|Previous||14 of 263||Next|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
large ( > 500x500)
North Carolina State Library Raleigh N. C Doc 76e 7U>it& &vi<rtt«uz *i¥i4t<ntcal Review ff 11 *l" " ] ' fHHS' - :".-* !.!JL»i jlp.fe,\ TVutte* 1965 The North Carolina Historical Review Christopher Crittenden, Editor in Chief Mrs. Memory F. Mitchell, Editor Mrs. Violet W. Quay, Editorial Associate ADVISORY EDITORIAL BOARD Miss Sarah M. Lemmon Miss Mattie Russell William S. Powell George M. Stephens, Sr. Henry S. Stroupe STATE DEPARTMENT OF ARCHIVES AND HISTORY EXECUTIVE BOARD McDaniel Lewis, Chairman Miss Gertrude Sprague Carraway Ralph P. Hanes Robert F. Durden Josh L. Horne Fletcher M. Green Edward W. Phifer Christopher Crittenden, Director This review was established in January, 192A, as a medium of publication and dis-cussion of history in North Carolina. It is issued to other institutions by exchange, but to the general public by subscription only. The regular price is $4.00 per year. Members of the North Carolina Literary and Historical Association, Inc., for which the annual dues are $5.00, receive this publication without further payment. Back numbers still in print are available for $1.00 per number. Out-of-print numbers may be obtained on microfilm from University Microfilms, 313 North First Street, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Persons desiring to quote from this publication may do so without special permission from the editors provided full credit is given to The North Carolina Historical Review. The Review is published quarterly by the State Department of Archives and History, Education Building, Corner of Edenton and Salisbury Streets, Raleigh. Second class postage paid at Raleigh, North Carolina. COVER—Old English and Italian architectural versions were presented to Governor and Mrs. William A. Graham when they planned to remodel their home, "Montrose," in Hillsboro in the 1850's. The reproductions used en the cover are from files of Mr. and Mrs. A. H. Graham, Hillsboro. For an article on architectural developments at "Montrose," see pages 85 to 95. Volume XLII Published in January, 1965 Number 1 CONTENTS JAMES DAVIS AND THE BEGINNING OF THE NEWSPAPER IN NORTH CAROLINA 1 Robert N. Elliott, Jr. A SOUTHERN DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY: SIMMONS VS. BAILEY IN 1930 21 Richard L. Watson THE NORTH CAROLINA MANUMISSION SOCIETY, 1816-1834 47 Patrick Sowle CONSPIRACY OR POPULAR MOVEMENT: THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF SOUTHERN SUPPORT FOR SECESSION 70 William J. Donnelly ARCHITECTURAL DEVELOPMENTS AT "MONTROSE" IN THE 1850'S 85 John V. Allcott BOOK REVIEWS 96 HISTORICAL NEWS 125 BOOK REVIEWS Drake, Higher Education in North Carolina Before I860, by William S. Powell 96 Waynick, Brooks, and Pitts, North Carolina and the Negro, by David L. Smiley 97 Stick, The Cape Hatteras Seashore, by Herbert O'Keef 98 Griffith, Virginia House of Burgesses, 1?'50-177 k, by Herbert R. Paschal, Jr 98 Wynes, Southern Sketches from Virginia, 1881-1901, by Elizabeth Cometti 100 Rose, Rehearsal For Reconstruction: The Port Royal Experiment, by T. Harry Williams 101 Coulter, Joseph Valienee Bevan: Georgia's First Official Historian, by William S. Hoffmann 102 Steel, T. Butler King of Georgia, by Henry S. Stroupe 103 Stegeman, These Men She Gave, by Norman A. Graebner 105 Montgomery, Johnny Cobb: Confederate Aristocrat, by Richard W. Iobst 106 Eaton, The Mind of the Old South, by James W. Silver 107 Craven, An Historian and the Civil War, by Jay Luvaas 109 Massey, Refugee Life in the Confederacy, by Richard Bardolph Ill Bailey, Southern White Protestantism in the Twentieth Century, by Suzanne Cameron Linder 112 Barbour, The Three Worlds of Captain John Smith, by Cecil Johnson 113 Hall, Leder, and Kammen, The Glorious Revolution in America: Documents on the Colonial Crisis of 1689, by Max Savelle 114 Shumway, Durrell, and Frey, Conestoga Wagon, 1750- 1850: Freight Carrier for 100 Years of America's Westward Expansion, by Percival Perry 116 Hopkins, The Papers of Henry Clay, Volume III, Presidential Candidate, 1821-1824, by Richard D. Goff 117 Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, Harry S. Truman. Containing the Public Messages, Speeches, and Statements of the President, January 1 to December 31, 19U8, by Willard B. Gatewood, Jr 119 Other Recent Publications 120 JAMES DAVIS AND THE BEGINNING OF THE NEWSPAPER IN NORTH CAROLINA By Robert N. Elliott, Jr.