue 5, Febr. 2018) http://origins.osu.edu/article/what-we- talk-about-when-we-talk-about-confederate-monuments. 56 Id. 57 See e.g. Laura Edwards, Why Confederate Statues Fail to Represent Southern History, THE HILL (Aug. 23, 2017) https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/347630-why-confederate-statues-fail-to-represent-southern- history; Julian Chambliss, Don’t Call them Memorials, FRIEZE (Aug. 23, 2017) https://frieze.com/article/dont-call- them-memorials.

Page 12 of 38 the origins of racial politics in public space in Charlottesville began with the creation of monuments to Confederate generals.

Notably, neither Lee Park or Jackson Park mentioned any racial restrictions on the property.58 This is not to say that both blacks and whites were welcomed on the land equally. The story of the upheaval of the McKee Row property demonstrates that the city did not want the property to be used by blacks. Further, it showed that the city did had little remorse for eradicating a black community in the name of a bronze statue to a

Confederate General. That said, explicit racial use restrictions were not mentioned.

Perhaps, also, this has more to do with the function of the parks. These parks were on small city blocks and dedicated in memorial to Confederate Generals, not parks with playgrounds, baseball fields, and pools. This distinction may be significant as to why the deeds of Lee and Jackson Parks did not exclude blacks from their space, as there was no need to legally dictate who could or could not use the park.

McIntire was not solely interested in creating parks as memorials to the

Confederacy, however. In 1921, McIntire deeded the small tract of land in the Belmont neighborhood to the city for Belmont Park.59 As would become custom for parks donated by McIntire, the deed explicitly called for the site to be a park for the white people of Charlottesville.60

58 Deed of June 14, 1919, in 32 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEED BOOK 7-8 (1919) (deed to Market Street Park); Deed of Dec. 24, 1918, in 32 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEED BOOK 241 (1918) (deed to Court Square Park). 59 Deed from May 5, 1921, in 37 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEED Book 459 (1921). 60 Id.

Page 13 of 38 C. The Creation of McIntire and Washington Parks

In January 1926, McIntire announced his donations of two city sites for McIntire and Washington Parks.61 On the front page of the Charlottesville Daily Progress was the headline, “M’Intire Gives City Sites For Two Parks.”62 The article began by reading, “At the meeting of the city council on Monday night announcement was made of the gift to the city by Mr. Paul Goodloe McIntire of two tracts of land near the city for parks and playgrounds – one for white and the other for colored people.”63

The racial discrepancies in the properties were apparent from early on in their creation. McIntire Park sat upon ninety-two acres of land off of Rugby Avenue. The deed to the land stipulated that the conveyance of the property would be for a “public park and playground for the white people of the City of Charlottesville.”64 The property was large and well-kept, making it a suitable site for a public park. Washington Park, located on Rose Hill, was roughly ten acres of land to serve as a playground for blacks in the community. The park would be placed on a hill, with most of its recreation space as

“the bottom.”65 The Bottom sat on a flood plain and was located near a snake infested woods.66 The Rose Hill property had been previously used as a dumping spot for trash, and was at one point considered as a site for a proposed shelter for individuals with

61 M’Intire Gives City Sites For Two Parks, CHARLOTTESVILLE DAILY PROGRESS, (Jan. 21, 1926). 62 Id. 63 Id. 64 Deed of January 7, 1926, in 52 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEED BOOK 347 (1926). 65 HISTORY OF THE BOTTOM, http://www.charlottesville.org/departments-and-services/departments-h-z/parks- recreation/parks-trails/city-parks/parks-history/history-of-washington-park/history-of-the-bottom (last visited April 29, 2019). 66 Aaron V. Wunsch, From Private Privilege to Public Place: A Brief History of Parks and Park Planning in Charlottesville, 56 THE MAGAZINE OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY HISTORY 77, 92 (1998).

Page 14 of 38 contagious diseases.67 By the 1900s, Rose Hill had become a neighborhood primarily of black families.68 Subsequently, placing a public park for African-Americans in

Charlottesville near this neighborhood seemed consistent for use purposes, but it was clear that the intentions for a park comparable to McIntire was not the plan.

The city had owned Washington Park since 1905, but expressed no interest in cleaning it up or turning it into a playground.69 McIntire purchased the property from the city for $1,000 with the intention of cleaning the property and returning it to the city as a public park for African Americans.70 The deed detailed that McIntire had purchased the property from the city and was conveying the rights back to Charlottesville to be used as a “public park and playground for the colored people.”71 The park would officially open to the public in 1926.

Placing a park for African-Americans in a rundown location was consistent with the role that race and place played in America in the early twentieth century. The

Progressive Era was filled with examples of racist policies, from eugenics to mandated housing segregation. While Progressives may not have been more racist than their counterparts, they did believe in an active government, and often that resulted in overtly racist policies coming from city councils or state legislatures.72 As argued by scholars like Professor Herbert Hovenkamp, because progressives were more supportive of government intervention, their racism was able to be “much uglier and more

67 TRASH FROM THE PAST, http://www.charlottesville.org/departments-and-services/departments-h-z/parks- recreation-/parks-trails/city-parks/parks-history/history-of-washington-park/trash-from-the-past (last visited April 29, 2019). 68 Id. 69 HISTORY OF WASHINGTON PARK, http://www.charlottesville.org/departments-and-services/departments-h-z/parks- recreation/parks-trails/city-parks/parks-history/history-of-washington-park (last visited April 29, 2019). 70 Id. 71 Deed from January 7, 1926, in 52 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEED BOOK 344-345 (1926). 72 Herbert Hovenkamp, The Progressives: Racism and Public Law, 59 ARIZ. L. REV. 947, 954 (2017).

