The First Texas News Barons (Focus on American History Series, Center for American History, University of Texas at Austin)

The First Texas News Barons Focus on American History Series Center for American History University of Texas at Austi...

Author: Patrick Cox

877 downloads 2855 Views 3MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

The First Texas News Barons

Focus on American History Series Center for American History University of Texas at Austin Edited by Don Carleton

THE FIRST TEXAS NEWS BARONS Patrick Cox

University of Texas Press Austin

Copyright © 2005 by the University of Texas Press All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America First edition, 2005 Requests for permission to reproduce material from this work should be sent to: Permissions University of Texas Press P.O. Box 7819 Austin, TX 78713-7819 www.utexas.edu/utpress/about/bpermission.html The paper used in this book meets the minimum requirements of ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (R1997) (Permanence of Paper). Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Cox, Patrick, [date] The first Texas news barons / Patrick Cox.—1st ed. p. cm. — (Focus on American history series) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-292-70948-X (hardcover : alk. paper)—ISBN 0-292-70977-3 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Press—Texas—History—19th century. 2. Press—Texas—History— 20th century. 3. American newspapers—Texas—History—19th century. 4. American newspapers—Texas—History—20th century. I. Title. II. Series. PN4897.T43C69 2005 071'.64'0934—dc22 2005007629

Contents Acknowledgments Introduction

vii

1

Chapter 1. Texas Newspapers and Modernization 9 Chapter 2. The Evolution of the Texas Press 28 Chapter 3. Expansion and Consolidation: Individual Publishers

62

Chapter 4. ‘‘An Enemy Closer to Us than Any European Power’’ 101 Chapter 5. The Forces of Traditionalism and the Challenge from the Invisible Empire 135 Chapter 6. Texas Newspapers, the Crash of 1929, and the Great Depression 179 Chapter 7. Newspapers and the 1936 Texas Centennial 202 Conclusion 224 Notes 229 Bibliography 253 Index 265

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Acknowledgments I owe a debt of gratitude to many individuals and institutions. Research for this work was made possible by generous grants from the A. H. Belo Foundation, the William Randolph Hearst Foundations, and The Houston Endowment. During my two years of research in Austin, the staff and the administration of the Center for American History also provided invaluable contributions and guidance in this work. Dr. David Sloan at the University of Alabama and Dr. James Startt of the University of Valparaiso provided critical insights and support. Dr. Donald Shaw of the University of North Carolina contributed valuable theoretical insight and inspiration for this study. Dr. Fred Blevens at the Universityof Oklahoma and Dr. Don Carleton gave this study careful review and timely suggestions. Dr. Michael Phillips and Paulette Delahoussaye of the Center for American History gave valuable input into the final product. Bill Bishel, my University of Texas Press editor, gave me direction and ample latitude for this broad, comprehensive study. In addition, I received excellent commentary and input from my copyeditor, Letitia Blalock, and Carolyn Cates Wylie of UT Press. Also, the professional staffs at the many research facilities and archives consulted made the job of historical research much easier through their knowledge of and expertise with their collections. Finally, John Murphy of the Houston Chronicle provided the inspiration and leadership to initiate this study. Murphy saw the importance that publishers and newspapers played during this era and consistently provided support and guidance. As a longtime newspaperman, he was among the first who saw the unique role that these publishers and their daily newspapers played in our state and nation. Special thanks go to Steve Williams and Linda Peterson of the Center for American History, who assisted with the selection of photos and illustrations.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Introduction Newspaper publishers and journalists from across Texas gathered in Galveston on October 12, 1939, to honor the ‘‘Dean of American Journalism,’’ George Bannerman Dealey of the Dallas Morning News. Dealey, eighty, was marking his sixty-fifth year with the A. H. Belo Corporation, owner of the Dallas Morning News and founder of the Galveston News. The Texas Newspaper Publishers Association hosted the tribute to Dealey, a man with ‘‘an integrity that has never known the slightest tremor of compromise or irresolution, a vision that recognizes no narrow boundaries of place or moment.’’ 1 More than 400 men and women converged on the port city of Galveston to recognize the distinguished Texas publisher. Fort Worth StarTelegram publisher Amon Carter Sr. served as the toastmaster. Former Texas governor and Houston Post publisher William P. Hobby and many of his peers delivered tributes. Carter, Hobby, and San Antonio Express publisher Frank Huntress were the organizers of the event.The host committee also included Jesse H. Jones of the Houston Chronicle, Ed Kiest of the Dallas Times Herald, and W. L. Moody of the Galveston News. Journalists, business leaders, educators, ministers, attorneys, elected officials, and bankers came to the celebration in Galveston, where Dealey had begun his career as an office boy for the Galveston Daily News. National Broadcasting System president Lenox B. Lohr attended, and his network broadcast the program nationally. Newspapers throughout the state treated the story as front-page news, with extensive commentaryand photographs.2 In his special message to Dealey, President Franklin D. Roosevelt extended congratulations from the White House. ‘‘The completion of 65 years of continuous and varied service in the making of a newspaper is an outstanding event, and as you near this notable milestone I want to join with the Texas Newspaper Publishers Association in extending hearty congratulations and warmest personal regards,’’ the president stated.

Dallas Morning News publisher George B. Dealey (left) with Fort Worth Star-Telegram publisher Amon B. Carter (right), at the Texas Newspaper Publishers Association banquet honoring Dealey, October 12, 1939, Galveston, Texas. Photo courtesy Belo Corp. Archives.

Introduction

President Roosevelt called Dealey a ‘‘pioneer’’ who played a role in ‘‘the great Texas Southwest,’’ in the building of which he had ‘‘borne so distinguished a part.’’ 3 Dealey addressed the assembled cast and quoted the motto of the Galveston and Dallas papers. In order to be a ‘‘great newspaper,’’ a publication ‘‘must be a distinct personality, a moral and responsible person.’’ Personal opinions and prejudices interfered with the newspaper’s role as a ‘‘faithful collector and disseminator of news.’’ The newspaper served as ‘‘a voice, an intelligence and a reasoning conscience, to interpret for the reading public the ripest thought and best judgment of the time, touching all questions of public concern.’’ 4 The Texas publishers recognized Dealey’s role as a publisher and advocate for the community and region. Dealey and the Morning News ‘‘inspired the people of Dallas’’ to construct a public education system, encourage civic improvements and contributions, promote business and agricultural interests, encourage city planning and public safety, and encourage growth and expansion. Dealey also served on the boards of many charitable groups and fraternal organizations and was an active Presbyterian. In the minds of most publishers of this era, Dealey represented the ideal newspaperman, business leader, and civic activist. He provided a distinctive character and image in his time, the ‘‘era of the press barons.’’ In the course of the four decades prior to U.S. entry into World War II, Dealey and his small club of Texas newspaper publishers expanded their media holdings and thoroughlyasserted their influence over public opinion and policy making. They solidified both their ties with the growing commercial concerns in the state and its dominant political forces.They fostered an expanding urban middle class of consumers and civic activity. In addition, they transformed the images of their cities and the entire state.5 During Dealey’s tenure, his community and state changed dramatically, yet they retained many features of traditional culture and customs. When Dealeyarrived in town to take his new position as business manager at the newly formed Morning News in 1885, Dallas was still a relatively small city by the South’s humble standards.The population reached only about 38,000 in the 1890 census. Far from later salad days when Dallas would share with Houston the distinction of being a center of the international petroleum economy, residents still earned their keep manufacturing saddles, cigars, bricks, tiles, and other unglamorous exports. At the meeting place of the South, the West, and the Mexican borderlands, Dallas in the early 1880s still had the flavorof a frontier town that served as 3


temporary residence to some of the nineteenth century’s most infamous gunmen, such as John B. ‘‘Doc’’ Holliday and Sam Bass. Although the town’s population stood at only 10,000 at the start of the 1880s, Dallas was already burdened with a reputation for violence and boasted fifty-two saloons, or one for every 192 residents.6 Dallas as it appeared in the late nineteenth century had vanished by the time of Dealey’s 1939 testimonial. On the surface, Dealey’s hometown, other majorTexas cities, and much of the state looked substantively different than their southern neighbors. Dallas had blossomed into an important city of nearly 300,000 people. An oil boom in nearby East Texas turned Dallas into a corporate headquarters. With an antiunion, lowwage reputation, the city turned into a national manufacturing center, with Ford Motor Company and other blue-chip firms setting up plants within the city limits. A branch of the Federal Reserve Bank had opened as far back as 1913, and Dallas lending institutions made the growing metropolis a regional financial colossus. The state’s insurance industry was also centered in Dallas. In the first decades of the twentieth century, Dealey played a central role in taming the city’s frontier mood, moving voters to implement a central growth plan. In the early 1920s, Dealey served as a leading opponent of the Ku Klux Klan, which controlled much the state and the city but, with Dealey’s help, collapsed into irrelevance by the mid-twenties. Despite the 1930s Depression, Dallas author Darwin Payne notes, in that decade the city emerged from being ‘‘a rather nondescript town with agrarian ways . . . [into] a smart city of sophistication and accomplishment.’’ Many in Texas and across the nation believed that George B. Dealey played a central role in that transformation.7 Dealey’s career captures the role major newspapers played in the modernization of Texas in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century. Many Texas and other southern historians have attributed this startling metamorphosis to the influx of defense spending and other investments by the federal government, starting in the Depression and continuing through World War II and the cold war. This book will argue that Texas modernization began early in the twentieth century and that the state’s newspaper industryand publishers played a central role in the process. In the 1930s change accelerated, establishing the foundation for the modern state. This metamorphosis occurred at the height of influence of Dealey and other Lone Star media barons. The influence of news owners during this era resulted from a number of factors. All institutions of mass communications inevitably fall—or at 4

Introduction

least they have since the time of early classical civilizations. Noted journalism historian Donald Shaw reached this conclusion based on extensive research of many forms of communications existing over thousands of years. Based on a combination of historical events, leadership decisions, and cultural shifts in the population, mass media institutions in the United States have evolved and declined over the nation’s brief history. From the early print age to the electronic era, major media enterprises have risen to the highest levels of their medium and remained there for a period of time. In order to remain at the top, the leadership maintained a systematic economic and accepted authority through a combination of financial success and popular appeal. In order to ensure this dominant position, innovative technology was utilized. But despite all efforts, every form of mass media ultimately succumbs to its successors, and this was the case with the newspaper medium.8 From the earliest days of the nation’s history, the U.S. press provided continuous news, entertainment, and commercial promotion. Newspapers reached their greatest market penetration in the period from World War I to the 1920s. Competition, suppression of many foreign language newspapers, and the economic slump that hit the nation at the end of the 1920s led to an overall decline in newspaper circulation. Also, commercial radio appeared in the 1920s and provided stiff competition for revenue and audiences that continued until World War II. Another adversary appeared on the scene after the war and created further diversion of the media market.Television blitzed its way into U.S. homes during the 1950s. During these decades of economic and social change, newspapers rose and fell based on their individual abilities to deal with changes in technology, consumer tastes, and internal organization.9 Throughout this time period, some newspapers managed to maintain an edge through a combination of strategies. Better printing processes, lowercosts, improved delivery systems, the use of colorand photography, the utilization of wire services, special editions, and a host of other innovations allowed some publications to remain on top for a period of time that extended beyond the pinnacle years of the 1920s. As Shaw notes, ‘‘[N]o mass medium has gone down without a struggle.’’ The leadership of some major daily newspapers made adjustments that allowed them to retain leadership in their respective communities and regions.The ability to recognize change and remain aggressive and creative was central to the continued success of these publications. ‘‘Historically, it is difficult to find leaders . . . who remain creative throughout the cycle of the medium,’’ 5


Shaw explains. Those with the knowledge and foresight to adjust to the needs of the medium and the audience represented the most successful enterprises over a long period of time.10 The large, independent daily newspapers in Texas provide the model of those who defied the odds during this period. These publications remained dominant in the state even as film and radio increased their audiences during the 1930s and major daily newspapers declined in revenue and influence. While a number of studies exist on U.S. newspapers and their history, very few regional studies have explored the role, the contributions, and the problems that faced daily newspapers and their publishers. A regional focus must also include the identity of the newspaper enterprise and its environment. The major dailies and their publishers in Houston, Dallas, Fort Worth, and San Antonio provide the material and examples for this era. These publishers and their respective media businesses, through decisive management, political leadership, and clever marketing, retained their dominance over civic affairs through World War II and into the postwar era. Many historians of the twentieth century grappled with the problem of where to place Texas in a regional history. In spite of its modern western image, the state remained in the southern orbit throughout the early decades of the twentieth century. As a former slaveholding state, a member of the Confederacy, and a leading cotton producer, Texas’ economy, political affiliations, and social structure closely resembled those of its southern neighbors. The state’s economic future depended in large part on whether outsiders defined Texas as southern, as western, more vaguely as southwestern, or—by the late twentieth century—most ambiguously as part of the Sunbelt. Individual newspaper publishers knew that their publications would rise or fall in part to the degree their home cities grew or declined. Like many southern Progressives of their time, Texas’ metropolitan publishers believed that the key to their state’s economic future lay with expanded industrialization and urbanization—developments that would, fortuitously, directly benefit newspapers by providing an increased readership and advertising base. The South, however, remained the poorest and least developed region in the country. Texas modernization, by necessity, would be greased with northern capital. For Texas to achieve a modern economy, the state would have to move away from the South’s defeatist moonlight-and-magnolia nostalgia to a more forwardlooking self-image.Texas newspapers served as chief agents in transforming Texas’ regional identity from a frontier outpost where Dixie petered 6

Introduction

out to ‘‘where the West begins,’’ as the Fort Worth city motto puts it. Texas’ transfer from a southern identity to a more western one helped ease the way for more northern investment, population migration, and the increased relocation of northern businesses to the state.11 By 1950 many historians had concluded that Texas had achieved a distinctive identity which diverged from the rest of the old South. As V. O. Key observed in his landmark study Southern Politics in State and Nation, Texas seemed to be more ‘‘moderate’’ in its racial and class politics and ‘‘more western than southern’’ in its social outlook. However, Texans, like other southerners, still maintained their suspicions and resentment of their northern counterparts.Texans retained their long-standing cultural and economic links to the more closely controlled, discriminatory societies that dominated the South throughout the nineteenth and most of the twentieth centuries. The emerging distinctive Texas personality primarily manifested itself in the pages of the state’s daily newspapers during the decades up to the 1930s.12 As noted above, many historians credit World War II with changing the face of the state economically and socially.The war created thousands of jobs and new industries and resulted in a major relocation of people from rural areas of Texas, as well as from other regions of the country, to Texas cities. Civil rights for the state’s minorities also received a boost from wartime demands and changes. But the groundwork for these tremendous changes was laid in the three decades that preceded the great world conflict in the 1940s. Diversification in many areas began in the years before the war. The record is mixed, as many minorities, women, economically disadvantaged, and even middle class residents failed to enjoy the benefits of this expansion. How Texans marginalized by the modernization process reacted to the state’s dynamic changes in the early twentieth century will also be explored in this study. The following pages center on these individuals and newspapers: A. H. Belo and George B. Dealey of the Dallas Morning News, Edwin Kiest and the Dallas Times Herald, William P. Hobby and Oveta Culp Hobby of the Houston Post, Jesse H. Jones and Marcellus Foster of the Houston Chronicle, and Amon G. Carter Sr. of the Fort Worth StarTelegram. All of these individual publishers left records that are preserved in a number of archives in their respective cities and in Austin. Unfortunately, efforts to locate any papers that belonged to Frank Huntress, owner of the San Antonio Express, proved unsuccessful.The Hearst Newspapers acquired the San Antonio Light, the other major daily in San Antonio, in the early 1920s. This acquisition, combined with a lack of ar7


chival material on the Light, excluded the publication from being a major focus of this study. This study will focus on key events, issues, and strategies from the late nineteenth century to 1940. These will include the early years of consolidation and change within the newspaper enterprises and the individual urban communities in which they were based. Actions during the early years of the twentieth century heralded this new age of modernization for the publishing business and how these cities were growing and defining their destinies. Other chapters will examine the influence of the Mexican Revolution, the rise and fall of the Ku Klux Klan, the onset of the Depression, and the impact of the Texas Centennial. These first Texas news barons of the twentieth century provided a distinct contribution that defined their media enterprises, their individual communities, and the new image of the state of Texas. They provided their assessment of ‘‘modernization’’ and applied this interpretation to their communication businesses and their concepts of growth and social change. In contrast to many of their southern neighbors who discouraged social mobility and individual initiative, these media entrepreneurs pressed for a more dynamic, expanded urban community. Not everyone benefited from these changes, and the road was littered with obstacles and unforeseen curves. Yet some of the changes undermined long-standing racial, gender, and class distinctions in the state. The news barons advocated a fundamental change in the way that Texans should live their lives and interpret the events that impacted their livelihoods. By 1940 the image and direction of the entire state emerged remarkably close to the plan developed by this small group of decision makers. In the pages that follow, this story will examine how this transformation took place.

8

CHAPTER 1

Texas Newspapers and Modernization A large number of media historians see the dawn of the twentieth century as the birth hour of modern journalism. Business and industrial growth, combined with a more literate population, provided the core support for newspaper growth and expansion. An expanding workforce with more disposable income increased demand for information and consumer goods. Newspapers in the early part of the century maintained a near monopoly as the primary information source for Americans.The modern U.S. daily newspaper as a complex force in business, politics, and society coincided with the rapid changes that occurred throughout the nation in the first half of the century. As mass production and marketing increased, the U.S. newspaper served as an essential, reliable vehicle to deliver both news and advertisements to the public. The modern form of the newspaper, along with the professional status of publishers and journalists, also evolved during this growth period.1 Newspapers reached their height of popularity and influence in the early twentieth century. The economic expansion from first decade of the century to the boom years of the 1920s fueled this growth. Even with the advent of other popular media such as magazines, film, and radio, newspapers managed to show considerable growth until the Depression years of the 1930s. The critical issues of economic expansion, race relations, institutional growth, and efforts to form social and collective identities competed for the attention of Texas newspaper publishers. They also wanted to build their own publishing enterprises and expand their influence beyond the borders of their urban hosts. Finally, they set the stage for the vast changes that shook the state and the South and led from the isolated, dusty backroads of the past to the urban skylines of the modern era. Newspaper publishers and their daily newspapers played a significant


role in the modernization of Texas. In the first half of the twentieth century, their interpretation of progress provided a stimulus to some while placing restraints on others. In the crucial development of the state’s economy, politics, and culture, the strategies publishers pursued appealed to a significant number of Texans.They defined the new direction for the state through the promotion of new urban commerce and a new class of commercial elites. Further, they redefined the image of Texas and Texans, altering the state’s orientation from a nineteenth-century rural southern outlook to an independent and distinctly separate identity with its own collective memory of the past. For the purposes of this study, modernity, as applied to contemporary U.S. society and culture, includes several features that define progress and change: growth and wider distribution of material goods and wealth; acceleration and acceptance of some civil and other rights for minority citizens; broader participation in political and civic affairs; a general sense of accomplishment and self-security; improved systems of communications and distribution of information; and a marked departure from traditionalism and the systems, ideals, and values of the status quo. Individuals, organizations, and institutions promoting these attributes paved the road to modernity during the era of this study. However, the manner in which this occurred has provided a tremendous challenge to historians and other interpreters of this era. Also, modernization in Texas must be considered within a southern context, as the state evolved a separate identity from its neighbors in Dixie during this era.2 After the Civil War, a different South emerged with a new set of challenges. Many New South advocates in the late nineteenth century began a crusade to improve the economic and cultural position of the region. During the first three decades of the twentieth century, a handful of daily newspaper publishers in Texas developed their own vision for Texas that pointed the state to a path that broke with the past.They played a leading role in the making of modern Texas that began in the early decades of the twentieth century. They laid the groundwork that allowed Texas to emergewith a distinctive culture that separated the state from its southern neighbors. Texas has never completely rid itself of racial and economic discrimination. But the state certainly distanced itself from the rest of the South as an economic leader in the post–World War II era. Texas indisputably assumed its own separate image and a reputation distinctly different from its counterparts in the rest of the South. Most historians credit the unprecedented economic stimulus of World War II as being the catalyst for massive social and economic change. As 10

Texas Newspapers and Modernization

Charles P. Roland summarized, ‘‘World War II released immense energies and kindled grand aspirations in the South.’’ However, the forces of change were apparent even as the twentieth century began. Sectional tensions between the North and South declined but never entirely disappeared. The willingness of northerners to forego any pretensions of imposing a multicultural and racially tolerant southern society left the former Confederate states to determine their own futures. Despite this laissez-faire attitude, the South was seen as a recurring national problem in the twentieth century. Racism, poverty, illiteracy, hunger, and a host of other social maladies plagued the South. Except for the efforts of a few reformers and initiatives attached to New Deal programs,Texans and other southerners were left to design their own patchwork contribution to the national fabric.3 The ‘‘New South Creed,’’ with its promise of industrial expansion and economic prosperity, gained many adherents. In southern business and political spheres, rapprochement with the North became a reality early in the twentieth century. Even as nationalism replaced sectionalism in this era, attempts to bring the state and region into the national mainstream proved a long, arduous, and sometimes inconclusive process.The promise of better times and the direction the state took originated in the publishers’ unpublished meetings and in the editorial offices and pressrooms of Texas’ major daily newspapers. The mythic cowboy and open-space image of Texas was greatly diminished by the ascendancy of Houston, Dallas, Fort Worth, and San Antonio as premier commercial centers of the urban New South. The publisher-owners selected these urban Texas centers as places to sink their roots and bet on the future. Daily newspapers and their publishers, editors, and writers influenced civic leadership. They often played an active role in the physical construction and social direction of their communities. In many cases, individual publishers became the focal point of activity and leading advocates for change. Agrarian interests still played a major role in shaping the future of the state and its image during the twentieth century; however, the intellectual and commercial voices that resonated from the pages and the offices of the urban newspapers played an increasingly influential role in politics and society. From the beginning of the twentieth century, independent urban dailies staked their success on the simultaneous expansion of their newspapers and the host city. They also based their appeal on an expanding urban middle-class group of readers and consumers. The distinct urban middle class in Texas and the South evolved dur11


ing the early decades of the twentieth century. Small numbers of merchants, businesspeople, clergy, and professionals (people who would be termed white-collar workers today) existed at the turn of the century. Newspaper publishers encouraged the market forces and urbanization that slowly drifted into Texas and the South and expanded this new, urban middle class. Publishers realized that the newspaper could reflect the new urban motifs at the same time it set an agenda for community standards and a future based on business expansion. This expanding force of middleclass women and men developed their own cultural and political agenda during the Progressive era and maintained their Progressive outlook during the Depression years of the 1930s. At the same time, disenfranchisement of minorities and the poor discouraged their political participation. The sharp decline in voters increased the influence of the news and business elites and the urban middle class. The addition of women voters in the 1920s resulted in the only significant increase in voter participation during this era. Newspapers profited from this expansion. Also, professionalism and consolidation became characteristics of the daily newspaper in this era. Only a small group of daily newspaper publishers in Texas adhered to this new vision for the state. These publishers held an almost religious devotion for the idea that individuals and the community jointly benefited from economic growth. The new generation of publishers reacted to many views of the agrarian-based Populist movement of the 1890s. The urban publishers challenged the Populist cry to overturn a system controlled by the eastern political and economic establishment. In contrast, this small cadre of publishers saw the existing U.S. system as replete with opportunities that had not reached the South. Many newspaper publishers teamed with other community leaders and middle-class reformers to form the backbone of the new Progressive movement. They also supported new federal initiatives focused on extensive use of land and water resources. Political contacts in Washington became as essential as those at the local courthouse and the state capitol. This support continued in the critical years of the New Deal. With federal initiatives under the control of the influential Texas congressional delegation, the New Deal never posed a threat to the existing social and economic order of Texas cities and other urban centers in the South.The powerful newsbusiness-political triumvirate preserved their influence and postponed the integration of the labor force and the social order. As they advanced their modernization strategies, newspapers relied 12


on familiar themes and images that people associated with nineteenthcentury Texas and the rest of the South. To accomplish this goal, publishers pressed forward their vision of modernization, combining elements of their southern heritage with a more urban, commercial focus. However, the road to the future was littered with obstacles. For example, the ongoing conflict between urban modernists and rural fundamentalists created conflict on many fronts. Farmers and small-town residents saw this trend toward modernity as a threat to their values and traditional behavior. They frequently collided with city dwellers in their attitudes, and eventually won passage of the Prohibition Amendment to the Constitution. In the 1920s, a resurrected Ku Klux Klan preaching antiCatholicism, anti-Semitism, and 100 percent ‘‘Americanism’’ created a new challenge. Strict segregation and lynching of African Americans and Mexican Americans occurred with disturbing frequency. Newspapers and publishers became involved in these issues, sometimes at the expense of their overall goals. The departure from the burden of the Lost Cause, with its entrenched culture and practices, was never a simple or straightforward process. The more astute publishers realized that acceptance of a modern consumer culture could be established on a foundation both real and fictional.These efforts culminated with theTexas Centennial of 1936. Organized and promoted by the state’s major publishers, the multiple events embodied the new ‘‘Texan’’ image and myth that combined factual and fictional material. These events and others provided vivid examples of how newspapers shaped popular memory and history. To a large degree, the mythological past that formed in the pre–World War II era carried forward into the age of mass media in the latter part of the twentieth century. The commerce of Texas thrived on political influence, and much of this guidance came from influential newspaper publishers.The concerns voiced in the pages of the newspapers expressed a series of values that remained constant despite the ebb and flow of political change. As Texas evolved during the century, leaving behind its rural agricultural culture and emerging as an industrialized and service-oriented urban state, critical social questions continued to dog the state’s business and political leaders. Issues concerning individual rights and the role of minorities remained a pivotal concern that sometimes dominated the pages of newspapers and the conversations of everyday Texans. Segregation and Jim Crow reflected the southern creed for public policy and social norms. However, many publishers began advocating tolerance and protection of some minority rights in this pre–civil rights era. Violence against people 13


of color was prevalent in Texas. From 1882, the first year such statistics were compiled, until 1930, Texas ranked third in the number of lynchings nationwide, behind only the Deep South states of Mississippi and Georgia.4 But many publishers and their newspapers took an active stand against this barbaric, illegal practice. This position emerged over time, but a trend toward tolerance under the guise of law and order slowly crept into the editorials and columns of the major daily newspapers. Southerners elected as congressmen and senators during the late nineteenth century had little influence and provided few notable accomplishments. Most were part of political machines whose primary interests were patronage assignments and the internal politics of their home states. Neither Democrats nor Republicans gave serious consideration to southerners for president or vice president. They seldom provided leadership on national issues or were given key congressional committee assignments. Not until WoodrowWilson’s election as president did Texans and other southerners emerge as a national political force. As a result, few federal dollars reached the region. In addition, many southern elected officials held ultraconservative economic views and demanded that government spending on any program be held to a minimum. The largest federal expense in this era went to pensions for Union Civil War veterans. Most southern Democrats wanted to reduce the tariff on imports, the single largest source of income for the federal government. But the tariff protected northern industries from cheaper imported manufactured goods and support for it provided an expanding political base for the Republican Party outside of the South. As V. O. Key concluded, the protective tariff served as the ‘‘common bond’’ that united diverse interest groups among non-southerners. ‘‘The hegemony of the Republican Party rested on the skillful maintenance of a combination of manufacturers, industrial workers, and farmers,’’ Key stated.5 Thus, making arguments for federal dollars for internal improvements created a novel approach for modernization in Texas and the rest of the South. After the disenfranchisement efforts in the early years of the twentieth century, voter participation dropped remarkably in Texas and the rest of the South. During the 1890s, three of every four voters, and sometimes even higher percentages, went to the polls. With the passage of restrictive laws by southern state legislatures, participation rapidly declined. Texas passed a poll tax in 1903 and further restrictions on qualifying voters and political parties in 1905. Turnout in Texas and the rest of the South dropped to one out of every three eligible voters and often much 14


lower. Legal restrictions, one-party dominance, and a sense of frustration permeated the election process for years.6 Texas ballot laws resembled those of other southern states. However, the separateness of Texans from their southern neighbors—born of the state’s nearness to Mexico, the presence of a third racial group, Tejanos, and the western romance already attached to the state’s nineteenthcentury cattle drives—only intensified following the discovery of major oil reserves at Spindletop in 1901. An entirely new commodity opened to Texans for jobs and export. The need for expanded shipping facilities along the Gulf Coast for transporting oil to northern refineries became apparent. In the years leading up to World War I, expectations for rising trade and commercial activity increased. Manyadvocates of growth emerged from this rising tide of new commercial activities. Rather than contest federal initiatives based on regional biases and traditions, newspaper publishers resolved to break with tradition and seek new opportunities sustained by money from Washington. Extractive industries and cheap labor fueled commercial growth in Texas and the rest of the South during this time. The plantation-style industries played an essential role in expanding the region’s commercial base. Texas publishers saw northern capital and Washington dollars as an unplowed field of opportunity, and they proved to be a critical difference between Texas and most of its southern neighbors. As Texas evolved during the century from a rural, agricultural society to an industrialized, service-oriented urban state, these issues also became part of the national debate. With the presence of federal largesse and growing dependence on it during the century, few people questioned taking large slices of the federal pie, though they often heaped criticism on the bakery in which it was prepared. As nationalism began to replace sectionalism in the twentieth century, attempts to bring the state and region into the national mainstream proved a long, arduous, and sometimes inconclusive process.7 In his extensive study of northeast Texas from the 1880s to the 1930s, historian Walter Buenger argued that the area and the rest of the state underwent a significant change heretofore unrecognized on the road to modernization.Texas still retained its nineteenth-century southern affiliations in the early decades of the twentieth century. However, its greater economic opportunities led to more diversityand a more fluid society than its southern neighbors had.These changes allowed Texans to ‘‘take better advantages presented by the New Deal and World War II.’’ Relying on statistical data 15


in agriculture, business, and labor, as well as other demographic data, Buenger concluded that Texas broke away from many of its southern ties in the years before the Great Depression. In his examination of what he termed the ‘‘most-southern’’ part of the state, he found Texas demonstrated a more prosperous and tolerant attitude than states east of the Sabine River. Racism, poverty, a one-crop economy, and a tightly controlled political and business establishment limited wholesale opportunity in this period. This interpretation opens the door to, but only provides a partial view of, the landscape. Planters in Texas never exerted as complete control over the social, political, and economic future of the region as they did in other southern states. More importantly, the locus of power and influence moved from the countryside to the new urban centers during this transitional period. Rural traditions retained their influence in the political and social culture. But the new urban inhabitants and proponents came to dominate the landscape. The larger newspaper publishers stood alongside the new business titans as the dominant voices of the emerging order in the decades before World War II.8 While the South lagged behind the rest of the country economically, many white elites thought the region was falling further behind culturally. H. L. Mencken, the oft-quoted Baltimore Sun columnist, took great delight in denigrating his southern neighbors. In 1915 he wrote that in the entire region ‘‘there is not a single symphony orchestra, nor a single picture worth looking at, nor a single public building or monument of the first rank, nor a single factory devoted to the making of beautiful things, nor a single poet, novelist, historian, musician, painter or sculptor whose reputation extends beyond his own country.’’ Mencken expressed a decidedly white, middle-class view, defining art as an expression of ‘‘high culture,’’ creations that could be housed in pricey, elite-oriented institutions like symphony halls and museums. The South had already, of course, invented one of the nation’s most important arts forms ever: jazz, a music arising from African American bars and nightclubs that also became one of the United States’ most important economic exports. Men like Mencken, however, defined art de facto as cultural markers that distinguished the white upper class and, more importantly, middle class as separate and above social underlings.9 Metropolitan publishers, fearing that the absence of bourgeois high art denoted second-rate cities less attractive to outside investment, shared Mencken’s evaluation of the South’s culture. Proponents of a more diverse, urban society placed a relatively new emphasis on the fine arts. Although keenly aware of their provincial roots and the lack of symphonies, 16


artists, and literary talents such as those associated with the North and the East, publishers became leaders in promoting these to business and social elites. Proponents of cultural as well as economic change walked a fine line in attempts to break traditions of the past while maintaining their regional allegiances and disdain of all things associated with Yankees. Italian opera, artworks of the European masters, and Shakespearean plays seemed as alien as northern ideas of financing and manufacturing to most Texans of this era. In addition, local artists and writers found little support in a state still dominated by its cotton culture and one-room schoolhouses. Newspapers played an essential role in gaining acceptance for these and other cultural attributes. More traditional cultural forms, such as the indigenous music of the area, found a more receptive audience. As railroads and commerce expanded in these growing cities, touring companies arrived to provide music, entertainment, and theatrical productions.10 The daily newspapers often played a self-contradictory role in championing the arts. As they attempted to shape popular opinion and create acceptance for nationally respected forms of music, art, and literature, they faced opposition to ‘‘outside’’ influences that smacked of northern or foreign origins. So newspaper publishers also embarked on a program to promote their own regional distinctiveness and nurture home-grown cultural efforts. Thus, endeavors to expand cultural awareness in the urban communities met opposition in the same publications that sought to promote a separate, regional identity. Even as attempts were made to overcome a lack of cultural accomplishment and awareness, similar yet contradictory efforts were being made to create an identity that would set Texas apart from the South and the rest of the nation. This cultural awareness would become manifest in the 1930s and the Texas Centennial of 1936. In all areas of life in the early twentieth century, Texas and its people, politics, business, and culture closely resembled its southern neighbors. This strong social and cultural tie refutes the view that Texans had developed their separate identity in the previous century. Occasional references appear in early twentieth-century Texas newspapers about important events from the pre–Civil War era. Historian Lewis Gould states that the ‘‘Texas culture’’ evolved as early as the independence movement against Mexico and became entrenched after 1836. Prior to World War I, newspaper and magazine articles from other states began to discuss the state’s prospects for breaking the bonds of provincialism and agrarianism. From a different perspective, author Tom Pilkington ties this image 17


to the emergence of Texas literature after the 1920s. Ideas related to an independent identity took firmer hold after World War II, with the full impetus of urbanization and economic expansion for the population as a whole. But as Walter Buenger noted in his study, ‘‘[I]n 1904 efforts to save the Alamo ranked far behind building a monument to Stonewall Jackson.’’ 11 Newspapers proved to be a cornerstone in glorifying the Lost Cause and providing a balm for southern regional history. Confederate reunions in the early twentieth century were as eagerly awaited as homebuilders’ and computer shows today. Cities throughout the South competed for the prestige and business associated with the large entourage of aging veterans. As late as the 1920s, reunions still brought massive press coverage and extensive planning for the larger cities. Prominent stories of former Confederates and Civil War battles filled the pages of newspapers. Politicians touted their southern family ties and service to the Confederacy. When an old soldier died, his obituary always listed his service and devotion to the southern cause.World War I, the economic boom of the 1920s, and the disappearing generation of Civil War veterans altered some of the emphasis on the southern heritage. The longest remaining bond with the South remained the one hardest to break: the ties to Jim Crow segregation and discrimination against minority populations. Not until the 1930s and the promotion of the Texas Centennial of 1936 did an unalterable shift towards ‘‘Texanism’’ take place. In a departure from the southern distortion of history, a new identity emerged as all things Texan became a mainstay of popular culture and collective memory. From that point forward,Texans and Texas developed and exploited their distinct, independent image in nearly every area of society and culture. Just as the newspapers trumpeted the southern view of history, the Texas daily press led the charge to embellish and commemorate the myth of an invincible Texas. Taking control of both the future and the past became a necessity in determining the destiny of the Lone Star State. Growth of Daily Newspapers and Urban Texas The ascendancy of Houston, Dallas, Fort Worth, and San Antonio as premier urban and commercial centers contradicted the mythic cowboy and open-space image of Texas. An extensive amount of influence and leadership in building these urban centers evolved from the downtown offices of the major daily newspapers.Western ideas of individualism and environment visually shifted from cowboys to cowboy capitalists, and from the countryside to the city, during these years. 18


The first edition of the Houston Chronicle appeared on October 14, 1901. Reprint courtesy of The Houston Chronicle, Center for American History (CAH).

Daily newspapers, their publishers, and their editors and writers provided leadership through their publications and their involvement in civic and financial affairs. In many cases, individual publishers became the focal point of activity and change. Agrarian interests still played a major role in shaping the future of the state during the twentieth century, but the intellectual and commercial voices that resonated from the pages of the newspapers came to play an increasingly influential role in politics and society. Urban Texans in 1900 accounted for just 17 percent of the state’s entire population. By comparison, one out of every two Americans lived in a city at the beginning of the twentieth century. The trend in Texas toward urbanization was on an irreversible track. Despite the arrival of the space age, the Internet and communications technology, the dominant Texan icons are still cowboys, cattle, and oil. Most Americans today associate these images and ideas with the West. But at the turn of the centuryTexas and its handful of small cities relied on cotton and cultural and political ties to the Old South. For generations, 19


Texas and Texans tied their allegiance and their fortunes to those of their southern neighbors. Newspaper magnates and business proponents in the largest metropolitan centers—Houston, Dallas, Fort Worth, and San Antonio—wanted their cities to more closely emulate those on the East and West Coasts. But at this time the Old South still hung over the region like Spanish moss draped from oak trees that blocked the brightest sunlight. Ideas of race, class, and gender in the Lone Star State tracked those of Louisiana and Georgia more closely than those in California and Washington, D.C. A handful of southerners, including Texans, saw that the path to a better economic future ran from the countryside into the heart of the city. New South leaders such as Atlanta journalist Henry Grady believed that urbanization and industrialization would bring prosperity to the southern states. Cotton and cattle would still be important, but southerners needed to attract new businesses and trade to break the agricultural chain that kept the region down. In order to gain equal standing with the more prosperous North, Grady and his apostles preached of this new path to economic growth that would bring social and political stability to the region, an opportunity that would be limited to whites and then to only those who supported their New South view.This creed became a rallying cry for the Texas publisher owners and continued well into the middle of the twentieth century. Once converted, the apostles of this creed of growth and expansion set the agenda for change and abridged modernization. The term ‘‘modernization’’ has somewhat ambiguous meaning for historians.Taking its most expansive interpretation, the ‘‘modern’’ period covers the era from the end of the Middle Ages to the present. A tighter definition of modernity is the period from the late nineteenth century to the present and includes the philosophical concepts and scientific techniques of this period.When advocates of ‘‘modernism’’ spoke in the early to mid-twentieth century in Texas, their objective was a united citizenry dedicated to economic expansion combined with a sound political and social climate. In reality, this was modernization built upon limited participation and advancement. Structure and tradition prevented nearly all minorities, many poor whites, and most women from participation. Those who could participate became part of the new urban business elite that took their place alongside the land and cattle barons of the previous century. Urban and southern historian Blaine A. Brownell considers this group of white business leaders the ‘‘commercial-civic elite.’’ Those who comprised this urban hierarchy included the large merchants, bank20


ers, insurance brokers, contractors, and real estate agents. Professionals comprised the other part of this group: journalists, attorneys, doctors, teachers, the clergy, and city officials.These individuals, along with other white middle-class men and women, formed the new political and social center that gave direction and support to the movement for limited modernization. As part of this group, publishers and editors of the daily newspapers served as official advocates for this vision. Not everyone agreed on all issues, and the commercial-civic elite never eliminated dissension or completely controlled the social and political agenda. Nevertheless, the daily newspapers represented and often took the lead on new initiatives for the commercial-civic elite.12 As newspaper enterprises grew and became a centerpiece of the urban landscape, the advocates for growth and industrialization preached a constant sermon, until the Great Depression of the 1930s. Business expansion varied in each community. Houston had its oil and gas tycoons, while in Dallas bankers, insurance executives, and merchants prospered. The large Texas cities advanced at a similar pace, even though in character and physical appearance each had a distinct personality that reflected the image sought by the commercial-civic elite. Each community followed the traditions carried forward from the post–Civil War South. Expansion came through low-wage labor whether it was in the cotton fields or in the refineries and shops. The separation of people based on racial characteristics became even more pronounced in the first decades of the twentieth century. Racial discrimination, along with cheap labor, low taxes, and cooperative local governments, provided the common threads for each Texas city during this period. The newspapers utilized these distinctions to establish their own identities, which blended with their hometowns’. On most occasions, the dailies reinforced prevailing notions and attitudes. However, publishers and editors broke from the mainstream when actions became too offensive and threatened these growth patterns. This leadership group in Texas and other southern cities maintained their dominance from the turn of the century through the 1970s—and even later in some locales.The commercial-civic elite, almost always supported by the daily newspapers, exerted their influence over several generations. They formed the nucleus of the urban Progressive agenda for commercial expansion, public works, federal defense spending, and improved education in the opening years of the twentieth century and during World War I. This movement synthesized into what became the Progressive business movement of the 1920s.The most significant challenges 21


to the movement came with the unrest created by the Mexican Revolution of 1910 to 1920, followed by the revival of the Ku Klux Klan in the early 1920s. These conflicts were perceived as threats to modernization and disruptive to the hegemony of the commercial elite. Another major challenge occurred during the Great Depression of the 1930s, a tempestuous time that literally swamped business and local organizations. In all of these crises, newspapers and owner-publishers rose to the challenge. They also recognized and worked with the federal government in its new role as economic provider. Modernization, not a return to traditionalism, served as the rallying cry. But although modernization succeeded, many segments of the population were left to struggle in the wake of the new trends. World War II and the postwar era offered new challenges to the commercial-civic elite as they reestablished their influence.Thewareffort and defense spending in the cold war era created tremendous economic investment in Texas and the rest of the South by the federal government. Many southern historians have now identified World War II as the time in the region’s history in which resistance to widespread economic and social change finally began to erode. Texas’ major daily newspapers and independent publishers once again took the lead in this second era of modernization. In a variation of the original theme, the postwar agenda called for increased prosperity and growth. Investments for defense, corporate relocations, and new demands for Texas petroleum and chemical products fueled the postwar boom—foundations that were firmly in place before the December 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor. Even as they struggled up the slippery slope of progress, Texas and the rest of the South would eventually reach a plateau of equality and opportunity as they achieved limited modernization. Historians have credited a number of institutions with the growth and evolution of cities in the South and West. For example, Roger Lotchkin credits the rise of the military-industrial growth forexpansion in the post– World War II era. Military installations as far back as the previous century had exerted a tremendous economic and social impact on western and southern cities.The ties to national defense and economic policy became increasingly important during the first decades of the twentieth century. City politicians, business leaders, military figures, and federal bureaucrats formed an important coalition that affected urban expansion.13 Ronald Davis, in his studies on western U.S. cities, identifies local institutions, the social diversity present in a community, and the area’s modes of production as the determining factors in the individual char22


acter of urban settings. The uniqueness also depends on the geographic location, the resources, and the historical setting. Despite the individual character of areas, each community still follows a trend of commonality that perpetuates social and class divisions and institutionalizes the status quo.14 The movement from farms and ranches to towns and cities gained momentum throughout the twentieth century, remaking the state’s emerging urban centers. By the end of the century, a remarkable transition had taken place. In 1990 Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio ranked among the nation’s ten largest cities. The larger metropolitan areas of Dallas– Fort Worth and greater Houston ranked ninth and tenth in the nation in population, but measured by the number of corporate headquarters and the assets of their commercial banks, both of these areas were in the top seven. The urban centers once dominated by cotton fields and grazing cattle now contained sprawling subdivisions, multistory office buildings, military bases, manufacturing plants, retail centers, and busy airports. Commerce was not the only attraction, as these growing cities also contained major universities and research centers, symphonies, ballets, performing arts theatres, and professional sports franchises, from football and baseball to basketball and ice hockey. Early in the twentieth century, urban corporate expansionists plowed the fertile ground for these enterprises. Their vision moved the state in this direction and transformed Texas’ regional identity. Both newspapers and newsmakers were among the leading contributors to this process of modernization. Newspapers often carried stories and editorials on events and people responsible for change. The newspapers were as much a product of the evolving modernization as they were a contributor to it. At times, the newspapers were on the cutting edge, as when they were in the forefront to land a new business or responding to a natural disaster. Sometimes they courageously took unpopular stands and went against the status quo, as when the Ku Klux Klan was in its heyday in the 1920s. At other times they silently acquiesced or even supported groups that limited civil rights and middle-class endeavors to improve living and working conditions. For years many of the state’s residents were cut out of the news because of their economic, social, ethnic, or racial background. As the century progressed, businesses and institutions expanded for some but not all. Newspaper promoters of the New South depicted the former Confederacy as a land of opportunity, but in fact it had been a place where one’s chances for success or failure were to a large degree predetermined by 23


race, class, and gender. Many individuals involved in directing the future of these local communities play a role in determining the outcome. Even with opportunities for expansion and growth, poverty, discrimination, and unemployment remained constant features of these communities. Role of the Federal Government The love-hate relationship betweenTexans and the federal government is the one theme that remains consistent throughout the evolution of modern Texas. From the federally subsidized lakes, airports, and highways in Dallas to the military bases in San Antonio to the Ship Channel and Johnson Space Center in Houston, the fortunes of these communities depended on dollars from Washington. Texans loudly proclaimed their own version of headstrong economic independence but steadfastly relied on the outstretched hand of the federal government. Decision makers in Texas actively sought federal spending, employment, and bureaucracies as a tonic for their struggling, agriculture-based economy. At the beginning of the century, most Texans still viewed the federal government as the victor in the Civil War that forced them to remain in the Union. Confederate veterans and their spouses and offspring still dominated business and politics at the turn of the century. The only experience most people had with the federal government beyond elections was when they made a trip to their local post office. The vivid memory of the Civil War and its glorified Lost Cause played well on the political stump, but it did little to change Texans’ over-reliance on cotton and cattle. All too often in the postwar years, depressed market conditions resulted in hard times on the farm, especially for those regions that depended on one crop cash sales. The Populist revolt in the 1890s, which had widespread support in Texas, was an indicator of the deep problems and unrest that pervaded much of the nation at the end of the nineteenth century. New Urban Elites The nation’s growing economic capacity and expanding cities at the turn of the century signaled a new era. Industrial and agricultural output expanded, per capita wealth of U.S. citizens grew, and most of the population was literate. While the balance sheet appeared favorable to most Americans, a closer examination of the numbers revealed startling discrepancies. Few industries located in Texas or the South. Cities expanded as markets for crops from rural areas, as rail centers, and as ports. Cotton, lumber, and cattle and other foodstuffs served as the mainstays of 24


commerce. Urban communities provided the manufactured goods, legal services, banks, education, and entertainment—both legal and illegal. Most of the advances in society occurred in the North and Midwest. People in the South and West suffered higher rates of poverty and illiteracy than their peers in other regions and more often numbered among the ill-housed, underfed, and poorly clothed. Throughout much of the South and West, the majority of people daily faced the grim prospect of only one meal, which consisted of cornbread, and backbreaking work in the fields. African Americans, Mexican Americans, and other minorities faced even bleaker prospects for improvement. In addition to being mired in poverty, they faced the task of living in a hostile environment where the government and culture treated them as second-class citizens under the best of circumstances. In the small urban communities of Texas at the turn of the century, the new elites retained their ties to the land and the traditional exploitative economy that relied on cotton, cattle, and timber. These urban businessmen would not fit the definition of a modern professional. They could be best described as entrepreneurs who served as a force that led their communities and the rest of the state into a stage of abridged modernity. During this period, the leadership of the state was no longer men who built their wealth exclusively through agricultural empires. As southern historian C. Vann Woodward notes, the new leaders relied on new resources to build wealth and prestige and relocated to cities where they ‘‘opened stores, ran gins, compresses, and banks, invested in railroads and mills, and played the speculative markets.’’ This new group of leaders ‘‘transformed themselves into members of the new class that was creating a commercial revolution and fostering an industrial revolution.’’ 15 These men differed from their predecessors in several ways. They were not opponents of business growth and expansion but eager to take part in new wealth-building enterprises. Proponents embraced a new philosophy that encompassed ideas and techniques the old landowner elites had rejected in the nineteenth century. But the new urban elites required more than just a desire for change. They needed new capital and an atmosphere that encouraged urban commercial expansion, and they needed public and political support to achieve their goals. They considered themselves spokesmen for the common people and critics of special interests and privilege. Newspapers, as the central medium for this new message of limited modernity, became an essential mechanism in bringing about changes. Publishers and editors were in the forefront of debate 25


over the social and economic issues of the day. Their support became not just a luxury but a necessity. They served as the vocal chords and the backbone of this new body of thought. Southern historian Dewey Grantham described this era as one in which progress and tradition became reconciled. The improvement of public services, the mobilization of state and local governments to side with urban expansion, and the limitation of the benefits to upper- and middle-class whites solidified the support of the traditional landowning elites who remained tied to the land and agricultural enterprises. The ‘‘whites only’’ designation protected racial divisions within the community. By limiting new industrial jobs and employment opportunities to whites, the new business elites solidified their standing with both landowners and the emerging Anglo urban workforce in preserving the status quo.Therewas no threat to the large minority labor force that landowners utilized for their agricultural operations. As long as schools, transportation, and jobs were limited to whites, no realistic opportunities became available for minorities that would lead to independence and prosperity. And if the urban daily newspapers maintained their support for these positions, political battles would be fought within the existing power structures of the community and state. Newspapers could remain comfortable in their new role as boosters for change and reform that primarily benefited middle- and upper-class white citizens. This support for the middle class and discriminatory politics was expressed in a restrained, paternalistic tone rather than hostilely. In the early years of the twentieth century, expansion became the cureall for the region’s woes. Growth appealed to most Texans regardless of whether they lived in the city or the countryside. Bone-dry women activists and saloon owners in the city could fight to the death over alcohol, but they saw eye to eye on the issue of expanding industry and business. Dry advocates saw new converts to the Progressive cause of a moral, cleaner community. Wets saw more faces at the bar and consumers of their beverages. Newspaper publishers saw more advertising dollars and more readers to add to their circulation. ‘‘Yellow journalism,’’ known for its sensational and often exaggerated style, descended on newspapers in Texas and the South at the end of the 1890s and in the early 1900s and fit the uneasy mood of this transitional era. Editors fired shots at one another almost as often as they aimed at stories of corruption, crime, and scandal. More recent studies of the era and this well-known style of journalism broaden the interpretation of the age. Yellow journalism encompassed the lurid stories, gossip, and 26


partial truths for which it is well known. Following the lead of the New York press, newspaper publishers around the nation emulated many of the elements and tactics associated with yellow journalism: bold headlines, multicolumn illustrations, more prominence for sports and society news, and widespread use of anonymous sources for stories. Thus, even as many decried and lampooned the Hearst and Pulitzer publications for theirexcessive ‘‘yellowism,’’ many publishers recognized the trend appealed to readers and advertisers alike. With widespread competition among evening and morning newspapers in major metropolitan cities, even the most conservative publishers adjusted their policies to meet the demands of the public and the challenge from their print rivals. Some critics in the era commented that the ‘‘vultures that feed on it are dying from it,’’ but elements of yellow journalism invaded the South and the West and found widespread acceptance in practice.16 Newspapers at the turn of the century carried more local and national advertising than previously, a reflection of the growing marketplace and the expanding role of newspapers. Ads became more plentiful. They carried more varieties of goods and services. Their appeals and illustrations were as varied as the advertisers, and family-owned concerns looked to develop brand recognition and a loyal customer base. National brands with catchy slogans began to appear on the pages of most daily newspapers. Their ads and revenue fueled the growth of the daily press as editions carried more pages and circulation climbed. In the first decade of the twentieth century, most cities had at least one, and more often two or more, daily newspapers. By 1910, 89 newspapers hit the urban streets of Texas between morning and evening. The number of dailies rose to 110 in 1920 and remained fairly constant for the next four decades. From 1950 to 1965, newspapers in the standard metropolitan statistical areas, which had 83 percent of all daily circulation, increased in size per issue by more than one-third. By 1950 Texas had 115 daily newspapers, 26 semiweeklies, 562 weeklies, and 300 other periodicals. Trends that developed for daily publications continued through the 1960s and the total number remained fairly constant. These trends reflected the influence of northern business practices and standards on southern enterprise. This contradicts many notions that Texas businesses relied solely on their own initiative and ingenuity as they built successful operations.

27

CHAPTER 2

The Evolution of the Texas Press Spanish-Language Newspapers

The first newspapers in Texas were Spanishlanguage publications in the early 1800s. The first newspaper recorded in the colonial period was a publication issued by the Gutiérrez-McGee filibustering expedition, which entered Texas in 1813 in an ill-fated attempt to seize control of the Spanish colony. The first publication actually printed in Texas was the Gaceta de Texas. Issued in Nacogdoches, the Mexican Advocate was printed in both Spanish and English in 1829. Several other English papers appeared during the period when Texas was the northeastern frontier of the Republic of Mexico. Spanish-language and Spanish-English newspapers remained a part of Texas history in the colonial era and during the Republic and statehood in the nineteenth century. These independent publications followed different political paths. El Rayo Federal and El Noticioso del Bravo of Brownsville called on Mexicans to overthrow President Antonio López de Santa Anna. San Antonio’s first Spanish-language newspaper, El Bejareño (1855–1856), was launched to defend Tejano interests. Community leaders like the Navarros and Seguíns displayed alarm over the power and sometimes violent actions of white settlers who sought to displace the Tejanos. El Bejareño in the 1850s provided its readers with stories on democracy and U.S. history and translations of U.S. laws. Tejano Spanish-language newspapers in Texas numbered 150 in the nineteenth century and more than 300 in the twentieth. Some communities had as many as a half-dozen publications to choose from by the turn of the twentieth century. Similar to other independent newspapers of this era, most of these publications suffered from a small circulation, poor advertising revenues, and a lack of capitalization. Press censorship and persecution during Porfirio Díaz’s thirty-year rule in Mexico (1877–1880, 1884–1911) forced editors and political fig-

The Evolution of the Texas Press

ures to flee the country forTexas, where they established numerous partisan organs both forand against Díaz.The most notable Spanish-language paper of the first half of the twentieth century, La Prensa (1913–1963), which began publication during the Mexican Revolution, was considered the voice of elite, exiled conservative intellectuals. Founded by Ignacio E. Lozano, La Prensa employed some of the most famous writers of Latin America. More recent bilingual U.S. newspapers have advocated greater social and economic equity. San Antonio, El Paso, Laredo, Brownsville, and Houston have been home to the largest number of newspapers. At least forty-eight Texas communities produced Spanishlanguage newsprint between 1900 and the 1990s. Nineteenth-Century Anglo Newspapers in Texas English-language newspapers in Texas began with the publication of the Telegraph and Texas Register at Washington-on-the-Brazos when the residents were citizens of the Republic of Mexico. Publisher Gail Borden and his printing press were among the last to depart San Felipe before the advancing Mexican Army. He was nearly captured again by Santa Anna in Harrisburg. However, in Buffalo Bayou the troops disposed of the Register’s press and burned the office. The Telegraph and Texas Register was the most consistent and reliable publication in the days of the republic and early statehood. The first daily newspaper in the state was the Morning Star, which began publication on April 8, 1839, using an old press in the office of the Telegraph and Texas Register. The revolution, paper shortages, lack of ink and a problem common to many publishers—a lack of capital—interrupted publication of many early newspapers. Editors were subject to the social and economic conditions, as well as the everyday afflictions. The first publisher, E. Humphreys, died of yellow fever within the first year of publication.1 As historian Marilyn Sibley notes in her study of the antebellum state press, special interests and politics dominated the early newspapers in Texas. Once Texas became independent of Mexico, many publications appeared and succumbed seemingly as fast as a change in the weather. Early newspapers promoted land speculation, advertised goods and services on their front pages, and repeated gossip and unreliable information as news.The standards and conduct accepted by the earliest Texas newspapers are a far cry from the professional practices of publications today. Nearly all of the major publications supported the Democratic Party. But factions evolved over the protection of slavery and preservation of the Union. Sam Houston served as the lightning rod for this debate, 29


as most editors became either pro- or anti-Houston, depending on their position in the great debate over the extension and protection of slavery. John Marshall, the fiery editor of the State Gazette, served as Houston’s main antagonist and became the leader of the state Democratic Party’s anti-Houston wing in the late 1850s. Eber Worthington Cave, Houston’s strongest defender and the owner and editor of the Nacogdoches Chronicle, also published Houston’s Campaign Chronicle in the 1857 governor’s campaign. In this era, partisanship, politics, and newspapers worked together. Just as antagonists were expected to battle over issues and personalities, no one questioned an editor’s right to take a partisan political position and also hold a party office.2 In 1842 the oldest newspaper that is still publishing, the Galveston News, began as a semiweekly. The Galveston Zeitung, probably the first German-language newspaper in Texas, traced its beginnings to 1847. The first papers printed by religious denominations also appeared in the 1840s. Most of the antebellum communities in the state had a newspaper, and the larger communities such as San Antonio, Galveston, and Houston had two or more. But nearly all of these publications ceased operation within a year after the outbreak of the Civil War. During Reconstruction, most weekly newspapers were back in operation. Only a handful of daily newspapers resumed operation and half of those were in Galveston. The number of dailies increased to over fifty by the 1890s and nearly doubled within the next decade. The largest of those founded in the nineteenth century which continued publication well into the next century included the Austin American-Statesman, Dallas Morning News, Galveston News, San Antonio Express, San Antonio Light, Houston Post, and Victoria Advocate. Many early newspapermen wore a number of hats at their publication. With the exception of a few dailies, they worked on publications that appeared weekly, semiweekly, or triweekly. The content and appearance of their newspapers resembled that of newspapers in other southern states. News from overseas and Washington D.C., as well as reprints from other papers, especially the New Orleans Picayune, appeared in print alongside local stories and advertisements. Editors spoke their mind, and their writings were frequently political and sometimes personal in nature.The publishers, the editors, and in many instances the printers of early Texas were mostly well educated by the standards of the day. They fearlessly took sides in campaigns, lampooning political aspirants as frequently as theyopposed othereditors. However, even in issues dating back to before the Civil War, they also wrote on the religious, educational, economic, 30


and social needs of their communities and the state, while avoiding news which might have cast local citizens or businesses in a negative light. Promotions on the merits of their region appeared in order to attract immigrants to a sparsely populated area. Editors constantly preached on the need for new businesses and industry in Texas. With their extended, locally authored columns, many nineteenth-century editors appeared to be more interested in influencing opinion than simply reporting events. African American Newspapers The first African American newspapers appeared in the United States before the Civil War, but none appeared in Texas until after Reconstruction. Because of the long-standing discriminatory attitudes that existed among a majority of white Texans, the first black-owned publications served as the voice of those who lived in communities divided by racial animosity. Although these newspapers and publishers suffered dire economic straits, they served a purpose in providing a voice for and uniting the African American citizenry. The eventual success of the modern civil rights movement had its roots in the first black newspapers. These publications represented those who sought to quietly wage battles against discrimination and local power structures, often in the face of threats, violence, lynchings, and destruction of African American homes and businesses. Richard Nelson published the Galveston Spectator (1873–1885), the earliest newspaper in the state with black ownership and management. Nelson moved to Galveston after the Civil War and became active in business and Republican Party politics. The Galveston Spectator supported Republican political candidates and urged blacks to pursue education and participate in public affairs. After an unsuccessful bid for Congress, Nelson established the Freeman’s Journal, another weekly for the Galveston black community, which continued until 1893.3 The Houston Informer and Texas Freeman is considered to be the oldest African American newspaper still published west of the Mississippi. Charles N. Love, with the help of his wife, Lilla, produced the first four-page issue in 1893. Love advocated the annulment of Jim Crow laws, equal pay for black teachers, the hiring of black postal workers, and the Carnegie Library for Negroes in Houston, completed in 1912. C. F. Richardson Sr. published the paper’s successor, the Houston Informer, from 1919 until January 3, 1931, when it was acquired by attorney CarterW.Wesleyand two business partners, who merged it with theTexas Freeman to form the Houston Informer and Texas Freeman. 31


Wesley rose to prominence as an astute businessman and community leader. He was at the center of many important issues that involved the African American community in the years of Jim Crow. The Houston Informer and the Dallas Express became the primary alternative publications for black citizens in Texas. The Informer acquired a printing company, employed 1,500 people at its peak, and is credited with starting many black writers in their careers. Even after Wesley’s death and the demise of segregation, the Informer remained popular in Houston’s black community. In the 1990s, the Informer survived under publisher and editor George McElroy. The Dallas Express ceased publication in 1970.4 The San Antonio Register was founded by its owner and publisher, Valmo C. Bellinger, and first appeared in print on April 10, 1931. The paper continued for the next forty-seven years, changing ownership early in 1979. Of its three editors, the most important were the first, Jasper T. Duncan, and the third, Ulysses J. Andrews, the latter the editor for fortythree of the original newspaper’s forty-eight years.With the demise of the rival Inquirer in 1934, the Register’s local, state, national, and world news coverage expanded. The paper also worked to ensure that San Antonio’s black community would continue its electoral support for Democratic political candidates backed by the newspaper.5 While their news coverage was sporadic and editorials often avoided direct challenges to the white community during the era of Jim Crow segregation, the black press served as a critic of the most extreme practices. Lynching and attacks on members of the black community that went unreported in the establishment press received significant attention in the pages of these small urban newspapers. They also served as the conscience and the seedbed for the modern civil rights movement that emerged in the years prior to World War II and gained momentum in the postwar period. As early as the 1920s, prominent African American publishers helped finance NAACP lawsuits that challenged segregation laws and customs. The newspaper publishers played critical roles in working with the white business establishment and brokering changes in the civil rights era. Texas at the Turn of the Century As Texas cities grew in size, economic power, and diversity in the late 1800s and early 1900s,Texas urban newspapers increased in complexity, sophistication, and influence. San Antonio, the Spanish colonial capital of Texas, claimed the title of largest city in the state at the dawn of the twentieth century. San Antonio had 53,321 inhabitants, according to 32


the 1900 U.S. census, while close on the heels of the Alamo City were Houston (44,633) and Dallas (42,638). All three were large inland commercial trade centers. These three cities surpassed Galveston (37,789), the largest port city on the Gulf of Mexico, which served as the leading city in the state at the end of the nineteenth century. Fort Worth (26,688), Austin (22,258), and Waco (20,686) were the only other Texas cities whose populations exceeded 20,000 inhabitants. With a population of 3 million in 1900, Texas remained largely rural. More than eight of every ten Texans in 1900 lived in rural areas. Urban areas became increasingly dominant as the century unfolded, but not until after World War II did a majority of the state’s residents reside in communities larger than 2,500 people. The minority of Texans who resided in cities in the early 1900s still relied on their neighbors in the country to sustain the economy. Cotton, corn, and cattle were the primary cash crops. Texas continually led other states in cotton production and beef on the hoof, but ranked near the bottom in processing these homegrown products. Prior to World War II, no more than 3 percent of the cotton from Texas farms was milled in the state. Crop diversification expanded, but cotton remained king over other crops grown in Texas. Lumber and wood products sustained the economic growth of the state during the early part of the century. Sawmills were plentiful, but very few pulp and paper plants located in Texas. Texas remained a provider of raw materials that were turned into finished products in richer industrial centers outside the state. The millions of longhorns that roamed the prairies were gone by 1900. One of the few remaining herds survived at the San Antonio Zoo. Yet the ranching business still thrived, as Texas raised the largest number of cattle, sheep, and goats in the nation.The number of packing plants increased after the turn of the century, but the rails that replaced the western trails of the 1800s still transported millions of head of cattle to processing facilities in the Midwest and northern states. Wool and mohair were also taken to the out of state mills.6 Following the discovery of oil at Spindletop in 1901, petroleum slowly began to transform life in the Lone Star State. Before the Lucas gusher at Spindletop, Corsicana had served as the center of the state’s oil activity. Oil production increased as many new fields were discovered in the coming decades. Not until 1930, with the discovery of the immense East Texas field, did petroleum replace cotton as the symbol of the state’s wealth.With the approach of World War II, nearlyone in every sixTexans linked their livelihood to the oil industry. Production remained centered 33


in rural areas, but the new industry generated many jobs and businesses in cities as the century continued. Lynchings and Violence—Press Coverage of Minorities in the Early 1900s The largest cities in the statewere little more than crossroad hamlets compared to the massive, diverse cities in the northern states at the turn of the century. While San Antonio retained its leadership as the largest and oldest community, New York, Chicago, Boston, and many other established northern cities dwarfed their Texas counterparts. Yet like their oversized cousins, Texas cities had multiple problems that resulted from rapid growth and the boom and bust cycles in the U.S. economy. Texas communities, like their counterparts in other southern states, labored under the stigma of racial segregation. As a result of Jim Crow segregation, African Americans and Mexican Americans remained outside the economic and social mainstream for decades. However, distinct minority communities emerged in the largest Texas cities with separate commercial enterprises. The poll tax, a levy required to obtain authorization to vote in an election, served as cornerstone of electoral reform. In Texas, newspaper editorials argued that the tax would define the voter base and cleanse it of ‘‘repeaters and floaters.’’ Prior to the poll tax proposal, Texas required no registration of voters. In 1902 the San Antonio Express editorialized that the poll tax would prevent ‘‘fraudulent elections.’’ The newspaper affirmed its support for an amendment to the state constitution: ‘‘No sharp candidate will buy tax receipts for purchasable voters six or eight months in advance. He cannot buy them for floaters who move from county to county to vote, even if he were willing to do so.’’ Such arguments marginalized the state’s many migratory farmworkers—the impoverished Anglos, Mexican Americans, and African Americans who crossed the state, following growing seasons and searching for better working conditions and wages. State legislators who supported the registration law advanced similar arguments. However, as one political historian noted, the argument reflected ‘‘pious talk used as a means of winning popular support for disenfranchisement.’’ Some of the reform methods also led to other abuses at the ballot box as they heightened requirements and reduced voter rolls. The actual intent of the movement was to disenfranchise African American voters and whites who supported the Populist Party in the 1890s. The movement also served as a reaction to congressional legislation in the 1890s that provided protection for minority voters 34


and federal oversight of elections. In reality, threats, violence, and other intimidation tactics aimed at black voters had already reduced minority participation by 1900.7 Daily newspapers covered more visible methods to restrain African Americans. Public executions drew large crowds in Texas, especially when the convicted were African Americans. At the February 26, 1910, hanging of SamWashington and GusThompson in the town of Wharton, thousands gathered to witness the end of the two African American men. The Wharton Spectator announced the time and date of the execution in advance and provided descriptions of the ropes that had been used to hang other men. The men had been tried and found guilty of separate shotgun slayings of two African American women and, the Dallas Morning News reported, their execution ‘‘in most all of its phases was beyond precedent’’ because of their actions on the scaffold. The audience, primarily African American, numbered in the thousands. As they watched, the condemned pair sang, preached, and prayed. Both men confessed their guilt and then listened to talks delivered by several ‘‘colored preachers.’’ As the pair sang ‘‘Nearer, My God, to Thee,’’ Sheriff Robert Koehl placed black caps over their heads and said, ‘‘Good-bye, boys.’’ The singing stopped, the Houston Chronicle reported, at 1:15 p.m. as ‘‘both of the condemned men were dangling from the twin ropes.’’ Both newspapers reported that Washington died instantly of a broken neck. The News stated that Thompson ‘‘choked to death, struggling considerably.’’ 8 A ‘‘deplorable tragedy’’ occurred shortly after the dual hangings: the shooting of Mrs. Effice Kepner by her husband and brother-in-law. As ‘‘hundreds of negroes’’ passed by the Kepner home during the day before the double execution, several family members believed the large numbers of black travelers represented a ‘‘negro uprising for the annihilation of the white people’’ and determined to protect their household. That night, Effice Kepner and her mother-in-law rushed out of the house to a nearby shed where two family members stood guard with shotguns. The men fired on the two women in the mistaken belief that they were under attack, killing Effice Kepnerand wounding her mother-in-law.TheWharton Spectator described the accidental shootings as one of the ‘‘saddest accidents which has ever occurred in Wharton County.’’ 9 A few days later and hundreds of miles to the north, mob violence erupted in Dallas when thousands of people rioted and lynched Allen Brooks after seizing him in a county courtroom where he was on trial. According to the Dallas Morning News, about 200 white men and one ‘‘conspicuous Negro’’ fought past deputies and policemen and seized 35


Brooks, who was accused of ‘‘one of the most heinous crimes since the days of Reconstruction.’’ The group of men tied a rope around Brooks’ neck, beat him, and threw him headfirst from a second-floor windowonto the ground below. Members of the ‘‘maddened crowd’’ dragged Brooks up Main Street to the Elks’ Arch. Climbing a telephone pole at the corner of Main and Akard near the arch, an unidentified man pulled the rope across one of the iron spikes. ‘‘Brooks’ body was pulled up until it dangled about four feet above the ground.’’ The only clothing remaining on Brooks was a tattered flannel shirt and undershirt, as members of the crowd grabbed torn pieces of cloth and bits of rope for souvenirs. The News speculated that the fall from the window may have killed Brooks before the crowd lynched him from the telephone pole.10 Following the removal of Brooks’ body by police, a crowd of 10,000 people surrounded the jail where he had been a prisoner in an attempt to force police to release two other black men convicted of murdering whites. A former Dallas County sheriff described the crowd as the ‘‘best organized and most determined mob in the history of Texas,’’ and dozens of men attempted to batter down the front door of the jail and fought with police. Officers permitted a small group of men to search the building. In anticipation of the mob’s assault on the jail, Sheriff Ledbetter had already spirited the two prisoners out of town in a taxi during the lynching of Brooks. The mob finally dispersed that evening when the convicted men could not be found in the jail or in other public buildings.11 The Brooks affair made the news in other cities. The Houston Chronicle’s page one coverage reported, ‘‘Dallas Courthouse Raided by Mob and Negro Killed.’’ After Brooks was taken from the courtroom and strung up on a telephone pole, the Chronicle reported of the mob that ‘‘despite its great size there appeared to be little excitement and there was no shooting.’’ The Chronicle also reported the failed attempts to seize other inmates from the jail. The following day, the Chronicle stated that a grand jury planned to investigate the Dallas lynching. ‘‘It is believed, however, the investigation will be a mere formality and that there will be no prosecution.’’ Within twenty-four hours of the ‘‘day of the wildest excitement,’’ the militia that had been called in departed. And in a sure sign that order was restored, the Dallas saloons reopened.12 The Dallas Morning News editorial expressed shock at the day’s events. ‘‘There never was yet a mind powerful enough or subtle enough to justify lynching. It is in every case an irreparable hurt to society,’’ the editors stated. However, not every participant joined the mob ‘‘moved by a lust for bloodshed.’’ The newspaper stated that many expressed frus36


tration at delays and inequities in the justice system. Often the law was used as ‘‘the means for saving fiends from fair and prompt punishment.’’ Until the system was reformed, the News complained, ‘‘public sentiment and all its agencies will be practically helpless against such outbreaks of popular passion.’’ The Reverend E. P. West, pastor of the First Baptist Church, condemned mob violence and commended the News for its position. In a letter to the editor, West called for ‘‘reform in the present delay in trial procedure and still more urgent need for a closing up of the numberless loopholes in the law.’’ When higher courts reversed convictions of a ‘‘heinous crime’’ due to a ‘‘mere technicality or subterfuge, they furnish incentive and motive to just such spectacles of violence as that in Dallas.’’ Thus, while mob violence and lynching gave the community a black eye, West and most white Texans ignored the underlying causes of this race-based crime.13 The Chronicle editorial essentially condoned the citizen action, although it proclaimed that ‘‘the Chronicle stands against mob violence.’’ The Houston editors justified the crowd’s reaction due to the nature of the crime and frustration with the judicial system. ‘‘A beast of a negro defiled by lecherous assault not a woman, not a girl, but a dimpled-cheeked innocent babe, and when he did he placed himself beyond the pale of every law of civilized man,’’ the editorial proclaimed. Brooks suffered at the hands of the mob because he ‘‘forfeited his right to live.’’ Because the courts and law enforcement authorities failed in their jobs, ‘‘the people retook the power into their own hands for a season and executed it their own way.’’ In Brooks’ case, ‘‘a patient and long suffering people reached the point where they could stand no more.’’ As long as the law tolerated convicted criminals to remain unpunished, the Chronicle predicted, future mob action would take place.14 Based on these and other occurrences involving violent action against racial minorities, little distinction can be drawn between Texas and the rest of the South. Texas newspaper editors, who spent enormous energy promoting the virtues of their communities, looked favorably upon executions of African Americans. Legal executions, such as the 1910 hanging of Washington and Thompson, reinforced community standards and the distinctions drawn between racial groups. Public executions served as a warning to blacks that racial violence would not be tolerated. From petty crimes to capital offenses, blacks could expect quick retribution from law enforcement authorities.The course of events from trial to execution proceeded uninterrupted for Washington and Thompson. Since both men 37


were accused of murdering black women, the community allowed the legal process to run its course. The large number of blacks who attended the execution served a purpose in both communities. African American ministers, who used the execution to exert their leadership, used the public hanging as an opportunity to confirm their positions as spokesmen for the black community and mediators with the white community.The Wharton County trial and execution proceeded without interruption. Thus, no editorial commentary appeared in the state’s daily press on the hanging. By its silence, the press indicated its approval as long as the executions proceeded almost as swiftly as a lynch mob. The straight news coverage conveyed the essential message to whites and blacks: lawless activities by blacks were expected and would not be tolerated to any degree by the white majority. The large public spectacle undoubtedly served as a warning to the black community that punishment would be swift and sure. What was punished more often than actual crime, however, was the failure of blacks to follow precisely the oppressive codes of racial deference demanded by whites. The well-organized proceedings in Wharton stood in stark contrast to the Dallas riot. Residents in Texas and the rest of the South witnessed many years of this form of violence before 1910. Historian Joel Williamson termed this period the ‘‘hot time’’ because of the widespread and systematic use of violence against black Americans. Retaliation against blacks, especially black males, increased dramatically in the final years of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Many factors contributed to this rise in violence. Newspaper stories and editorial campaigns against blacks certainly contributed to the hostilities. Although some journalists and editorialists condemned lawlessness and mob action, the ongoing descriptions of blacks as untrustworthy, licentious, and predisposed toward crime reflected the sentiments of most white Texans. White racists created the myth of the ‘‘black beast rapist’’ and perpetuated stories of ‘‘unspeakable’’ crimes committed by black men against white women. And as demonstrated in these editorials, lynching represented a rational, civilized response by the white community to the savage activities of blacks. Even the objectively written, detailed accounts of the riot and lynching reveal the cultural bias that existed within the newspapers and the communities. Treatment and coverage of the African American and Mexican American populations in the early twentieth century placed Texas among the worst offenders in the South and the nation as a whole.15 38


