Monthly Report, February 2, 1951

[1] This report is complemented by 2/21/51 in appendix 1, this vol. See also, in appendix 1, this vol., 12/20/50. At its annual meeting on January 2, 1951, the board adopted the following program prepared by Mitchell for the 82nd Congress:

In making plans for the legislative program in the 82nd Congress, two factors should be taken under consideration. The first is that President Truman will quite likely establish by executive order a fair employment practice agency affecting defense industries. The second factor is the probable strategy that the Republican minority will follow.

It is unlikely that the Republicans will pass up an opportunity to precipitate a floor fight on some civil rights legislation. At the same time, they may withhold enough votes in the Senate to prevent final passage of such legislation.

The following are suggestions for obtaining some constructive results from the 82nd Congress.

1. When the President issues an executive order setting up a fair employment practice Board, we must carefully follow the appropriations of this agency and turn the spotlight on any committee members in the House or Senate who fail to give it their full support.

   On the floor of the House, we must be prepared for the raising of points of order and, of course, in the Senate, we must be prepared for some kind of filibuster. The Administration must take the responsibility of getting favorable rulings on points of order and we must be fully advised on when these rulings will take place in order that we may be prepared to rally supporting votes.

   In the Senate, the administration must take the responsibility of tying the FEPC appropriations with vital defense legislation so that those who stage a filibuster against FEPC will have a difficult time justifying their position. We, in turn, must be prepared to rally supporting votes to prevent FEPC appropriations from being set aside for separate consideration.

2. The issuance of an executive order by the President will free civil rights organizations to make an all out fight for a rules change in the Senate. After the experience on Alaska and Hawaii Statehood, it may be possible to get support from organizations not necessarily friendly to FEPC if the issue is on change of rules.

3. If we fail in the rules effort, we should capitalize on past speeches made by Republican leaders on the effectiveness of the 64 vote cloture rule. Wherry and others have repeatedly said the 64 vote rule would work on an anti-lynching bill. Undoubtedly, they will say the same thing on any debate in changing the rule.

   It is suggested that if the fight on the rules change fails, we should try to get the President to call a bi-partisan meeting of the Senate and House leaders. At that time, the White House could issue a press statement saying that the President had sought to implement the civil rights program as far as it was within his powers by setting up an executive order FEPC. The statement could then point out that the President had requested the leaders of both parties to attempt to get an anti-lynching bill through the 82nd Congress. I suggest the anti-lynching bill because if the anti-poll tax bill is called, undoubtedly, there will be an attempt to substitute a constitutional amendment for it.
             These suggestions do not embrace the entire legislative program of the Association but they do affect our planning the basic civil rights bills. In my opinion, it will be very useful to talk over with the President whatever plan we finally agree upon. Thereafter, I think it would be most useful if the President could arrange a meeting between the Senate Majority Leader, the House Majority Leader, and a few leaders in the civil rights field. This meeting should be off the record and for the purpose of discussing the suggestions I have made. (Minutes, 1/2/51, 10–11, EC)

[2] This was H.R. 2118, which proposed to amend various sections of the U.S. Code in order to prohibit attempts to commit proscribed offenses, namely, slavery and peonage. Mitchell told White that in his letter of transmittal to the Eastland Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee of January 17, 1951, Peyton Ford, deputy attorney general, said that during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1950, the Department of Justice had received eighty-five complaints concerning possible peonage and involuntary servitude. During the current fiscal year, he said, Peyton reported that thirty-three complaints had been received. Mitchell memorandum to White, 2/6/51, “Civil Rights Bills Proposed by the Department of Justice,” NAACP WB-111, DLC.

[3] In a letter of January 19, 1951, to Senator Ives, Mitchell thanked him and his “fellow sponsors” for introducing the FEPC bill. Among other things, Mitchell noted that the “unhappy fate of FEPC legislation in the 81st Congress” indicated that supporters had to expect “formidable opposition from a minority of senators.” For that reason, he expected President Truman to issue an executive order creating a temporary FEPC “to fill the gap” until Congress passed such a bill. Mitchell’s letter, 1/19/51, NAACP II: A-657, DLC. See also, in appendix 1, this vol., 9/21/51 for varying approaches.

[4] For later activities involving Charles E. Wilson, director of the Office of Defense Mobilization, see 5/3/51, where Mitchell’s report to Walter White on important points discussed with Wilson is also cited.

[5] See also 1/31 and 12/5/51; in appendix 1, this vol., 6/25/51. On December 14, 1950, Walter White and A. Philip Randolph wired President Truman, urging him to include in his declaration of a national emergency an executive order establishing the Fair Employment Practices Commission. They sent copies to Secretaries Dean Acheson, George C. Marshall, Maurice Tobin, and Oscar Chapman and to Senators Irving Ives, Herbert Lehman, Wayne Morse, Hubert Humphrey, and James E. Murray, as well as to W. Stuart Symington, chair of the National Security Resources Board. The wire said:

In view of your courageous and consistent stand in behalf of equality of opportunity for all Americans, we appeal to you to include in your declaration of national emergency an Executive Order establishing a Fair Employment Practices Commission with authority to assure the maximum employment of all workers regardless of race, color, religion, ancestry or national origin.