Page 15 of 38 aggressive.”73 Virginia was certainly a contributor to government intervention to further racist tendencies.74 Its long history in the eugenics movements is a demonstration of progressive politics with deeply racist ideals, but it could be found throughout policies in the Commonwealth.

As a result, placing Washington Park in a blighted area was consistent with

Progressive policies towards race. During the early twentieth century, residential segregation remained strongly supported by Progressives.75 Using a space that was both functionally segregated from the white community due to its proximity to African

American neighborhoods and obviously blighted with snakes and trash, was in tune with the types of segregated communities created by Progressives during this era. While

Washington Park was technically given to the city as a park by McIntire, the city was the property owner prior to the donation. Thus, the city’s role in the creation of McIntire

Park at the bottom of the hill fits into the larger role Progressive politics played in the

1920s.

Interestingly enough, Charlottesville had developed its own public parks system with virtually no effort from the city itself. In its earliest years, the city never used eminent domain to acquire property to establish these public spaces. McIntire acted almost as a government actor in this role, as he acquired these properties from private owners to later give back to the city of Charlottesville. McIntire himself had created a parks system entirely by giving properties to the city with the intention of those spaces

73 Id. 74 See Buck v. Bell, 24 U.S. 200 (1927) (upholding a Virginia statute requiring Carrie Buck to be sterilized in an 8-1 decision). 75 David E. Bernstein, Reflections on the 100 Anniversary of Buchanan v. Warley: Recent Revisionist History and Unanswered Questions, 48 CUMB. L. REV. 399, 401 (2018).

Page 16 of 38 being used as a public park. While the city’s role in helping to shape which places

McIntire purchased are notable, it remains remarkable that Charlottesville’s initial recreation system was based entirely upon a philanthropist acquiring local properties to be deeded to the city as public space.76 Further, it held the city to the wishes of the philanthropist – namely, a racial order to public space. Had McIntire not stipulated these parks be segregated, it is almost certain it would have happened anyway given the role of

Jim Crow in the South.77 Yet, Charlottesville was now able to enforce the racist preferences of a philanthropist due to the legal restrictions placed upon the deeds of the city’s first parks.

McIntire’s history of park donation in Charlottesville should be seen through a nuanced lens. It is undeniable that the acquisition and subsequent transfer of the land used for McIntire and Washington Parks have left a profound impact on the city. Both parks, along with his other donations of Belmont Park, are still used as public spaces today. Given the persistent efforts by the city and the state to keep public spending low, it is easy to imagine decades passing before Charlottesville was willing to spend enough money to create spaces dedicated to the public. Thus, the donations by McIntire enabled the city to develop its own public recreation system.

Yet, we should consider how the politics surrounding these donations have impacted the community historically. It is clear from their creation that Charlottesville’s parks were imbued with racial politics. From creating monuments as an homage to the

76 Eminent domain was used throughout the country for the purposes of creating public parks, although it similarly was rooted in racial history. See, e.g., the history of Seneca Village, which was home to Manhattan’s largest African American population and was displaced due to eminent domain for central park. http://www.centralparknyc.org/things-to-see-and-do/attractions/seneca-village-site.html 77 See, e.g. WILLIAM E. O’BRIEN, LANDSCAPES OF EXCLUSION: STATE PARKS AND JIM CROW IN THE AMERICAN SOUTH (2015) (arguing nearly every Southern state had legally segregated pubic parks or parks segregated by customary social norms).

Page 17 of 38 Confederacy, to dismantling a black neighborhood, to the physical placement of the parks, Charlottesville’s park system was created with race at its forefront. While commendable that blacks were offered a space of their own, as opposed to solely creating public places for whites, it should still be remembered that these spaces were not equal.

The city’s long goal of managing race relations was appeased by the dual park system, but its next task would be the administration of these newly created spaces.

II. Parks Management: The Colored Recreation Board and the Development of

Public Space

Despite the donations of the properties to the city several years prior,

Charlottesville parks largely lacked any official oversight for their operations for several years. In 1933, after the urging of local civic groups like the Mother’s Club, Kiwanis,

Elks, and the Rivanna River Club, Charlottesville formed its own department of recreation, which focused on white public facilities.7879 The department was unpaid and consisted of local prominent officials who sought to oversee the development of

Charlottesville’s parks. Its director was appointed by the City Manager.80 The emergence of public parks posed a unique task for parks and recreation boards because it was unclear what their role should be. As public recreation like parks was largely enjoyed by wealthy whites, the government grappled with questions over how and what the role of public recreation should be. Moreover, because wealthy whites already belonged to athletic clubs and country clubs, it was unclear who the beneficiaries of these public

78 MCINTIRE PARK HISTORY, http://www.charlottesville.org/departments-and-services/departments-h- z/neighborhood-development-services/historic-preservation-and-design-review/historic-surveys/mcintire-park- history (last visited April 29, 2019). 79 The Recreation Board referred to itself by different names in the coming years. For simplicity, I will refer to the organization as the Charlottesville Recreation Board. 80 CHARLOTTESVILLE RECREATION BOARD, JANUARY REPORT, (Jan. 1, 1934).