Spindletop Texas’ urban racial politics echoed the state’s blood-stained southern past, but the discoveryof oil in an obscure cornerof the state in the first decade of the twentieth century transformed the state’s economy, its population, and its identity forever. When the Houston Post first covered the story, on January 10, 1901, it announced that ‘‘oil gushed up like a waterspout’’ on Spindletop Hill in nearby Beaumont, but the paper failed to put the news on the front page. The Post editors were either skeptical of the claim of a 5,000 barrel per day output or the story arrived too late for insertion on page one. For the previous four months, Captain Anthony F. Lucas and his crews had endured the taunts of manyof Beaumont’s 9,000 residents, who ridiculed the prospecting efforts at the drill site south of town. But that morning, when the Lucas well sent a black stream shooting over 100 feet into the air, townspeople rushed to the livery stable and sped to the scene. Many later reported the gusher sounded like a cannon when the force of the oil, mud, and gas blew out the pipe and drilling equipment. Charlie Ingals, a nearby farmer, galloped his horse into Beaumont like an oil-soaked Paul Revere to give the city’s residents the news. In his first interview that afternoon, Lucas hugged the Post reporter and proclaimed, ‘‘Its equal cannot be seen on this earth’’ and was ‘‘equal if not superior to the oil found at Corsicana.’’ 16 The next day, the Post featured the Spindletop discovery on page one. ‘‘The Big Oil Well’’ was suddenly big news. An estimated 16,000 barrels per day flowed from the well, whose flow was still out of control as it gushed into the damp, chilly air. The well’s capacity was reported to be ‘‘greater than that of any ‘gusher’ in the world.’’ On its editorial page, Post writers said that people should not be surprised at the strength of the well and agreed with previous reports that the ‘‘whole region covered a rich oil field.’’ The editors speculated that Spindletop was the southern end of an immense field that stretched as far north as the Corsicana field discovered in 1895. The newspaper predicted a boom for Beaumont as a result of the strike and speculated that oil could be located near Houston that would ‘‘wonderfully multiply our energies and business.’’ 17 Americans had witnessed earlier booms in Pennsylvania and in Corsicana, Texas, but no one had ever seen a gusher like Spindletop. A hastily constructed fifty-acre reservoir was too small to hold the oil from the well. As the magnitude of the strike became evident, Beaumont became the first of many Texas oil boomtowns. Speculators rushed to the city within days to secure leases on surrounding properties and arrange contracts for new wells. Syndicates quickly formed in Beaumont, Houston, Corsi39


cana, Dallas, and other cities for the sole purpose of finding oil and quick riches. Like gold fever in the nineteenth century, the Spindletop gusher created new dreams of unimaginable wealth. Continuous newspaper accounts and editorials spurred this new drive for individual prosperity with their enthusiastic reports of immense reserves awaiting discovery. Land had previously sold foronlya fewdollars an acre. Now, a lot that was twenty-five by thirty-four feet (the exact space needed to erect a drilling rig) went for $6,000. The Spindletop well gushed for nine days, covering the surrounding prairie with a sea of oil, before storage and holding tanks could be constructed. The Lucas crew finally capped the uncontrolled well after several days, but no valve was strong enough to control the enthusiasm of the thousands who flocked to Beaumont. For a full week after the Spindletop gusher first hit, the nearby Houston Post expanded its coverage of the strike. The Southern Pacific Railroad advertised round-trip tickets in its front-page ads in the Post. Artist sketches portrayed scenes of the gushing well, crowded hotel lobbies, and speculators hawking leases, photos, and wagon rides to view the black geyser. Editorials extolled the birth of a new industrial age for the region and the entire South—all because of the Spindletop well. In a region that continuously sought new avenues for economic growth, many believed the discovery was providential. At the turn of the century, Americans used oil for lighting lamps, as lubricants, and in medicines. The horseless carriage used only a small fraction of the fuel supplied by the handful of refineries in the nation. The Post sagely predicted that oil would soon replace coal as the major fuel for transportation and manufacturing. It also foresaw construction of pipelines to the coast, new refineries, and more shipping and trade. Spindletop was more than the birth of a new industry—it was the dawn of a new age.18 The Post also noted that Spindletop would rival the Pennsylvania oil fields. Prior to the Lucas discovery, Standard Oil Company had dominated the industry. Standard’s vertical operations included drilling, refining, and marketing oil products. But Texas’ antitrust laws expressly prohibited vertically integrated companies like Standard from operating in the state. This provided an opening for Texas businessmen. Many worked on eastern capital, but they chartered their companies in Texas. Gulf, Texaco, Sun, Mobil, and Exxon all trace their corporate roots to the cow pasture on Spindletop Hill in 1901. Hundreds of other smaller supply and service companies sprang up as quickly as new derricks appeared on Spindletop. The first front-page ad for oil well casing and pipe appeared alongside the beer, farming equipment, and furniture ads on 40


January 15, only five days after the Lucas gusher came in. The new industry offered more than just news—it brought increased advertising revenues and circulations for the major daily newspapers.19 With this sudden expansion, newspaper executives faced a critical decision in their advertising policies. Many individuals and companies wanted to cash in on the oil boom. Newspaper ads for stock promotion and solicitation became a major source of revenue. But many stock promoters were fraudulent and robbed investors of their money. Yet their advertisements represented a strong source of revenue for newspapers. Newspaper executives struggled for years with ethical considerations concerning questionable ads, trying to determine if they were necessary. Newspapers during this period often contained dozens of solicitations from new, inexperienced companies. The oil boom created many unanticipated problems that served as harbingers of the difficulties in the transition to a modern society. The Post editors realized that Spindletop was an important story and provided ongoing coverage. One story contained the following passage: ‘‘Strange faces began to be seen in the streets, the post office and the telegraph employees were put on their mettle, shipments of cots went round to the hotels, and then day by day the fever grew till the city roared like a hive and trains came in crowded with impatient men who leaped off before the station was reached.’’ The reporter concluded that ‘‘Boom and Frenzy ruled the day.’’ Unquestionably, the discovery automatically attracted hundreds of people. But the ongoing news coverage undoubtedly fired the imagination of many people in Texas and throughout the nation.Thousands of people poured into Beaumont. ‘‘A new class of people walk the streets,’’ another newspaper story noted. ‘‘New enterprises are on every hand, street fakirs, museum attractions, and all sorts of little money-making schemes abound in almost endless variety.’’ 20 Newspaper articles painted the discovery in glowing terms, but unsavory news also worked its way into print. Although the Spindletop boom was a bonanza for many speculators, it was not for ordinary residents, and the city of Beaumont quickly gained an unsavory reputation that rivaled the gold camps of the previous century. Houses that once were white turned a sullen yellow from the oil-laden air. Ham and eggs were a dollar per order, and water became more expensive than oil. Many residents noted that the water suddenly tasted like oil and feared their drinking water was ruined. Beds were nonexistent, and many weary men slept in the open or alongside streets and buildings. Gamblers, prostitutes, thieves, and con men who hustled fraudulent stock offerings de41


scended on Beaumont. The chief of police warned residents and visitors to walk in the middle of the street after nightfall and advised men to ‘‘tote guns and tote ’em in your hands . . . not on your hips, so everybody can see you’re loaded.’’ 21 From this time on through the remainder of the twentieth century, the black gold from the ground and the black ink from the printer provided a stimulus to the Texas economy. The entrepreneurs in the newspaper business inTexas possessed manyof the same traits as the independent oil producers of this era. Both industries had maintained a presence before the big discovery in southeast Texas. The Spindletop boom coincided with the rapid expansion of daily newspapers. Just as the daily newspaper served as the dominant communication enterprise of the era, oil quickly surpassed timber, shipping, and other aspects of manufacturing to become the leading industrial sector.The oil business came to represent an economic mainstay for newspaper publishers as increasing advertising revenues appeared from oil-related businesses, especially the booming automobile sector that emerged in the years after Spindletop. The oil booms and the business connected with oil also provided an ongoing source of news and features for Texas daily editors. Petroleum changed the lives of many Texans and influenced the very image of the state held by its inhabitants and those outside of the state. Coverage of the oil business remained one of the critical issues for daily newspapers and provided the first degree of separation from the rural nineteenth century and southern agricultural traditions of Texas. The oil business thus contributed to the expanded business presence of the urban daily newspapers that emerged in these early years of the twentieth century. Daily Newspapers in Late Nineteenthand Early Twentieth-Century Texas The Spindletop discovery came as the United States was maturing into a more diverse, complex society. Westward expansion, industrial growth, technological change, and urbanization contributed to this major development of the national arena. The newspaper industry benefited from this explosion as the presses rolled out news, information, advertising, and advice. Newspapers, written and priced for the masses, carried the banner in the parade of American-style democracy and capitalism. The industry became more professional and diversified as publications focused on profits, efficiency, and productivity. Media historians define the twentieth century as the period of the modern, professional media. The 42


era of the small club of men who alternately served as publishers, editors, and sales and business managers drew to a close. The daily newspapers that survived and prospered in this new era often resembled giant oil and insurance companies instead of the corner grocery or mom-and-pop drugstore.22 In the mid-nineteenth century, the incisive Alexis de Tocqueville noted that Americans prided themselves on their basic rights, especially the right of free speech. But he issued a warning note when he cautioned that a willful majority easily stifled dissent. ‘‘I do not know any country where, in general, less independence of mind and genuine freedom of discussion reign than in America,’’ he wrote. Those who wrote tracts supporting ideas and persons within this circle of the majority enjoyed considerable flexibility.Tocqueville observed that thosewho strayed outside the circle in support of unconventional theories and social outcasts risked ‘‘the butt of mortifications of all kinds and of persecutions every day.’’ This ‘‘tyranny’’ of the majority enforced its own despotism whose terms of enforcement replaced chains and executioners with universal condemnation. Under these circumstances, freedom of the press in practice remained a limited one.The powerof condemnation rivaled and even exceeded that of the Spanish Inquisition in its effectiveness in squashing works that threatened the status quo.23 Even with its noticeable shortcomings, Tocqueville believed, an independent press constituted an essential foundation for political discourse and communication. He described the United States press as the ‘‘constitutive element of freedom.’’ In the developmental years of the new republic, the nation’s newspapers acquired an indispensable position in affairs of government and politics. With little threat of reprisal from the government, newspapers took dead aim at public officials as an easy mark to offer their growing number of readers. ‘‘Its eye, always open, constantly lays bare the secret springs of politics and forces public men to come in turn to appear before the court of public opinion,’’ he wrote. As journalists pursued this course of action, they often demonstrated their own coarse background, their passions, and other weaknesses. What often appeared as disorderly and confusing to European observers actually provided stability to the new nation. The press obtained and stubbornly held onto its influence and power in the growing nation.24 The lack of development in the new republic tempered the power of the press in early America. With no licenses or governmental controls, journals could easily arise in even the smallest communities. This freedom also acted to deter the influence of local publications. The great 43


numberof newspapers in the United States diluted their impact and made the business of publishing a dubious economic enterprise. Nineteenthcentury newspapers suffered from a lack of capital, untrained employees, stiff competition, and inability to direct national events. As Tocqueville concluded, the vast numbers of newspapers prevented any resemblance of coordination and efficiency. ‘‘Newspapers in the United States, therefore, cannot establish great currents of opinion that sweep away or overflow the most powerful dikes.’’ Yet even with this diffusion, he believed that the press still exercised a strong position. ‘‘In the United States each newspaper has little power individually; but the periodical press is still, after the people, the first of powers.’’ 25 While Texas newspapers followed the national trends, witnessing an explosion of growth in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, even the most successful of the daily publications remained rigorously provincial in their appeal and influence. Publishers quickly adapted and followed the latest patterns in business practices, technological improvements, and journalistic methods. However, their perspective for the most part centered on local concerns, and these dominated the news and viewpoints. National and foreign affairs received the attention of editors and sometimes earned an editorial response that reflected the traditional belief standards of the community. In this manner, Texas publications fell into linewith theircounterparts in other parts of the South. Many journals proclaimed their professional standards and independence from the yellow journalism of their northern counterparts, and southern publishers and editors engaged in their own indigenous style of interpretative news. As a business concern in their respective communities, most independent publishers subscribed to the post-Reconstruction, pro-southern interpretation of ‘‘progress.’’ This outlook most often described economic success, racial harmony, and intellectual pursuits in stories that contained only marginal elements of veracity. Editors and publishers frequently trumpeted insignificant gains as landmarks of the greatest importance. As believers in the New South creed, these publishers touted their regional distinctiveness, and they also slowly broke the chains of the past. They subscribed to an alternate version of the future built on a somewhat different economy and society. While ideas that touted commercialism, urban growth, and racial accommodation appeared Yankee in origin, the newspapers slowly began to raise the questions that Tocqueville noted earlier generations had feared to raise. These were forays into new territories of journalism and investigation. Many of the state’s leading dailies joined with others in the South to raise questions about the unseemly 44


underside of the region. In business affairs, publishers touted nontraditional businesses such as manufacturing and trade to boost the local and regional economy. Segregation remained sacrosanct, but a few publishers raised questions concerning lynching and the extralegal treatment of African Americans in the South. Editors and news stories questioned the dismal record of public education and services, and some even dared to compare their records to the their northern counterparts.The leading publishers, down to the newest reporter, seldom hesitated to wrap themselves in their Confederate ancestry for fear of being labeled a latter-day carpetbagger or Yankee promoter. As the years progressed, some of the more visionary of the group understood the stereotypes of their own traditions and began to look beyond to newer ideas. Nearly all looked first to local and then to state solutions for the most pressing problems. In a handful of instances, some even began to look to Washington, D.C., for assistance, a trend that accelerated during the Great Depression and World War II. With the dawn of the twentieth century, U.S. daily newspapers stood unchallenged as the dominant voice in national affairs. Located in the commercial and political centers of expanding cities, the urban dailies satisfied the people’s growing appetite for information. Although the term ‘‘mass media’’ did not become commonplace until the 1920s, over 2,000 daily newspapers vied for attention in the first decade of the century. According to media historians, newspaper readership actually increased more rapidly than the exploding population. As circulation increased, news coverage and advertising expanded, which maintained popular demand for the dailies.The large publications in New York, Chicago, and major industrial areas of the North and Midwest rose to prominence. Smaller publications in the South became influential regional voices. Along with this growth, the presence and influence of American newspaper leaders increased. Consolidations, mergers, and purchases paved the way for the new media empires and their millionaire owners. These men of influence became as important as other captains of industry who changed the face and the pace of life during the first half of the twentieth century.26 As these national publications and publishers garnered their own headlines, a similar expansion occurred on a regional basis throughout the nation. In Texas, most major cities contained at least two and often three or more daily newspapers. Competition for readers and advertising dollars created rivalries between newspapers and their publishers. The situation also created an atmosphere of cooperation between influential 45


local publishers who faced dailies owned by national chains. In some cases, this also led to consolidation or the creation of new local chains to counter the influence of the nationally syndicated newspapers. The larger newspaper organizations, such as Hearst and Pulitzer, rapidly acquired the leadership in New York and California. In Texas, however, wealthy individual publishers and their daily newspapers held their own and eliminated the national competitors in the first half of the twentieth century. Texas daily newspapers followed national trends in many areas.These included improved mechanization, adoption of modern business practices and professional standards, and expanded coverage of social, cultural, and political issues. The major Texas dailies departed from the national mainstream in some areas and developed their own standards and practices. To a large degree, this independence reflected the personalities and beliefs of the individual owners. The dailies also reflected the nineteenth-century heritage and belief in a unique Texas legacy. Thus the dailies portrayed themselves as defenders of rural Texas while at the same time promoting modern business and urban expansion. However, Texas maintained its cultural and political allegiance to the South. The region maintained its separate identity whose belief systems influenced the pages of its newspapers. The modern concept of news and the popularity of newspapers composed an essential thread of the national fabric in the nineteenth century. Prior to the Civil War, U.S. newspapers focused principally on politics. Theyexpanded the content during theyears just before and after the Civil War to include an array of stories that discussed the social and economic life of the new nation. In doing so, the newspapers represented the changing face of America. By the turn of the twentieth century, daily newspapers had firmly established themselves as a reflection of the struggle, growth, and change in the nation. As Tocqueville and other nineteenthcentury European observers noted, the young republic displayed strong democratic tendencies and a great tendency toward egalitarianism. However, faith in democracy and the capitalist system failed to be universallyapplied. Economic development and its benefits were promoted and shared by the few rather than the many throughout the first 100 years of the nation. This trend carried over into the twentieth century. Newspapers and their publishers in the South and inTexas reflected this sometimes paradoxical view. They also exhibited a stronger regional identity than their northern counterparts. Walter Lippmann, a distinguished newspaper columnist and intellec46


tual, penned one of the first developmental interpretations of the evolution of U.S. newspapers. Lippmann wrote that the nation’s press passed through a series of three major changes as it moved into the era of modern journalism. First, at the beginning of the twentieth century, newspapers became ‘‘professional’’ and assumed a seasoned, rational, and objective approach to news coverage and dissemination. Secondly, while in earlier stages of the press’ development, political parties had exercised authority over the press. For instance, individual publications aligned unwaveringly with Republicans or Democrats. Newspapers in the twentieth century, on the other hand, broke away from political sponsors when publications became commercially profitable and were supported by a large body of readers. In Lippmann’s precise order of development, this change occurred simultaneously with the evolution of U.S. society. At the time of Lippmann’s thesis, the nation was well on its way to becoming an urban, business-oriented, and consumer-conscious society. On close examination, Texas publishers, like many of their counterparts in other southern states, faced a much tougher task than the well-financed and industry-based North, due to their region’s agricultural economy and much smaller commercial and population base. Faced with these differences, Texas publishers created their own entrepreneurial plan to build their newspapers and communities.27 One historian who analyzed southern newspapers after Reconstruction determined that most editors waxed poetic over the romantic, harmonious antebellum years as they struggled to establish new identities. They saved their barbs for the allegedly northern-inspired excesses during Reconstruction: black domination, widespread corruption, oppressive taxes, and vindictive carpetbaggers intent on extracting every dollar and pound of flesh they could from the defeated southerners. After Reconstruction ended, with the removal of federal troops and replacement of Republican regimes, these editors consistently used themes of northern domination and duplicity as arguments for a new southern nationalism. Reconstruction and its aftermath resulted in a redefined southern region, as newspapers, businesses, and political leaders coalesced into a dominant although sometimes unstable coalition. Most rural southern newspapers exhibited these traditional characteristics until a number of their urban counterparts began to break ranks at the beginning of the twentieth century.28 As historian Dewey Grantham concludes, the political leadership worked hand in hand with the influential commercial and planter elites who, though small in number, proved to be oligarchic and conserva47


tive. In Texas and other southern states, this leadership ran the Democratic Party, selected its leaders, and decided the issues. Their control extended from local courthouses and city halls to the state capitols and halls of Congress. This influence rested on the popularity of Democratic leaders with white voters and their ability to maintain an alliance between the local, state, and federal centers of power. Even though many small farmers, laborers, and small business owners disagreed with this leadership—most notably through the Populist challenge in the late nineteenth century—they generally supported the conservative Democratic leaders. This group formed the basic readership for newspapers. As newspapers became increasingly reliant on commercial advertising and broader circulation, their affiliation with the commercial and political elites of the community grew stronger. In earlier times, subscribers had aligned with newspapers primarily because of their political affiliation. By the early 1900s, readers still followed politics and relied on newspapers to bring them relevant political news and opinions on a regular basis. Yet in the South, people also purchased newspapers for advertising and more general coverage of daily events in their communities and region.29 This evolution of daily newspapers in the twentieth century altered their character and organization. At the same time, they redefined their communities and provided an impetus for the expanding urban middle class. By the early 1900s, publishers of the leading daily newspapers in Texas blazed a path to establish their publications as proponents for the values and economic well being of the white middle class. Thus the new daily newspapers no longer ignored business and commerce or attacked any business not connected to agriculture. Publishers and editors believed that their expanded role should be to provide news and editorials that stimulated their communities as centers of trade and commerce.The daily newspaper counted itself as a leader of the business community. Reporters and editors became more knowledgeable of business affairs, and some began to specialize in this area. Expanded traffic in goods and services became paramount concerns, as newspapers campaigned for a more diverse economy during the Progressive years of the early twentieth century. The southern Progressive era assumed its own identity within the larger national movement. Historian George Tindall explains Progressivism in the South as a force for change that reinforced the region’s traditional social system. Progressivism in essence represented the successor to the New South legacy. Reforms usually served the interests of busi48


nesses and the middle-income groups who owned property, operated small businesses, and provided services to the farm economy.30 In his interpretations of Progressivism, Dewey Grantham noted the ‘‘interplay of conflict and accommodation between North and South was evident in the wave of reform movements known as progressivism.’’ The most characteristic people in the movement were ‘‘middle-class men and women, inhabitants of the urban South, and representatives of the new commercial and professional elements.’’ In general, southern Progressives sought to ‘‘impose a greater measure of social order, to foster economic development, and where possible, to protect the unfortunate.’’ 31 Although southern Progressivism produced its own identity, northern philanthropy and guidance provided an impetus to Progressive reform movements in the early twentieth century. These included better public schools, prison reform, child labor restrictions, public health initiatives, and agricultural improvements. Among the long list of reforms, Prohibition emerged as the issue that caught the attention of most people and drew the most headlines in southern newspapers. By 1908 six of the thirteen former Confederate states had adopted Prohibition. In Texas and other states, local option elections restricted alcohol sales in many communities and rural areas.Thus Prohibition and other Progressive reforms that played to newspaper readers were not indigenous campaigns but part of the national trend.32 The move toward modernization was never a monolithic movement within the urban commercial and professional elite. Change seldom occurred without opposition. One of the first moves by Edwin Kiest of the Dallas Times Herald brought significant opposition from the Dallas clergy.When theTimes Herald decided to print a Sunday edition in January 1897, local pastors urged businesses to cancel ads and for people to drop their subscriptions. Kiest, the son of a Methodist minister, countered that the pastors received ‘‘acres’’ of free space for their deliberations and observations in the pages of his newspaper. The Dallas Times Herald and other large publications in Texas cities were all printing Sunday editions by 1900.33 In spite of many reform efforts, poverty, sharecropping, segregation, disenfranchisement, discrimination, and the one-party system remained embedded in Texas and the rest of the South. Reformers wanted to encourage change but not at the expense of the existing social order. They encouraged order, efficiency, and expansion fueled by economic development. The reforms advocated in the Progressive era would not 49


have taken place without a system of strong racial controls. Progressives wanted southern traditions and institutions to remain as familiar as favorite hymns at the Sunday church service. In this spirit, southern Progressives presented Jim Crow segregation and limiting access to the ballot as forward-looking reforms that protected blacks and other inferiors from violence and competition from racial superiors while purging the ballot of corruptible and ignorant men. Radical ideas of racial integration, property redistribution, and widespread participatory democracy smacked of Yankee Republicanism and were rejected. The battles over Prohibition also absorbed much of the spirit and resources of the Progressives in Texas and other southern states and diminished attention for initiatives aimed at improving the quality of life for everyday people. In the late nineteenth century, the Dallas Morning News drew the fire of Prohibition supporters for accepting ads for liquor and beer, although many patent medicine ads featured cure-alls that contained alcohol. Church leaders attempted to organize boycotts of the News and other dailies that accepted ads that promoted alcohol consumption. For newspaper publishers, Prohibition as a reform movement increased controversy and dissent even as the movement gained stability and expanded support in the early twentieth century. Along with social reforms and business expansion came the call for physical improvements in Texas cities. In order to attract more business and improve the economic climate, publishers and editors embarked on a crusade to make their cities more livable. This included the installation and expansion of services—clean water, electricity, street paving, garbage and waste disposal, traffic regulation, and a host of others—in the growing cities. Some editors joined the Prohibition crusade to ban liquor and other alcoholic beverages as a step in solving poverty, crime, physical abuse, and drunkenness.The papers themselves became a manifestation of civic pride. Politics and social concerns still played a major part in filling the news and editorial columns. Lengthy congressional debates and political scandals still occupied entire pages of a daily as editors maintained this nineteenth-century tradition. However, publishers and editors believed the engine of business enterprise, coupled with the train of civic improvements, would lay the tracks for expansion and growth in their respective communities. As the world changed, the relationship between Texas newspaper executives and their advertisers also changed. As advertising increased, publishers became less reliant on income from circulation. Newspapers could not survive without readership, but in the twentieth century adver50


tisers began to play an increasingly large role. Ads for goods and services carried headlines as daring as any story. People began purchasing newspapers for their advertising content as well as the daily news. As the display ads increased in size and number, so did the dollars that flowed into the newspapers’ bank accounts. Business in the twentieth century was no longer something to be greeted with suspicion. Rural agricultural people remained suspicious of the motives and profits of the urban-centered merchants and brokers with intangible holdings who often appeared to reap great rewards. Nevertheless, urban residents, many of whom still relied on the farm as part of their business, broke away from these traditional roles in the growing market centers of the early twentieth century. The urban dailies served as visible evidence of this changing relationship.The newspapers also served as the communication network for this evolution. These changes signified a trend identified as ‘‘New Journalism.’’ Introduced by Joseph Pulitzer in the 1880s, the approach set a new course for daily newspapers in the nation. The daily press moved to become a communication organ that provided information to the masses, as opposed to serving a select readership of working class or business elites. Newspapers began shifting their focus toward becoming a mass medium prior to the Civil War. But not until the late nineteenth century did publishers follow Pulitzer and other eastern newspapers in their focus on mass information and widespread appeal. The days of writing for a select group of individuals and elites were over as the newspapers sought to market news and advertisements to the widest possible audience.34 The New Journalism style spread throughout the nation and appealed to a growing number of middle-class city dwellers. Newspapers focused more on urban-related news, crusades for social reform, criticism of business and government corruption, and civic and social life. The format included more advertising to reach a growing consumer and urban market. When these changes were combined with improved printing processes, better communication, and increasingly efficient management of the big city dailies, newspapers moved into a more influential position at the dawn of the twentieth century.They began to show a profit, and some of the larger papers in the North were making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in profits. Remarkably, these trends reached the South. Many southerners still looked upon their northern counterparts with suspicion and envy. But some business and civic leaders looked north of the Mason-Dixon line for inspiration. Larger publishers in the major urban areas of Texas and 51


Page one of the Dallas Morning News, October 1, 1885. Reprint courtesy Belo Corp. Archives.

other southern states saw the opportunities offered by the modernization launched by northern press giants. They looked to transform their newspaper enterprises and their communities into models of prosperity, and so they copied the northern publishing trends. The personnel working on the rising urban newspapers of the early twentieth century boasted a level of professionalism unknown by their nineteenth-century predecessors. The establishment of quality standards in journalism reflected a more general trend in U.S. society that had begun in the mid-nineteenth century. The requirement that doctors and lawyers receive professional training from accredited schools and be licensed by states began before the Civil War. Other professions— e.g., architecture, psychiatry, engineering, pharmacy, and even the ministry—followed suit, creating specialized training institutions and graduate school programs by the twentieth century. Professionalization not only created acceptable standards of practice and established required levels of training for each field, but also restricted membership in the new, increasingly powerful class of urban professionals who would form the backbone of the Progressive movement. Medical schools, law schools, and graduate programs routinely shut out women and people of color, 52


ensuring that the Progressives, the strongest political force in the early twentieth century, would speak with a primarily white male voice.35 Even with this leadership coalition, the struggle of the new southern urban class and Progressives to maintain power and control still faced usually quiet but sometimes vocal opposition. Urban centers, with their growing populations and economic base, presented the greatest challenge in the post-Populist era. By the end of the nineteenth century, the U.S. economy and social structure dominated the new agenda. Disfranchisement of nearly all African Americans and many poorer whites enhanced the solidarity of southern Democrats and the commercial and planter leadership. From the late 1890s through 1910, southern leadership created a racially defined system that firmly segregated blacks and browns from whites. In addition, by the turn of the century the persistent intersectional hostility between North and South had largely disappeared. Northern abandonment of the South’s minorities at the end of Reconstruction, combined with the new solidarity among southern business and political leaders, effectively ended any dramatic restructure

The daily newsroom of the Dallas Morning News around 1917. Photo courtesy Belo Corp. Archives. 53


within the former Confederate states. Efforts switched to ‘‘progressive’’ reforms that focused on unified voices and marginalization of the ‘‘race question.’’ Texans and other southerners believed that this newagewould lead to physical improvements and economic opportunity beyond the cotton fields. In essence, the economic growth provided by Progressive reforms, true believers hoped, would improve life for all and mute the din of southern racial tensions. While all the major national newspapers exhibited some elements of yellow journalism at the turn of the century, independently owned urban Texas publications also adopted some of the garish qualities. Identified most closely with William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer, yellow journalism became known for sensational stories and headlines, colorful writing styles, large illustrations and photos, and articles that sometimes carried fictitious or wildly distorted information. According to Michael Schudson, this style resulted from the publishers’ desire to reach all potential readers. The more sensational styles were meant to appeal to a more diverse, rapidly expanding urban center. Much of the population consisted of new immigrants, many of whom were illiterate or possessed only marginal reading abilities. Those publications seeking more prestige and middle- and upper-class readers provided greater resistance to the traits associated with yellow journalism. The large Texas dailies all exhibited some degree of sensationalism associated with yellow journalism. However, as a group, nearly all of the publishers saw themselves and their newspapers as promoters and protectors of the status quo. From the very outset, publishers, their newspapers, and their idea of community remained closely tied to one another. In their efforts to downplay divisiveness and hostility to commercial activities, publishers sought a stable group of middle-class wage earners and businesspeople to support their newspapers and shape their communities. Texas daily newspaper publishers increasingly saw yellow journalism, with its emphasis on strife, class struggles and sensationalism, as an element of instability and soon sought a more conciliatory tone for their newspapers.36 These two themes, the struggle over identity and incorporation of commercial and political interests, remained at the heart of the evolution of the print media in Texas. Later in the twentieth century, newspapers leaned toward consolidation and incorporation into regional and sometimes national chains. The individually owned daily newspapers in Texas retained their leadership as the premier information and advertising medium until World War II. Indeed, by 1940 Texas daily newspaper publishers were at their pinnacle of power and prestige in the state. 54


Shortly after the war, a combination of forces led to a major shift. Radio stations began to acquire some of the newspapers’ base of support. National and regional magazines also competed for the attention and dollars of the reading public. Further erosion of the base occurred with the advent of commercial television in the 1950s. In addition, the generation of Texas publishers who had maintained the papers’ dominant position began to give way. Old age, retirement, and death removed much of this leadership by the 1950s. Changing faces, a new postwar economy and society, and the growing presence of technology made their impact on the daily newspaper empires across the state. New Roles for Women In a more complex, sophisticated world, the dailies covered many more stories than the street crime and political news that traditionally had served as the newspapers’ bread and butter. Rising circulations meant not just more readers but a greater diversity of people with special interests. Thus, by the early 1900s the Texas dailies carried a variety of news on their pages. Stock reports and commodity prices from New York, Chicago, and other major cities became a daily feature. Special editions often featured histories of individual businesses, along with their stories of expansion and growth. Women’s suffrage remained a battleground, but more women read the newspapers in the cities as literacy rates increased for both sexes. Women’s pages and female correspondents indicated this change of status. Stories designed for women readers leaned toward fashion, club news, and social events. But some writers began to take on more controversial topics reflecting the causes of the Progressive era. Suffrage, improved education, better health care, and attacks on vice and immorality infiltrated the pages set aside for women readers.The city represented a place of opportunity for the rising middle class, male and female, and the newspapers relished their part in proclaiming that their communities provided the greatest opportunity for those with vision. Cities in Texas served as the rallying points for the successful women’s suffrage movement of the early twentieth century. The movement drew upon women’s involvement in club organizations and civic improvement projects, as well as highly visible participation in the Prohibition movement, which was often perceived as a feminist cause. Activists faced a number of opponents to women’s suffrage from many segments of the community. They also tangled with social customs, racial concerns, and other class and ethnic tensions in the community. A major focus of individual efforts in the larger cities consisted of utilizing newspapers to pro55


vide news of the campaign and persuade the white male leadership to drop their objections and eventually support the change. This strategy also centered on convincing a majority of the urban business community to withdraw its opposition and embrace the efforts of the suffragettes. Although the majority of Texans and other southerners still resided in rural areas, most suffrage leaders in the South came from small and large cities rather than rural areas.37 From 1913 to 1919, suffrage advocates began a concerted campaign in the major cities to provide news and information on the issues through the daily newspapers. Supporters realized that support from the state’s leading newspapers would provide a strong impetus for their campaign, and they made gaining this support a part of their grassroots organizing efforts. This effort coincided with existing newspaper campaigns for other Progressive causes, such as better and cleaner neighborhoods, improved schools, combating corruption in government, and Prohibition. Many reformers, both male and female, supported Prohibition as at least a partial cure for social ills such as crime, spousal abuse, alcoholism, and a host of other contemporary maladies. To be anti-alcohol in the southern Progressive mind was to be pro-family. Most suffragists favored additional Progressive reforms favored by the state’s large dailies: a juvenile justice system, compulsory education, protection for women and children in the workplace, and public health improvements. By expanding their agenda and working through the media, they significantly reduced concerns about a major shakeup in the existing social orderof the community. As many of the suffrage leaders gained a reputation for aiding in the causes promoted by independent publishers, they overcame traditional resistance and gained valuable allies. The suffrage movement at the national level dated to the era before the Civil War. In Texas and other southern states, suffrage became a political issue in the 1890s but it took more than a decade for organizers to enlist widespread support. In 1899 Morning News writer Pauline Periwinkle stated in one of her columns that education and other issues favored by women languished because of their lack of political influence. ‘‘A nonvoting citizenship is powerless to press its claim to a fair share of public appropriation,’’ she wrote in a commentary concerning legislative resistance to expanding the curriculum at a woman’s college. She added, ‘‘[A] non-voting citizenshipwill always be regarded as an ‘annex.’ Its only hope is through the election to office of such men only as view their power as a means of dispensing public good instead of dividing the ‘political pie.’ ’’ In October 1901, she wrote that ‘‘opposition to woman’s education is of 56


much the same caliber as opposition to woman’s voting. Man would let her vote if she’d promise not to hold office, and he would acquiesce to her presence in college if she would agree not to win any of the honors.’’ 38 Isadore Miner Callaway, writing under the pen name ‘‘Pauline Periwinkle,’’ began her weeklycolumn on the Dallas Morning News’ Woman’s Century Page. Callaway was not the first woman to write a column for a Texas daily newspaper.TheWacoTimes Herald and the Houston Post had earlier columns devoted to women’s news. But she soon became a mainstay and voice in the Progressive reform in the early twentieth century.39 Callaway provides an example of northern-based Progressive ideology transplanted to Texas. Her background, education, and professional experience prepared her fora prominent role at the News, where she became one of the most widely read columnists in the early twentieth century. Born in Battle Creek, Michigan, in 1863, Callaway attended Battle Creek College and later worked at the Review and Herald Publishing Company and as an associate editor for a magazine. After a brief, unhappy marriage to James Miner, she left Battle Creek in 1891 for work at the Toledo Commercial. Two years later, in 1893, she moved to Dallas to write for the Dallas Morning News. In her new Texas home, she worked as the editor for women’s and children’s pages of the News and became active in several Progressive organizations whose core membership represented Progressive Dallas women. In 1896 she began her influential column on the women’s page under the pen name ‘‘Pauline Periwinkle.’’ In 1900 she married William Allen Callaway, a prominent Dallas insurance executive. Her biographer, Jacquelyn Masur McElhane, concluded that Callaway’s efforts to utilize women’s clubs to bring about change created a Progressive partnership in the city. In particular, she penned her persuasive columns to urge Dallas businessmen and politicians to work for civic improvements in line with those advocated by the editorial staff. Her column appeared each Monday morning on the women’s page for twenty years. Often serving as the official spokesperson for the clubwomen in her column, she pressured local and state lawmakers to pass laws and regulations that would improve education and create cleaner, healthier cities. Callaway’s columns appealed to a core audience of women in Dallas. They also brought women’s activities and organizations into the daily news and editorials. Her column provided a sense of legitimacy to the expansion of women’s rights and other reform causes during this era. In her columns, Callaway successfully advocated the establishment of a city library, a home for juvenile offenders, a public playground, treat57


ment of city water, a pure food ordinance, and safety regulations. She made her greatest political effort in the fight for women’s suffrage. She devoted columns to news about notable accomplishments by women and the work of women’s clubs in Dallas and throughout the nation. She even offered humorous critiques on fashion and men’s attitudes. According to her biographer, of all the achievements for which she received credit, Callaway believed her greatest contribution was her newspaper column. Typical of her writing was a jab at the male readers and business establishment.Whenever improvements, city bonds, or an improvement campaign was needed, women were encouraged to participate. But once the money was secured for a project, women were expected to ‘‘go home and sit down. Their help and wisdom are no longer at a premium.’’ In the prime of her journalism career, she wrote in 1900 that ‘‘printer’s ink judicially applied to the club idea is a great lubricator and will make it run further and smoother than anything I know.’’ 40 Periwinkle utilized the education issue as a springboard for her suffrage message. Crowded and poorly funded public schools remained a chronic problem in Texas and the South. Improving public education became a centerpiece of Progressive reform in the early twentieth century. In July 1906, Periwinkle advocated the election of women to local school boards. She asked, ‘‘What could the women of Texas do to aid their public schools?’’ The columnist called for local organizations to insist on more and better-paid teachers, clean school buildings, and even raising taxes and selling bonds for needed improvements. ‘‘The time is ripe, too, to begin making public sentiment for women on school boards,’’ she stated. More than four-fifths of the teachers in the nation werewomen. ‘‘Hence it should not be looked upon as an alarming innovation to ask that the sex be represented in an advisory and official capacity,’’ she wrote.41 In addition to her own opinions, Periwinkle’s columns often reflected the strategies of other women reformers in the state. She often utilized a combination of wit and sarcasm, together with an impressive argument supplied with ample statistics. She designed her columns to increase public awareness and generate debate. Periwinkle hoped that her graphic descriptions and appeals to the community conscience would raise the level of discussion among women and men in the community. She clearly hoped that her columns would bring more women out of their homes and into more active roles in the community. She also had an impact on her own group of editors at the News: they allowed her to cover diverse and controversial issues. The daily became more receptive to news of women’s organizations and their calls for civic improvement. Readers 58


also followed these trends. Education remained a popular theme. A letter to the News in March 1913 stated that ‘‘the public school is the greatest social force of modern civilization, but its power, like a cataract, is going to waste, or proving actually destructive.’’ The author, Mrs. W. C. Barrickman, called for more and better-trained teachers who could address the ‘‘intellectual and the ethical.’’ 42 The News provided ample coverage of organized efforts by women suffragists. The News covered the first organizational meeting of the Dallas Equal Suffrage Association at a private residence on March 13, 1913. The forty-one charter members of the local group included a number of veterans of many social and civic improvement efforts. A number of younger women also appeared at this initial meeting. The group organized a ‘‘quiet but active campaign’’ to enlist support for the suffrage movement in Dallas. Newly drafted petitions included the names of the ‘‘best known men in Dallas’’ who favored the measure, although the news story provided no identities. ‘‘The women believe there will be such a demand from the people generally that the Legislature will not dare to decline to submit the measure.’’ Several days later, the News announced: ‘‘Dallas Has a Real Suffragette Club.’’ 43 In spite of increased popular support and improved news coverage, the suffrage movement still met resistance at the local level and in the legislative chambers. In the Texas Senate, members debated the merits of suffrage while women organized in Dallas. Opponents countered that ‘‘there [is] no demand for it’’ and that women should not participate in political affairs. ‘‘If women were thrown into sordid politics to be contaminated by the atmosphere of theward heelerand others, it would make the woman less tender,’’ one senator argued. Another stated that women should be ‘‘kept pure and sweet in their homes and rest upon their high pedestal.’’ In essence, as another senator argued, ‘‘it [is] a blow to the sanctity of the home.’’ One Texas state senator criticized suffrage because it would create conditions similar to those in California and Colorado where ‘‘white and negro girls go arm in arm.’’ The resolution to place suffrage before Texas voters failed by more than a two-to-one margin.44 The Houston Chronicle sided with the suffrage movement in 1915 and began issuing regular editorials favoring federal and state action. Marcellus Foster noted that the U.S. public was interested in ‘‘justice and fair play.’’ He noted that gender discrimination kept the literate and intelligent woman from the ballot box ‘‘for no other reason than she is a woman and has not been allowed to vote in the past.’’ The editor stated the injustice was especially offensive because ‘‘the blackest, most ignorant Negro, 59


or the most ignorant white man, can vote.’’ In a subsequent opinion a few days later, the editor stated that he found no ‘‘logic against the right of womanhood to exercise the franchise pertaining to full citizenship.’’ 45 Both the U.S. Congress and the Texas Legislature took up the suffrage issue in early 1915. The Houston Chronicle provided front-page coverage to a petition campaign undertaken by the Women’s Political Union to place the issue before thevoters of the state. AChronicle reporter followed some of the petitioners to City Hall, where he interviewed a number of city officials and employees—most of whom said they favored suffrage for women. Houston mayor Ben Campbell did not sign the petition but stated that the ‘‘best and quickest way to get rid of the question is to let women vote.’’ 46 Local and state political leaders continued to vilify and oppose suffrage. In Houston, they advanced their arguments during a local option election in the summer of 1917. Public opposition in Houston was typical of that in other areas of the state and the South. Opponents linked suffrage to racial equality and depicted it as a threat to white hegemony. Houston representative Stanley Beard voiced the fear that should women be given the right to vote, ‘‘Negroes and whites would intermarry and children of all color would sit together in the public schools.’’ The argument was particularly effective in that era of Jim Crow. Furthermore, the bloodshed from the uprising of black troops during the summer of 1917 resurrected the worst white fears concerning racial disturbances. The Houston Chronicle editorial of December 30, 1917, helped offset some of the prejudicial arguments. ‘‘The same moral influence that prevents the negro man from gaining control of political matters can, and will, serve a similar purpose with respect to the negro woman.’’ Furthermore, existing laws that already severely restricted minority voting remained in effect. Suffrage advocates also had a new argument to support their movement—the United States was now involved in World War I on the side of the Allied powers.47 Suffrage advocates turned their guns on the newspapers and the business leaders of the community to press their cause. Hortense Ward wrote that ‘‘alien enemies’’ of the nation could vote in elections but ‘‘loyal American women’’ could not. As part of their campaign efforts, women suffrage leaders enthusiastically volunteered for local measures. They worked on food conservation drives, war bond sales, and efforts to raise medical supplies and clothing. By the end of the war, the Equal Suffrage Association had raised $2.3 million of the $12 million in war bonds sold in Harris County. Taking a visible role in the patriotic movement undoubt60


edly helped the suffrage cause.The ‘‘Susan B. Anthony amendment’’ had appeared before Congress in one form or another for fifty years. When the crucial vote was taken on January 10, 1918, in the House of Representatives, the measure tallied exactly the two-thirds majority required for a constitutional amendment. The suffrage movement finally triumphed in 1920, and newspapers had played a major role in spreading its message across Texas.48

61

CHAPTER 3

Expansion and Consolidation: Individual Publishers Changes in Texas cities and the state’s newspapers can be viewed as a symbiotic relationship. As Texas cities became more cosmopolitan in outlook and more diverse in their populations and economies, newspapers became more stable and professional, enjoyed more advanced technology, and exerted greater influence on statewide politics. This chapter will explore the growth of dailies in the state’s majorcities: Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and Fort Worth. In each case, publishers played a key role in the economic development and modernization of their host cities, so much so that the history of twentieth-century Texas metropolises became interchangeable with the history of their newspapers. Houston Newspapers The Historical Records Survey Program was a nationwide effort to locate and catalog all types of publications in the United States. Writers in the Works Progress Administration (WPA) during the Depression years conducted the research. Under the direction of Ike Moore, who served as the state supervisor of the Historical Records Survey in Texas from 1936 to 1939, newspapers were the first items surveyed by the state WPA. The Texas group collected data on 3,212 newspapers in Texas from the Spanish colonial era through the 1930s. All of the larger cities in the state contained at least one daily—and usually several—by 1901. At the time of the WPA survey, 830 newspapers were being published in the state. Of these, 356 were dailies, but manyof them ceased publication, merged, or changed their name in the first part of the twentieth century. By 1940, only 110 daily newspapers appeared in Texas towns and cities. Individual Texans owned the majority of these publications. Newspaper corporations with the largest presence included the Scripps-Howard chain with the Houston Press, Fort Worth Press, and El Paso Herald-

Expansion and Consolidation

Post. The Marsh-Fentress chain printed the Austin American-Statesman, Waco News-Tribune, Waco Times-Herald, and Port Arthur News.1 A review of the newspaper collections during the period revealed that among locally owned publications, names were changed and two papers combined quite frequently in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. Single individuals or groups of individuals dominated ownership during this period. Angry readers posed problems but were not the foremost threats to newspapers of this era. Financial problems and quarrels among owners led to changes even among the oldest of publications.The Houston Telegram, whose predecessor was the Telegraph and Texas Register, held the longest uninterrupted record, printing the news as far back as the tumultuous years of the revolution against Mexico. But this forerunner of Texas newspapers died before the turn of the century, when its editors fought over a Houston mayoral campaign and ran into money problems. The Houston Post eventually took over the Telegram’s offices after it passed out of existence. Even the Post ran into financial problems in 1885, as it merged with the Houston Morning Chronicle and the Evening Journal in order to survive. The Houston Daily Post At the turn of the century, the Houston Daily Post served as the leading newspaper in the Gulf Coast city. A number of influential newsmen came on board. J. L. Watson became business manager and Rienzi M. Johnston assumed the editorial management. Threatened by a strike in 1890, Watson converted to Linotype machines, making the Post among the first newspapers to use this technology. Watson subsequently gained control of the paper and added many rising stars to the staff, illustrating that newspapermen were not above raiding their neighbors and competitors for staff. He lured political writer Rienzi Johnston from the Austin Statesman. William Sidney Porter also joined the staff as a reporter and columnist. Porter later gained fame as ‘‘O. Henry’’ and became one of the nation’s premier short story writers. With J. L. Watson’s death in 1897, Johnston, G. J. Palmer, and Henry F. MacGregor controlled the business in trust until Princeton graduate Roy Watson assumed control in 1918. Roy Watson, a Christian Scientist, banned advertisements for patent medicines, wildcat oil stock, liquor, wine, beer, and yeast. The paper followed a more Progressive spirit during these reform years, but it lost advertising revenue and soon suffered from competitive pressure from the rival Houston Chronicle, which had begun publishing in the fall of 1901.2 63


But in 1901, the Post and its stable of writers provided readers with a steady flow of news and viewpoints. For five cents per copy, readers received a paper consisting of eight to twelve pages on weekdays and as many as thirty on Sundays. Its front page carried a mixture of world and national news gathered from wire reports. A substantial number of display advertisements cluttered the side of the front page. Alongside stories of presidential speeches and political scandals, readers viewed local business announcements and copy for Dixie Beer, irrigation equipment, corsets, soap, seed potatoes, and hair restoration. A regular feature on inside pages was ‘‘To Make Houston Greater.’’ In its guest columns local business and community leaders extolled the virtues of growth and expansion as the solution to the economic and social problems of the day. For example, lumber magnate John Henry Kirby criticized Houston’s bankers for their ‘‘ultraconservatism,’’ maintaining they ‘‘locked up 60 percent to 90 percent of their deposits.’’ Kirby said their actions not only limited capital for investment, but the lenders were also ‘‘unpatriotic.’’ 3 Many writers advocated a deepwater port for the city, an ongoing effort first launched by the Buffalo Bayou Ship Channel Company in 1869. In the late 1800s, Houston’s political and community leaders requested General Henry M. Robert, the division engineer for the Gulf of Mexico, to recommend improvements to Congress that would deepen and widen the channel for ships. Galveston was the recent recipient of federal funds to make the city a deepwater port. Improvements to the channel and harbor were completed in 1896. Galveston officials and merchants protested the move as a threat to their position as the number one port on the Gulf. The Galveston News mocked Houston’s efforts when a storm wrecked several barges loaded with salt. ‘‘Houston at Last a Salt-Water Port,’’ the headline proclaimed. Proponents accelerated their demands for action following the cataclysmic storm of 1900 that swept away most of Galveston. With its own protected access to the sea, the Bayou City could become ‘‘one of the greatest manufacturing centers in the West’’ and would grow ‘‘beyond the realization of the most optimistic citizen of the present Houston.’’ Others called for better roads, honest government, and improved trade to increase the region’s economy. However, the deepwater port remained the favorite topic of local boosters.The civic campaign for federal money to make the city an international port and trading center continued for the next decade.4 In 1904 George M. Bailey began the first year of his long tenure as editor. Bailey worked as prestigious Washington correspondent for the Dallas Morning News from 1899 until he joined the Post. While at the 64


News, Bailey was one of the first reporters on the scene to describe the hurricane that leveled Galveston in 1900. The inside pages of the turn-ofthe-century dailies often contained lengthy news stories of government activities, and Bailey’s Post was no exception. He often filled space with verbatim transactions of hearings and debates, especially when such affairs attracted attention. Texas politics attracted such attention at the beginning of the century. U.S. senator Joe Bailey (D-Texas) was easily one of the most influential politicians of the era (and no relation to the journalist George Bailey). First elected to Congress in the 1890s, the legislature elevated Bailey to the Senate in 1900. Bailey quickly established himself as the premier orator in the Senate. However, Bailey’s ties to Standard Oil and the discredited Waters-Pierce Oil Company made him a controversial figure. The Waters-Pierce Company had violated Texas antitrust laws and was barred from operating in the state. However, Bailey accepted a $3,300 payment from the company and worked to reinstate the Standard Oil subsidiary in the state. Bailey’s critics charged he was nothing more than the tool of John D. Rockefeller and northern monopolies. ‘‘Baileyism’’ received wide coverage in Texas newspapers, which printed committee reports, votes, and the full debate on Bailey’s election by the state legislature in 1901. Bailey withstood the attack and gained the nomination, but questions dogged him throughout his career. He helped his friend John Henry Kirby and earned $149,000 in legal fees.Cosmopolitan magazine targeted Bailey in a 1906 article as a senator more interested in protecting wealthy corporations than the public good. Bailey remained a steadfast conservative opposed to Prohibition and other social reforms advocated by Texas Progressives. In 1907 the state legislature investigated him once again when the Waters-Pierce allegations resurfaced. The Post carried five full pages of print exclusively devoted to the case. Rienzi Johnston and the Post remained among Bailey’s staunchest supporters when the state legislature reelected him to a second term in the Senate. Bailey saw his national aspirations fade and left the Senate after his second term, but he remained a potent spokesman among conservative Democratic forces in the state.5 At the same time these lively political exchanges filled the news, most editors accepted any type of advertisements in their pages. These included ads for questionable products, primarily drugs and medicines to cure nearly any ailment or suspected affliction. ‘‘Weak Men’’ were advised they could restore their vitality with Dr. McLaughlin’s Electric Belt. Dr. Williams’ ‘‘Pink Pills for Pale People’’ helped parents improve 65


their daughters’ health in ‘‘that perilous period of their lives when they undergo that marvelous transformation from girlhood to womanhood.’’ Heyer’s Hair Tonic guaranteed that it would prevent a man’s hair from turning gray as well as stop dandruff. Cupindene [sic] restored manhood and cured other afflictions that included ‘‘seminal emissions, nervous debility, pimples and unfitness to marry’’ for only one dollar per box. Dailies at this time were more scrupulous about their editorial copy than the outlandish claims in their advertisements.6 Houston Post History At the turn of the century, three men directed the Houston Post. Publisher J. L. Watson unexpectedly passed away at the age of thirty-eight from tuberculosis. William P. Hobby, a new employee in the business office, wrote a tribute to the late publisher. Hobby, who eventually became the newspaper’s chief executive, would have a successful career in Texas politics before he returned to the newspaper business in the 1920s. At the time of the elder Watson’s death in 1896, the estate valued the newspaper and printing operation at $100,000.Watson designated an experienced yet diverse trio to head the largest Houston daily until his son, Roy G. Watson, came of age in 1918. George J. Palmer served as business manager, Rienzi M. Johnston as editor-in-chief, and H. F. MacGregor as treasurer, director, and advisor. The appointments separated the editorial and business operations under Johnston and Palmer. This reflects the newspaper’s growth into a modern business organization, with assigned responsibilities and a division of business and news operations. The new organization also considered political affiliations. Johnston was a staunch Democrat while Palmer counted himself as a Republican.With both major political organizations represented, MacGregor served as the mediator when partisan divisions occurred. Thus, even with the division of news and business, politics still transcended the Post’s editorial direction.7 Rienzi Johnston reflected the close relationship between politics and the press during this era. Johnston, a conservative, Jim Hogg Democrat, served as a keynote speakerat state partyconventions in the 1890s. Democratic officials urged him to run for lieutenant governor in 1898 to counter Populist threats to the party leadership. Johnston declined because he said he could ‘‘render a better service through the paper than in public office.’’ Known by his friends and opponents as Colonel Johnston, the Post editor spent considerable time holding court from a rocking chair 66


on the sidewalk in front of the Rice Hotel. From this point, the ‘‘bull of the woods’’ dispensed political wisdom to ‘‘those who gathered there between drinks at the Rice bar to hear him.’’ Politics and the press were inseparable to Johnston and his peers during this period of acute political awareness.8 The Post included a talented group in its editorial and business offices. Many of these young employees made significant contributions to the state’s economic and political history. Marcellus E. Foster came to Houston from Huntsville, Texas, to work for ten dollars a week. He became markets editor and advanced to managing editor. Foster’s career included five decades in newspapers in which he became one of the founders of the Houston Chronicle and later a columnist for the Houston Press. Judd Mortimer Lewis, a cousin of J. L.Watson’s, began his long career at the Post at seven dollars a week in the circulation department. He caught Foster’s attention with his anonymously written poems. Foster first published ‘‘They’d All Been Rebels, Too,’’ followed by several other Lewis original verses. In November 1900, Lewis’ column, ‘‘Tampering with Trifles,’’ became a feature in the paper that lasted for decades. In an era that predated bylines, Lewis earned the distinction of being one of the first columnists with his name, J. M. Lewis, at the top of his articles.9 Politics and business remained the Post’s bread and butter. William P. Hobby essentially began his political career under the tutelage of Colonel Johnston. The Post, not content with limiting its opinions to state and national politics, opposed Mayor Sam Brashear in the 1900 mayoral election. Johnston and his paper backed former mayor John T. Browne as a reform candidate. Brashear prevailed and, at the annual Democratic county convention held after the city elections, the mayor’s supporters passed a resolution that condemned the Post for ‘‘opposing the Democratic ticket.’’ Hobby took the floor of the convention in defense of his editorand employer in what was termed his first public speech to a Democratic gathering. Johnston later took revenge at the state convention, when Texas Democrats elected the outspoken editor as a Democratic Party national committeeman, a position he held until 1912.10 In the years followingWorld War I, the Post saw an upheaval in its management, as competition increased with the Chronicle. Two Texas governors became involved with the newspaper: Progressive-minded governor William P. Hobby and business-oriented governor Ross Sterling. Their relationship with the Post in the 1920s and 1930s continued the strong ties between the urban press and elected officials during this era. 67


Birth of the Houston Chronicle In many ways the Houston Chronicle owed its birth to the Post. Once J. L. Watson assumed control of the Post, he brought in Marcellus E. Foster from Huntsville,Texas. Foster quickly became a top reporter for the Post. Foster became the youngest managing editor of a Texas newspaper in 1899, at the age of twenty-eight. He covered the Galveston hurricane of 1900. With the clamor to find those who had survived the great catastrophe, Foster ingeniously published the names of many survivors, all registered at Galveston’s Tremont Hotel. Thus he and the Post avoided listing the thousands who perished in the nation’s worst natural disaster in its history. Foster covered the Spindletop oil discovery where he invested in an option on one of the wells. Reporters and their editors of this era apparently saw no conflict of interest if a reporter had a personal financial involvement in an assigned story. Foster benefited from his decision and the story. He made $25,000 on his well option, part of which he invested in a new afternoon daily that began in 1901—the Houston Chronicle. Within a year, Foster absorbed the Houston Herald. For the next decade, the Post and Chronicle were the primary sources for news, until the ScrippsMcRae newspaper chain (later known as Scripps-Howard) founded the Houston Press in 1911.11 The Chronicle, which debuted on October 14, 1901, had a circulation of 4,378 at the end of its first month. The circulation was quite remarkable in a city whose population was only about 45,000 people. Foster was an opportunistic, enterprising man who understood the popular appeal of newspapers. In his first dozen issues, he quickly proved that he was not afraid to take on the establishment when he believed Houston’s best interests were not being served. His first few editions set a new standard for Houston’s newspapers. The front page carried a mixture of national, state, and local news. Editorial cartoons often appeared on page one. Notably, no advertisements appeared on the Chronicle’s front page from the first days of its publication, thus breaking a longtime custom of dailies. Foster informed his audience that ‘‘neither an unworthy article nor a tricky business need seek advertising through the Chronicle. This protects both the reader and the advertiser.’’ Eight-page editions sold on the streets for two cents each.12 In an interview forty years later, Foster described his early years at the Chronicle. ‘‘In less than a year we had defeated the other afternoon paper’s mayor and councilmen,’’ Foster stated. To raise more money, he issued more stock ‘‘and gave every fellow who put up $100 cash, a stock dividend of $150.’’ Circulation increased from 6,000 to 16,000, 68


‘‘and we were fighting all the town’s evils and winning one battle after another.’’ The Chronicle successfully crusaded to close saloons on Sunday and move gambling halls away from Main Street. ‘‘These two concessions to decency were considered great moral victories in those days when Houston was a wide-open town,’’ Foster said. ‘‘We were fired by the ignorance and enthusiasm of youth; the town was growing and we made daring ventures.’’ Foster would later author his editorial column under the name ‘‘Mefo.’’ 13 Houston responded favorably to Foster and the Chronicle. By 1904 the paper’s circulation showed significant growth and competed with the Post’s. Foster printed a Sunday edition with forty-four pages of news and advertising and a revolutionary feature: four pages of comics in color. By 1908 Houston’s growth was attracting national attention and the newspaper had outgrown its original downtown building. Foster turned to Jesse H. Jones, a young builder and entrepreneur who, just twelve years after coming to the Bayou City, was a man of growing civic leadership and stature. The Foster-Jones relationship lasted for nearly twenty years, through years of growth and prosperity, until, finally, a philosophical division came between the two. But in 1908 the two Houstonians reached an agreement under which Jones built a ten-story plant and office building for the Chronicle at the corner of Travis and Texas Streets. In exchange, Jones received an ownership interest in the paper. Jesse H. Jones Jones had years of business experience and had already amassed a small fortune prior to his involvement in the newspaper. Born on April 5, 1874, in Robertson County, Tennessee, Jones grew up on his father’s tobacco farm and, upon completion of the eighth grade, moved to Texas to work for his uncle, M.T. Jones, in a Hillsboro lumberyard. By the age of twentytwo, Jones managed one of the largest retail lumber companies in Dallas and assisted his uncle with his lumber business in Texas and Louisiana. When M. T. Jones passed away, Jesse Jones moved to Houston during a hot, dry summer in 1898 to manage his estate.While managing his uncle’s estate, he bought timberland in East Texas and then sold the timber for lumber and the land to area farmers. Jones soon established sixty lumberyards. As an extension of his lumber business, Jones began building small houses in Houston. He quickly expanded his construction business to larger commercial buildings in the heart of the city. Houston trailed Dallas, San Antonio, and Galveston in population and commerce in 1900. Jones’ ornate office buildings soon dominated 69


the Houston skyline. Jones built the city’s first ‘‘skyscraper,’’ the ninestory Bristol Hotel. Jones then constructed two ten-story structures that included the Chronicle Building and the Goggan Building. By the 1920s, he had transformed Houston’s Main Street and downtown into one of the South’s most thriving business districts. Jones properties included office buildings, movie theaters, hotels, apartment buildings, department stores, and parking garages. Buildings constructed, owned, or operated by Jones in Houston included the Gulf Building, Rice Hotel, Lamar Hotel, Kirby Building, and the Houston Club Building. The Rice Hotel, built on the site of one of the early Republic of Texas capitols, stood as the largest hotel in the South in this era. The Rice Hotel became the financial and social center of Houston. As he expanded in Houston, Jones constructed similar buildings in Fort Worth and New York City. During his first decade in Houston, he gradually sold off his lumber holdings and sawmills to concentrate on his banking and construction business and his partial ownership of the Chronicle.14 Jones utilized innovative financing agreements to construct his properties. Jones financed the homes he built with then-unique twenty-five-year mortgages. These long-term mortgages made Jones’ homes more affordable to middle-class purchasers, many of whom were first-time homeowners. As more jobs opened up in the city and new homes became available for purchase, Houston began a growth pattern that would continue for decades. Jones recognized the benefits of linking his business investments to a growing local economy and developed a vision of Houston as a major commercial trading center for the Southwest. Although some critics questioned his lending practices, Jones established his position as a financial and civic leader in Houston the early twentieth century. He established an ownership interest in several banks and finance companies. He served as chairman of the board of the National Bank of Commerce, which becameTexas Commerce Bank, and as chairman and president of Bankers Mortgage Company. Jones acquired stock in some failing banks and loaned money to other financially troubled banks.The experience served as a valuable experience later, during the Great Depression when Jones became head of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. He also became a charter stockholder in Humble Oil Company. Unlike many of his wealthy associates, Jones avoided extensive investments in the oil business.15 Similar to its urban counterparts in Texas, the Chronicle leadership embarked on numerous crusades to improve the city’s infrastructure and appearance. During a 1910 campaign for paving the city’s streets, edito70

In 1908 Houston financier Jesse H. Jones became part owner of the Houston Chronicle, along with the newspaper’s founder, Marcellus Foster. Photo courtesy CAH (CN 00664).


rials urged passage as a key to Houston’s economic future. ‘‘Houston will tell the country whether she means to go forward out of the mud and become a real city or intends to stay in the mud for another ten years and let the leadership of the Southwest be wrested away from her by Dallas and San Antonio.’’ Successful campaigns for paved streets, water and sewage lines, and building codes led to grander and more expensive programs. In all of these efforts, newspaper executives worked hand in hand with the business leadership.16 Jones and other Houston business leaders advocated the conversion of Buffalo Bayou into a deepwater port to provide a direct link from the city to the Gulf of Mexico. Jones viewed Chicago’s growth in the nineteenth century as a model for Houston. Chicago served as the major commercial center for the Midwest, with its extensive land and water trade connections. Jones became one of the staunchest advocates for a Houston ship channel and enlisted the editorial support of the Chronicle. The venture proved successful, as Houston acquired federal support for the project before World War I began. Jones accepted mayoral appointment as chairman of the Houston Harbor Board in 1913.The port opened with a ceremony on November 10, 1914, that included President Wilson providing a remote cannon shot triggered from theWhite House. By the time Jones resigned in 1917, the new port was handling more than a million tons of cargo a year and dozens of new businesses had relocated to Houston. As historian David McComb concluded, Jones played a key role in uniting the city’s civic and financial interests during a period of transition in which Houston emerged as a leading commercial center in the Southwest. The Houston Chronicle carried numerous news stories and editorial columns in support of the project.17 Jones’ activities and association with prominent Texas Democrats attracted the attention of President Wilson. The Democratic president offered Jones several ambassadorships, a position as assistant secretary of theTreasury Department, and also the cabinet office of Secretaryof Commerce. Jones turned down these offers in order to complete oversight of ship channel construction and to continue his other business activities. With the advent of World War I, Jones accepted a presidential appointment as director general for the Red Cross. Jones became a staunch supporter of President Wilson. Dr. Stockton Axson,Wilson’s brother-in-law and a faculty member of Houston’s Rice Institute, explained that Wilson exerted a great influence over Jones. ‘‘I know that his principles are those of Woodrow Wilson,’’ Axson said at a dinner honoring Jones. Undoubtedly Wilson served as an inspiration and provided extensive experience 72


in the political education of Jesse H. Jones. Jones became a national political figure and a rising star in the Democratic Party during the 1920s. His entry into the national arena as a pivotal figure in the Franklin Roosevelt Administration propelled him into turbulent waters during the Great Depression and World War II. Jones received many tributes over the years and received the title of ‘‘Mr. Houston.’’ With his myriad investments and business deals, Jones was ‘‘neither wholly saint nor wholly sinner.’’ But he became one of the most recognized figures of his generation.18 Although the Chronicle remained only a minor investment in the massive Jones financial portfolio, he knew the advantages of owning a daily newspaper in the growing city. Jones viewed the newspaper as an integral part of his financial and political holdings. Jones believed that the newspaper’s role was to serve the larger interests of the business community in the city. The newspaper served as the unofficial organ of the city’s commercial sector. He called upon the paper to provide the necessary exposure for massive civic undertakings such as the Houston Ship Channel and for other improvements. Jones never became involved in the day-to-day operations of the newspaper. He left that to Foster and other staff members. Bascom Timmons, Jones’ official biographer, concludes that Jones, because of his many business interests, ‘‘paid little attention either to its management or its policies.’’ In reality, Jones kept in very close contact with his newspaper and closely watched the headlines of the Post and other newspapers around the state. Jones and Foster maintained a close working relationship for years during their joint ownership. In his first twenty years in Houston, in which his business interests greatly expanded, Jones shunned the business of black gold while he retained and eventually expanded his interests in black ink.19 Dallas Morning News The Galveston News served as publisher Alfred H. Belo’s flagship newspaper in post–Civil WarTexas. Belo’s thirty-five-yearassociation with the News established the daily as one of the leading publications in the state and the nation. The Galveston News became the first newspaper in Texas to use regular telegraph service and was a charter member of the Associated Press. Belo’s dedicated staff placed the newspaper in the forefront of state political coverage. He also lured capablewriters, editors, and production specialists to his staff. Readers in Houston and other areas of the state relied on the Galveston News as a dependable source of information. The success of the Galveston daily paved the way for Belo’s foray into the northernTexas commercial center of Dallas.The innovative Belo 73


utilized a new technology that reshaped his publication enterprise and revolutionized the industry in the late 1800s. Belo and R. G. Lowe, a trusted lieutenant, devised an entirely new method for dispersing information: they capitalized on the growing railroad network in Texas to distribute the Galveston News. By utilizing the rails, they achieved timely distribution over a broader market. By 1881 the publisher was chartering special trains to deliver the newspaper to Houston and other inland cities.The Galveston News was among the first publications in the nation to purchase the rotary web presses that printed and folded thousands of copies per hour. Full-time correspondents covered events in the state capital of Austin and the leading commercial centers of Houston and San Antonio. As the state’s population and commerce grew in the late nineteenth century, Belo and his staff wanted to establish a branch paper, one that would have local news but access to much of the state and national news carried in the Galveston News. They selected North Texas as their new site, but they needed a more efficient and inexpensive method to send news. They decided to send the paper over the telegraph wire to a separate staff and production unit at a site to be determined in North Texas. A century later, newspaper publishers followed this trend when they began putting their pages on the Internet. Belo and the News initiated the electronic age of newspapers with their innovative plan for sending information over the telegraph wire.20 The Galveston executives chose George B. Dealey to adapt these ideas and locate a new home for the News. Dealey spent several months studying a number of commercial centers in the agricultural region of Northeast Texas. These included Waco, Fort Worth, Sherman, and Dallas. He finally recommended Dallas, a city of only slightly more than 10,000 people but already the fifth-largest urban community in the state.The city had several dailies at the time, including the Dallas Herald. Saint Louis newspapers served as the papers of choice for Dallas and other North Texas residents. But Dallas business leaders jumped at the opportunity to land a branch of the prestigious Galveston News for their hometown and raised $25,000 in stock subscriptions. The support of Dallas business leaders solidified the selection of the young city for the Belo newspaper. This allegiance later generated criticism from rival publications that Belo’s paper bent its coverage in favor of the business establishment. This criticism lasted throughout much of the twentieth century. On July 22, 1885, the Galveston News notified readers that the Dallas Morning News would begin publication on October 1, 1885. The first issue contained eight pages of local, state, and national news with an as74


sortment of advertisements from Dallas businesses that included Sanger Brothers, Padgitt Brothers, and the Dallas Opera House. Circulation began with 5,000 copies, and Dealey chartered a special Texas & Pacific Railway train to deliver to neighboring communities. Before the year ended, the Belo Company had purchased the rival Dallas Herald. Several employees of the Herald left and formed a new daily called the Dallas Evening Herald. The Dallas Morning News quickly became the leading daily newspaper, but the Dallas Evening Herald and other newspapers remained strong competitors. The Dallas Times Herald Veteran newspaperman Charles E. Gilbert acquired the Evening Herald in 1886. Gilbert quickly built the new Evening Herald into the afternoon rival of the Morning News. Gilbert was a staunch Prohibitionist who refused to run advertisements from brewers and distillers. Gilbert made innovative changes in the Evening Herald. These included multiple editions on important news items (sometimes as often as three times before a final afternoon edition) and staff-drawn illustrations to break the monotony of continuous columns of newsprint in his publications. Gilbert also introduced a wider, five-column format to distinguish his paper from the News and other competitors. The rival afternoon paper was William G. Sterett’s Daily Times, which had a smaller circulation than the Herald. Gilbert and Sterett, facing the financial resources and prestige of the News, merged their two dailies in 1888. The new Dallas Times Herald firmly established itself by the turn of the century. Its pages featured more local news stories than the News which, because of its larger resources, contained more information on state and national issues. Like the News, the Times Herald supported civic improvements and increased commerce. The Times Herald also agreed with the News on support for the state fair and efforts to make theTrinity River navigable for commerce.21 However, the Times Herald ran a distant second to the News at the turn of the century. Sterett had left his partnership with Gilbert to join the News. Also, the paper suffered from its inability to match the stronger resources of the Belo publications and because of its political stands. In contrast to the News, Gilbert and the Times Herald supported the Hogg administration. Most Dallas business leaders opposed Hogg and his reform efforts in the 1890s. Gilbert lost advertising revenue as a result of the paper’s support for Hogg. Gilbert lost theTimes Herald in 1892. By 1895, after several changes of owners and editors, an experienced newspaper75


man assumed control of theTimes Herald. Edwin J. Kiest had been watching the struggling Times Herald from his nearby office on Commerce Street. Kiest, an Illinois native, had risen from a journeyman printer to an executive with the Western Newspaper Union (WNU). Like Dealey, Kiest had little formal education but had gained firsthand experience in the publishing business. ‘‘I had been telling everyone else how to run newspapers with WNU,’’ he said, ‘‘so I got to thinking I could run one myself.’’ Kiest assumed complete ownership of the daily on January 1, 1896. He became general manager, a job that included everything from gathering news and setting type to selling advertising.22 Under Kiest, the Times Herald took controversial positions on state and national issues but joined the consensus for local business development and city expansion. Editorials called for the direct election of U.S. senators and opposed the Populist call for free silver. Business expansion required an influx of outside capital, so columns often called for more investment to fuel the regional economy. ‘‘The Times Herald Stands for Dallas as a Whole’’ became the motto of Kiest’s daily. Subject matter differed, but the philosophy concerning local affairs closely mirrored that of the larger Morning News. Morality in private and public life, better services from city government and promotion of civic events and local charities were ongoing themes of the Times Herald. Kiest kept the Times Herald afloat but struggled in the wake of the larger, more profitable Morning News. By 1900 theTimes Herald’s circulation was approximately 5,500, while the Morning News boasted a total readership of more than 26,000. Kiest remained the head of the Times Herald, a position he occupied for more than forty years. Although their methods and techniques varied, both the Times Herald and the News worked to reverse the long-standing tradition of combativeness and confrontation between publishers and their business and political enemies. After the turn of the century, the rival dailies sought to establish an alliance between the commercial sector and the local political establishment. Kiest also concentrated on local news and advertising. He quickly gained circulation, and after 1910 the Times Herald remained competitive with or exceeded the readership of the News. Politics and the Dallas Morning News From the very beginning, the pages of the Dallas Morning News encouraged growth, business expansion, and civic improvements. The newspaperattempted to be thevoice of change and progress in the growing city and an advocate of moral and social responsibility. However, the News 76

Edwin Kiest, publisher of the Dallas Times Herald, served as a community leader and newspaper executive for more than forty years. Photo courtesy Dallas Times Herald Collection, Belo Corp. Archives.


