Читать книгу The Negro in Chicago - A Study of Race Relations and a Race Riot - Chicago Commission on Race Relations - Страница 17

Table of Contents

Following a period of bitter racial feeling, frequently marked by open friction, a clash between whites and Negroes in East St. Louis, Illinois, occurred on May 28, 1917, in which, following rumors that a white man had been killed by Negroes, a number of Negroes were beaten by a mob of white men. This outbreak was the forerunner of a much more serious riot on July 2, in which at least thirty-nine Negroes and eight white people were killed, much property was destroyed by fire, and the local authorities proved so ineffective and demoralized that the state militia was required to restore order. A Congressional Committee investigated the facts of the riot and the underlying conditions, which included industrial disturbances and shameful corruption in local government.[13]

The coroner of St. Clair County in which East St. Louis is situated, held thirty-eight inquests, as a result of which it was found that twenty-six of these deaths had been due to gun-shot wounds, four to drowning, four to burns, two to fractured skulls, one to hemorrhage of the brain, and one to pneumonia after a fracture of the thyroid cartilage. Hundreds of persons were estimated to have been more or less seriously injured, seventy having been treated in St. Mary's Hospital. It has been impossible to get an accurate accounting of the deaths and injuries. One man who had taken a deep interest in the situation estimated that from 200 to 300 Negroes were killed.

About 200 people were arrested. Some of these were released, some were charged with rioting and conspiracy, and others with arson. Two white women were tried for conspiracy and rioting, and fined $50.00. Ten Negroes were convicted of rioting and murder. Indictments of 104 white persons grew out of the immediate activities of the rioters. Three policemen were among those indicted for murder in connection with firing upon Negro bystanders. In this same group of assailants were seven soldiers who were court-martialed. No finding in their cases has been announced. Three white men were indicted for murder in connection with a raid upon a street-car load of Negro passengers in which a father and son were killed, a mother was wounded severely, and a little daughter escaped. Twenty-six men, two of them Negroes, were indicted for arson.

The effort to bring the guilty to justice was commented upon and summarized by this Congressional Committee as follows:

Assistant Attorney General Middlekauf had active charge of the prosecutions growing out of the riot, and he showed neither fear nor favor. Capable, determined, and courageous, he allowed neither political influence nor personal appeals to swerve him from the strict line of duty.

As a result of these prosecutions by the attorney general's office 11 Negroes and 8 white men are in the State penitentiary, 2 additional white men have been sentenced to prison terms, 14 white men have been given jail sentences, 27 white men, including the former night chief of police and three policemen, have pleaded guilty to rioting and have been punished.

These convictions were obtained in the face of organized, determined effort, backed with abundant funds, to head off the prosecutions and convictions. In the case of Mayor Mollman there seems to have been an open, paid advertising campaign to slander and intimidate the attorney general.

The burned area of the city was on Fifth Street, Broadway, Walnut Street, Eighth Street, Eleventh Street and Bond Avenue, as well as "the Flats" on Seventh Street, between Division and Missouri avenues. This latter area was that occupied by Negroes. There were 312 buildings and forty-four railroad cars totally or partially destroyed, with a total loss of $393,600.

The riots in East St. Louis may be traced, more or less directly, to a number of causes, the influence of each being apparent.

Without doubt conditions resulting from the migration of a large number of Negroes from the South, a movement which was more or less general at that time, account in large measure for the riots, but also involved in it all are the facts that there had been industrial friction, and that the city was flagrantly misgoverned.

The Congressional Committee observed an effort to shift the blame from one element to another. The labor interests sought to place responsibility for the riots upon the employers, who, they said, had brought great numbers of Negroes to East St. Louis in order that they might more readily dominate the employment situation. The employers, on the other hand, thought the blame rested upon the city and county administration because of laxity in law enforcement, exploitation of Negroes for political purposes, and all sorts of political corruption, including the "protection" of vice and crime. The political ring sought to dodge responsibility by emphasizing economic and industrial causes of the outbreak.

Whatever may have been the conditions resulting from the influx of Negroes, they were undoubtedly actuated by a desire to improve their condition. Some 10,000 or 12,000 Negroes had come to St. Clair County from the South during the winter of 1916–17. During the year and a half preceding the riot, the number of such migrants was estimated at 18,000, although it was reported that many had returned during the winter of 1916–17, because of the unaccustomed cold climate. It is certain that this influx severely taxed the housing accommodations of East St. Louis, which were of the insanitary and inadequate nature that so often characterizes urban districts in which the Negroes find that they must live. The report of the Congressional Committee on this point says:

It is a lamentable fact that the employers of labor paid too little heed to the comfort or welfare of their men. They saw them crowded into wretched cabins without water or any of the conveniences of life, their wives and children condemned to live in the disreputable quarters of the town, and made no effort to lift them out of the mire. The Negroes gravitated to the insanitary sections, existed in the squalor of filthy cabins and made no complaint, but the white workmen had a higher outlook, and failure to provide them with better homes added to their bitter dissatisfaction with the burdens placed upon them by having to compete with black labor.