Page 18 of 38 recreation spaces would be and how they would primarily be used. The Recreation Board was determined to make the parks accessible to all, including poor whites and African

Americans, but needed to establish a system that would allow these spaces to actually be used by those who were excluded from other spaces.81

Nonetheless, Charlottesville’s newly formed recreation board sought to answer these questions, but their focus remained on developing the white parks of the city.

While its interests were largely focused on white recreation, the Charlottesville

Recreation Board regularly commented on the updates at Washington Park.82

Despite being largely interested in supporting McIntire Park, as well as developing future parks for Charlottesville’s white citizens, the Charlottesville Recreation

Board appeared interested in collaborating with the African American community. In

1933, Charlottesville staged a music festival as suggested by the National Recreation

Association.83 The National Recreation Association was founded in 1906 as the

Playground Association of America with a mission of encouraging playground and leisure activities.84 Moreover, it was one of the few organizations nationally that was committed to African American recreation during this era.85 This event featured “the services of a colored recreation leader” named George Johnson, whose time spent in

Charlottesville was dedicated to helping the city’s “colored singers” prepare to perform in conjunction with the event.86 The National Recreation Association, which the

81 Id. 82 See, e.g. CHARLOTTESVILLE RECREATION BOARD, FEBRUARY REPORT (Feb. 1934) (discussing providing trading to the leaders of black recreation that was being offered to whites). 83 Wunsch, supra note 64 at 89. 84 National Recreation Association, VCU LIBRARIES SOCIAL WELFARE HISTORY PROJECT. https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/organizations/national-recreation-association/ (last visited April 29, 2019). 85 Id. 86 Id.

Page 19 of 38 Charlottesville Recreation Board officially joined in 1941, was committed to advancing public recreation, both for whites and blacks, since the early 1900s.87 As such, the

Charlottesville Recreation Board’s interest in supporting this association’s platform, as well as designated public park for blacks, demonstrates the city was not entirely disinterested in supporting black recreation during the 1930s.

Yet, development of Washington Park hardly had occurred since its donation to the city several years prior. Charlottesville’s African-American newspaper, The Reflector, commented on the lack of development in 1934.88 “Washington Park is not only failing to develop, but also going backwards! Something must be done; action is needed at once!”89 Spring was around the corner, and the article pointed out that the park for blacks was barely usable.90

Six years ago the "spot" was selected and donated to the Negroes of Charlottesville for a park and recreational center. It is still just a "spot". Think of what tired little kids are missing and tired grown- ups too. The tract is beautiful; it could be developed into a lovely place that would do honor to the Negroes of this city.91

Despite claims to develop Washington Park, The Reflector did specifically target the practice of segregation in the parks. Rather, at this time it appeared that segregation was acknowledged as the practice and that efforts to clean up the park to make it usable were what were needed for the black community.

In response to the creation of the Charlottesville Recreation Board, the black community organized to create its own formal parks board. By 1934, Charlottesville’s

87 Id. 88 Let’s Develop Washington Park, THE REFLECTOR (April 7, 1934) (as found http://www2.vcdh.virginia.edu/saxon/servlet/SaxonServlet?source=/xml_docs/rp_news/raceplace_news.xml&style= /xml_docs/rp_news/raceplace_news.xsl&level=single&order=none&item=va.np.reflector.04.07.34). 89 Id. 90 Id. 91 Id.

Page 20 of 38 African American community had created the Colored Recreation Board.9293 The board was comprised of prominent members in the African American community, including a local pastor, a dentist, and a grocer.94 The chairman of the Colored Recreation Board was

Jerome Brooks, who served as the head of the Southern Aid Society of Virginia, which helped provide insurance and jobs to African Americans.95 The Colored Recreation

Board was more than an ad hoc entity committed to public recreation for African

Americans in Charlottesville. Rather, it was a public entity, supported by the city government, which worked with the white recreation board and city council to advance its goals.96 According to the records of the white recreation board, the Colored

Recreation Board similarly had its director appointed by the City Manager.97 Thus, what began as a community initiative to give organization to efforts to clean up Washington

Park resulted in the creation of a government board comprised community leaders to serve black recreation.

While it may be unsurprising that the African American community rallied together to create an organization to develop this new community space, it should be noted that this type of entity was quite rare at the time.98 The organization because a part of the city government, and allowed for it to control the operations on the park that had been deemed for its community. In its inaugural year, members of the Colored

92 Wunsch, supra note 64 at 91. 93 The minutes and records of the Colored Recreation Board have largely been lost. Most of the discernible information about the early years of the Colored Recreation Board are through the minutes of the Charlottesville Recreation Board. 94 Wunsch, supra note 64 at 91. 95 Id. 96 CHARLOTTESVILLE RECREATION BOARD, APRIL MINUTES (April 1934). 97 CHARLOTTESVILLE RECREATION BOARD, APRIL MINUTES (April 1934). (“A negro Recreation Advisory Board was appointed by the City Manager and this Board elected officers in a meeting held in the Recreation Office and later established it would work jointly with the Board already active in this work.”). 98 Wunsch, supra note 64 at 91.