earned the wrath of Prohibition advocates in the late 1800s as the debate over alcohol became a statewide issue. The hotly contested issue went down to defeat in a statewide referendum in 1887. The Prohibition issue never faded from the scene, as manyadvocates aimed their rhetorical guns at the Galveston News and Dallas Morning News after the election. Both papers accepted advertisements for liquor, beer, and other ‘‘medicines’’ that contained alcohol, which reinforced Prohibitionists’ beliefs that advertisers exerted greater influence than readers on the two dailies. Baptist leaders accused the journals of exerting a ‘‘baneful influence upon the country’’ and urged a boycott of the two newspapers. At their state meeting in Dallas, delegates to the General Baptist Convention followed the lead of Major W. E. Penn, a lay evangelist. The Baptists passed a resolution that offered prayers for the staff of the two papers ‘‘that they might all be saved finally in Heaven.’’ The News editors replied the next day that Penn should have supplemented his concern for the News ‘‘with a prayer for the riddance of his church from such pestiferous excrescences.’’ The journalists may have believed they had the last word, but Prohibition was resurrected from its political grave within a generation.23 The paper reflected changing social attitudes when it condemned prize fighting, betting on horse races, and segregating ‘‘fallen women’’ and ‘‘soiled doves’’ into a designated area of the city. Calls fora city-owned water supply and distribution system, paved streets and sidewalks, and improved health standards became an ongoing theme. At the instigation of George B. Dealey, the Dallas Morning News sponsored in 1899 the Cleaner Dallas League. The organization of private citizens began working on civic programs such as city planning and beautification and urged the reorganization of the municipal government. In order to combat the agricultural depression of the decade, the News called upon farmers to break away from the reliance on cotton and the ‘‘suicidal plan of the onecrop system.’’ Diversification to other crops and livestock became the recommended solution as editors filled the pages with articles on fruits, vegetables, poultry, and dairy cattle. The News also began coverage of women’s news and issues. The Dallas Morning News frequently waded into the turbulent waters of Texas and national politics in its early years. In the final decade before 1900, the News established its character as a potent voice in political and civic affairs. News editors assailed Texas governor Jim Hogg during his two terms, from 1890 to 1894, for his allegedly antibusiness attitudes and policies. Editors once proclaimed, ‘‘[T]he sooner the state rids itself of this costly incubus, the better for both its credit and peace.’’ Editors 78


defended President William McKinley’s reluctance to intervene in Cuba even after the explosion of the U.S. warship Maine in Havana’s harbor. The paper avoided the sensational stories about Cuba that appeared in many newspapers associated with yellow journalism. In the meantime, Texas congressmen were among the most belligerent, and war fever swept the nation and the state.24 The News sent the first full-time Texas correspondent to Washington, D.C., in 1889. ‘‘Colonel’’ William Sterett, an original News staff member, served in the capital post for ten years. He interviewed presidents and congressmen while covering national and international events. Sterett’s closest friend and roommate was a young attorney who later became one of the best known commissioners of major league baseball—Kennesaw Mountain Landis. Sterett made an unsuccessful run for Congress in 1904. Texas governor Oscar Colquitt appointed Sterett to the Game, Fish and Oyster Commission in 1910. The close association with political figures and the lure of public office affected many Texas journalists of this era, even those at the News. Sterett became one of the best-known early correspondents for the Dallas daily. He maintained a tolerance for most people and organizations, although bankers became a frequent target. He classified bankers as ‘‘the most ignorant people in the world,’’ thus creating an enduring image of them in Texas and the South. Financial institutions and their representatives were most often associated with the North and were roundly criticized by most southerners. Even after typewriters became standard use, Sterett continued to handwrite his stories for many years. With the exception of his time in government, Sterett worked at the News until his death in 1924. Future News publisher Ted Dealey described Sterett, not only as the greatest of the early day writers at the News, but also called him a counselor and philosopher and the most unique staff person in the newspaper’s formative years.25 Political cartoons appeared in daily newspapers throughout the state and nation by the early twentieth century. One of the best-recognized figures came from the pages of the News: ‘‘Old Man Texas,’’ created by cartoonist John Knott, became a highly recognized and influential figure. Knott came to the News in 1905 as the paper’s only staff artist. His cartoons appeared irregularly until 1914, when they became a standard feature. Old Man Texas appeared as a distinguished, well-dressed older gentleman complete with a gray handlebar moustache and tall cowboy hat—a blend of the images of a southern colonel and a Texas rancher. Knott and the News editors intended for the figure to represent a firm, re79


‘‘Old Man Texas,’’ a creation of John Knott, became a standard editorial page feature of the Dallas Morning News. Illustration courtesy Belo Corp. Archives.

sponsible, and sensible individual—the same image the newspaper promoted for itself. Old Man Texas appeared throughout the years during times of crises and important debates to reinforce the newspaper’s editorial positions. The News strove to appeal to a broad spectrum of people throughout the state. Thus, even as the paper promoted a more diverse, urban economy, it relied on a traditional figure tied to the state’s rural past.26 Old Man Texas also served as a harbinger of the state’s image as a participant in the romanticized history of the West. Knott’s character depicted an image of tradition and a culture unique to Texas. At the time of his appearance on the editorial pages of the News, the minds and character of most Texans remained firmly tied to their counterparts in the other southern, former Confederate states. But in a newspaper that con80


sistently urged its readers to look to and plan for the future, Old Man Texas provided a link to the state’s past. As a herald for how Texans and others would view the state, the new western image replaced that of the southern colonel and the Confederate soldier. That new sense of history developed over time and evolved during the decades of the 1920s and 1930s. In the eyes of Knott and the News editors, Old Man Texas represented the Texas version of Homer—the personification of the past and the embodiment of noble tradition. Old Man Texas became the new icon on which the state’s image would be constructed during the years before World War II. At the turn of the century, a shift from the longtime emphasis on political coverage began on the pages of the News. Politics remained important, but more stories appeared on business activities, local events, and community affairs. The transition reflected the daily’s move toward the newer journalism practices of the North. More emphasis was placed on daily urban life. State, national, and international news remained an integral part of the News. But the new trends indicated that the publication now followed the leading newspapers outside of Texas in providing more mass information and consumer-oriented advertising. Two other natural events in the early 1900s also determined the fate of the Galveston News and the Dallas Morning News and their respective communities. The first major event was the Galveston hurricane of September 8, 1900. The storm brought the proud city on the Gulf to its knees. Only a brief story on page three provided any clues about the approaching storm.That tropical gale had hit Florida the previous day with only slight damage to Palm Beach. In the same edition, the Galveston News reported Galveston as the fastest-growing city in the South, as its population shot up by 30 percent during the 1890s. When the hurricane blasted Galveston Island on Saturday night, Galveston was unprepared. The Galveston News suspended publication for several days as the devastated city remained isolated from the rest of the world following the destruction of the telegraph lines. R. G. Lowe initially estimated deaths in the thousands, and no individual escaped some loss of family or friends. Half of Galveston’s structures and improvements no longer existed. The Galveston News office survived relatively intact, one of the few buildings to escape destruction even after the floodwaters reached the ceiling of the first floor. On Monday, the News printed a one-page handbill that informed survivors about the organization of a local relief committee. The police chief urged citizens to seize all food supplies and placed the city under martial law. ‘‘The work of burying dead humans and animals, is progressing 81


much faster today than it did yesterday,’’ the News said. The next day, the Galveston News reported that due to the scarcity of horses and manpower in the beleaguered city, the dead were being loaded onto barges for burial at sea.27 Galveston News correspondents provided eyewitness accounts for the outsideworld for manydays after the hurricane swept the island.The first regular edition after the great storm appeared on Wednesday, September 12. Banner headlines proclaimed between 4,000 and 5,000 deaths— in a city of 38,000 people—with property loss as high as $20 million. ‘‘Words are too weak to express the horror,’’ the editors solemnly noted. ‘‘If we have lost all else, we still have life and the future, and it is toward the future that we must devote the energies of our lives.’’ Many bodies still lay unburied and unclaimed. Corpses taken out to sea the previous day washed up on the beaches. When officials realized the saturated ground prevented mass burials, orders for cremation were issued. For days the awful black smoke drifted over the city. But slowly, conditions improved as survivors began to ‘‘bring order out of chaos’’ and aid from outside of Galveston arrived. Hundreds of stories of individual heroism emerged. Businesses reopened and advertised food with ‘‘no advance in prices.’’ The city and its newspaper recovered, but neither institution regained its leadership position. Galveston’s position as the leading port of entry and export in the state eroded as Houston and other coastal cities expanded their marketing efforts.28 The second major turn of events was a change in leadership of the News. In 1901 Alfred H. Belo Jr. inherited the leadership reins, following the death of his father. A. H. Belo, the North Carolinian who survived Pickett’s charge at Gettysburg, succumbed at his birthplace in Asheville, North Carolina, on April 19, 1901. The young Belo became president of the A. H. Belo Company. George B. Dealey remained the head of the Dallas Morning News, while R. G. Lowe served as the corporate vice president and headed theGalveston News operations.Thomas W. Dealey served as secretary and treasurer of the Belo Company. The veteran team remained together for only a few years. Lowe became increasingly concerned with the separate course the Dallas paper pursued and undoubtedly saw the rapid growth of the North Texas community.The Galveston and Dallas editors both voiced strong support forcivic improvements and business expansion. But as Dallas grew at a faster rate, especially after the 1900 hurricane, the senior writers in Galveston increasingly voiced frustrations with their northern counterpart.The Galveston News also lost its 82


position as the flagship daily as the Dallas Morning News surpassed the older paper in circulation, revenue, and prestige.29 The Dallas Morning News printed its twentieth anniversary issue on October 1, 1905. The forty-four-page special edition paid tribute to the ‘‘twenty years’ progress’’ of the community and the newspaper. Just as Dallas aspired to be the ‘‘big town of North Texas,’’ the News owners had harbored similar ambitions when they located the Dallas edition of their newspaper in the growing commercial center. The News occupied the largest newspaper building in the South in its new three-story home on Commerce and Lamar Streets. Included among the four web presses that printed and folded as many as 48,000 copies per hour was the Hoe sextuple press. With a width of twenty-four feet and weight of over 115,000 pounds, the Hoe was the ‘‘largest press ever brought to the South.’’ Those immense presses churned out daily editions that carried a growing number of stories and advertisements. The latest fashions from Sanger Brothers Department Store, delicious Smith’s Ice Cream, Extra Fine Rye Whiskey from specially selected grains, and Ware’s Black Powder for treatment of stomach and intestinal disorders appeared with hundreds of other items in display ads throughout the daily.30 Column after column praised the new banks, expanded railroads, the larger department stores, and the bustling traffic in a city that nearly tripled its population during the first twenty years of the Dallas News. Stories of surrounding communities from Fort Worth to Denison boasted of large new mills, red barns, and homes. The increase in land prices, people, and prosperity brought new comforts to farm and town.The economic improvement also carried a message to those who governed during this expansion. Prosperity and good government rode together on the same train, according to the writers of the News. As the articles heaped praise on Dallas and North Texas communities, the News condemned city councils in Chicago and New Orleans that allowed graft and corruption to influence civic improvements. Accounts maintained that ‘‘rotten municipal politics’’ contributed to a deadly yellow fever epidemic. ‘‘The main consideration, when it comes to sanitary improvements, is promptness in doing the work and in doing it right,’’ the News said. No behindthe-scenes combination of public officials and business should be permitted to imperil citizens, because ‘‘dirty politics means a dirty city, and it will never mean anything else.’’ 31 In keeping with its new Progressive stands, the News took aim at the liquor issue during this period of reform. An investigative story by the 83


News in 1907 concluded that many of the city’s saloons operated without a license. Still others opened their doors in areas where city ordinances prohibited the sale of alcohol. On November 18, 1906, the News carried an article about the ‘‘fearful hold’’ of the saloon business on the city. Dallas had 255 saloons in the central cityand another 120 scattered in residential areas. Most of the central city saloons maintained licenses that were paid for by the large breweries. ‘‘By prohibiting them from running among our homes, you will stop the breweries from turning the morals of boys and men into dividends, and from coining the tears of wives and mothers and sisters into boodle,’’ the writer lamented.32 The News regularly carried editorial statements on the desirability of having a safe, pro-business community with high moral standards. As the News stated in an editorial on April 2, 1907, ‘‘Sooner or later every city pays the penalty of loose municipal morals, and the longer retribution is delayed the severer usually it is . . . order and decency, and a regard for civic and personal standards, based upon the elemental virtues, are as vital and consistent in community life as in family life.’’ These editorial statements reflected the public and political goals of the newspaper as part of their initiative to direct the urban agenda.33 Death struck a hard blow at the News leadership in 1906. Lowe passed away following a sudden heart attack in January. Thomas Dealey died a few weeks later in Mineral Wells. In February, Belo suffered a relapse of meningitis and lingered near death at his home in Dallas. On February 27, 1906, Belo succumbed to his illness at the age of thirty-three. Within the matter of a few short weeks, the News organization lost its senior members and its young leader. George Dealey assumed responsibilities as vice president and general manager for the business and news operations. Cesar Lombardi, who had married into the Dealey family, became another vice president and the editorial director. Mrs. A. H. Belo Sr. became president of the corporation. From the time of the great storm to the change in leadership at Belo, the News had increased in circulation from 25,000 to 38,000. The publishers had also revived the Texas Almanac and State Industrial Guide in 1904. Dealey, a force in News management for years, became firmly entrenched as the dominant power in the Belo organization.34 In the first decade of the twentieth century, the News advocated hundreds of civic changes and reforms. Prohibition, better schools, internal improvements, increased commerce, and scientific approaches to business and agriculture dominated the pages. Dealey took a personal interest in these causes and founded the Dallas City Plan and Improvement 84


League in 1909. He enlisted support from the city’s business leadership and promoted their issues on the news and editorial pages. Among the most influential items affecting Dallas closely covered by the News were theTrinity River flood control initiative and the Kessler Plan, a long-range city improvement and growth strategy. The Trinity River had flooded on a regular basis ever since the founding of Dallas. The river divided Dallas from Oak Cliff and often created considerable destruction during the more violent flooding events. In the flood of 1908, water covered hundreds of homes and businesses, the city’s sewer system backed up, railroad tracks were under water, and the rising water knocked out the Dallas Electric Company powerhouse. Patrons at local saloons had to wade through knee-deep water. Property damage exceeded $1 million. The flood proved to be particularly embarrassing to a city that saw itself as a modern metropolitan community.35 George E. Kessler, a city planner and landscape architect, was born in Germany and moved to Dallas at the end of the Civil War. After working in several Dallas businesses, he moved to Europe, where he studied urban design. He then moved to Kansas City and designed a railroad-owned amusement park and a plan for development of the city’s park-boulevard system. He designed and landscaped the St. Louis World’s Fair grounds in 1904. The same year he also redesigned the grounds of Fair Park in Dallas. Kessler’s designs caught the attention of George B. Dealey during a trip by the Dallas newspaper editor to Kansas City. Kessler and the Kessler Plan, which would provide the first long-range plan for the city of Dallas, served as another example of imported ideas and expertise changing the face of a southern community.36 After an especially destructive storm in 1908, George B. Dealey and the News advocated a concrete viaduct across the Trinity River. His idea originated following a trip to Kansas City, where Dealey saw a similar allweather intercity connection over the Missouri River.The improvements represented the work of George Kessler. The News carried many editorials on the need to harness the untamed river.The daily also promoted the work of the Dallas City Plan and Improvement League, which coordinated a fund-raising campaign and a successful county-wide referendum on a $600,000 bond program. After an opening ceremony with Governor Colquitt and most of the city’s luminaries, the viaduct opened to traffic in 1912. The structure was said to be the longest concrete structure in the world at that time. The entire Trinity River flood control and improvement project included more bridges, channels, and levees to protect the community from rising waters.37 85


A second initiative that influenced the future direction of the city emerged with the Kessler Plan of 1911.The News viewed the catastrophic floods, hazardous rail and street traffic, and haphazard neighborhoods as manifestations of unmanaged growth. Also, the scenes represented the more chaotic and corrupt cities of the North—one facet of imported subjects that Dealey and company wished to avoid in their quest for modernization. The News embarked on a long crusade for civic planning that accompanied their editorial support for urban improvements.The editorials and news coverage amplified the newspaper’s position of informing and advocating the city as a whole entity rather than a collection of isolated neighborhoods and business areas. Beyond the single issue of civic and internal improvements, the Kessler Plan served as another symbol for the News in its role as community advocate and molder of opinions. The move also signified the newspaper’s position as a Progressive voice devoted to the entire city and its commerce. The Kessler Plan suited the newspaper’s plan to convert mass appeal into mass action. No other major city in the state undertook this type of extensive urban planning effort aimed at improving services, infrastructure, and overall living conditions. In 1910 the News called for creation of a panel of thirty-eight prominent citizens to study the needs of the city and formulate a plan of action. The Dallas City Plan and Improvement League was formed and included News editor Dealey.The League subsequently contacted George Kessler, the architect of the State Fair grounds. According to the News, the agreement with Kessler for creation of a twenty-five-year plan was an ‘‘epochal event’’ in the city’s history. Published in 1912, the Kessler Plan contained a list of improvement projects that called for concerted action, not piecemeal or neighborhood solutions.The projects included a central railroad depot, expanded Trinity River flood control, a civic center and parks, removal of railroad lines and grade crossings, and cleaning up the city’s eyesores. Although it contained manycontroversial items along with popular recommendations, the Kessler Plan remained the primary document for the city for the first half of the century.38 The News also became one of the first major dailies inTexas to support Prohibition. The liquor question dominated the political debate at the turn of the century. A stand favoring or opposing Prohibition was a topic in daily conversations, provided ample fodder for Sunday sermons, and grabbed the attention of newspapers and politicians.With a more diverse population, the urban communities in the state provided the greatest resistance to the Prohibition movement. Alcohol consumption occurred in both commercial and residential establishments. ‘‘There is no way to 86


estimate the amount of money taken from the home by these residence saloons, but it must be enormous,’’ the News declared. Saloons and drinking violated civic and moral standards, in the opinion of the News. By 1907, in line with its editorial position, the newspaper refused to accept liquor advertising, thus depriving the News of a lucrative revenue stream and allowing other newspapers to take advantage of its stand. The battle between wet and dry supporters would continue for years.39 George Bannerman Dealey ‘‘Be sure the job is one for which you are fitted,’’ the longtime publisher of the Dallas Morning News said. ‘‘My attainment to my present place is not so much due to any perfection in me as to the fact that I stuck to the job, and that is the advice I would give to others.’’ George B. Dealey lived by those words. Dealey was born on September 18, 1859, at the great textile center of Manchester, England. He immigrated with his parents and nine brothers and sisters to Galveston, where at the age of fifteen, in 1874, he began working at the Galveston News. From his first days in the mailroom, the young Dealey received assignments in the clerical, business, and finally the news-gathering operation, as manager of the Houston branch office of theGalveston News. A. H. Belo and R. G. Lowe selected the twenty-six-year-old Dealey in 1885 as the business manager for their branch publication that became the Dallas Morning News. Until he died in 1946, George B. Dealey personified the Dallas Morning News and was considered the Dean of Texas Journalism for his sixty-five years of continuous service to his newspaper.40 George Dealey, more than any other person, shaped the Dallas Morning News in the first half of the twentieth century.The most dramatic early change under Dealey’s direction was moderating the positions for which the publication gained its early reputation. During its formative years in the late nineteenth century, the News used its pages to fight Governor Hogg, the Populists, and others who challenged the political status quo. Critics also charged that the newspaper sided with its largest advertisers on public controversies. In an attempt to change course, Dealey selected a public health issue that transcended political allegiances. He studied the U.S. Army’s efforts to eradicate insects and dump sites as the most effective means to fight yellow fever and malaria. Dealey seized on the trash can as his symbol for reform. The News purchased the first trash can for public use and placed it on the corner of Lamar and Commerce, right outside the front door of the daily’s offices. The can served as a symbol for the public health initiative.The News urged citizens and busi87


George Bannerman Dealey, publisher of the Dallas Morning News and considered the dean of Texas daily newspaper publishers. Photo courtesy Belo Corp. Archives.

ness owners to clean up their neighborhoods and the business district to reduce the number of sites where mosquitoes could breed. As a result of the ongoing articles and editorials that urged citizens to clean up the streets, cut overgrown weeds, and dispose of their garbage in cans instead of their yards and alleys, the campaign brought measurable relief in the summer of 1899. From this effort, Dealey organized the Cleaner Dallas League. He utilized the organization of business, civic leaders, 88


and the newspaper for reform. League members continuously promoted the movement to reform the face of Dallas and its underlying problems.41 After the Cleaner Dallas campaign, Dealey realized the newspaper’s power in shaping public attitudes and actions for a tangible results. The Dallas Civic Improvement Association succeeded the Cleaner Dallas League, and Dealey strongly supported this group and the expanded role of his newspaper. As the campaign progressed, News editorials advocated more parks and playgrounds, paved streets, clean water, sewage collection and treatment, well-constructed buildings, and internal improvements such as better-trained police and fire departments with better equipment. ‘‘Examples of Civic Attractiveness’’ became an ongoing feature in the early 1900s. Photos of improvements in other cities were constant reminders of Dealey’s vision of how Dallas should grow.42 As a result of his leadership in the effort to clean up the city, Dealey’s role as general manager now extended beyond business affairs into editorial policies. Dealey wrote the rules for the newspaper’s operations and procedures. These rules required the business manager to submit editorial topics or news stories contingent on approval by the editorial council. The managing editor and two editorial writers composed the council. With his seniority and position in the Belo Company, Dealey’s opinions carried considerable influence. Also, Dealey’s broad interests and his persuasive ability provided him the opportunity for significant input into the editorial and news gathering divisions. Dealey’s activist campaign to improve the appearance and health of Dallas determined the direction the News followed in management’s ongoing efforts to stimulate economic activity while building the circulation and influence of the News. Dealey’s initiative launched the News into a new era of focus on municipal affairs. The News had built its reputation on extensive coverage of state and national affairs. Dealey believed the paper’s one deficiency involved local events. ‘‘For a number of years objections were very generally urged against the News because of its lack of interest in local affairs,’’ he explained to the editorial council. Anything regarding the municipalityof Dallas was of interest ‘‘not only to the people of Dallas, but to every town in Texas.’’ The sanitary campaign increased the publication’s visibility and popularity with the citizenry. Dealey wanted the News to build on this success and develop its leadership in local affairs. According to Dealey biographer Ernest Sharpe, the publisher’s ‘‘working philosophy’’ incorporated the newspaper into civic awareness and involvement. ‘‘Nothing else pays so well as enlistment in some betterment movement. It pays— 89


not in simoleons nor in kudos, but in one’s right to be on good terms with one’s self, which is about all there is in life anyway that amounts to a hoot.’’ 43 Dealey’s large vision for Dallas and the News seldom distracted him from the day-to-day operations. The first set of rules in 1899 defined the makeup of the editorial council and required daily meetings. Subsequent provisions required ‘‘fairness and justice to be accorded all men and measures. Personal journalism of every description must be avoided.’’ The rules for News reporters included a policy of accuracy. ‘‘A reporter who is inaccurate is even less valuable than one who cannot write the English language,’’ the rules stated. Dealey demanded and enforced policies that emphasized responsibility for meeting professional standards. These standards included correct grammar, punctuation, and spelling, even for the most difficult names. He successfully worked for the removal of advertising from the front page in 1902. Many large dailies already restricted their front page to news stories. This list included the New York Times, Washington Post, San Francisco Call, and New Orleans Picayune. The News was among the first publications in Texas to remove front-page advertisements. Dealey gave up his opposition to comics and the News began featuring comics in color on Sunday, March 13, 1904. Including ‘‘silliness,’’ as he termed the comic strips, increased circulation, so that the News had nearly 47,000 readers by the end of the year.44 Another indication of Dealey’s resolve to transform both the News and Dallas was coverage of working-class citizens and their issues. Labor strife spread throughout much of the nation during the late 1800s. New unions formed in the 1890s in U.S. cities to represent workers in newly created jobs reflecting the industrial revolution. Building tradesmen composed the earliest groups of organized laborers. At the turn of the century, Dallas and other Texas cities witnessed the expansion of organized workers. Railroad workers, typographers, and streetcar operators maintained the largest local union memberships. A strike by streetcar workers in 1899 ended when Dallas business leaders joined with the union to enforce the contract with the city’s privately owned transportation company. The News praised the settlement and later offered exceptional coverage on a visit by Eugene Debs, ‘‘the apostle of modern socialism.’’ The daily praised Debs’ leadership and regarded him as an important national figure whose appearance proved the growing stature of the North Texas city. Business and commercial leaders received more coverage than unions and laborers, but the News provided coverage of union leaders and their issues for many years. This conciliatory view dis90


played by the News toward organized labor changed over time, especially during the turbulent era of the Depression and the subsequent expansion of unions.45 ‘‘The business of a newspaper is always to be a newspaper first and a money-making business second,’’ Dealey said. For as long as he played a leadership role in determining community standards and directing the growth of the city, Dealey believed that the News should play a large role as the advocate for the growing middle class and commercial sector of the city. The professional standards Dealey advocated for the News reflected what he believed were the needs of a literate and educated public. He also modeled the News as the premier advocate for growth based on the ideas and platforms advocated on the pages of the daily. Dealey saw no difference in making himself the arbiter for these standards for both the newspaper and the community. In his world, the newspaper offered continuity and the high standards for other publications in Texas and the nation. He also wanted the News to be financially strong enough to withstand any periods of economic downturn or political uncertainty. In doing so, hewanted to distance the News from other regional publications that he quietly deemed too sensational and partisan. Many Texas newspaper publishers lived to see their influence expand beyond their hometowns to a national level. Dealey, who never aspired to hold political office or appointments, rose to become one of the most respected editors and publishers in the state. Many disagreed with his views and opinions. But nearly all of his contemporaries admired his convictions. In that regard, Dealey and the Dallas Morning News set the journalistic standards for the other major dailies of the state. San Antonio Express and San Antonio Light The oldest major city in Texas, San Antonio remained the largest and most diverse urban community in Texas at the beginning of the twentieth century. The city along the San Antonio River enjoyed its unique reputation as a place where the old and the new stood side by side. Its central plazas and streets contained adobe buildings alongside brick and mortar banks and stores. San Antonio, the home of the Alamo, Spanish missions, and presidios became the site of one of the main U.S. military installations and a magnet for commercial activity by the early 1900s.Teddy Roosevelt organized his Rough Rider volunteers in San Antonio in 1898 when preparing for war with Spain. In the late 1800s, San Antonio capitalized on its location to become the commercial center for the cattle drives to the north. The arrival of the Southern Pacific Railroad in 1877, along with 91


stockyards and packing plants, ended the cattle drives.The railroads also brought a wave of new settlers and European immigrants that made San Antonio a truly cosmopolitan city by 1900. Mexican Americans, Germans, Italians, Anglo Americans, African Americans, and other firstgeneration European arrivals mingled on the winding, narrow streets of the old Spanish colonial capital. The high turrets of the city’s many breweries on the San Antonio River loomed like European castles on the Rhine. Saloons with polished bars and expensive chandeliers were neighbors to stately domed cathedrals. The first cement company west of the Mississippi River located north of the city.46 City leaders in San Antonio launched an effort in the earliest years of the twentieth century to improve the community’s appearance and accessibility. The growing number of residents, combined with the large numbers of people who came to San Antonio to shop, created congestion along the narrow, dusty streets. When the rains came, many areas of the city were literally impassable because of the mud. Residents along Quincy Street complained that even six-horse teams pulling wagons bogged down in the mud. According to residents, the only communication with the outside world in such times was by telephone, ‘‘as the tops of the telephone poles were still above water.’’ Then an even more threatening force appeared. Automobiles began clattering their way through the city’s streets. Newspapers reported the unsightly vehicles scared ‘‘women and horses’’ with increasing frequency. In June 1904 the Express reported that several men visiting San Antonio—prominent delegates to the Democratic State Convention—narrowly escaped death. The group ‘‘insisted on testing the speed of the machine,’’ and the horseless carriage accelerated to an estimated speed of thirty miles per hour. The vehicle collided with a carriage and was demolished, ‘‘but no one was hurt’’ with the possible exception of some damaged egos.47 Veteran newspapermen composed the Express leadership in the early twentieth century. Frank G. Huntress Jr. served as president and general manager. Huntress’ grandfather had worked for newspapers in New York City. His father was a wealthy businessman while his mother was the daughter of General Juan Montez, a rancher and political leader in Mexico. Huntress was born and grew up in San Antonio in the post– Civil War era. Like George Dealey of the Dallas Morning News, Huntress began working for the Express as a delivery boy and rose through the ranks of the organization. He served as business manager, vice president, and finally president and general manager during his four decades 92


with the Express. From 1910 until his death in 1955, Huntress served as president of the Express Publishing Company and the Express Printing Company. Claude V. Holland was another longtime newspaperman with the Express. Originally from Kentucky, he worked with the Louisville Courier-Journal before moving to San Antonio in 1895. Holland also participated in local Democratic Party activities in Bexar County. John Lunsford served as managing editor. Lunsford served on several newspapers, including editorial positions with the Galveston News and newspapers in Chicago, St. Louis, and New Orleans before he came to the Express in 1910.48 The Express and San Antonio prospered at the end of the nineteenth century. In 1895 the newspaper occupied its own three-story stone and brick building. The triangular building stood in the city’s center at Navarro and Crockett Streets on the scenic San Antonio River.The structure was the first fireproof building, made of steel, in San Antonio. The Express occupied this site until the operation moved to a larger building in 1917. By 1929 the newspaper had expanded to an eight-story building that contained the editorial, advertising, printing, and executive offices.49 The San Antonio Light emerged in 1881 as an expanded version of the San Antonio Surprise and an afternoon daily. In 1883 A. W. Gifford and Tom B. Johnson ran the newspaper from an office on Commerce Street. The Johnsons changed the name to the Daily Light. Historical records indicate that by the 1890s the paper was the only daily in Texas that supported the national Republican Party. Given the diverse nature of San Antonio and its dependence on U.S. military installations, support for Republicans in the city and in an area of Texas with a large ethnic German population provided a base for the Republicans that lasted well into the early twentieth century. In 1906 E. B. Chandler purchased the newspaper from the Johnsons. A few years later, the Daily Light Publishing Company purchased the San Antonio Gazette. For several years, the publication was printed under the banner of the Light and Gazette. In 1911 Harrison L. Beach, Charles P. Taft, and Charles S. Diehl, all experienced newspaper correspondents, moved to San Antonio and bought the Light and Gazette, which they renamed the Light. Beach served as a war correspondent during the Spanish-American War and later as an editor for the Associated Press. They leased a wire news service and published the first full market reports in a San Antonio paper. The Light dropped its Republican orientation and aligned itself with more traditional southern Democratic views. In 1924 William Randolph 93


Hearst bought the Light, which ended independent ownership of the newspaper.50 San Antonio, with its diverse cultures, evoked both praise and criticism from newspaper writers. Chester Crowell, a well-known author and newspaperman in the early part of the century, applauded San Antonio at this time as one of the ‘‘most cosmopolitan communities on this continent.’’ As a young man, Crowell held his first job at the San Antonio Express, where he made seven dollars a week as a cub reporter. The city’s bustling commercial area and diverse population created an elaborate mosaic, in the eyes of the young reporter. Banks and mercantile shops opened their doors alongside theaters, saloons, and gambling houses. ‘‘Chili queens dispensed smiles and indigestion on the plazas,’’ Crowell commented of the local cuisine. ‘‘The red-light district was enormous, and generally regarded as an important business asset,’’ Crowell added. The locals regarded a Prohibitionist as ‘‘a nut, and even the Methodist and Baptist pastors in San Antonio usually evaded that topic.’’ For a young man in San Antonio in the early twentieth century, ‘‘life was very gay.’’ In fact, people in the dry areas of North Texas referred to Bexar County as ‘‘Beer County’’ due to the popularity of alcohol among the San Antonio populace.51 Crowell provided an insider’s look at the preparation of a newspaper early in the century.The Associated Press and other wire services opened at certain hours and ‘‘you could depend absolutely upon a certain number of words.’’ After the staff wrote headlines, they ‘‘impaled them on hooks tended by copy boys, and in due time they became type.’’ Each editor knew exactly how many stories were available. ‘‘Space was dictated by advertising; press time was dictated by train schedules,’’ Crowell reported. ‘‘Advertising brought in the revenue, printing produced the goods, writing filled the unsold space.’’ The tasks to produce a daily newspaper by this time required numerous individuals, most of whom worked in production or advertising, rather than editorial, offices. The staff of the daily operated on a schedule dictated by business concerns. ‘‘The American newspaper had been going through an evolutionary process,’’ Crowell observed. ‘‘We were not crusaders; we were obviously in business.’’ Crowell’s analysis accurately portrayed the influence of the new journalism and mass marketing on daily newspaper enterprises in Texas. His perspective provided additional support for the necessity of Texas publishers to incorporate business and management programs imported from the North.52 94


Fort Worth Star-Telegram The twentieth-century history of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reflected that of its influential publisher, Amon Giles Carter. Carter was born on December 11, 1879, in Crafton, Texas. He changed his name as an adult: after he named his son Amon Gary Carter Jr., he referred to himself as Amon Carter Sr., although he and his son had different middle names. Like most of his fellow publishers of this era, he had no family members involved in the newspaper business. After working at a number of jobs in the small North Texas community of Bowie, he relocated to Oklahoma and California. He moved to Fort Worth in 1905 and became advertising managerof the Fort Worth Star. He excelled in the advertising profession. He triumphed because as a salesman he could have ‘‘sold Tupperware to Cartier’s.’’ He had ‘‘the glibness of a snake oil peddler, the dogmatism of a saved-again evangelist, and the sincerity of a first-term congressman,’’ according to his biographer, Jerry Flemons. Three years later, with the backing of Colonel Paul Waples, the primary investor and a wholesale grocer in Fort Worth, the Star merged with the Fort Worth Telegram. The Fort Worth Star-Telegram employed former Star publisher Louis J. Wortham as the chief executive of the newly merged newspaper. D. C. McCaleb and A. G. Dawson also participated in the new venture.53 The merger of the Star and theTelegram marked a turning point in the historyof newspaper publications in Fort Worth. In theyears when Carter worked on the Star, the newspaper carried sixteen pages and distributed 4,500 copies with free delivery. By 1908, lacking sufficient circulation income and fighting rival publications, the Star was in financial difficulty. Carter and Wortham decided to buy out their rival, the Telegram. The competing publication published as an evening newspaper that dated back to the Fort Worth Evening Mail, the Fort Worth Mail Telegram, and other papers beginning around 1879. The newly merged newspapers, known as the Star-Telegram, began publication in 1909.The merger gave the publication control of the afternoon market in Fort Worth. The Fort Worth Record served as the morning newspaper for the growing city. Veteran newspaper editor Clarence Ousley, a former managing editor of the Houston Post, purchased the Record in 1903, two years before Carter’s arrival in Fort Worth. In 1903, with several associates, Ousley purchased the Fort Worth Gazette and published it as the Fort Worth Record. The Record remained the chief competitor of the Star-Telegram for the next two decades. Ousley was the Record’s editor until he sold his interest in the paper in 1913. The focus on West Texas did not come until the next decade.54 95


Fort Worth stood as a city in transition in the early twentieth century. The small community on the banks of the Trinity grew in the late nineteenth century into a rail and cattle center. The Fort Worth stockyards and large packing companies provided an additional boost to the city’s commerce at the turn of the century. During the first decade of the twentieth century, the population nearly tripled, from 26,000 to more than 73,000 people. After 1910 the discovery of oil in Burkburnett and Ranger changed the complexion of the city. Oil companies, promotion firms, wildcatters, and ‘‘every form of enterprise identified with oil activities sprang up and flourished.’’ A guide to Texas called Fort Worth the wildcat center for the world, so named for its many independent oil operators and investors.55 Similar to the Dallas Times Herald, Carter and his Fort Worth paper stressed local news. For distribution, however, he looked at the model provided by Dealey and the Dallas Morning News. Utilizing the rail service, the Star-Telegram expanded west into eighty-four counties. Few large daily newspaper publishers saw any advantage in the West Texas market. The most arid part of the state was also the least populated. On the surface, the miles of open lands, small cities, and ranching offered little profit or news. But Carter saw the low density as an opportunity to expand his newspaper’s influence.Westward expansion also made sense, as the Dallas newspapers dominated the news, circulation, and revenues to the east. As Carter’s biographer notes, ‘‘[T]here was no larger town between Fort Worth and the Pacific Ocean.’’ Before rail service arrived, some papers delivered in the Panhandle arrived by stagecoach. Paved roads, electricity, and running water remained as scarce as a day without wind in this region until the 1940s. In the 1920s, the paper’s ranch editor often slept on the open prairie because of the scarcity of towns with hotels and the long distances between ranch headquarters.56 Within six years of the merger, the Star-Telegram expanded from 15,000 to 40,000 circulation. As circulation increased, so too did the number of pages, advertising, and features. A December 15, 1912, progress edition carried 250 pages that promoted commerce and business in Fort Worth and the region. The meteoric increase in circulation carried the newspaper to new heights by 1920. The Star-Telegram, with over 66,000 subscribers, became the largest newspaper in the state, a position it held until the 1950s. Fort Worth and West Texas remained the focus from the outset, but it was not until 1923 that the newspaper’s masthead read ‘‘Where the West Begins.’’ The Star-Telegram became one of the largest newspapers in the South, surpassing its rivals in Dallas and Hous96

Amon B. Carter Sr. served as publisher of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram until his death in 1955. Photo courtesy Amon G. Carter Papers, Texas Christian University (Series D, Box 1).


ton in circulation. The daily served as a platform and a reflection of the personality of its owner, Amon B. Carter Sr. The Star-Telegram’s distribution area eventually expanded to 350,000 square miles of the western High Plains, the largest area of any newspaper in the state. Daily home delivery extended 700 miles west of Fort Worth. Carter and the paper successfully resisted takeover attempts by William Randolph Hearst in the early 1920s. Hearst sold the Fort Worth Record to the Star-Telegram in 1925. In 1922 the paper began the first Fort Worth radio station, WBAP (‘‘We Bring A Program’’). The Star-Telegram later established the first television station in the southern half of the United States, in the early fall of 1948. Carter was majority owner and publisher of the paper until his death in 1955, when he was succeeded by his son, Amon G. Carter Jr., who served in the position until his death in 1982. Carter fulfilled the role of community leader and maintained a busy schedule of philanthropic activities. As his biographer noted, Carter was ‘‘a power, a force of politics, of civic boosterism, of industrial development.’’ He used the newspaper to push for a university in West Texas. In 1923 Carter served chairman of the first board of regents of Texas Technological College (now Texas Tech University) in Lubbock, a position he held until 1927. He became the youngest president of the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce. Following the discovery of oil in North Texas, he used his influence to persuade oil investors to move to Fort Worth. Just as Jesse H. Jones in Houston embarked on his building career with the new oil boom, Carter became involved in the construction of downtown office buildings in Fort Worth. In 1911 he and other civic leaders brought the first airplane to the Fort Worth area. In 1928 Carter’s devotion to air travel paid off, when he became director and part owner of American Airways, which later became American Airlines. Unlike some of his fellow newspaper publishers, Carter became active in the oil business and served as a director of the American Petroleum Institute. ‘‘He ran Fort Worth. He loved it, lauded it, lavished gifts on it when it was good, punished it when it was bad. Amon was the ruling body of Fort Worth, yet he never held a public office.’’ 57 Carter was noted for his philanthropy, largely from his oil business. He created and funded the Amon G. Carter Foundation for cultural and educational purposes. Similar to other daily newspaper publishers, Carter received recognition for his contributions to Fort Worth and the state. He was named Range Boss of West Texas in 1939, and the Texas legislature designated him an Ambassador of Good Will in 1941. He received 98


the Exceptional Service Medal from the United States Air Force and the Frank M. Hawks Memorial Award from American Legion Post 501 of New York City. He was an organizer and director of the Southwest Exposition and Fat Stock Show and a contributor to hospitals and civic centers. He loved to entertain his political friends, business associates, artists, and others at his well-manicured farm, Shady Oak. As a newspaper publisher, Carter earned the respect and the wrath of many in the business. He was quick tempered and unafraid to use the Star-Telegram to carry on his personal crusades and vendettas. Often, these appeared on the front page of the Star-Telegram. He also kept many issues and stories out of the headlines because of his concern that they would damage the image of the community or prove harmful to local businesses. One critic labeled him Amon the Terrible. As Flemons described him, Carter would steamroll anyone who stood in his way. ‘‘He would puff up, redden, shout, cuss, even stamp his feet, and those near him were either mesmerized or terrified.’’ From a personality standpoint, Carter was the polar opposite of George B. Dealey, his counterpart at the Dallas Morning News. Carter frequently engaged civic leaders and the newspapers of Dallas in rival activities and fierce debates. However, when business opportunities or prospects to promote enterprises arose, Carter would either cooperate or exploit the rivalry between Dallas and Fort Worth.58 With their combined positions as publishers, leading businessmen, political moguls, and community spokesmen, newspaper publishers like Carter, Dealey, Jones, Kiest, and their peers enjoyed an opportunity not equaled before or since to shape Texas to their liking.Their shared desire for Texas to emerge as an economically diverse industrial power run by business oligarchs and relying on low wages and racial segregation as chief attractions for outside investors became state policy. With their widespread participation in local and regional politics, the publishers suppressed a large degree of the natural tension between the press and government. Adversarial relationships still existed. Disagreements arose in the context of how each newspaper enterprise and its home city expanded and accommodated these changes. During this cycle of newspaper expansion in the early years of the twentieth century, most indicators pointed toward a rise in prestige and wealth for the largest daily newspapers. In this atmosphere, the relationship between the media and elected representatives was cooperative, as they shared a mutual agenda of domestic expansion and improvement. But all the planning and cooperation 99


among business leaders could not direct all the forces of modernization. As their humble hometowns grew into metropolises wealthy beyond their wildest dreams,Texas daily newspaper publishers witnessed an unprecedented rise of prestige and influence. However, no plan is without its flaws or unforeseen events. Class and racial conflicts remained on the surface with the Mexican Revolution, from 1910 to 1920, and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s.

100

CHAPTER 4

‘‘An Enemy Closer to Us than Any European Power’’ The violence and political upheaval created by the Mexican Revolution left a lasting impression on the Southwest. From 1910 until 1920, the struggle created renewed interest in the United States’ neighbor to the south. The United States and Mexico maintained a tense relationship that frequently erupted into armed conflict during the nineteenth century. As the two republics moved into the twentieth century, profound changes took place in Mexico that brought dramatic impacts far north of the Rio Grande.Texas daily newspapers took a leading role in forming perspectives and long-lasting impressions during this pivotal time in the history of both nations. A few days after President Woodrow Wilson asked Congress for a declaration of war against Germany, in April 1917, the San Antonio Express told its readers, ‘‘[T]he reason is plain: we fight in defense of liberty.’’ As the nation prepared to fight its first major overseas conflict of the twentieth century, the overwhelming majority of Texans and the state’s daily newspapers jumped on the Allies’ bandwagon in the struggle against Germany and the Central Powers. These spirited convictions stood in stark contrast to the popular mood when the war began three years earlier. When the shooting started in August 1914, people in Texas and the entire nation rejoiced in the geographic and political isolation which seemingly kept Americans out of harm’s way. However, in Texas the Mexican Revolution and the violence on both sides of the Rio Grande played a significant role in shaping the attitudes of Texans on the issues of war preparedness and military intervention. In retrospect, in spite of the altruistic explanation provided by the San Antonio Express, the reasons Texans chose to support entry into the overseas fight were not so plain. Texans’ enthusiasm for war evolved, not only from patriotic commitment, but also from more complex reasons that set them apart from the rest of the nation. Until the United States declared


war, public opinion in Texas remained very circumspect when it came to direct involvement in European affairs. In contrast, Texans felt more self-assured when the topic involved intervention in Mexico and Central and South America.Years of prolonged outcries by Texas newspaper editors and politicians critical of the Mexican government and ‘‘Mexican bandits’’ during that nation’s revolutionary years overrode concerns of neutrality. The state’s influential daily newspapers, which carefully measured their responses to the European war, demonstrated no such reluctance in their discussions of Mexico. The Mexican Revolution’s impact on Texans played a major role in swaying public opinion away from isolation toward supporting military escalation, intervention, and even war as viable options for resolving international crises. But as one Texas editor lamented concerning the nation’s military readiness, ‘‘[W]e are not even prepared to undertake a punitive expedition into a weak and war-ridden country on short notice.’’ 1 The Mexican Revolution and World War I marked the time of a significant ideological shift for Texas’ leadership class. Wealthy whites had directly economically benefited from late-nineteenth-century federal government actions such as the subsidizing of railroad lines and Indian removal and genocide along the rail routes. Yet since the end of the Civil War it had been a virtual requirement for Texas politicians and public opinion shapers on editorial pages to condemn the federal government in Washington. The federal government, after all, had crushed the Confederacy and, according to southern mythology, imposed a reign of corruption and ‘‘Negro rule’’ during Reconstruction. Texas elites argued that a strong federal government, or at least those programs that did not directly benefit the wealthy, threatened the South as a whole. Reform programs aiding farmers, improving worker safety, or outlawing child labor represented for them examples of a Washington regime growing wildly in power and spinning out of control—the civilian equivalent of General Sherman’s troops burning Atlanta. But a new attitude toward Washington commenced with the imperialist adventurism of the 1898 Spanish-American War, the first major conflict in which southerners and northerners had fought side by side since the MexicanAmerican War of the 1840s. Patriotic fervor surrounding the Spanish campaign brought the South back into a spirit of shared Americanism. In Texas, the Mexican Revolution of 1910 and World War I, fought from 1914 to 1918, marked a further step byTexas into the national mainstream. Just as Progressivism encouraged greater federal and state involvement in the economy and the lives of private citizens, issues raised by the two wars 102

‘‘An Enemy Closer to Us’’

moved elites to demand greater federal effort to defend the homeland. Events between 1910 to 1920 also pushed the leadership class to move from a parochial to a more international perspective, a key ideological component of modernism.2 As the wartime actions of the European combatants grabbed banner headlines in the nation’s newspapers, the violence from the Mexican Revolution competed as a regular front-page feature, especially in the U.S. Southwest. Mexico’s nationalist revolt, which began in 1910, made a dramatic impression on Texas residents and public officials. The internal conflict south of the Rio Grande often overshadowed events in Europe, especially when the violence involved U.S. citizens and spilled into Texas. Most Texans viewed the fighting in Europe as a monumental yet distant conflict. Unrest along the Mexican border led Texans of all persuasions to call for Washington’s intervention and the placement of federal troops along the international border. Sensational coverage by Texas newspapers of pivotal events associated with the Mexican Revolution resulted in an increased sense of insecurity and belligerence along the border, within the state, and in the rest of the Southwest.These events included the Plan of San Diego, Pancho Villa’s raid on Columbus, New Mexico, and a steady stream of stories about attacks on Americans and their property. The eventual revelation of alleged German offers of assistance to Mexico in the Zimmermann telegram in early 1917 seemingly affirmed calls by Texas editors for preparedness and intervention. The exposure of Zimmermann’s offer to return to Mexico lands lost to the United States in the Treaty of Guadalupe eliminated all support for Germany. Sympathy for the German American community disappeared and the remaining pacifist sentiments lost their influence as Texans enthusiastically mobilized for war.3 This prewar scenario inTexas differs from that of the rest of the nation. Most historical interpretations of U.S. public opinion and the nation’s entry intoWorld War I have concluded that Wilson held a clearconsensus long before he sought a formal declaration of war. Pro-Allied sentiment in the United States, with a special affinity toward Britain, surfaced from the outset of the war in August 1914 and steadily increased through 1917. In addition to sharing a common language and other cultural and political traditions, Britain and the United States followed similar paths in the Progressive period. When U.S. Progressives sought models for beneficial changes in education, public health, and social services, they most often looked to Great Britain for examples. Germany, on the other hand, appeared to most Americans as an autocratic opponent of Progressivism 103


and an ‘‘obstacle to democracy.’’ U.S. opinion also opposed the ‘‘doctrine of militarism’’ primarily attributed to Germany.When the European war began, alleged German atrocities such as the sinking of the Lusitania and unrestricted submarine warfare dominated the pages of the nation’s press—especially in the eastern financial centers. These newspaper stories slowly reinforced anti-German perceptions and eroded the isolationist sentiments in the Midwest and South. Problems associated with the Mexican Revolution made little impact on most Americans until the appearance of the Zimmermann note in March 1917. From a regional perspective, however, Mexico played a substantive role on affairs and attitudes in Texas well before the revelation of Zimmermann’s decoded message. Texas continued to be a stronghold of isolationist sentiment as the nation moved toward intervention in Europe, but the disruptive events associated with the nearby Mexican Revolution inclined Texans toward war as a viable response to foreign problems.4 Measuring the popular opinion that existed in this era before scientific polls and surveys is difficult. The most accurate barometer for this period is a selection of daily newspapers, contemporary journals, and other recorded observations. Newspapers provide an especially important source because of their influence during this period of U.S. history. Texas, the most populous southern Democratic state, represents a definitive yardstick for public opinion and the press in the debate over United States’ entry into World War I. By 1914 Texas had the fifth-largest population among states, an estimated 4 million people. Although still rural, Texas began during the World War I era the monumental shift to an urban and more economically diversified economy. Over 100,000 people resided in its three largest cities (San Antonio, Dallas, and Houston). Although only half as populous as the largest Texas municipalities, El Paso—the westernmost city on the border with Mexico—played a pivotal role during the Mexican Revolution. In each of these growing metropolitan areas, independently owned daily newspapers were the primary source of news and entertainment for their readers. By 1912 the total circulation of newspapers inTexas exceeded 4 million copies per issue, thus equaling on a daily basis the number of residents in the state.5 The publishers and editors of the twentieth century in Texas represented a sharp departure from their counterparts of the prior century. These newspapermen considered themselves businessmen who provided more than news and editorial viewpoints. They counted their papers and editorial positions as pivotal to the future of the state. Politically, they remained traditional southern Democrats who enthusias104


tically supported President Wilson. They disagreed over controversial social issues such as Prohibition and women’s suffrage. However, they universally agreed on many of the era’s other Progressive ideas: industrial expansion and internal improvements to diversify a state still rooted to its rural, agricultural origins. At the outset of World War I, each newspaper predicted the war would increase demand for U.S. products and launch a new economic boom for manufactured goods and agricultural commodities. Europe represented a substantial overseas market for cotton, the number one cash crop produced by Texas farmers and other southerners. The war machines in Europe also needed petroleum, which was music to the ears of those in this new, rapidly expanding Texas industry. In late July 1914, Dallas Morning News president Caesar Lombardi toured Europe with his wife and family. He wrote News general manager George Dealey about the ‘‘exciting times,’’ as Austria and Serbia were teetering ‘‘on the verge of war.’’ Within days, nearly the whole continent of Europe had mobilized their armed forces. As the guns roared throughout Europe in August 1914, newspapers provided nearly all of the information Americans obtained about the war. Daily newspapers had made significant technological advances after the turn of the century in gathering news and distributing papers. Large dailies obtained information from overseas sources via the wire services and printed the stories in the headlines within hours of the actual event. Special trains distributed editions on a timely basis to readers around the state. Improved communication, printing, and distribution methods provided readers with timely, inexpensive newspapers as World War I began.6 News about the war came quickly and filled the front pages. Editors throughout the country exercised caution in choosing sides. The Literary Digest published a nationwide poll of 367 newspaper editors in November 1914 that reflected the initial reservations but showed a somewhat favorable disposition toward Britain. More than half the editors responded they were neutral, 105 favored the Allies, and 20 sided with Germany and the Central Powers. Sentiments among editors in Texas favored neutrality. As one Texas editor in the survey commented, ‘‘[T]he disposition is to shut up about the war and talk diversification of crops.’’ ThusWilson’s neutrality policy struck the right chord in the early months of World War I among the overwhelming majority of U.S. newspapers and their readers, including those in Texas.7 In the early weeks of the war, editors and readers struggled to learn about the war’s causes and understand the rapidly changing situation. Most news coverage originated with Associated Press stories assembled 105


from Allied information. Great Britain organized a special government office to distribute ‘‘reliable information’’ or favorable stories for the Allies whenever possible. In the earliest days of the war, the conflict disrupted Germany and Austrian news to the United States. The German ambassador complained to Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan that London sought to ‘‘give the erroneous impression that Germany precipitated the war.’’ Germany soon escalated its propaganda efforts to rival those of Britain in the battle for public opinion. The German Information Bureau in New York City distributed its version of stories to newspapers. Germany relied on its strong commercial presence, especially in the wealthy and influential brewing industry, to spread its war news.With its history of involvement in fighting the Prohibition movement, Texas alcohol distributors maintained a strong influence in German American communities in the state. All of the contesting nations sought to influence U.S. public opinion with nearly the same ferocity they exerted to persuade their own population. The major powers conducted their own war of words in U.S. newspapers as they battled across Europe.8 As the warring powers hurled charges at one another in the first weeks of conflict, Texas editors urged caution, forecast widespread destruction for Europe, and preached neutrality. The San Antonio Express wistfully hoped ‘‘the war will be of comparatively short duration’’ because a long conflict would bankrupt all Europe, ‘‘entailing more hardships than the world can bear.’’ The Houston Post editors blasted the antagonists on both sides and said ‘‘this greatest of all wars has no justification in reason or civilization’’ and that ‘‘history will indict monarchy for this orgy of murder.’’ The Houston Chronicle, noting an economic opportunity for Texans, said the nation would assist Europe in ‘‘her hour of need, and incidentally Europe will pay dearly for it.’’ The Dallas Morning News blamed previous and current European leaders for a ‘‘relapse into barbarism. It is the dead hand of the Past that grips the neck of Europe.’’ They labeled Germany’s invasion of Belgium as a ‘‘colossal blunder’’ that brought Britain into the war and hurt their cause with Americans. In a subsequent editorial, the News urged the United States to act as mediator and moderator between the warring nations for a settlement ‘‘that shall not be fatal to any.’’ Born in England, George Dealey sympathized with the Allies once the shooting started. But the News editorial policy bowed to the president’s call for neutrality in the early years of the war.9 Recognizing popular sentiment and undoubtedly following his own convictions, President Wilson announced his position in a widely publicized statement on neutrality on August 4, 1914. The proclamation 106


warned Americans against actively siding with any belligerent nation. In spite of calls for neutrality from the government and editorials, German Americans quickly voiced their anger over newspaper coverage of the war. Persons of Germanic descent composed part of the readership of all of the major daily newspapers in the eastern and central part of Texas. San Antonio witnessed the greatest debate, with its large number of German Texans, including an influential mercantile sector, and the Express carried their messages of protest. A mass meeting at the Hermann Sons’ Hall in San Antonio on August 15 issued a condemnation of Allied bias in news stories. ‘‘Germans and Austrians have full right to defend their existence,’’ they proclaimed. The U.S. press printed ‘‘falsehoods, which bring prejudice against the German nation and the German citizens of this country.’’ In an Express story alongside the local protest coverage, a German military spokesman charged that Britain and France purposely broadcast falsehoods about the conduct of the war.10 From the opening rounds in August 1914, the San Antonio daily carried the most front-page stories, photos, and commentary about Germanyand the Central Powers. On August 1, the Express’ lead storycarried the headline ‘‘Kaiser Is Ready to Wield Sword.’’ The daily’s first special section devoted to the war contained lengthy feature stories of enthusiastic, gleeful Germans parading in New York City with a ‘‘raging war spirit.’’ The Express reported in a front-page story the addition of a cable wire service that included war specials from London, Paris, Berlin, and all the other capitals of the major contestants. Shortly thereafter, the paper began a series of articles that detailed the experiences of a German army officer. In an editorial entitled ‘‘Let There be Justice,’’ Express editors criticized censored war news which resulted in ‘‘one sided, ex parte reports.’’ The newspaper issued a call for independent, impartial warcorrespondents who would provide reports ‘‘regardless of whose arms may be victorious and who is vanquished in each and every fray.’’ The large German commercial sector, combined with the substantial presence of German immigrants in Central Texas, maintained a strong influence on the San Antonio newspaper until the U.S. declaration of war in 1917.11 Other Texas dailies attempted to balance their coverage in reaction to complaints of bias in favor of Great Britain and France. The Dallas Morning News and the Houston Post carried stories within the first weeks that dealt with press censorship and complaints by the German government that they were being accused of causing the war. Germany belatedly attempted to label Britain as the aggressor. However, the News editors stated that should Germany lose, ‘‘one of the very considerable causes 107


of its misfortune [would be] the violation of its own agreement to observe the neutrality of Belgium.’’ In another editorial, the News predicted the war would ‘‘exhaust all of the participants.’’ The editors noted the need for ‘‘an international supreme court which would pass judgment on controversies that threaten the world’s peace.’’ 12 The Houston Post expressed ‘‘surprise’’ in the first weeks of the war that German Americans voiced discontent concerning news coverage. The Post editorials explained that no ban existed on coverage of German viewpoints and the daily maintained ‘‘no prejudice against the German people or the people of any nation involved in the war.’’ The rulers of the belligerent nations would have to shoulder the blame. However, the editors noted that the Associated Press admitted that the only official news of the war came from England and admitted the possibility of information that was ‘‘colored, perhaps exaggerated’’ due to government censorship. Editors urged patience and scrutinyof all war news.Throughout the early months of the war, banner headlines, photos, and extensive articles about the war in Europe dominated the pages of daily newspapers in Texas and the nation. From 1914 to 1917, the Dallas Morning News evolved as the leading pro-Allied publication in Texas. The two Houston newspapers maintained a more balanced position during this period.13 Americans believed the nation could avoid the conflict, but immediate concerns arose among business leaders and farmers over the impact to the nation’s commerce. The hope for immediate economic gains for Texans vanished almost as quickly as German troops rolled into Belgium and France. The British embargo of cotton shipments to Germany and Austria-Hungary alienated some Allied enthusiasts in the state. Texas produced over 4 million bales, one-fourth of the nation’s cotton crop in 1914. For a region still dependent on the commodity, initial fears broadcast doom and gloom for the economy. Governor Oscar Colquitt called an emergency session of the Texas legislature to create a state warehouse and banking program to alleviate the falling prices in the state. Colquitt’s ambitious plan was oddly reminiscent of supposedly radical Populist demands in the 1890s for central warehouses and direct lines for credits as tools for struggling farmers to increase crop prices—it gained little public or legislative support. ‘‘Many of Governor Colquitt’s most faithful friends are opposed’’ to his initiatives, the Houston Post observed. Houston state representative and businessman John Henry Kirby, a vocal opponent of the governor’s plan, predicted the crisis would end. ‘‘The war in Europe if long continued will be America’s opportunity in a business sense,’’ Kirby said in a statement representative of the business com108


munity. Nevertheless, the sudden fall in cotton prices sent political shock waves through the Wilson administration.When he failed to immediately recognize the problem and derailed protective legislation in Congress, critics quickly labeled Wilson as pro-British. Senator Morris Sheppard of Texas forwarded a letter from an East Texas farmer to the president that explained the scenario in simple terms. ‘‘We have the nation’s chief crop (cotton) which is practically a worthless commodity.’’ The cotton grower predicted problems at the polls in November 1914 because staunchTexas Democrats ‘‘will either vote a Republican or Socialist ticket if things don’t change by Nov. 3rd.’’ 14 Southern Democrats formed the backbone of the president’s popular and congressional support. As the first Democratic president in the twentieth century,Wilson was enthusiastically backed by southerners because of his ties to the region. They accepted Wilson’s Progressive reforms because they did not upset the existing power structure of planters, businessmen, professionals, and local officials. Federal expenditures drew official and editorial support from southerners because public works projects were viewed as favorable for business and expansion by newspapers and the business establishment. But the sudden decline in cotton prices in the fall of 1914 placed a strain on Wilson’s relations with southern leaders. Outgoing Governor Colquitt used the cotton crisis to launch one final blast at the Wilson administration. In remarks printed on front pages in Texas and in newspapers in the East, Colquitt described Wilson as ‘‘the greatest failure in the history of the presidency.’’ 15 The Houston Chronicle jumped toWilson’s defense and called the governor ‘‘the Benedict Arnold of democracy.’’ The Dallas Morning News described Colquitt’s charge ‘‘a libel on Texas and on every State of the South.’’ Colquitt’s attacks alienated most daily editors, but his final gubernatorial tirade against Wilson signaled the onset of problems for the administration in Texas.The president hoped increased Allied demands would reverse the declining cotton market. When southern businessmen advertised pledges to purchase bales of cotton in daily newspapers, Wilson joined them. In a letter to the Houston Chronicle, Wilson wrote, ‘‘Please enter me as a subscriber for a bale of cotton.’’ In spite of these private efforts at price stabilization, a vocal group of southern leaders, including Texans, launched the first wave of criticism directed at the administration. Congressmen Rufus Hardy, Martin Dies Sr., Oscar Callaway, Jeff McLemore, James Slayden, and J. H. ‘‘Cyclone’’ Davis became frequent critics of the Wilson administration’s domestic programs for the next two years.16 109


The cotton market stabilized when Britain, under pressure from the Wilson administration, agreed to purchase all of the prewar cotton orders of the Central Powers. Cotton prices increased in early 1916, but the sudden drop in prices in the previous year had a much longer impact. Historian Arthur S. Link noted the event left a ‘‘residue of intense anti-British sentiment’’ among southerners. Adding to Wilson’s headaches, the cotton crisis rekindled the animosity harbored by cotton farmers and many businessmen toward Northern financial centers. Most resented the concentration of money and power in the Northeast and brought this longstanding complaint into the fray. Even if most of these producers and businessmen retained cultural and economic ties with Britain, their positions floundered in the wake of the cotton embargo. In addition, ongoing complaints from German Americans struck a nerve. The U.S. sense of fair play, combined with the desire to remain aloof from the war, added to sentiments that favored neutrality. Texas newspapers reflected these opinions both in their news coverage and in theireditorials in the first year of the war. In spite of the hardships created by the cotton crash, popular opinion in the press inTexas and the rest of the South remained firmlyopposed to intervention in the European war.Wilson’s popularity remained high, but vocal opposition from Texas and other southern congressmen increased.17 Wilson’s neutrality policy faced one of its most difficult tests following the sinking of the Lusitania by a German submarine on May 7, 1915. The event created a national crisis and a severe trial of President Wilson’s leadership. At first, the press and public reaction condemned Germany. State Senator J. C. McNealus of Dallas made front-page news when he called the assault ‘‘unparalleled in modern times in the wantonness, the cruelty and the disregard of all civilized human promptings.’’ The Texas Senate passed a resolution urging the United States to declare war against Germany. The Dallas Morning News stated the attack was a ‘‘crime against civilization,’’ while the Houston Chronicle described it as ‘‘a blow to national dignity.’’ However, a few voices raised questions about the attack even as the Lusitania’s victims washed ashore. Governor James Ferguson urged caution and said people should not be ‘‘swayed or excited by the passions of the hour.’’ The Houston Post warned readers to ‘‘not be hasty in their judgment’’ and to place their confidence in President Wilson’s ‘‘wisdom, courage and patriotism.’’ 18 Within a few days, Germany accepted the responsibility for its submarine attack but claimed Britain had armed the Lusitania and stored ammunition in the hold of the passenger liner. News stories quoted Ger110


man officials who charged that the Cunard Line had recklessly exposed the passengers and that ‘‘they alone’’ bore ‘‘all the responsibility.’’ Not every Texan blamed Germany for the Lusitania’s sinking. Popular reaction in the following weeks illustrated the divisions that existed in the state. A letter to the Houston Chronicle said ‘‘the loss of American lives rests entirely and exclusively on the British government.’’ Another reader wrote that U.S. ammunition resulted in great losses to Germany on the battlefield. Before condemning those responsible for the Lusitania, the nation needed to confront its role as munitions supplier to the Allies. ‘‘We . . . should not be too hasty in our judgment of those who face death in dealing death, for home and native land.’’ Others placed responsibility directly on the German government. The ill-fated liner and loss of life was ‘‘an act of cruelty that will never be forgotten or forgiven.’’ 19 Texas editors pursued a cautious position. They condemned the attack while urging support for President Wilson’s policy of negotiation with Germany. After it had reacted to the horror of the passenger liner’s sinking, the Houston Chronicle sympathized with the German American community in Texas. In an editorial entitled ‘‘Our German American Citizens,’’ the Chronicle urged readers to consider those on which the ‘‘brunt of this crisis falls most heavily.’’ The editors said the attack should not lead to a break between America and Germany and noted the local community worked to ‘‘lessen antagonistic sentiment in this country.’’ However, this attitude did not mean that ‘‘their loyalty is in doubt should eventualities come to pass.’’ A month later, the San Antonio Express, still critical of Britain, continued to advocate neutrality while defending Germany. The reasons for neutrality ‘‘were as plentiful as blackberries.’’ The Express also praised Wilson’s leadership, stating, ‘‘All of us realize that there is a careful and judicious pilot at the helm of the ship of the state.’’ Many historians consider the sinking of the Lusitania a turning point in U.S. public opinion. However, reaction in Texas appeared to be for maintaining a neutral course in spite of the dramatic coverage of the sinking.20 After the sinking of the Lusitania, President Wilson sought to expand the nation’s land and naval forces. The president’s ‘‘preparedness’’ campaign appeared to some Americans to be a logical response to increased tensions. Critics, which included southern Democrats in Congress, saw the move as a step closer to war. The administration’s larger defense budget and proposed 400,000 reserve troops offended many Wilson supporters throughout Texas and the South. In spite of opposition to Wilson’s foreign policy among the majority of the Texas congressional delegation, Texas editors supported the president’s positions. 111


Wilson was ‘‘quite in line with the temper of the nation and the temper of the South,’’ the Houston Chronicle said in early January 1916. The Dallas Morning News and the Galveston News each ran a poll of readers which reportedly ran twenty to one in favor of Wilson’s stands. A preparedness rally in Dallas sponsored by the mayor and the Morning News drew thousands of people who supported the president. By February 1916, the Wilson administration appeared much closer to involvement with the Allies. The Houston and Dallas editors positioned themselves firmly in Wilson’s court on the preparedness issue, which placed them in direct opposition to most Texas congressmen.21 Most editors quickly criticized Texas Congressmen McLemore, Dies, and Callaway for their outspoken opposition to the preparedness program. The congressional critics believed that the nation faced no real threat from Germanyand that the federal budget adequatelycovered military expenditures. If increased funding for the army and navy had not improved defenses, Congressman Martin Dies Sr. asked, ‘‘what has been done with all these hundreds of millions of the people’s money.’’ However, others viewed this resistance as nothing more than disloyalty and recruited opponents for the anti-preparedness congressmen in the 1916 Democratic Primary elections. As illustrated by editorials in the Houston Chronicle, these representatives would ‘‘regret the day’’ of their criticism, as people in the South would stand with Wilson and ‘‘those who support him.’’ 22 Editorial condemnations failed to sway critics of Wilson’s preparedness program. Democrats who believed that the president’s position placed the nation on the path to war supported Congressman Jeff McLemore’s bill and a similar one in the Senate by Thomas P. Gore. The McLemore resolution required the president to warn Americans of the risks they assumed if they boarded an armed merchant ship. The Wilson administration viewed McLemore’s proposal as a challenge to the president’s authority over foreign policy. The Dallas Morning News recommended immediate rejection and called on Texans to back the president. According to the Houston Chronicle, congressional dissent by southern Democrats was ‘‘a weakness of which every red-blooded American should be heartily ashamed.’’ In spite of this claim, one Houstonian fired back that the American people opposed ‘‘militaristic expansion . . . we are still for right and justice by word, action and example than by the argument and display of cannon and bayonets.’’ McLemore’s resolution languished in committee and lost in a floor vote by a two-to-one margin. Nevertheless, the dissent from Dixie Democrats continued. Subma112


rine warfare that targeted ships carrying civilians offended many Texans and the press, but public resistance among southern Democrats to President Wilson brought a stronger reaction. Congressional criticism of the president seemed to arouse the concern of Texas daily newspaper editors much more than the threat of German torpedoes.23 Of the eight Texas congressmen who challenged Wilson, only two went down to defeat in the 1916 election. Congressman Oscar Callaway lost to a pro-Wilson Democrat, James C. Wilson, the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Texas. Congressman-at-Large J. H. ‘‘Cyclone’’ Davis finished third in his bid to retain one of the two at-large seats chosen by voters statewide. Callaway campaigned on the themes of opposing wasteful expenditures by the military and Northern businesses who profited from arms manufacture and trade. The incumbent won strong majorities of two to one in the rural counties but decisively lost in Fort Worth, Wilson’s home. Newspapers in his district actually carried few of Callaway’s speeches in which he opposed increased military expenditures. However, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram and one of his hometown papers, the Comanche Vanguard, strongly opposed his reelection because of his anti-preparedness stands. Opposition to Wilson undoubtedly contributed to Callaway’s downfall, but voters in his district’s rural counties still considered his influence and his antiwar stand more important to their individual interests.24 Cyclone Davis, a Prohibition supporter, blamed his defeat on ‘‘booze, boodle and big business’’ and the fact that the Democratic Party state chairman deleted ‘‘Cyclone,’’ his popular nickname, from the ballot.The omission obviously hurt the well-known incumbent, but having to run against two candidates from Houston—Jeff McLemore and Daniel Garrett—also hurt his cause. McLemore’s opposition to Wilson’s preparedness programs was well known to Texans, yet he won reelection to the at-large seat. The Dallas Morning News ridiculed Davis’ remarks and his loss to the ‘‘three-headed monster of iniquity.’’ Based on overall results of the summer primary, Texans in 1916 tipped the scales in favor of incumbents who brought home federal dollars for internal improvements and took care of local constituents, even if they opposed the president.25 Former governor Colquitt, a staunch Wilson critic, made headlines in his 1916 Senate race against incumbent senator Charles Culberson. In April 1916, the New York World reported a ‘‘national campaign under the direction of well known German-Americans to control elections in the United States.’’ Featured most prominently was U.S. Senate candidate Oscar B. Colquitt. The World charged that Colquitt solicited German 113


support, which made him ‘‘more loyal to the Kaiser and the German nation than his rival for the Senatorship.’’ With the close race in Texas, the World predicted the sizable German American vote in the state could elect Colquitt to the Senate. Colquitt’s campaign centered on his opposition to Wilson and Prohibition, ‘‘which brings him great favor with GermanAmerican voters.’’ The World reprinted letters from the Colquitt Campaign to Alphonse Koelble, a leader of the German-American Alliance, and Bernard H. Ridder, editor of the German newspaper Staats-Zeitung, requesting support. In each letter, Colquitt complained of attacks because of his unhappiness with the president’s handling of problems with Mexico. He also requested supporters to write letters to the editors of Texas newspapers printed in German. The editors and names of twentythree German-language papers were enclosed with the Colquitt Campaign letters. Many Texas daily newspapers carried the World’s story.26 In spite of these declarations, Colquitt appeared to be on his way to the U.S. Senate.With an aggressive campaign and strong organization, he finished ahead of an ailing Culberson by more than 120,000 votes.The German American community and other anti-Prohibition voters provided Colquitt with strong support. Colquitt’s long-standing position calling for U.S. intervention in Mexico also served him well among many voters concerned with increased hostilities along both sides of the Rio Grande. In the runoff with Culberson, German American organizations in the state openly endorsed Colquitt. At a speech before a German American organization in Houston, Colquitt reportedly asked for their support as he criticized Wilson’s pro-Allied positions. The Dallas Morning News described the runoff as a ‘‘question of support or opposition to the Wilson Administration.’’ Thanks to aggressive efforts by Culberson’s friends and theWilson administration, the incumbent managed to overcome Colquitt in a runoff election. Most of the state’s major newspapers sided with Culberson, including the San Antonio Express, the daily most supportive of Germany and the Central Powers. Governor Ferguson also parted company with Colquitt and declared for Culberson.27 The News pointed out the large number of German Americans who resided in the districts of Wilson critics. But other Texans also provided backing for the Wilson critics. This opposition included Socialists, strongly organized in a number of East and Central Texas communities, who fueled isolationist and anti-preparedness sentiments. Socialists organized demonstrations and distributed their newspapers, the Rebel, Appeal to Reason, and other publications which consistently preached against any involvement in the war. Many of their positions found a re114


ceptive audience with non-Socialists, especially tenant farmers and poor working people. This momentum from the left gave further political incentive to congressional opponents, especially in the first two years of the war. Never a majority, Socialist Party nominees ran strong in many rural counties. In the 1916 elections, many Socialists voted for incumbent anti-preparedness Democrats and President Wilson. As Rebel editor Tom Hickey noted, theWilson campaign slogan, ‘‘He kept us out of war,’’ proved to appeal toTexans of all political persuasions. President Wilson’s overall popularity with Texans and the daily press overrode concerns with his domestic and international positions.28 This continued partiality for Wilson resulted not just from party loyalty but another major factor largely overlooked in the Texas debate over neutrality versus preparedness. Most Texans viewed the border region with alarm and saw the area as an unprotected, open door to the southwestern United States. Wilson’s popularity in Texas undoubtedly came from Democratic loyaltyand his moralistic foreign policy. But his tougher policy with Mexico in the final months of 1915 contributed immensely to the president’s standing tall in the eyes of Texans and with the state’s major daily newspapers. Even Wilson’s critics in the Texas congressional delegation viewed the turmoil of the Mexican Revolution with alarm and joined in the condemnation of the war-torn nation. Most Texans supported Wilson’s national preparedness program as necessary groundwork for the battlefront along the Rio Grande, for the Mexican Revolution had spilled U.S. blood on both sides of the border. The Mexican Revolution that began in 1910 marked the first of the twentieth century’s remarkable national revolutions.The initial rebellion began against the authoritarian regime of General Porfirio Díaz, who had ruled the nation since 1876. Díaz brought stability to the young nation through investment from foreign nations, principally the United States. With U.S. capital, Díaz constructed Mexico’s first national system of railroads, which linked the country to the United States at three vital points: Laredo, El Paso, and Nogales. In addition to the railroads, Americans invested heavily in other areas such as petroleum, manufacturing, land, and cattle. By the turn of the century, many Mexicans felt their destiny was controlled by others, especially wealthy U.S. investors. Francisco I. Madero, a wealthy landowner in Mexico, challenged Díaz in the 1910 election. Díaz and his supporters dominated the electoral process and easily defeated Madero. The challenger concluded that armed revolt was the only recourse, and Madero left for San Antonio, where he devised the Plan de San Luis Potosí, the plot for the Mexican Revolution. 115