It is likewise in evidence that special inducements were offered to the southern Negroes to come to East St. Louis, as well as to other industrial centers in the North. Advertisements were placed in southern newspapers, offering employment at wages far in excess of those paid in the South. Low railroad rates were offered, and in some instances during this general migration the railroads are said to have transported Negroes free in order that they might be employed by the railroads. Failures of crops in the South, floods and ill treatment of Negroes there, coupled with the hope that they would find fairer treatment in the North, as well as better wages and living conditions, were the direct causes of migration. After this had become fairly general it was further stimulated by Negroes who had come North, and who wrote home painting northern conditions in glowing colors.

From the industrial point of view it should be noted that in the summer of 1916 there had been a strike of 4,000 white men in the packing-plants of East St. Louis. It was asserted that Negroes were used in these plants as strike breakers. A report on the Negro migration by the United States Department of Labor states that when the strike was ended Negroes were still employed, and some of the white men lost their positions. It says further: "The white leaders undoubtedly realized that the effectiveness of striking was materially lessened by this importation of black workers."

Furthermore, it is stated in the report of the Congressional Committee that the Aluminum Ore Company, during a strike, brought hundreds of Negroes to the city as strike breakers in order to defeat organized labor, "a precedent which aroused intense hatred and antagonism, and caused countless tragedies as its aftermath. The feeling of resentment grew with each succeeding day. White men walked the streets in idleness and their families suffered for food and warmth and clothes, while their places as laborers were taken by strange Negroes who were compelled to live in hovels and who were used to keep down wages."

In May, 1917, a strike followed demands which had been made upon the Aluminum Ore Company by the "Aluminum Ore Employees' Protective Association." These related to alleged injustices and discriminations said to have been practiced against the employees. The company failed to comply with these demands, and a thousand white workers struck.

Closely related to this situation was a notice sent to the delegates of the Central Trades Labor Union by the secretary of the Union, dated May 23, which declared that the immigration of the southern Negro had reached a point where "drastic action must be taken if we intend to work and to live peaceably in this community." This notice declared that these men were being used "to the detriment of our white citizens by some of the capitalists and a few real estate owners." It called a meeting to present to the mayor and city council a demand for action to "retard this growing menace, and also devise a way to get rid of a certain portion of those who are already here." The notice read further: "This is not a protest against the Negro who has long been a resident of East St. Louis, and is a law abiding citizen."

This meeting was held on May 28 in the auditorium of the city hall and was attended not only by the labor men but also by a large number of other persons. The Congressional Committee refers to one of the speakers at this meeting as "an attorney of some ability and no character." The report of the Committee says that he virtually advised the killing of Negroes and burning of their homes. The report says further:

He was not authorized to speak for those who went there to protest against the lawlessness which disgraced the city and the presence of thousands of Negroes who it is claimed were taking the places of the white workmen, but his inflammatory speech caused many of his hearers to rush into the street and to resort to acts of violence. … He was in full sympathy with the action of the mob. They followed his advice and the scenes of murder and arson that ensued were the logical result of his utterances.

That night, May 28, following the meeting, a crowd of white people assembled in front of the police station and clamored for Negro prisoners. A rumor circulated through the crowd that a white man had just been killed by Negroes, and parts of the crowd left, forming a mob which severely beat a number of Negroes whom it met. The situation was so serious that the mayor called for troops. The trouble subsided, however. It is important to note that from this time until the riot of July 1–2, no effort was made to strengthen the police force nor were any other steps taken to control the situation.

In connection with the industrial phase of the situation, it should be remembered that the war had cut off the normal supply of foreign labor, and that not a few white workers had left East St. Louis for other industrial centers. Most of the Negro migrants were unskilled workers, and their competition was, therefore, with the unskilled white workers. One witness before the Congressional Committee expressed the view that the labor shortage in East St. Louis prior to the riot certainly did not justify the great influx of Negroes, but it is of record that most of the newcomers got profitable employment in unskilled occupations.

The employers were fighting unions of any sort, whether of whites or Negroes. Unions were seeking membership of Negroes as well as whites in the hope that the use of Negroes as strike breakers might be prevented. Whether union men or not, the white workers resented the influx of Negro workers who might take their jobs. The inevitable consequence was friction between whites and Negroes.

The Congressional Committee laid great stress upon corrupt politics as the leading cause of the riots of July 2. It disclosed an almost unbelievable combination of shameless corruption, tolerance of vice and crime, maladministration, and debauchery of the courts. The report says that East St. Louis for many years was a plague spot, harboring within its borders "every offense in the calendar of crime" and committing openly "every lapse in morals and public decency." Politicians looted its treasury, gave away valuable franchises, and elected plunderers to high office. Graft, collusion with crime and vice, and desecration of office were openly and deliberately practiced. Criminals were attracted and welcomed, and the good people of the community were powerless. Owners of large corporations and manufacturers pitted white against black labor, giving no thought to their thousands of workmen living in hovels, the victims of "poverty and disease, of long hours and incessant labor."