Page 21 of 38 Recreation Board began attending the meetings of the white Charlottesville Recreation

Board.99 It does not appear these visits were met with protest, but rather were seen as a collaborative effort of both organizations dedicated to public space.100 Rather, African

Americans attended these meetings to defend black recreational interests and seek city funding for park developments at Washington Park.

The existence of the Colored Recreation Board suggests two important things about racial politics in Charlottesville. First, it shows that the City of Charlottesville was primarily interested in developing McIntire Park and other white neighborhood parks in

Charlottesville. Washington Park lacked developments because city officials did not care to fund the park at the levels it funded McIntire, nor did it feel compelled to make the park a safe space for recreation. By turning control over the property to the African

American community through a government board, they relinquished accountability over the property and shifted the disparities in the parks from the City Council to the respective recreation boards to minimize their responsibility in the inadequacies. As a result, African Americans would have control over their own distinct public park, and cross-collaboration would allow for whites to continue to control the racial order in

Charlottesville’s recreation.

It should also suggests, however, that the recognition of the Colored Recreation

Board largely fits the narrative of managed race relations. Certainly it seems abnormal for the city of Charlottesville to have allowed for a government entity to operate solely by

99 Id. 100 See, e.g. CHARLOTTESVILLE RECREATION BOARD, JANUARY REPORT (Jan. 1934) (“The value of a supervised recreation program may not be told in dollars and cents but may be seen in the happier, healthier boy and girl of to- day and in the more useful citizen of to-morrow.”) (discussing joint efforts with the Colored Recreation Board regarding spring music activities.)

Page 22 of 38 African Americans to promote a public space within their community. In this sense, it seems that Charlottesville was working to make separate but equal a workable solution.

Of course, as discussed, the parks were not at all “equal,” but there was at least space for both whites and blacks. Thus, while discussing the successes of the Colored Recreation

Board, we should be reminded that the entity was a tool for the City of Charlottesville to further ignore the needs of the black community and served as an avenue for the city to keep its racial order.

The Colored Recreation Board’s primary focus was not integration, but rather to develop Washington Park into a usable recreation space for the African American community. By 1934, Washington Park had a baseball diamond and tennis courts.101

These developments were exciting contributions to the park, but were clearly inferior to the development at McIntire Park. With limited funding, the Colored Recreation Board had to seek private donations to fund almost any new developments in the park.102 Its first major project was to fund a recreation hall. In its efforts to fundraise for this facility, the Colored Recreation Board requested to use Charlottesville’s armory as a location for a fundraiser. The armory regularly served as a location for such events for government entities like the Charlottesville Recreation Board. Upon denial for usage of the armory, the Colored Recreation Board sought many donations to create its own public facility at

Washington Park. Shortly thereafter, the city engineer designed a plan and a recreation hall was built for Charlottesville’s African American community.103 This marked a beginning of self-fundraising for improvements to Washington Park, but also resulted in

101 CHARLOTTESVILLE RECREATION BOARD, MAY REPORT (May 1934) (discussing the creation of a pitcher’s mound at Washington Park’s baseball field). 102 Wunsch, supra note 64 at 91. 103 Id.

Page 23 of 38 drastic improvements for Washington Park. The existence of this new recreation hall was a rarity for African American communities during this time. Even though it was largely self-funded, only five percent of facilities like this were allotted for African Americans nationwide during this era.104 Collaboration with the city planners office furthers the impressiveness of this new development at Washington Park.

Washington Park continued to undergo renovations in the years to come. Much like the construction of the recreation hall in 1934, the Colored Recreation Board continued to fund the improvements to the park through outside donations. As the park’s prominence began to emerge in the mid-1930s, a need for cleaning up the park become ever apparent. By the late 1930s, the Garden Club and the Colored Mothers Club began cleaning and beautifying the parks. The Colored Elks subsequently donated money to enlarge the baseball field.105 In addition to the contributions from other civic groups in the African American community, individual philanthropy continued throughout the

1930s and 1940s. Prominent African American dentist John A. Jackson, who served on the Colored Recreation Board, helped get funding from the city to improve Washington

Park’s tennis courts.106 He even provided black citizens with a pool and a Boy Scout campsite on his own personal farm. Shortly thereafter these developments, the Colored

Recreation Board briefly dissolved for “lack of interest”, but resumed operations within three months.107

Parks usage transformed during World War II throughout the country. The same was certainly true for Charlottesville. In 1937, Nan Crow became the director of

104 Wunsch, supra note 64 at 92. 105 Id. at 93. 106 Id. 107 Id.

Page 24 of 38 recreation for the Charlottesville Recreation Board. She served this position for thirty years, and oversaw Charlottesville’s parks and recreation wartime effort.108 Crow simultaneously chaired Charlottesville’s Civilian Defense Council’s recreation committee, which found unique ways to use existing park structures to mobilize the home front during wartime. Crow organized the white parks to begin Victory Gardens, which allowed children to learn gardening skills to help provide food during the war.

Simultaneously, Dr. John A. Jackson allowed for similar developments to happen at

Washington Park.109 As the war came to an end, the parks began to resume normal operations, but it was clear that the war effort brought many connections between the white and black park associations. As such, more signs of collaboration continued between whites and blacks in the recreation sphere during this era.