Madero’s revolt began in November 1910 and soon enlisted the support of other leaders, notably Francisco ‘‘Pancho’’ Villa, Emiliano Zapata, and Pascual Orozco. Their forces openly attacked government forces, and on May 25, 1911, Díaz abruptly resigned and left for Europe. Madero assumed the presidency, but revolts continued, even among his most notable supporters. Both the United States and Germany supported General Victoriano Huerta, who ordered the successful assassination of Mexico’s popular but besieged revolutionary president. The unpopular Huerta likewise failed to quell popular revolts and resigned as president in July 1914, departing Mexico on a German ship. Venustiano Carranza eventually succeeded Huerta, but clashes between the forces of Villa and Carranza in northern Mexico and battles between the Mexican Army and Zapata in the southern part of the embattled nation during 1915 and 1916 frequently appeared on the front pages. Because of its proximity to Mexico, Texas became both a sanctuary and a source of arms for competing factions in the Mexican Revolution.29 After Madero’s assassination, Mexican refugees inundated Texas. Exile communities took root in many border cities and counties. The Mexican Revolution evolved into a struggle among rival chieftains, each with his own agenda and with backers among these expatriates. From Texas, political exiles gave support to every major political and military figure in the revolution. Others who sympathized with the deposed Díaz utilized a Texas base to attack the various revolutionary governments that served in Mexico from 1910 to 1920. Many refugees integrated into existing Mexican American communities. Most read Spanish-language newspapers, some of which were owned by immigrants or refugees. Ignacio Lozano, editor of La Prensa in San Antonio, became the most influential. Eduardo Idar also served a broad audience with La Crónica in Laredo. The Spanish-language press reported on the revolution, generally supported the Huerta and Carranza governments, and denounced the repression of the Mexican exiles and the abuse of Tejanos at the hands of Anglo Texans. Both editors warned of the consequences of U.S. involvement in Mexico and criticized Texas daily newspaper calls for intervention. Attacks on Americans in Mexico and along the border in this period drew increased attention from the establishment press in Texas and the rest of the nation. Historian David Montejano called this turbulent period ‘‘one of the most dramatic episodes in the history of the Southwest.’’ 30 Even before the war in Europe began, Texas governor Oscar Colquitt declared that U.S. casualties and property losses in the Mexican Revolution had been seriously overlooked by Washington. Colquitt, a former 116


newspaperman turned politician, capitalized on his ability to generate headlines on this issue at the expense of President Wilson. During Colquitt’s first term, he preached armed intervention in Mexico as an appropriate response to Wilson’s policy of ‘‘watchful waiting.’’ In February 1914, Governor Colquitt received extensive press coverage with his claim that Mexican troops threatened Americans in Brownsville and Matamoros. When Washington did not respond to his pleas, the Texas governor sent four National Guard companies to ‘‘defend and protect the people of this state, whom I considered the national government to be neglecting.’’ Colquitt denied any plan to send troops across the Rio Grande, although the Morning News believed that he wanted ‘‘to send some rangers across the river’’ in response to a story of one Texan’s execution by Huerta’s soldiers. During his speech in Fort Worth to the Cattle Raisers Association of Texas, Colquitt described Wilson’s handling of Mexican affairs as ‘‘namby-pamby.’’ As he neared the end of his second term as governor, Colquitt saw the Mexican Revolution as his ticket to the U.S. Senate. Colquitt challenged Senator Morris Sheppard (D-Texas), a Wilson supporter, to resign his seat and debate ‘‘the Mexican situation’’ as a campaign issue.31 News stories of the violence against noncombatants increased. After Mexican troops allegedly kidnapped and murdered Texas rancher Clemente Vergarra in March 1914, reports circulated that Texas Rangers crossed the river to retrieve his body. Texas newspapers released Colquitt’s letter to Secretaryof State Bryan, which openlychallenged theWilson administration’s Mexican policies.When Colquitt requested Bryan’s permission to allow Texas Rangers across the border to apprehend Vergarra’s alleged killers, the Wilson administration feared an international confrontation over the ‘‘Vergarra Affair.’’ Colquitt complained that ‘‘bandits and marauders’’ from Mexico had destroyed millions of dollars in property that belonged to Texans. In addition, Colquitt charged that for the previous two years Mexicans had crossed the Rio Grande, kidnapped Texas ranchers, and ‘‘butchered defenseless citizens.’’ Because the federal government refused to act, Colquitt insisted the state had the right to cross the international boundary ‘‘in pursuit of those who commit depredations upon us.’’ 32 Reaction to Colquitt’s threats varied. The Houston Chronicle defended Wilson and accused the governor of ‘‘creating an international incident by the impetuous manner in which he tried to inject himself into the Mexican situation.’’ The Chronicle ridiculed the governor’s ploy and described the state’s militia under Colquitt’s administration as ‘‘zealously 117


neglected’’ and unprepared to confront Mexican troops. However, the Houston Post agreed with Colquitt, criticized the lack of federal troops on the border, and predicted events on the border could easily precipitate a war between the United States and Mexico. ‘‘TheTexas Revolution had for its cause no greater outrages than the abduction and murder of Vergarra,’’ the Post stated.33 Even after the army sent troops to the border, Governor Colquitt refused to withdraw the Rangers. He claimed that 100 Rangers could prevent more robberies and murders than 10,000 regular army troops. As family members reburied Vergarra’s body in Texas, the Colquitt-Wilson confrontation signaled the beginning of a series of political problems for the president in Texas. Governor Colquitt became one of the state’s first elected officials to draw attention to the impact of an international conflict on domestic affairs. Colquitt remained one of the most vocal Wilson critics and continued his denunciations after he left the governor’s office. He opened the door for other Texans to question Wilson’s foreign and domestic policies.34 Attacks on U.S. citizens received increasing coverage in Texas newspapers as the factional warfare continued. Typical of these stories was a page one article on March 26, 1915, in the Morning News. ‘‘American Flag Torn Down by Zapata Soldiers,’’ the News headline cried. Wire reports indicated that Zapata soldiers killed John B. McManus, a U.S. citizen in Mexico City, and then looted his house. Secretary of State Bryan planned an official protest to the Carranza administration. The News editors the following day wrote that the nation could not ‘‘afford to indulge in its sense of indignation, however great may be the provocation to do so.’’ However, the attack, along with similar incidents, increased the resolve to intervene in Mexico. ‘‘It will not be because of an indignity done to the flag by a mob of drunken peons,’’ the News stated. ‘‘If the United States shall go into Mexico, it will be to save the country from itself.’’ 35 After learning of the shootings of a number of Americans in Mexico, in June 1915 Governor James Ferguson asked President Wilson to station troops in the Big Bend region to protect residents and commerce. Just as Governor Colquitt had acted before him, the governor increased the number of Rangers assigned to the Rio Grande Valley. However, raids continued north of the Rio Grande throughout the summer as armed men attacked ranches, railroads, and small communities. News accounts attributed these conflicts to Mexican raiders. Local posses frequently rounded up local Mexican residents suspected of participating or assisting raiders. The Dallas Morning News commented on the ‘‘irony’’ of the 118


situation and the difficulties in identifying the ‘‘brigands’’ who brought depredations to the border region. Some accounts reported the attackers wereTexas residents who had voted in recent elections. Editors urged the state and national government to conduct a ‘‘thoroughgoing roundup’’ and take the ‘‘drastic, not to say ruthless, treatment that this situation has come to demand.That, in the long run, will be the quickest and most merciful way of handling it.’’ Shortly after these condemnations, the established press and government officials expressed shock when they learned of the Plan of San Diego, an organized effort to return all of Texas and the southwestern portion of the United States to Mexico by force of arms.36 Newspapers across the state reported the discovery of the Plan of San Diego in mid-August 1915. The San Antonio Express first carried information about the plan. Details came from an elderly, captured Mexican raider after an attack at Norias, sixty miles north of Brownsville, on August 9, 1915. José García told his U.S. captors he ‘‘had been forced to join the gang, which he said proposed to liberate that portion of Texas between the Rio Grande and Nueces River.’’ A few days later, major dailies displayed front-page stories on an organized effort conceived in the South Texas community of San Diego in January 1915. In a copy obtained by government officials and released to newspapers, the document called for a February 20 uprising against the United States that would free Mexicans from ‘‘Yankee Tyranny.’’ The plan called for the death of all ‘‘American’’ males in the border states older than sixteen. A new republic for ‘‘Mexicans, negroes, Japanese and Chinese’’ would be formed out of the states along the international border.37 The February 1915 planned uprising outlined in the Plan of San Diego never materialized, but the delayed news story provoked a strong reaction. In contrast to the measured response by Texans to the Lusitania attack in the summer of 1915, state leaders and the press generated a crisis atmosphere following revelations of the Plan of San Diego. Governor Ferguson told President Wilson of the ‘‘perilous and grave’’ conditions in South Texas. ‘‘I do not overdraw the picture when I say that a reign of terror exists on the Mexican border,’’ Ferguson stated in his appeal. The governor called for more U.S. troops along the entire border and promised to send his ‘‘best marksmen’’ from the Texas Rangers to the Valley. Congressman John Nance Garner of Uvalde called for a declaration of martial law. Thanks to widespread exposure of the Plan of San Diego’s details in the state’s newspapers, many Texans suddenly realized the necessityof a military buildup and even contemplated U.S. intervention into Mexico. These sentiments also inclined them toward supporting a mas119


The San Antonio Express proclaimed that the Mexican government supported raids north of the Rio Grande and called for more U.S. troops along the international border. Reprint courtesy CAH.

sive military buildup in preparation for entry into World War I, should the proper conditions arise.38 A quiet exception to the stampede for U.S. intervention was the response of Ellen Maury Slayden, wife of San Antonio congressman James L. Slayden. She regretted that news coverage moved the state and the nation ‘‘inexorably toward war’’ in Mexico. Furthermore, she noted that new rumors of a ‘‘Mexican uprising’’ on Diez y Seis Day (September 16), Mexico’s Independence Day, created still further overreaction by Texans. Slayden sarcastically noted that many feared they would be ‘‘murdered in their little beds’’ from the rumored attacks. ‘‘I cannot get alarmed, except for the poor flustered Mexicans, many of whom have been killed along the Rio Grande lately with small show of reason.’’ She also blamed the Wilson administration for making the situation worse. 120


Slayden believed both Americans and Mexicans were victimized by the ‘‘blundering and vacillation that our bleak Executive [Wilson] has chosen to call his ‘Mexican Policy’ for the last two years.’’ In spite of her misgivings, Slayden remained part of a distinct minority whose voices failed to be heard among the cries for retribution.39 ‘‘There should be no halfway methods used in clearing out the bandits now terrorizing the Rio Grande Valley,’’ the San Antonio Express proclaimed. ‘‘The lesson, to be effective, must be thorough.’’ In an area with a heavily Mexican American majority population, the Express predicted ‘‘terrible consequences’’ if the ‘‘ignorance-blinded fanatics’’ of the Plan of San Diego gained a foothold. Front-page articles linked the Carranza administration to the plan following confessions of captured Mexicans. Congressman John Nance Garner openly accused Mexican government authorities of being responsible for the ‘‘bandit outrages.’’ The Dallas Morning News interpreted the plan as an expression of ‘‘the hatred of Mexicans for the United States.’’ As justification for U.S. Army troops, the News stated the plan resembled a ‘‘foreign invasion’’ that sought to influence Mexicans in Texas ‘‘who are an easy prey to the delusion that they can replant their flag on this side of the Rio Grande.’’ 40 Retaliation by U.S. troops, Texas Rangers, and civilian posses began quickly, even though the raids had subsided. J. M. Fox, a Texas Ranger captain, told the San Antonio Express, ‘‘[W]e got another Mexican—but he’s dead.’’ A similar report by local law enforcement officials in Brownsville stated that following the apprehension of two Mexicans, ‘‘they tried to escape’’ and both of the suspects were killed. The news article further stated, ‘‘We could not identify them, so we left them there.’’ In San Antonio, police arrested local leaders suspected of supporting the Plan of San Diego. The suspects held copies of a pamphlet entitled Lucha de clases (Struggle of the Classes). Although stories of widespread panic and alleged sightings of armed bands came in from many Valley towns for several weeks, few attacks actually occurred. But Texas newspapers kept up the campaign in favor of intervention. Several dailies displayed photos of Texas Rangers in front of the bodies of dead Mexicans. Ropes from the Rangers’ horses led to the ‘‘bandits,’’ bound and lifeless on the ground. Across the border, U.S. citizens in Mexico reported that Carranza’s soldiers threatened them with reprisals because of the photos and stories that were appearing in Texas newspapers. U.S. military observers concluded the ongoing violence resulted from discrimination by whites against all Mexicans and Tejanos in an area described as a virtual ‘‘war zone.’’ 41 121


Most editorials and articles in Texas daily newspapers blamed the problems on lawlessness, the unrest created by the Mexican Revolution, and the inability of Mexican Americans to determine their own futures. ‘‘The ignorance and the embittered prejudice of the peon against Americans makes a kind of tinder that is easily lighted,’’ the Morning News concluded. The newspaper reported that most Mexicans came to the state to work and sometimes to vote. ‘‘Both as laborers and voters they are not highly efficient, perhaps, but cheap, and even profitable.’’ The News observed that popular indignation should ‘‘be tempered by a sense of our own culpability.’’ None of the other Texas daily newspaper editors suggested the living and working conditions in South Texas as a source of friction. But whatever they considered the cause, editors called for a quick, firm response from government officials. Crushing the raiders and eliminating the offenders became the dominant demand from Anglo Texas. Otherwise, the News warned, the Plan of San Diego would still be ‘‘capable of inciting Mexicans on both sides of the Rio Grande to acts of violence against the people of this country.’’ 42 As the violence increased in South Texas, law enforcement authorities made wholesale arrests of suspected Mexican insurrectionists, with some executed upon apprehension. Thousands fled the state. The San Antonio Express in September 1915 reported that the ‘‘finding of dead bodies of Mexicans suspected for various reasons of being connected with the troubles has reached a point where it creates little or no interest.’’ According to Texas historian Walter Prescott Webb, at least 500 and perhaps as many as 5,000 Mexicans were killed, while the number of white residents and soldiers slain was under 200.The Express stated that ‘‘not an innocent Mexican citizen has suffered,’’ as reprisals were resorted to only ‘‘in pursuit of bandits or in defense of life and property.’’ However, later historians have determined the death toll among Mexicans and Tejanos was imprecise and may have been greater than reported.43 The Houston Chronicle branded the insufficient number of federal troops along the Rio Grande as an invitation for trouble. The Chronicle believed that Mexico perceived this absence as ‘‘evidence of weakness and fear’’ on the part of the United States and issued a call to arms: ‘‘If intervention must come, most of us would prefer to see the United States go into Mexico rather than see Mexico come into the United States.’’ The Chronicle stated that U.S. investment and the arrival of railroads and commercial farming reversed the economic stagnation and improved the quality of life of South Texas. This ‘‘civilized life’’ brought waterworks, ice plants, electricity, and other improvements that made the re122


gion ‘‘one of the most progressive sections of Texas, and this, too, despite the handicap of a large and ignorant Mexican population.’’ The increased wealth and lack of defense left ‘‘ignorant and illiterate Mexicans on both sides of the Rio Grande’’ the awareness ‘‘that they could raise a little hell and secure a little plunder with immunity, and they tried it.’’ Texas newspapermen viewed peaceful expansion, expanded business, and prosperity as a vital part of Progressive reform. The Mexican Revolution appeared as the antithesis to ideas of Progressive change. To many Texans who felt threatened by the upheaval, military intervention by the United States appeared to be a plausible solution.44 Although Texas editors continued to condemn wartime atrocities in Europe and preach neutrality, the same newspapers justified wholesale armed reprisals against Mexico. Texas newspapers steadily increased their rhetoric against Mexico as they continued to temper comments about the war overseas. The European war seemed distant, but the revolution in Mexico appeared far more threatening to Texans as the violence spilled into the state. Fears of a Mexican uprising, especially in SouthTexas wherewhiteTexans remained a distinct minority, made their way into the news and editorials of the major dailies. Editors pummeled Mexico, as they believed the attacks and the rumors of revolts represented a threat to the life, stability, and economic growth of the region. As the Morning News concluded, the violence amounted to a ‘‘foreign invasion, and it is the duty of the Government to protect the State from invasion.’’ Texans interpreted the violence as an indicator of the Carranza administration’s ineptitude. In their haste to condemn the Mexican government, none of the Texas editors linked the violence in 1915 to Carranza’s efforts to achieve recognition for his government. However, the violence in South Texas subsided after the Wilson administration recognized the Carranza government—a clear indicator that the regime in Mexico City played a determining role in the events along the Rio Grande.45 The only exception to these newspaper attacks on Mexico and calls for intervention was Pancho Villa, who courted the U.S. press. Villa clearly understood the critical necessity of both battling for victory in the fields and winning the war for public opinion. Villa worked to promote his image in the United States and especially Texas in the early years of the Revolution. He gave $1,000 to El Paso charity groups assisting women and children in prison camps. He frequently met with local officials and had a well-publicized meeting with El Paso mayor C. E. Kelly on the international bridge in November 1913. He told George Carothers of the U.S. State Department that he would not be ‘‘dragged into a war with 123


the U.S. by anybody.’’ El Paso served as a major supply center for Villa. The El Paso newspapers recognized the tremendous economic boom the conflict brought to their community.46 The El Paso Times provided ample evidence of Villa’s popular support in the northern Mexican state of Chihuahua. Villa confiscated the large haciendas and properties of the wealthiest landowners. But these seizures came at the expense of Mexican owners, not Americans whose support Villa still desired.Villa failed on his revolutionary promise to distribute land, but he delivered much-needed food to thousands of povertystricken Mexicans. In late 1913, he provided beef to urban and rural residents at a reduced price, thanks to the plentiful supply of cattle on the ranches under Villista control. ‘‘Unemployed Mexicans of the devastated lumber camps and mines are being given daily rations,’’ the El Paso Times reported. As a result of this generosity, thousands joined his forces and thousands more supported the revolutionary leader. Equally important to him, he gained favorable coverage in newspapers in Texas and the Southwest. Wholesale redistribution of lands and other radical reforms took a backseat to Villa’s strategic needs by 1915, as he was also fighting to deny U.S. recognition of the Carranza administration. But defeats in the field and well-publicized U.S. losses in the region gradually increased the pressure on the revolutionary leader and threatened his positive image in the U.S. press. Eventually, Villa joined the Texas and U.S. roster of dangerous revolutionaries.47 As long as Villa remained entrenched along the border, President Carranza faced increased criticism from Texas and the U.S. press for his inability to control the chaos. Texas newspaper accounts contradicted Carranza’s claims that Chihuahua was ‘‘completely pacified’’ and that government troops had Pancho Villa on the ropes. Many perceived Carranza’s inability to suppress Pancho Villa in the north as a further indication of the need for intervention. The Carranza government recognized it faced a two-front war: on the battlefields of Mexico and over public opinion in the United States. The Carranza government increased its efforts to supply news to the press in order to improve his image and offset stories from the more colorful Villa, who remained a more popular figure thanks to coverage by U.S. newspapers. Wilson administration officials and senior military officers initially favored Villa, but attitudes shifted after the U.S. president recognized Carranza and his constitutionalist government in October 1915. Villa resented the move and realized his days could be numbered as he contemplated his future.48 124


In a November 2, 1915, editorial, the El Paso Morning Times downplayed reports of Villa’s threats of retaliation against the United States. The editors discounted the claim he made following the Wilson administration’s recognition of Carranza that he would ‘‘whip the United States Army.’’ Villa’s losses in the field during the summerof 1915 forced a retreat to the arid mountains of Chihuahua and Coahuila near the Texas border. The newspaper stated that the Carranza administration, not Villa, maintained responsibility for any ‘‘disorders’’ that harmed Americans or their property in Mexico. ‘‘In the meantime, Villa will, perhaps, have something more to say,’’ the editors predicted, but they doubted his desire to confront the United States. The editors believed Villa’s reliance on Texas and the United States for weapons and sanctuary would offset his anger over the Carranza recognition. However, Villa realized his weakened position required bold action or his revolutionary days would quickly end. He also harbored suspicions that Carranza had bargained away Mexican territory in exchange for recognition. Desertion among Villa’s troops and officers increased. Rumors reported in El Paso newspapers described ‘‘rainy day’’ money hidden in the city should Villa and his followers flee north of the Rio Grande. The El Paso Herald reported that some of Villa’s former friends now described him as a ‘‘savage animal at bay’’ who would strike ‘‘anything and everything’’ that came near him. Others told the newspaper Villa seemed prepared to take ‘‘rash steps.’’ In January 1916, a group of Villistas stopped a train in Chihuahua, forced the Americans from the train, and then executed all but one of the group.The incident served as a harbinger of an attack that galvanized the nation.49 U.S. newspapers registered shock and indignation as they reported Pancho Villa’s foray across the border to Columbus, New Mexico, in March 1916. With banner headlines similar to those that announced the opening shots of World War I, the state’s dailies provided extensive coverage and commentary. Villa’s attack on March 9, 1916, completely surprised the community and the U.S. Army. About 500 men ransacked the city and killed 16 Americans. Every daily newspaper in the state devoted extensive coverage and commentary to the startling attack.The San Antonio Express urged Washington to act swiftly to stop ‘‘the long reign of banditry’’ and take Villa and his sympathizers ‘‘dead or alive.’’ Because the Mexican government appeared unable to control or defeat Villa, the Morning News called for the United States to ‘‘use its own forces to do what Carranza has failed to do, even in the face of Carranza’s protest.’’ The News also warned that if Carranza resisted the U.S. troops, ‘‘the 125


action may lead to events which would culminate in intervention.’’ The Houston Post proclaimed that former governor Colquitt’s demands for troops along the border was ‘‘vindicated.’’ 50 FollowingVilla’s raid, President Wilson quickly ordered General John Pershing and 10,000 U.S. army troops into Mexico in ‘‘hot pursuit’’ of the Villistas. ‘‘The situation is an explosive one,’’ the Morning News said. The Dallas daily ran front-page cartoons which illustrated the difficulties facing U.S. troops. One showed a wary Uncle Sam reaching into a patch of prickly pear cactus for a sombrero-topped figure clutching a knife. Another cartoon, entitled ‘‘Villa’s Chief Ally,’’ portrayed a caricature of Villa handing a rifle to barefoot man labeled ‘‘Ignorant Class.’’ Villa says, ‘‘Death to the gringos! Theyare invading ourcountry.’’ Even after theWilson administration reached an agreement with Carranza’s government to allow Pershing’s troops to find Villa, no one could predict how the Mexican population would receive Pershing’s force. Most editors chose to aim their sights at Congress for neglecting the border situation because of the debate over preparedness. ‘‘Thewhole episode offers a complete and emphatic answer to the opponents of preparedness,’’ the Houston Chronicle replied. ‘‘We are not even prepared to undertake a punitive expedition into a weak and war-ridden country on short notice.’’ 51 In the days and weeks that followed, many unsubstantiated stories appeared about the elusive Villa. He appeared in dozens of locations, had been captured, wounded, trapped, strangled, and defeated. Contradictory stories about Villa, the condition of the U.S. troops, and rumors of attacks along the border appeared almost daily. The uncertainties created confusion in the editorial offices and concern in the Wilson administration. ‘‘Out of Mexico we get little or no news,’’ the Morning News complained. But they received a ‘‘large quantity and varied assortment of guesses as to what is happening and what is going to happen in Mexico.’’ The Dallas editors believed much of the unsubstantiated gossip originated in ‘‘the busy lie factories’’ of El Paso ‘‘for the very purpose of forcing intervention.’’ Even as they recognized the problem, the stories continued to dominate the front pages. A frustrated El Paso businessman seemed to echo popular sentiment about Pershing’s difficulties. W. H. Aldridge wrote Congressman-at-Large Jeff McLemore, ‘‘[T]he people will have to depend on themselves when the time comes, and not the army.’’ A March 11, 1916, El Paso Herald editorial complained that the city appeared to outsiders as ‘‘a little frontier settlement inhabited chiefly by adventurers and fugitives from justice.’’ 52 Wilson recognized the military difficulties and the political traps along 126


the border. In his Statement and Warning that he gave the press, Wilson explained the Mexico expedition was for the ‘‘single purpose of taking the bandit Villa . . . and is in no sense intended as an invasion of the republic.’’ He also requested the media to withhold publication of troop movements and warned of ‘‘sinister and unscrupulous interests’’ spreading alarmist reports. Wilson asked the press to refrain from publishing ‘‘unverified rumors of unrest in Mexico.’’ Editorial commentary heartily approved of Wilson’s statements.Texas editors aimed their barbs at their congressmen who opposed Wilson’s preparedness policy. They blamed Washington for inadequate troops and supplies on the Mexican border. Wilson understood the mood in Texas and capitalized on the agitation that pervaded popular opinion. Shortly before Villa’s raid, Wilson told East Texas congressman Alexander White Clegg that some of his Texas colleagues did not understand ‘‘the real sentiment of the people at home.’’ Fact and fiction from Mexico fueled the fires for preparedness.53 While Pershing’s force tracked Villa across the remorseless deserts of Chihuahua, another attack on May 5, 1916, by Mexican forces occurred north of the border in the remote villages of Glenn Spring and Boquillas in the Big Bend region.The small U.S. garrison at Glenn Spring included nine soldiers of the Fourteenth Cavalry. The troopers took shelter in an adobe building following the nighttime assault by fifty raiders, although some accounts said as many as several hundred Mexicans participated in the foray. The attackers killed three soldiers and wounded four others. Two civilians, including a ten-year-old boy, also died in nearby Boquillas. The Wilson administration and the military again blamed the conflict on Villa. Governor Ferguson expressed the feelings of many when he advocated U.S. intervention in Mexico to ‘‘assume control of that unfortunate country.’’ As J. S. M. McKamey, a banker in the South Texas community of Gregory, concluded, ‘‘[W]e ought to take the countryoverand keep it.’’ As an alternative, McKamey told Congressman McLemore the United States should ‘‘buy a few of the northern states of Mexico,’’ because it would be ‘‘cheaper than going to war.’’ The San Antonio Express urged the Mexican government to cooperate with Pershing’s force, in pursuit of those who participated in ‘‘organized murder, plundering and property destruction.’’ 54 Texas newspapers provided ample coverage of border conflicts and Pershing’s expedition throughout 1916. In contrast, very little coverage appeared on the Mexican Constitutional Convention in Querétaro during this same period. As Pershing’s forces trudged across the northern deserts and mountains, Mexican delegates sought to incorporate social 127


and economic reforms that covered landownership, labor, and restricting foreign investment. Most of these ideas ran contrary to U.S. concepts of private ownership and Progressive reform. The Texas press, similar to the Wilson administration, saw the Revolution primarily as a threat to U.S. property and lives on both sides of the Rio Grande. Newspaper stories not only displayed the inherent mistrust of Mexico and its people, but also revealed the fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the Mexican Revolution itself. Public attention remained focused on the violence and on Pershing’s attempts to corner Villa. During Pershing’s intervention, a joint commission composed of appointees from both nations failed to reach any resolution over the right of the United States to keep troops in Mexico.55 The U.S. force spent the rest of 1916 in the deserts and mountains of northern Mexico, where they sparred with the elusive Villa and also fought units of Carranza’s army. ‘‘Our army would be the laughing stock of the whole world were Villa and his band of cut-throats to make good their escape,’’ the State Topics journal commented on Pershing’s efforts. This expedition and the military buildup in Texas occurred at the same time Wilson preached neutrality in the European war and ran for reelection on the slogan ‘‘He kept us out of war.’’ Wilson also ordered the National Guard to reinforce the army on the border, and it remained there from May 1916 to March 1917. Texas newspapers interpreted this escalation as further evidence of Wilson’s policy of national preparedness, tailored in this instance to protect the southern border.56 By the end of July 1916, over 100,000 guardsmen patrolled the international boundary.Troops assembled at San Antonio and staffed a dozen new camps along the Rio Grande in the Big Bend region. The San Antonio Express, enjoying the city’s notoriety, boasted of the score of newspapermen and new arrivals in San Antonio. Throughout the summer of 1916, headlines such as ‘‘Another Bandit Raid on Border’’ and ‘‘Troopers Swear Mexicans Killed Injured Comrades’’ kept tensions alive during the important election year. Even Congressman Cyclone Davis, a thorn in the side of the Wilson administration, called for intervention in Mexico. His position indicated that even the strongest Texas opponents of national preparedness supported armed escalation and intervention because of the border crisis. Wilson’s aggressive actions toward Mexico in the months before the general election certainly added to his popularity in Texas. The president’s moves also forced the administration’s congressional opponents to curtail their opposition to increased military expenditures. In the 1916 U.S. Senate runoff election, Wilson supporters 128


accused former governor Colquitt of ‘‘carrying the Mexican vote.’’ Colquitt’s criticism of Wilson’s Mexican policy came back to haunt him as Senator Culberson used the issue to win reelection. After nine months in northern Mexico, Pershing’s force returned to Fort Bliss in El Paso without Villa, early in 1917. Troops stationed along the border remained until 1920, long after U.S. soldiers returned from Europe.57 As a result of the ongoing conflicts with Mexico, Texas became a central training center for the nation’s military well in advance of the United States’ entry intoWorld War I in April 1917.Texas businesses enjoyed the new prosperity that resulted from the military buildup. Attitudes sharpened among Texans as tensions along the border increased and newspapers focused on the upheaval in Mexico. Thus, by 1916 the Mexican Revolution became the dominant issue in Texas. Events associated with Mexico overshadowed the war across the Atlantic on the front pages of Texas daily newspapers and in the minds of everyday Texans. What had largely been a regional concern with Mexico soon became national in scope, with the release of the Zimmermann telegram in March 1917. Only weeks after Pershing’s return to U.S. soil in January 1917, revelations of Germany’s plan for Mexico made national headlines. British intelligence deciphered German secretary of state Arthur Zimmermann’s coded transmission to his ambassadors in Washington and Mexico City. The British then passed the contents to the Wilson administration, who released the text of the message on March 1, 1917. The plan called on Mexico to reconquer ‘‘the lost territories of Texas, New Mexico and Arizona.’’ The proposal promised Mexico that if that nation sided with Germany and encouraged Japan to join the Central Powers, Germany would provide ‘‘generous financial assistance.’’ British intelligence intercepted the message and sent its contents to President Wilson only a few days before he took his second oath of office. Neither the Mexican nor the Japanese governments knew of its contents until they were publicized by the Wilson administration. The story hit the streets of Texas with the force of a political hurricane.58 Widespread public indignation erupted inTexas and across the nation when Germany’s proposal became front-page news in March 1917. Many Texas newspapers reacted with alarm and the story inflamed passions across the state.The Dallas Morning News devoted its entire front page to the startling news. A page one illustration entitled ‘‘TheTemptation’’ pictured a horned German figure offering a bag of money to a man wearing a sombrero. The devil character pointed toward a map with Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. Editors linked the plan to other German ‘‘atroci129


The Houston Post and other Texas dailies expressed outrage over the reported alliance between Germany and Mexico. Reprint courtesy CAH.

ties’’ and described the plan as ‘‘an act of hostility, a true casus belli.’’ Divisions in Mexico made the plan’s execution unlikely, but Germany’s effort fed on ‘‘the traditional animosity that is felt toward the United States by so many of the ignorant masses.’’ The Houston Post declared in its banner headline, ‘‘Germany Plotted against U.S.’’ The Post editors denounced Germany and declared that Zimmermann was ‘‘utterly ignorant of conditions in Mexico’’ if he believed the Carranza government could undertake an invasion of Texas and the rest of the Southwest. The San Antonio Express, which also carried extensive news of the conspiracy, delayed comment on its editorial page for several weeks. The editors still wished to avoid offending the influential German mercantile community.59 Shortly after the Zimmermann revelation, the Morning News declared that ‘‘this country is in reality at war now.’’ The revelation readily confirmed earlier calls byTexas editors for a military buildup based on events in Mexico. The Dallas daily concluded that a de facto war already existed between the United States and Germany. ‘‘Mexico was our first mistake,’’ 130


the News said as it linked the border nation to Germany. In the editor’s view, the nation’s overly tolerant policy toward Mexico reflected similar restraint with Germany, which continuously tested U.S. neutrality with its submarine attacks and diplomatic shenanigans. The News remarked that following the diplomatic high road resulted only in insults from Mexico. Also, the editors believed that in far too manycases Mexico’s official actions resembled statements and positions taken by Berlin. Along with its prediction of U.S. entry into World War I on the side of the Allies, the News observed that the patient policy in dealing with Mexico had been an unfortunate mistake. ‘‘We should have taken action at the beginning of troubles,’’ the News declared after a review of events in Mexico.The conclusion echoed opinions held by a great majority of Texans by this time. The years of revolutionary activity in Mexico that produced the fear and anxiety in the state now encouraged Texans to forsake their misgivings about intervention in foreign affairs. Instead of having reservations, Texans were now predisposed to intervene against foreign powers.60 For the next few weeks, the major Texas dailies kept up a steady drumbeat of stories linking Mexico with Germany. ‘‘[I]t is not fantastic to believe that much of the trouble we have had with Mexico has been the result of German propaganda and German bribery,’’ the Morning News declared. The Houston and Dallas dailies stoked the fires as often as possible as they linked the German intrigue in Mexico with submarine warfare and other efforts by the Central Powers that took advantage of poorer, neutral nations. Front-page editorial statements reinforced hostilities. The News carried a page one illustration of a German submarine sailing away from three sinking, unarmed U.S. ships.The News stated the Zimmermann affair was the final ‘‘unprovoked act of aggression’’ and that Americans should ‘‘recognize the fact that Germany is already making waron the United States.’’ The News added, ‘‘It is not extravagant to think that German agents have been financing Villa for a year or more, and that his raid on Columbus is chargeable to German instigation.’’ 61 President Wilson, who campaigned in 1916 on his ability to keep the nation out of the European conflict, reversed his stance and asked Congress to declare war on Germany in April 1917. The president listed the Zimmermann telegram and its threats against U.S. securityamong his reasons for wanting to abandon neutrality and enter the war. The president listed many other reasons, but the one that mattered the most to many Texans was Germany’s ties to the government in Mexico City. Germany, based on its record in Mexico, posed a real threat as both an external 131


and internal enemy. The San Antonio Express noted that ‘‘Dr. Zimmermann’s error’’ conclusively linked the unpopular Mexican regime to Germany. ‘‘The quarrel is against the Prussian government, not the German people,’’ the Express editors explained in their justification of Wilson’s declaration of war. ‘‘It is not a time for doubt or impatience as to the activities of the powers that be at Washington,’’ the Express concluded. Following release of the Zimmermann telegram, Ellen Maury Slayden noted the grim tone of the nation’s capital. She wrote that her husband called the German government ‘‘fools to believe that poor war-wrecked Mexico could be of use to them!’’ Even the most ardent peace advocates acknowledged that war seemed inevitable.62 President Wilson and his military leaders on the Mexican border utilized the instability created by the revolution to build popular support for preparedness in Texas and the rest of the nation. The administration enlisted the willing support of Texas daily newspapers in the effort to win public opinion and overcome the opposition to military escalation. With the revelation of the Zimmermann message, most Texans believed that Mexico’s neutrality existed only on paper and was conveniently ignored when opportunity appeared in the form of German arms and money. By this time, Germany had established a strong presence in Mexico’s affairs and was influencing the news in thewar-ravaged nation.Texas daily newspapers and their leadership interpreted anti-U.S. sentiment in Mexico and among Mexican Americans as partiality to Germany. This equation added to the suspicions harbored by Texans that Germany maintained a greater influence than Washington in Mexico’s future. German officials and spies operated in Mexico and directed sabotage in the United States, but never to the extent that many in Texas imagined. After the war, the Wilson administration disclosed detailed information acquired on German activities in Mexico. Germany coordinated its antiAllied news with its embassies and consulates, but their efforts never appeared to dramatically alter critical events in Mexico that had an impact on the United States. Friction erupting from the Mexican Revolution provided the real stimulus for newspaper stories and editorials in Texas, not the prodding from the German government and its news agency. These articles reflected the entrenched prejudice toward Mexico and all persons of Hispanic descent that most Anglo Texans held. After years of stories that included atrocities, murders, and destruction, state government officials and business leadership seemed to agree that Mexico lacked the ability to govern itself. These leaders believed that only the intervention 132


of the United States government and a return of U.S. business would offer relief to the war-torn nation. President Wilson asked Congress for a declaration of war against Germany on April 2, 1917. Congress provided one a few days later. His war message received the praise and endorsement of Texas’ leading newspapers. Editorials condemned German ‘‘lawlessness,’’ ‘‘brutality,’’ ‘‘inhumanity,’’ and attacks on the nation’s neutrality. Editors directed their criticism at the German government and its ‘‘Prussian’’ and ‘‘militaristic’’ rulers. Even the Dallas Morning News, the most pro-war daily in the state, endorsed Wilson’s call ‘‘not to crush the German people’’ but to destroy the German government, the ‘‘blight on the world’s civilization.’’ The conflict in Mexico and German involvement remained in the forefront. Even as the nation began to mobilize for the battle overseas, Texas editors urged people to keep a sharp eye on the Rio Grande. The Dallas Morning News said Germany ‘‘has made war on us at home with torch and bomb’’ and reminded its readers of the Zimmermann intrigue. ‘‘We may find an enemy closer to us than any European power,’’ the Houston Post surmised. ‘‘War upon the fields of Texas is not beyond the powers of the imagination. Home guards may be needed.’’ 63 As a notice to those still opposed to the war, the state’s newspapers immediately issued warnings against suspected traitors. ‘‘German subjects or sympathizers who speak in terms of contempt of the government and country whose hospitality they enjoy must expect unpleasant treatment,’’ the Houston Post darkly hinted. Disparaging remarks against the war effort invited retaliation. Congressman McLemore, the only Texan who opposed the war resolution, received tremendous criticism from Dallas and Houston dailies. The Dallas Morning News and other southern newspapers notified readers of attempts by ‘‘German agents to stir up Negroes.’’ U.S. government agents reported that clandestine efforts by Germans in the South had resulted in a plan to lure African Americans to Mexico ‘‘with a view to crippling industries in the south which depend on negro labor.’’ Other news stories in April 1917 warned of Mexican troop movements close to the Rio Grande. Unverified incidents and rumors about invasion from Mexico continued to appear in the news that fueled wartime fervor in Texas.64 Texas newspapermen championed the United States’ entry intoWorld War I for ‘‘defense of liberty.’’ With enthusiastic support from the state’s newspapers, nearly a million Texans volunteered for military service and entered the draft and several hundred thousand saw active service. The 133


Wilson administration continued to show its gratitude to Texas as increased funding for military bases, supplies, and internal improvements poured into the state, a process acceleratingTexas industrialization. Also, the anti-preparedness Texas congressmen who won reelection in 1916 suffered a different fate in 1918. Roundly criticized by the state’s dailies, McLemore, Slayden, and Dies departed the political scene either through retirement or losing in the Democratic Primary. With the ouster of these congressmen, the major daily newspaper publishers solidified their relationships with friendly incumbent congressmen, who received ongoing support through editorials and extensive coverage. Texans pointed to years of conflict along the border as evidence that the struggle had indeed landed on the shores of the United States long before its official entry into the war in April 1917. Once Texans looked south at the political unrest and revolution in Mexico, news stories and editorials stirred an enthusiastic response among the state’s citizenry that had once harbored strong reservations over a large national military. Southern support for a larger military in these years paved the way for southern Democrats, long marginalized in national debate, to reenter the national mainstream. Just over a decade later, southern Democrats, led by the Texas congressional delegation, played a lead role in the early New Deal coalition. The groundwork for this had been laid when affairs in Mexico and along the Rio Grande provided Texans with a particular awareness of the necessity for preparedness and armed intervention, events necessitating a growth in federal power and investment in the state. Bitterness over the legacy of World War I led in the 1920s to a reactionary resurgence represented by groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. For the rest of the twentieth century, the Texas upper classes remained divided. On one side stood reactionary conservatives who saw increased federal power and spending as dangerous portents of socialism and social equality. On the other stood modernizing elites who saw a more involved federal government as a stabilizing force and a partner of big business in promoting the expansion of the state’s economy. Still facing opposition, modernizing elites, backed by the state’s major newspaper publishers, would be able to defeat reactionary forces like the Ku Klux Klan and reassert political control by the end of the 1920s, but only after a long and very public battle.

134

CHAPTER 5

The Forces of Traditionalism and the Challenge from the Invisible Empire The Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s represented a threat to the commerce and social structure of a rapidly changing state and nation. The rise and fall of the Klan in Texas and the United States and its representation in the press mark a newchapter in media history. The return of prosperity in the mid-1920s and the rise of business Progressivism quieted the most reactionary pleadings. When prominent political leaders began leaving the Klan and then running against it, its influence waned. Internal dissension within the Klan hierarchy created additional headaches that alienated its members. However, before this reaction took place, a handful of leading newspapers and publishers resisted the Klan’s base appeals and attempts to take the region into a more extremist and exclusionary direction. By providing public resistance before other business and political establishment figures denounced the Klan, a handful of newspapers provided the initial opposition and placed the only effective restraints on the secret order. Events associated with the Klan redefined community perceptions and solidified the leadership by newspaper publishers in the state’s two major commercial centers—Houston and Dallas.1 The decade of the 1920s were watershed years for United States journalism for a number of reasons beyond the larger socioeconomic trends. World War I brought a distinctive change in the way that Americans looked at the news and how newspapers provided coverage of events. Wartime propaganda, coupled with the rise of public relations, altered the way in which newspapers viewed events and obtained information. More and more businesses and government agencies came to rely on professionals to provide prepared news items and respond to press inquiries. Although the United States sided with the victorious Allies in World War I, many Americans came to believe that the war was too costly and its peace settlements unsatisfactory. The laudable goals of peace and


self-determination voiced by President WoodrowWilson appeared to fall victim to greedy, self-serving European colonial powers. His democratic ideals seemed as vulnerable as the exposed troops before machine guns during the bloody war. Many citizens felt manipulated by European propaganda that distorted news in order to gain U.S. involvement in the war. But the war created more demand for news and commercial advertising. Interpretative journalism took professionalism one step further. Objectivity became increasingly important through the application of the scientific method to news reporting. Detachment and independence of preconceived notions seem to have been the ideal for Walter Lippmann and other advocates of a purist approach to total objectivity. In a world that seemed to be more concerned and absorbed with news, the new heroes in society were those who provided the information in a clear, reasoned manner. For example, political commentary reached new levels of scrutiny on the editorial pages. Signed columns began to appear where writers emphasized and commented on events, individuals, and trends of the era.The newspaper wars against the Klan illustrated these changes through the dramatic confrontation of several of the leading daily newspapers and the Klan over power and prestige in the principal urban centers of the state.2 In his study of the Ku Klux Klan in the Southwest, historian Charles Alexander characterized the Klan movement as a reaction to the rapid industrialization and urbanization in the immediate aftermath of World War I. InTexas, major cities surged in population during the decade from the economic boom brought on by the war. Dallas’ population grew from 92,000 in 1910 to nearly 159,000 by 1920, while Houston moved from 78,000 to over 138,000 in the same period. Fort Worth witnessed similar growth, going from 73,000 to 106,000. San Antonio, with its large military bases, swelled the most, expanding from 96,000 to 161,000. Nearly every city in the Southwest experienced notable expansion and a large Klan membership in the early 1920s. Dallas had more Klansmen than any other city in the nation, about 13,000 in 1924. Until the Klan moved into Texas in 1920, the organization remained small and ineffective, with chapters in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee. No Texan enrolled in the Klan until Sam Houston Klan no. 1 organized in Houston on October 9, 1921.3 Along with this rapid urban population increase, a sense of lawlessness, trumpeted by newspapers and politicians, permeated the region. Murders, robberies, and assaults drew public attention, but violation of the liquor laws proved to be the most frequent violation. Bootlegging, as 136

Traditionalism and the Invisible Empire

it became known, increased in centers of wealth and around oil boomtowns. Widespread violation of Prohibition, combined with other vices, confronted the new urban dwellers. The Klan’s resurgence fed on the fears of middle-class urbanites, who felt existing law enforcement was too inefficient or inept to cope with the disorder. Newspapers that prominently displayed crime stories played into the hands of Klan organizers. The fear for one’s property and family drove many into the ranks of the Klan. In his analysis of the Klan in the Southwest, Alexander discusses other traditional and contemporary forces that motivated Texans to join the newest version of the secret order. Antipathy toward Catholics, Jews, African Americans, and Mexican Americans played a secondary role for those in the organization who sought preservation of the status quo and a staunch public morality. The Klan’s reformist appeal in Texas and the Southwest centered on its efforts to imprint its version of law and order and personal behavior, although ‘‘a defined strain of moral bigotry’’ clearly existed.4 Initial opposition to the Klan first arose on the front pages of large urban newspapers outside of Texas and the South. The influential New York World began a series in September 1921 that documented the violence, extremism, and financial shenanigans of the revived organization. The World charged Klan leaders with bilking members of an astounding $40 million as they built a ‘‘thriving business in the systematic sale of race hatred, religious bigotry and ‘100 percent’ anti-Americanism.’’ Many newspapers throughout the nation reprinted the series, including the Dallas Morning News and the Houston Chronicle. The revelations launched congressional hearings, but the World’s exposé backfired, as the Klan organization grew and prospered even more from the exposure. As media historian Rodger Streitmatter observed, the detailed articles provided the new Klan with its first national publicity and gave the order information on ‘‘the exact elements of the Klan that potential members found so appealing.’’ Instead of widespread outrage, the Klan’s influence expanded outside of the South and found new support in western and northern states.5 Other factors contributed to the rapid rise of the Klan in the Lone Star State. In Texas, drys associated blacks and browns with the wet side on the Prohibition issue. They also maintained a long tradition of viewing minorities and their communities as centers of corruption and vice based on their opposition to Progressive reform. The Houston riot of 1917 instilled fear in the white population that strengthened any doubts in that city about the correctness of segregation. 137


The Klan’s opposition rose from a core group of business elites in communities who opposed the divisive programs, the disruption of the community, and what appeared to be a middle-class threat to their hegemony. Newspapers in Dallas and Houston provided public leadership for the business sector and local politicians to fight the Klan’s positions and threat to the existing order. In his analysis, Alexander determined that the Klan’s failure to elect any of its statewide candidates in the 1924 Democratic Primary sealed its fate in Texas. Anti-Klan forces seized the initiative and elected members to the state legislature and local offices. These defeats signaled the demise of the Klan as a force in Texas politics. The spirited opposition of 1924 only occurred after several newspapers had taken a public stand against the secret order. In subsequent years in the 1920s, states where Klan nominees found electoral success replaced Texas as banner states for the hooded order. Following Miriam Ferguson’s Texas gubernatorial victory, prominent Klan members left and the organization’s influence declined.6 Within a few years, the Klan had virtually none of its former strength inTexas and the rest of the Southwest. In 1925 the state legislature passed an anti-mask bill recommended by Governor Ferguson. Internal divisions hurt the Klan. Bitter rivalries, accusations of financial abuse in local Klaverns, and political losses took their toll. Membership and support declined in nearly every community where the Klan held influence. By 1928 only a few thousand members and a handful of local chapters remained in the state. The Klan label, which had once promised business and political success, became an expensive price tag that most respectable Texans no longer sought. In the 1928 presidential election, many of the Klan’s remaining and former leaders opposed Democrat Al Smith in favor of Republican Herbert Hoover. Their efforts, in combination with those of dry, anti-Klan Democrats, gave the state to a Republican presidential nominee for the first time since the Civil War.7 The Klan Rides into Texas The second Ku Klux Klan re-formed in a special ceremony at Stone Mountain, Georgia, in 1915. Colonel William Joseph Simmons resurrected the Reconstruction-era organization, which had largely disappeared in the 1870s, with assistance of Edward Young Clarke and Elizabeth Tyler, two energetic young promoters who propelled the Klan into a national social and political movement during the 1920s. The Klan drew on its Reconstruction predecessor in style and organization, but extended its white sheets to exploit a wider area of social unrest. The 138


second movement based its appeal on racial prejudice, enhanced by new pronouncements of morality and resistance to foreign influences. The Klan also capitalized on propaganda strategies never utilized by the Reconstruction Klan. Building on the U.S. government’s successful propaganda efforts in World War I, the Klan used paid organizers, advertisements, promotions, and public ceremonies successfully to increase the secret order’s membership and influence and advance its distorted view of citizenship.8 World War I and its aftermath proved an opportune time for the revitalized Klan to expand. The film The Birth of a Nation played to audiences around the country in 1915 and depicted a romanticized version of the Ku Klux Klan, one in which the Klan saved the South from carpetbagger and ‘‘Negro rule’’ in the Reconstruction era. The silent screen epic was immensely popular, drawing praise from President Woodrow Wilson, who viewed it at the White House. The Birth of a Nation provided a visual and moral backdrop to the flames and racial animosity that burned in the era of strident Jim Crow laws. In addition to building its appeal on racism, the Klan took advantage of resentment toward other ethnic groups, Catholics, and anyone else determined to be a ‘‘foreigner.’’ Americans were troubled by the losses suffered during World War I in Europe and divided over the peace settlement. The ongoing Mexican Revolution forced thousands of Mexican citizens to flee north to Texas and other southwestern states. For over a decade, fears of massive immigration of a largely Spanish-speaking, Catholic population, combined with the violence highlighted by Texas newspapers, added to anxieties and prejudices. The post–World War I red scare also played into the hands of Klan promoters. Suspicions of communism and anarchy introduced by foreigners and undesirable immigrants fanned the flames of uncertainty. Rising unemployment after World War I added to unrest. A steady stream of men looking for work poured into Houston, Dallas, and other Texas cities. Some found work but many remained unemployed in the turbulent uncertainty after World War I. The United States has frequently witnessed times of social upheaval immediately after the conclusion of a major conflict, and crime and lawlessness seemed to be on the increase immediately after World War I. The Houston Post warned that the large number of unemployed men was literally ‘‘an invasion of criminal vagrants.’’ Attitudes and fears about excessive crime and the inability of law enforcement authorities to combat the surge fueled the anxieties of the time. Newly elected Texas governor 139


Pat Neff told the state legislature that he was very alarmed at the ‘‘spirit of lawlessness.’’ He criticized the ‘‘loose method of dealing with violators of the law.’’ He proclaimed ‘‘Law and Order Sunday’’ and called on the citizens and law enforcement officials to confront the growing wave of criminal activity. Violations of the recently enacted Prohibition law were the most common. But other concerns included gambling, prostitution, and robbery—traditional rallying points for urban Progressives and the daily press.9 Texas and manyotherareas of the countryoffered fertile ground for the moral pronouncements and easy remedies to clean up society promised by the reborn Klan. Thanks to the marketing talents of Clarke and Tyler, the Klan spread throughout the South and the Midwest as a result of a creative marketing scheme. Field organizers enlisted the support of prominent members of the community to draw in large numbers of recruits. These organizers, called Kleagles, received four dollars from the ten dollar ‘‘donation’’ or initiation fee. Field organizers first concentrated on community leaders, followed by other middle- and working-class whites. As long as someone was white, Protestant, and native-born and would part with ten dollars, organizers viewed him as a potential member. In addition, the national organization manufactured all of the Klan clothing and regalia. The national headquarters became so profitable that newspapers called its Atlanta offices the nightgown palace. Many promoters and those in the hierarchy of the Invisible Empire made fortunes when the Klan was in its heyday of the early 1920s. The new urban middle class and many professionals found the Klan a new haven for social and business contacts. With their meteoric rise and strong presence in the state, very few Texas newspapers challenged the Klan’s appeal or its methods. Many publishers feared the loss of readers, advertising revenue, and disrupting the existing racial and social order. Chester Crowell, a former editor who left the state just prior to the Klan’s appearance, noted that most newspapers and their staffs either supported the secret order or ‘‘followed theTexas journalistic tradition of neutrality.’’ Crowell claimed that up to ‘‘ninety percent of the newspapers of Texas were represented in the Klan, usually through their advertising departments.’’ Since most of the business community and the source of advertising revenue in Texas affiliated with the Klan, then following the popular trend sometimes became profitable. Part of the Klan’s appeal rested on its commercial message. When the Klan reached its zenith of power in the state in the early 1920s, only a few publishers and editors openly challenged the organization and its leaders. This select group of 140


newspapers who elected to confront the Klan suffered a substantial loss in circulation and advertising revenues.10 The Klan and its leaders believed that they had discovered fertile ground for nativist appeals inTexas.Theyalso believed that they had neutralized the majority of the state’s newspapers and their editorial pages: the reform spirit identified with the Progressive era took a hard right turn on the road to modernization as a consequence of their influence. Klan leaders took advantage of the crusading spirit associated with the social movements of that era and capitalized on their methods. The organization appealed to fundamental insecurities that reflected both the uncertain times and prejudices that had been carried forward for generations. W. E. B. DuBois, a leader in the NAACP, recognized the underlying motivation of racial hatred. DuBois wrote in 1926, ‘‘The kind of thing which men are afraid to or ashamed to do openly by day, they accomplish secretly, masked, and at night.’’ 11 Houston—The First Klan Objective The Klan selected Houston as its first Texas target. Sam Houston Klan no. 1 was organized by A. R. Upchurch, one of the top Kleagles, in September 1920. The local made its first public appearance during a reunion of the United Confederate Veterans on October 9, 1920. Klansmen mounted on horses rode as others marched on foot alongside the aging Civil War veterans in a well-attended parade. A float carried a banner that stated ‘‘We will be here forever.’’ Simmons appeared shortly thereafter in a well-publicized appearance at the First Christian Church in Houston. Other local dens soon followed in nearby Humble, Goose Creek, Beaumont, and Galveston. Charter members included many of the leading businessmen of the community, ‘‘silk-stocking men from the banks, business houses and professions.’’ Although accurate membership numbers could not be obtained, the Houston-area Klan organization grew quickly in the early 1920s, attracting as many as 8,000 members. The Klan never would have reached such an impressive level without the participation of some of the leading business and professional men in the community alongside other wage earners and working-class residents. Many elected officials thought it expedient to jump on the bandwagon, as they believed the growing sentiment for the organization offered a significant political opportunity. Local Klaverns held a number of widely attended gatherings whose ceremonial initiations were complete with torchlight, white robes, and burning crosses.12 A strong contributing factor that undoubtedlyassisted early Klan orga141


nization in Houston was the memory of the racial hostilities that occurred in 1917 between African American troops and the local police. Resentment against the armed black troops resulted in an onslaught of racial slurs directed against the soldiers. Some police officers went out of their way to harass the minority troops. Hard feelings accelerated into the August 23 confrontation known as the Houston riot of 1917. In a gun battle between the troops and the police, fifteen whites and four blacks died. Houston was placed undera curfew until the entire battalion, under orders, quickly left. Klan organizers used this tragic event as a warning to white Houstonians should the Army ever reassign African American troops to the city. Houston also became home to one of the Klan’s most outspoken publications, Colonel Mayfield’s Weekly, named for Billie Mayfield. Mayfield was a World War I and Spanish-American War veteran. During the Galveston labor strike of 1920, he served as the provost marshal of the Texas National Guard under General Jacob F. Wolters. When the Guard was criticized in Houston newspapers for its heavy-handed methods, Mayfield ordered three soldiers to arrest the editor of the Houston Press. Following a storm of protest, Wolters relieved Mayfield of his Galveston assignment after a highly publicized inquiry. Until the paper sold in September 1924, Mayfield’s Weekly kept up a steady barrage of attacks on Catholics, Jews, African Americans, and others he judged to be without proper moral standards.The most prominent journalistic target centered on Marcellus Foster and the Houston Chronicle.13 The campaign of violence and intimidation began in early 1921. In February a party of Klansmen led by George B. Kimbro Jr. kidnapped Houston attorney B. I. Hobbs, who was well known in the city for the large numberof divorce cases he handled for both black and white clients. Klansmen cut off his hair, administered tar and feathers, and left Hobbs in the middle of downtown on San Jacinto Street. After the attack the Klan posted signs throughout Houston on telegraph poles and trees with warnings against racial mixing. The Chronicle, the Post, and the Press all carried articles on the attack. Klan members abducted several other white men in the next few months. Attorneys seemed to be the favored targets, although other local businessmen received similar ‘‘warnings.’’ The secret order’s first reported African American victim was J. Lafayette Cockrell, a dentist accused of having relations with a white woman. Hooded figures seized Cockrell at gunpoint, drove him out of town, then anesthetized and castrated him. The violent conduct of Klan members, coupled with an exposé on the organization’s leaders and financial 142


background, brought the issue to the forefront in 1921. In a letter to the Chronicle, lumber magnate John Henry Kirby, a friend of both Foster and Jones, called on the Klan to disband for their violations of constitutional rights. Kirby, along with Joseph S. Cullinan, Foster, and a handful of other community leaders organized the American Anti-Klan Association. Mayor Oscar Holcombe, who admitted attending one Klan meeting, criticized the increasing violence in the city and publicly denounced the Klan and its methods.14 Most of Houston’s commercial elites sympathized with the Klan’s moralistic and racial views, but they saw the rise in the public beatings and clandestine activities as a threat to the public image of the community and, just as important, their own political hegemony.They must certainly have felt their leadership position compromised by an increasingly active group of white working-class members and small business owners who banded together under the moralistic banner of the new Klan. As historian Norman Brown wrote, the ‘‘white sheets covered some strange bedfellows,’’ as many from the ranks of organized labor, professional businessmen, and merchants initially joined the Klan.Thesewere peoplewho comprised the majority of the electorate as well as provided the dollars for local businesses. With the Klan and its appeals seemingly as popular as ice cream on a summer day, opponents waited for the new organization to wither under the light of public scrutiny.15 Until the tide turned, the few vocal critics of the Klan carefully focused on violations of individual rights without attacking specific individuals. Concerns were also voiced over the secret, clandestine activities of the organization that so vociferously preached morality and conformity. Opponents also relied on the pen of Marcellus Foster to articulate the dangers the Klan posed to the city. Foster presented their arguments in editorials directed against the Klan and its leadership. Foster wrote ‘‘Why the mask, if only law and order are desired? Why anonymity, if the common good is sought? Does decency need a disguise?’’ 16 In September 1921, Joseph Pulitzer’s New York World published a series exposing abuses and illegal acts of the Klan. Only three major dailies in Texas picked up the articles for publication in the state: the Dallas Morning News, along with its sister paper the Galveston Daily News, and the Houston Chronicle. These dailies provided the most outspoken criticism of the secret order inTexas. All three publications served as ongoing critics of the Klan and its tactics from the outset of the Klan’s appearance in the state. They saw the Klan as a threat to law and order and individual rights. The World’s series brought even greater attention 143


The Dallas Morning News began its attacks on the Ku Klux Klan in 1921 and fought the Invisible Empire for many years. Reprint courtesy Belo Corp. Archives.

to the Klan’s activities in the South. Rather than curtailing the Klan’s activities, its membership increased in Texas and many states after the stories were published, much to the chagrin of the few publications who openly challenged the Invisible Empire. Many regarded the exposé by the Northern newspaper as a benefit to the secret organization. The Klan vs. the Chronicle The Chronicle began publishing the World’s exposés in September 1921. Foster arranged for the series after learning about it in detail at a summer convention of newspaper executives in Atlantic City, New Jersey. Foster telegraphed Jones about the articles at the same time he arranged for the Chronicle to run the stories on the front page. Foster told Jones in a letter a few days later that he assumed the risk for the Chronicle ‘‘because I believed it our duty so to do.’’ However, he warned that ‘‘Simmons and his crowd may file libel suits.’’ Foster said that since he was away from Houston when the Klan exposé first hit the streets, he had not received any immediate reaction. ‘‘But I am quite sure it will make some secret 144


enemies for us.’’ Foster warned that he anticipated threats and ‘‘possibly some cowardly act. Those things never deter me, however, in doing what I think is right.’’ The veteran Houston editor also saw this as an opportunity to assert his independence and, he believed, thevoice of theChronicle in shaping the city’s future.17 Prior to the articles’ publication in theChronicle, Foster told Jones that he had shared proofs of the articles with W. O. Huggins, attorney for the Chronicle and also a shareholder in the corporation. Foster was anxious to release the series, even without consulting Jones. But he made a point of letting Jones know that he had not acted unilaterally. Huggins believed that potential lawsuits would be filed by individuals directly linked to the Klan but that they would have no ‘‘serious consequences.’’ The men agreed to publish the articles without a list of the Kleagles, the individual Klan leaders. ‘‘We did not want to give anybody excuse for suit except the head officials,’’ Foster wrote.18 Jones replied a few days later. By this time, Jones had read the stories and downplayed their impact. ‘‘I do not consider it a serious matter one way or the other,’’ he wrote. ‘‘It is great advertising for the K.K.K., and while it exposes the bunk, I doubt if it amounts to more than news, unless it arouses the law-making bodies.’’ Jones said he found the articles somewhat long and tedious but ‘‘adroitly written and interesting.’’ He told Foster that he had heard some ‘‘slight rumblings about it being an ill-advised policy for the Chronicle, but that does not influence me in the slightest.’’ Jones reaffirmed Foster’s position when he stated the newspaper should ‘‘stand for the right, without fear, financial or otherwise.’’ Jones said that the best course for Foster and the newspaper was to ignore any threats or challenges.19 When Foster returned to Houston from the East, he immediately joined the fight with the Klan. Jones, in the meantime, left for New York. Foster proclaimed that the battle with the Klan was the ‘‘biggest thing that the Chronicle ever undertook and it has been our greatest victory.’’ Foster believed that had the Klan gone unchallenged, ‘‘rioting and revolution’’ would spread throughout the state and ‘‘no man’s life would have been safe.’’ He compared the situation in Texas to that in Georgia. The home turf of the revived Klan illustrated the strength and appeal of the movement. None of the three daily Atlanta newspapers had ‘‘the courage to come out openly and fight the Klan.’’ Foster said the publishers in Atlanta feared the organization and its ties to state government.20 Jones and other Chronicle investors undoubtedly feared a loss of revenue from the newspaper’s outspoken opposition to the Klan. Both Foster 145


and Jones received warnings that the uproar would hurt revenues. In the weeks after the first articles on the Klan appeared in the Chronicle, Foster said only one of the newspaper’s major clients reduced its advertising: the W. C. Munn & Co. store, which ran larger ads in the Post while reducing their accounts at the Chronicle (however, overall department store advertising in the Chronicle was double that of the Post). Foster believed that Munn had his own internal business problems but predicted he would return to the newspaper and purchase ‘‘more space than ever.’’ Munn was ‘‘imbued with the Klan spirit of hate and animosity,’’ Foster said. ‘‘It is amusing to me to see the spirit manifested by a bigoted Baptist Klansman, and especially one who has been favored so by the Chronicle.’’ 21 A few days later, Foster erroneously predicted that the battle against the Klan would be quickly replaced by other concerns that directly impacted the city and its inhabitants. The local streetcar company, for instance, wanted an extension of its franchise and competed for attention in the newspapers. ‘‘I rather think from now on we will be in a position to ignore the Klan, rather than further advertise or attack that organization,’’ Foster wrote to Jones. ‘‘In other words, I believe it is pretty near dead, especially in Houston.’’ The editor believed a policy of silence was best, unless the secret order did ‘‘something that makes it necessary to get after them again.’’ Within a few days, Foster saw his bold prediction quickly shredded by a violent confrontation in another Texas community.22 Several thousand Klan members assembled for a Saturday night parade at the small town of Lorena fourteen miles south of Waco. When McLennan County sheriff Robert Buchanan and several deputies attempted to stop the procession, a fight erupted. In the confrontation, Sheriff Buchanan, Ed Howard, an off-duty Waco policeman, and Louis Crow, a Lorena businessman, all suffered serious wounds. Buchanan was shot and Howard and Crow suffered stab wounds. The Chronicle featured Buchanan and Crow on page one as ‘‘victims’’ of the Klan. Crow died from his stab wounds within the week, while Sheriff Buchanan recovered. A month-long McLennan County grand jury investigation subsequently condemned Sheriff Buchanan and his deputies. According to the grand jury, which undoubtedly represented the Klan’s interests, the sheriff and his deputies ‘‘grossly violated every law of humanity’’ and were unfit for their positions.23 Foster immediately saw the Lorena incident as an opportunity to confront the growing presence of the Klan. In a front-page editorial, Foster caustically encouraged the KKK to move the ‘‘Imperial Palace of the Imperial Wizard of the Imperial Ku Klux Klan’’ to Texas. The Klan openly 146


defied law enforcement authorities in the Lorena episode, he maintained. Texas Klansmen ‘‘have beaten and blackened more people in the last six months than all the other states in the Klan Kingdom combined,’’ Foster wrote. With such a dubious record, Foster said that Texas now had a better claim than Georgia to serve as the Klan capital. Thanks to the masked lawbreakers, Texas witnessed a ‘‘tarring and feathering party of real terrorism.’’ The editor noted with some irony that cotton farmers who had recently sold their crops at a terrible loss were only too willing to pay $6.50 for a Klan cotton robe that only cost $1.50 in materials and labor.24 TheChronicle received praise and condemnation for the Klan articles. H. E. Allen wrote that ‘‘real men and real Americans come out in the open with their faces bare of any mask and denounce the evil doer.’’ He added that the nighttime reprisals by the Klan were ‘‘contrary to law and order and the Constitution.’’ Walter Turner of Cuero believed that only the press would be effective in combating the Klan. ‘‘I wish there were more newspapers to lay the facts before the people,’’ he stated. But William Hughes of Longview blasted the Chronicle for publishing ‘‘a lot of ingenious falsehoods’’ while the editor ‘‘failed to appreciate the issue which brought the Klan into existence.’’ 25 The Chronicle’s anti-Klan campaign lasted much longer than the few months that Foster originally predicted. For the next four years, articles and editorials attacking the secret order appeared on the Chronicle’s pages. Jesse Jones’ fears that the publicity the Klan received may have increased its appeal proved well founded. Instead of receding into the mist, the organization gained strength and popularity in the state. With many community leaders and businessmen participating in the Klan, few newspapers or politicians challenged the organization in its formative years. Texas became a Klan stronghold as the hooded order expanded its membership and presence. In doing so, the Klan challenged the leadership position of the daily newspapers and their vision of growth and prosperity. The Klan and its supporters also challenged one of the bedrock principles of the newspaper publishers: an orderly community focused on business expansion. Throughout the formative years of the 1920s Klan, Colonel Mayfield’s Weekly maintained a steady barrage of racially oriented diatribes against the Klan’s opponents. He took special pleasure in taunting Foster and the Chronicle. Mayfield mixed a blend of attacks against African Americans, Catholics, and Jews, who he contended acted in a grand conspiracy to upend Protestantism and U.S. government. He warned that the Catholic 147


Church designed its ‘‘propaganda for colored consumption’’ and would appoint ‘‘big, black, burly, bestial negro priests to take confessions of white women.’’ As the organization attempted to align itself more closely with mainstream Protestant churches, the Klan’s newspaper reprinted sermons from Baptist and Methodist ministers who preached the Klan’s gospel. The fundamentalists frequently linked vices and immoral acts with the Jewish or Catholic hierarchy while they applauded the Klan for having stands that favored a righteous community. The growing popularityof the Klan became evident to readers of Mayfield’sWeekly. Mayfield claimed over 50,000 subscribers in 1922. By 1923 Mayfield obtained many full-page ads from oil syndicates and stock companies. He also had ads from establishment furniture, clothing, merchandise, and insurance companies.26 Realizing that it was in a battle for public opinion, the Klan’s Houston newspaper expressed frequent condemnation of the media and the film industry. Mayfield told his readers that Jews and Catholics controlled the motion picture business and were advocating race mixing when they portrayed white and black actors together on the screen. In one front-page photo, Mayfield ridiculed films that displayed ‘‘Jew actors clinging to the necks of Negro vamps.’’ The Klan editor linked the Houston Chronicle to his critics and stated, ‘‘All Texas knows that the motives behind their pages is the money of Catholics and Jews.’’ Mayfield accused Marcellus Foster of editing a ‘‘Jewish trade journal’’ and employing ‘‘spies and traitors to discredit the Klan.’’ Mayfield also directed his wrath against some of Houston’s commercial elites for their outspoken remarks about the Klan. Among these targets were lumber magnate John Henry Kirby and oil tycoon Joseph S. Cullinan. These businessmen, along with Foster and several others, organized the American Anti-Klan Association in Houston in 1922.27 While the Klan presented a challenge to the business and Progressive establishment, a select number of its leaders began to speak out in 1922. Cone Johnson, a respected dry from the East Texas community of Tyler, responded to one popular initiative of the Invisible Empire in an ‘‘Open Letter on Klanism’’ published in the Houston Chronicle. The Klan circulated thousands of copies of a friendly sermon by George C. French, the pastor of the First Methodist Church in Bonham. Cone Johnson charged that French was ‘‘led astray by the insidious propaganda’’ of the Klan and declared that the organization’s threat to the nation was more serious than the one posed by imperial Germany in World War I. Johnson said the Klan’s attacks on individuals mocked the U.S. system of justice. 148