Millions of members of minority groups, now working at lower than their best and most needed skills, are partially or wholly unemployed because of discriminatory practices, constitute the greatest available reservoir for meeting our critical manpower needs.

Establishment of an effective FEPC will do more than increase our productive capacity. It will strengthen morale and national unity, and will demonstrate to the peoples of the world that in mobilizing for the defense of freedom we are applying those principles of human dignity and individual liberty which chiefly distinguish our Democracy from totalitarianism.

At a time when all Americans are to be asked to make sacrifices, to accept controls on prices, wages and other facets of our economy, it is unthinkable that we shall permit the full utilization of our resources to be impaired by uncontrolled discriminatory employment practices. (Report of the Executive Secretary to the Forty-first Annual Meeting, 1/2/51, EC)

This request was reinforced by a letter from Sen. Hubert H. Humphrey to Eisenhower, proposing that he issue an executive order establishing such a commission to halt discrimination in defense industries. Minutes, 1/51, EC.

The board also adopted a resolution at its annual meeting commending Truman on Wilson’s appointment. Following their meeting with Wilson, White and Mitchell met with him and Stuart Symington, chair of the NSRB, and found them “in complete accord with the principle of full use of manpower on the basis of skill alone” and without discrimination. They were “deeply interested” in the methods the NAACP suggested in a memorandum they submitted for achieving that goal. Minutes, 1/51, EC. See materials on this meeting in NAACP II: A-257, DLC.

[6] For the board’s suggestions, see Minutes, 10/9/50, EC. The meeting was held on November 10, 1950. Mitchell letter to Earl B. Johnson; that and other materials are in NAACP WB-141, DLC. See also, among others, 12/21/50, 1/31 and 3/5/51.

[7] For the roots of this struggle, see the headnote on Race, Creed, Color, or National Origin on Employment Application Forms, vol. I. As NAACP labor secretary, Mitchell stepped up this struggle in May 1947 by challenging the navy’s policy of designating race on forms for reporting injuries or occupational diseases. The navy responded that designating “race” had “been particularly advantageous to all employees concerned regardless of race,” and it provided examples of such a need in its study of accidents and occupational diseases patterns, where the information was essential. See Mitchell’s letter of 5/2/47 to Commander R. C. Williams of the navy and the response of 5/14/47 from Alan Turnbull Jr., head, Accident Analysis and Injury Compensation Section, Office of Industrial Relations, Navy Department, attached to Mitchell’s memorandum of 5/21/47 to Madison Jones on the Communications for Health Committee, in NAACP II: A525, DLC. See also Mitchell’s letter of 1/8/51 to Eugene M. Zukert, assistant secretary of the air force, and other materials in NAACP WB-141, DLC; among others, 12/4 and 12/21/50; in appendix 1, this vol., 12/31/50.

[8] See 1/31, 3/5, 4/4, 5/3, 6/4, and 8/31/51.

[9] For reports on Sergeant Bradshaw, see also 1/31, 3/5, and 8/31/51. In his testimony before the Senate Preparedness Subcommittee on S. 1, on January 24, 1951, Mitchell said that NAACP members were very concerned about the mistreatment of black servicemen and servicewomen. At the same time, they had expressed “praise for new non-segregation policies of the Air Force and the Navy” but “strongly condemned” continuing segregation in the army. “The overwhelming majority of our members believe that the Government” [does not] “give sufficient and necessary protection to colored members of the Armed Services when they are in the South,” he said. 1/21/51, Hearings 862. In reiterating those complaints before the House Committee on Armed Services on March 8, 1951, he said there was “hardly a home or family in the United States that” [was] “not affected in some way by pending” [UMT legislation (H.R. 1752)].” 3/8/51, Hearings 845. See 3/5/51 for immediately following developments in this struggle.

[10] See Mitchell letter, 1/8/51, to Earl D. Johnson, assistant secretary of the army, in which he explained that the Minnesota problem was part of a larger picture, together with other materials in NAACP WB-141, DLC. See also 1/31, 3/5, and 12/28/51.

[11] Also working on this problem was Walter White, who sent a telegram on January 9, 1951, to the secretary of defense, secretary of the army, secretary of the navy, and secretary of the air force about complaints regarding the treatment of African American inductees and recruits from Minnesota who were on duty or scheduled to go on duty at Camp Rucker, Alabama. On January 17, 1951, James C. Evans, the civilian assistant to the secretary of defense, responded that the department had ordered investigations into the NAACP’s expressions of concern. He said such “apprehension over possible discrimination and related disturbance in the immediate future have been used to alert officers and commands having direct jurisdiction.” Evans assured the NAACP that the Defense Department was working to correct the alleged problems. Report of the Secretary, 1/51, EC.

For background on this struggle, see Dalfiume, Desegregation of the U.S. Armed Forces 159–62.

[12] 1/24/51, Hearings 862.