Following the war, whites and blacks alike began pushing for more public spaces to emerge in Charlottesville. Charlottesville’s population was continuing to grow, both because the city was annexing more land from the county, and because people began moving to Charlottesville and establishing families there. The recreation boards began meeting jointly more regularly during this time.110 Both boards continued to rely heavily on fundraising efforts, but the city began increasing its funding allocation to the boards as well.111

108 Wunsch, supra note 64 at 93. 109 Id. at 94 110 CHARLOTTESVILLE RECREATION BOARD, DECEMBER REPORT (Dec. 1945). 111 CHARLOTTESVILLE RECREATION BOARD, FEBRUARY REPORT (Feb. 12, 1946) (“A financial report of all monies, other than budget grants made by the City Council was prepared and read by Miss Crow. This report was prepared for the information of the Board and the City Council. A copy of this statement is appended. It was both interesting and revealing to discover that the money earned by the department exceeded by $1,854.44 the amount appropriated by the City Council. However, the City Council spent additional money for property and improvements).

Page 25 of 38 Director Crow began discussing with city leaders about developing more parks within Charlottesville. Her focus was especially on creating new neighborhood parks as new neighborhoods began to develop in post-war Charlottesville. A representative from the National Recreation Association sent a letter to the city’s development organization and Director Crow that called for Charlottesville to develop a unified parks and recreation board.112 Moreover, the letter noted that Charlottesville should adopt a master plan that decentralized public parks, and instead focused on creating neighborhood parks that met the needs of the individual.113 This call is consistent with the National

Recreation Association’s visions at this time, which were largely focused on developing reform parks. The call for decentralization made even more sense following World War

II when new neighborhoods were being developed throughout Charlottesville.

The city quickly began acquiring land following the War’s end. The old

Charlottesville Land Company and Albemarle Golf Club entered public hands in 1945.

The following year, the city purchased property on Fifth Street to develop into a park.

This area had become a predominately African American location, and the city relinquished control over the newly acquired land to the Colored Recreation Board. The

Board named the park Benjamin E. Tonsler Park, which was named after a principal at the Jefferson School. With this new park, Charlottesville had now established a second parks for African-Americans in the city. Tonsler and Washington Parks now both served the community at large and the predominately black neighborhoods of the city.

Here, too, law played a new role in recreation. Government action was now in place to administer the parks, and the actions taken by both recreation boards were

112 Wunsch, supra note 64 at 93. 113 Id.

Page 26 of 38 actions of the city. That said, both boards still largely relied on fundraising and money raised from special events for their funding. The city was not granting either board a budget per se, although it occasionally supplied bonds or funding for certain projects.

Thus, the city’s official role in the administration of the parks was in more of a creative and advisory position, rather than enforcement. As a result, while city action operated in the background, recreation proceeded by its own norms and community values. This structure allowed for segregation to persist largely without government enforcement, but rather by community norms instead.

As the 1940s were coming to a close, Charlottesville’s parks remained segregated.

It does not appear that segregation had to be vehemently enforced, but rather that the understanding of maintaining racial order continued throughout the decade.114 Despite

Jim Crow laws remaining in effect, Charlottesville’s black population managed to turn a former dumping spot into a park with a baseball diamond, tennis courts, and a recreation hall. The Colored Recreation Board’s active presence in the community allowed the underfunded parks for blacks to have facilities more comparable to McIntire Park despite the persistent inequality in the treatment of the parks by the city. While facilities remained unequal, the black community of Charlottesville made great strides upon receiving its first park.

In Charlottesville, traditional legal mechanisms were hardly the enforcer of the dual parks system. Law already had created the legal mechanisms by which the parks would be segregated through the deeds from McIntire. But, statutes or ordinances were not necessary to keep blacks and white separate in public recreation. Rather, social

114 Wunsch, supra note 64 at 94-95.

Page 27 of 38 norms and community values drove segregation in Charlottesville. The creation of a dual-parks management system was legally the work done by the city, but it reflected the community norms already in place. Passionate leaders of recreation filled the positions and administered the public parks. City leaders, thereby, did not have much of a direct control over these spaces. As a result, it is clear that community norms enforced the system of segregated recreation in Charlottesville through the 1940s. As litigation was beginning to emerge throughout the country to demand desegregation of public spaces,

Charlottesville would not find their system of segregation to face the courts. While the black community of Charlottesville primarily focused on developing its own existing structures, integration was looming large in Charlottesville’s future. It would not happen overnight, but soon, African Americans were allowed access McIntire Park and other public spaces throughout Charlottesville.

III. Civil Rights, Integration, and the Development of a Modern Parks System

At the turn of the decade, Charlottesville’s recreation scene was prepared for a drastic change. The Colored and White Recreation Boards had spent the last fifteen years operating largely autonomously, with occasional interactions with each other and the

Charlottesville city government writ large when funding was requested. In 1949, after a joint meeting of the black and white recreation boards, the white recreation board proposed unifying the recreations boards.115 Following their April meeting, it was decided that Director Crow would approach the city manager about merging the

115 CHARLOTTESVILLE RECREATION BOARD, APRIL MINUTES (April 12, 1949) (“A suggestion that the White and Colored Recreation Boards merge as one board with seven members was discussed. Moved by Mr. Hill, seconded by Mr. Fishburne, that a committee be appointed to talk with the City Manager to find out details, and to suggest that the Council be represented at the next Board meeting.”).