The Progressive spokesman said the organization ‘‘seethes and teems in a spirit of contempt of our courts, and therefore our government.’’ The incident illustrates the depth of the Klan’s reach in the state and the divisive atmosphere that swirled around the organization and its members.28 The Klan Becomes Political The New York Times reported on December 10, 1922, that the ‘‘[s]hadow of the Ku Klux Klan’’ extended to the U.S. Congress and the organization had gained significant political strength throughout the nation.Texas was one of two ‘‘banner states’’ for the Klan. The pro-Klan Senate candidate won his election while many officeholders opposed to the organization lost their races. Judges, sheriffs, state representatives, and many local officials owed their election to the Klan in 1922. The fight in the Lone Star State was bitter as lifelong friends and families split over the issue. ‘‘The organization is out to control the State,’’ said one anonymous official.29 Houston’s Klan leadership, riding the crest of popularity with its growing membership, decided to accept the challenge from the business establishment. After a well-attended meeting, the Houston Klan selected Murray B. Jones, a former county court at law judge, to challenge Mayor Holcombe. The Klan hoped to draw support from its membership and allies to defeat the one-term mayor and also take other city positions on the ballot. Both the Post and the Chronicle supported Holcombe, and the downtown business leaders united behind the young reform-minded mayor. The Post, always restrained when dealing with the Klan, recommended Holcombe’s reelection in early December based on the mayor’s record of improvements in city street paving, sanitation, and other services. Post editor George M. Bailey wrote that the paper had ‘‘no personal or political animosity toward Judge Jones’’ and said he was a ‘‘splendid public citizen and public official.’’ The Post carried a front-page story on Christmas Day about donations of food and clothing to 135 needy families by Houston Klan no. 1.30 Speaking for the Klan and Judge Jones, Colonel Mayfield’s Weekly charged that Mayor Holcombe was too easy on criminals and tolerant of gambling and bootlegging. In a well-coordinated attack, Houston superintendent of police Gordon Murphy resigned and told the press that the mayor controlled the police department and ‘‘crime, vice and bootlegging flourish as a result.’’ Billie Mayfield told his readers that Holcombe had participated in a number of late-night gambling parties and later suppressed a police department investigation of the affair. Holcombe ranked alongside Foster on the Klan and Mayfield’s list of top targets. Holcombe 149


ordered an investigation of the Klan’s influence in the Houston Police Department and openly criticized the secret organization.31 Holcombe denied the allegations of both Murphy and Mayfield and countered with his own strategy to offset the Klan’s last-minute attack. Less than a week before the election, a delegation of Baptist ministers assembled at a closed-door meeting at the Rice Hotel. Mayor Holcombe, a Baptist himself, and his attorney, Robert Cole, attended alongside Mayfield and his counselor, LawrenceWilliamson. After a stormy session that lasted seven hours, the ministers unanimously concluded that the gambling charges against Holcombe were unsubstantiated. Billie Mayfield left in disgust and claimed the meeting was ‘‘stacked on him.’’ The Post praised the ministers’ conclusions in an editorial and stated the mayor was ‘‘cruelly maligned.’’ A record number of city voters went to the polls the Saturdayafter Christmas. Out of nearly 20,000 total votes, Holcombe won with a 1,177-vote majority. Mayfield’s ill-conceived ploy and the lastminute ministerial blessing undoubtedly shifted sentiment toward Holcombe. But the mayor’s narrow victory illustrated the strength the Houston Klan held in the community.32 The Goose Creek Twelve Goose Creek, on Galveston Bay in eastern Harris County, thirty miles southeast of Houston, was a Klan stronghold. Goose Creek was a small community at the turn of the century that quickly grew following the discovery of oil. After the Goose Creek oil field opened in 1915, a boomtown grew up on the coastal prairie. The town grew larger in 1917, when Ross S. Sterling, president of Humble Oil and Refining, and Price Pruett, a local landowner, organized and built the Goose Creek and Dayton Railroad to connect the oil field with the Southern Pacific line at Dayton. On January 28, 1919, Goose Creek citizens voted to incorporate. Not long after, Goose Creek Klan no. 4 became one of the first and most influential Klaverns in the state. In January 1923, R. H. Armand, twenty-eight, and Mrs. R. H. Harrison, a widow of thirty, were taken at gunpoint from the woman’s home by a dozen or more hooded men. Rumors of an alleged adulterous affair between the widow and the young man had circulated in the community prior to their seizure. The white-robed attackers flogged Armand and poured oil on his open wounds. The masked men also beat Harrison and cut her hair off at the scalp. The assailants then returned the pair to Goose Creek. Only Harrison’s seven-year-old daughter, who witnessed the couple’s seizure, provided information to Harris County sher150


iff T. A. Binford. The sheriff faced a wall of silence from local residents, and neither Armand nor Harrison would provide any information on the assault. ‘‘The residents here fear to mix up in any of the affair, and even Armand refuses to talk for fear that I may be a Klansman,’’ Sheriff Binford stated.33 The Post editors condemned the attack. ‘‘Burglary, theft, arson or highway robbery are serious crimes, but they pale into insignificance compared to unlawful invasion of one’s home and the brutal infliction of injury upon one’s person,’’ the editorial stated. A Harris County grand jury convened to investigate the attacks. Following the Post editorial and the pending investigation, the Goose Creek Klan issued a statement denying any involvement in the case and offered to cooperate with the investigation. ‘‘We condemn that spirit of lawlessness in any and every community,’’ the local Klan stated in its release. In a timely arrest, Sheriff Binford announced that a suspect was in the county jail in Houston. Harrison’s young daughter identified Claude C. Buckley as one of the culprits. Buckley denied the charge and was later released. Sheriff Binford announced other arrests would follow as the grand jury proceeded in its investigation.34 Colonel Mayfield’s Weekly directed its wrath against the Chronicle and Judge Robinson. Billie Mayfield, the owner and editor (not related to Senator Earle B. Mayfield), served as the Klan’s chief spokesman during the early 1920s. Mayfield accused Judge ‘‘Nero’’ Robinson of selecting a grand jury composed of ‘‘a bunch of Knights of Columbus and Jews to pass on the Ku Klux Klan.’’ Mayfield said that the acts committed by the Klan benefited the community. Mayfield said that the judge had read accounts in the Houston ‘‘Press and the lamentable Chronicle’’ and was ‘‘embued with the idea that the Klan is all wrong.’’ Mayfield also praised the Klan for its activities in Goose Creek while criticizing the sensational coverage provided by the Chronicle and the Press. He claimed that the Klan alone had turned the wild and woolly boomtown into a responsible, God-fearing community.35 During the grand jury investigation, a number of Goose Creek businessmen appeared at the Harris County Courthouse to answer questions. They included a filling station owner, a barbershop owner, an oil field worker, a former deputy sheriff, and other local men who testified behind locked doors. The presence of many local business owners indicated the depth of support the Goose Creek Klan retained among the middle- and working-class whites in the community. In the grand jury’s final report, no indictments were issued. However, the jurors stated they 151


believed the whippings were the actions of the local Klan, the ‘‘same body of men apparently organized for the purpose of regulating the morals of that community.’’ 36 District Judge Cornelius W. Robinson refused to let the incident pass. Judge Robinson impaneled another grand jury to investigate the Harrison-Armand beating and other allegations of Klan violence in the Goose Creek community. In May 1923 the grand jury reported that in the previous two years the Goose Creek area had suffered from a ‘‘reign of terror.’’ At least twenty men and women had been beaten by members of an ‘‘organized mob, generally in disguise.’’ The victims were most often taken from their homes at night, beaten by theirabductors, and then given ‘‘moral advice’’ concerning their reputed transgressions. When the violence was at its height, people were ‘‘terrorized and overawed’’ by the night riders. However, as a result of the unfavorable publicity that Goose Creek received in Houston’s newspapers, conditions improved. The people declared things had gone ‘‘too far and must be stopped, or the town will be disgraced and ruined.’’ 37 The Harris County Grand Jury eventually indicted twelve men with felonies that included assault and possession of prohibited weapons.The charges involved the Harrison-Armand incident and several other whippings of local residents. In July the dozen pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges and received $100 fines in connection with the floggings. Included in the group were a justice of the peace and several well-known businessmen. As he sentenced the defendants, Judge Robinson lectured the group and told them, ‘‘[N]o man, no set of them, has a right to take the law in their own hands.’’ Those who seized people from their homes at night for punishment had ‘‘something wrong in your upper story.’’ Houston’s editors hoped the public trial and settlement would ‘‘close a most offensive chapter in Harris County’s history.’’ 38 When he tired of lecturing about the evils of alcohol and dancing, Mayfield took particular delight in attacking the Chronicle and Marcellus Foster. He called the Chronicle a ‘‘rabid and sensational yellow journal’’ and a ‘‘real menace to the community.’’ Mayfield said the Post jumped ‘‘from one side to the other so fast I can’t tell where it stands.’’ The Press fell in line with the Chronicle but ‘‘nobody takes it seriously’’ because the editor of the Scripps newspaper was ‘‘an imported yankee out of all sympathy with the Southern people.’’ In addition, its principal writer was ‘‘an alcoholic idiot.’’ Foster and the Chronicle were the main enemies of the Klan in Houston. Mayfield said Foster was guilty of ‘‘stirring up dis152


cord, strife and arraying neighbor against neighbor.’’ Even though the Klan in Houston was ‘‘composed of the highest class of citizens,’’ Foster attempted to engender bitterness in Houston ‘‘because he thinks his Jewish advocates want it done.’’ Mayfield in another editorial said Foster ‘‘hasn’t the social prestige of a buck nigger’’ in Houston.39 The Goose Creek trials coincided with other revelations of Klan violence in Texas and neighboring states. Well-publicized kidnappings, beatings, and murders in Mer Rouge, Louisiana, and other communities tarnished the Klan’s image for upholding law and order. Lashings of bootleggers was one thing, but beating women and applying tar and feathers to professional white men raised concerns among Klan members and sympathizers. Most Texans probably agreed with the Klan’s positions on religion, race, and morality, but many were offended by the violence, especially when it involved a woman or an individual who held some position within the community.With little control exerted by the national organization, local Klans felt free to interpret and enforce morality and standards as they saw fit. But the Klan leadership understood the opposition that violent acts created among the more respectable elements of the business community, which they still hoped to attract. A new Klan leadership emerged that wanted to break away from this image of night riding and violence. In order to counter the unfavorable publicity generated by hundreds of reports of incidents of late-night terrorism, the Klan leadership embarked on an ambitious program. Hiram Wesley Evans, the former Exalted Cyclops of Dallas Klan no. 66, quickly rose through the Klan hierarchy as an advocate of political action. Evans encouraged Klan members to run for office or support candidates in local and state elections that would strengthen the organization’s influence. He himself seized power from the Simmons-Clarke faction in Atlanta. The new Imperial Wizard wanted to move away from the Klan’s vigilante image and replace it with a more acceptable veneer. The new Klan policy in 1923 emphasized politics and public relations as it discouraged open violence.40 Houston civic leaders opposed to the Klan worried over its tenacity and influence. Houston businessman J. S. Cullinan wrote in late 1923, ‘‘[T]he membership of the Klan has more than doubled.’’ As a supporter of the Chronicle and the Klan opposition, Cullinan expressed his frustration in battling the Invisible Empire. ‘‘They have gradually extended their political activities, permeated the courts and the control of peace officers, and have continued to exact tribute from the helpless, particu153


larly among those of the Jewish race and probably to a lesser extent from Catholics,’’ Cullinan said. The battle against the Klan in Texas was far from over.41 Excluding African American Voters As the Klan’s influence spread its shadow over Houston, the Harris County Democratic Executive Committee announced in early 1921 that the county’s African Americans would not be allowed to vote in the primary elections administered by the party. In nearly every area of the state, a candidate for office who won the Democratic Primary became the ultimate winner of any subsequent general election. By the 1920s, Texas was solidly a one-party state and this status was not threatened with a political resurgence of minority voting. African American voters had largely been excluded from the electoral process following passage of the 1903 and 1905 Terrell Election Laws. These state laws granted county executive committees the ability to require additional qualifications for voter participation and thereby control elections. County Democratic Parties began to systematically restrict voters based on their race. The poll tax, in effect after 1912, acted as an economic restriction on voting by the poor, which embraced most minority citizens. Nevertheless, some voting by African Americans continued, primarily in the larger cities where a small black middle class resided and where minority voters were organized as part of an urban political machine. The demands for full exclusion not surprisingly occurred during the rise of the Ku Klux Klan in the early 1920s.42 Harris County Democratic chairman James S. Griffith announced on January 27, 1921, that ‘‘Negroes will not be allowed to vote’’ in the February local election for mayor and other city positions after a unanimous decision by the four-member executive committee. Notably, on the same day, the Houston Post carried a front-page story, ‘‘Negro Burned at Stake,’’ concerning an unseemly attack by a mob in rural Arkansas on an African American accused of murdering two whites. Reaction to the Harris County Democratic Party’s action came quickly. Two African American editors, Charles Norvell Love of the Texas Freeman and W. L. Davis of the Western Star, filed an injunction against Griffith. District Judge Charles E. Ashe ruled the question could not be resolved by the court, as ‘‘the question was purely a political one, to be settled within the party.’’ The plaintiffs appealed the decision, even though the February 9 election was held as scheduled. Oscar Holcombe won the first of many mayoral campaigns on a rainy, cold day that witnessed a record turnout of over 154


26,000 voters. No incidents were reported of black Houstonians being turned away from the polls by election judges.43 The Supreme Court finally heard the Love v. Griffith case after the election. The Court ruled that since the exclusion applied to an election that had already occurred, the question was moot. However, the Court provided some encouragement to the plaintiffs when they noted the issue would have posed ‘‘a grave question of Constitutional law’’ had it been presented prior to the election. Although Love and Davis’ suit failed, the NAACP national office in New York took note and soon became directly involved in Texas in the monumental fight concerning the voting rights of African Americans. Over the next thirty years, a number of landmark civil rights cases arose through the Texas courts, most involving NAACP participation.44 Dallas: Klan Capital of the United States The Klan rapidly expanded in Dallas. Its membership included business leaders, professionals, and members of the clergy. Of particular concern to Klan opponents was the Klan’s influence in city and county offices. The Dallas police commissioner, the chief of police, the Dallas county sheriff, and most law enforcement officers swore allegiance to the secret order. Dr. Hiram W. Evans, a Dallas dentist, rose to assume leadership of the national Klan as its Imperial Wizard. Z. E. Marvin, owner of the Magnolia Building, became the Dallas Grand Dragon. The Klan’s first major public appearance occurred on May 21, 1921, in a massive parade in downtown Dallas. At the height of Klan influence, State Fair organizers designated October 24, 1923, as Ku Klux Klan Day. Thousands of Klan members poured into the city for the remarkable event. The Texas 100 Per Cent American declared the event was quite successful, noting that ‘‘Imperial Wizard Evans delivered an address, ‘Menace of Present Immigration,’ to one of the largest gatherings ever congregated on the Fair Grounds.’’ 45 The News confronted the Klan immediately after its first downtown parade in May 1921. The editorial stated that the ‘‘spectacle of eight hundred masked and white-gowned men parading the streets . . . was a slander on Dallas.’’ The paper proclaimed that ‘‘white supremacy was not imperiled. Vice is not rampant. The constituted agencies of government are still regnant.’’ A handful of Dallas civic and political leaders finally rallied to counter the Klan’s rapid expansion in the city. George Dealey, former Texas lieutenant governor and attorney general Martin Crane, former governor Oscar B. Colquitt, and a handful of leading business 155


figures formed the Dallas County Citizens League to fight the Klan. A well-attended city hall rally on April 4, 1922, heard Crane demand an end to the Klan’s extralegal efforts.46 The News took up the fight against the Klan when the newspaper ran the entire New York World series in 1921 that exposed the Klan’s internal operations. Throughout 1922, the News ran many stories critical of the Klan, with a focus on the violence and secrecy that became trademarks of the organization. The News featured beatings and whippings in Dallas and other communities. Headlines included warnings and revelations: ‘‘Judge Points to Dangers of Klan,’’ ‘‘Ku Klux Klan is Menace to Society,’’ and ‘‘Officers Obeying Hooded Gangsters, Judge Tells Sunday School Class.’’ An editorial on March 2, 1922, ‘‘Bed Sheets in the Meeting-House,’’ criticized ministers who sympathized with the Klan. ‘‘The grave consequences of a sincere error, made in the pulpit, upon a great moral question, can not be overestimated. It behooves pastors and preachers of all faith to give the most careful consideration to these consequences.’’ When the News attacked the bedrock of the community’s religious establishment, they created an uproar throughout Dallas.47 The Klan served as more than a threat to law and order. Dealey, Crane, and other civic leaders viewed the Klan as a direct threat to their hegemony. Dealey spent nearly his first two decades at the helm of the News tirelessly working to make Dallas a leading commercial center. Dealeyand others realized northern investors would turn a cold shoulder on Dallas because of the warm embrace of the Klan.The News maintained its steady barrage of criticism against the Klan while Dealey, Crane, and the council leaders waged a behind-the-scenes war within the business community against their hooded opponents. Nevertheless, Dallas remained perhaps the strongest of local Klan organizations in the entire nation from 1921 until 1924. Anti-Klan publicity and organizational efforts in the cities inspired others across the state to speak up. University of Texas professor Roy Bedichek encouraged the Dallas County Citizens League to organize opposition in other locales where Klan influence silenced political and press criticism. ‘‘You may not know it, but the Dallas News and affiliated papers and Houston Chronicle are the only papers of state circulation that are taking any stand in this matter at all.’’ Bedichek faulted Governor Neff, whom he described as having ‘‘as much guts as a cotton-tailed rabbit,’’ for refusing to publicly confront the Klan. With additional committees comprised of civic leaders in the rest of Texas, Bedichek predicted increased 156


newspaper scrutiny. ‘‘A show of hands is necessary in order to give these spineless editors enough courage to speak out,’’ Bedichek concluded.48 Many spoke out, both in favor of and in opposition to the Klan. Phil Day of Houston complained in a letter to Crane that whenever ‘‘rowdies and hoodlums’’ broke the law, ‘‘you and your Roman Catholic followers are always ready to call a mass meeting and condemn one of the best bodies of men in the world—the Ku Klux Klan—in order to do the biddings of Rome and to help the Pope rule this world.’’ In the small East Texas town of Gilmer, attorney M. P. Mell explained to Crane that Klan opponents ‘‘seemed to be intimidated and are not making much show.’’ Mell noted the local clergy sided with the Klan, which capitalized on anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish doctrines that increased ‘‘prejudice in the hearts of people.’’ TheTexas 100 Per Cent American carried inflammatory articles that asserted Jews and Catholics posed a threat to the nation.49 Letters supporting the Klan filled files of the News office. W. E. Quarles, an officer in the Kirven State Bank, said that the ‘‘majority of my customers have notified me that after June 1, they are done with your paper.’’ Pastor Sam H. Campbell of the First Baptist Church in Dallas canceled his subscription. ‘‘I have become convinced that much of the crime wave that is sweeping over the State of Texas is due to the editorial policy of your paper . . . You seem to be obsessed with the idea that you must ‘rule or ruin.’ ’’ Sim Smith of Bonham believed that by taking on the Klan, the News suggested that it was ‘‘connected with the Catholics or else getting substantial contributions from them, one or the other.’’ Smith stated the Klan seemed to be the beneficiary of these attacks in Northeast Texas. ‘‘I am not a member of them as yet but the Dallas News is getting lots of members for them here (I know this to be a fact) by fighting them so hard, and it is also hurting their circulation.’’ 50 Others inquired about the numberof Catholics on the newspaper staff. M. P. Williamson inquired if any stockholders or employees of the News that had ‘‘any influence in the direction of its policies’’ was a Catholic. Dealey responded to most letters, and conducted a survey of his own staff to determine the number of Catholics employed at the News. Tom Finty, News manager and a director, encouraged Dealey to reveal the truth about the religious affiliations of the staff. ‘‘I believe what is hurting the News is that many persons have come to believe that it is trying to hide something. The truth will cure the evil,’’ Finty said. Dealey replied that of the 500 employees, a few were Catholic and nearly all of the stockholders were Protestant. Dealey listed his membership in the Presbyterian Church and 157


provided the affiliation of other directors of the News. Dealey stated that Tom Finty was unaffiliated with any church but ‘‘his folks are Christian Scientists.’’ 51 While the News leadership aggressivelyconfronted the Klan, theTimes Herald attempted to avoid the controversy altogether. Publisher Edwin Kiest undoubtedly understood the problems that the Klan created in the community. But he also witnessed the backlash directed against the News for their defiant anti-Klan position. Some employees of the Times Herald were enrolled as members of the Dallas Klan. However, in an editorial on April 11, 1922, Kiest leveled his first charges against the Klan. In a mildtempered statement, Kiest called for ‘‘peace, happiness and prosperity.’’ ‘‘Clannishness,’’ he observed, ‘‘breeds intolerance and unhappiness and poverty.’’ In his conclusion, he called for an end to factional strife, adding ‘‘I’m for Dallas!’’ Kiest wistfully hoped that the Klan issue would simply disappear, but the Invisible Empire was growing in strength during this period. Phil Fox, a managing editor of the Times Herald, resigned his position at the Times Herald in 1923 and moved to Atlanta to work for Hiram Evans, the Imperial Wizard of the Klan.52 Dallas Klan no. 66 essentially ignored the Times Herald and fought back against the News and the newly formed Citizens League. At their own April mass meeting, where they inducted 2,342 candidates, the organization claimed the press unfairly criticized them for ‘‘unAmerican’’ activities. The leadership boasted that crime had declined once the Klan became active, and they offered a $1,500 reward for the arrest of those responsible for recent floggings. They boasted, ‘‘[T]here are no I W W’s, Bolshevists or Agitators against the United States Government in Dallas, nor is there any more an imminent racial problem confronting us here.’’ In order to improve its image, the Klan announced a donation of $40,000 to the New Hope Cottage, which would care for ‘‘the orphans and helpless waifs of our city.’’ The increased pressure on the Klan strengthened both their numbers and their resolve in Dallas, and they showed no evidence of weakening. The Texas 100 Per Cent American, the Klan’s Dallas-based newspaper, flaunted their importance and taunted the Morning News. Without the News articles and attack on the Klan, the order ‘‘could not possibly have grown by leaps and bounds as it has.’’ As the battle moved onto a larger stage, the Klan remained a dominant force in Dallas, in spite of its ongoing battles with the News.53 Klan-backed candidates swept to victory in the 1922 Democratic Primary, despite the News’ support for a slate of anti-Klan candidates. Prior to the election, editorials had urged support for their choices, assert158


ing that the Klan-backed candidates represented those whose ‘‘deeds are evil’’ and who held a ‘‘masked loyalty to a secret aim.’’ However, the Klan handily won this round.The winning candidate for district attorney led a parade of Klan supporters past the News offices and referred to them as a ‘‘dirty, slimy, Catholic-owned sheet.’’ The victorious group then paraded to the Times Herald offices for speeches and celebrations.54 In 1923 Dealey reported to his stockholders that the threat from the Klan had peaked. ‘‘The Ku Klux Klan agitation against our papers on account of our determined stand on this important question has about subsided, and while we are not yet out of the storm of business depression . . . we are built on a solid foundation and are facing what may come with confidence and optimism.’’ Dealey’s optimism in this case and his faith in his community proved unfounded. In addition, the company had to juggle its books to maintain its profitability. Both the Dallas Morning News and the Galveston News witnessed a decline in cash balances and lower dividends at the end of 1922.55 In his 1924 annual report to stockholders, Dealey reported that circulation during the previous year had declined. But he refused to blame this loss on the newspaper’s anti-Klan editorial policy. The report stated that the Star-Telegram’s circulation had increased at the same volume that the Morning News’ circulation had decreased. Dealey cited management practices, as the Star-Telegram and the Times Herald had invested more revenues in circulation and offered more advertising discounts. However, the profitabilityof the News remained solid during these tumultuous years. ‘‘It is quite possible that the net of The News has been more than the combined net of the two papers [the Star-Telegram and the Times Herald],’’ Dealey stated. ‘‘Our competitors in Dallas and Fort Worth, for the sake of building volume, have indulged in practices that we deem to be unsound and unbusinesslike.’’ However, Dealey reported that overall profit from the newspaper was $80,000 less than that of the previous year. The war with the Klan apparently created both opportunity and difficulty for the News in this unsettled era.56 The challenge from the Klan and the financial uncertainties led to another momentous decision. Jeannette Peabody, daughter of A. H. Belo, the company founder, expressed concern with the loss of revenue and profitability resulting from the protracted battle with the Klan. Company statements from the previous year’s annual meeting undoubtedly led to questions about Dealey’s decisions and his management of the newspaper operations. Peabody filed numerous letters with Dealey on the company’s management practices and finances. She expressed concern 159


that the competition was ‘‘stronger than ever.’’ Thus Dealey and other corporate directors faced dissension both from within and without the organization.57 In response to the rising threats, the A. H. Belo directors decided to sell the Galveston News to W. L. Moody Jr., a well-known business leader in the port city.TheGalveston News served as the leading paper for much of the nineteenth century. But since 1910, the daily had diminished in importance and begun losing money. Dallas was also now four times the size of Galveston and provided a much larger financial base for the newspaper. ‘‘Signing of the contract of sale was something akin to the cutting of my heartstrings,’’ Dealey stated. In a special message to stockholders, Dealey acknowledged the historic ties between the two daily publications. But time and events resulted in the divestiture of the former parent newspaper from the more robust offspring. The sale of the Galveston daily allowed for a continuation of the dividend to stockholders and increased the cash assets of the company to $400,000. The sale also allowed the company management to focus on its holdings in Dallas and concentrate its efforts on Dallas for many years to come. The Fergusons Return In 1924 the Klan planned to capitalize on its political gains and win the governor’s office. The hooded order campaigned actively for Judge Felix Robertson. His main opponent was Miriam A. Ferguson whose husband, James E. Ferguson, had been impeached as governor in 1917 and declared permanently ineligible to hold a state office. However, Farmer Jim Ferguson remained the idol of the ‘‘boys at the forks of the creeks’’ and other rural voters. Despite of the legislature’s bar against his holding public office, he entered the 1922 U.S. Senate race, which he lost to Earle Mayfield, the Klan-supported candidate. But Jim Ferguson never left the political arena and continued his own crusade through his wife’s candidacy. For its part, the Klan touted Mayfield’s victory and the success of many Klansmen in winning local offices and seats in the state legislature. From a political standpoint, Texas became the banner state for the Invisible Empire in 1922. The stage was set for 1924, when the Klan aimed to capture the Texas governor’s office and extend its domination of state and local politics.58 Miriam Ferguson’s campaign was in part a fight to vindicate her husband; it was also based on her outspoken opposition to the Klan. Her chief opponent, Felix Robertson, was the son of a Confederate general and a veteran of World War I. The Dallas attorney had served a brief 160


term as a judge and campaigned in favor of better public education and law enforcement without new taxes. Robertson, a Baptist and staunch Prohibitionist, also claimed to be a ‘‘praying judge’’ and called on Texans to return to the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule. He led all candidates in the first Democratic Primary but was forced into a runoff with Ferguson. The campaign filled with slogans like ‘‘Bonnet and not a hood,’’ and ‘‘Two governors for the price of one.’’ Jim Ferguson directed his wife’s campaign and toured alongside her, making most of the speeches. Farmer Jim took great delight in telling his audiences the story of the arrival of the Klan’s Grand Wizard, Hiram Evans, in Texas just before the runoff election. Evans allowed his black servant to stay with him in the Pullman car (reserved for whites only).When discovered, the servant hurriedly left, only partially clothed. Ferguson revealed that ‘‘ex-Gizzards Simmons and Clarke were whore lovers and the present Grand Dragon [Evans] is a nigger lover.’’ Ferguson later charged that Judge Robertson drank enough liquor ‘‘to float a battleship.’’ The race looked much like the Senate campaign two years earlier. Throughout the state large numbers of politicians and voters flocked to Mrs. Ferguson’s support in the second primary, not because they were for her but because they were against Robertson and feared the Klan’s ascension as a major political force in control of the Democratic Party.59 The Texas 100 Per Cent American, the Klan-backed publication, denounced ‘‘fragrant’’ Jim Ferguson’s efforts to elect his wife. Ferguson was in league with Father Kirwin, the ‘‘flag insulting Catholic political priest.’’ These ‘‘enemies of democracy’’ threatened to derail support for Robertson, who was characterized as the ‘‘most relentless foe of law-breakers.’’ Robertson received the official endorsement of the Texas Klan during a two-day Dallas meeting of Titans and Cyclopses. Robertson made extensive campaign stops around the state in the spring, frequently appearing with Klan officials and local politicians at his side. Dallas Klan Cyclops A. C. Parker toured with Robertson on one trip. Robertson told admirers at a Houston Klan rally that he stood for ‘‘all good and holy things and against the bad.’’ Newspaper articles also featured his campaign strategy, which called for lower state taxes, free school textbooks, enforcement of the Prohibition laws, and more support for the University of Texas.60 The Democratic nomination under ordinary circumstances guaranteed victory in the general election in the era of one-party politics in the state. But Miriam Ferguson’s victory over Robertson in the primary encouraged manydry Democrats to do the unthinkable—support a Republican in the fall election.The Republican State Executive Committee met 161


behind closed doors on September 5, 1924, and nominated George C. Butte, dean of the University of Texas Law School. Butte resigned as head of the Law School and began his campaign by telling voters that he had never been a member of the Ku Klux Klan, at the same time urging people to elect the man and not vote for the party. Tom Love, Jim Ferguson’s former Democratic opponent, chaired a group of drys named the Good Government Democratic League who worked for Butte’s election. A host of other anti-Ferguson opponents lined up in Butte’s corner in a determined effort to block the Fergusons’ return to the capitol.61 Houston, already a center of Klan power, became a hotbed of Ferguson opposition led by a number of prominent business leaders and several newspapers. Among the most influential were Houston oil magnate Ross Sterling, who acquired the struggling Houston Post in August 1924.The Post, once the leading newspaper in Houston, had lost its number one position to the Chronicle. Sterling, who had sold his interests in Humble Oil and Refining Company to Standard Oil of New Jersey, now had the time and money to develop his interests in politics. Sterling first acquired the newest daily, the Houston Dispatch. Roy Watson, the primary stockholder in the Post, sold his interests to Sterling for a record $1,150,000, twice the value of its entire assets. Watson announced on the sale on July 30, 1924. He said that the Post would remain in Houston ‘‘in the hands of men known for their civic activities and home interest.’’ Sterling quickly merged the two newspapers to form the new Houston Post-Dispatch on August 1, 1924. Sterling became chairman of the board, and former Texas governor and Post managing editor William P. Hobby came on board as president. Hobby wrote that they would support ‘‘every cause that is good’’ to make the morning newspaper competitive again. Former Dispatch editors assumed most of the management positions when the two publications merged. Throughout the 1920s, the Houston Post-Dispatch continued as the Chronicle’s rival.62 A few blocks away, Marcellus Foster provided his own perspective of the Post’s new owners. In a letter to Jesse Jones, he confirmed the purchase price and ruminated on his own position. Foster said that friends informed him that ‘‘the paper he [Sterling] wanted to really put out of business was the Chronicle and the man he wanted to ruin was Foster.’’ After the bruising 1924 primary campaign and the protracted battle against the Klan, Foster also complained that he was tired of being the target of ‘‘vile personal abuse. That is the thing that makes me want to quit the game.’’ After assessing the sale of the Post, Foster predicted that if the 162


Houston financier and oil executive Ross Sterling purchased the Houston Post in 1924 and owned the paper when he successfully ran for Texas governor in 1930. Photo courtesy CAH (CN04025).

Chronicle were sold, he would ‘‘retire with something between $800,000 and $1,000,000. You would get a similar profit.’’ 63 In the first Democratic Primary election, both the Post and Dispatch supported Houstonian Lynch Davidson for governor. His third-place finish to Robertson and Ferguson left these two Houston newspapers up 163


in the air. Neither Sterling nor Hobby harbored any trust or love for the Fergusons. In its first issue, an editorial noted that the new Post-Dispatch ‘‘has no word of disparagement for Mrs. Ferguson personally.’’ However, the editors expressed alarm over her candidacy because they clearly understood the influence Jim Ferguson would have with his wife as governor and that he would be ‘‘getting his clutches on the state government again.’’ However, they disliked Ferguson’s rival as well. ‘‘The alternative to Jim is a Clan governor. We cannot get away from it. What is a good citizen to do in a situation like that?’’ As determined by Sterling and Hobby, the politically active Post-Dispatch declared its neutrality. Miriam Ferguson’s victory left the door open for subsequent endorsement of George Butte. Jim Ferguson took note and planned his course of action.64 In a pre-election rally for his wife, Jim Ferguson spoke to a packed City Auditorium the Saturday before the November election. Foster told Jones that Ferguson not only attacked Butte and Tom Love, as reported in the newspapers, but also disparaged Hobby and Sterling. ‘‘We didn’t print any personal reference to Sterling or Hobby,’’ Foster wrote, ‘‘but it was a terrible castigation.’’ Foster classified the speech as the most severe of Ferguson’s well-known attacks on his critics. ‘‘But then Ferguson has been hounded, vilified and goaded so much by the Post-Dispatch crowd that you could hardly blame him for exposing those fellows whom he had befriended and then turned on him,’’ Foster explained. Many people in Houston knew of the verbal assaults, but it was only through word of mouth, as none of the newspapers carried this portion of Ferguson’s speech.65 In Foster’s recap of the address to Jones, Ferguson announced to the large gathering that during his term as governor, Sterling came to him ‘‘on his knees’’ requesting assistance for a number of family-owned banks. Sterling asked Ferguson to direct state funds to several lending institutions in order to keep them solvent. According to Ferguson, Sterling’s banks were near collapse and in violation of state banking laws. Sterling’s banks included a number of his family members as stockholders, which added to his and their embarrassment. Ferguson agreed to deposit state money to keep the banks out of receivership. The state funds that bailed out the banks allowed Sterling to buy the Houston Post which, Ferguson concluded, became ‘‘a scandal sheet to vilify me.’’ Ferguson labeled Sterling ‘‘the most contemptible, ungrateful hound that ever lived on this earth.’’ His attacks on the Sterling and the Post were just a warm-up for the roasting Ferguson saved for William P. Hobby. Farmer Jim then turned his sights on Hobby, who became governor 164


when the state legislature forced Ferguson from office. Ferguson described Hobby as ‘‘not very strong mentally.’’ Ferguson claimed his own popularity brought Hobby into office on his coattails. ‘‘He is another low-down, ungrateful dog that turned on the man that had made him,’’ Ferguson charged. When he realized that he would succeed Ferguson as governor, Hobby lined up with the enemy. Ferguson called Hobby a ‘‘low despicable character’’ for allowing his mother to take the ‘‘pauper’s oath’’ to obtain an old-age pension while he made money as an elected official and newspaper publisher. While serving as governor, Hobby’s wife ‘‘furnished the brains’’ and ‘‘ran things while he was going around halfdrunk,’’ Ferguson charged. Although embarrassed by Ferguson’s tirade, Foster supported his observations about Mrs. Hobby. ‘‘You will doubtless agree with him that the tribute to his wife was most deserved,’’ Foster glibly wrote to Jones.66 Jesse Jones was busily working for Democratic presidential nominee John W. Davis in 1924. He left no written record of his reaction, but he undoubtedly noted the discord at home between Texas Democrats and between the Chronicle and the Post. By this time, Jones was philosophically and politically aligned with Sterling, Hobby, and other establishment Democrats against the Fergusons. But he realized there was little to gain in the local infighting, especially with his involvement in the national campaign. However, Jones undoubtedly took note of Foster’s observations and comments. Foster wrote that while he had not been a Ferguson enthusiast, he admired Ferguson’s outspoken manner, regardless of whom he offended. Foster also revealed another secret to Jones. The editor noted he too had been subjected to ‘‘personal attacks’’ by the Post, so after Ferguson’s vitriolic speech, ‘‘I must admit that I have no tears to shed.’’ However, the political controversy formed a breach between Jones and Foster that would soon turn into a wide gulf over the future of the Chronicle.67 In the general election campaign, Miriam Ferguson again condemned the Klan’s tactics. She called for registration of all secret organizations and an anti-mask law. She rode the anti-Klan coalition tovictory in November, with nearly 285,000 votes to 233,000 for her Republican opponent. Even though he never wanted their support, George Butte benefited from the strongest Klan organizations. Houston, Dallas, Fort Worth, Beaumont, and Waco, cities that traditionally voted Democratic during this era, provided majorities for the Republican gubernatorial nominee. Klan supporters tipped the balance in these areas when they joined with Ferguson critics and bona fide Republican voters.68 165


Miriam and Jim Ferguson triumphantly returned to Austin in January 1925, riding in the same Packard in which they drove away in disgrace in 1917.Thousands of people descended on the capital towitness the Fergusons’ return to political power. Along with the change in administration, new faces in other state offices and the legislature signaled trouble for the Klan.The lieutenant governor, attorney general, and many legislators elected on anti-Klan pledges took office. Crusading newspaper editors and local officials now had more support in their battles against the secret order, but everyone knew the conflict was far from over. The Ferguson administration began on a conciliatory note. As a result of the Fergusons’ conflict with the University of Texas and its powerful alumni, which dated back to Jim Ferguson’s first term as governor, both Fergusons met with members of the Texas Ex-Students’ Association to bury the hatchet.The governor wanted the organization to submit names for the seven positions open on the Board of Regents. Among the new group of nominees recommended to the governor were two influential newspaper editors who were among the most outspoken critics of the Ku Klux Klan: Marcellus Foster of the Houston Chronicle and Ted Dealey of the Dallas Morning News. Dealey later declined the nomination, but Foster accepted and the state senate confirmed the nomination. The Fergusons made the selections for political reasons, but after the prominent fight against the Klan waged by these two major newspapers the appointments represented a major recognition of their role in making public the actions of the Invisible Empire.69 In a session noted for austerity, the legislature approved an anti-Klan bill that made attacks on persons whilewearing a mask ordisguise punishable by a minimum of five years in prison. Lesser punishments extended to those who wore masks while in parades, entering churches, or appearing in some public places. Governor Ferguson signed the bill with a pen fashioned from a steer horn and stated, ‘‘[W]e are literally taking the bull by the horns and breaking his neck.’’ The war of words directed at the Klan was finally paying off. Klan membership was on the decline and by mid-1925 stood at less than 100,000 members. Texas was no longer ranked as the number one Klan state. Except for a battle with legislators over an amnesty bill to restore Jim Ferguson’s political rights, Governor Ferguson cooperated with the legislature and the state press. Nearly all of the major newspapers in the state gave her high marks. Foster and the Chronicle remained among her strongest advocates.70 Although many Ferguson opponents feared that liquor would re166


appear, no significant legislative or editorial battles erupted. As legislators left Austin for home in May 1925, harmony best described the atmosphere. However, knowledgeable capitol insiders and reporters noted that while Miriam Ferguson performed her duties, Jim set up his own adjacent office. The former governor attended meetings of state boards, agencies, and commissions and regularly met with legislators and others involved in major decisions, especially those that involved money. Although some scholars now believe that Miriam Ferguson exerted more authority in the decision-making process than previously acknowledged, Jim Ferguson undoubtedly maintained a strong influence. The ‘‘Governors Ferguson’’ were observed having heated exchanges, and she often disagreed publicly with her husband. Nevertheless, Jim’s activities as gubernatorial advisor soon created political headaches for his wife. Jim Ferguson remained at odds with former governor and newspaper publisher William P. Hobby, the man who replaced him in the governor’s office. He also intensely disliked Fort Worth Star-Telegram publisher Amon Carter. On November 28, 1925, the Fergusons announced a $500 reward for the arrest and conviction of wealthy liquor law violators, those worth at least $5,000. The announcement, without openly naming Hobby or Carter or other wealthy Texans who violated the Prohibition laws, clearly had an impact on the state’s publishers. At this time, the state’s prison ranks were swollen with poor people who had been convicted for violations such as manufacturing moonshine for personal use. The Fergusons accused Carter of being drunk at the University of Texas and Texas A&M football game in 1925. Jim Ferguson also said that Carter held a party for some Fort Worth oilmen and gave his guests souvenir imitation Bibles and hollow canes—each of which contained liquor. Miriam Ferguson claimed that Carter was waving one of the suspect canes at the football game when stadium police escorted him from the event. Not to be outdone, Carter used the event to promote himself and his battle with the Fergusons. After the confrontation at the football game, praise poured in for Carter and found its way into the pages of the StarTelegram. Hundreds of letters and telegrams congratulated him for his public confrontation with the Fergusons. Bryce L. Twitty of the Dallas Public Schools wrote that the ‘‘present regime is leading head-over-heels to anarchy and we need more men like ourself and Mr. Moody.’’ F. S. Osmon of Houston wrote that the Ferguson administration wanted to ‘‘get the public mind away from the more shameful conditions at Austin, especially in the State Highway Department.’’ P. L. Agar in New York 167


City told Carter, ‘‘I had a good time [talking to] Marcellus Foster a year ago . . . about his support for this dear old lady. I told him then I thought he would live to see the day that he would regret it.’’ 71 As the battle raged on in the newspapers, Governor Ferguson wrote Carter on November 30 and requested his resignation from the West Texas Technological College Board. The story made front-page news on the following day as Carter released the information to the state’s press. The Star-Telegram headline announced ‘‘Carter Refuses to Resign from Tech Board’’ and the Morning News announced ‘‘Resignation of Carter Asked by Governor.’’ In the news article, Governor Miriam Ferguson accused Carter of operating an ‘‘old-fashioned barroom’’ that included a bar with a foot rail and sawdust on the floor for the Oil Men’s Association in Fort Worth. At a party, Carter gave souvenir canes to his guests that contained a hidden vial ‘‘some 30 inches in length that contained approximately one pint of beverage.’’ Governor Ferguson claimed to have one of the suspected canes in her possession.72 R. A. Underwood, a Plainview banker and vice chairman of the board, told Carter that his departure from the board would be ‘‘disastrous to the college; it would be disastrous toWesternTexas, and the State of Texas as a whole.’’ Former governor Pat Neff, who appointed Carter to the board, instructed him to ‘‘stay put’’ and said that any thoughts of resignation would be a ‘‘foolish thing.’’ TexasTech president P.W. Horn urged Carter to stay and praised him for contributions ‘‘no other man in the state could have rendered.’’ The public battle died down at the end of the year, but the animosity between Carter and the Fergusons remained for years.73 The Ferguson administration began to run into more problems as they replaced the Klan as the primary political news item. Miriam Ferguson announced in her first message to the legislature that she would follow a liberal pardon policy. During her first year in office, she signed over 1,200 pardons, paroles, and other types of reprieves. The generous pardon policy soon aroused sharp criticism from the press and many community leaders. Some opposed the policy because of their sincere opposition to alcohol and those who trafficked in liquor. Critics emphasized that the release of convicts associated with Prohibition violations occurred because Jim Ferguson was a wet and took money in exchange for influencing his wife’s decisions. Rumors of bribery circulated, but no proof was ever obtained. Governor Ferguson challenged her critics when she announced plans to release up to seventy-five tubercular inmates and pardoned forty-five ‘‘penniless and friendless’’ African American prisoners in recognition of Juneteenth. Jim Ferguson told the Chronicle that ‘‘poli168


ticians were trying to scare up an issue to run for governor on next year’’ but predicted ‘‘they can’t win on it.’’ 74 Additional criticism was stirred up by stories of irregularities involving the selection of state-purchased student textbooks and Jim Ferguson’s promotion of his newspaper, the Ferguson Forum, to firms that had business with the state. The state highway department became the most contested agency because of the vast sums of money it spent and its large number of employees. In 1925 the state highway department employed 3,500 individuals and had a budget for construction and maintenance of $20 million annually. The amount exceeded the combined expenditures for public and highereducation in the state.The highwaycommissioners, appointed by the governor, invited Jim Ferguson to sit with them at their meetings. From the time Miriam Ferguson took office in January 1925, Jim Ferguson never missed a meeting and all the sessions were closed to the public. Contracts began to be awarded to individuals and companies that had no experience in highway construction. Huge sums of money were delivered to these firms—all of whom were Ferguson supporters and advertised in the Ferguson Forum.75 Louis W. Kemp, the new executive secretary of the Texas Highway and Municipal Contractors Association, quickly brought up a number of irregularities in state highway contracts for public scrutiny. Following a visit with Jim Ferguson on August 15, Kemp went to Attorney General Dan Moody about allegations that the Sherman-Youmans Construction Company of Houston was using state equipment for a private paving contract. Kemp also reported on other questionable practices involving the state highway department. Moody subsequently filed an injunction against the Sherman-Youmans Company. Ferguson denounced the suit as a political trick instigated by his enemies. ‘‘The whole thing started with a bunch of Ku Kluxers and a few sore-head contractors who have been kicked away from the pie counter,’’ Ferguson told the Chronicle. Kemp countered with a series of articles published by Don H. Biggers in the Johnson City Record Courier, a small weekly publication near Austin. The articles, published in the column ‘‘The Goat Bleats,’’ detailed allegations of excessive expenditures, arbitrary bids, unfulfilled contracts, and shoddy work. In the meantime, the attorney general continued his investigation of the highway department.76 The case that caused the greatest embarrassment for the Ferguson administration involved the American Road Company. Attorney General Moody filed suit against the company seeking to recover $650,000 of excess profits. Moody announced that the company, chartered in Dela169


ware for the sole purpose of securing contracts from the Texas Highway Commission, subcontracted work at slightly more than $600,000 and pocketed over $1.1 million in profits. In the subsequent settlement in late November, the company returned over $285,000 to the state treasuryand agreed to cancel all business in Texas. Frank Lanham and Joe Burkett, two of the three state highway commissioners, also resigned in the midst of the scandal. Members of the legislature began calling for a special session, and talk of impeachment involving a Governor Ferguson once again swept the state.77 In 1919 the Chronicle settled a series of lawsuits filed by Jim Ferguson in Bell County that alleged libelous and defamatory statements. Ferguson agreed to a $15,000 settlement.78 Foster defended Jim Ferguson frequently in his editorial columns. ‘‘For a man who is so often described by his enemies as the ‘champion of crookedness,’ Jim Ferguson seems to profit personally very little. When he was thrown out of the governor’s office eight years ago he was practically bankrupt.’’ Foster said that ‘‘Farmer Jim’’ repurchased his 8,900-acre Bosque County ranch with a note and was still paying off debts from his business and political pursuits. Ferguson was ‘‘more successful talking to farmers than in making a farm profitable.’’ 79 Foster’s support for the Fergusons met with criticism and praise from readers. One critic said that he refused to subscribe, ‘‘not because you fought the Ku Klux Klan so hard, but because you fought for the Fergusons.’’ H. Thomas, who said he always voted Democratic, would vote a Republican ticket before voting for a Ferguson. ‘‘Away with Jim Ferguson as well as the tar and feather element.’’ E. O. Zeanon said that Ma Ferguson was ‘‘one of the finest women that has ever trod Texas soil,’’ and that ‘‘with Jim Ferguson her legal advisor’’ she would show the people that they had ‘‘the greatest administration that Texas has ever known.’’ 80 Foster included Jones and his business activities in his columns.While he was away in New York, Jones kept in communication with his associates in Houston. He spent at least thirty minutes each day talking to his bank, hotel, lawyers, contractors, architects, and friends. The cost was about $100 per day, ‘‘but he says it’s lots cheaper than visiting Houston every time he wants something done.’’ Jones constructed a number of buildings in New York during the 1920s including the Mayfair Hotel at Sixty-second Street and an apartment building on Fifth Avenue. Jones maintained an office on Madison Avenue.81 Foster’s counterpart at the Houston Post-Dispatch, George M. Bailey, maintained a different slant on Jim Ferguson. The Fergusons had a large 170


following as a result of ‘‘1300 or more who have been deprisoned during the past year.’’ Bailey focused his attacks on the get-rich-quick schemes of the American Road Company and applauded Attorney General Dan Moody’s effort to recover $650,000 of the contract.82 The conflict over the Fergusons led to a war of words between Bailey and Foster. Baileydescribed Fosteras a ‘‘funny little man’’ whose ‘‘tattered garments of respectability have been patched with cloth from the locker of Jim Ferguson.’’ Bailey denied accusations that the Post was ‘‘klancontrolled or has any klan sympathies or affiliations.’’ In his reply, Foster stated that Ross Sterling, the prominent owner of the Post-Dispatch, was ‘‘one of the original troglodytes of Sam Houston Klan no. 1’’ which hated the Chronicle and its editor. Beginning in 1909, Foster and Jones entered into a series of financial agreements through which Foster was provided equity in the Houston Chronicle Publishing Company. Foster remained as president of the company and editor-in-chief of the newspaper. The first contract provided Jones and Fostereach with $72,200 of capital stock of the company whose value was placed at $200,000. The pair agreed not to sell stock unless both men agreed to it. The contract also specified buyout provisions for one another should Jones and Foster disagree over management and editorial policy.83 M. E.Tracy informed Jones of the sale of the Post in 1924 to Ross Sterling, the Houston oil executive and future governor. The Hearst newspaper chain failed in its efforts to obtain the Post. ‘‘If Hearst is so anxious to get into Houston he will not fail to make a good bid for the Chronicle,’’ Tracy predicted.Tracy said that theChronicle suffered from a lot of ‘‘dead timber’’ and that morale and efficiency suffered. Tracy said he had no quarrel with the editorial policy but was critical of the management of the newspaper. ‘‘You have backed both Mr. Foster and the Chronicle like a Spartan,’’ Tracy stated. Jones apparently replied he had no intention at that time of changing management or selling the newspaper. At the time, Jones was busy as finance chairman for the Democratic presidential nominee and the Democratic National Committee.84 However, the simmering dispute between Fosterand Jones soon boiled over. At the end of 1925, Foster wrote a series of letters to Jones complaining about the Post and attacks authored by Ross Sterling. ‘‘His references to me have been very sneering and untruthful, including deliberate mis-quotations, but I hardly think it worthwhile to take him seriously,’’ Foster wrote. A few days later, Foster said, ‘‘[O]ne of the things about this business that is always somewhat disheartening and discouraging is 171


the fact that I must submit to the vile attacks of vile creatures like R. S. Sterling.’’ Foster added, ‘‘He has such a hate for me that I know he would be glad to employ one of his dirty henchmen to even cut my throat, if he thought he could do it without being seen.’’ Jones tersely responded, ‘‘[Y]ou do yourself no credit or the Chronicle in continuing to slur and discredit him though I suppose the feud will continue as long as you both are in the newspaper business.’’ Jones voiced further concerns. He told Foster that although he had been directed to hold regular meetings with the Chronicle’s directors, ‘‘you failed to call any meetings or to have them.’’ Jones also warned Foster, ‘‘[Y]ou have overdrawn your account very heavily without authority from the Board of Directors and suggest that you arrange to pay the overdraft.’’ Jones informed Foster that W. O. Huggins would represent him in all matters during his absence from Houston.85 As the dispute over the Fergusons andChronicle policy widened, Jones employed W. O. Huggins, also a member of the Chronicle board, to serve as an intermediary. Huggins held several sessions with Foster in November and December 1925. Huggins provided lengthy memos to Jones following each conversation. Huggins reported that although Foster remained cordial, he said that Jones failed to understand the political and financial implications of the newspaper. ‘‘He said that you had never tried to do things that would expand the business of the Chronicle, that you had never put a cent into it but had always been taking from it,’’ Huggins wrote to Jones.The following day, Huggins urged Jones to intervene and remove Foster from the Chronicle. Huggins and Foster discussed a buyout. After some discussion, Foster wanted $750,000. Huggins urged Jones to act. ‘‘There has never before been a time when you would be supported by the public in taking charge as a majority stockholder as you would be at this moment and there probably will never be such a time again,’’ Huggins stated.86 Jones replied to Huggins a fewdays later. His statements indicated that Jones had already decided to remove Foster. Although Jones admitted he was ‘‘reluctant to take control of the property . . . his attitude toward me does not warrant any special consideration.’’ Jones accused Foster of a desire to ‘‘deceive the public and the heads of the departments as to the ownership of the stock and altogether occupy a false position.’’ He also said that Foster’s regularcolumns were ‘‘in a great part sillyand frequently objectionable and offensive to a large part of the clientele.’’ Finally, Jones said, ‘‘the principal purpose of the corporation during the last two years 172


apparently has been to furnish an ample supply of cash for extravagant living, and an outlet for intimate personal views that are not interesting to many people.’’ Jones concluded, ‘‘[W]e must remember that his state of mind is not good and I should like to apply the Golden Rule, but it is not easy for ordinary mortals to turn the other cheek.’’ 87 The exchanges between Foster, Huggins, and Jones stand in stark contrast to the account in Bascom Timmons’ biography of Jones. Timmons maintains that ‘‘[r]elations between Jones and Foster remained amicable’’ during this period. In this account, the entire discussion and settlement occurred during a meeting in Jones’ New York hotel in 1926.While Jones and Foster met in NewYork, the meeting was not a simple discussion over editorial policy. The session was merely the culmination of the growing division between the two men. The author alludes only to the political disagreements between Jones and Foster and makes no mention of the mistrust and accusations. Clearly, Jones was ready to make a change— with or without Foster’s agreement.88 In early 1926, the twenty-year relationship between Jones and Foster came to an end. On February 20, Foster sold his interests in theChronicle to Jones for $162,500 cash and $500,000 in bonds. Foster would remain as president of the Chronicle at $20,000 per year but could be terminated by mutual consent. Foster agreed that he would not work for another publication for ten years unless he obtained Jones’ consent. In a letter to Foster following the agreement, Jones told his former partner, ‘‘[W]e have no fear about the future of ‘The Chronicle.’ It may not always follow your ideas but we are going to try to have it stand for the best interests of the community that it serves. None of us have our talent or brilliancy in writing but we will do the best we can.’’ After a summer vacation in California, Foster returned to the Chronicle for the remainder of the year. In 1927, he assumed the reins as editor-in-chief of the Houston Press, the Scripps-Howard afternoon daily in Houston.89 Foster seldom mentioned the division from the Chronicle. In an interview many years later, he said that he sold his share of the business ‘‘because of stockholding controversies that nearly wrecked my brain and health. Went to California that year and slept, rested and played for six months.’’ He returned to Houston where he ‘‘was asked to take editorial charge of the Houston Press.’’ Foster remarked that his association with Scripps-Howard was ‘‘the happiest of all my long newspaper life. I know they have nothing to sell on the side—nothing they want to promote.’’ Foster remained as editor of the Press until 1941 and died in 1942.90 173


Commercial Radio Comes to Texas In the midst of the struggles with the Klan and the social changes of the 1920s, the major daily newspapers in Texas made a significant step that would ultimatelychange the nature of their media holdings.WFAA Radio became one of the first fifty commercial radio stations that went on the air in 1921. Within a few years, the number of stations across the nation numbered several hundred and consumer purchases of radios for home and business boomed. The Texas daily newspaper publishers entered the new communications market, not entirely confident or clear on the mission of the newest form of mass media. Walter Dealey, a son of George B. Dealey, first became interested in the radio as an extension of the Dallas Morning News operations. He obtained the first license in Texas in June 1921 for radio station WRR after convincing his skeptical father to approve the venture. ‘‘If we put in a sending station now, it will be comparable to when the Galveston Daily News established a branch paper in Dallas. Back then the idea was to ship the news by wire. The time has come to ship the news by wireless,’’ the younger Dealey successfully argued. A. J. Tyrer, an official with the Department of Commerce, notified the News of its approval for a broadcast license with the call letters WFAA. The Office of the Radio Inspector in New Orleans issued the License for Land Radio Station no. 456 on June 14, 1922. The News radio team, upon receiving the WFAA call letters, determined that this would stand for ‘‘Working for All Alike,’’ and the station was promoted as ‘‘a radio service of the Dallas Morning News.’’ 91 The first broadcast took place on June 26, 1922. As reported in the News daily edition, ‘‘[N]ews bulletins of the Dallas Morning News and the Dallas Journal are broadcast by radio at 9 p.m. daily except Sunday.’’ The article stated that prior to the news reports, the results of baseball games would be announced. The early broadcasts in the 1920s included entertainment, music, and religious programs. Classical, jazz, religious, and hillbilly music entertained listeners in the earliest years. At the end of 1922, an article stated that jazz music appeared to be on the rise as an audience favorite. The News reported, ‘‘Dizzy Four leads with Radio Fans,’’ from the number of letters received by the station about this local jazz group.92 Other stations popped up across the state, many of them owned and operated by major daily newspapers. These included WBAP in Fort Worth, owned by Amon Carter’s Star-Telegram; KPRC in Houston, owned by Ross Sterling and the Houston Post; WOAI in San Antonio, 174


owned by Frank Huntress’ Express-News. Jesse Jones owned station KTRH in Houston but did not officially combine it with the Chronicle until 1934. During the 1920s, Texas developed more stations than its counterparts in other southern states. This became a point of contention for many southern politicians. Southern radio stations and the number of radios owned by southern families trailed the rest of the nation for the next two decades. By 1930, three out of every four families in the North had access to a radio. In the South, barely one of every three families tuned in to commercial radio broadcasts. More stations broadcast in Texas by 1930 than any other southern state.93 WFAA in Dallas became the first radio station to offer educational programs and radio dramas, including the series ‘‘Dramatic Moments in Texas History.’’ The station carried the first state championship football game. Within the first year, the station carried weather reports, news analysis in a ‘‘Current History’’ segment, farm programs, and play-byplay reports of baseball and football games. However, these were not live. Announcers read from newswire reports. Broadcasting took place in the offices of the News building and were later moved to the Baker Hotel in downtown Dallas. After 1925, the station occasionally broadcast a women’s program on topics that included music, fashion, and homemaking. The daily editions of the News featured the WFAA schedule as part of its efforts to promote both its print and broadcast enterprises. Agricultural news and weather expanded in the first years of operation. In 1925, a survey of radio listeners to farm programs in Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana showed that WFAA and WBAP in Fort Worth were two of the top five stations in the three-state region.94 In his 1923 report to stockholders, Dealey explained the purpose of WFAA and the investment in it. He said that the total cost of the 500watt transmitter and other equipment came to $18,000, while expenses ran from $600 to $700 per month. ‘‘While this is a rather heavy expense, still we believe that the investment has been well worth while from the standpoint of building good-will for our papers,’’ the publisher stated. In the early years of operation, WFAA offered no advertising. Thus the corporation absorbed all of the operational costs. As Dealey explained in his statement, publishers saw the radio stations as an extension of their news and public service operations, not as a source of revenue.This view changed within a few years, as commercial advertising became another source of funds for the corporation. However, even with the growth of revenues from business advertising, the company refused to accept political ads for candidates during the 1920s. In its renewal application in 175


WFAA’s fifty-watt transmitter and the radio station’s one-room studio stood atop the Dallas Morning News building in 1922. Photo courtesy Belo Corp. Archives.

1927, M. L. Goodwin described the type of stations desired by the government’s licensing agency, the Federal Radio Commission. Goodwin advised Walter Dealey that the company should include comments with its application stating that WFAA refused to allow ‘‘use of the station for political campaigning’’ and that the station was ‘‘high class in every respect.’’ 95 Jesse Jones came to a similar conclusion in Houston. His attorney and friend W. O. Huggins told Jones that by 1928 the Houston Post had started using advertisements during its broadcasts on KPRC. The announcements resulted from the ‘‘free service given to users of space in the PostDispatch,’’ Huggins stated. ‘‘It makes it very hard and often impossible for the Chronicle to compete with the Post-Dispatch as to that advertiser.’’ The Chronicle board members had resisted investing in a radio station 176


because of the negligible returns. ‘‘It looks like the time has come when we can no longer ignore the radio,’’ Huggins said. By the end of the 1920s, the Chronicle joined the growing number of major daily newspapers in Texas and the South who owned a radio station as an integral part of their media enterprise.96 Battles Won and Lost The pivotal battles against the Klan and the more widespread crusade against the Ferguson administration reaffirmed the leadership of the major Texas publishers and their newspapers. As political leaders dodged the Klan or joined forces with the Invisible Empire, only a handful of newspaper publishers and editors took a proactive, public stance of defiance. In addition to confronting the Klan in print, Dealey, Foster, Jones, and others worked behind the scenes to encourage opposition in the business and professional community and among the elected leadership. In doing so, they also strengthened their own position as leaders in civic and political affairs. Their challenge also grew from the belief that the new urban middle-class economy of the region faced a direct challenge from the Klan. The Klan conflicted with the prosperous, modern image that the newspaper publishers had defined over the previous two decades. Newspaper readers and advertisers were not always loyal, especially when publications took unpopular positions, but the Morning News and the Chronicle, the two most vocal opponents of the Klan, managed to survive the mayhem and expand theirauthority in the community. The clash with the Klan represented a turning point in the relationship between the perception of the daily newspaper and its role in the community. Many critics of the time saw the newspapers as contributing to the divisions in society. Although both critics and supporters of the Klan utilized the media for their own advantage, the rifts created within the commercial elites and the political establishment created instability in Texas during these boom years. The newspapers, and particularly those editors and publishers who took unpopular public stands, established their publications as targets for retaliation. Newspaper audiences and advertisers demonstrated that loyalty was not blind and complete. Choices were made on issues other than which paper had the broadest circulation or provided the most information. As in nearly every type of conflict, even the victors suffer casualties and losses. George B. Dealey, the Morning News management, and the Belo Company suffered financial losses for several years in the early 1920s. Internal questions arose over Dealey’s management and leadership. Rival 177


newspapers in the region, primarily the Times Herald and the StarTelegram, clearly benefited from the turmoil. Carter and the StarTelegram purchased the Fort Worth Record from the Hearst Newspapers in 1925, thereby consolidating the Fort Worth daily as the dominant publication in West Texas. The uncertainty during the dark days of Klan supremacy undoubtedly led to Belo’s decision to sell the Galveston News. The battle with the Klan and the Fergusons led to friction and the ultimate break between Marcellus Foster and Jesse H. Jones at the Houston Chronicle. Although both the Chronicle and the Morning News emerged from these prolonged battles in the post World War I era, the composition and voice of both institutions significantly changed. Despite dramatic changes, these publishers and their individual enterprises contributed to modernization through expansion, improved public services, and better technologies. By the end of the 1920s, the major dailies in the state expanded their financial positions and circulations as they increased their influence in public affairs. They also reasserted their political influence at the local and state levels. With the demise of the Klan and the defeat of the Fergusons, the political front remained static until the 1930s and the Great Depression. On the surface, the Fergusons offered a clear alternative to the Klan. While Fergusonism offered a definitive alternative to the Invisible Empire, it also represented views that ran counter to those of the major newspaper publishers. The Fergusons represented a voice from the past that represented the rural, uneducated, and poor. In the eyes of the daily publishers, the Fergusons and their supporters represented a view that opposed Progressive reform as defined by the publishers. Marcellus Foster’s vocal support for the Fergusons contributed to his demise as an integral part of the Houston Chronicle. As part of their effort to transform and modernize the state, the publishers’ confrontations with the forces of traditionalism secured their position as proponents of modernization. However, the road to modernism held unforeseen twists and turns for newspaper publishers. The struggles with the Klan and the Fergusons during the booming years of the 1920s left an indelible mark. The victory over the forces of southern traditionalism did little to significantly improve the relationship between white Texans and minorities. Those changes would not begin to emerge until the 1930s.

178

CHAPTER 6

Texas Newspapers, the Crash of 1929, and the Great Depression In the months following the Wall Street crash of 1929, many people in the United States, including throughout Texas, refused to believe that hard times were ahead. Despite the many danger signals that had appeared years beforehand, most Americans were stunned at the stock market’s October collapse. After October 29, 1929, the market lost more than 40 percent of its value in a matter of a few weeks. President Herbert Hoover, in his first year of office after his smashing victory in 1928, also refused to recognize the problem or understand its ramifications. Like most Americans, he believed that the economy was sound and that the market would correct itself. Most Texas officials and business and civic leaders supported President Hoover’s views. Dallas business leaders predicted a rebound ‘‘to the great benefit of legitimate business throughout the country.’’ The San Antonio Express boasted, ‘‘Here is no boom, no artificial inflation of values or fictitious prosperity based upon the shifting sands of rash speculation and unsound promotion.’’ 1 Realities of the Depression soon descended on even the most optimistic of Texans.The Depression and the reaction to the economic downturn introduced new trends that accelerated during the war years and in the postwar era. Although still prevalent at the outbreak of World War II, significant cracks showed in the southern foundation of tradition, class, and racial order. A decline in sharecropping and rural poverty, challenges to the all-white primary, growth in urban areas, the increase in federal initiatives—all these and more had led to disruption of institutions and attitudes in Texas and other southern states. Unionization, public power, bridges, dams and paved roads, federal relief efforts, and many other reforms spread across the Dixie landscape, graphically illustrating the initially under-appreciated social revolution underway.2 Even as late as the spring of 1931, predictions were still being made


that the Depression was to be short lived. No Texas elites anticipated a challenge to the prevailing social order. The Fort Worth Star-Telegram stated, ‘‘[I]n America, we don’t know what hard times are. Certainly these times are not hard, except for the utterly improvident, the idle, and the shiftless—and all times are hard on them.’’ The newspaper failed to talk about the difficulties now facing most Texans. Nearly two years after the Wall Street crash, the construction business had disappeared completely in most Texas cities and towns. Although pockets of prosperity existed in the state, most of the agricultural areas suffered. The oil industry continued to pump money and jobs into the state’s economy but could not absorb all of the unemployed workers. The discovery of oil in the great East Texas field in 1931 that drew people from Texas and surrounding states failed to offset growing unemployment. An estimated 10,000 laborers who traveled to the East Texas boom area could not find jobs. The January 1, 1931, edition of the Dallas Morning News featured a photo of six jobless men huddled around an open fire within sight of the Dallas skyline. In Houston, where oil was stored, refined, and shipped, nearly one in four remained out of work. ‘‘Hobo camps’’ popped up along the San Antonio River and other Texas communities.3 By 1931 most Texans realized the difficulties now facing them were not ephemeral. Banks around the state began to close for lack of funds and from unsound investments. Foreclosures of businesses and farms began to rise in 1931. Also, in urban areas layoffs began to increase as businesses reduced their payrolls and scaled back on production and services. The Texas National Bank in Fort Worth closed its doors in January 1930 when it could not provide money to all of its depositors. In September 1931, San Antonio’s City Central Bank and Trust Company failed. The City of San Antonio lost nearly 20 percent of its annual budget when the bank closed. San Antonio forced many of its public employees to leave their jobs. The city also abandoned its relief program for the unemployed. People remained nervous about their money in local banks. Many hid money in mattresses and buried cash in jars behind their homes.4 Dallas Morning News publisher George Dealey warned his managers late in the summer of 1931 that the economic downturn was creating substantial problems for the newspaper. ‘‘Our establishment is geared up and manned for a maximum volume of business but we are suffering from a minimum,’’ Dealey revealed. He urged all department heads to work ‘‘harder than ever to increase receipts and in saving every possible dollar of unnecessary expense.’’ Concerned that such an admission might 180

Newspapers and the Great Depression

create tension in the newspaper’s offices, Dealey informed only a small number of employees. ‘‘For obvious reasons I am not sending this message in writing to each department, but asking all to come to my office and read it. Please consider it private and confidential.’’ The dire letter contained the initials of twenty-six staff members. Even with the lean years, no employees lost their jobs on the News from layoffs or cutbacks. As long-time employee Tom Simmons observed, nearly everyone believed in the ‘‘two most difficult tasks—the second most difficult was getting employed at the Dallas News and the first most difficult was getting fired by the Dallas News.’’ 5 Dallas Morning News editor Dick West began his career at the daily in the Depression years. West recalled that many journalism graduates enlisted their parents’ aid to obtain newspaper jobs. ‘‘Their fathers, if they had any money, were paying newspapers to hire them.’’ West started with the News at $15.40 per week and was ‘‘very glad’’ to have both the job and the money.6 For rural Texans, hard times seemed to be a fact of life even before the October 1929 crash. The situation deteriorated further in the early 1930s. Cotton, the state’s number one cash crop, fell to five cents a pound by 1931. At those prices, farmers needed three times the amount of cotton to make payments on their bills. Prices for corn and cattle dropped to half their 1929 levels. Prices for all types of items fell during the same period, but the money farmers received from their crops dropped even faster.To make matters worse, cotton production reached 17 million bales in 1931, the second-largest crop ever harvested in the state. Texas and other southern states considered government action to halt the freefall in cotton prices but were unsuccessful.7 Faced with mounting costs, the state legislature looked for areas to reduce spending. A special legislative committee recommended the closing of four-year public colleges in Alpine, Nacogdoches, Canyon, San Marcos, and Kingsville.The legislators undoubtedly dreaded the reaction of any public recommendations for cuts at the University of Texas or Texas A&M. But they fearlessly concluded that Texas had too many colleges and that they were an ‘‘unnecessary extravagance and a burden on the taxpayers.’’ The report frightened each of the small college host cities targeted and received critical responses from their small daily publishers. The San Marcos Daily Record wondered why so many colleges were marked for ‘‘slaughter’’ and asked, ‘‘[W]hy doom the Texas State Teachers Colleges which are economically administered and have the largest groups of students in the state?’’ After the major daily newspapers 181


also picked up the cry, the legislature failed to act on the recommendation. But the colleges saw substantial reductions in their budgets, while teachers and professor salaries experienced smaller paychecks after 1932.8 The Depression hit minority citizens especially hard. Officials in some cities denied relief to Mexican Americans and African Americans on the grounds that white Texans needed the limited funds and jobs. The Reverend C. C. White, an African American minister in the East Texas community of Jacksonville, worked to keep his family and church together. He and his wife, Ada, provided food for many friends and strangers who appeared at their kitchen door. ‘‘There wasn’t any money,’’ White said, ‘‘and hungry folks got to where they’d be around our house about suppertime.’’ Meals often consisted of nothing more than cornbread.9 Unless mentioned as part of a crime, few African Americans made the pages of the state’s dailies. The economic plight of minorities in a Jim Crow state received scant attention in the press or in the halls of government. Even in editorial offices that saw themselves as tolerant and not as judgmental as the rest of the population, prejudice manifested its presence in the day-to-day operations. In a memo to his editors, George Dealey commented on the use of the word ‘‘Negro’’ and when it should be capitalized. ‘‘When used as an adjective, the word should not be capitalized,’’ Dealey explained. ‘‘For example, negro church, negro Democrats, negro murderers. Use lower case.’’ 10 As the economy deteriorated, newspapers and some civic leaders urged private charities and local governments to provide relief and jobs. However, most could not cope with all the demands placed on them by the unemployed and the thousands of farm and city families seeking assistance. Furthermore, no organization possessed the resources to meet the growing disaster.The Red Cross, the Salvation Army, church organizations, and other private groups announced by 1931 that they could not meet the increasing demands for food, shelter, and financial assistance. As the Depression held its grip on the state and nation in the early 1930s, people began to realize that private organizations, local governments, and good intentions could not turn the economy around. By the time the national election arrived in November 1932, Texans and the rest of the nation were looking for a new leader to take on the Great Depression. The Houston Bank Crisis By the fall of 1931, two of Houston’s seven banks were practically insolvent. The Public National Bank & Trust and the Houston National both were considering closing their doors. Jesse Jones, before he became head 182


of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC), called a meeting of all top-level bankers in the city at his thirty-third-floor office in the Gulf Building to resolve the pending financial crisis of the two banks. The group convened on a Sunday afternoon, October 25, 1931, and spent two days in negotiations in an effort to reach a cooperative agreement to resolve the dilemma. Finally, the group agreed to obtain capital from the five solvent lending institutions to prop up the two failing banks and to raise additional contributions from the local utilities and a cotton brokerage firm. Throughout the two extended sessions in Jones’ office, no information appeared in the daily newspapers until the beleaguered financial leaders had reached a final agreement. Jones easily quashed the story in his own publication. As the bankers sweated over their decisions and possibly other financial institutions in the region neared collapse, the Houston Post-Dispatch carried stories on German war reparations to the United States and announced the kickoff of the annual Community Chest campaign for needy citizens. The omission of news coverage was not by oversight but design.11 In his book on his years as head of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, Jones cited the Houston crisis as a precursor to others that would follow as the Depression continued. ‘‘With all our care and precautions, it had not been possible for all the leading bankers in town to hold two all-night meetings without a considerable number of people knowing of it and wondering what it was all about,’’ Jones stated. In order to avert a run on the Houston banks and prevent any premature news coverage of the agreement, Jones said he persuaded the Houston Post-Dispatch to delay news of the agreement until their morning edition on Tuesday, October 27. The National Bank of Commerce, in which Jones was the primary investor, took over the Public National Bank & Trust. As a result of the consolidation, the National Bank of Commerce was ‘‘one of the largest and strongest banks in the city.’’ The family of Joseph F. Meyer Sr., pioneers in the Houston business community, acquired the Houston National Bank. The following day, the Post-Dispatch wistfully noted the announcements ‘‘should serve to stimulate a feeling of optimism which has not been apparent in the city for some time.’’ 12 The unprecedented secret agreement saved the city’s banks and many smaller area banks that were dependent on the major lending institutions. Jones used his position during this crisis to suppress a story that he believed would not only damage the banks in Houston but also harm the spirit and image of the community. As owner of the Chronicle, he had 183


Jesse H. Jones (seated, left) befriended Oveta Culp Hobby (seated, center) and former Texas governor William P. Hobby (seated, right). He assisted Governor Hobby in the purchase of the Houston Post. Photo courtesy CAH (CN01244).

no problem in limiting coverage of the bankers’ closed-door meetings. Jones also had provided behind-the-scenes loans to businessman Jack Josey and William P. Hobby to purchase the Post-Dispatch from Sterling. Because of Jones’ aid in the purchase of the Post-Dispatch, Hobby undoubtedly felt an obligation to withhold coverage at Jones’ request. In this case, Jones determined that the public’s right to know was temporarily offset by the impending crisis, which was narrowly averted as a result of the joint agreement. As Jones and others stated for years to come, as a result of the agreement no bank runs occurred and not one Houston lending institution failed during the Depression.13 Jones remained very adept at creating publicity for himself, and he was just as canny at withholding information until the proper moment. The lessons he learned in Houston served him time and again when he became chairman of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation in February 1932. As head of the RFC, Jones held press conferences as often as twice a week. Jones frequently asked correspondents not to disclose specific 184


information if he felt the information might be ‘‘hurtful.’’ In return, Jones built a working relationship with the press. ‘‘I had the best possible cooperation from the correspondents,’’ he said. ‘‘They were really helpful in dispelling fear.’’ 14 Politics and News of the Great Depression The Daisy Bradford no. 3, a successful ‘‘wildcat’’ oil well drilled by C. M. ‘‘Dad’’ Joinerduring the early years of the Depression, changed the face of East Texas. The massive field covered five counties and contained about one-third of the nation’s oil reserves. The discovery of large deposits of oil in East Texas created an economic boom that provided much-needed jobs for the region. Thousands of people poured in to the communities of Kilgore, Tyler, and Longview as 3,400 wells pumped over 200 million barrels of oil by 1932. Dallas became the home of many oil companies. Dallas banks provided loans for the oil business. Many people made fortunes during the years of the East Texas oil boom. But the massive volume of oil drove the price down from one dollar per barrel in 1930 to eight cents by 1931. Even though the low price reduced profits, many independent operators disputed the need to reduce production. Others, including the larger companies, argued for reductions and conservation. These disputes over regulation of oil production continued for years and created much hostility in the region. TheTexas Railroad Commission attempted to bring peace to the situation and adopted rules in April 1931 to reduce the supply of oil. However, many oil operators defied the state’s orders.When prices for oil remained low, the major companies refused to buy oil from the East Texas field for their refineries. Smaller independents began shipping theirown oil, operating their own refineries, and selling gas at their own stations. Threats of violence forced Texas governor Ross Sterling to declare martial law in the region. In August 1931 the governor sent the National Guard into East Texas to enforce state laws and stop oil production. Governor Sterling said the troops were necessary to combat lawlessness and spread of the ‘‘hot oil’’ crisis. (Hot oil was petroleum produced in excess of the stateordered requirements.) Sterling, who previously had served as an official of Humble Oil Company, sent in General Jacob Walters, an attorney for the influential Texas Company, as head of the National Guard to enforce state laws. As a result, Sterling received attacks for siding with the large corporations against the independents. Oil prices began to rise, but hot oil still flooded the market and kept prices depressed.15 The failure of the cotton program and dispatching of National Guard 185


troops to the East Texas oil fields hurt Governor Sterling’s reelection bid. At the same time the governor confronted the political crisis in East Texas, he also witnessed the loss of much of his own capital. The loss of the Post and his bank interests in the fall of 1931 undoubtedly took its toll on the governor-publisher. Former governor Miriam Ferguson, who lost to Sterling in 1930, returned for a rematch in 1932. ‘‘The political situation is becoming very acute and, frankly, as the set-up looks now I have my serious doubts as to whether Governor Sterling can defeat the Fergusons in the coming election,’’ predicted StarTelegram publisher Amon Carter. Fearful of a return by the Fergusons in dire economic times, Carter explained to Harry Wiess of Humble Oil and Refining that the ‘‘times are set-up’’ for a Ferguson victory. Carter unsuccessfully attempted to talk Sterling out of running for reelection. He also stated, ‘‘[T]here is a grave question as to how many newspapers in the state will support the Governor for a second term.’’ 16 Carter met with Governor Sterling and wrote to him about his concerns. ‘‘You have gone through some of the most trying times we have seen, a period when everybody is prone to criticize and when every public official has been more or less under fire for refusal to permit the treasury to be opened to all who appealed,’’ Carter wrote. ‘‘Resentment against the established order of things and those in office is apt to be pronounced, as unjust as it is.’’ Carter explained that he and the Fort Worth paper would support the governor if he chose to run again, although he clearly argued in favor of the incumbent stepping aside for another candidate.17 Carter’s pleas to the governor clearly expressed the sentiments held by the state’s leading publishers. All of the major daily newspapers feared the ongoing economic problems created by the Depression. All of them loathed the Fergusons as dangerous demagogues and symbols of the state’s wild, corrupt past. Although most of these publishers and editors recognized the sentiments expressed by Amon Carter, they failed to convince Sterling to step aside for another business-oriented candidate. They undoubtedly felt sympathy for Sterling, a fellow newspaper publisher and a respected member of the business community. As Amon Carter accurately predicted, the governor carried far too much political baggage to overcome the latest Ferguson political revival. The rising discontent created by the economic depression produced a nearly impossible climate for the incumbent governor. Sterling narrowly lost to Miriam Ferguson in the 1932 Democratic Primary, his second contest with her. Both Jim and Miriam Ferguson remained popular with the poor and underprivileged, of which there were undoubtedly more 186


in 1934. Also, the election coincided with the nomination of Franklin Roosevelt as Democratic nominee for president. Like President Hoover, Governor Sterling was blamed for the hard times and not doing enough to help people. The support of the major daily newspapers in the state failed to offset the overwhelming need to change the prevailing order in Austin and in Washington. Miriam Ferguson’s victory marked one of the few times in which a candidate captured the governor’s mansion without the support of a majority of the state’s major daily newspapers. However, this was not be the final political surprise of the 1930s. The second Ferguson administration coincided with FDR’s first two years in office. The Ferguson administration supported most of the early New Deal programs. Texas voters passed an amendment to the state constitution for allocating $20 million in relief. Texas also approved the Twenty-first Amendment, which ended Prohibition in the nation. The Ferguson administration, however, encountered controversy over two issues. A large number of Texas Rangers were appointed, which made the law enforcement agency a private political army for the Fergusons. The Texas Rangers had openly supported Governor Sterling’s unsuccessful 1932 reelection effort. When Governor Ferguson took office in January 1933, she retaliated by firing all 44 Rangers.The legislature created a new Ranger force and Ferguson filled the positions with her own supporters. She enlarged the force by commissioning over 2,300 Special Rangers. Texas newspapers and officials ridiculed the new Ranger force as corrupt and inefficient, and newspapers revealed the pasts of new Rangers who had been convicted of murder, gambling, or theft. The administration was also criticized for issuing too many pardons to convicted felons. Finally, Jim Ferguson once again created controversy: he and Lawrence Westbrook, head of the Texas Relief Commission, were accused of using relief funds to build a political organization, for which they received wide news coverage. Without exception, the major dailies roundly criticized the second Ferguson administration. Attacks focused on corruption and Jim Ferguson’s seemingly unbridled influence on his wife’s gubernatorial duties. Miriam Ferguson elected not to run for a third term of office in 1934, citing the long-standing Texas tradition of governors serving only two terms. Texas newspaper publishers, however, claimed credit for forcing Miriam Ferguson’s retirement. George B. Dealey boasted in his 1934 corporate report of the Morning News’ battles against ‘‘Fergusonism.’’ He pointed to the victorious slate of statewide candidates endorsed by the 187