The mayor, continues the report, was a tool of dishonest politicians, the electorate was "debauched," the police were a conscienceless bunch of grafters, and the revenue of the city was largely derived from saloons and dens of vice.

Several officials and politicians of high standing were singled out by the Committee for especial condemnation as the "brains of the city's corruption."

A great deal of the city's crime and vice was concentrated in what is known as "Black Valley." This was the section in which the Negroes lived, but much of the vice and crime was promoted and practiced by vicious whites. There was much mixing of whites and Negroes in the vilest practices.

Similar conditions existed in the town of Brooklyn near by, with about 3,000 people, of whom only about fifty were white. Its dens of iniquity were notorious and were the resort of many white people. So openly operated were these resorts that the Congressional Committee reported that in the Brooklyn high school "24 out of 25 girls who were in the graduating class went to the bad in the saloons and dance halls and failed to receive their diplomas."

Not only were conditions of this sort demoralizing and degrading for the decent Negroes, but the sanitary conditions were likewise extremely bad. Some of the houses in the Negro districts had not been painted for fifteen years and were in a state of great disrepair. Their setting consisted largely of pools of stagnant water and beds of weeds. At one period during the migration Negroes were coming in so fast that even these miserable housing conditions were inadequate, and some of them were forced to live in sheds. In one instance sixty-nine newcomers were found living in one small house. Whenever houses were vacated by white people and rented to Negroes, the rental price was largely increased, sometimes doubled.

After reviewing the corruption in East St. Louis, the report of the Congressional Committee discussed the riot. It described the condition of affairs on the night of July 1, 1917, when the second and most serious outbreak occurred. An automobile (some witnesses said two) went through the Negro section of the city, its occupants firing promiscuously into homes. This aroused fierce resentment among the Negroes, who organized for defense and armed themselves with guns. The ringing of the church bell, a prearranged signal for assembling, drew a crowd of them, and they marched through the streets ready to avenge the attack. A second automobile filled with white men crossed their path. The Negroes cursed them, commanded them to drive on, and fired a volley into the machine. The occupants, however, were not the rioters but policemen and reporters. One policeman was killed and another was so seriously wounded that he died later.

Thousands viewed the riddled car standing before police headquarters. The early editions of the newspapers gave full accounts of the tragedy, and on July 2 the rioting began. Negro mobs shot white men, and white men and boys, girls and women, began to attack every Negro in sight. News spread rapidly and, as excitement increased, unimaginable depredations and horrible tortures were committed and viewed with "placid unconcern" by hundreds. Negro men were stabbed, clubbed, and hanged from telephone poles. Their homes were burned. Women and children were not spared. An instance is given of a Negro child two years old which was shot and thrown into a doorway of a burning building.

On the night of July 1, Mayor Mollman telephoned to the Adjutant General of Illinois saying that the police were no longer able to handle the situation and requesting that the militia be sent. Both the police and the militia are severely censured by the Congressional report for gross failure to do their duty. The police, says the report, could have quelled the riot instantly, but instead they either "fled into the safety of cowardly seclusion or listlessly watched the depredations of the mob, passively and in many instances actively sharing in the work."

In all, five companies of the Illinois National Guard were sent to East St. Louis. Some of them arrived on the morning of July 2, the first at 8:40 a.m. These forces were in command of Colonel S. O. Tripp. Concerning the conduct of the militia, the Congressional Committee reported in strong terms, singling out Colonel Tripp for especial condemnation. It said that he was a hindrance instead of a help to the troops; that "he was ignorant of his duties, blind to his responsibilities and deaf to every intelligent appeal that was made to him."

The troops, in the estimation of the Committee, were poorly officered and in only a few cases did their duty. The report states that "they seemed moved by the same spirit of indifference or cowardice that marked the conduct of the police force. As a rule they fraternized with the mob, joked with them and made no serious effort to restrain them."

Many instances are given of active participation and encouragement of the mob in its murders, arson, and general destruction.

The only redeeming feature of the activities of the militia, according to the Congressional Committee, was "the conduct, bravery, and skill of the officer second in command, whose promptness and determination prevented the mob from committing many more atrocities."

By eight o'clock of the evening of July 2 there were seventeen officers and 270 men on duty, and by July 4 the force had increased to thirty-seven officers and 1,411 men. On the evening of July 2 the fury of the mob had spent itself, and the riot subsided.

The behavior of the troops was condemned not only by the Congressional Committee but by citizens generally, and a special inquiry was made into their conduct by the Military and Naval Department of the State of Illinois. Witnesses to dereliction on duty on the part of the soldiers were examined and commanding officers of troops were asked to testify and explain specific acts of violence and neglect of duty. In all seventy-nine persons were examined. Although the charges against the soldiers in a large number of cases were serious and sufficient to warrant the criticism which they received, identification of individuals guilty of these acts was difficult. This probably accounts for the fact that only seven court-martials resulted from the inquiry. The commanding officer, though severely censured by the Congressional Committee, was exonerated by this inquiry.