Page 28 of 38 recreation boards into one entity, and records from the May 1, 1949 meeting indicate that the city seemed to approve.116

In a letter dated September 6, 1949, the Recreation Advisory Board officially became a unified entity of the Charlottesville city government.117 The resolution passed unanimously by the City Council.118 The new Charlottesville Recreation Advisory Board consisted of three black and seven white members. Each would serve three-year terms and be appointed by the mayor.119 Within the board, the Superintendent of Recreation would be white, while an appointed director of Negro Recreation would help oversee

Charlottesville’s black parks and even out the imbalance between whites and blacks on board membership.120 The new Charlottesville Recreation Advisory Board was funded by the city and submitted annual budget proposals for parks development and improvement.121 After over fifteen years of largely being funded and run by local community leaders despite being a function of the city government, Charlottesville had fully recognized a board of parks and recreation with more funding.

116 CHARLOTTESVILLE RECREATION BOARD, MAY MINUTES (May 10, 1949) (“Miss Crow read a resume of the history of the Recreation Board from 1926 until present time, showing [sic] it’s origin, progress, and earnings. She showed also how the City has helped promote recreation in Charlottesville by buying property, maintenance, etc. Mr. Fife reported that his committee talked with Mr. Bowen about the reorganization of the board. The City Manager feels that it would be better to have a join board and a smaller board. Much discussion followed, especially about financial difficulties if board is changed. The present committee was asked to draw up plans for reorganization.”). 117 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER, Letter to the Charlottesville City Council (Sept. 6, 1949). 118 Id. 119 Id. (“That the White and Negro Advisory Boards be consolidated into a single Recreation Advisory Board to be composed of ten members. That the membership of this Board be seven white and three negro members. That the members be appointed by the Mayor to serve for a period of three years.”) 120 Id. 121 Id. (“That a proposed budget for the ensuing fiscal year be submitted by the Recreation Advisory Board to the City Manager on or before March 1st of each year. Such budget shall be included in the City Manager’s annual budget and shall contain an itemized and classified plan of all proposed expenditures and all estimated revenues for the department. All funds collected shall be deposited with the Director of Finance and all purchases for the department shall be made by the City Purchasing Agent.”)

Page 29 of 38 This development was crucial to the future of Charlottesville’s parks. It would still take several years before more neighborhood parks were popping up throughout town, or before demands like swimming pools would be met for the community. The merging, however, suggests that whites and blacks were willing to work together in

Charlottesville’s recreation space. The Colored Recreation Board, despite apparent lack in funding in comparison to its white counterpart, had developed a park that the community adopted. By giving up their own autonomy, it suggests that the desire to be an official city entity, with access to more funding, was sufficient to have whites and blacks working together to develop comprehensive recreation plans for the city of

Charlottesville.

Even if this unifying moment seemed to be one of hope for the ends of segregation in public parks in the near future, this merging also further demonstrated a desire for racial order and control in the city. Certainly a unified recreation board under city authority brought with it more funding for parks developments. Yet, it also demonstrates the white recreation board’s control over black recreation. Before, the

Colored Recreation Board mobilized African Americans in the community to better fund its parks and to acquire more places for public space. Now, the majority of the black community’s funding for parks came from the City of Charlottesville, which had a vested interest in keeping whites and blacks excluded as well as an interest in maintaining and improving the parks for Charlottesville’s white residents. The creation of the new

Charlottesville Recreation Advisory Board did not mark the end to segregation in

Charlottesville’s parks. Moreover, it does not appear that integration was of the utmost

Page 30 of 38 priority for city residents or black Recreation Board members. Rather, it seems that this creation demonstrated that coordinated efforts were needed within public spaces.

As a result, segregation persisted throughout the city, but was marked with small strides towards equality along the way. Washington Park continued to serve as the primary park for African Americans, supplemented by the newly created Tonsler Park.

McIntire Park remained open to whites, and since its creation in 1926 had increased in size. In 1949, Charlottesville appeared to have slowly begun the process of integration.

Black golfers had gained one-day-a-week admission to the golf course at McIntire

Park.122 This by no means meant desegregation was on the precipice. On the contrary, it would be many years before all racial barriers were eliminated in Charlottesville’s parks system. Allowing blacks to use a golf course on a property of land that was deeded to the city to be “forever maintained as a park and playground for white people” was a historic moment in tearing down racial barriers in Charlottesville’s public parks system.123

Charlottesville would take additional steps towards integration beyond allowing

African Americans the right to golf at McIntire Park. Several years later, the

Charlottesville Recreation Advisory Board sought to address the deficiencies in the black parks system by acknowledging “there is no pool in the city or county open to negroes.”124 Even more progressive in this acknowledgment was the fact that there technically was no public pool open to any citizen regardless of race. Rather, there were places in Charlottesville were whites could swim that were semi-public, but blacks were

122 Wunsch, supra note 64 at 100. 123 JOHN HAMMOND MOORE, ALBEMARLE: JEFFERSON’S COUNTY, 432 (1976). 124 CHARLOTTESVILLE RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD, FEBRUARY MINUTES (Feb. 16, 1950) (“Be it resolved by the members of this Board that the City Council be and they hereby requested to give consideration to the construction of a wading pool in Washington Park to be used by the small negro children.”).