News, along with the defeat of three candidates in the 1934 election ‘‘who refused to repudiate Ferguson’s endorsement.’’ 18 The Fergusons fueled the news and editorial pages of the large dailies, but another infamous Texas duo briefly overshadowed the political dogfights in Austin. Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow shot their way onto the front pages and created a wave of terror throughout Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana. ‘‘With a ruthlessness that would chill the most hardened heart, the Clyde Barrow–Bonnie Parker–Raymond Hamilton gang of desperadoes, wrote in letters of blood another gory chapter of Texas’ criminal history,’’ the Houston Post declared in its front-page story. The news stated that Bonnie and Clyde killed two Texas highway patrolmen and ‘‘gleefully poured streams of lead into their prostrate bodies, then sped away, laughing gaily.’’ The following day, the Post editorial called for modernization of law enforcement following the ‘‘banditry and butchery which shocked and shamed Texas over the weekend.’’ To enforce their position, the editors stated that ‘‘not since the days of 1835, when Texas was in revolt against the power of the Dons, and Indian savages ran with Mexican oppressors in a welter of lawlessness, has the law been so impotent against its malefactors.’’ 19 Bonnie Parker selected the Houston Post as an outlet for her public letters. In a letter mailed from the small East Texas community of Groveton in April 1934, Parker announced that she and Clyde had separated from Raymond Hamilton. ‘‘We did not do business together.We have decided to say apart and if one of us gets in the other one can get him out.’’ The letter’s author remarked that ‘‘the officers have give notice to the turist to be very careful and stop when they are told to. I also ask them to be very carful who they tell to stop.’’ The message ended ‘‘Respt. Clyde and Bonnie.’’ The Post editors turned the envelope and its contents over to law enforcement authorities, who concluded the letter appeared to be authentic.20 As respect for law enforcement declined during hard times, crime rose in the state. Texas became the home of some nationally known violent criminals: Machine-Gun Kelly and Raymond Hamilton joined with Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker as major news topics. When Governor Ferguson did not seek reelection, Texas Attorney General James Allred ran for governor in 1934 on a campaign to clean up the Texas Rangers and support the Roosevelt administration’s New Deal programs. Allred was aware of the growing concern with the rise of crime and the increased attention it received in the state’s newspapers. He capitalized on the public’s concern produced by the sensational news headlines in 1934. In 188


Allred’s first term as governor, the legislature created the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS). The governor appointed a three-person DPS commission to oversee the Texas Rangers, the Highway Patrol, and a headquarters unit with a crime lab. The Rangers became part of a modern law enforcement organization free from political domination, but the force continued to suffer in its relations with the state’s minorities for years to come.21 With the onset of the Depression, South Texas congressman John Nance Garner rose to national prominence. ‘‘For the first time in history a speaker’s gavel made of Texas mesquite banged upon the dais of the house’’ as Garner became Speaker of the House when the Democrats reclaimed Congress in the 1930 elections. As he assumed the powerful position of Speaker, Garner stated, ‘‘I made no promises as a candidate for this office, and I make none now.’’ Over President Herbert Hoover’s opposition, Garner pushed through a $1 billion public works bill and funded the Reconstruction Finance Corporation with another $1 billion and included his friend, Houston publisher Jesse H. Jones, on the first RFC board. Critics viewed this as a radical move, but the press gave Garner widespread publicityas the primary Democratic congressional leader in opposition to the HooverWhite House.William Randolph Hearst promoted Garner for president in a nationwide radio address, January 11, 1932, followed by a serialized story, ‘‘The Romantic Story of John Nance Garner,’’ in the Hearst newspapers. San Antonio hosted a statewide ‘‘Garner for President’’ rally as the Uvalde congressman became a regular feature in the Texas press.22 The New Deal in Texas and Newspaper Reaction Garner’s career at this time captures the transitional nature of the Texas eliteworldview in the early 1930s.The publicworks projects and the RFC that were passed through Garner’s efforts represented a sharp break from southern economic orthodoxy, which insisted that markets rise and fall as a result of natural cycles. Traditionally, southern Democrats insisted that state and federal governments should step aside during economic crises and not even intervene to provide relief for the most desperate among the unemployed, for fear of disrupting those cycles. The market could best heal itself, traditional Dixie thought insisted, but Garner was unwilling to wait. Garner’s support for $2 billion in federal spending to end the Depression was seen by some as radical, even though the RFC—which loaned money to banks in the hope that they would lend more money for business projects, eventually creating new jobs—reflected a conserva189


tive, trickle-down economic theory. Even so, when Hearst floated Garner as a presidential prospect, the Speaker of the House presented himself as a rock-ribbed conservative committed to balanced budgets. Garner’s White House bid floundered in 1932, but Democratic nominee Franklin Roosevelt picked him as his running mate to provide regional balance on the ticket and placate conservatives uncertain of Roosevelt’s ideological allegiance. A party loyalist, Garner accepted and helped steer many of Roosevelt’s early New Deal programs through Congress, although by the late 1930s he dramatically split with the President over issues such as deficit spending and FDR’s support of the labor movement.23 Franklin Roosevelt promised a ‘‘New Deal’’ for Americans and won a sweeping victory in the November 1932 presidential election. At his inauguration, Roosevelt told the nation he would use the power of the federal government to ‘‘wage a war’’ against the Depression. The Roosevelt administration immediately launched a massive effort to stimulate the nation’s economy and restore the people’s confidence in business and government. The results included an unprecedented number of federal programs aimed at directly combating poverty and unemployment. George Seldes gained fame as one of the foremost press critics of the twentieth century. Seldes, a former reporter and editor for the Pittsburgh Leader and the Pittsburgh Gazette, published a critical reviewof the newspaper business in the mid-1930s. ‘‘The press, instead of furnishing America with sound economic truth, furnished the lies and buncombe of the merchants of securities, which termed an economic debacle a technical situation, which called it the shaking out of bullish speculators, which blamed everything on lack of confidence.’’ With the exception of the initial crash in October 1929, the explanations of the ‘‘patriot-economist’’ Seldes placed the main cause of the Depression on economic conditions in European nations. During the first years of the Depression, corporate and government leaders, in cooperation with the major newspapers, ignored the underlying causes and the realities of the economic downturn. Critics charged that the nation’s newspapers created a false sense of security among the U.S. public concerning the probable length of the Depression. Instead of investigating unemployment, living conditions, discontent among farmers and laborers, and the foreign impact on the U.S. economy, the major newspapers reported only wishful thinking from economists and government officials. Newspapers continuouslyoffered reassurances that ‘‘good times were in sight again, that prosperity was just around the corner, that we had scraped bottom, that we were on the road to recovery.’’ 190


Seldes declared that the press, ‘‘which failed the public in 1929, can rescue it [the economy] today.’’ 24 Seldes aimed most of his barbs at the anti-Roosevelt publishers in the North and East. Somewhat surprisingly, Seldes, along with the major Texas publishers, saw the new Roosevelt-Garner administration as a real hope for change in the bleak economy of the early 1930s. Many publishers in the North received criticism alongside other business leaders as selfish, narrow-minded capitalists concerned only with their corporate revenues. Southern publishers largely escaped this criticism, at least in their home regions, because of their traditional allegiance to Democratic candidates. In the November 1932 election, the Roosevelt-Garner team swept to victory with an overwhelming victory. They carried fortytwo states to Hoover’s six. Roosevelt carried Texas with 734,000 votes to Hoover’s paltry 98,000. As the new administration prepared to take office in March 1933, news stories and editorials from the smallest crossroads community to the crowded metropolitan centers speculated on the change. The San Angelo Evening Standard ran a series of feature stories on the nation’s economic ills. Walter Lippmann’s syndicated column argued for inflationary measures.The newspaper even ran free ads for those seeking employment.Texas newspapers also carried extensive reports on the Roosevelt and the Garner families. As the Evening Standard commented on FDR’s inaugural speech, it sounded optimistic. ‘‘It is enough of a ‘New Deal’ to save the country’s morale.’’ Surprisingly, like many other newspapers in the once again solidly Democratic state, the column spared blaming President Hoover for the nation’s calamity. ‘‘This depression has made more alibis for people who have never made a success of anything . . . and has made failure more respectable than any other time in our history.’’ 25 Similar to the larger dailies, Houston Harte’s San Angelo papers commented favorably on the bank holiday in March. Local bank officials apparently expressed concerns to the newspaper about additional federal oversight, but the newspaper stood by the administration and declared that the emergency legislation restored confidence in the banking system. Unlike San Antonio, Fort Worth, Dallas and dozens of other cities with bank failures, San Angelo’s three banks remained solvent.The Emergency Banking Act stood as an example of ‘‘another instance where state’s rights must be subservient to the national good.’’ Following their review by federal bank examiners, the city’s banks reopened for business on March 15, 1933. The West Texas newspaper also joined ranks with 191


President Franklin D. Roosevelt (left) appointed Houston Chronicle publisher and businessman Jesse H. Jones to chair the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. Photo courtesy CAH (CN08130).

other dailies in support of repeal of Prohibition. Although the editorial noted that the ‘‘beer bill could easily become a monument to stupidity,’’ it viewed the end of the national experiment as beneficial. ‘‘Right or wrong, the tidal wave is upon the country.’’ 26 President Roosevelt selected Jesse H. Jones of Houston to head the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. As previously noted, the RFC used federal money to provide loans to the nation’s banks and businesses hardest hit by the Depression. The RFC attempted to stem the tide of bank failures and business closures with low-interest loans. During the next five years, the RFC loaned over $10 billion to banks, railroads, construction programs, and private businesses. All of this money was repaid with interest, which made the RFC one of the most successful New Deal agencies. Jones became known as one of the most powerful men in Washington.27 Another Roosevelt supporter and influential publisher turned down suggestions that he take a position in Washington. Amon Carter’s name appeared in Will Rogers’ nationally syndicated column as a potential sec192


retary of war. The humorist said that Carter was ‘‘well liked by all Democrats and 50 percent of the Republicans.’’ Although he had never served in a government position, Carter would ‘‘handle our army mighty well in peace and put us in a mighty pretty war if the occasion arises.’’ As a footnote to the Rogers’ column, Carter added his own comments in the Star-Telegram. ‘‘The publisher of this paper never has accepted political appointment of any character and has no intention of so doing.’’ 28 With his friends Garnerand Jones as two of the most influential administration leaders, Carter remained in Fort Worth and constantly besieged Washington with requests. President Roosevelt became a recipient of Carter’s hospitality and donations on his frequent trips toTexas. According to Amon Carter’s biographer Jerry Flemons, Carter, along with Jones, ‘‘rustled so much government money for the Lone Star State during the Depression that Washington wags spoke of it as the ‘star loan state.’ ’’ Along with the influential Texas congressional delegation, Carter and other Texas publishers quickly utilized their political connections to attract federal dollars to the state for massive construction and employment projects.29 The Allred administration in Texas chose to work closely with the federal government to combat the effects of the Depression in Texas. Allred focused his efforts on a number of agencies and programs created to fight unemployment and hard times. These included the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), the Public Works Administration (PWA), the Works Progress Association (WPA), and the National Youth Administration (NYA).The federal government poured over $100 million into Texas in these programs alone to provide jobs and projects for the people of the state. The CCC enrolled over 10,000 men from the ages of seventeen to twenty-eight in forty-two different camps in the state. Over 50,000 Texans joined the CCC to work in camps across the nation at thirty dollars per month from 1933 to 1942. CCC workers constructed state and local parks, planted trees, and worked on soil and water conservation projects. State parks established by the CCC include those at Bastrop, Davis Mountains, Garner, Goliad, and Palo Duro Canyon.30 Texas daily newspapers provided nearly unanimous support for these projects, unlike the national dailies which, for example, criticized the CCC. Critics derided the legislation to conserve and regenerate the nation’s forests as ‘‘a presidential hobby.’’ In Texas, the sentiment reflected recognition that the program was designed to create jobs and protect natural resources. The Dallas Morning News stated the CCC provided jobs for ‘‘feeding men who need food.’’ The National Industrial Recovery 193


Act (NIRA), which provided $3 billion in public works projects, also received editorial support from Texas dailies. Although some expressed concern over the president’s authority to approve projects, most reflected the sentiments of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, which stated in an editorial, ‘‘[T]he nation welcomes the experiment.’’ 31 Lyndon Johnson, then an enthusiastic, twenty-seven-year-old New Deal supporter, headed the National Youth Administration (NYA) from 1935 to 1937. Johnson employed over 10,000 students a month, parttime or full-time, to help in offices, roadside parks, highwayconstruction, campgrounds, and public schools. Students also received financial assistance for education in return for participation in the NYA. Unlike the CCC, the NYA included young African American women and men in the program. About 19,000 Texas blacks enrolled in the program based on ‘‘need.’’ This was the only program in the South that enrolled minorities, but that fact never surfaced in any of the newspaper reports about the popular program.32 The PWA and the WPA provided millions of dollars for public buildings, schools, post offices, hospitals, coliseums, and dams. Over 600,000 Texans worked for the agency between 1935 and 1943. Men and women earned between forty-five and seventy-five dollars per month. The WPA provided workers for these projects and also funded the arts, literature, writing, and music. As with most other New Deal employment programs, the agency dissolved with the advent of World War II and the subsequent increased demand for workers in defense industries and in the armed forces.33 Newspaper reaction to New Deal policies and to the president himself varied across the nation. The desperate straits in which the nation found itself in early 1933 provided an atmosphere of suspense and anticipation for the new president. In the first 100 days—and indeed well into Roosevelt’s first term—most newspapers supported the administration’s expansion of the federal government’s role in the economy. Even with the confusion and contradictions that resulted from some New Deal programs, most newspapers remained essentially supportive of the popular president. Because of the close connections prominent Texans had with high levels of the Roosevelt administration, the state’s newspapers in the early years added their praise while providing extensive coverage of developments in the nation’s capital. The Texas delegation exercised immense clout. From 1933 to 1938, eight Texans held regular committee chairmanships and Sam Rayburn became House majority leader in 1937.TheTexas delegation thus found itself well-positioned to guarantee 194


a flow of New Deal dollars back home, a situation newspaper publishers and many Texas businessmen found congenial to their interests. With the Texas press behind him and with his tremendous influence as vice president, crusty John Nance Garner ruled the legislative process and the fate of New Deal programs. FDR relied on Garner and other congressional Texas Democrats. Sam Rayburn, Melvin Jones, James Buchanan, and Hatton Sumners were among the influential congressmen who chaired key committees and pushed New Deal legislation forward for banking and securities regulation, rural electrification, farm subsidies, business loans, and massive public works projects. Senators Tom Connally and Morris Sheppard exerted similar influence in the Senate, with their friend Garner presiding over the Senate. Jesse H. Jones and the RFC provided millions of dollars in loans for business and industry. Newspaper publishers and the Texas business community understood that the road out of the Depression now led to Washington. They also realized they stood to benefit from their close connections in the capital. As the Depression maintained its grip over the state and the nation, businesses and individuals fought to survive the economic downturn. Although it sustained mounting losses for several years, the Dallas Morning News showed a profit in its 1934 annual report. George B. Dealey reported that the publication finished the year $83,000 in the black. ‘‘For the first time since 1930, it is possible for me . . . to open my yearly report on an optimistic note and to close it with a prediction of even greater things to come,’’ Dealey told the board in early 1935. How other Texas newspapers fared in the same period remains unclear, but all of the major independent dailies faced difficult circumstances in the early 1930s due to declining advertising revenues.34 In an attempt to expand circulation and gain advertising, many newspapers expanded their coverage byadding new features. Along with news coverage and editorials, nationally syndicated news columnists provided insight into and critiques of the New Deal. Respected columnist Walter Lippmann echoed the thoughts of many Texans, not only those in the press offices but from all walks of life. In a series of columns that appeared in the New York Herald-Tribune in March 1933 and also ran in many Texas dailies, Lippmann declared that the nation’s economic turmoil posed a challenge as serious as any foreign war.The nation required ‘‘unity,’’ as opposed to ‘‘division of authority.’’ Lippmann believed that Roosevelt’s first months in the White House, especially his quick action in the banking and currency crises, renewed the confidence of a skeptical population.35 195


Across the nation as the months went by, press support for the New Deal declined even though the general public embraced Roosevelt’s efforts to combat the Great Depression. Press criticism ranged from complaints about regulation of the stock market, banking, and agriculture to claims that Roosevelt wanted to eliminate press freedoms and had retaliated against his media detractors. When Roosevelt and Garner sought reelection to their second term in 1936, more than half of the nation’s major dailies supported the Republican ticket of Kansas governor Alf Landon and Chicago Daily News publisher Frank Knox. Forty percent of the major newspapers supported the incumbent administration in postelection surveys. Knox represented a vocal group of national publishers critical of Roosevelt. These included Robert McCormick of the Chicago Tribune, William Randolph Hearst and the Hearst newspaper chain, Harry Chandler of the Los Angeles Times, and E. D. Stair of the Detroit Free Press. Many feared that Roosevelt wanted to make the national press conform to his personal ideas of ‘‘fair journalism.’’ 36 In Texas, all of the major independent daily newspapers endorsed the Democratic incumbents. The Scripps-Howard chain, which had a presence in the largest Texas cities, also strongly supported the Democrats. The traditional allegiance to Democrats remained solid during the early 1930s among the press and business establishment of the state.With Garner, Jones, and other influential Texans in positions of authority, Texas publishers no doubt considered their own access, along with the public support in the state for both the New Deal and the president, as decisive factors in joining the New Deal camp. Criticisms regarding Roosevelt’s supposedly heavy hand in dealing with press critics never appeared in the major Texas publications. Although some of the New Deal programs drew some editorial scrutiny, no serious challenge arose from the Texas press until Roosevelt’s efforts to change the Supreme Court membership in 1937. Harte’s San Angelo Evening Standard reflected the views of the staunch Roosevelt press in rural Texas. Prior to the election, the newspaper remarked, ‘‘Mr. Roosevelt pursued an uncharted course, mistakes were inevitable, but they were always rectified as soon as it became apparent they were mistakes.’’ The San Angelo publisher also predicted that Texas would support the Democratic incumbents by a margin of eight or nine to one. The prediction proved to be remarkably accurate, as the Roosevelt-Garner team easily carried the state in November by a sevento-one margin. With the election completed, the San Angelo paper pro196


claimed in January 1937 that a general consensus held that ‘‘recovery is no longer just around the corner, instead, it is here.’’ 37 Roosevelt’s efforts to change the makeup of the Supreme Court opened a rift inTexas and the South that altered the fate of his second term and the New Deal. Much of the landmark legislation during Roosevelt’s first term met with a roadblock at the Supreme Court. The archconservative high court overturned many landmark bills such as the National Industrial Recovery Act, the Agriculture Adjustment Act, and many other minimum wage bills enacted by individual states. No justices retired during his first term, so Roosevelt produced a legislative initiative that essentially increased Supreme Court membership bya maximum of six new justices. The news touched off a national debate and pushed Garner and other southern Democrats to declare their public opposition to what became known as the court-packing proposal. Garner issued his opinion when he held his nose and turned his thumb down when the bill was read to the Senate. Garner then left for vacation in Texas, while many southern senators and congressmen announced their shock and indignation at the president’s proposal. During the summer and fall of 1937, congressional opposition extended to other New Deal legislative proposals regarding labor standards, along with requests for increased funding for New Deal public works projects. To add to the tension, an antilynching bill passed the House in 1937 but not the Senate due to a filibuster by southern senators in 1938. The impasse created tension among the Democratic majority and effectively ended Vice President Garner’s crucial support for Roosevelt’s legislative program. As a result of his opposition and his control over both houses of Congress, Roosevelt began to refer to Garner as the ‘‘conniver-in-chief,’’ while Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes said that Garner was ‘‘sticking his knife into the President’s back.’’ 38 The uproar caught most Texas publications by surprise. The unanimity and praise for the administration evaporated more quickly than a thunderstorm on a hot summer day. The major dailies had supported the administration’s efforts to fight unemployment through public works spending, management of farm surplus, and monetary policies.They saw that four years of the New Deal, particularly with Garner, Jones, Rayburn, and other Texans in positions of power, had channeled millions from Washington to the state.The long-sought goals of New South advocates of an earlier generation seemed obtainable, even in the midst of the Great Depression. But the political weather suddenly changed the peaceful climate to a stormy one.39 197


Roosevelt’s desire to change the Supreme Court ended with a decisive defeat of his proposal in the Congress. Most Texas editors agreed with the New York Times when it concluded that the decision was ‘‘in reality a vote against the Administration rather than a vote against the bill itself.’’ Half of the votes against the legislation came from congressional Democrats.40 As a result of Garner’s opposition to most of Roosevelt’s proposals, especially those involving government spending, the president unwisely decided to retaliate. The final blow to the Garner-Roosevelt alliance occurred with the president’s attempt to purge Democratic congressmen who were opposed to him in the 1938 elections. Garner used all his influence to defend his congressional friends, even though the opposition bloc voted against almost everything the president desired. Roosevelt took to the field in support of southern Democrats who favored his programs as he proclaimed that the South was the ‘‘Nation’s No. 1 economic problem.’’ In Texas, Roosevelt supporter Lyndon Johnson won a special election to the Central Texas post replacing the recently deceased James Buchanan of Austin, the House Appropriations chairman and a Garner ally. But Roosevelt lost Congressman Maury Maverick Sr. of San Antonio and other supporters in the South.The Republicans gained eight seats in the Senate and eighty-one House seats in 1938, thus weakening Democratic support in the now fractious Democratic Party. Garner’s frosty relations with the White House continued as a more conservative coalition of southern Democrats and Republicans controlled the fate of controversial domestic legislation.41 TheTexas newspapers conducted a delicate balancing act in their support for Roosevelt and their devotion to Garner. National labor leader John L. Lewis accused Garner at a House Labor Committee hearing on July 27, 1939, of being a ‘‘labor-baiting, whisky-drinking, poker-playing, evil old man.’’ In response to Lewis’ well-publicized remarks,Texas newspaper editors posed as ‘‘Milk-Drinking, Rag-Chewing, Fun-Poking Evil Old Editors’’ in defense of Garner at their 1939 meeting. Garner’s popularity increased among Texas editors as they sensed an opportunity to elect the first Texan into the White House in 1940. As many editors operated under the assumption that Roosevelt would not seek a third term, speculation increased and Garner served as a likely candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.42 With Roosevelt’s silence on running for an unprecedented third term, Garner and his supporters launched a campaign to capture the Democratic presidential nomination for the 1940 election. Polls and the press 198


agreed that if Roosevelt did not run, Garner was the favorite for the nomination. Newspapers throughout the nation speculated about who the Democratic candidates would be for more than a year. Garner’s close friend Congressman Sam Rayburn chaired his second effort to win the Democratic Party nomination. As New Yorker Robert M. Harris observed to Rayburn, Garner ‘‘would make our country one of the greatest Presidents in history’’ and he called Garner the ‘‘best-qualified’’ candidate during ‘‘this most serious crisis in the history of our country.’’ While Roosevelt remained silent about his decision, the uncertainty created controversy in the ranks of the politicians and the press in the nation and the Lone Star State.43 State leaders and publishers, torn between their allegiance to John Nance Garner and to Franklin Roosevelt, struggled with their decisions. As San Antonio mayor and Roosevelt supporter Maury Maverick concluded, most Texans still favored the president and the New Deal. ‘‘The City of San Antonio has direct relations with the CCC, the NYA, WPA, and numerous federal agencies, and they have been most happy and pleasant,’’ Maverick stated. ‘‘We fight over things that aren’t very consequential and we must realize what is going on in Europe,’’ he added. And as Fort Worth resident Ed Tillman told Rayburn, ‘‘While John Nance Garner may be a worthy Texan, President Roosevelt will go down in history as one of the greatest AMERICANS of all time.’’ 44 The president’s political future posed just one concern forTexas elites. The Houston Post, in an April 1934 editorial entitled ‘‘combating communism,’’ asked if the ‘‘American majority in Houston has been giving too little thought to the Mexican minority here.’’ A rapid increase of immigrants from Mexico augmented their numbers in Houston. And while most of these new arrivals were ‘‘quiet, industrious and law abiding,’’ the editors cited a warning from R. H. Kelley, Houston chairman of Catholic Action—‘‘Mexicans are susceptible to communistic influences’’—and warned of dangers to the community posed by the ‘‘Mexican contingent here if it should become predominantly communist.’’ Kelley and the newspaper encouraged religious education, declaring that ‘‘there is no better way to combat communism than to teach the essential principles of the Christian religion to children.’’ 45 Concerns of white Texans regarding racial minorities loomed in the background behind the growing disenchantment with Roosevelt. Southern leaders watched with growing apprehension as Roosevelt and northern Democrats openly courted African American voters. As demonstrated by the 1936 election results, northern blacks deserted the party 199


of Lincoln by the thousands in a historic realignment. However, unlike other southern Democrats who bolted the convention hall when African American congressman Arthur Mitchell seconded Roosevelt’s nomination,Texans remained.The state’s press gave scant attention to the event. However, by 1936 the Jeffersonian Democrats formed in opposition to New Deal programs and policies. The dissidents proclaimed their allegiance to the traditional southern view of state’s rights, which translated into a continuation of white supremacy, limited government, and curtailment of the federal presence. Included among the organizers that year were Houston timber and oil magnate John Henry Kirby, who a decade before had joined with the Houston Chronicle and defied the Klan. Other charter members from Texas included historian and frequent newspaper contributor J. Evetts Haley and former congressman Joseph W. Bailey Jr. Prominent supporters included Thomas L. Dixon, author of The Clansman, Georgia governor Eugene Talmadge, and Huey Long, protégé of the Reverend Gerald L. K. Smith. Senator James A. Reed (D-Missouri) chaired the national organization. The Jeffersonian Democrats received financial support from northern ultraconservative businessmen Pierre Du Pont and General Motors’ Alfred Sloan. A large-scale campaign of letters to the editor critical of Roosevelt and the New Deal funded by the Jeffersonian Democrats became a standard feature of daily newspapers in Texas and the rest of the South for the remainder of FDR’s life. Even with their denouncements of the administration in 1937 and 1938, Texas publishers never reached the level of vitriol expressed by such national figures as Robert McCormick of the Chicago Tribune and Frank Gannett, who organized the National Committee to Uphold Constitutional Government. Gannett launched a national, well-funded campaign to defeat the court bill.46 As dissension increased in the Democratic ranks, Editor and Publisher magazine observed the growing newspaper opposition and credited the press with lifting the ‘‘curtain’’ on what it described as Roosevelt’s true intentions.47 Garner’s friendship with Houston Chronicle owner and RFC director Jesse Jones entered into the national Democratic Party and presidential politics. Jones’ biographer Bascom Timmons described Garner as Jones’ best friend in Washington during the 1930s. Both had differences with the president and the arch New Dealers in the administration, and both loomed prominently among many Democrats as potential nominees when speculation arose as early as 1937 about Roosevelt’s successor. Jones received strong support at a Democratic victory dinner in 1937. Garner coyly boosted Jones as a man who could ‘‘hold the party strength 200


and poll more independent votes than anyother man we could nominate.’’ Although many news stories and editorials touted Jones, he deferred to his friend Garner, who truly wanted to run as the Democratic nominee. As Roosevelt delayed his announcement on a third term, Jones threw his support to Garner and the veteran Texas political leader entered several Democratic primaries. ‘‘Garner for President Boom Caps Long Career’’ and similar headlines appeared in Texas daily newspapers in early 1939. Roosevelt finally declared his candidacy for a third term and easily won the nomination. Garner subsequently returned toTexas, concluding nearly forty years of service in Washington. As a member of Roosevelt’s reformed cabinet, Jones remained in Washington to administer significant wartime programs for the United States in World War II.48 The political divisions reflected in the Garner-Roosevelt split reversed the early reform measures of the New Deal. The pages of major newspapers reflected the demise of the reform spirit as concerns increased over labor strife, an expanding federal government, and far-reaching New Deal programs. The shift from strong endorsement to measured support of New Deal policies reflected the strong ties that publishers and the Texas leadership in Washington maintained. Texas newspaper publishers never provided a broad agenda for solving the problems of chronic unemployment, racial discrimination, education, and health disparities or the myriad other problems exacerbated by the Great Depression. However, they provided support for continued expansion and modernism during the period. They also recognized the need to participate in the New Deal as a means of coping with nagging problems that had long tormented Texans and other southerners. The encouragement and cooperation of the Texas press with the federal government depended on noninterference with the segregated system of the South and preservation of the existing political and social order. During the 1930s, the northern press and political leaders leveled little criticism at the segregated South. Regionalism remained an issue, but Roosevelt and the New Deal administrators attempted to focus on the symptoms of these multiple problems while preserving healthy press relations among southern newspaper publishers. Regionalism actually made a revival during this period in the South and especially in Texas. Texas marked its centennial year in 1936, which brought new active involvement by the state government in the Texas economy and the nation in defining the modernization of the state.

201

CHAPTER 7

Newspapers and the 1936 Texas Centennial The 1936 Texas Centennial joined the ranks of four other major expositions in the nation during the years of the Great Depression. Preceded by Chicago’s Century of Progress Exposition (1933) and San Diego’s Panama California International Exposition (1935), and followed by the Golden Gate International Exposition in San Francisco (1937) and the New York World’s Fair (1939), theTexas Centennial Exposition was a celebration of U.S. history, knowledge, and commercial enterprise. As Business Week magazine described the Texas centennial celebrations of 1936, the festivities blended ‘‘patriotism and business.’’ Promoters intended to attract outside capital and visitors and provide them with exposure to the Lone Star State. The exposition spread far beyond the fairgrounds in Dallas to become an exercise in redefining the state’s character and its institutional memory. The state’s newspaper publishers served as a driving force in the creation and promotion of centennial events. As they debated the course between tradition and modernization, the publishers also cemented the new western image of Texans, a legacy that was carried forward for the rest of the twentieth century.1 The new Texan mythology—the western, cowboy mystique—owes much to the newspapers and publicists of this era. Myths are not entirely fiction. They represent historical events and people that are re-created and turned into legends. These mythic events and figures illustrate the central feature of the romanticized past. In the Depression of the 1930s, western images came to represent ‘‘individualism, self reliance, and integrity in the face of a corrupt world.’’ The image of cowboys and outlaws was well defined by the 1930s. Dime novels, films, magazines, music, and newspapers utilized western figures as heroic characters. Billy the Kid, Buffalo Bill Cody, Frederick Russell, Owen Wister, and Theodore Roosevelt came to represent distinct figures in popular memory of the

Newspapers and the Texas Centennial

idealized West. Outlaws, cowboys, artists, writers, and politicians provided a grand tapestry upon which popular memory of the Texas past arose. Popular media helped define the image of the western cowboy and played the significant role in vitalizing Texas of the past.2 Texans also continued to glorify their southern background. As Paul Gaston stated inThe New South Creed, myths ‘‘are not polite euphemisms for falsehoods, but are combinations of images and symbols that reflect a people’s way of perceiving truth . . . they fuse the real and the imaginary into a blend that becomes a reality itself, a force in history.’’ Glorification of the antebellum South and the Confederacy in the six decades following the Civil War served as the central theme for public memory in the region. The entire fabric of southern history became woven into what became known as the Lost Cause interpretation. The motivation for the Lost Cause mythology came from the desire of southerners to cope with the seemingly un-American experience of defeat and at the same time to rationalize slavery, secession, and the failures of the Confederacy. Advocates successfully introduced a ‘‘correct’’ version of history that allowed for a southern bias in interpretation. Many historians now agree that ‘‘[i]n terms of how Americans have assessed and understood the Civil War, Lost Cause warriors succeeded to a remarkable degree.’’ 3 Through the 1920s,Texans interpreted their historyas viewed through the southern lens. From the 1870s through the early twentieth century, former Confederate leaders rose to dominant positions in the state’s business, political, and educational centers. This legacy helped southerners justify their clouded past as they prepared for the future in a nation dominated by northern capital and enterprise. Newspapers recounted stories of Confederateveterans and eulogized theirdeaths. Associations of former Confederates gained widespread coverage and support for philanthropic efforts. Supporters downplayed slavery or the South’s long record of racial violence, characterizing both issues—and African Americans themselves—as irrelevant. Reunions, meetings, commemorative events, statues, and buildings were a tribute to the Lost Cause and the southern interpretation of history. Little of past suffering, deprivation, death, and destruction made its way into print. The Lost Cause provided more than a patriotic reinterpretation of the past. In the view of some historians, at its fruition, allegiance to the Lost Cause ‘‘elevated it above the realm of common, patriotic impulse’’ and made it the equivalent of a state religion in the South. Southern adherents created a mythological past that raised individuals to saintly positions who lived a godlike existence. ‘‘Lee and Davis emerged as Christ figures, 203


the common soldier attained sainthood, and southern women became Marys who guarded the tomb of the Confederacy and heralded its resurrection.’’ The Civil War became a sacred event with inviolate doctrines: the war occurred for the right to self-government, not slavery; and Confederates were not traitors but acted against a corrupt northern society bent on imposing its will on the South.4 As the last generation of Confederate veterans died out and the grand reunions held their final parades in the 1920s, a successor movement made its way into Texas in the 1930s. The seeds of the Texas creation myth fell on well-prepared ground. Just as the Lost Cause found its impetus in the tumultuous decades after the Civil War, the rise of the new Texan mythology occurred during the nation’s worst economic depression.The Texas myth followed the same pattern as the earlier New South construction. The unpleasant realities of the past were obliterated, while the pictures of pride and progress were displayed for all the world to see and read. Since the 1930s had no revitalized economy or boom like the 1920s, urban promoters sought to provide the public with a past that they would feel proud of, one in which they had faced challenges fearlessly, so they would look beyond their existing problems and focus on the future. By utilizing traditional values associated with nineteenth-century rural principles, business and the media reassured people that they acknowledged and respected their honored past. As situations arose in the Great Depression that questioned the foundations of U.S. capitalism, its value was reaffirmed by recognition of a heroic past and its challenges, recalled through a history where individuals were able to overcome great odds and adversity. The promoters of this new heroic Texan image recalled earlier generations who seemingly made clear-cut decisions when confronting a common enemy.The pioneer Anglo Texans and creators of the Republic of Texas appeared as ready-made historical actors to replace the Confederates enshrined by the Lost Cause mythology. Texas declared its independence from Mexico in 1836. After a series of disasters at the Alamo and Goliad and during a long retreat, a force led by Sam Houston defeated Santa Anna, the president of Mexico and leaderof its army, at San Jacinto on April 21, 1836.The Republic of Texas existed for nearly a decade prior to its annexation into the United States. The infant republic endured and awaited admission to the United States as the nation debated over the extension of slavery and the admission of slave and free states. The state’s revolutionary heritage, along with its 204


colonial and Native American history, suddenly ascended in the 1930s as a rival to the celebration of the Confederate past. How this spirited image of Texas’ past became part of the collective memory of the state and the nation derived from the centennial celebrations of the 1930s. As John Bodnar explains concerning public memory in the United States, collective ideas originate from ‘‘a political discussion that involves not so much specific economic or moral problems but rather fundamental issues about the entire existence of society: its organization, structure of power, and the very meaning of its past and present.’’ The Texas Centennial certainlyoccurred during one of the most economically trying times in the nation’s history. Many civic leaders joined with the newspaper publishers to extol the financial benefits of these large-scale celebrations. ‘‘Texanism,’’ the rise of a Texas heritage and associations, assumed a new mantle of importance. The beliefs, symbols, stories, language, images, and physical structures that encompassed this new public memory originated in this centennial era. Furthermore, the image of Texas as a distinct region apart from the Old South gained its impetus in the public sphere during this period. Much of this improvised cultural heritage (which maintains a presence to this day) originated with the ideas and promotions of the Texas daily newspaper publishers.5 In 1936 Texas celebrated the one-hundredth anniversary of its independence with centennial activities across the state. The state and federal governments each provided $3 million to kick off the events. Local communities also sold bonds to finance construction of new projects. To prime the pump, Washington provided money for many of the buildings and Centennial projects, which provided thousands of jobs for Texans. For more than a decade, Lowry Martin, advertising managerof theCorsicana Daily Sun, served as the workhorse of the centennial movement. A central part of Martin’s strategy was to obtain massive support from the Texas newspaper industry and the endorsement by the state’s political establishment. Themes focused on the individuality and frontier spirit of nineteenth-century Anglo Texans. During the years of planning, Jesse Jones served on the statewide coordinating committee, but his tenure was marked by uncertainty as to the scope of the centennial celebration. Competing business and political activities also distracted Jones from the task. Jones maintained reservations about the feasibility of having only one primary exposition site modeled after world fair expositions of the early twentieth century. The onset of the Depression and his appointment to the RFC brought an end to his leadership on the Centennial Commis205


Lowry Martin (standing, left) and the Texas Press Association served as the driving force to establish a Texas Centennial. Standing next to Lowry Martin is Hugh N. Fitzgerald, Austin Statesman editor, and, on right, U.S. Senator Tom Connally (D-Texas). In the front row (left to right) are Marcellus Foster, Houston Press editor and former editor and owner of the Houston Chronicle; Dr. Willis Abbot, editorial board chairman of the Christian Science Monitor; George B. Dealey, editor and publisher of the Dallas Morning News; and Fred Fuller Shedd, editor of the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin. Photo courtesy Belo Corp. Archives.

sion, but Jones eventually played a role in obtaining federal government financing for many centennial-related projects during the 1930s.6 Lowry Martin and the Texas Press Association kept the centennial celebration effort alive after Jones’ departure from the board in 1930. Martin provided an ongoing stream of information, surveys, and promotions to newspapers. As economic conditions worsened throughout the state, the concept of a statewide commemoration of its birthday began to gain momentum. Many civic and political leaders viewed a centennial celebration as a potential stimulus to revive the flagging economy. The campaign resulted in a constitutional amendment passed by the state legislature and submitted to the voters during the November 1932 gen206


eral election. The amendment, which called for a celebration combined with an unspecified commitment for funding by the state, passed during the same election in which Texans overwhelmingly voted for Franklin Roosevelt and John Nance Garner.7 Houston’s civic and political leaders believed the competition for the main exposition came down to a battle between Houston and Dallas. If the selection involved only historic considerations, Houston would have been a natural choice because of its role in Texas independence and the early republic. ‘‘But that equation is entirely eliminated by the centennial law,’’ the Houston Post editors wrote. ‘‘It is now simply a matter of which city makes the highest bid.’’ 8 A state commission selected Dallas as the location for the official exposition. Not to be outdone, Houston, San Antonio, and Fort Worth scheduled their own celebrations. Neighboring Fort Worth created the Texas Frontier Centennial and a ‘‘Winning of the West’’ celebration. San Antonio and Houston hosted events to commemorate battles of theTexas Revolution. The newly completed San Jacinto Monument and Historical Museum opened on the anniversary of Sam Houston’s victory over Santa Anna’s army in April 1836. Numerous events throughout the state extended the celebration to nearly every county. Huntsville, Sam Houston’s hometown, featured the initial sale of the Texas Centennial postage stamp. Stamford held a cowboy reunion and roundup. Crystal City hosted a spinach festival and proclaimed the cartoon character Popeye as honorary mayor. Every major daily in the state published a special centennial edition, sometimes totaling more than 100 pages, stocked with history, anecdotes, and ads.9 Centennial editions, similar to anniversary and other special commemorative publications, served newspapers and the larger community. These highly publicized newspapers validated the publication as the official collector and interpreter of historical memory. Centennial publications enhanced the role of cultural authority and opened the door for other businesses and individuals to enlist in the narrative effort. Editorial content and the selection of historical articles remained the prerogative of the editorial staff. The presentation was nearly as important as the content of these commemorative issues. Large, eye-catching print and artwork such as photos and other illustrations formed an essential part of the grand exposition that unfolded throughout the edition. In 1934, on the Houston Post’s fiftieth anniversary, the newspaper featured a front-page reproduction of a congratulatory letter from President Roosevelt. Vice President John Nance Garner and other Texas politi207


cal leaders sent messages commending the Post on its anniversary and civic leadership. Fort Worth Star-Telegram publisher Amon Carter proclaimed the Post to be a newspaper whose influence in Texas politics ‘‘at all times has been statewide.’’ Dallas Morning News editor Ted Dealey noted the Post ‘‘grew with the city’’ and won for itself ‘‘respect and honor.’’ 10 As a premier example of the commemorative editions of this era, the Dallas Morning News celebrated its 1935 golden anniversary in grand style. Alongside stories of the dedication of Boulder Dam and the discovery of a lost manuscript of Sam Houston’s account of the Battle of San Jacinto, the News published congratulatory letters from President Roosevelt, Vice President Garner, and many other state and national leaders. Congratulatory messages from officials and other newspapers occupied several pages.The majority of the paper featured local histories and stories that accentuated the growth of Dallas and Texas—accounts of organizations, construction, industrial expansion, and the 1936 State Centennial—and photos from the previous fifty years. News president G. B. Dealey highlighted and recounted important stories of the previous fifty years of national and local importance. One story featured W. D. Austin, an original subscriber, who had read ‘‘every copy’’ of the newspaper since its initial publication in 1885.11 Dealey’s page one editorial on the fiftieth anniversary of the news amplified his philosophy and expounded on the role the newspaper had played in Dallas’ development and growth.The News began when Dallas was ‘‘an overgrown, Topsy-like town, unkempt, with little paving.’’ In working with civic leaders, the News ‘‘exerted all its power to lead and to co-operate with the thousands of men and women who are responsible for the Dallas of today.’’ Dealey stated he intended to have the influence in promoting civic development expand statewide. ‘‘Always it has spent time, thought, money and effort in printing matter to inculcate a desire for attractiveness and beauty of every kind in its urban centers and countryside. It has desired to be the champion of all kinds of wholesome education and to develop the finer things of life.’’ He also attributed the paper’s success to the efficient, ever-faithful and loyal interest of and work’’ of the News employees. Dealey planned to pursue the same course in the following years—striving to make the daily a respected and influential regional publication. The golden anniversary edition served as a prelude to even loftier plans for the News in the upcoming centennial year. The commemorative issues of that year provided the standard 208


for other newspapers, from the hectic daily publications to the smallest weekly tabloids.12 John Bodnar states in his analysis of collective memory that civic leaders select commemorative events for a number of reasons. These include events that calm anxiety and evoke change, and efforts to solicit support from the general citizenry and to promote exemplary behavior. The special editions of newspapers and centennial promotions in 1936 clearly supported each of these criteria. Anxiety over the ongoing economic depression maintained its hold over the population, and one of the stated goals of centennial proponents was to have a celebration that would improve the collective outlook of the citizenry. As evidenced by the intense competition among the large cities for the coveted centennial headquarters, widespread support from the major urban communities existed. In the promotions for all the celebrations, proponents urged citizens to participate and extol the virtues of a past built on traditional American ideas—independence, liberty, freedom of expression, and the desire to establish a better society.13 As the leading proponents of the centennial, the state’s major newspaper publishers reaffirmed their position at the center of cultural and political leadership. They recognized that their individual positions as community leaders, along with their role as newspaper publishers, depended on the success of the centennial-related activities. In addition, growth and financial success depended on the continuation of the daily newspaper as the focal point of communication in the community. As the centennial events gained acceptance and achieved regional and national recognition, the newspapers and their publishers reached the apex of approval by the citizenry. Publishers also contributed to what may be termed the origin myth, which took firm root in the collective memory of Texans. Fort Worth Star-Telegram editor J. M. North described these sentiments in a 1935 letter to Dallas Morning News editor Ted Dealey. ‘‘The history of Texas began 100 years ago,’’ North stated, which conveniently ignored the entire history and role of Native Americans, Spain, Mexico, France, and the United States prior to 1835. The historical interpretation promoted and distributed during the centennial provided an explanation that accommodated the racial and economic views of the state’s hierarchy. Briefly, Texas fought for its freedom because of Spanish and Mexican misrule and oppression. These hardy Anglo-Saxon pioneers created a land of opportunity after the conquest of the native populations and the government in 209


Mexico City. The state’s business and political leaders combined forces to forge a new frontier and began promoting new communities where life would peacefully progress and where conflict would be downplayed and avoided. These themes accommodated the prevailing racial stereotypes, class distinctions, and cultural prejudices of the era. Mexican Americans were associated with barbarism and hostility. African Americans were viewed as inferior and uncivilized. This interpretation ignored cooperative efforts and public/private cooperation in favor of private initiative. The Populists, Socialists, and other political movements outside of the mainstream were conveniently ignored.14 Once it was chosen as the main site for the state celebration, Dallas acted as a magnet for the state’s celebration. Planning and promotion for the main event took place in Dallas. News of the event was disseminated from Dallas through special publications and the pages of the Morning News and the Times Herald. Newspapers throughout the state received Centennial News, a weekly publication with information on the progress of the event, and Texas Centennial Review, a newsletter with ideas and information on local events. From the largest cities to the smallest communities in the state, the centennial emerged as the leading issue of the day. Its patriotic message moved into diverse areas and populations, with its unifying themes of Texas history and view of Texas as a state that stood separate from the others in the nation. As the Dallas Morning News reported on April 1, 1935, ‘‘every progressive community in the state, it would seem, is busy’’ with a centennial program.15 The selection of Dallas embarrassed and frustrated major daily newspaper publishers in Fort Worth, Houston, and San Antonio. Amon Carter, the Star-Telegram, and Fort Worth civic leaders moved to close the gap after learning that Dallas had the winning bid for the state centennial. As they worked to secure state funds for their own celebration, the Star-Telegram moved to quench some of the fire that burned in the competition for the centennial competition. The two newspaper enterprises, which often threw barbs at one another through their editorial pages, realized the centennial offered a potential economic boom in the midst of the Depression. ‘‘We can’t conceive of people coming to see the Livestock Centennial and not seeing the main Centennial at Dallas,’’ StarTelegram editor J. M. North wrote to Ted Dealey of the Morning News. ‘‘We believe that two attractions will supplement and benefit each other and that neither can possibly be hurt by the other.’’ 16 A number of precedents of cooperation between the Fort Worth and Dallas publishers existed before the centennial projects.The newspapers 210


and civic leaders had cooperated to form the Trinity River Canal Association in 1930. The Trinity River flowed through both cities and several hundred miles later emptied into the Gulf of Mexico. Community and business leaders had sought millions of dollars in federal funding to dredge the Trinity River and open the waterway for commercial shipping and barge traffic. In support of the joint project, the Morning News stated, ‘‘[T]here need be no uneasiness about Fort Worth in the matter.’’ For the first time, the News acknowledged Carter’s motto for his newspaper and community. The News also acknowledged Carter’s vision and political prowess. ‘‘ ‘Where the West Begins’ looms now and aims to loom considerably more,’’ the editorial stated. Carter’s friend and Trinity River Canal booster Silliman Evans wrote, ‘‘[T]here can be no further doubt but that the Dallas Morning News has officially accepted Fort Worth as ‘Where the West Begins.’ ’’ 17 Editor and Publisher magazine noted the centennial promotions were a boon to newspaper businesses in the state. While the promotions yielded increased employment, more advertising, and a jump in the tourist trade immediately, the benefits of these ‘‘farsighted newspapermen’’ would also accumulate in subsequent years. ‘‘The more people who visit Texas and see its wonders and get acquainted with its citizens, the more people will invest their capital and their lives in Texas, according to the shrewd judgment of Texas publishers,’’ the article stated. George Dealey immodestly predicted that the exposition would create ‘‘more development and greater posterity in the state of Texas than have the last 25 years.’’ Amon Carter, Fort Worth Star-Telegram publisher, Tom Gooch, editor of the Dallas Times Herald, James Pollock, business manager of the Fort Worth Press, and John Payne, Houston Press business manager, joined in the rosy predictions. For emphasis, the article included a cartoon of a cowboy wearing a large western hat with ‘‘Texas’’ on the brim and a basket over a candle that proclaimed ‘‘Texas Billion Power Candle Light.’’ 18 With their rival expositions, Dallas and Fort Worth gained national headlines as evidence of a ‘‘major outbreak of exposition fever.’’ In June 1936, Business Week magazine described the festivities as ‘‘an amiable blend of patriotism and business.’’ The competing shows may have appeared to be a tribute to the rivalry between the two cities, but the magazine reasoned both communities would enjoy the ‘‘chime of cash registers’’ from crowds, anticipated to number in the millions, making their way to the two Texas cities.The article noted the substantial contribution from the federal government and the local and state contributions. It also 211


lauded the two expositions’ success in attracting large corporations such as the large automakers, for which each city constructed its own multimillion structures at the Dallas fairgrounds. The Dallas Morning News attempted to downplay the rivalry. In a July 15, 1936, editorial, the News stated, ‘‘In the Frontier Centennial our neighbor to the West preserves the tradition of the Old West in the spirit of the jazz age.’’ The ‘‘highly publicized notion’’ of the competition between the Dallas and Fort Worth exhibitions was a ‘‘press agent’s dream. It has no real bearing on the success of either the Centennial Central Exposition in Dallas or the Frontier Centennial in Fort Worth.’’ 19 Centennial funds provided construction and landscaping for Fair Park in Dallas. Construction provided much-needed jobs, but labor strikes by Dallas building trades union members slowed down construction. The state contributed over $1 million, while the federal government contributed $1.5 million and funded more than fifty Dallas mural projects as part of the Public Works of Art Project. The Texas Hall of State, a million-dollar building to honor Texas heroes, became the center of the permanent buildings. The park site included museums and exhibition buildings for petroleum, industry, communications, agriculture, and transportation. Centennial visitors enjoyed rides and entertainment on the Midway, as well as a re-creation of Judge Roy Bean’s courtroom in the Jersey Lily Saloon and Admiral Richard Bird’s Little America camp in Antarctica. President Roosevelt, hosted at a dinner by R. L. Thornton and other Dallas bankers, appeared in Dallas amid great fanfare. The Dallas newspapers carried many positive promotional stories for the event. Few stories appeared that involved labor strife during the construction appeared in the dailies. The special centennial editions of the Dallas newspapers completely omitted any news of labor problems.20 The main exposition also contained the Hall of Negro Life, the first time that African Americans were recognized at a national exposition. African American business and community leaders worked with centennial promoters for this landmark appearance. The Dallas Express, which had a history of attacking lynching, voting restrictions, and segregation, advocated inclusion of the hall in the centennial fairgrounds. The newspaper and local black leaders obtained entrance to the state fair in Dallas on a single day, designated ‘‘Negro Day.’’ African American business leaders saw a greater opportunity for themselves through the Centennial. Once Dallas won the selection for the main centennial celebration, the Express told its readers that the Negro Chamber of Commerce was working with the Dallas business community to participate in 212

The 1936 centennial editions proclaimed great achievements and celebrated the idea of Texas as an empire with its own unique western identity, as illustrated by Old Man Texas. Reprint courtesy Belo Corp. Archives.


the events and gain a share of the anticipated business.The Express stated that the ‘‘Dallas Negro Chamber of Commerce has sought to assure for the Negroes of Dallas suitable accommodations and participation in all of the departments of this celebration.’’ 21 After agreeing to support the Dallas exposition and participate in the bond campaign, the Hall of Negro Life received $100,000 as part of the $3 million federal appropriation. The centennial exposition received support from African Americans in Texas despite the fact that unemployment and poverty ran much higher in black communities than white communities in both rural and urban areas. In Dallas, African Americans represented half the city’s unemployed in the mid-1930s. Only one major African American business, the Excelsior Mutual Insurance Company, managed to survive to 1937. Thus the Hall of Negro Life represented a symbol of hope and accomplishment for the black community. Included in the hall were murals of African Americans providing contributions of music, art, and religion to the nation.The exhibit also represented a small achievement in opposition to the segregated life of the 1930s. A. Maceo Smith, an African American insurance executive, led a concerted effort to have the Hall of Negro Life included at the exposition. Smith’s early work with the Dallas NAACP and white business leaders established a pattern that was expanded in the coming decades as the African American community began to increase its efforts to combat segregation.22 At the dedication of the centennial exposition on June 7, a host of dignitaries and thousands of visitors attended. As Sam Acheson of the Dallas Morning News wrote, the festivities opened ‘‘before the largest crowd ever gathered in the Southwest.’’ An estimated 250,000 people attended, ‘‘making it the greatest occasion in the history of Dallas and the most notable event in Texas since Sam Houston and his men changed the course of the New World at San Jacinto.’’ Extensive coverage over radio stations and the state’s newspapers heightened the enthusiasm for the great event. Texas governor James Allred introduced Secretary of Commerce Daniel Roper. As he inserted a gold key and unlocked the ceremonial gate, Roper proclaimed, ‘‘Texas welcomes the world.’’ 23 Secretary Roper escorted a delegation of officials, some of whom were descendants of Stephen F. Austin, and other state and local leaders. Later that day, Roper dedicated the Federal Building and visited the Hall of Negro Life. In his speech that evening, entitled ‘‘Texas and the Nation,’’ Roper surprised many by praising the progress of African Americans. ‘‘No people in all history can show greater progress in their achievement in seventy-three years than the American Negro,’’ the Commerce sec214


retary said. ‘‘This is traceable to their patient, loyal, patriotic attitude toward theircountryand to their gifts of soul and song.’’ The Dallas newspapers carried the remarks as part of the coverage of the opening ceremony. But later, the Dallas Morning News carried more critical stories that depicted African Americans in a less flattering light. ‘‘History of Negroes from Jungles to Now’’ and ‘‘black faces deep into slices of watermelon’’ were among the racist, condescending phrases used in coverage of the Hall of Negro Life. The statements undoubtedly provided some comfort to fair organizers who acquiesced to the demands of African Americans. But to make sure that no one would overlook the state’s Confederate heritage, a statue representative of the Confederacy stood in the center portico of the Centennial Building. Confederate leaders appeared prominently in murals in the Great Hall of State. President Franklin Roosevelt dedicated a statue of Robert E. Lee on his horse Traveler as one of the centennial highlights. Allegiance to the Old South and Confederacy remained strong, even as civic leaders elevated the Texas Lone Star alongside the Stars and Bars.24 As mentioned earlier, Amon Carter pushed for a separate centennial site for Fort Worth. Following the untimely death of Will Rogers in 1935, Carter urged a memorial coliseum in honor of his friend. Rejected by the PWA, the plan was reborn in the form of a Frontier Centennial Exhibition. A 135-acre tract west of downtown Fort Worth, formerly occupied by the military, became the chosen site.The Fort Worth Frontier Centennial Exposition emerged as Amon Carter’s cause célèbre. Carter united the Fort Worth business community behind the promotion as the western alternative to the Dallas celebration.The venue would offer the entertainment and lavish productions that Carter believed that the Dallas venue omitted. The Fort Worth Star-Telegram declared that Fort Worth would become the beneficiary of increased jobs and would receive favorable publicity for the city’s businesses. Carter’s newspaper and WBAP radio carried daily stories and promotions of the event. A series of front-page editorials in 1935 boasted of the benefits. ‘‘Fort Worth can stage a show that in appeal to visitors will equal that of any other city or the main Centennial itself at Dallas,’’ Carter wrote. The benefits would bring ‘‘large and immediate cash-drawer returns to every businessman, professional man and property owner in Fort Worth.’’ 25 Carter lobbied his friends in Washington to assist with the funding. After obtaining a loan and grant from the PWA along with privately funded bonds for the multimillion dollar project, Carter learned in early June 1936 that funds were insufficient to complete construction. Hewrote 215


Amon G. Carter Sr., Fort Worth Star-Telegram publisher, personified the new Texas image of the 1930s. Photo courtesy Amon G. Carter Sr. Papers, Mary Couts Burnett Library, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, Texas, Series O, Box 9.

Vice President John Nance Garner, only days prior to the dedication, that the Fort Worth production needed more money. ‘‘Costs have exceeded estimates thirty to forty percent.’’ He claimed that the project provided jobs for more than 3,000 people. ‘‘Can you not seeyour wayclear to giving us some relief immediately,’’ Carter said. ‘‘I assure you that it would be a Godsend to us.’’ Carter wrote RFC Chairman Jesse Jones soliciting loans up to $500,000. ‘‘There would not be a Chinaman’s chance for you to lose a penny on this note,’’ Carter stated. If Jones faced any legal problems, Carter observed, ‘‘[Y]ou would be fully justified in waiving them, as no doubt you have found necessary in many cases where you have rendered emergency financial assistance.’’ Carter concluded that everyone would be protected in the investment and would be amazed at the ‘‘magnificent’’ production. ‘‘Nothing like it ever has been shown in America.’’ Eventually, another $50,000 in federal money found its way to the Fort Worth promoters.26 When Carter obtained funding for the Fort Worth exposition, he and 216


fair organizers raced to open before their Dallas neighbors, but delays forced the Fort Worth exposition to open a month after the one in Dallas. Carter utilized the staff of the Star-Telegram and WBAP for publicity, planning, and accounting for the Fort Worth production. Prior to the official launch, Carter invited hundreds of newspaper publishers and editors to attend a preview. WBAP radio provided an hour-long show that fed to network radio around the nation. At the July opening, news reports stated the production was ‘‘a startling blending of Texas longhorns, cowpunchers, chuck-wagons, six-pistols and naked Indians, with show girls, Billy Roseian scenic effects, Paul Whiteman’s music and Sally Rand’s bubbles.’’ President Roosevelt telegraphed congratulations to Carter from the schooner yacht Sewanna off the coast of Nova Scotia. ‘‘Best of luck to you all,’’ the president wrote.27 Governor Allred and other state political and business leaders officially launched the opening. New York director Billy Rose featured a highly anticipated floor show, the ‘‘Frontier Follies,’’ at the Casa Mañana. One of the attractions of the show was a ‘‘chorus of some 500 beautiful girls.’’ Rose also brought his acclaimed Jumbo, a one-ring-circus musical production, to the theatre. ‘‘The atmosphere of a Texas town of 1849 will be perfectly re-created,’’ one account stated. ‘‘There will be soldiers, Indians, Mexicans, cowboys, wagon trains, stage coaches, buffalo, all the frontier business enterprises, such as trading posts, saloons and dance halls—all open for business.’’ The floor shows and the liquor attracted the crowds. According to Carter’s biographer, ‘‘[I]llegal liquor was served everywhere because Amon had made a deal with the state’s Liquor Control Board. The summer heat often made the Fort Worth exposition unbearable, but throngs of people continued to appear. Critics and visitors praised the productions for months.28 The Texas Centennial Exposition in Dallas closed in November 1936. The Fort Worth Frontier Centennial suspended most operations by Thanksgiving. More than 6 million people attended the six-monthlong celebration in Dallas and an estimated 1 million visited the Fort Worth show.Visitors included President Franklin Roosevelt and his wife, Eleanor Roosevelt,Vice President Garner, and a host of national and federal officials. Over 350,000 schoolchildren from Texas and other states attended the centennial celebrations. The Dallas and Fort Worth events, especially when combined with others around the state, expanded the national awareness of Texas. The festivities laid the foundations for a growing tourist trade. The centennial events also provided economic relief in the form of thousands of jobs and substantial improvements in many 217


communities around the state. Finally, the celebrations offset some of the concerns about the ongoing economic depression and lifted the spirits of many of the state’s citizens. For newspaper publishers, the increased revenues, circulation, and recognition provided welcome relief in the difficult years of the Great Depression. Publishers whose proclamations appeared extravagant in 1935 actually achieved many of their goals.29 In Dallas, the closing of the fair led to a monumental decision: to create the Dallas Citizens Council, chartered in 1937 to plot the city’s future. Charter members in the elite group included independent Dallas publishers G. B. Dealey and Edwin J. Kiest. The group embraced businessmen, insurance and utility executives, and bankers drawn from the city’s civic leadership. No reporters, educators, attorneys, women, minorities, or members of the clergy were included in the original council. The organization sought to influence the course of business, civic projects, local politics, and major organizations such as the chamber of commerce. The group’s membership changed, but the Council successfully controlled Dallas for the next fifty years. The Council accepted the premise that Dealey in particular had advanced for many years: Dallas, as represented by the business community, should speak with one voice and offer a business-oriented agenda for the people of Dallas. The insecurity created by the Depression, the success of the centennial celebration, and the near unanimous conviction that the city’s business leadership provided the best direction created the glue that held this group together for years to come.The insular, self-perpetuating, confident organization best resembled the Dallas Morning News, which, under Dealey’s leadership and with its consistent policy of promoting business, survived the economic challenges of the Depression and remained a closely held family operation with a secure base of longtime loyal managers and employees.30 In another sense, the centennial events and their promotion by the state press illustrated the desire to accept Washington’s expanded presence, especially in the form of federal dollars. As long as the social and political order remained in place in the state,Texans maintained theirallegiance to the traditional one-party Democratic system. Projects such as those represented by the centennial allowed Texans to boast of their individuality which, on the surface, set them apart from the rest of the South and the nation. The New Deal projects and the expanding role of the federal government sometimes produced criticism and divisions within the business and political leadership of the state. Although some grew increasingly nervous about President Roosevelt’s policies and the direction of the Democratic Party, Texas editors took solace in the knowledge 218


that friendly Texans still commanded major positions in the legislative and executive branches. Even with their power and influence in Washington, newspaper publishers and Texans from all walks of life realized the Depression retained its grip over the region and the nation. Kenneth Ragsdale, author of a history of the centennial, reports that many out-of-state visitors ‘‘expressed their praise for the ‘new Texas’; they found not the ‘countrified folks’ they had expected, but an ‘ultramodern’ culture. This changing attitude among non-Texans ultimately created a great cultural impact on the state, negating the ‘pride with shame’ syndrome and instilling a new sense of state pride in Texas.’’ Regional self-consciousness was, after all, not a congenital deformity. Dallas retailer and civic stalwart Stanley Marcus reflected on the impact of the centennial on his city and the state. ‘‘I’ve frequently said that modern Texas history started with the celebration of the Texas Centennial, because it was in 1936 . . . that the rest of America discovered Texas. The spotlight was thrown on Texas and people from all over the United States came here.’’ 31 Labor strife also became a concern during the centennial celebration, and Texas newspaper publishers became more critical of organized labor by 1937. The sit-down strikes that closed many coalfields and manufacturing plants in 1936 garnered headlines and criticism from southern politicians and newspapers. Many believed that the strikes violated property rights, and that President Roosevelt and his administration provided tacit support to the unions. Sentiment against organized labor in Dallas among the business communitydiscouraged union organizing, especially after the closing of the centennial expositions. But violence and death erupted during an especially bitter strike at the Dallas Ford Motor Company plant in 1937. Ford, long known as a bastion of antiunion sentiment, retaliated against organizers and workers in the summer and fall of 1937. The victims of Ford’s hired thugs included plant workers, CIO organizers, and Dallas residents who expressed sentiments in favor of the employees.The enforcers attacked over fifty individuals and killed one man. In scenes reminiscent of the Klan activities of the early 1920s, targeted Ford employees were ‘‘taken for a ride’’ to an isolated area away from town, where they were beaten. The Ford gang seized Barto Hill, a labor organizer fromTennessee, and administered a beating, then stripped and tarred and feathered their victim, much as the Klan had done a decade earlier. They dumped Hill in front of the Dallas Morning News office. A photo of the victim appeared the following day in the newspaper. Governor Allred called in the Texas Rangers, and the National Labor Rela219


tions Board (NLRB) eventually conducted hearings on Ford’s activities in Dallas. Labor organizers claimed Ford’s violent acts would end only when the business establishment and the daily press criticized the automaker’s tactics. Unlike their reporting of the earlier Klan-orchestrated violence, the Dallas dailies downplayed the incidents and provided little coverage of the NLRB hearings and investigation. The dailies’ concern over labor strife mirrored that of the Texas congressional delegation of this period. The national press, which included the New York Times, reported Ford’s antiunion activities and the labor board’s actions; it also noted the city’s growing reputation for hostility to groups that opposed large businesses. After World War II began, Ford workers nationwide became members of the United Auto Workers as a result of federal court action and a national agreement between Ford and the unions.32 Texas newspapers aligned with most Texas businesses in the 1930s in expanding their opposition to organized labor. In this case, the probusiness bias of the publishers clearly outweighed their editorial assessment of community living standards and working conditions. As in other southern cities, the dominant leadership accepted federal assistance to provide unemployment wages and other relief efforts. But they resisted any challenges to the prevailing wage schedules or large-scale efforts at unionization. Many business and political leaders also feared unionism, especially the CIO, as an open door to racial integration. The Dallas Open Shop Association, organized in 1919, opposed union activities in the city and subjected members who knowingly hired union workers to a $3,000 fine. The members represented the city’s chamber of commerce, which worked closely with the Dallas newspaper establishment. The local AFL leadership cooperated with businesses that resisted CIO organizers, and the labor leaders refused to publicly condemn violence and atrocities. In 1937 the Nation called attention to the city’s antilabor positions in the critical story ‘‘Dallas Tries Terror.’’ Based on the resistance in the South to CIO organizing attempts in cities like Dallas, historian George B. Tindall concluded that the ‘‘South remained predominantly nonunion and largely antiunion.’’ 33 Daily newspapers showed evidence of prosperityas a result of the 1936 centennial celebration. But the recession of 1937 hit Texas and the nation with a vengeance. The Morning News closed its long-running SemiWeekly Farm News and merged it with the daily. Dealey complained in his annual report that with the exception of radio station WFAA, all of the 220


Belo Corporation publications lost money in 1938. Dealey sold the afternoon Dallas Journal to Houston businessman JamesWest. Commenting on the sale, Dealey reported that the corporation received only twenty cents on the dollar, ‘‘but we were perhaps lucky to receive anything.’’ 34 Even after World War II began in Europe, publishers still faced difficulties in maintaining their newspapers as a profitable enterprise. George B. Dealey turned over the presidency of the News to Ted Dealey, his son. The Belo Corporation annual report disclosed that advertising rates still fell short of supporting the newspaper operation. The report stated that both ‘‘leading newspapers’’ in the city, the News and theTimes Herald, lost money. However, the Dallas corporations survived, as they were ‘‘supported largely by radio revenues.’’ Belo owned WFAA, while the rival Times Herald Corporation owned KRLD. Ted Dealey stated, ‘‘We have the modest conviction that the Dallas News is being managed more sanely and more wisely than is the business of our nearest rival’’ and that the ‘‘competitive situation will adjust itself.’’ With this disclosure, he asserted, ‘‘[W]e confidently anticipate that, in the long haul, we will come out ‘at the top of the heap.’ ’’ 35 Historian Dewey Grantham surmises that by the end of the 1930s, the New South formula won the debate over the character of the southern economy. The New Deal provided a source of new capital with few strings attached in the form of the federal government. Along with regulations for industry, finance, agriculture, and labor, some of the old walls of resistance and blame that Texans and other southerners hurled at the rest of the nation came tumbling down. The metropolitan newspapers of the state took the lead alongside Texas politicians who formulated these fresh ideas. Differences continued to exist and lead to conflict and criticism, especially when issues involved a challenge to the status quo, that is, when they related to segregation and the region’s labor system.While displeasure with the Democratic Party increased in the years prior to World War II, the disputes failed to completely dampen loyalties to the national Democratic leadership. Publishers retained theirclose connections to the federal leadership and relied on the entrenched Texas congressional delegation and their allies in the government to offset any serious challenges to the dominant coalition back home.36 While historians agree that the federal presence expanded in the South during the 1930s, disagreement exists on the extent of its impact on the region and its meaning for this generation of Americans. For many, especially the rural poor, African Americans, and Mexican Americans, their 221


suffering continued and conditions sometimes deteriorated during the 1930s.Yet life for many rural and urban dwellers, including some minorities, showed some degree of improvement. Texas and the South were not entirely agrarian. Urban communities expanded and their workforce increased, due in part to widespread urban support for federal initiatives. These programs, aided and abetted by the urban daily press, provided an alternative to the poor tenant farmers of the region. Although theycriticized many federal programs and onlyoffered lukewarm support for others, Texas daily newspaper publishers acknowledged this shift in alignment and advocated the establishment of federal programs in the region. Public power, minimum wage, work standards, relief programs, federal loans to business, improvement of public education, and other New Deal programs found fertile ground and editorial support from the state’s leading newspapers. The Texas publishers adhered to their consensus philosophy that had carried them forward from the early years of the twentieth century. This approach continued in the difficult years of the 1930s when debate finally moved from disagreements over Prohibition to substantive issues that involved business expansion, labor and race relations, support for public education, and improved health services. The publishers also helped set a tone of race accommodation and tolerance, albeit within a segregated system.The newspapers remained opposed to federal antilynching legislation and affirmed their support of the poll tax. They steadfastly refused to carry news of accomplishments by African Americans and Mexican Americans. They tolerated the discrimination exercised in most of the New Deal programs in Texas and the rest of the South. Yet by the 1930s, the major dailies in the state refused to enter into the vile, race-baiting tirades to which many southern politicians and newspaper publishers subscribed. They endorsed the very programs that were to provide a seedbed of expanded opportunity to all people, regardless of their skin color or background.The differences in the racial communities remained wide, but some bridges were established through the support of the New Deal and its promise of a better life. The era marked the beginning of a period when the southern press would have to recognize a need for reshaping the region’s economic and social structure. Reviewing the accomplishments of the centennial year, the editors of the Texas Almanac believed the events signaled a ‘‘return of prosperity’’ and ‘‘served the purpose of bringing full realization that the old Texas had passed—that the centennial event meant more than the passing of a 222


mere historic milestone.’’ The soil and natural resources still held great wealth for the state’s citizens and businesses. After 1936, proponents believed that expanded opportunities in the form of manufacturing would supersede agriculture and extractive industries that relied on natural resources. In the midst of the Great Depression, Texas had finally passed ‘‘into cultural and economic adulthood.’’ 37

223

Conclusion The newspaper publishers who reigned over their domains for the first four decades of the twentieth century set the stage for the expansion and social change during World War II and the postwar era. The publishers, who followed diverse paths and had unique circumstances in their individual communities, identified and promoted a combination of factors leading to the modernization of Texas and the development of a distinct Texas image. Texas transformed due to economic growth spurred by federal and regional financial support of infrastructure, the military, and civic improvements. Oil and gas exploration, real estate and construction, expanded agriculture, and the increased sophistication of financial and professional services for the extractive industries represented a second essential component. Tourism, encouraged by celebratory events, interpretive history, and the new Texas mythology provided a third element. Finally, the civic leadership and the political influence tied to the daily news establishment created the culture in which these activities could be accomplished. In spite of the economic downturn and the struggles of the 1930s, all of these components were firmly in place in time for the 1940s boom. The most spectacular population growth occurred in the southwestern cities of the nation by 1940. Before the explosive growth years of World War II, Los Angeles, San Diego, Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and Oklahoma City had each surpassed 200,000 residents. Fort Worth closely followed with 177,000. In the Southwest, only Los Angeles and Denver exceeded the three largest Texas cities in population.1 In 1938 President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration issued its Report on Economic Conditions of the South and called the region ‘‘the Nation’s No. 1 economic problem.’’ The devastating report provided detailed information on a population ‘‘ravaged by an inadequate diet, poor health, unacceptable housing, and inferior public services.’’ The survey supported many other reports that detailed the economic woes of the

Conclusion

southern states. Even with this bleak regional picture, Texas offered a glimmer of light for a different future. Texas began to break away from the pack of other southern states in many important areas. From 1930 to 1940, the state’s population increased 10 percent, to 6.4 million, making it the most populous state in the South and the sixth-largest in the nation. Fort Worth, Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio’s increase exceeded 10 percent, as most of the state’s growth in this decade occurred in urban areas. By 1940 the urban population of 45.4 percent heralded the state’s population shift from countryside to cities. In the rest of the South, only two in ten resided in a metropolitan area. In wholesale trade,Texas led all southern states with over $2 billion in sales and also was first in retail sales and trade. Bank deposits totaled almost $3 billion, nearly triple the level of 1933. Per capita income, which decreased nationwide from $596 in 1930 to $579 in 1940, showed an increase in Texas from $375 to $423 in the decade of the Depression. Only Florida and Virginia exceeded Texas on this categoryamong the southern states.Taken as a whole, southerners obtained only 60 percent of the national per capita average income.2 Many historians and social scientists point to World War II as the catalyst that catapulted Texas and the rest of the South into a stage of unprecedented growth and urbanization. DuringWorld War II, approximately 40 percent of national military expenditures found their way into the South. The federal government invested $100 billion in weapons, militaryequipment, and training bases. Texas experienced the largest gain among all the southern states. Millions of people moved into the region during the war. The vast influx of people, federal expenditures, and infrastructure created a dramatic change in the region.3 Without a doubt, the Texas landscape underwent a dramatic transformation during the war years and in the subsequent postwar boom. Many other areas of the South and West underwent similar changes. Texas, however, occupied a unique position in this transition. The groundwork for change began decades prior to World War II. A cadre of the urban elites—newspaper publishers, bank presidents, attorneys, and business leaders—paved the way for these dramatic changes and led the charge toward modernization. In the early decades of the twentieth century, they solidified their leadership and vision of a new urbanized population driven by a consumer economy and an expanding middle class.They promoted their own enterprises and their respective communities, often at the expense of departing from their stated goals of expansion through modernization. As advocates of the modernization foundation, the publishers defined 225


their version of the future in their advocacy of the extractive and service industries. Agriculture, along with oil and gas production, provided the extractive wealth. New services, including banking, finance, insurance, and real estate, fueled the urban, service-driven expansion. Finally, federal dollars that financed infrastructure and military installations completed the third leg of this triangle. Dollars from Washington contributed to the growth and strengthened the political alliances between the publishers and the influential Texas congressional delegation. Not everyone benefited from this expansion, but this program set the pattern for the future. In this construction, the publishers managed to be the promoters of growth and reform, but not at the expense of radical social change. The pages of the daily newspapers and the publishers’ philosophies reflected and promoted many of the traditional values carried forward from the nineteenth-century agrarian culture. Thus, while much of the image and culture of the state evolved into a distinct identity by the 1930s, the push toward modernization had its limits. The expanding urban middle class and the commercial business elites maintained their views on racial identities, religious affiliations, business and labor relations, and a regional consciousness.4 The publishing and broadcast operations of the Texas media giants withstood the tests of economic depression and political challenge. In these decades of economic and social change, individual publishers prospered if they adapted to changes in technology, consumer tastes, and internal organization. In particular, the Dallas Morning News, the Houston Chronicle, the Houston Post, and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram ascended to the highest levels of prosperity and influence. Each of the publishers possessed the business acumen, political connections, and personal vision to adapt to changing times. They did not march in lockstep, but their voices clearly boomed across the political and social landscape. They expanded their enterprises into other areas of communications. They also withstood incursions from larger chain news operations that dominated the business in other states.5 As most newspaper businesses reached their zenith in the 1920s and began a slow descent through the following decades, the major Texas publishers maintained their dominance for another generation. Financially successful, combined newspaper and radio operations proved a winning corporate combination. As circulation and revenues expanded, the publishers managed to make choices that ensured them continued success and domination in their regional media markets. Their political biases and involvement would not meet today’s criteria of objectivity, 226

Conclusion

but their cozy connections with the political elite provided tangible and often profitable results. By the end of the 1930s, these media companies and their owners had achieved success that made them the envy of many of their out of state rivals. By the 1930s, they had also managed to define a new image for the state. Based on their level of influence, financial stability, and market penetration, the major Texas publishers were well placed for the coming economic boom of the 1940s through the 1970s. Furthermore, the leading Texas publishers were able to pass on their legacies and their media corporations to their successors. G. B. Dealey became the first of this generation to pass away. The eighty-six-year-old publisher died in 1946. Ted Dealey, his son, stepped into his place as the head of the Dallas Morning News. Amon Carter Jr. became publisher of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram on the death of his father in 1955. John T. Jones, nephew of Jesse H. Jones, became publisher of the Houston Chronicle. Jesse H. Jones died in 1956. Former Texas governor and Houston Post publisher William P. Hobby died in 1964. His wife, Oveta Culp Hobby, and later William P. Hobby Jr., their son, assumed control of the Post. Their companies included the daily newspaper, radio, and, by the early 1950s, television stations. This second generation of publishers faced many new challenges after World War II that changed many of the relationships established during the era before World War II. Even as the business leaders outdistanced their counterparts in other southern states, one main goal of modernization remained to be accomplished.The state retained its long-standing cultural ties to the restrained, discriminatory societies that dominated the South during this era. Although the distinctive Texas personality primarily manifested itself in the pages of the state’s daily newspapers during the 1930s, segregation and discrimination remained an obstacle on the path to modernization. Social and economic reforms in this period applied primarily to white middle- and upper-class urban communities. After World War II, the civil rights movement—followed by more large-scale movements that provided more rights for women, the disabled, the poor, the aged, and others—served as serious challenges to the social order. These groups, many of whom were left behind in the initial stage of modernization before World War II, saw significant gains sprout from grounds that were seeded during the early decades of the twentieth century. Newspapers and other media neglected minority members of the community. With only a few exceptions, they succumbed to the prevailing social standards of discrimination and segregation. Commentator and author Bill Moyers, in a discussion on journalism 227


and history, notes that while both professions concern themselves primarily with past events, ‘‘journalism encourages the making of snap judgments and the drawing of facile conclusions: history tends to grow out of sustained study and a patient resolve to connect the dots.’’ Journalists have always been praised and plagued by short deadlines and the requirement of instant analysis. Historians have a longer view and extended time for summation and reflection. But historians and journalists share similar criticisms of their coverage and conclusions. ‘‘Bad history can have consequences as devastating as bad journalism,’’ Moyers observes. And to compound the problem, ‘‘not writing about someone can write them out of existence.’’ People without voices, whether omitted by journalists or historians, can be erased faster than the pies at a family reunion. Many of their stories and history are lost, while some are still buried in the files of the newspaper morgues.6 George B. Dealey proclaimed that the news publications of his era represented the best of hope and progress. As he told an appreciative audience in 1939, their publications served as ‘‘a voice, an intelligence and a reasoning conscience, to interpret for the reading public the ripest thought and best judgment of the time, touching all questions of public concern.’’ Not all of the important issues were addressed fairly and objectively, but the publishers provided a guiding hand in the modernization of Texas during the early twentieth century.