[13] See 1/31/51 for an earlier report. As part of a group of twelve persons meeting with Eisenhower on February 28, 1951, White presented the NAACP’s program to the president and also informed him of the “bitterness” of African Americans over Caldwell’s appointment. White reported that the “President seemed to be annoyed and said Caldwell was the only one of 15 persons he had called who was willing to accept the job.” The board adopted a resolution urging NAACP members not to accept any position within the civil defense program, such as air raid warden or nurse’s aide, as long as Caldwell remained as its head, and it urged those who were already involved ’in such operations to resign. In keeping with this resolution, which he had offered, Judge Hubert T. Delaney resigned from his civil defense position. Minutes, 3/12/51, EC. White said the NAACP’s actions were “to serve notice on the president” that he” had to watch his appointments so that there would be no more Caldwells and to “put Caldwell on guard.” Minutes, Committee to Implement Board Decision on the Caldwell Appointment, 3/12/51, EC. See also editorial, Crisis 58 (March1951): 183–84.

Actually, in opposing the appointment during the meeting with the president, White went against Mitchell’s recommendations. For Mitchell, the lesson was that the appointment showed the administration was capable of avoiding delays in Congress with its program if it really tried. So he advised White that, because of his close personal relationship with Truman, “which we should preserve,” he would not recommend “an all out attack” in an article White was evidently contemplating. Instead, Mitchell proposed “a cool analysis with suggestions on what” [could] “be done to repair the broken fence.” Mitchell letter to White, 2/15/51, NAACP II: A-584, DLC.

Subsequently, Caldwell invited White and four other NAACP leaders to a civil defense conference in Washington on May 7 and 8, 1951, where Truman was scheduled to speak. White responded that it would be impossible to accept the invitation “unless and until” Caldwell repudiated his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on January 15, 1951, in which he (1) reiterated his opposition to the Supreme Court’s decision outlawing disfranchisement of blacks through the white Democratic primaries and admitted that he had urged the South to resist that decision; (2) admitted that he refused to follow common courtesy in addressing American citizens irrespective of race; and (3) espoused regional education as a means of evading the abolition of segregation in southern tax-supported schools as the Court had ordered. Report of the Secretary for March, 4/9/51, EC.

See also Ivey, “Facts about Regional Education,” Crisis 57 (November 1950): 628–32, 674–75; “Press for Caldwell Revival,” Crisis 58 (April 1951): 267, 269, where the NAACP reported that Mitchell had testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on January 15, 1951 (Hearings 1–10), in opposition to Caldwell’s confirmation and that Walter White had written to Truman on February 21, 1951, expressing the board’s “sense of shock” at the appointment. The Crisis report noted that White reiterated his charges against Caldwell in a meeting with the president on February 28, 1951. For subsequent developments, see note at 12/28/51.

[14] Noting the long struggle to get the Capital Transit Company to hire black operators, Mitchell warned Robert Goodwin, executive director of the Office of Defense Manpower in DOL, that its segregation policy would “again be a cause for great concern and possibly serious trouble,” meaning riots, unless it was resolved. Mitchell’s letter to Goodwin, 1/5/51, NAACP WB-10, DLC. For background, see the headnote on Street and Local Railways, vol. I.

[15] See also the 1/16/51 reply from Summer T. Pike, acting AEC chair, to Mitchell’s 12/1/50 complaint about discrimination; detailed report of 2/5/5. Materials are in NAACP WB-8, DLC; see also 1/31 and 5/3/51.

[16] See 3/5/51; in appendix 1, this vol., 12/20/50 and 2/21/51.

[17] See Mitchell and Waddy, 5/18/50, Hearings 242–309; among others, 1/31/51.

[18] In response to Mitchell’s protest of January 12, 1951, relative to PL 914, John Thad Scott Jr., chair of the National Mediation Board, reaffirmed for the lobbyist the functions of his agency, which were “primarily those of mediating labor disputes.” Mitchell, of course, Scott said, appreciated “that any alleged violations of the law” were issues for the courts to resolve, and it was impossible for him “to forecast with any degree of accuracy the extent and character of labor disputes which may arise in connection with approaches which may be made by labor organizations to secure the union shop, etc.” John Thad Scott Jr.’s letter to Mitchell, 1/26/51, NAACP WB-141, DLC. See also, in appendix 1, this vol., 10/31/48 for the broader implications of this struggle.

[19] The NAACP was much more deeply involved in fighting discrimination in U.S. immigration policy than Mitchell indicated here. See, in appendix 1, this vol., 9/30/52 for White’s testimony on immigration and naturalization.

[20] Julia Cobb said she was certified to the Bethesda Naval Hospital by the Civil Service Commission as a clerk typist. The hospital called her in for an interview but upon seeing that she was black, said the job required knowledge about bookkeeping and machine operation, qualifications she did not possess. Ultimately, an “applicant with experience,” a veteran who was a transferee from another department, was chosen. Memorandum from Earle Fisher to Mitchell, 10/30/50, NAACP IX: 67, DLC.