Page 31 of 38 systemically excluded from these places.125 The Charlottesville Recreation Advisory

Board took it upon themselves to consider the issue of pools for blacks, and presented the problem to the City Council shortly thereafter.126 It would be years before this idea came to fruition, but served as an important acknowledgment in 1952 that the inherent inequities in public recreation needed to come to an end.127

By 1954, Charlottesville had determined it was time to create a master plan for public recreation. The city approached an Atlanta-based organization to construct a master plan for the city of Charlottesville’s recreation space. The plan was created by

Charles M. Graves, an urban planner with a specialty in parks and recreation space, who called for an overhaul of Charlottesville’s recreation system.128 The Graves Plan, as it became to be known, was the first of its kind for Charlottesville. It called for the city to play an active role in acquiring property to be used for public recreation. At the time, and as demonstrated throughout this paper, Charlottesville’s recreations spaces were largely acquired through philanthropic donations. This plan, however, called for the

Charlottesville Recreation Board to play a dynamic role in city planning and to call for developers to include spaces for playgrounds in these new neighborhoods.129

The Graves Report was a major step for Charlottesville’s recreation scene. The

Report announced, “recreation stabilizes the community, the worker, and generally increases the efficiency of the worker.”130 The Report was calling for a major overhaul to

125 Wunsch, supra note 64 at 100 (noting that pools like Fry’s Springs Beach Club were opened to whites, but not to African Americans). 126 CHARLOTTESVILLE RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD, FEBRUARY MINUTES (Feb. 16, 1950). 127 Id. 128 Citizens’ Move for Development of Recreation Facilities Begins, CHARLOTTESVILLE DAILY PROGRESS (June 29, 1955). 129 Id. 130 Wunsch, supra note 64 at 96.

Page 32 of 38 support not only support Charlottesville’s youth, but to help the city’s economy as well.

The Graves Report did more than call for neighborhood parks in new communities.

Rather, it called for a transformation of the existing park infrastructure.131 The new plan called for picnic areas and sheltered covers, a “paved” area, wading pools, and baseball and softball fields.132

Despite the promising call for improvements to both parks, the plan certainly did not entail equitable ends to these transformations. In the Daily Progress’s series on the

Graves Report, the paper highlighted that plans for segregation remained in place.133 The

Graves Report called for improved community centers that would feature a room to function as both a gymnasium and an auditorium.134 Additionally, swimming pools were called for in both parks.135 Yet, this is where the uniformed improvements ended.

Washington Park was to receive new tennis courts and an outdoor theater in addition to the community center and tennis courts. The Graves Report detailed numerous more improvements to be made to McIntire Park. McIntire Park was slated to be enhanced with a “scenic miniature railroad, miniature golf course, and pony circle.”136

While much of the Graves Report never came to fruition, the report did outline major steps for developing Charlottesville’s park systems. The Charlottesville City

131 Id. 132 Summary of Recommended Recreation Improvements, CHARLOTTESVILLE DAILY PROGRESS (June 30, 1955). 133 Citizens’ Move for Development of Recreation Facilities Begins, CHARLOTTESVILLE DAILY PROGRESS (June 29, 1955) (“One more essential point must be discussed: the matter of segregation of the races. Because of recent court decisions there is a possibility that segregation in municipal park and recreation systems will be outlawed. Laurence Bruntoa, president of the Citizens Committee—which represents both white and Negro organizations—says the fund raising is being carried on with the belief that segregation will be continued, either as required by present state law or voluntarily.”) 134 Summary of Recommended Recreation Improvements, CHARLOTTESVILLE DAILY PROGRESS (June 30, 1955). 135 Id. 136 Community Center, Swimming Pool Urged for McIntire Park, CHARLOTTESVILLE DAILY PROGRESS (July 1, 1955).

Page 33 of 38 Council and Recreation Advisory Board demonstrated that they clearly believed in moving forward with widespread recreation goals by commissioning this report.

Moreover, the Graves Report showed that segregation had certainly not come to an end.

The city still desired to erect built inequalities within its parks at the expense of

Charlottesville’s black population. This report furthered the notion of using parks as a way to manage white supremacy. The placement of parks in neighborhoods undeniably expanded access to parks for individuals residents. Yet, it simultaneously kept blacks and whites in their own neighborhoods. Moreover, by allotting fewer resources to

Washington Park than to McIntire Park, the city demonstrated the inherent inequality among blacks and whites. In line with Charlottesville’s parks history, the Graves Report was a victory for parks planning as a concept, but ultimately failed to end segregation in

Charlottesville’s public parks. Within the year, the Supreme Court would affirm the

Fourth Circuit’s decision to desegregate public parks as a matter of law in Dawson v.

Mayor City of Baltimore City.137

Shortly after the Graves Report, the city commissioned the “Preliminary Report

Upon Schools, Parks, and Public Buildings.”138 In 1958, this report expanded upon the

Graves Report by demonstrating urban planning for all public facilities was essential for city planning. The report was commissioned by Harland Bartholomew and Associates, a prominent urban planning firm.139 This plan additionally highlighted the needs for

137 Dawson v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City, 220 F.2d 386, 386 (4th Cir. 1955), aff’d 350 U.S. 844 (1955). 138 Wunsch, supra note 64. at 98. 139 Id.