228

Notes Works frequently cited in the notes have been identified by the following abbreviations: AGCP Belo CAH DHS HMRC JP LOC WRC

Amon G. Carter Sr. Papers, Mary Couts Burnett Library,Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, Texas A. H. Belo Archives, Belo Corporation Foundation, Dallas, Texas Center for American History, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas Dallas Historical Society, Dallas, Texas Houston Metropolitan Research Center, Houston, Texas Jesse H. Jones Papers, Houston Endowment, Houston, Texas Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. Woodson Research Center, Fondren Library, Rice University, Houston, Texas

Introduction 1. ‘‘Honoring George Bannerman Dealey,’’ October 12, 1939, George B. Dealey vertical files, CAH; Dallas Morning News, October 13, 1939. 2. W. P. Hobby to Amon G. Carter, August 2, 1939, Amon G. Carter to W. P. Hobby, August 7, 1939, Box 13 (1939)/15, AGCP; Fort Worth Star-Telegram, October 13, 1939. 3. Dallas Morning News, October 13, 1939. 4. Dallas Morning News, October 13, 1939. 5. Dallas Morning News, October 13, 1939; Graham Murdock and Peter Golding, ‘‘The Structure, Ownership and Control of the Press, 1914–1976,’’ in Newspaper History from the Seventeenth Century to the Present Day, ed. George Boyce, James Curran, and Pauline Wingate, 136. 6. Patricia Evridge Hill, Dallas: The Making of a Modern City, xxiii–xxiv. 7. Hill, Dallas, 129–160; A. C. Greene, Dallas USA, 72; Darwin Payne, Big D: Triumphs and Troubles of an American Supercity in the 20th Century, 32–34, 126– 127, 77–109, 177. 8. Donald L. Shaw, ‘‘The Rise and Fall of American Mass Media: Roles of Technology and Leadership,’’ Roy W. Howard Public Lecture in Journalism and

Notes to Pages 5–15

Mass Communication Research, no. 2, April 4, 1991, Indiana University School of Journalism, Bloomington, 3–4. 9. Shaw, ‘‘Rise and Fall,’’ 7–8. 10. Shaw, ‘‘Rise and Fall,’’ 26–29. 11. The construction of Texas’ regional identity is a major theme of Michael Phillips, ‘‘The Fire This Time: The Battle over Racial, Regional, and Religious Identities in Dallas, Texas, 1860–1990,’’ Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, 2002. 12. V. O. Key Jr., with the assistance of Alexander Heard, Southern Politics in State and Nation, 254–261.

1. Texas Newspapers and Modernization 1. William David Sloan, ed.,The Age of Mass Communication, 321–322; Edwin Emery and Michael Emery, The Press and America, 259; Michael Schudson, The Power of News, 53–71; Jean Folkerts and Dwight L. Teeter Jr., Voices of a Nation: The History of Mass Media in the United States, 315–317. All of these media historians recognized the twentieth century as the point at which daily newspapers across the nation demonstrate significant change in organization, structure and appearance which coincides with the economic expansion and growth of corporations during this period. 2. Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, ‘‘The Anxiety of History: The Southern Confrontation with Modernity,’’ Southern Cultures 1, no. 1 (fall 1994). Fox-Genovese identifies three elements of modernity: material progress, political democracy, and ‘‘autonomous’’ individuals. 3. Charles P. Roland, The Improbable Era: The South since World War II, 9–10. Other classic studies of the region in this era include V. O. Key Jr., with the assistance of Alexander Heard, Southern Politics in State and Nation; Dewey Grantham, The South in Modern America; George B. Tindall, The Emergence of the New South, 1913–1945; W. J. Cash, The Mind of the South; and C. Vann Woodward, Origins of the New South, 1877–1913. 4. Jacquelyn Dowd Hall, Revolt against Chivalry: Jessie Daniel Ames and the Women’s Campaign against Lynching, 134–135. 5. V. O. Key Jr., Politics, Parties, and Pressure Groups, 234; Edward L. Ayers, The Promise of the New South, 49. Union pensions from the federal treasury far exceeded similar pensions to Confederate veterans funded by southern state legislatures. Funding for federal pensions provided millions of dollars to veterans well into the 1920s. 6. Ayers, Promise of the New South, 309. 7. Grantham, The South in Modern America, 23–24. A number of studies provide interpretations of conflict and change in the late nineteenth- and early twentiethcentury South: Paul M. Gaston, The New South Creed: A Study in Southern Mythmaking; John S. Ezell, The South since 1865; Woodward, The Origins of the New South, 1877–1913; Roland, The Improbable Era; Donald Davidson et al., I’ll Take 230

Notes to Pages 16– 32

My Stand: The South and the Agrarian Tradition, by Twelve Southerners; W. J. Cash, The Mind of the South. 8. Walter L. Buenger, The Path to a Modern South: Northeast Texas between Reconstruction and the Great Depression, xv–xvii. 9. Lawrence W. Levine best captured the separation of U.S. art into ‘‘high culture’’ and ‘‘low culture’’ and the implications this process had for the country’s class politics, in Highbrow/Lowbrow: The Emergence of Cultural Hierarchy in America. 10. ‘‘The Literature of a Moral Republic,’’ Smart Set 47 (October 1915): 152– 153, quoted in Fred C. Hobson, Serpent in Eden: H. L. Mencken and the South, 21, and in Ayers, Promise of the New South, 372. 11. Lewis L. Gould, Progressives and Prohibitionists: Texas Democrats in the Wilson Era, 30–31; Buenger,The Path to a Modern South, 123–131; Tom Pilkington, State of Mind: Texas Literature and Culture, 3–9. Among the articles cited by Gould is ‘‘Texas to Rule the United States in the Future?’’ from theChicago Record-Herald, March 25, 1911. Pilkington examines the regional and environmental influence on Texas writers and their interpretations of the state and its people in shaping the image of Texas culture. 12. Blaine A. Brownell, ‘‘Urbanization,’’ in Encyclopedia of Southern Culture, ed. Charles Reagan Wilson and William Ferris, 1436–1437. 13. Roger W. Lotchkin, ‘‘The Metropolitan-Military Complex in Perspective: San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego, 1919–1941,’’ in Gerald D. Nash, ed., The Urban West, 19, 20. 14. Ronald L. Davis, ‘‘Western Urban Development,’’ in Jerome O. Steffen, ed., The American West: New Perspectives, New Dimensions, 175–195. 15. Woodward, quoted by James C. Cobb, ‘‘Beyond Planters and Industrialists: A New Perspective on the New South,’’ in Redefining Southern Culture, 9. 16. W. Joseph Campbell,Yellow Journalism: Puncturing the Myths, Defining the Legacies, 7–13, 33. Campbell provides the broadest interpretation of yellow journalism, one that extends beyond the traditional definition of the trend as a sensational style with more emphasis on crime and vice. For earlier interpretations, see Delos F. Wilcox, ‘‘The American Newspaper: A Study in Social Psychology,’’ Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 16 ( July 1900): 56–92; Sidney Kobre, The Yellow Press and Gilded Age Journalism; Frank Luther Mott, American Journalism: A History, 1690–1960, 539.

2. The Evolution of the Texas Press 1. The Handbook of Texas Online, s.v. ‘‘Newspapers,’’ 2. Marilyn Sibley, Lone Stars and State Gazettes: Texas Newspapers before the Civil War, 74–75, 264–267. 3. The Handbook of Texas Online, s.v. ‘‘Galveston Spectator,’’ 4. Houston Chronicle, March 28, 1987; Handbook of Texas Online, s.v. ‘‘Hous231


ton Informer,’’ 5. Handbook of Texas Online, s.v. ‘‘San Antonio Register,’’ 6. Texas: A Guide to the Lone Star State, 60–62. 7. San Antonio Express, October 25, 1902, as quoted in Frederic D. Ogden, The Poll Tax in the South, 10–11. The Federal Elections Bill, labeled the Force Bill in the South, never passed in this era but remained on the congressional agenda as a Republican initiative for many years. An earlier study of poll taxes and their abuse appeared in Donald S. Strong, ‘‘The Poll Tax: The Case of Texas,’’ American Political Science Review 38 (August 1944): 698. 8. Dallas Morning News, February 27, 1910; Houston Chronicle, February 26, 1910; Wharton Spectator, February 25, March 4, 1910. 9. Wharton Spectator, March 4, 1910. 10. Dallas Morning News, March 4, 1910. 11. Dallas Morning News, March 4, 1910. In its extensive coverage of the lynching, the News reported extensive damage to the courthouse. Officials closed saloons and Governor Campbell ordered the militia to assist local law enforcement authorities. 12. Houston Chronicle, March 3, 4, 1910. 13. Dallas Morning News, March 7, 1910. 14. Houston Chronicle, March 4, 1910.TheChronicle ran other editorials in subsequent weeks, blaming the court system and its ‘‘antiquated and inefficient system.’’ The newspaper defended individual judges and stated ‘‘no corruption in Texas courts’’ existed. As the editors stated on March 10, ‘‘The law should not be made a travesty by reason of senseless precedents.’’ 15. Joel Williamson, The Crucible of Race: Black-White Relations in the American South since Emancipation, 309–310, 513. 16. Houston Daily Post, January 11, 1901. The front-page articles that day reported debate in the U.S. Senate over the nation’s policy in the Philippines, a dispute between Houston and La Porte over a proposed deepwater port, and a possible lynching of an African American in Indianapolis because of his marriage to a white woman. 17. Houston Daily Post, January 12, 1901. The largest well prior to Spindletop produced 6,000 barrels per day compared to the 100,000 barrels per day from the Lucas well in 1901. 18. Houston Daily Post, January 15, 16, 20, 1901. 19. James R. Chiles, ‘‘Spindletop,’’ American Heritage of Invention and Technology 3, no. 1 (1987): 34–43; Houston Daily Post, January 15, 1901. 20. Houston Daily Post, April 28, 1901;Galveston Daily News, February 3, 1901. Both articles quoted in Judith Walker Linsley, Ellen Walker Rienstra, and Jo Ann Stiles, Giant under the Hill: A History of the Spindletop Oil Discovery at Beaumont, Texas, in 1901, 133–135. 232


21. Houston Daily Post, January 15, 1901; Texas: A Guide to the Lone Star State, 196–197. 22. William David Sloan and James G. Startt, eds., The Media in America: A History (5th ed.), 281–283. Other media and newspaper histories that consider the twentieth century as the modern, professional era for journalism include Edwin Emery and Michael Emery,The Press and America, and Sidney Kobre, Development of American Journalism. 23. Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, ed. Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba Winthrop, 244. Many scholars consider Tocqueville’s multivolume work one of the most influential commentaries on the character and development of the U.S.style democracy. 24. Tocqueville, Democracy, 177–178. 25. Tocqueville, Democracy, 177–178. 26. Sloan and Startt, Media, 282. 27. Walter Lippmann, ‘‘Two Revolutions in the American Press,’’ Yale Review 20 (March 1931): 433–441. 28. Thomas D. Clark, The Southern Country Editor, 170–171. 29. Dewey Grantham, The South in Modern America, 11–12; Sloan and Startt, Media, 243–244. Continue with a list of southern historians: Grantham; W. J. Cash; C. Vann Woodward, Origins of the New South, 1877–1913; V. O. Key Jr.; Paul M. Gaston. 30. George B.Tindall,The Emergence of the New South, 1913–1945, 5–6. A number of studies examine southern progressivism and its initiatives in the South.These include W. J. Cash, The Mind of the South; Dewey L. Grantham, Southern Progressivism: The Reconciliation of Progress and Tradition; Richard Hofstadter, The Age of Reform: From Bryan to F.D.R.; J. Morgan Kousser,The Shaping of Southern Politics: Suffrage Restriction and the Establishment of the One-Party South, 1880–1910; Arthur S. Link, ‘‘The Progressive Movement in the South, 1870–1914,’’ North Carolina Historical Review 23, no. 1 (1946): 172–195; George B. Tindall, The Persistent Tradition in New South Politics; Woodward, Origins of the New South, 1877–1913. The classic Texas study is Lewis L. Gould, Progressives and Prohibitionists: Texas Democrats in the Wilson Era. 31. Grantham, The South in Modern America, 46. 32. Grantham, The South in Modern America, 48–57. 33. James V. Lovell, ‘‘Dallas Story,’’ Dallas Times Herald, August 29, 1949. The story came from the January 25 and 27, 1897, editions of the Times Herald, located in the Dallas Times Herald Collection, Belo. 34. Don C. Seitz, Joseph Pulitzer: His Life and Letters, 100–102. 35. An excellent study of the rise of professionalism in many fields is Samuel Haber, The Quest for Authority and Honor in the American Professions. 36. Michael Schudson, Discovering the News: A Social History of American Newspapers, 119. 37. Elna C. Green, Southern Strategies: Southern Women and the Woman Suf233


frage Question; Ruthe Winegarten and Judith N. McArthur, eds., Citizens at Last: TheWoman Suffrage Movement inTexas; ElizabethYork Enstam, ‘‘The Dallas Equal Suffrage Association, Political Style, and Popular Culture: Grassroots Strategies of the Woman Suffrage Movement, 1913–1919,’’ Journal of Southern History 68, no. 4 (November 2002): 817–848; Janelle D. Scott, ‘‘Local Leadership in the Woman Suffrage Movement: Houston’s Campaign for the Vote, 1917–1918,’’ Houston Review 12, no. 1 (1990): 2–22. 38. Dallas Morning News, May 22, 1899, October 7, 1901, quoted in Jacquelyn Masur McElhaney, Pauline Periwinkle and Progressive Reform in Dallas, 134, 139. 39. McElhaney, Pauline Periwinkle, xv–xix. Sam Acheson, 35,000 Days in Texas: A History of the Dallas News and Its Forebears, 218–225. 40. McElhaney, Pauline Periwinkle, xv–xviii; Dallas Morning News, sec. 5, p. 11, October 1, 1935. McElhaney designated Callaway as one of the new breed of women journalists who advocated and worked for social reform. Callaway left no memoirs or private papers. 41. Dallas Morning News, July 9, 1906, quoted in McElhaney, Pauline Periwinkle, 149. 42. Dallas Morning News, March 15, 1913. 43. Dallas Morning News, March 13, 16, 1913. 44. Dallas Morning News, March 19, 1913. 45. Houston Chronicle, January 10, 13, 1915. 46. Houston Chronicle, January 7, 1915. 47. Houston Chronicle, February 24, 1915, December 30, 1917. 48. Scott, ‘‘Local Leadership in the Woman Suffrage Movement,’’ 16–18; Houston Chronicle, June 6, 1917.

3. Expansion and Consolidation 1. Texas Newspapers, 1813–1939, foreword; Texas: A Guide to the Lone Star State, 121–122. 2. Houston: A History and Guide, 206–207. This 1940 guidebook was a publication of the Work Projects Administration, a New Deal program that included support for writers and other artists. 3. Houston Daily Post, January 6, 13, 1901. 4. Houston Daily Post, January 5, 1901; George Fuermann, Houston: Land of the Big Rich, 145. 5. Houston Daily Post, January 17, 1901, January 21, February 4, 1907; Lewis L. Gould, Progressives and Prohibitionists: Texas Democrats in the Wilson Era, 16–21. The Waters-Pierce Oil Company paid a $1.8 million judgment when it was convicted of violating the state’s antitrust laws. The settlement was the largest in Texas history and held the record until larger recoveries in the 1930s. 6. Houston Daily Post, January 11, 12, 17, 1901. 7. Edward W. Kilman, ‘‘The History of the Houston Post,’’ 34–35, March 26, 1941, Oveta Culp Hobby Papers, WRC. Kilman’s history ran a series in the Post, 234


but several articles were never published. Kilman presented the series to publisher William P. Hobby. 8. Kilman, ‘‘History of the Houston Post,’’ 36–37. 9. Kilman, ‘‘History of the Houston Post,’’ 36–37. 10. Kilman, ‘‘History of the Houston Post,’’ 38–39. 11. Houston: A History and Guide, WPA, 207–208. 12. Houston Chronicle, October 15, 1901. This edition was actually Foster’s second issue. No first-day issues of the Chronicle survived in the newspaper’s morgue or in archival collections. 13. ‘‘The Man on the Cover: Marcellus E. Foster,’’ Scripps-Howard News, reprint in Marcellus Foster vertical file, UT Board of Regents, CAH. 14. Bascom N. Timmons, Jesse H. Jones: The Man and Statesman, 61–73; The New Handbook of Texas, vol. 3, s.v. ‘‘Jesse Holman Jones,’’ 984–985. 15. Timmons, Jesse H. Jones, 85–96. 16. Houston Chronicle, February 15, 1910. 17. David McComb, Houston: A History, 67; Timmons, Jesse H. Jones, 90–91; Houston Chronicle, November 10, 1914. 18. Fuermann, Houston: Land of the Big Rich, 81–86; The New Handbook of Texas, s.v. ‘‘Jones,’’ 985; Timmons, Jesse H. Jones, 146. 19. Timmons, Jesse H. Jones, 85–96. 20. Sam Acheson, 35,000 Days in Texas: A History of the Dallas News and Its Forebears (1938; repr., Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1973), 95–100. Acheson credits William Newman, the traffic manager of the Texas and Pacific Railroad, with the original idea of sending news over the wires. 21. Michael V. Hazel, ‘‘The Making of Two Modern Dailies,’’ Legacies 9, no. 1 (1997): 11. 22. Hazel, ‘‘Two Modern Dailies,’’ 12. 23. Acheson, 35,000 Days in Texas, 136–137. 24. Acheson, 35,000 Days in Texas, 138–142. 25. Dallas Morning News, October 8, 1924, October 1, 1935, sec. 4, p. 7. 26. Dallas Morning News, October 1, 1935, sec. 4, p. 13. 27. Galveston News, September 8, 10, 11, 1900. 28. Galveston News, September 12, 13, 17, 1900. 29. Dallas Morning News, April 21, 1901. 30. Dallas Morning News, October 1, 1905. 31. Dallas Morning News, October 1, 1905. 32. Dallas Morning News, November 18, 1906. 33. Dallas Morning News, April 2, 1907. 34. Acheson, 35,000 Days in Texas, 226–231. 35. Jackie McElhaney, ‘‘After the Deluge: The Impact of the Trinity River Flood of 1908,’’ Legacies 11, no. 2 (fall 1999): 17–21; Dallas Morning News, May 26, 1908. 36. Dallas Morning News, March 20, 1923. Darwin Payne, Dallas: An Illustrated History. William H. Wilson, ‘‘Adapting to Growth: Dallas, Texas, and the Kessler 235


Plan, 1908–1933,’’ Arizona and the West 25 (autumn 1983). The Handbook of Texas Online, s.v. ‘‘Kessler, George E.,’’ 37. McElhaney, ‘‘After the Deluge,’’ 21–25; Ernest Sharpe, G. B. Dealey of the Dallas News, 140–144. 38. Robert B. Fairbanks, ‘‘Making Better Citizens in Dallas: The Kessler Plan Association and Consensus Building in the 1920s,’’ Legacies 11, no. 2 (fall 1999): 26–28; Dallas Morning News, February 26, May 26, 1910.The Kessler Plan covered many issues that dealt with transportation, education, utilities, and local government but failed to provide a financial strategy for the complete package of recommendations. 39. Dallas Morning News, November 18, 1906, April 2, 1907. 40. ‘‘Honoring George Bannerman Dealey,’’ program for George Bannerman Dealey, October 12, 1939, George B. Dealey vertical files, CAH. 41. Sharpe, G. B. Dealey, 82–85; Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1899. 42. Sam H. Acheson, ‘‘First Citizen of Texas,’’ Texas Almanac, 1947–1948, 33– 39. 43. Sharpe,G. B. Dealey, 141. Sharpe quotes Dealey’s philosophy from a speech to the Dallas Critics Club on January 2, 1934. 44. Sharpe, G. B. Dealey, 110–116, 301–303. The rules of 1899 defined the roles of the managing editor, business manager, and departmental heads. When Dealey initiated the removal of front-page ads, he prepared a memo on October 8, 1902, that listed fifty-two comparable metropolitan dailies which no longer carried ads on the front page and seven which still maintained the practice. 45. Patricia Evridge Hill, Dallas: The Making of a Modern City, 68–71; Dallas Morning News, May 15, 1899. 46. Texas: A Guide to the Lone Star State, 322–330. 47. San Antonio: An Authoritative Guide to the City and Its Environs, American Guide Series, Work Projects Administration, 38–39. 48. Men of Affairs of San Antonio, 87, 159, 167. No archival records for Frank Huntress and the early years of the San Antonio Express are available to researchers. 49. San Antonio Express, November 26, 1940. 50. The Handbook of Texas Online, s.v. ‘‘San Antonio Light,’’ No archives of the San Antonio Light are available to researchers for the period of independent ownership prior to its purchase by Hearst Newspapers. 51. ChesterT. Crowell, ‘‘Strange News fromTexas,’’ American Mercury 4, no. 15 (March 1925): 324–325. 52. Chester T. Crowell, ‘‘Journalism in Texas,’’ American Mercury 7, no. 28 (April 1926): 472–473. 53. Seymour V. Connor, ed., Builders of the Southwest. Fort Worth StarTelegram, June 24, 25, 1955. Amon Carter Sr. vertical files, CAH, University of Texas at Austin. Jerry Flemons, Amon: The Texan Who Played Cowboy for America, 236


xix. The Handbook of Texas Online, s.v. ‘‘Amon Carter, Sr.,’’ 54. Jimmy Donaldson, ‘‘The Voice of the West,’’ Texas Historian, March 1981. Phillip J. Meek, Fort Worth Star-Telegram: ‘‘Where the West Begins.’’ Texas Newspaper Directory; The Handbook of Texas Online, s.v. ‘‘Amon Carter, Sr.,’’ 55. Texas: A Guide to the Lone Star State, 261. 56. Flemons, Amon, 53. 57. Flemons, Amon, xix. 58. Flemons, Amon, 79.

4. ‘‘An Enemy Closer to Us than Any European Power’’ 1. Houston Chronicle, March 16, 1916. 2. The role of the Spanish-American War in reconciling the South with the rest of the nation is among the topics brilliantly explored by David W. Blight in Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American History. 3. The best study of foreign involvement in Mexico during the revolution remains Friedrich Katz, The Secret War in Mexico: Europe, the United States, and the Mexican Revolution. 4. James D. Startt and William David Sloan, The Significance of the Media in American History, 192–195. Many interpretations examine the national debate, ethnic divisions, isolationist sentiments, and pivotal events that influenced political affairs and the nation’s entry into World War I. A select group of national and regional histories include Arthur S. Link, Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive Era, 1910–1917, 147–149, and Link, Wilson: The Struggle for Neutrality, 1914–1915, 6– 20. Link isWilson’s best-known biographerand editorof his personal papers. Other historians with similar views on neutrality and intervention include Robert H. Ferrell, Woodrow Wilson and World War I, 1917–1921, and Ross Gregory, The Origins of American Intervention in the First World War. Recognized historians who base their conclusions on southern opinions include Dewey W. Grantham, The South in Modern America, 76–77, and George Tindall, The Emergence of the New South, 1913–1945, 171–174. In Texas, the pivotal work on this topic is Lewis L. Gould, Progressives and Prohibitionists: Texas Democrats in the Wilson Era, 150–184. 5. Texas Almanac and State Industrial Guide, 1914, 98, 135, 234. No comprehensive study currently exists of newspapers in the South or Southwest for this era in United States history. 6. Sharpe, G. B. Dealey, 176–177. Lombardi and his family left for Switzerland and arrived only hours before the borders closed. They returned to the United States as German armies entered Belgium. 7. William David Sloan and James D. Startt, eds., The Media in America (5th ed.), 281–284; ‘‘American Sympathies in the War,’’ Literary Digest, November 14, 1914, 939, 977–978. 8. Sloan and Startt, eds., The Media in America (5th ed.), 282–283; Edwin 237


Emery and Michael Emery, The Press in America, 297–304; Dallas Morning News, August 9, 1914; Anti-Saloon League, The Brewers and Texas Politics, 1, 2; U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, Brewing and Liquor Interests and German Propaganda, 1, 2. The published court records from the state’s 1915 antitrust suit against the brewers and liquor interests revealed extensive involvement and contributions to German Americans and other minorities in an effort to defeat Prohibition. The Senate Judiciary hearings in 1919 provided details on contributions by German American organizations on Prohibition and candidates. 9. San Antonio Express, August 2, 5, 1914; Houston Post, August 3, 1914; Houston Chronicle, August 4, 5, 1914; Dallas Morning News, August 6, 9, 19, 1914; Sharpe, G. B. Dealey, 183. Among historians of early twentieth-century Texas, the Dallas Morning News is generally considered the most influential of the state’s daily newspapers. But each of the papers selected for this study commanded influence within the state and region. 10. San Antonio Express, August 16, 1914. 11. San Antonio Express, August 1, 14, 18, 23, 25, 1914. 12. Dallas Morning News, August 9, 28, 1914. 13. Houston Post, August 12, 24, 1914. 14. Letter from J. L. Hegler to Morris Sheppard, in Arthur S. Link, ed., The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, vol. 31, pp. 12, 248–249; clippings, Oscar B. Colquitt Papers, January–March 1914, 2E205, CAH; Houston Post, September 26, October 23, 1914; Gould, Progressives and Prohibitionists, 151–161; Anthony Gaughan, ‘‘Woodrow Wilson and the Rise of Militant Interventionism in the South,’’ Journal of Southern History 65 (1999): 771–808. Governor Colquitt, a former newspaperman turned politician, thrived on publicity. He received national coverage for his denouncements of Wilson during his final term as governor and later as an unsuccessful candidate for the U.S. Senate. 15. Houston Post, December 28, 1914; Dallas Morning News, January 3, 7, 1915; San Antonio Express, December 30, 1914. 16. Wilson to Houston Chronicle, September 8, 1914, in Link, ed., The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, vol. 31, p. 12; Dallas Morning News, January 10, 1915; Houston Post, December 27, 1914; Houston Chronicle editorial (undated), Oscar B. Colquitt Papers, November–December 1914, 2E205, CAH; Grantham, The South in Modern America, 75–76; Gould, Progressives and Prohibitionists, 151–161. Condemning Colquitt’s attack, The Dallas Morning News stated on March 29, 1914, ‘‘of all the Governors this State has had in recent years, Governor Colquitt has proved himself pre-eminently the unfittest.’’ With the exception of Wilson’s letter to the Houston Chronicle, little correspondence of substance between Texas editors and President Wilson in this period before World War I exists in The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, edited by Link, or in the complete Library of Congress microfilm collection of Wilson’s papers. Publishers and editors appeared to let their editorial page observations convey their attitudes. 17. For a full discussion of the cotton crisis, See Arthur S. Link, ‘‘The Cotton 238


Crisis, the South, and Anglo-American Diplomacy, 1914–1915,’’ inThe Higher Realism of Woodrow Wilson and Other Essays, 309–329. For its political impact on Texas and congressional reaction, see Gould, Progressives and Prohibitionists, 151–161. 18. Dallas Morning News, May 9, 11, 1915; Houston Post, May 11, 12, 1915; Houston Chronicle, May 9, 10, 1915. For a full discussion of the Lusitania crisis, see Arthur S. Link, Wilson, vol. 4: Confusions and Crises, 1915–1916. 19. Houston Post, May 11, 12, 1915; Houston Chronicle, May 9, 10, 18, 1915. 20. Houston Chronicle, May 20, 1915; San Antonio Express, July 5, 1915; Link, Wilson, vol. 4: Confusions and Crises, 142–167. 21. Dallas Morning News, January 31, February 1, 2, 3, 1916; Houston Chronicle, January 9, 28, February 2, 1916; San Antonio Express, February 2, 1916; Timothy Gregory McDonald, ‘‘Southern Democratic Congressmen and the First World War,’’ Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington, 1962, 141–142. Although Wilson’s congressional critics received widespread news coverage, they remained in the minority among members of their own party and in the House and Senate. 22. Houston Chronicle, March 6, 1916; Dallas Morning News, March 9, 1916; Dennis K. McDaniel, ‘‘The First Congressman Martin Dies of Texas,’’ Southwestern Historical Quarterly 102, no. 2 (October 1998): 131–162. 23. Houston Chronicle, March 6, 7, 1916; Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1916; State Topics, March 25, 1916, McLemore Papers, 2E435, CAH; Gould, Progressives and Prohibitionists, 162–164; McDaniel, ‘‘Martin Dies,’’ 153–154; McDonald, ‘‘Southern Democratic Congressmen,’’ 152–154, 248–257. Southern Democrats voted by a ten to one margin to table the McLemore resolution. Seven Texas congressional Democrats joined McLemore in the losing battle to keep the resolution alive: Black, Buchanan, Burgess, Callaway, Davis, Eagle, and Slayden. Those supporting the administration’s position were Garner, Garrett, Hardy, Rayburn, Smith, Stephens, Sumners, and Young. The Texas delegation in the House remained evenly divided on most preparedness issues in 1916 until the final votes for war in early 1917. 24. Fort Worth Star-Telegram, July 27, 1916; T. L. Miller, ‘‘Oscar Callaway and Preparedness,’’West Texas Historical Association Yearbook 43 (1967): 80–93. Miller reviewed many small newspapers in the 12th Congressional District and found very little coverage of Callaway’s most critical remarks on the military and the Wilson administration. 25. Dallas Morning News, July 23, 24, 26, 1916; San Antonio Express, July 23, 24, 25, 1916. 26. New York World, April 23, 1916; Dallas Morning News, April 24, 1916; San Antonio Express, July 19, 1916. This story and others on German involvement in the Texas election from the World are contained in the Oscar B. Colquitt Papers, 2E206, CAH. The 1916 Democratic Primary runoff election featured former governor Oscar B. Colquitt and incumbent U.S. senator Charles Culberson. Colquitt, a longtime critic of the Wilson administration, lost the runoff election when Governor Ferguson directed anti-Prohibition forces to support Culberson in the runoff 239


and Prohibition supporters moved to the incumbent. Support for Wilson, personal politics, and Prohibition played a large role in this campaign, but the Senate race also contained elements of appeals to nativism. 27. Houston Post, July 23, 1916; Houston Chronicle, August 8, 1916; Dallas Morning News, July 23, 26, 1916; San Antonio Express, July 19, 27, 28, August 28, 1916; Gould, Progressives and Prohibitionists, 175–183. 28. Dallas Morning News, March 9, 1916; James R. Green, Grass-Roots Socialism: Radical Movements in the Southwest, 1895–1943, 351–352; Gould, Progressives and Prohibitionists, 162–165, 178–183. 29. Many studies of the Mexican Revolution and its impact on the United States exist: Don M. Coerver and Linda B. Hall, Texas and the Mexican Revolution: A Study in State and National Border Policy, 1910–1920; Arnoldo De León, Mexican Americans in Texas: A Brief History; Charles H. Harris III and Louis R. Sadler, The Border and the Revolution; Glenn Justice, Revolution on the Rio Grande; Michael C. Meyer, The Course of Mexican History; David Montejano, Anglos and Mexicans in the Making of Texas, 1836–1986; James Sandos, Rebellion in the Borderlands: Anarchism and the Plan of San Diego, 1904–1923; Paul J.Vanderwood and Frank N. Samponora, Border Fury; The Handbook of Texas Online, s.v. ‘‘Mexican Revolution,’’ 30. Richard Griswold del Castillo, ‘‘The Mexican Revolution and the SpanishLanguage Press in the Borderlands,’’ Journalism History 4 (summer 1977): 42–47; Montejano, Anglos and Mexicans, 117–125. Montejano concludes that the Mexican Revolution contributed to increased polarization between Anglos and Mexicans and provided the context for the hard-fought battles and increased discrimination in South Texas. Castillo states that the handful of Spanish-language newspapers published in the United States circulated to a wide audience throughout the Southwest and Mexico. These newspapers served as forerunners of the intellectual and political movement among Hispanics in the Americas. 31. Clippings, Oscar B. Colquitt Papers, May 1913–December 1915, 2E205, CAH; Dallas Morning News, February 28, March 11, 1914; Fort Worth StarTelegram, March 10, 1914; Gould, Progressives and Prohibitionists, 116–119. Based on numerous out-of-state clippings, Governor Colquitt received coverage in many newspapers around the state and nation when he attacked the Wilson administration’s position on Mexico. 32. Undated clippings from New York American, Oscar B. Colquitt Papers, January–March 1914, 2E205, CAH; Dallas Morning News, February 28, 1914. 33. Houston Chronicle, March 3, 1914; Houston Post, March 11, 1914. 34. San Antonio Express, March 13, 1914. In his final term, Governor Colquitt sided with James Ferguson against Tom Ball in the 1914 Democratic gubernatorial campaign. Colquitt’s foes in the Wilson administration, which included Postmaster General Albert Burleson and other Texans in the president’s administration, publicly sided with the unsuccessful Ball. 240


35. Dallas Morning News, August 1, 8, 9, 1915. 36. Dallas Morning News, August 1, 8, 9, 1915. 37. Dallas Morning News, August 12, 1915; San Antonio Express, August 10, 12, 1915. 38. Dallas Morning News, August 13, 14, 1915. 39. Ellen Maury Slayden, Washington Wife: Journal of Ellen Maury Slayden from 1897–1919, 270–271. Ellen Maury Slayden, wife of Democratic congressman James Luther Slayden, accompanied her husband to Washington, D.C., Mexico City, and many areas of Texas during his twenty-one years in office, which covered the period from the Spanish-American War through World War I. She openly criticized President Wilson, whom she believed was ‘‘narrow-minded, too much of a Presbyterian, and too much of the schoolteacher.’’ She also believed his understanding of Mexico, its people, and its politics, ‘‘was completely wrong.’’ She filled her journal with candid, often critical observations of people and events of the day. 40. Dallas Morning News, August 13, 14, 1915; San Antonio Express, August 10, 12, 14, 1915. 41. Dallas Morning News, August 13, 1915; San Antonio Express, August 10, 12, 1915; Charles H. Harris III and Louis R. Sadler, ‘‘The Plan of San Diego and the Mexican–United States War Crisis of 1916: A Reexamination,’’ in The Border and the Revolution, 71–98; Montejano, Anglos and Mexicans, 117. 42. Dallas Morning News, August 15, 20, 1915. 43. San Antonio Express, May 10, 14, 1916; Montejano, Anglos and Mexicans, 117–125; F. Arturo Rosales, Pobre Raza, 101; Harris and Sadler, ‘‘Plan of San Diego,’’ 81–82.These historians are among an increasing number who raise questions about these events as presented in Texas newspapers and official reports. 44. Houston Chronicle, August 14, 26, 1915. 45. Dallas Morning News, August 13, 1915. Similar statements appeared in the San Antonio Express, the Houston Post, and the Houston Chronicle during the same time period. Subsequent historical research has revealed that the Carranza government used the raids in South Texas as a bargaining point for U.S. recognition. In support of this position, several historical studies documented the Carranza government’s assistance of men, supplies, and shelter to those involved in the South Texas raids. See Harris and Sadler, ‘‘Plan of San Diego,’’ 76–81, and Coerver and Hall, Texas and the Mexican Revolution, 90–91. 46. El Paso Herald, November 15, 1913, February 3, April 24, 1914. 47. El Paso Times, December 27, 1913, January 17, 1914. 48. Joseph A. Stout Jr., Border Conflict: Villistas, Carrancistas, and the Punitive Expedition, 1915–1920, 18, 26–27; del Castillo, ‘‘The Mexican Revolution and the Spanish-Language Press in the Borderlands.’’ 49. El Paso Herald, September 22, November 9, 19, 1915; El Paso Morning Times, November 2, 1915; Joseph A. Stout Jr. and Clifford A. Perkins, ‘‘The Revolution Comes to Juarez,’’ Password 22, no. 2 (summer 1977): 67–69; Stout, Bor241


der Conflict, 15–22; Coerver and Hall, Texas and the Mexican Revolution, 95–98; Vanderwood and Samponora, Border Fury, 122–123. 50. Dallas Morning News, March 11, 14, 1916; San Antonio Express, March 11, 1916; Houston Post, March 12, 1916. 51. Dallas Morning News, March 13, 14, 16, 1916; Houston Chronicle, March 16, 1916; Link, ed., The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, vol. 34, pp. 364–366. 52. W. H. Aldridge to Jeff McLemore, April 19, 1916, Correspondence 1909– 1918, Jeff McLemore Papers, 2E435, CAH; Dallas Morning News, March 24, 1916; El Paso Herald, March 16, 25, 1916. In response to criticisms of people creating false stories, the El Paso City Council passed an ordinance in March 1916 that levied a fine on those who issued ‘‘fake’’ war reports. 53. Link, ed.,The Papers of WoodrowWilson, vol. 34, pp. 175, 364–366; Houston Chronicle, March 26, 1915; San Antonio Express, March 26, 1916. 54. J. S. M. McKamey to Jeff McLemore, May 13, 1916, McLemore Papers, 2E435, CAH; San Antonio Express, May 13, 14, 1916. 55. Stout, Border Conflict, 93–102. Stout’s extensive use of Mexican military and government records revealed the Carranza administration’s concern over public opinion and coverage of the revolution in United States newspapers. 56. San Antonio Express, August 7, 13, 1916; State Topics, April 15, 1916, in McLemore Papers, 2E452, CAH. State Topics, edited by Congressman Jeff McLemore, was an influential political journal opposed to Prohibition. 57. San Antonio Express, July 2, 4, 5, 8, 12, 1916; Dallas Morning News, August 5, 1916; undated clippings from Houston Post, Oscar B. Colquitt vertical files, CAH. 58. Coerver and Hall, Texas and the Mexican Revolution, 118–119. 59. Houston Post, March 1, 2, 1917; Dallas Morning News, March 1, 2, 1917; San Antonio Express, March 1, 2, 1917. 60. Dallas Morning News, March 7, 1917; U.S. Senate, Liquor Interests and German Propaganda, 1581–1582, 1686–1689. In the 1919 U.S. Senate hearings concerning Germany’s influence on Mexico, the government provided confirmation of German ownership of Mexican newspapers and the distribution of news from the German Information Service as part of Germany’s attempts to influence the press and public opinion in Mexico against the United States. However, the committee provided no assessment on the direct impact of these German actions. German involvement in Mexican government and military affairs dating back to the Plan of San Diego is still disputed by scholars who have examined official documents relating to this era. See Coerver and Hall, ‘‘Huertistas and ‘Huns,’ ’’ in Texas and the Mexican Revolution, 109–122, and Harris and Sadler,The Border and the Revolution, 71–133. 61. Dallas Morning News, March 2, 12, 15, 20, 1917. 62. San Antonio Express, March 27, 31, April 1, 4, 1917; Slayden, Washington Wife, 294. 63. Houston Post, April 7, 9, 1917; Dallas Morning News, April 4, 5, 1917. Con242

Notes to Pages 133 –145

gressmen McLemore and Slayden and several other Wilson critics witnessed the end of their political careers in the 1918 Democratic Primary elections. 64. Dallas Morning News, April 5, 9, 1917; Houston Post, April 9, 1917.

5. The Forces of Traditionalism and the Challenge from the Invisible Empire 1. Rodger Streitmatter, Mightier than the Sword: How the News Media Have Shaped American History, 119–121. Other media historians who have noted the role of newspapers that defied the Klan include David M. Chalmers, Hooded Americanism: The History of the Ku Klux Klan, and Kenneth T. Jackson, The Ku Klux Klan in the City: 1915–1930. 2. Michael Schudson, Discovering the News: A Social History of American Newspapers, 153–155. 3. Charles C. Alexander, The Ku Klux Klan in the Southwest, 25–39; Texas Almanac, 1952–1953, 75–76. 4. Alexander, Klan, 20–22. 5. New York World, September 6, 1921; Streitmatter, Mightier than the Sword, 105–110. 6. Alexander, Klan, 199. 7. Alexander, Klan, 222–226. 8. William David Sloan, ed.,The Age of Mass Communication, 407.TheWilson administration created a new government agency, the Committee on Public Information (CPI), to provide information to the public, control wartime information, and build support for the overseas commitment. The CPI successfully provided sanitized news, advertisements, speakers, and materials to justify America’s involvement, support for the administration’s programs, and making wartime sacrifices. 9. Alexander, Klan, 29–31; Houston Post, December 20, 1920. 10. Chester T. Crowell, ‘‘Journalism in Texas,’’ American Mercury 7, no. 28 (April 1926): 477–478. 11. W. E. B. DuBois, ‘‘The Shape of Fear,’’ North American Review 223, no. 831 (1926): 293–294. 12. Greene, Casey, ‘‘Guardians against Change: The Ku Klux Klan in Houston and Harris County, 1920–1925,’’ Legacies 10, no. 1 (1988): 8–9. 13. Greene, ‘‘Guardians against Change,’’ 4–5. 14. Greene, ‘‘Guardians against Change,’’ 10–11. 15. Norman Brown, Hood, Bonnet, and Little Brown Jug: Texas Politics, 1921– 1928, 53. 16. Houston Chronicle, September 7, 1921. 17. Marcellus Foster to Jesse H. Jones, September 8, 1921, M. E. Foster–J. H. Jones Correspondence, 1921–1923, Box 22, JP. 18. Foster to Jones, September 8, 1921, M. E. Foster–J. H. Jones Correspondence, 1921–1923, JP. 243


19. Jones to Foster, September 14, 1921, M. E. Foster–J. H. Jones Correspondence, 1921–1923, JP. 20. Foster to Jones, September 26, 1921, M. E. Foster–J. H. Jones Correspondence, 1921–1923, JP. 21. Foster to Jones, September 26, 1921, M. E. Foster–J. H. Jones Correspondence, 1921–1923, JP. 22. Foster to Jones, September 28, 1921, M. E. Foster–J. H. Jones Correspondence, 1921–1923, JP. 23. Linda Elaine Kilgore, ‘‘The Ku Klux Klan and the Press in Texas, 1920– 1927,’’ master’s thesis, University of Texas at Austin, 1964, 61–62. Kilgore’s study covered several daily newspapers with a focus on the Denison Herald ’s and the Dallas Morning News’ anti-Klan editorial policies. 24. Houston Chronicle, October 3, 1921. 25. Houston Chronicle, October 9, 1921. 26. Colonel Mayfield’s Weekly, March 25, 1922, copy, Lynch Davidson Scrapbook, 1921–1923, CAH. 27. Colonel Mayfield’s Weekly, March 3, 1922, CAH. 28. Houston Chronicle, April 16, 1922, copy, Lynch Davidson Scrapbook, 1921– 1923, CAH. 29. New York Times, December 10, 1922. 30. Houston Post, December 5, 25, 1922. 31. Colonel Mayfield’sWeekly, December 9, 1922, quoted in Greene, ‘‘Guardians against Change,’’ 14–15. 32. Houston Post, December 20, 27, 31, 1922, January 1, 1923. 33. Houston Post, January 13, 1923. 34. Houston Post, January 17, 19, 20, 1923. 35. Colonel Mayfield’s Weekly, October 22, 1921, quoted in Kilgore’s ‘‘Klan and the Press,’’ 186–187, 194. 36. Houston Post, February 2, 1923. 37. Houston Post, May 6, 1923. 38. Houston Post, July 25, 26, 1923. 39. Colonel Mayfield’s Weekly, January 20, November 17, 1923, quoted in Kilgore’s ‘‘Klan and the Press,’’ 195, 198. 40. Alexander, Klan, 79–81. 41. J. S. Cullinan to R. B. Creager, December 19, 1923, J. S. Cullinan Papers, MSS 69, Box 38–13, HMRC. 42. Brown, Hood, Bonnet, 149–150. 43. Houston Post, January 27, February 8, 10, 11, 1921. No editorial comment was ever made following the decision by the Harris County Democratic Executive Committee. 44. Love v. Griffith, 266 U.S. 32, 45 Sup. Ct. 12 (1924); Robert Haynes, ‘‘Black Houstonians and the White Democratic Primary, 1920–1945,’’ in Houston: A Twentieth Century Urban Frontier, 119–120. 244


45. M. M. Crane to Governor Pat Neff, May 2, 1922, Crane Papers, Correspondence, May 1922, 3N105, CAH; Patricia Evridge Hill, Dallas: The Making of a Modern City, 100–101; Texas 100 Per Cent American, October 26, 1923, Ku Klux Klan Collection, HMRC.The Crane Papers contain extensive correspondence from Crane and the Dallas County Citizens League on efforts to fight the Klan. A number of unique Klan documents and official forms are noteworthy in the Crane Collection. 46. Dallas Morning News, May 22, 1921; Dallas County Citizens League, ‘‘The Case against the Ku Klux Klan,’’ Ku Klux Klan materials, CAH; Ernest Sharpe,G. B. Dealey of the Dallas News, 198–200. The League’s published executive committee members and principals called for public trials and religious liberty and opposed the secret oaths and business boycotts of the Klan. 47. Dallas Morning News, March 2, 1922; Darwin Payne, ‘‘The Dallas Morning News and the Ku Klux Klan,’’ Legacies 9, no 1 (spring 1997): 16–27. 48. Roy Bedichek to Martin Crane, April 2, 1922, Crane Papers, Correspondence, 4 January 1922–12 April 1922, 3N104, CAH. 49. Phil A. Day to M. M. Crane, April 7, 1922, M. P. Mell to M. M. Crane, April 5, 1922, Crane Papers, Correspondence, 4 January 1922–12 April 1922, 3N104, CAH; ‘‘The Jews and Catholics Challenge—Klan Will Accept,’’Texas 100 Per Cent American, June 1, 1923. 50. W. E. Quarles to Dallas News, May 30, 1922, 316; Sam H. Campbell to Dallas News, May 2, 1922, A6667, 314; Sim Smith to Walter A. Dealey, July 25, 1922, A6667, 315, DHS. 51. George H. Evans to G. B. Dealey, March 6, 1922; G. B. Dealey to George H. Evans, March 8, 1922, A6667-36, 314; Tom Finty to G. B. Dealey, typed memo, June 23, 1922, A6667-36, 316, DHS. 52. Dallas Times Herald, April 11, 1922; Reg Westmoreland, ‘‘Dallas Deadlines,’’ 215–218, Box 1, Dallas Times Herald Collection, Belo. Westmoreland obtained his information about Klan membership among the Times Herald from an oral history interview with former publisher John W. Runyon and editor-in-chief Allen Merriam. 53. Press statement, Dallas Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, April 8, 1922, Crane Papers, Correspondence, 4 January 1922–12 April 1922, 3N104, CAH; Texas 100 Per Cent American, October 22, 1922. 54. Payne, ‘‘Dallas Morning News and the Ku Klux Klan,’’ 24. 55. ‘‘To the Stockholders of A. H. Belo & Company,’’ January 23, 1923, p. 3, Box 7, A. H. Belo Corporation Archives, Belo. The company increased the value of its real estate properties from $112,000 to $300,000 to offset declining revenues and increased expenses and improve the bottom line. The report also indicates all of the growth in the preceding ten years occurred at the Dallas Morning News. The Galveston News remained stagnant. 56. ‘‘To the Stockholders of A. H. Belo & Company,’’ January 17, 1924, pp. 4–8, Box 7, A. H. Belo Corporation Archives, Belo. 245


57. Jeannette Peabody to G. B. Dealey, November 24, 1922, A6667, 182, DHS; Payne, ‘‘Dallas Morning News and the Ku Klux Klan,’’ 25; Sharpe, G. B. Dealey, 200–201. 58. Brown, Hood, Bonnet, 128. Brown has a thorough discussion of the 1922 Senate race and its impact on Texas politics. The anti-Klan press viewed Mayfield’s election as an endorsement of Prohibition and progressivism, as opposed to Ferguson’s tainted reputation as an impeached governor and wet supporter. 59. Brown, Hood, Bonnet, 212–214, 226–234. 60. Texas 100 Per Cent American, May 16, 1922; Houston Chronicle, May 4, 23, 1922; Dallas Morning News, March 29, April 24, 1922, Clippings of Felix Robertson, 1924, Lynch Davidson Scrapbook, CAH. 61. Brown, Hood, Bonnet, 245–249; George C. Butte vertical file, CAH. 62. Edward W. Kilman, ‘‘History of the Houston Post,’’ 68–70, March 26, 1941, Oveta Culp Hobby Papers, WRC; Houston Post, July 31, 1924; Houston PostDispatch, August 1, 1924. 63. Foster to Jones, July 29, 1924, M. E. Foster–J. H. Jones Correspondence, 1924, JP. 64. Kilman, ‘‘History of the Houston Post,’’ 71; Houston Post-Dispatch, August 1, 1924. 65. Foster to Jones, November 3, 1924, M. E. Foster–J. H. Jones Correspondence, 1924, JP. 66. Foster to Jones, November 3, 1924, M. E. Foster–J. H. Jones Correspondence, 1924, JP. 67. Foster to Jones, November 3, 1924, M. E. Foster–J. H. Jones Correspondence, 1924, JP. 68. Mike Kingston, Sam Attlesey, and Mary G. Crawford, The Texas Almanac’s Political History of Texas, 284–287. Of the larger counties in the state, only Bexar County, with its large anti-Klan vote in San Antonio, provided a majority for Ferguson in November 1924. Bexar County maintained one of the larger groups of Republican voters during the early decades of the twentieth century. 69. Brown, Hood, Bonnet, 251–257. 70. Brown, Hood, Bonnet, 265–268; Alexander, Klan, 199. 71. Bryce L. Twitty to Amon Carter, November 30, 1925; F. S. Osmon to Amon Carter, December 1, 1925; P. L. Apgar to Amon Carter, December 1, 1925; Box 15, AGCP. 72. Fort Worth Star-Telegram, December 1, 1925; Dallas Morning News, December 1, 1925; Houston Post-Dispatch, December 1, 1925. 73. R. A. Underwood to Amon Carter, December 9, 1925; Pat M. Neff to Amon Carter, December 2, 1925; P. W. Horn to Amon Carter, December 5, 1925, Box 15, AGCP. 74. Houston Chronicle, May 25, 1925. 75. Brown, Hood, Bonnet, 282–284. 246


76. Houston Chronicle, August 16, 17, 25, 1925; Brown, Hood, Bonnet, 284–288. 77. Houston Chronicle, December 17, 1925; Brown, Hood, Bonnet, 289–292. 78. ‘‘Settlement and Hold Harmless Agreement,’’ October 14, 1919, Houston Chronicle Publishing Co. Lawsuits, 1919–1925, Box 22, JP. 79. Houston Chronicle, January 24, 1926. 80. Houston Chronicle, December 16, 1925. 81. ‘‘Plays and People,’’ February 24 (no year), M. E. Foster Clippings, Box 22, JP. 82. Houston Post, November 8, 1925, February 25, 1926. 83. ‘‘Memo of Agreement,’’ December 21, 1909, M. E. Foster–J. H. Jones Agreements, 1909–1912, Box 22, JP. 84. M. E. Tracy to Jesse H. Jones, July 26, August 4, 1924, Tracy-Jones Correspondence, 1924, Box 22, JP. 85. Marcellus Foster to Jesse H. Jones, November 2, 5, 1925; Jesse H. Jones to Marcellus Foster, November 9, 1925, 1925 Correspondence, Box 22, JP. 86. W. O. Huggins to Jesse H. Jones, November 3, 4, 1925,W. O. Huggins–J. H. Jones Correspondence, 1921–1925, Box 22, JP. 87. Jesse H. Jones to W. O. Huggins, November 9, 1925, W. O. Huggins–J. H. Jones Correspondence, 1921–1925, Box 22, JP. 88. Bascom N. Timmons, Jesse H. Jones: The Man and Statesman, 121. 89. ‘‘Sales Contract,’’ M. E. Foster and Jesse H. Jones, February 20, 1926; ‘‘Memorandum of Agreement,’’ M. E. Foster and Houston Chronicle Publishing Company, May 1926; Jesse H. Jones to Marcellus Foster, July 17, 1926, in 1926 Correspondence, Box 22, JP. 90. ‘‘The Man on the Cover: Marcellus E. Foster,’’ Scripps-Howard News, reprint in Marcellus Foster vertical file, UT Board of Regents, CAH. 91. A. J. Tyrer to A. H. Belo Co., telegram, June 6, 1922, and ‘‘License for Land Radio Station,’’ Permit #456, 1:1,WFAA Radio Collection; A. H. Belo Corporation, ‘‘Commemorating One Hundred and Fifty Years, 1842–1992,’’ 5, 17, Belo. 92. George M. Stokes, ‘‘A Public Service Program History of Radio Station WFAA-820,’’ 84–87, Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University, 1954. Copy in WFAA Radio Collection, Belo. 93. C. Joseph Pusateri, ‘‘Radio History,’’ in Encyclopedia of Southern Culture, ed. Charles Reagan Wilson and William Ferris, 938; Jesse H. Jones speech on KTRH–Houston Chronicle merger, April 19, 1934, JHJ 214, LOC. 94. Stokes, ‘‘History of Radio Station WFAA,’’ 94–117. 95. George B. Dealey, ‘‘To the Stockholders of A. H. Belo and Company,’’ January 23, 1923, Box 7, A. H. Belo Corporation Archives; M. L. Goodwin to W. A. Dealey, March 23, 1927, 1:2, WFAA Radio Collection, Belo. Dealey included no information about WFAA to stockholders in the 1924 report. 96. W. O. Huggins to Jesse H. Jones, October 4, 1928, W. O. Huggins–Jesse H. Jones Correspondence, 1926–1922, Box 22, JP. 247


6. Texas Newspapers, the Crash of 1929, and the Great Depression 1. Dorothy DeMoss, ‘‘Resourcefulness in the Financial Capital: Dallas, 1929– 1933,’’ in Texas Cities and the Great Depression, by Robert C. Cotner et al., 117–118; Dallas Morning News, October 30, 1929; San Antonio Express, October 29, 1929. 2. Studies on the 1930s Great Depression and its impact are numerous. Great debate among historians still exists over the impact of the New Deal and the Great Depression on the region. These include Numan Bartley, The New Deal and the South; William J. Cooper and Thomas E. Terrill, The American South: A History; Gilbert Fite, Cotton Fields No More: Southern Agriculture, 1865–1980; Jack Temple Kirby, Rural Worlds Lost: The American South, 1920–1960; Paul E. Mertz, New Deal Policy and Southern Rural Poverty; Bruce J. Schulman, From Cotton Belt to Sunbelt: Federal Policy, Economic Development, and the Transformation of the South, 1938– 1980; Douglas Smith, The New Deal in the Urban South; and George B. Tindall, The Emergence of the New South, 1913–1945. 3. DeMoss, ‘‘Dallas, 1929–1933,’’ 124–125; William E. Montgomery, ‘‘The Depression in Houston, 1929–1933,’’ in Texas Cities and the Great Depression, 160– 162; Mary Maverick McMillan Fisher, ‘‘San Antonio I: The Hoover Era,’’ in Texas Cities and the Great Depression, by Robert C. Cotner et al., 59–61. Roger Biles, The South and the New Deal, 21–24; Houston Post-Dispatch, January 28, 1931; DeMoss, ‘‘Dallas, 1929–1933,’’ 121–123. 4. Fisher, ‘‘San Antonio I: The Hoover Era,’’ 55–57. 5. G. B. Dealey, ‘‘To Heads and Sub-Heads of Departments,’’ August 25, 1931, Folder 2, Box 2, DMN Collection; Tom and Jean Simmons, interview by Judith Garrett, February 20, 1986, Belo. 6. Charles Richard (Dick) West, interview by Judith Garrett, spring 1986, Belo. 7. Calvert and De León, History of Texas, 313–314. 8. Merry K. Fitzpatrick, ‘‘Local Solutions Not Adequate: San Marcos, 1932– 1933,’’ in Texas Cities and the Great Depression, 47–49. 9. C. C. White and Ada Morehead Holland, ‘‘No Quittin’ Sense,’’ reprinted in Texas History Documents, ed. Randolph B. Campbell, 60–61; Robert A. Calvert and Arnoldo De León, The History of Texas, 2d ed., 309–310. 10. G. B. Dealey memo, May 30, 1934, Folder 2, Box 2, DMN Collection, Belo. 11. Houston Post-Dispatch, October 26, 1931. 12. Jesse H. Jones and Edward Angly, Fifty Billion Dollars: My Thirteen Years with the RFC, 85–86; Bascom N. Timmons, Jesse H. Jones: The Man and the Statesman, 156–161; Montgomery, ‘‘Houston, 1929–1933,’’ 156–157; Houston PostDispatch, October 27, 28, 1931. 13. Contract, May 10, 1937; ‘‘Memorandum RE Houston Post Company Stock,’’ January 20, 1949, Box 26, Houston Post, 1932–1949, JP. Jones financed the purchase of the newspaper and retained an option on the entire stock of the Post. 14. Jones, Fifty Billion Dollars, 84. 15. Calvert and De León, History of Texas, 311–312. 248


16. Amon Carter to Harry Wiess, April 27, 1932, 36A, Box 15, AGCP. 17. Amon Carter to Governor Ross Sterling, February 25, 1932, 36A, Box 15, AGCP. 18. ‘‘1934 Annual Report,’’ 7:5, A. H. Belo Corporation Papers, Belo. 19. Houston Post, April 2, 3, 1934. 20. Houston Post, April 13, 1934. 21. Ben Procter, ‘‘The Texas Rangers,’’ in Ben Procter and Archie P. McDonald, eds., The Texas Heritage, 213–218. 22. Houston Post-Dispatch, December 8, 1931; San Antonio Express, February 22, 1932. 23. William E. Leuchtenburg, Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal, 6–8, 252; Anthony J. Badger, The New Deal: The Depression Years, 54–55. 24. George Seldes, Freedom of the Press, 149–150, 160.The Seldes interpretation of the Depression reflected the revisionist interpretation, which placed the causes for the Depression on large corporations and monopolies in the United States. Seldes published Lords of the Press in 1938, where he accused American newspapers of exploiting child labor, abusing labor, and using the First Amendment to avoid taxation and regulation. 25. Robert F. Colwell, ‘‘San Angelo, 1933–1936: Drought, Flood, Depression,’’ in Texas Cities and the Great Depression, 173–174; San Angelo Evening Standard, March 2, 3, 1933. 26. Colwell, ‘‘San Angelo, 1933–1936,’’ 174; San Angelo Evening Standard, March 15, 23, 1933. 27. Timmons, Jesse H. Jones, 162–172. 28. Fort Worth Star-Telegram, January 23, 1933. 29. Jerry Flemons, Amon: The Texan Who Played Cowboy for America, 469–470. 30. The New Handbook of Texas, vol. 2, s.v. ‘‘Civilian Conservation Corps,’’ 118. 31. D. W. Brogan, Roosevelt and the New Deal, 35; Fort Worth Star-Telegram, May 17, 1933. 32. The New Handbook of Texas, vol. 4, s.v. ‘‘National Youth Administration,’’ 950. 33. The New Handbook of Texas, vol. 6, s.v. ‘‘Works Progress Association,’’ 1075– 1076. 34. ‘‘1934 Annual Report,’’ 7:5, A. H. Belo Corporation Papers, Belo. 35. Gary Dean Best, The Critical Press and the New Deal, 35–43. Best concentrated his study on seven newspapers, most of which harshly criticized Roosevelt and New Deal programs. No Texas newspapers are included in the study and the Baltimore Sun was the only publication close to the South. According to Best, columnists Frank Kent and Mark Sullivan ranked among Roosevelt’s foremost critics, while Raymond Clapper and Ernest Lindley wrote pro–New Deal columns. Arthur Krock of the New York Times, who was pro–New Deal, was not syndicated but was widely quoted. 36. Best,Critical Press and the New Deal, 27–30. Editor and Publisher magazine 249


compiled the endorsements in the 1936 presidential election.The Roosevelt-Garner ticket easily defeated Landon-Knox, carrying every state but Maine and Vermont. 37. Colwell, ‘‘San Angelo, 1933–1936,’’ 186–187. 38. Patrick Cox, ‘‘John Nance Garner,’’ in Profiles in Power: Twentieth-Century Texans in Washington, edited by Kenneth E. Hendrickson, Jr., Michael L. Collins, and Patrick Cox, 53–56; Biles, The South and the New Deal, 141–145; Dewey L. Grantham, The South in Modern America, 134–136. 39. Grantham, The South in Modern America, 149–151. Grantham noted that newspaper editors Ralph McGill of the Atlanta Constitution, Hodding Carter of the Greenville Delta Democrat-Times, Virginius Dabney of the Richmond TimesDispatch, and Jonathan Daniels of the Raleigh News and Observer as a group had long been critical of the ‘‘malignant aspects of Southern life.’’ 40. New York Times, April 9, 1938. 41. Biles, The South and the New Deal, 144–147. 42. Dallas Morning News, July 27, November 17, 1939; Time, March 20, 1939, 12–13. 43. Robert M. Harris to Sam Rayburn, July 28, 1939, and Ed Tillman to Sam Rayburn, April 15, 1940, Political–Garner for President, 3R278, Rayburn Papers, CAH. 44. ‘‘Statement of Honorable Maury Maverick, Mayor,’’ April 30, 1940, Maury Maverick Sr. Papers 2L49, CAH; Ed Tillman to Sam Rayburn, April 15, 1940, Political–Garner for President, 3R278, Rayburn Papers, CAH; San Antonio Express, April 30, 1940. 45. Houston Post, April 16, 1934. 46. Best, Critical Press and the New Deal, 31. 47. Editor and Publisher, March 20, 1937, as quoted in Best, Critical Press and the New Deal, 115. 48. Austin American, February 27, 1948; San Antonio Light, January 8, 1939; Timmons, Jesse H. Jones, 274–277.

7. Newspapers and the 1936 Texas Centennial 1. Business Week, June 6, 1936, 17, copy from 15-109, AGCP. 2. David Hamilton Murdoch,The American West: The Invention of a Myth, 98. 3. Paul Gaston, The New South Creed: A Study of Southern Mythmaking, 9; Gary W. Gallagher and Alan T. Nolan, eds., The Myth of the Lost Cause and Civil War History, 1–2. 4. Lloyd A. Hunter, ‘‘The Immortal Confederacy: Another Look at Lost Cause Religion,’’ in Gallagher and Nolan, eds., The Myth of the Lost Cause and Civil War History, 185–186. 5. John Bodnar, Remaking America: Public Memory, Commemoration, and Patriotism in the Twentieth Century, 14–15. 6. Kenneth B. Ragsdale, The Year America Discovered Texas: Centennial ’36, 8–19. 250


7. Ragsdale, Centennial ’36, 22–29. 8. Houston Post, March 18, 1934. 9. The New Handbook of Texas, vol. 6, s.v. ‘‘Texas Centennial,’’ 297–298. Every major daily in the state published a special centennial edition, sometimes totaling more than one hundred pages, stocked with history, anecdotes, and ads. 10. Houston Post, April 21, 1934. 11. Dallas Morning News, October 1, 1935, sec. 1, pp. 1–6; sec. 3, p. 1; sec. 5, p. 11. 12. Dallas Morning News, October 1, 1935, sec. 1, p. 1. 13. Bodnar, Remaking America, 15. 14. J. M. North Jr. to Ted Dealey, July 26, 1935, 16, Box 13, AGCP; Joseph Michael Phillips, ‘‘The Fire This Time: The Battle over Racial, Regional, and Religious Identities in Dallas, Texas, 1860–1990,’’ Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, May 2002. 15. Ragsdale, Centennial ’36, 119–121; Dallas Morning News, April 1, 1935. 16. J. M. North Jr. to Ted Dealey, July 26, 1935, 16, Box 13, AGCP. 17. Silliman Evans to Amon Carter Sr., January 7, 1931, Trinity River Canal Association, Box 15-3, AGCP. 18. ‘‘Publishers See Permanent Gains,’’ Editor and Publisher, June 20, 1936, reprint in Box 15-10a, AGCP. 19. Business Week, June 6, 1936, 17, located in AGCP Papers, Box 15, #109; Dallas Morning News, July 15, 1936. 20. Dallas Morning News, June 12, 1936; Patricia Evridge Hill, Dallas: The Making of a Modern City, 118–119. The Dallas Open Shop Association, organized in 1919, opposed union activities in the city and subjected members who knowingly hired union workers to a $3,000 fine. The local AFL leadership cooperated with businesses who resisted CIO organizers and refused to publicly condemn the violence and atrocities. (See ‘‘Dallas Tries Terror,’’ Nation, October 9, 1937.) Based on the resistance to CIO organizing attempts in cities like Dallas and others in the South, historian George B. Tindall concluded the ‘‘South remained predominantly nonunion and largely antiunion’’ (Emergence of the New South, 1913–1945, 515, 522). 21. Dallas Express, September 22, October 20, 1934. Select copies of the Express are in the CAH newspaper collection. 22. Ragsdale, Centennial ’36, 305; Phillips, ‘‘The Fire This Time,’’ 276–280; James David Boswell, ‘‘Negro Participation in the 1936 Texas Centennial Exposition,’’ master’s report, University of Texas at Austin, 1969, 1. Phillips described the Negro Hall of Fame as ‘‘an island of integration.’’ 23. Dallas Morning News, June 7, 1936; Ragsdale, Centennial ’36, 231–232. 24. Dallas Morning News, June 8, 20, 1936; Ragsdale, Centennial ’36, 232; Phillips, ‘‘The Fire This Time,’’ 292. 25. Ragsdale, Centennial ’36, 214–218; Fort Worth Star-Telegram, August 30, 1935, March 25, 1936. 251


26. Amon G. Carter toVice President John Nance Garner, July 23, 1936, Box 1710b; Amon G. Carter to Jesse H. Jones, July 8, 1936, Box 15-10b, AGCP; Ragsdale, Centennial ’36, 210–220, 288–289. 27. Franklin D. Roosevelt to Amon Carter, telegram, July 18, 1936, Box 17-10b; Damon Runyon, ‘‘Gotham’s Famous Flock to Texas,’’ clipping, July 27, 1936, Box 17-10b, AGCP. 28. ‘‘Fort Worth Frontier Centennial,’’ clipping, Texas Weekly, April 11, 1936, Box 17-10, AGCP; Flemmons, Amon, 325–326; Ragsdale, Centennial ’36, 260– 265, 282–283. 29. Ragsdale, Centennial ’36, 294–295. Ragsdale stated that both major expositions actually lost money. Profit and loss figures proved misleading, as many of the bonds and notes for the exposition were never redeemed. 30. Hill, Dallas, 123–125. 31. Ragsdale, Centennial ’36, xvii–xx, 302–303. 32. Dallas Morning News, August 10, 1937, March 10, 1940; Dallas Times Herald, September 9, 10, 1937; Hill, Dallas, 150–160. 33. ‘‘Dallas Tries Terror,’’ 377; Tindall, Emergence of the New South, 515, 522. 34. ‘‘1937 Annual Report,’’ and ‘‘1938 Annual Report,’’ 7:8–9, Belo. 35. ‘‘1940 Annual Report,’’ 7:11, Belo. 36. Dewey L. Grantham, The South in Modern America, 167–168. 37. Texas Almanac Supplement, 1937, 4.

