Editorial Context on Churches and the Klan

From time to time there will be additional contemporary editorial context to help shed light on the context of the statements being made in this period of time (and in related posts here). For example, how criticisms of the Klan tended to include justifications for the original Klan or an appreciation of their aims, original founders and/or their intentions.

The Urbana Daily Courier had a number of contemporary editorials throughout the 1920s focusing on the increased divisions, polarization, and fears during the 1920s. Some were specifically on the original and second Ku Klux Klan, others illustrated common beliefs at the time. The paper was unapologetically Republican in its ideology and partisanship by its own admission. They explained why that may not mean what exactly what a modern reader would assume at the beginning of the decade in an editorial on 1/30/1920:

The founders of the democratic party believed that the country was best governed when it was least governed. They wanted every man to be free to do as nearly as he pleased as was possible without jeopardizing the welfare of the rest. Their theory was that each man should have the greatest possible liberty of action, and that the government should interfere to the minimum extent with anyone's activities. For that reason they opposed a centralized government, advocated state rights, and as a matter of principle objected to interference by officialdom with individual action.

Under this theory of government there would be no government regulation of business; there would be no public utility commissions; no interstate commerce commissions; no anti-trust laws; no check on the excesses of capital or of labor. Natural laws were sufficient, it was held, to take care of any injustice that might develop. In this view it was more important that man should be free, tho he had difficulty in making ends meet, than to live in the lap of luxury and have his every activity supervised and determined by some one other than himself.

When the republican party was born it rallied around a somewhat different theory of government. It believed in the freedom of the individual, but not to the extent that the old democrats did, for the republicans held that individual rights were subservient to general rights, and that the welfare of all was best secured by the establishment and maintenance of a centralized government strong enough to step in and stop abuses that were sure to arise where the strong sought to take advantage of the weak. And so the republicans increased the prestige and power of the government. They started to regulate business; they passed anti-trust laws; they created the interstate commerce commission, and inspired numerous other devices designed to prevent excesses on the part of the strong, and to protect those unable to help themselves.

But the theory of the republican party does not go further than regulation. It believes in modified individualism, controlled in such a way that meritorious individual effort shall have the largest possible chance to develop, but recognizes that individualism unchecked sometimes becomes a curse instead of a blessing.

 

The full editorial is available here (click to enlarge) and was in the context of contrasting the two major parties with the threat of socialism during the height of the First Red Scare and Palmer Raids throughout the State of Illinois.

This period in United States history can complicate a lot of more simplified modern partisan mythologies. A lot of ideas and terminology associated with one group today often permeated both parties or factions within them at the time. A good example would be the Courier's 8/18/1921 editorial criticizing the Klan when it was beginning to surge throughout the North and middle America. A modern reader may hope for a strong rebuke. Instead we see prefacing the argument on the necessity of the original Klan and an appreciation for the second Klan's aims:

In the end it's more of a warning on the inherent problems with secret societies with corruption and imitation. Its big ask is for a name change to avoid some of the pitfalls of otherwise good intentions. This may sound similar to the St. Joseph Record editor's rebuke that inspired the Klan visit to his town from an earlier post:

For those wanting a stronger rebuke, there was a Letter to the Editor in the Courier following their call for a name change printed on :

The Courier would go on to publish a retrospective on the Klan in an editorial criticizing its flaws, but qualifying that with support for some of its aims:

In this retrospective, they highlight the explosion of local protestant support for the Klan and speculate as to why people were losing interest. The assumptions about the Klan's targets taking no offense and going about their business as usual ignores a great deal of local organizing and efforts to stay safe during this heavily segregated period in our local history. Future posts will highlight the two different realities described in local white newspapers and Black journals and newspapers circulating here at the time.

The Courier also highlighted the deep polarization between Protestants and Catholics locally as the local Klan was exploding locally in 1923. From a 12/3/1923 editorial titled "Good Indians":

For the full editorial, click the thumbnail to the right. 

In the contemporary news clippings, books, and other items within this research there will be a few ideas that may appear contradictory to a modern reader. One will be public and overt denials of racism or prejudice in defense of notoriously racist and prejudiced organizations. The other will be the apparent or overtly stated assumption that white supremacy is both an indisputable reality and thus does not imply any hatred, prejudice, or "bad" qualities of those who recognize that fact.

As pointed out in the Birth of a Nation post, this isn't peculiar to our locality at this point in history. White supremacist views permeated both the North and South at this time, both major parties, and often individual factions and ideologies. Revisionist views of Reconstruction were also popular in the North, where "scalawags" and Black people were the threat during Reconstruction and the Ku Klux Klan were initially essential to stabilize a normal and health white supremacist society again. For example, one popular textbook in the North and South, written by a Northerner after the turn of the century wrote in his "History of the United States of America" (1905):

The author, William H. Elson, was a Northern educator who also became the Superintendent of Schools in Cleveland. The book was eventually banned from many prominent Southern universities due to it listing slavery as one of the causes of the Civil War. His book also highlights other contemporary arguments that may sound familiar today, but difficult to mesh with this period of time:

and on the next page:

It's also worth pointing out that this is generally before the influence of the notorious "Dunning School" that is often associated with the white supremacist view of Reconstruction being popularized across the country (North and South) in the last century. While the Dunning School helped bring us into an era of more scientific and research based history, white supremacy was already endemic in both history and the early sciences. One of the Dunning School graduates became the head of the political science department of the University of Illinois here. W.E.B. Du Bois described him as more moderate of the bunch, for what that's worth given the context. More on that in this frustrating, yet fascinating, book on the Dunning School here.