Page 34 of 38 neighborhood parks, and proposed these parks be constructed in conjunction with public schools.140

This creation of a “school-park plan” was common throughout much of the

United States at this time. Moreover, in the South it served to perpetuate segregated parks facilities. The Supreme Court had decided Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, but the effects had yet to be seen in Charlottesville. Charlottesville’s white public schools would not admit their first African American students until 1959. On September

7, 1959, twelve black students attended Lane High School and Venable Elementary

School for the first time.141 Slowly, the city would continue to integrate.

The parks, however, still remained largely segregated, both by neighborhood and by race. In 1960, the recreation department declared that playgrounds were for

“everybody,” but segregation remained enforced.142 Before the parks opened for the summer, the Daily Progress ran an article describing the various parks of Charlottesville, and explicitly mentioned which parks were open to which races.143 The Recreation

Advisory Board’s own minutes still demonstrated that integration had not been fully realized. In 1963, the Recreation Advisory Board continued to do discuss the need for

“pools for the colored community,” and still employed a “Director of Negro

Recreation.”144

Gradually, it appears that the parks started opening its doors to all. The integration of public parks appears to have never been litigated, but rather happened

140 Id. 141 Integration At Lane, Venable Carried Out Without Incident, CHARLOTTESVILLE DAILY PROGRESS (Sept 8. 1959). 142 Wunsch, supra note 64 at 101. 143 Nine Playgrounds, CHARLOTTESVILLE DAILY PROGRESS (April 13, 1962). 144 CHARLOTTESVILLE RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD, SEPTEMBER MINUTES, (Sept. 10, 1963).

Page 35 of 38 slowly overtime beginning with the admittance of African Americans to McIntire Park’s golf course in 1949. On August 17, 1968, it appears segregated barriers came to an end when Washington Park opened a new pool. The Daily Progress headline was “Municipal

Pool Opens Tomorrow,” and no mention of race occurred in the article.145

Of course, as racial barriers began to fall in the realm of public recreation, racist policies continued to emerge from the Charlottesville City Council. By law, the city could no longer deny access to parks or schools for people of color. The state action doctrine prohibited legal enforcement of the deeds specifying which race could use which park. Yet, the city found new ways to subject the black community to hostility. In the city’s defining example of urban renewal, Charlottesville decimated a prominent African

American community known as Vinegar Hill.146 Situated in downtown Charlottesville, the city sought to eradicate Vinegar Hill to develop downtown, of which the developments from the destruction of the community would not occur for over a decade.

The story of Vinegar Hill is not the story of parks desegregation, but the parallels of racial politics contribute to Charlottesville’s larger history of struggles with race relations. The long road to integration and equality in the parks is a story of gradualism, but one that fits into the broader narrative of the history of race relations in Central

Virginia.

145 New Pool Opens Tomorrow, CHARLOTTESVILLE DAILY PROGRESS (Aug. 17 1967). 146 See e.g. JAMES R. SAUNDERS & RENAE N. SHACKELFORD, Urban Renewal and the End of Black Culture in Charlottesville, Virginia (2005).

Page 36 of 38 IV. Conclusion

The formation of public recreation in Charlottesville owes much credit to Paul

Goodloe McIntire. The donations of McIntire and Washington Park provided all citizens of Charlottesville public space that served as centers of the community. Dedicated public space for African Americans was unquestionably noteworthy for this era.

Yet, this praise is not without its justly due criticism. As conversations continue about the role of McIntire and his land donations to the city, we must remember that the city’s first parks were imbued in racial politics that have persisted until this day. While the donation of a park to Charlottesville’s African-American community undoubtedly benefited blacks here in ways that were never seen in other parts of the South, it still allowed for the city to make racial segregation a matter of law in its public space.

McIntire’s own donations demonstrated white supremacy in both the donations of the monuments as well as the quality and nature of the space for Washington Park.

As a result, the history of Charlottesville’s parks is a nuanced tale. Whatever the law of the day may have been, it seems Charlottesville would operate its public space through community values and societal norms While the desire of a managed social order and the autonomy of the black community in their own park seems to be at odds, the story told shows the workable nature of this system. Of course, it would not last forever.

But, for many years, the black and white communities of Charlottesville worked together to have functioning separate recreation facilities.

The slow, gradual pace of desegregation demonstrates that perhaps what the law was never really mattered. Segregationist policies throughout America were supported by legal enforcement of separate institutions. Yet, despite changes in the law, real

Page 37 of 38 change did not occur for decades. Thus, in the spirit of Robert Gordon, perhaps the law truly is omnipresent. It is always there, yet may not always be shaping or responding to social change. The law declared that blacks were not allowed to visit McIntire Park.

And the law subsequently held that the racial restrictions in the deeds were unenforceable and that blacks had a constitutional right to access public recreation. It would not be for nearly another decade, however, before they truly did on an equal basis. As we conceptualize this era of Southern history, perhaps it is best we be mindful of the law’s interaction with it. After all, what may appear to be a story largely driven by changes in the law may turn out to be an entirely different story instead.

Page 38 of 38