Conclusion 1. 1980 Census of Population, Bureau of Census, quoted in Michael P. Malone and Richard W. Etulain, The American West: A Twentieth-Century History, 122. 2. Bulletin Almanac and Year Book, 1943, 241, 261, 264; Texas Almanac and State Industrial Guide, 1943–1944, 61–62, 287; Numan Bartley, The New South, 1945–1980, 1, 134, 145–146. 3. Kenneth T. Jackson, introduction to Essays on Sunbelt Cities and Recent Urban America, by Raymond A. Mohl et al., 4–5. 4. David Goldfield, Cotton Fields and Skyscrapers: Southern City and Region, 1607–1980. Goldfield provided similar arguments that while modifications in the social and political culture occurred in southern cities, they remained primarily subject to regional cultures and traditions. Other works that concentrate on the rise of urban communities and cultures in the South include Gavin Wright,Old South, New South: Revolutions in the Southern Economy since the Civil War; Blaine A. Brownell, The Urban Ethos in the South, 1920–1930; and David C. Perry and Alfred J. Watkins, eds., The Rise of the Sunbelt Cities. 5. Texas Almanac, 1941–42, 249, 257. In 1939 newspapers owned 28 of the 56 licensed commercial radio stations in the state. All newspapers in the state were valued at $28.7 million. No values were assigned to radio stations in the statistics. 6. Bill Moyers, ‘‘The Big Story: A Journalist Looks at Texas History,’’ Southwestern Historical Quarterly 101, no. 1 ( July 1997): 1–7. 252

Bibliography Books Acheson, Sam. Dallas Yesterday. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1977. . 35,000 Days in Texas: A History of the Dallas News and Its Forebears. New York: Macmillan, 1938. Alexander, Charles C. The Ku Klux Klan in the Southwest. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1995. Anti-Saloon League. The Brewers and Texas Politics. San Antonio: Passing Show Printing Co., 1916. Ayers, Edward L. The Promise of the New South. New York: Oxford Press, 1992. Badger, Anthony J. The New Deal: The Depression Years. New York: Hill and Wang, 1989. Bartley, Numan. The New Deal and the South. Jackson: University of Mississippi, 1984. . The New South, 1945–1980. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1995. Beckett, Hazael Williams. Growing Up in Dallas. Austin: New Hope Press, 1985. Best, Gary Dean. The Critical Press and the New Deal. Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1993. Biles, Roger. The South and the New Deal. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1994. Blight, David W. Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American History. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, Belknap Press, 2001. Bodnar, John. Remaking America: Public Memory, Commemoration, and Patriotism in the Twentieth Century. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992. Brogan, D. W. Roosevelt and the New Deal. London: Oxford University Press, 1952. Brown, Norman D. Hood, Bonnet, and Little Brown Jug: Texas Politics, 1921–1928. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1984. Brownell, Blaine A.The Urban Ethos in the South, 1920–1930. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1975. Buenger, Walter L. The Path to a Modern South: Northeast Texas between Reconstruction and the Great Depression. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2001. Bulletin Almanac and Year Book, 1943. Philadelphia: Evening Bulletin, 1943.


Calvert, Robert A., and Arnoldo De León. The History of Texas. 2d ed. Wheeling, Ill.: Harlan Davidson, 1996. Campbell, W. Joseph. Yellow Journalism: Puncturing the Myths, Defining the Legacies. Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 2001. Cash, W. J. The Mind of the South. New York: Vintage Books, 1941. Castleberry, Vivian Anderson. Daughters of Dallas: A History of Greater Dallas through the Voices and Deeds of Its Women. Dallas: Odewald Press, 1994. Chalmers, David M. Hooded Americanism: The History of the Ku Klux Klan. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1987. Cheney, Allison A. Dallas Spirit: A Political History of the City of Dallas. Dallas: McMullan Publishing, 1991. Clark, James Anthony, and Weldon Hart. The Tactful Texan: A Biography of Governor Will Hobby. New York: Random House, 1958. Clark,Thomas D.The Southern Country Editor. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1948. Cockrell, Frank M. Historyof Early Dallas. Chicago: privately printed by Monroe F. Cockrell, 1944. Coerver, Don M., and Linda B. Hall. Texas and the Mexican Revolution: A Study in State and National Border Policy, 1910–1920. San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1984. Connor, Seymour V., ed. Builders of the Southwest. Lubbock: Texas Technological College, Southwest Collection, 1959. Cooper, William J., and Thomas E. Terrill. The American South: A History. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1991. Davidson, Donald, et al. I’ll Take My Stand: The South and the Agrarian Tradition, by Twelve Southerners. 1930. Reprint, New York: Harper and Brothers, 1962. De León, Arnoldo. Mexican Americans inTexas: A Brief History. Arlington Heights, Ill.: Harlan Davidson, 1993. Emery, Edwin, and Michael Emery. The Press and America. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1978. Enstam, Elizabeth York. Women and the Creation of Urban Life: Dallas, Texas, 1843–1920. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1998. Ezell, John S. The South since 1865. New York: Macmillan, 1975. Ferrell, Robert H.Woodrow Wilson and World War I, 1917–1921. New York: Harper and Row, 1985. Fite, Gilbert. Cotton Fields No More: Southern Agriculture, 1865–1980. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1984. Flemons, Jerry. Amon: The Texan Who Played Cowboy for America. Lubbock: Texas Tech University Press, 1998. Folkerts, Jean, and Dwight L.Teeter Jr.Voices of a Nation: The History of Mass Media in the United States. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1998. Fuermann, George. Houston: Land of the Big Rich. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1951. 254

Bibliography

Gallagher, Gary W., and Alan T. Nolan, eds. The Myth of the Lost Cause and Civil War History. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2000. Gaston, Paul M.The New South Creed: A Study in Southern Mythmaking. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1970. Gelsanliter, David. Fresh Ink: Behind the Scenes at a Major Metropolitan Newspaper. Denton: University of North Texas Press, 1995. Goldfield, David. Cotton Fields and Skyscrapers: Southern City and Region, 1607– 1980. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1982. Gould, Lewis L. Progressives and Prohibitionists: Texas Democrats in the Wilson Era. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1973. Grantham, Dewey L. Southern Progressivism: The Reconciliation of Progress and Tradition. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1983. .The South in Modern America. NewYork: HarperCollins Publishers, 1994. Green, Elna C. Southern Strategies: SouthernWomen and theWoman Suffrage Question. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1997. Green, James R.Grass-Roots Socialism: Radical Movements in the Southwest, 1895– 1943. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1978. Greene, A. C. Dallas USA. Austin: Texas Monthly Press, 1984. Gregory, Ross. The Origins of American Intervention in the First World War. New York: W. W. Norton, 1971. Haber, Samuel. The Quest for Authority and Honor in the American Professions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991. Haldeman-Julius, E., ed. Is the Ku Klux Klan Constructive or Destructive? A Debate between Imperial Wizard Hiram Evans, Israel Zangwill and Others. Girard, Kans.: Haldeman-Julius Co., 1924. Hall, Jacquelyn Dowd. Revolt against Chivalry: Jessie Daniel Ames and theWomen’s Campaign against Lynching. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993. Harris, Charles H. III, and Louis R. Sadler. The Border and the Revolution. Silver City, N.Mex.: High Lonesome Books, 1988. Hazel, Michael V. Dallas: A History of ‘‘Big D.’’ Austin: Texas State Historical Association, 1997. Hill, Patricia Evridge. Dallas: The Making of a Modern City. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1996. Hobson, Fred C. Serpent in Eden: H. L. Mencken and the South. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1974. Hofstadter, Richard. The Age of Reform: From Bryan to F.D.R. New York: Vintage Books, 1955. Holmes, Maxine, and Gerald D. Saxon, eds. The WPA Dallas Guide and History. Denton: University of North Texas Press: 1992. Houston: A History and Guide. American Guide Series, Work Projects Administration. Houston: Anson Jones Press, 1944. Jackson, Kenneth T. The Ku Klux Klan in the City, 1915–1930. New York: Oxford University Press, 1967. 255


Jones, Jesse H., and Edward Angly. Fifty Billion Dollars: My Thirteen Years with the RFC. New York: Macmillan, 1951. Jones, Ted. Dallas: Its History, Its Development, Its Beauty. Dallas: Lamar and Barton, 1925. Justice, Glenn. Revolution on the Rio Grande. El Paso: Texas Western Press, 1992. Katz, Friedrich. The Secret War in Mexico: Europe, the United States, and the Mexican Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981. Key, V. O., Jr. Politics, Parties, and Pressure Groups. New York: Crowell, 1964. Key, V. O., Jr., with the assistance of Alexander Heard. Southern Politics in State and Nation. New York: A. A. Knopf, 1949. Kimball, Justin F. Our City—Dallas: A Community Civics. Dallas: Kessler Plan Association of Dallas, 1927. Kingston, Mike, Sam Attlesey, and Mary G. Crawford.TheTexas Almanac’s Political History of Texas. Austin: Eakin Press, 1992. Kirby, Jack Temple. Rural Worlds Lost: The American South, 1920–1960. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1987. Kobre, Sidney. Development of American Journalism. Dubuque, Iowa: W. C. Brown Co., 1969. . The Yellow Press and Gilded Age Journalism. Tallahassee, Fla.: Florida State University Press, 1964. Kousser, J. Morgan. The Shaping of Southern Politics: Suffrage Restriction and the Establishment of the One-Party South, 1880–1910. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1974. Leslie, Warren. Dallas Public and Private. New York: Grossman Publishing, 1964. Leuchtenburg, William E. Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal. New York: Harper and Row, 1963. Levine, Lawrence W. Highbrow/Lowbrow: The Emergence of Cultural Hierarchy in America. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1988. Lewis, Willie Newbury. Willie: A Girl from a Town Called Dallas. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1984. Lindsley, Philip. A History of Greater Dallas and Vicinity. Chicago: Lewis Publishing, 1909. Link, Arthur S. Wilson. Vol. 3: The Struggle for Neutrality, 1914–1915. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1960. . Wilson. Vol. 4: Confusions and Crises, 1915–1916. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964. . Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive Era, 1910–1917. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1954. , ed. The Papers of Woodrow Wilson. Vol. 31: September 6–December, 1914. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979. , ed. The Papers of Woodrow Wilson. Vol. 34: July–September, 1915. Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1980. Linsley, Judith Walker, Ellen Walker Rienstra, and Jo Ann Stiles. Giant under the 256

Bibliography

Hill: A History of the Spindletop Oil Discovery at Beaumont, Texas, in 1901. Austin: Texas State Historical Association, 2002. Malone, Michael P., and Richard W. Etulain. The American West: A TwentiethCentury History. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1989. McComb, David. Houston: A History. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981. McDonald, William L. Dallas Rediscovered: A Photographic Chronicle of Urban Expansion, 1870–1925. Dallas: Dallas Historical Society, 1978. McElhaney, Jacquelyn Masur. Pauline Periwinkle and Progressive Reform in Dallas. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1998. McLemore, Laura Lyons. Inventing Texas: Early Historians of the Lone Star State. College Station: Texas A&M Press, 2004. Meek, Phillip J. Fort Worth Star-Telegram: ‘‘Where the West Begins.’’ New York: Newcomen Society in North America, 1981. Men of Affairs of San Antonio. San Antonio: San Antonio Newspaper Artists’ Association, n.d. [1912]. Mertz, Paul E. New Deal Policyand Southern Rural Poverty. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1978. Meyer, Michael C. The Course of Mexican History. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. Mohl, Raymond A., et al. Essays on Sunbelt Cities and Recent Urban America. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1990. Montejano, David. Anglos and Mexicans in the Making of Texas, 1836–1986. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1987. Mott, Frank Luther. American Journalism: A History, 1690–1960. 3d ed. NewYork: Macmillan, 1962. Murdoch, David Hamilton. The American West: The Invention of a Myth. Cardiff, Wales: Welsh Academic Press, 2001. The New Handbook of Texas. Edited by Ron Tyler et al. 6 vols. Austin: Texas State Historical Association, 1996. Ogden, Frederic D. The Poll Tax in the South. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1958. Payne, Darwin. Big D: Triumphs and Troubles of an American Supercity in the 20th Century. Rev. ed. Dallas: Three Forks Press, 2000. . Dallas: An Illustrated History. Woodlands Hills, Calif.: Windsor Publications, 1982. . Dissenting Opinion: Carl Brannin’s Letters to the Editor, 1933–1976. Austin: American Civil Liberties Foundation of Texas, 1977. Perry, David C., and Alfred J. Watkins, eds. The Rise of the Sunbelt Cities. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1977. Pilkington, Tom. State of Mind: Texas Literature and Culture. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1998. Procter, Ben, and Archie P. McDonald, eds. The Texas Heritage. Wheeling, Ill.: Harlan Davidson, 1998. 257


Ragsdale, Kenneth B. The Year America Discovered Texas: Centennial ’36. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1987. Rogers, John William. The Lusty Texans of Dallas. New York: E. P. Dutton, 1960. Roland, Charles P. The Improbable Era: The South since World War II. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1975. Rosales, F. Arturo. Pobre Raza: Violence, Justice, and Mobilization among México Lindo Immigrants, 1900–1936. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1999. Sandos, James. Rebellion in the Borderlands: Anarchism and the Plan of San Diego, 1904–1923. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1992. San Antonio: An Authoritative Guide to the City and Its Environs. American Guide Series, Work Projects Administration. San Antonio: Clegg Co., 1938. Schudson, Michael. Discovering the News: A Social Historyof American Newspapers. New York: Basic Books, 1978. . The Power of News. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1995. Schulman, Bruce J. From Cotton Belt to Sunbelt: Federal Policy, Economic Development, and the Transformation of the South, 1938–1980. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. Seitz, Don C. Joseph Pulitzer: His Life and Letters. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1924. Seldes, George. Freedom of the Press. New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1935. Sharpe, Ernest. G. B. Dealey of the Dallas News. New York: Henry Holt, 1955. Sibley, Marilyn. Lone Stars and State Gazettes: Texas Newspapers before the Civil War. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1983. Slayden, Ellen Maury.WashingtonWife: Journal of Ellen Maury Slayden from 1897– 1919. New York: Harper and Row, 1962. Sloan,William David, ed.The Age of Mass Communication. Northport, Ala.: Vision Press, 1999. Sloan, William David, and James D. Startt, eds. The Media in America: A History. 5th ed. Northport, Ala.: Vision Press, 2002. Smith, Douglas. The New Deal in the Urban South. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1988. Startt, James D., and William David Sloan, eds. The Significance of the Media in American History. Northport, Ala.: Vision Press, 1994. Stout, Joseph A., Jr. Border Conflict: Villistas, Carrancistas, and the Punitive Expedition, 1915–1920. Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press, 1999. Streitmatter, Rodger. Mightier than the Sword: How the News Media Have Shaped American History. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1997. Texas: A Guide to the Lone Star State. American Guide Series, Work Projects Administration. New York: Hastings House, 1940. Texas Almanac and State Industrial Guide, 1914. Dallas: A. H. Belo, 1914. Texas Almanac and State Industrial Guide, 1941–1942. Dallas: A. H. Belo, 1941. Texas Almanac and State Industrial Guide, 1947–1948. Dallas: A. H. Belo, 1947. Texas Almanac and State Industrial Guide, 1952–1953. Dallas: A. H. Belo, 1951. 258

Bibliography

Texas Almanac and State Industrial Guide: Supplement, 1937. Dallas: A. H. Belo, 1936. Texas Newspaper Directory. Austin: Texas Press Service, 1991. Texas Newspapers, 1813–1939. Houston: San Jacinto Museum of History Association, 1941. Thomas, Jesse O. Negro Participation in the Texas Centennial Exposition. Boston: Christopher Publishing House, 1938. Thometz, Carol Estes.The Decision-Makers: The Power Structure of Dallas. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1963. Timmons, Bascom N. Jesse H. Jones: The Man and Statesman. New York: Henry Holt, 1956. Tindall, George B. The Emergence of the New South, 1913–1945. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1967. . The Persistent Tradition in New South Politics. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1967. Tocqueville, Alexis de. Democracy in America. Edited by Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Vanderwood, Paul J., and Frank N. Samponora. Border Fury. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1988. Wade,Wyn Craig.The Fiery Cross: The Ku Klux Klan in America. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987. Walker, Stanley. The Dallas Story. Dallas: Dallas Times Herald, 1956. Wiley, Nancy. The Great State Fair of Texas: An Illustrated History. Dallas: Taylor Publishing, 1985. Williamson, Joel.The Crucible of Race: Black-White Relations in the American South since Emancipation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1984. Winegarten, Ruthe. Black Texas Women: 150 Years of Trial and Triumph. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1995. Winegarten, Ruthe, and Judith N. McArthur, eds. Citizens at Last: The Woman Suffrage Movement in Texas. Austin: Ellen C. Temple, 1987. Woodward, C. Vann. The Origins of the New South, 1877–1913. Baton Rouge, La.: Louisiana State University Press, 1951. Worster, Donald. Dust Bowl: The Southern Plains in the 1930s. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979. Wright, Gavin. Old South, New South: Revolutions in the Southern Economy since the Civil War. New York: Basic Books, 1986.

Articles, Chapters, Manuscripts, Papers, and Public Documents Acheson, Sam. ‘‘First Citizen of Texas.’’ Texas Almanac, 1947–1948. Dallas: A. H. Belo, 1948. . ‘‘George Bannerman Dealey.’’ Southwestern Historical Quarterly, March 1947. ‘‘American Sympathies in the War.’’ Literary Digest, November 14, 1914. 259


Bentley, Max. ‘‘The Ku Klux Klan inTexas.’’ McClure’s magazine, vol. 55, May 1924. Biles, Roger. ‘‘The New Deal in Dallas.’’ Southwestern Historical Quarterly 95 (1991). Brownell, Blaine A. ‘‘Urbanization.’’ In Encyclopedia of Southern Culture, edited by Charles Reagan Wilson and William Ferris. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1989. Butler, Steve. ‘‘Honoring the Past: Confederate Monuments in Dallas.’’ Legacies: A History Journal of Dallas and North Central Texas 1, no. 3 (fall 1989). Cartwright, Gary. ‘‘The Old Soldier.’’ Texas Monthly, February 1991. Chiles, James R. ‘‘Spindletop.’’ American Heritage of Invention and Technology 3, no. 1 (1987). Cobb, James C. ‘‘Beyond Planters and Industrialists: A New Perspective on the New South.’’ In Redefining Southern Culture. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1998. Cohn, David L. ‘‘Dallas.’’ Atlantic, October 1940. Colwell, Robert F. ‘‘San Angelo, 1933–1936: Drought, Flood, Depression.’’ InTexas Cities and the Great Depression, 173–174. Austin: Texas Memorial Museum, 1973. Cox, Patrick. ‘‘John Nance Garner.’’ In Profiles in Power: Twentieth-Century Texans in Washington, edited by Kenneth E. Hendrickson, Jr., Michael L. Collins, and Patrick Cox. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2004. Crowell, Chester T. ‘‘Journalism in Texas.’’ American Mercury 7, no. 28 (April 1926). . ‘‘Strange News from Texas.’’ American Mercury 4, no. 15 (March 1925). ‘‘Dallas by the Decade.’’ Legacies: A History Journal of Dallas and North Central Texas 3, no. 2 (fall 1991). Dallas County Citizens League, ‘‘The Case against the Ku Klux Klan.’’ Dallas: Venney Co., 1922. ‘‘Dallas Tries Terror.’’ Nation, October 9, 1937. Davis, Ronald L. ‘‘Western Urban Development.’’ In The American West: New Perspectives, New Dimensions, edited by Jerome O. Steffen. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1979. DeMoss, Dorothy. ‘‘Resourcefulness in the Financial Capital: Dallas, 1929–1933.’’ In Texas Cities and the Great Depression, by Robert C. Cotner et al., 117–133. Austin: Texas Memorial Museum, 1973. Donaldson, Jimmy. ‘‘The Voice of the West.’’ Texas Historian, vol. 42, no. 1 (March 1981). DuBois,W. E. B. ‘‘The Shape of Fear.’’ North American Review 223, no. 831 (1926). Dulaney, W. Marvin. ‘‘The Progressive Voters League: A Political Voice for African Americans in Dallas.’’ Legacies: A History Journal of Dallas and North Central Texas 3, no. 1 (spring 1991). Enstam, Elizabeth York. ‘‘The Dallas Equal Suffrage Association, Political Style, 260

Bibliography

and Popular Culture: Grassroots Strategies of the Woman Suffrage Movement, 1913–1919.’’ Journal of Southern History 68, no. 4 (November 2002): 817–848. . ‘‘How Dallas Grew . . . and Why.’’ Legacies: A History Journal of Dallas and North Central Texas 3, no. 2 (fall 1991). Evans, J. Claude. ‘‘The Dallas Image Unveiled.’’ Christian Century, 20 November 1963. Fairbanks, Robert B. ‘‘Making Better Citizens in Dallas: The Kessler Plan Association and Consensus Building in the 1920s.’’ Legacies 11, no. 2 (fall 1999). Fisher, Mary Maverick McMillan. ‘‘San Antonio I: The Hoover Era.’’ InTexas Cities and the Great Depression, by Robert C. Cotner et al., 53–68. Austin: Texas Memorial Museum, 1973. Fitzpatrick, Merry K. ‘‘Local Solutions Not Adequate: San Marcos, 1932–1933.’’ In Texas Cities and the Great Depression, 47–49. Austin: Texas Memorial Museum, 1973. Fox-Genovese, Elizabeth. ‘‘The Anxiety of History: The Southern Confrontation with Modernity.’’ Southern Cultures 1, no. 1 (fall 1994): 65–82. Gaughan, Anthony. ‘‘Woodrow Wilson and the Rise of Militant Interventionism in the South.’’ Journal of Southern History 65 (1999). Greene, Casey. ‘‘Guardians against Change: The Ku Klux Klan in Houston and Harris County, 1920–1925.’’ Legacies 10, no. 1 (1988). Griswold del Castillo, Richard. ‘‘The Mexican Revolution and the SpanishLanguage Press in the Borderlands.’’ Journalism History 4, no. 2 (summer 1977). Harris, Charles H. III, and Louis R. Sadler. ‘‘The Plan of San Diego and the Mexican–United States War Crisis of 1916: A Reexamination.’’ In The Border and the Revolution. Silver City, N.Mex.: High Lonesome Books, 1988. Haynes, Robert. ‘‘Black Houstonians and the White Democratic Primary, 1920– 1945.’’ In Houston: A Twentieth Century Urban Frontier. Port Washington, N.Y.: Associated Faculty Press, 1983. Hazel, Michael V. ‘‘The Making of Two Modern Dailies.’’ Legacies 9, no. 1 (1997). Hunter, Lloyd A. ‘‘The Immortal Confederacy: Another Look at Lost Cause Religion.’’ In Gary W. Gallagher and Alan T. Nolan, eds., The Myth of the Lost Cause and Civil War History. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2000. Jackson, Kenneth T. Introduction. In Essays on Sunbelt Cities and Recent Urban America, by Raymond A. Mohl et al. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1990. Kilman, Edward W. ‘‘The Historyof the Houston Post.’’ March 26, 1941. Oveta Culp Hobby Papers. Woodson Research Center, Fondren Library, Rice University. Link, Arthur S. ‘‘The Cotton Crisis, the South, and Anglo-American Diplomacy, 1914–1915.’’ In The Higher Realism of Woodrow Wilson and Other Essays. Nashville: Vanderbilt Press, 1971. Link, Arthur S. ‘‘The Progressive Movement in the South, 1870–1914.’’ North Carolina Historical Review 23, no. 1 (1946): 172–195. 261


Lippmann, Walter. ‘‘Two Revolutions in the American Press.’’ Yale Review 20 (March 1931): 433–441. ‘‘The Literature of a Moral Republic.’’ Smart Set 47 (October 1915). Lotchkin, RogerW. ‘‘The Metropolitan-Military Complex in Perspective: San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego, 1919–1941.’’ In The Urban West, edited by Gerald D. Nash. Manhattan: University of Kansas Press, 1979. McDaniel, Dennis K. ‘‘The First Congressman Martin Dies of Texas.’’ Southwestern Historical Quarterly 102, no. 2 (October 1998): 131–162. McDonald, Timothy Gregory. ‘‘Southern Democratic Congressmen and the First World War.’’ Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington, 1962. McElhaney, Jackie. ‘‘After the Deluge: The Impact of the Trinity River Flood of 1908.’’ Legacies 11, no. 2 (fall 1999). Melosi, Martin V. ‘‘Dallas–Fort Worth: Marketing the Metroplex.’’ In Sunbelt Cities: Politics and Growth since World War II, edited by Richard M. Bernard and Bradley R. Rice. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1983. Miller, T. L. ‘‘Oscar Callaway and Preparedness.’’ West Texas Historical Association Yearbook 43 (1967). Montgomery,William E. ‘‘The Depression in Houston, 1929–1933.’’ InTexas Cities and the Great Depression, 153–170. Austin: Texas Memorial Museum, 1973. Moyers, Bill. ‘‘The Big Story: A Journalist Looks at Texas History.’’ Southwestern Historical Quarterly 101, no. 1 ( July 1997): 1–7. Murdock, Graham, and Peter Golding. ‘‘The Structure, Ownership, and Control of the Press, 1914–1976.’’ In Newspaper History from the Seventeenth Century to the Present Day, edited by George Boyce, James Curran, and Pauline Wingate. London: Constable, 1978. Payne, Darwin. ‘‘The Dallas Morning News and the Ku Klux Klan.’’ Legacies 9, no. 1 (spring 1997). Procter, Ben. ‘‘The Texas Rangers.’’ In The Texas Heritage, edited by Ben Procter and Archie P. McDonald. Wheeling, Ill.: Harlan Davidson, 1998. Pusateri, C. Joseph. ‘‘Radio History.’’ Encyclopedia of Southern Culture. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1989. ‘‘Racial Dynamism in Dallas.’’ New Republic, 24 March 1941. Scott, Janelle D. ‘‘Local Leadership in the Woman Suffrage Movement: Houston’s Campaign for the Vote, 1917–1918.’’ Houston Review 12, no. 1 (1990): 2–22. Shaw, Donald L. ‘‘The Rise and Fall of American Mass Media: Roles of Technology and Leadership.’’ Roy W. Howard Public Lecture in Journalism and Mass Communication Research, no. 2. Indiana University School of Journalism, Bloomington, April 4, 1991. Stout, Joseph A., Jr., and Clifford A. Perkins. ‘‘The Revolution Comes to Juárez.’’ Password 22, no. 2 (summer 1977). Strong, Donald S. ‘‘The Poll Tax: The Case of Texas.’’ American Political Science Review 38 (August 1944): 698. 262

Bibliography

U.S. Congress. Senate. Judiciary Subcommittee Hearings. Brewing and Liquor Interests and German Propaganda. 65th Congress, 1919. White, C. C., and Ada Morehead Holland. ‘‘No Quittin’ Sense.’’ Reprinted inTexas History Documents, edited by Randolph B. Campbell. New York: Worth Publishers, 1997. Wilcox, Delos F. ‘‘The American Newspaper: A Study in Social Psychology.’’ Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 16 ( July 1900): 56–92. Wilson,William H. ‘‘Adapting to Growth: Dallas,Texas, and the Kessler Plan, 1908– 1933.’’ Arizona and the West 25 (autumn 1983).

Newspapers Austin American Colonel Mayfield’s Weekly (Houston) Dallas Democrat Dallas Dispatch Dallas Downtown News Dallas Evening Journal Dallas Express Dallas Herald Dallas Laborer Dallas Mercury Dallas Morning News Dallas Observer Dallas Post Tribune Dallas Times Herald Dallas Weekly El Paso Herald El Paso Times Fort Worth Record Fort Worth Star-Telegram Galveston News Houston Chronicle Houston Dispatch Houston Post Houston Post-Dispatch New York American New York Herald New York Times New York World La Prensa (San Antonio) San Angelo Evening Standard 263


San Angelo Standard San Antonio Express San Antonio Express-News San Antonio Light State Topics (Austin) Texas 100 Per Cent American (Dallas)

Dissertations, Theses Boswell, James David. ‘‘Negro Participation in the 1936 Texas Centennial Exposition.’’ Master’s report, University of Texas at Austin, 1969. Davies, Elizabeth Durham. ‘‘Fair Park Expansion: A Case Studyof Political Bias and Protest in Urban Dallas.’’ Master’s thesis, North Texas State University, 1974. DeMoss, Dorothy Dell. ‘‘Dallas during the Early Depression.’’ Master’s thesis, University of Texas at Austin, 1966. Hill, Marilynn Wood. ‘‘A History of Jewish Involvement in the Dallas Community.’’ Master’s thesis, Southern Methodist University, 1967. Hollingsworth, Ann P. ‘‘Reform Government in Dallas, 1927–1940.’’ Master’s thesis, North Texas State University, 1971. Keith, Ruby. ‘‘Early History of Dallas.’’ Master’s thesis, University of Texas at Austin, 1930. Kilgore, Linda Elaine. ‘‘The Ku Klux Klan and the Press in Texas, 1920–1927.’’ Master’s thesis, University of Texas at Austin, 1964. McDonald, Timothy Gregory. ‘‘Southern Democratic Congressmen and the First World War, August 1914–April 1917.’’ Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1962. Phillips, Joseph Michael. ‘‘The Fire This Time: The Battle over Racial, Regional, and Religious Identities in Dallas, Texas, 1860–1990.’’ Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, 2002. Stokes, George M. ‘‘A Public Service Program History of Radio Station WFAA820.’’ Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University, 1954. Torrence, Lois E. ‘‘The Ku Klux Klan in Dallas (1915–1928): An American Paradox.’’ Master’s thesis, Southern Methodist University, 1948.

264

Index Note: Page numbers in italics indicate illustrations. Abbot, Willis, 206 Acheson, Sam, 214 advertising, newspaper, 54, 136, 191; and Amon G. Carter, 95; in Dallas Morning News, 74–75, 81, 83, 87, 90, 221; in Fort Worth StarTelegram, 96, 159; in Houston Chronicle, 68, 69, 176; in Houston Post, 63–66; and oil boom, 41; and Prohibition, 50–51, 75, 78, 87; in San Antonio Express, 94; in Spanish-language newspapers, 28, 29; at turn of century, 27, 45, 48 AFL, 220, 251n20 African Americans, 16, 92, 119, 133, 168, 194; attacks on, in media, 142, 147–148, 203; celebration of, at Texas Centennial Exposition, 212, 214–215; courted by Democrats, 199–200; and lynching, 232n16; newspapers of, 31–32; poverty and discrimination faced by, 13, 25, 34–38, 45, 182, 210, 221–222; and voting rights, 53, 59–60, 154–155. See also civil rights; discrimination; disenfranchisement; integration; Jim Crow laws; minorities; race relations; racism; segregation Agar, P. L., 167–168 agriculture, 13, 47, 105; during Depression, 180, 195; and modernization, 221–224, 226; newspaper

coverage of, 78; radio shows about, 175; and Texas Centennial, 212. See also cattle industry; cotton industry; urban vs. rural Agriculture Adjustment Act, 197 Alamo, the, 204 Aldridge, W. H., 126 Alexander, Charles, 136–138 Allen, H. E., 147 Allred, James, 188–189, 193, 214, 217, 219 Alpine, 181 American Airlines, 98 American Anti-Klan Association, 143, 148 American Petroleum Institute, 98 American Road Company, 169, 171 Andrews, Ulysses J., 32 anti-preparedness sentiment, 112, 114, 134. See also isolationism; neutrality policy; preparedness anti-Semitism, 13 antitrust laws, 65, 234n5, 237–238n8 Appeal to Reason, 114, 115 Armand, R. H., 150–152 Ashe, Charles E., 154 Associated Press, 73, 93, 94, 105–106, 108 Austin (city), 7, 33, 74, 166, 167, 169, 188, 198 Austin, Stephen F., 214 Austin, W. D., 208


Austin American-Statesman, 30, 63 Austria-Hungary, 105, 108 Axson, Stockton, 72 Bailey, George M., 64, 149, 170–171 Bailey, Joe, 65 Bailey, Joseph W., 200 Ball, Tom, 240n34 Bankers Mortgage Company, 70 Barrickman, W. C., 59 Barrow, Clyde, 188 Bass, Sam, 4 Battle of San Jacinto, 208, 214 Beach, Harrison L., 93 Beard, Stanley, 60 Beaumont, 39, 40, 41–42; Klan in, 141, 165 Bedichek, Roy, 156–157 Belgium, 108 Bell County, 170 Bellinger, Valmo C., 32 Belo, A. H., and Company (later A. H. Belo Corporation), 1, 75, 82, 89, 160, 177, 221 Belo, Alfred H., Jr., 82, 84 Belo, Alfred H., Sr. (A. H.), 7, 73–74, 82, 87 Belo, Mrs. Alfred H., Sr., 84 Bexar County, 93, 94, 246n68 Biggers, Don H., 169 bilingual newspapers: See Germanlanguage newspapers; Spanishlanguage newspapers Billy the Kid, 202 Binford, T. A., 151 Birth of a Nation, The, 139 blacks. See African Americans Bodnar, John, 205, 209 Bonham, 148, 157 bootlegging, 136–137, 149, 153. See also Prohibition Boquillas, 127 Borden, Gail, 29 266

Bosque County, 170 Bowie, 95 Brashear, Sam, 67 Brooks, Allen, 35–37 Brown, Norman, 143 Browne, John T., 67 Brownell, Blaine A., 20 Brownsville, 28, 29, 117, 119, 121 Bryan, William Jennings, 106, 117, 118 Buchanan, James, 195, 198 Buchanan, Robert, 146 Buckley, Claude C., 151 Buenger, Walter, 15–16, 18 Buffalo Bayou, 29, 72 Buffalo Bayou Ship Channel Company, 64 Burkburnett, 96 Burkett, Joe, 170 Burleson, Albert, 240n34 Butte, George C., 162, 164, 165 Callaway, Isadore Miner, 56–58, 234n40 Callaway, Oscar, 109, 112, 239nn23,24 Callaway, William Allen, 57 Campaign Chronicle, 30 Campbell, Ben, 60 Campbell, Sam H., 157 Canyon, 181 Carnegie Library for Negroes, 31 Carothers, James, 123 carpetbaggers, 45, 47, 139 Carranza, Venustiano, 116, 118, 121, 123–126, 128, 130, 241n45, 242n55 Carter, Amon G., Foundation, 98 Carter, Amon G., Jr., 95, 98, 227 Carter, Amon G., Sr.: death of, 227; and Jim Ferguson, 167, 168, 186; and Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 1, 2, 7, 95–98, 174, 178, 208; as potential secretary of war, 192–193; and Texas Centennial, 210, 211, 215–217, 216

Index

Catholics, 13, 137, 139, 142, 147–148, 154, 157, 159, 161, 199 cattle industry, 20, 23, 24, 25, 33, 91, 115, 124 Cattle Raisers Association of Texas, 117 Cave, Eber Worthington, 30 CCC, 193, 194, 199 censorship, 28–29, 107, 108 census of 1900, 32–33 Centennial. See Texas Centennial Chandler, E. B., 93 Chandler, Harry, 196 CIO, 219–220, 251n20 circulation, newspaper, 27, 28, 45, 48, 50, 95, 104, 177, 178, 195, 218, 226; Dallas Morning News, 75, 76, 83, 84, 89, 90, 159; Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 96, 159; Houston Chronicle, 68, 69 City Central Bank and Trust Company, 180 Civilian Conservation Corps, 193, 194, 199 civil rights, 7, 10, 13–14, 23, 155, 227; and African American newspapers, 31, 32. See also discrimination; disenfranchisement; integration; Jim Crow laws; race relations; racism; segregation Civil War, 10, 102; mythologizing of, 203–204; and newspaper publishing, 30, 46; veterans of, 14, 18, 24, 141, 230n5. See also Confederacy Clansman, The, 200 Clarke, Edward Young, 138, 140, 161 Cleaner Dallas League, 78, 88, 89 Clegg, Alexander White, 127 Cockrell, J. Lafayette, 142 Cody, Buffalo Bill, 202 cold war, 4, 22 Cole, Robert, 150 Colonel Mayfield’s Weekly, 142, 147– 148, 149–150, 151

Colquitt, Oscar, 79, 85, 108, 109, 113–114, 116–118, 126, 129, 155, 238nn14,16, 239n26, 240nn31,34 Comanche Vanguard, 113 Committee on Public Information, 243n8 communism, 139, 199 Confederacy, 6, 11, 18, 23, 24, 45, 54, 80, 81, 160, 203–204, 205, 215, 230n5. See also Civil War Congress, U.S., 60, 61 Connally, Tom, 195, 206 Corsicana, 33, 39 Corsicana Daily Sun, 205 cotton industry, 6, 17, 19, 24, 25, 33, 147; and diversification, 78; and European market, before World War I, 105, 108, 109, 110; in Great Depression, 181; and modernization, 20, 23 court-packing proposal, 197–198 ‘‘cowboy’’ myth, 11, 18 CPI, 243n.8 Crane, Martin, 155–156, 157 crash of 1929, 180, 181, 190. See also Great Depression crime, 139–140, 188–189 Crow, Louis, 146 Crowell, Chester, 94, 140 Crystal City, 207 Cuero, 147 Culberson, Charles, 113, 114, 129, 239n26 Cullinan, Joseph S., 143, 148, 153–154 Daily Light, 93 Daily Light Publishing Company, 93 Dallas, 6, 20, 21, 69, 72, 73, 110, 179; ascendancy of, 11, 18, 23; Depression in, 180, 191; and federal government, 24; Ford Motor Company strike in, 220; growth of, 3–4; Klan in, 155–160, 161, 165; newspapers 267


in, expansion and consolidation of, 62, 74–91; oil industry in, 40, 185; population of, 104, 136, 224, 225; racial violence in, 35–38; radio in, 175; rivalry of, with Fort Worth, 99; schools in, 167; and Texas Centennial, 202, 207–220; at turn of century, 33; unemployment in, 139; war preparedness in, 112; and women’s issues, 57–59 Dallas Citizens Council, 218 Dallas City Plan and Improvement League, 84–85, 86 Dallas Civic Improvement Association, 89 Dallas County Citizens League, 156, 158, 245nn45–46 Dallas Daily Times, 75 Dallas Equal Suffrage Association, 59, 60 Dallas Evening Herald, 75 Dallas Express, 32, 212, 214 Dallas Herald, 74, 75 Dallas Journal, 174, 221 Dallas Morning News, 52, 53, 64– 65, 96, 144, 208, 219; on African Americans, 35, 215; and Belo Company, 1, 245n55; on cooperation with Fort Worth, 210–211; during Depression, 180, 181, 193; and G. B. Dealey, 1, 3, 7, 87–91, 99, 227; golden anniversary of, 208; influence of, 238n9; on Klan, 137, 143, 155–156, 157, 159, 166, 177, 244n23; losses suffered by, 177, 220–221; on Mexican affairs, 117, 118, 121–123, 125, 126, 129, 130– 131, 133; modernization of, 178; origins of, 30, 74–75; and politics, 76–86, 168; and Prohibition, 50, 78; on racial incident in 1910, 35– 37; and radio, 174, 175; success and profitability of, 75, 195, 218, 268

226; and Texas Centennial, 209, 210, 212, 214; on women’s issues, 56–58; on World War I and events leading up to it, 105–110, 112–114 Dallas Open Shop Association, 220 Dallas Public Schools, 167 Dallas Times Herald, 1, 7, 75–76, 96, 178, 221; on Klan, 158, 159, 245n52; Sunday edition of, 49; and Texas Centennial, 210, 211 Davidson, Lynch, 163 Davis, J. H. ‘‘Cyclone,’’ 109, 113, 128, 239n23 Davis, Jefferson, 203–204 Davis, John W., 165 Davis, Ronald, 22 Davis, W. L., 154 Dawson, A. G., 95 Day, Phil, 157 Dealey, George Bannerman, 1, 2, 3–4, 7, 76, 82, 84, 85, 86, 87–91, 88, 92, 174, 206, 247n95; and civic improvements, 78; and Dallas Citizens Council, 218; death of, 227; and development of Dallas Morning News, 74–75; and economic problems, 177, 180–181, 220–221; and golden anniversary of the News, 208; opposition of, to ‘‘Fergusonism,’’ 187–188; opposition of, to Klan, 155–156, 157–158, 159, 177; personality of, 99; and racial prejudice, 182; and Texas Centennial, 211; and World War I, 105, 106 Dealey, Ted, 166, 208–210, 221, 227 Dealey, Thomas W., 82, 84 Dealey, Walter, 174–176 Debs, Eugene, 90 deepwater port, campaign for, 64, 72, 232n16 Democratic Party, 14, 30, 48, 53, 66, 67, 93, 162, 193; and congressional elections of 1930; conservative

Index

voices in, 65; and disenfranchisement of blacks, 154–155; and Jim and Miriam Ferguson, 170; and gubernatorial campaign of 1914, 240n34; and Jesse Jones, 72–73, 165, 171; and Klan, 161; opposition of, to FDR, 197, 198, 218–219, 200, 221; and presidential election of 1928, 138; and presidential election of 1932, 187, 189, 191; and presidential election of 1936, 196; and presidential election of 1940, 198–199; and primaries, 112, 134, 138, 154, 168–159, 161, 163, 186, 239n26, 242–243n83; and race relations, 32; and state convention of 1904, 92; support for, by newspapers, 29, 47; views of, on World War I, 104, 109, 111, 112–113, 115, 239n23 Denison, 83 Denison Herald, 244n23 Depression. See Great Depression Díaz, Porfirio, 28–29, 115, 116 Diehl, Charles S., 93 Dies, Martin, Sr., 109, 112, 134 discrimination, racial, 7, 10, 21, 24, 26, 49, 201, 222, 227; and the first black newspapers, 31; against Mexicans and Tejanos, 121, 240n30; and Texas Centennial, 212–214 disenfranchisement, 14, 34, 49, 53, 154–155, 212 Dixon, Thomas L., 200 DuBois, W. E. B., 141 Du Pont, Pierre, 200 Duncan, Jasper T., 32 East Texas, 4, 33 Editor and Publisher magazine, 200, 211 editorial cartoons, 68, 79–80, 126, 211 education, public, 45, 58–59

El Bejareño, 28 electoral politics, 14–15, 30, 34, 47–48. See also Democratic Party; disenfranchisement; Republican Party; suffrage for women; voting and voting rights El Noticioso del Bravo, 28 El Paso, 29, 104, 115, 123–124, 125, 126, 129 El Paso Herald, 125, 126 El Paso Herald-Post, 62–63 El Paso Morning Times, 125 El Paso Times, 124 El Rayo Federal, 28 Emergency Banking Act, 191 Evans, Hiram Wesley, 153, 155, 158, 161 Evans, Silliman, 211 Excelsior Mutual Insurance Company, 214 executions, public, 35, 37 Express Printing Company, 93 Express Publishing Company, 93 Exxon, 40 farming. See agriculture federal government, role of, 24, 45, 102–103. See also Congress, U.S. Federal Radio Commission, 176 Federal Reserve Bank, 4 Ferguson, James, 162, 240n34, 246n58; comeback of, after impeachment, 160–161, 164–171, 178, 186–188; and events in Mexico, 118, 119, 127; on sinking of the Lusitania, 110; support of, for Charles Culberson for U.S. Senate, 114, 239–240n26 Ferguson, Miriam, 138, 160–171, 178, 186, 246n68; criticism of second administration of, 187–188 Ferguson Forum, 169 film industry, 6, 9, 148, 202 269


Finty, Tom, 157–158 Fitzgerald, Hugh N., 206 Flemons, Jerry, 95, 99, 193 Ford Motor Company, 4, 219–220 foreign-language newspapers, 5. See also German-language newspapers; Spanish-language newspapers Fort Bliss, 129 Fort Worth, 20, 70, 74, 83, 113, 117, 186, 193; ascendancy of, 11, 18, 23; city motto of, 7; Depression in, 180, 191; FDR supporters in, 199; in Klan era, 159, 165; newspapers in, 6, 62, 95–100, 178; oil industry in, 167, 168; population of, 136, 224, 225; radio in, 174; and Texas Centennial, 207, 210, 211–212, 215–218; at turn of century, 33 Fort Worth Evening Mail, 95 Fort Worth Frontier Centennial Exposition, 207, 212, 215–218. See also Texas Centennial Fort Worth Gazette, 95 Fort Worth Mail-Telegram, 95 Fort Worth Press, 62, 211 Fort Worth Record, 95, 98, 178 Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 113, 168; and Amon G. Carter, Sr., 1, 7, 167, 174, 193, 208, 227; circulation of, 159; during Depression, 180, 194; origins of, 95–100; on politics, 186; success of, 178, 226; and Texas Centennial, 210, 211, 215 Fort Worth Telegram, 95 Foster, Marcellus, 7, 67, 152, 168, 206; and Houston Chronicle, 7, 68–69, 162–163; on Jim Ferguson, 164, 165, 170–173, 178; opposition of, to Klan, 142–149, 152, 153, 166, 177, 178; on women’s suffrage, 59–60 Fox, J. M., 121 Fox, Phil, 158 France, 107, 108, 209 270

Freeman’s Journal, 31 French, George C., 148 Frontier Centennial, 207, 212, 215–218 Gaceta de Texas, 28 Galveston Daily News, 1, 112, 143, 174 Galveston News, 1, 73–75, 87, 93, 245n55; decline of, 160; on deepwater port, 64; and hurricane in 1900, 81–82; and Klan, 159, 178; origins of, 30; on Prohibition, 78 Galveston Spectator, 31 Galveston Zeitung, 30 Gannett, Frank, 200 García, José, 119 Garner, John Nance, 119, 121, 189–190, 198–199, 239n23, 249–250n36; vice presidency of, 191, 193, 195, 196, 197, 198, 207, 208, 200–201 Garrett, Daniel, 113, 239n23 Gaston, Paul, 203 General Baptist Convention, 78 German-American Alliance, 114 German Americans, 92, 93, 103, 106, 111, 113–114, 237–238n8 German-language newspapers, 30 Germany: and events leading up to World War I, 101–114, 129–132, 148, 237n6, 242n60 Gifford, A. W., 93 Gilbert, Charles E., 75 Gilmer, 157 Glenn Spring, 127 Goliad, 204 Gooch, Tom, 211 Good Government Democratic League, 162 Goodwin, M. L., 176 Goose Creek, 141 Goose Creek Twelve, 150–154 Gore, Thomas P., 112 Gould, Lewis, 17 Grady, Henry, 20

Index

Grantham, Dewey, 26, 47–48, 49, 221 Great Britain: and events leading up to World War I, 103–111, 129 Great Depression, 4–5, 8, 9, 12, 16, 21, 22, 45, 178, 179–201, 204, 210, 223, 248n2, 249n24; Jesse Jones during, 70, 73, 205–206; organized labor during, 91; per capita income in Texas during, 225; and Texas Centennial, 202, 218; and WPA, 62 Gregory, 127 Griffith, James S., 154, 155 Groveton, 188 Gulf Oil, 40 Haley, J. Evetts, 200 Hall of Negro Life, 212, 214, 215, 251n22 Hamilton, Raymond, 188 Hardy, Rufus, 109, 239n23 Harris, Robert M., 199 Harrisburg, 29 Harris County, 60, 150, 151, 152, 154, 244n43 Harrison, Mrs. R. H., 150, 151, 152 Harte, Houston, 191, 196 Hearst, William Randolph, 54, 93–94, 98, 189, 190, 196 Hearst newspapers, 7, 27, 54, 171, 178, 189, 196, 236n50 Henry, O. See Porter, William Sidney Hill, Barto, 219 Hillsboro, 69 Hispanics, 132, 240n30. See also Mexican Americans Historical Records Survey Program, 62 Hobbs, B. I., 142 Hobby, Oveta Culp, 7, 184 Hobby, William P., 1, 7, 66, 67, 162, 164–165, 167, 184, 184, 185, 227 Hobby, William P., Jr., 227

Hogg, Jim, 66, 75, 78, 87 Holcombe, Oscar, 143, 149, 150, 154 Holland, Claude V., 93 Holliday, John B. ‘‘Doc,’’ 4 Hoover, Herbert, 138, 179, 187, 189, 191 Horn, P. W., 168 Houston, 20, 74, 98, 113, 114, 164, 167, 170, 172, 173, 192, 221; African American newspapers in, 31–32; ascendancy of, 11, 18, 23; bank crisis in, 182–185; Depression in, 180; and federal government, 24; and Galveston, 73, 82, 87; Klan in, 141–155, 161, 162, 165; Mexican immigrants in, 199; newspapers in, early, 30; newspapers in, growth of, 62–72; oil industry in, 3, 21, 39; population of, 104, 136, 224, 225; radio in, 174–175, 176; and Texas Centennial, 207, 210; at turn of century, 33; unemployment in, 139; war preparedness in, 112; women’s suffrage in, 60 Houston, Sam, 29–30, 204, 207, 208, 214 Houston Chronicle, 19, 163; controversy over control of, 171–173; and Jim Ferguson, 165, 168–169; and Houston bank crisis, 183–184; and Jesse H. Jones, 1, 7, 200, 227; on Klan, 137, 142, 143, 144–149, 151, 152, 153, 156, 177; on Mexican affairs, 117, 122, 126; origins of, 63, 68–69; on racial violence in 1910, 35–37; and radio, 175, 176, 177; success of, 162, 226; on women’s suffrage, 59–60; on World War I and events leading up to it, 106, 109, 110, 111–112 Houston Dispatch, 162, 163–164 Houston Evening Journal, 63 Houston Herald, 68 271


Houston Informer, 31, 32 Houston Informer and Texas Freeman, 31 Houston Morning Chronicle, 63 Houston National Bank, 182, 183 Houston Post, 68, 95, 248n13; on crime, 139, 188; on discovery of oil at Spindletop, 39, 40, 41; on disenfranchisement of blacks, 154– 155; and Jim Ferguson, 164, 165; on Klan, 142, 146, 149, 150, 151, 152, 166; on Mexican affairs, 117, 126, 133, 199; origins of, 30; and radio, 174; and Ross Sterling, 162– 164, 171, 186; success of, 226; on Texas Centennial, 207–208; and William P. Hobby, 1, 7, 227; on women’s news, 57; on World War I and events leading up to it, 106, 107–108, 110 Houston Post-Dispatch, 162, 164, 170, 171, 176, 183, 184 Houston Press, 67, 68, 142, 151, 152, 173, 211 Houston riot of 1917, 137, 142 Houston Ship Channel, 73 Houston Telegram, 63 Howard, Ed, 146 Huerta, Victoriano, 116, 117 Huggins, W. O., 145, 172, 173, 177 Hughes, William, 147 Humble (town), 141 Humble Oil and Refining, 70, 150, 162, 185, 186 Humphreys, E., 29 Huntress, Frank G., Jr., 1, 7, 92, 175 Huntsville, 67, 68, 207 Ickes, Harold, 197 Idar, Eduardo, 116 illiteracy, 11, 25, 54 Ingals, Charles, 39 272

integration, racial, 50, 220 Internet, 19, 74 isolationism, 104, 114, 237n4. See also anti-preparedness sentiment; neutrality policy; preparedness Italian immigrants, 92 Jackson, Stonewall, 18 Jacksonville, 182 Jews, 137, 142, 147–148, 151, 153, 154, 157. See also anti-Semitism Jim Crow laws, 13, 18, 31, 43, 34, 50, 60, 139, 182. See also civil rights; discrimination; disenfranchisement; racism; segregation Johnson, Cone, 148 Johnson, Lyndon B., 194, 198 Johnson, Tom B., 93 Johnson City Record Courier, 169 Johnston, Rienzi M., 63, 65, 66–67 Joiner, C. M. ‘‘Dad,’’ 185 Jones, Jesse H., 71, 99, 184, 192, 200– 201; building career of, 69–70, 98; death of, 227; and FDR, 192, 193, 196, 197, 200–201; and Marcellus Foster, 162, 164, 165, 170–173; and Houston bank crisis, 182–185; and Houston Chronicle, 1, 7, 70, 72– 73; opposition of, to Klan, 143–147, 177, 248n13; and radio, 175–177; and Reconstruction Finance Corporation, 189, 192, 195, 200, 216; and Texas Centennial, 205–206 Jones, John T., 227 Jones, M. T., 69 Jones, Melvin, 195 Jones, Murray B., 149 Josey, Jack, 184 journalism: advancement of, as a result of World War I, 136; comparison of, with history, 227–228; graduates in, looking for jobs, 181; as a pro-

Index

fession, 52–53; women in, 57–59, 234n40. See also ‘‘New Journalism’’ Kelley, R. H., 199 Kelly, C. E., 123 Kelly, Machine-Gun, 188 Kemp, Louis W., 169 Kepner, Effice, 35 Kessler, George E., 85, 86 Kessler Plan, 85, 86, 236n38 Key, V. O., 7, 14 Kiest, Edwin, Jr., 1, 7, 49, 76, 77, 99, 158, 218 Kilgore, 185 Kimbro, George B., Jr., 142 Kingsville, 181 Kirby, John Henry, 64, 65, 108, 143, 148, 200 Kirwin, Father, 161 Knott, John, 79–81 Knox, Frank, 196, 249–250n36 Koehl, Robert, 35 Koelble, Alphonse, 114 KPRC radio, 174, 176 KRLD radio, 221 KTRH radio, 175 Ku Klux Klan, 4, 8, 13, 22, 23, 100, 134, 135–171, 177, 178, 200, 243n1, 245n52 labor unions, 76, 90–91, 179, 190, 197, 198, 201, 219–220, 221, 222, 249n24; and strikes, 142, 212, 219–220, 251n.20 La Crónica, 116 La Prensa, 29, 116 Landis, Kennesaw Mountain, 79 Landon, Alf, 196, 249–250n36 Lanham, Frank, 170 Laredo, 29, 115, 116 Ledbetter, Sheriff, 36 Lee, Robert E., 203–204, 215

Lewis, John L., 198 Lewis, Judd Mortimer, 67 Light and Gazette, 93 Link, Arthur S., 110 Lippmann, Walter, 46–47, 136, 191, 195 Liquor Control Board, 217 literature, Texas, 17–18, 231n11 Lohr, Lenox B., 1 Lombardi, Cesar, 84, 105, 237n6 Long, Huey, 200 Longview, 147, 185 Lorena, 146–147 Lotchkin, Roger, 22 Love, Charles Norvell, 31, 154, 155 Love, Lilla, 31 Love, Tom, 162, 164 Love v. Griffith, 155 Lowe, R. G., 74, 81, 82, 84, 87 Lozano, Ignacio E., 29, 116 Lubbock, 98 Lucas, Anthony F., 39, 40, 41 Lucha de clases, 121 lumber industry, 25, 33 Lunsford, John, 93 lynching, 13–14, 31, 32, 34–38, 45, 197, 212, 222, 232nn11,16 MacGregor, Henry F., 63, 66 Madero, Francisco I., 115–116 magazine publishing, 9, 55 Marcus, Stanley, 219 Marshall, John, 30 Marsh-Fentress newspapers, 63 Martin, Lowry, 205–206, 206 Marvin, Z. E., 155 Matamoros, 117 Maverick, Maury, Sr., 198, 199 Mayfield, Billie, 142, 149, 150, 151, 152–153, 246n58 Mayfield, Earle B., 151, 160 McCaleb, D. C., 95 273


McComb, David, 72 McCormick, Robert, 196, 200 McElhane, Jacquelyn Masur, 57 McElroy, George, 32 McKamey, J. S. M., 127 McKinley, William, 79 McLemore, Jeff, 109, 112, 113, 126, 127, 133, 134, 239n23, 242–243n63 McLennan County, 146 McManus, John B., 118 McNealus, J. C., 110 Mell, M. P., 157 Mencken, H. L., 16 Mexican Advocate, 28 Mexican Americans, 92, 199; during Depression, 182, 221–222; and Klan, 137; lynching of, 13, 38; and Mexican Revolution, 116, 121, 122; poverty and discrimination faced by, 25, 34; stereotypes of, 210 Mexican-American War, 102 Mexican Constitutional Convention, 127 Mexican Revolution, 8, 22, 29, 63, 100, 101–104, 114, 115–134, 139, 240n30 Mexico, 3, 15, 17, 28–29, 114, 204, 209–210, 237n4, 240n30, 241n39, 242n60 Meyer, Joseph F., Sr., 183 middle class, 3, 7, 16, 21, 23, 26, 70, 91, 227; evolution and expansion of, 11–12, 48, 225, 226; and Klan, 137, 138, 140, 151, 177; and New Journalism, 51; and Progressivism, 49; and yellow journalism, 54 Mineral Wells, 84 minorities, 53, 178, 189, 194, 222, 227, 237–238n8; and civil rights, 7, 10; concerns about, in Roosevelt era, 199–200; during Depression, 182; disenfranchisement of, 12, 60; lack of, on Dallas Citizens Council, 274

218; poverty and discrimination faced by, 25–26, 227; violence against, 13–14, 34–38. See also African Americans; civil rights; discrimination; disenfranchisement; Hispanics; integration; Jim Crow laws; Mexican Americans; Native Americans; race relations; racism; segregation; Tejanos Mississippi, 14 Mobil Oil, 40 modernization, 9–27, 48, 49, 52, 62, 91, 141, 178, 201, 202, 224–228, 227 Montejano, David, 116 Montez, Juan, 92 Moody, Dan, 169, 171 Moody, W. L., Jr., 160 Moore, Ike, 62 Morning Star, 29 Moyers, Bill, 227–228 Munn, W. C., 146 Murphy, Gordon, 149, 150 NAACP, 141, 155, 214 Nacogdoches, 28, 181 Nacogdoches Chronicle, 30 National Bank of Commerce, 70, 183 National Broadcasting System, 1 National Committee to Uphold Constitutional Government, 200 National Guard, 128, 142, 185–186 National Industrial Recovery Act, 193–194, 197 nationalism, 11, 15, 47 National Labor Relations Board, 219– 220 National Youth Administration, 193, 194, 199 Native Americans, 209 Neff, Pat, 140, 156, 168 Negro Chamber of Commerce, 212, 214 neutrality policy, 105, 106, 107, 110,

Index

111, 115, 123, 128, 131, 133, 237n4. See also anti-preparedness sentiment; isolationism; preparedness New Deal, 11, 12, 15, 134, 187, 188– 201, 218, 221, 222, 234n2, 248n2, 249n35 ‘‘New Journalism,’’ 51, 94 Newman, William, 235n20 New South, 10, 11, 20, 23, 44, 48, 197, 221 New South Creed, The, 202 newspaper chains, national, 46, 54. See also Hearst newspapers; Pulitzer newspapers; Scripps-Howard newspapers NIRA, 193–194, 197 NLRB, 219–220 Nogales, 115 Norias, 119 North, J. M., 209, 210 NYA, 193, 194, 199 Oak Cliff, 85 oil industry, 3, 4, 22, 33–34, 70, 115, 148, 150, 212, 224, 226; during Depression, 180; and discovery at Spindletop, 15, 33, 39–42, 68; in East Texas, 185; in Fort Worth, 96, 98; during World War I, 105 Oil Men’s Association, 168 ‘‘Old Man Texas,’’ 79–81, 80, 213 Old South, 19–20, 215 Orozco, Pascual, 116 Osmon, F. S., 167 Ousley, Clarence, 95 Palmer, George J., 63, 66 Parker, A. C., 161 Parker, Bonnie, 188 Payne, Darwin, 4 Payne, John, 211 Peabody, Jeannette, 159–160 Penn, W. E., 78

Periwinkle, Pauline. See Callaway, Isadore Miner Pershing, John, 126, 127, 128, 129 Pilkington, Tom, 17–18 Plainview, 168 Plan de San Luis Potosí, 115 Plan of San Diego, 103, 119, 121, 122, 242n60 Pollock, James, 211 poll tax, 14, 34, 154, 222, 232n7 Populism, 12, 24, 48, 53, 66, 76, 87, 108, 210 Populist Party, 34 Port Arthur News, 63 Porter, William Sidney, 63 poverty, 11, 16, 24, 25, 49, 214; in Mexico, 124 preparedness, war, 112, 113, 115, 126, 127, 128, 132, 134, 239n23. See also anti-preparedness sentiment; isolationism; neutrality policy Presbyterian Church, 3 Progressivism, 48–50, 56–59, 65, 67, 102, 135; business, 21–22, 136; Germany seen as opponent of, 103–104; and Klan, 137, 140, 141, 148–149, 246n58; and Mexico, 128; and middle class, 12; newspaper publishers as proponents of, 6, 104– 105, 123, 178; and Prohibition, 26, 56, 83; and urban professionals, 52–54; and Woodrow Wilson, 109. See also reform movements Prohibition, 50, 65, 76–78, 94, 105, 106, 113, 114, 161, 167, 222, 237– 238n8; end of, 187, 192; as feminist cause, 55–56; and newspaper advertisements for liquor, 50, 75, 78; opposition to, by Jim Ferguson, 168, 239–240n26, 246n58; as Progressive cause, 26, 49, 56; and rural fundamentalists, 13; support for, in Dallas Morning News, 83–84, 275


86; violation of, by bootleggers, 136–137, 140 propaganda, 135, 139, 148 Pruett, Price, 150 Public National Bank and Trust, 182, 183 Public Works Administration, 193, 194, 215 Public Works of Art Project, 212 Pulitzer, Joseph, 51, 54, 143 Pulitzer newspapers, 27, 54 PWA, 193, 194, 215 Quarles, W. E., 157 race relations, 7, 9, 13–14, 34–38, 53–54, 60, 210, 222. See also civil rights; discrimination; integration; racism; segregation; slavery racism, 11, 13–14, 16, 26, 139, 182, 215. See also discrimination; Jim Crow laws; segregation radio, commercial, 5, 6, 9, 55, 174– 177, 214, 221, 226, 227, 252n5. See also specific radio stations Ragsdale, Kenneth, 219 railroads, 102; in Fort Worth, 96; and newspaper distribution, 105; Southern Pacific, 40, 91–92; Texas & Pacific, 75 Rand, Sally, 217 Ranger, 96 Rayburn, Sam, 194, 195, 197, 199 Rebel, 114, 115 recession of 1937, 220–221 Reconstruction, 30, 31, 36, 44, 47, 53, 102, 138, 139 Reconstruction Finance Corporation, 70, 183, 184, 189, 192, 195, 200, 205, 216 Red Cross, 72, 182 Reed, James A., 200 276

reform movements, 49–50, 65, 141; and business, 48–49; and Dallas Morning News, 87–90; and Houston Chronicle, 70–72; and Isadore Miner Callaway, 56–58. See also Progressivism Report on Economic Conditions of the South, 224 Republican Party, 14, 31, 47, 66, 109, 232n7; in Bexar County, 193, 246n68; and Fergusons, 161–162, 165, 170; gains of, during FDR’s second term, 198; and 1928 presidential election, 138; and San Antonio Light, 93 Republic of Texas, 28, 204 RFC. See Reconstruction Finance Corporation Rice Hotel, 67, 70 Rice Institute, 72 Richardson, C. F., 31 Ridder, Bernard H., 114 Robert, Henry M., 64 Robertson, Felix, 160–161, 163 Robinson, Cornelius W. ‘‘Nero,’’ 151 Rockefeller, John D., 65 Rogers, Will, 192–193, 215 Roland, Charles P., 11 Roosevelt, Eleanor, 217 Roosevelt, Franklin D., 1–3, 73, 192, 207, 208, 224, 249–250n36; courtpacking proposal of, 197–198; and New Deal, 188, 190–191; and press, 193–196, 218–219; and second Ferguson administration, 187; split of, from Vice President Garner, 201; support of, for unions, 219; and Texas Centennial, 212, 215 Roosevelt, Theodore, 91, 202 Roper, Daniel, 214 Rose, Billy, 217 Russell, Frederick, 202

Index

Salvation Army, 182 San Angelo, 191, 196 San Angelo Evening Standard, 191, 196–197 San Antonio, 6, 20, 34, 72, 74, 120, 189, 198; African American newspapers in, 32; anti-Klan vote in, 246n68; ascendancy of, 11, 18, 23; Depression in, 180, 191; events leading up to Mexican Revolution in, 115, 121, 128; German Americans in, 107; military bases in, 24; newspapers in, early, 30; newspapers in, growth of, 62, 91–94; newspapers in, major dailies, 7–8; population of, 69, 104, 136, 224, 225; radio in, 174; Spanish-language newspapers in, 28, 29; support for FDR in, 199; and Texas Centennial, 207, 210; at turn of century, 32–33 San Antonio Express, 91–94; 120; on the economy, pre-1929, 179; and Frank Huntress, 1, 7, 92–93; on Mexican affairs, 119, 121, 122, 125, 127, 128, 130, 132; origins of, 30; on poll tax, 34; on World War I and events leading up to it, 101, 106, 111, 114 San Antonio Express-News, 175 San Antonio Gazette, 93 San Antonio Inquirer, 32 San Antonio Light, 7–8, 30, 91–94, 236n50 San Antonio Register, 32 San Antonio Surprise, 93 San Diego (Texas), 119 San Felipe, 29 San Marcos, 181 San Marcos Daily Record, 181 Santa Anna, Antonio López de, 28, 29, 204, 207 Schudson, Michael, 54

Scripps-Howard newspapers, 62–63, 68, 152, 173, 196 Scripps-McRae newspapers, 68. See also Scripps-Howard newspapers segregation, racial, 13, 18, 34, 45, 49– 50, 53, 99, 201, 221, 222, 227; and Houston riot of 1917, 137; NAACP lawsuits challenging, 32. See also discrimination; Jim Crow laws Seldes, George, 190–191, 249n24 Semi-Weekly Farm News, 220 sharecropping, 49, 179 Sharpe, Ernest, 89 Shaw, Donald S., 5–6 Shedd, Fred Fuller, 206 Sheppard, Morris, 109, 117, 195 Sherman, 74 Sibley, Marilyn, 29 Simmons, Tom, 181 Simmons, William Joseph, 138, 141, 144, 161 slavery, 6, 29–30, 203–204 Slayden, Ellen Maury, 120–121, 132, 241n39 Slayden, James Luther, 109, 120, 239n23, 241n39, 242–243n63 Sloan, Alfred, 200 Smith, A. Maceo, 214 Smith, Al, 138 Smith, Gerald L. K., 200 Smith, Sim, 157 socialism, 134. See also Socialist Party Socialist Party, 109, 114–115, 210 Southern Pacific Railroad, 40, 91–92 Southern Politics in State and Nation, 7 Spanish-American War, 93, 102, 142, 237n2 Spanish-language newspapers, 28–29, 116, 240n30 Spindletop, 15, 33, 39–42, 68, 232n17 Stair, E. D., 196 277


Stamford, 207 Standard Oil Company, 40, 65, 162 State Gazette, 30 State Topics, 128 Sterett, William G., 75, 79 Sterling, Ross S., 163, 184; business orientation of, 67; defeat of, by Miriam Ferguson, 187; dispatching of National Guard into East Texas by, 185–186; entry into politics of, 162; feud of, with Marcellus Foster, 171–172; and KPRC, 174; opposition of, to Fergusons, 164, 165; as president of Humble Oil, 150 stock market. See crash of 1929 Streitmatter, Rodger, 137 suffrage for women, 55–61, 105 Sumners, Hatton, 195 Sunday editions, 49, 69 Sun Oil, 40 Supreme Court, 197–198 ‘‘Susan B. Anthony amendment,’’ 61 Taft, Charles P., 93 Talmadge, Eugene, 200 Tejanos, 15, 28, 116, 121, 122 telegraph, 73, 74, 81 Telegraph and Texas Register, 29, 63 television, 5, 55, 98, 227 Terrell Election Laws, 154 Texaco, 40 Texas A&M, 167, 181 Texas Almanac, 84, 222 Texas & Pacific Railway, 75 Texas Centennial, 8, 13, 17, 18, 202– 223 Texas Centennial Review, 210 Texas Commerce Bank, 70 Texas Company, 185 Texas Department of Public Safety, 189 Texas Ex-Students Association, 166 Texas Freeman, 31, 154 278

Texas Highway Commission, 170 Texas Legislature, 60, 65, 138, 140; congressional delegation from, 12; Senate, 59, 110 Texas mythology, 11, 18, 202–204, 209, 224 Texas National Bank, 180 Texas National Guard, 128, 142, 185– 186 Texas Newspaper Publishers Association, 1 Texas 100 Percent American, 155, 157, 158, 161 Texas Railroad Commission, 185 Texas Rangers, 117, 118, 119, 121, 187, 188, 189, 219 Texas Revolution, 207 Texas State Teachers Colleges, 181 Texas Technological College (now Texas Tech University), 98, 168 Thomas, H., 170 Thompson, Gus, 35, 37 Thornton, R. L., 212 Tillman, Ed, 199 Times Herald Corporation, 221. See also Dallas Times Herald Timmons, Bascom, 73, 173, 200 Tindall, George B., 48, 220 Tocqueville, Alexis de, 43–44, 46, 233n23 Tracy, M. E., 171 Treaty of Guadalupe, 103 Trinity River Canal Association, 211 Trinity River flood control initiative, 85, 86 Turner, Walter, 147 Twitty, Bryce L., 167 Tyler (city), 148, 185 Tyler, Elizabeth, 138, 140 Tyrer, A. J., 174 Underwood, R. A., 168 unemployment, 24, 180, 189, 190,

Index

197, 201, 214, 220. See also Great Depression United Auto Workers, 220 United Confederate Veterans, 141 universities and research centers, 23. See also Texas A&M; Texas Technological College; University of Texas University of Texas, 156, 161, 166, 167, 181; Law School, 162 Upchurch, A. R., 141 upper class, 26, 54, 134, 227 urbanization, 6, 11–12, 18, 19, 20, 42, 136, 225 urban vs. rural, 11, 13, 15, 16, 33, 46, 47, 51, 80, 104, 204, 222, 225 Uvalde, 119, 189 Vergarra, Clemente, 117, 118 Victoria Advocate, 30 Villa, Francisco ‘‘Pancho,’’ 103, 116, 123, 125–129, 131 voting and voting rights, 14–15, 34–35, 154–155. See also disenfranchisement; electoral politics; suffrage for women Waco, 33, 74, 146, 165 Waco News-Tribune, 63 Waco Times Herald, 57, 63 Waples, Paul, 95 Ward, Hortense, 60 Washington, Sam, 35, 37 Washington-on-the-Brazos, 29 Waters-Pierce Oil Company, 65, 234n5 Watson, J. L., 63, 66, 67, 68 Watson, Roy G., 63, 66, 162 WBAP radio, 98, 175, 215 Webb, Walter Prescott, 122 Wesley, Carter W., 31–32 West, Dick, 181 West, E. P., 37

West, James, 221 Westbrook, Lawrence, 187 Western Newspaper Union, 76 Western Star, 151 WFAA radio, 174, 175, 220, 221, 247n95 Wharton County, 35, 38 Wharton Spectator, 35 White, C. C., 182 Whiteman, Paul, 217 Wiess, Harry, 186 Williamson, Joel, 38 Williamson, Lawrence, 150 Williamson, M. P., 157 Wilson, James C., 113 Wilson, Woodrow, 14, 72, 136, 139; and Oscar Colquitt, 114, 117–118, 238n16, 239–240n26, 240nn31,34; and cotton market, 109–110; critics of, 239nn21,24, 242–243n63, 241n39; decision of, to go to war, 101, 103, 131, 133–134; and Mexican Revolution, 115–121, 123, 125, 126–129; and neutrality vs. preparedness, 106, 115, 117, 131–132; and sinking of Lusitania, 111–112; and Southern Democrats, 105, 113 wire services, 5, 105, 235n20 Wister, Owen, 202 WOAI radio, 174 Wolters, Jacob F., 142, 185 women and women’s issues, 7, 55–61, 78, 175, 218, 227, 234n40. See also suffrage for women Women’s Political Union, 60 Woodward, C. Vann, 25 Works Progress Administration, 62, 193, 194, 199, 234n2 World War I, 18, 21, 60–61, 72, 148; events leading up to, 101–134, 237n4; news coverage of, 135; propaganda during, 139; veterans of, 142, 160 279


World War II, 4, 22, 45, 73, 179, 194, 201, 220; dramatic changes in Texas as result of, 7, 10–11, 15–16, 225 Wortham, Louis J., 95 WPA. See Works Progress Administration WRR radio, 174

280

‘‘yellow journalism,’’ 26–27, 44, 54, 79, 231n16 Zapata, Emiliano, 116, 118 Zeanon, E. O., 170 Zimmermann, Arthur, 129–130, 132 Zimmermann telegram, 103, 104, 129–133

The First Texas News Barons (Focus on American History Series, Center for American History, University of Texas at Austin)

The Texas Book: Profiles, History, and Reminiscences of the University (Focus on American History Series,Center for American History, University of Texas at Austin)

Kindler of Souls: Rabbi Henry Cohen of Texas (Focus on American History Series,Center for American History, University of Texas at Austin)

From Bloodshed to Hope in Burundi: Our Embassy Years during Genocide (Focus on American History Series,Center for American History, University of Texas at Austin)

McKettricks of Texas: Austin

The Alamo: The Battle for Texas (Milestones in American History)

Browser's Book of Texas History

Doniphan's Expedition (Texas a & M University Military History Series)

Harry Reasoner: A Life in the News (Focus on American History Series)

The Writings of Carlos Fuentes (Texas Pan American Series)

American History

Eye on Korea: An Insider Account of Korean-American Relations (Texas a & M University Military History Series)

Dictionary of american history

Dictionary of american history

Filmography of American History

Dictionary of american history

History Of American Literature

History of American Literature

Dictionary of american history

Dictionary of american history

History of American Literature

Dictionary of american history

History of American Literature

Dictionary of american history

Dictionary of american history

Dictionary of american history

Texas 02 - Texas On The Rocks

Water in Texas: An Introduction (Texas Natural History Guides)

Texas on the Rocks

Rolando Hinojosa and the American Dream (Texas Writers Series)

On the Texas Border

The First Texas News Barons (Focus on American History Series, Center for American History, University of Texas at Austin)

The Texas Book: Profiles, History, and Reminiscences of the University (Focus on American History Series,Center for American History, University of Texas at Austin)

Kindler of Souls: Rabbi Henry Cohen of Texas (Focus on American History Series,Center for American History, University of Texas at Austin)

From Bloodshed to Hope in Burundi: Our Embassy Years during Genocide (Focus on American History Series,Center for American History, University of Texas at Austin)

McKettricks of Texas: Austin

The Alamo: The Battle for Texas (Milestones in American History)

Browser's Book of Texas History

Doniphan's Expedition (Texas a & M University Military History Series)

Harry Reasoner: A Life in the News (Focus on American History Series)

The Writings of Carlos Fuentes (Texas Pan American Series)

American History

Eye on Korea: An Insider Account of Korean-American Relations (Texas a & M University Military History Series)

Dictionary of american history

Dictionary of american history

Filmography of American History

Dictionary of american history

History Of American Literature

History of American Literature

Dictionary of american history

Dictionary of american history

History of American Literature

Dictionary of american history

History of American Literature

Dictionary of american history

Dictionary of american history

Dictionary of american history

Texas 02 - Texas On The Rocks

Water in Texas: An Introduction (Texas Natural History Guides)

Texas on the Rocks

Rolando Hinojosa and the American Dream (Texas Writers Series)

On the Texas Border

Recommend Documents