* On September 25, 1690, Benjamin Harris, a former London book-seller and publisher who had come to Boston four years before, issued Publick Occurrences Both Foreign and Domestic. This was the first newspaper to be published in that part of America which became the United States. Publick Occurrences was a small paper, measuring but six by nine and a half inches, with only three of its four pages printed; the fourth was left blank for Bostonians to add their own news when they sent their copies to distant friends. Harris, dependent largely on visitors to his coffee shop in Boston for news, issued a newsier paper than did many of his successors in the next century. The first issue contained news about Indians and Indian warfare in New England, a suicide in a nearby town, a fire in Boston, and the amorous affairs of the royal family in France. It was probably this last story, along with another hinting at corruption in-volving a government expedition against the Indians, that caused the Massachusetts authorities to suppress further publication of Publick Occurrences. Samuel Sewall wrote in his diary that the paper gave "distaste because it wasn't licensed and for certain passages referring to the Mohawks and the French King." At any rate this first colonial newspaper ended after publication of but one number.1 It was altogether fitting that Boston should become the cradle of the newspaper in English Colonial America. It was the largest town in the colonies, the center of foreign and intercolonial commerce; and the presence there of a literate population containing many lawyers and ministers with facile pens placed it foremost as the cultural and literary leader of the colonies. Here, also, printing had been first estab-lished in 1638 when Harvard College, then but two years old, had begun production by its printers of sermons, almanacs, catechisms, law * Dr. Elliott is Associate Professor of Social Studies, North Carolina State of the University of North Carolina at Raleigh. 1 Sidney Kobre, The Development of the Colonial Newspaper (Pittsburgh, Pennsyl-vania: n.p., 1944), 13-16, hereinafter cited as Kobre, Colonial Newspaper. 2 The North Carolina Historical Review books, psalters, and broadsides. Thus 14 years after the demise of Publick Occurrences another venture in newspaper publishing was attempted in Boston. John Campbell, Boston's postmaster since 1700, began to send out handwritten newsletters to merchants and various governors along the Atlantic seaboard almost from the day he took office. 2 These contained mostly items about shipping and government affairs. The demand for these letters soon taxed the postmaster's hand, so he turned to a local printer, Bartholomew Green, to print his letter weekly. In this manner, the Boston News-Letter, the first continuous American newspaper, was issued on April 24, 1704. Campbell's News-Letter carried the line "Published By Authority," thereby indicating that the authorities had licensed its publication. This meant also that Campbell's news policy would harmonize with the party in control.3 The News-Letter was slightly larger than Publick Occurrences, eight by twelve and three quarter inches, printed on both sides of a single sheet. It cost subscribers 2d. a copy or 125. a year. The contents consisted primarily of summaries of news from London papers with a few items about local affairs—arrivals of ships, political appointments, court actions, and the like. At the bottom of the last column were a few advertisements. By modern standards it was not a very lively newspaper. It persisted, however, and under other publishers and, with the addition of Massachusetts Gazette to its title, lasted until March, 1776; in its last years, edited by Margaret Draper, it supported the loyalist cause.4 Within the lifetime of the Boston News-Letter, newspapers were introduced into each of the 13 colonies. Most of these papers were printed on four pages, each averaging about ten by fifteen inches in size. Publication was weekly; though if an important news event broke between publication dates an extra or "supplement" was issued. The average subscription rate was 10$. or 12s. a year. News primarily of the mother country was taken from the London papers. Local news was limited to certain outstanding events—the death of an important personage, activities of the government, or a major catastrophe. After all, towns in Colonial America were small and local happenings gen-erally known. The people were interested mainly in the affairs of 2 Kobre, Colonial Newspaper, 17. 3 Frank Luther Mott, American Journalism: A History of Newspapers in the United States Through 250 Years, 1690 to 19U0 (New York: Macmillan, 1947), 11-14, herein-after cited as Mott, American Journalism. 4 Douglas C. McMurtrie. The Beginnings of the American Newspaper (Chicago, Illinois: Black Cat Press, 1935), 5. James Davis and the Newspaper 3 England. They were, generally speaking, English frontiersmen con-nected, if not by family ties, certainly by commercial and political interests, with England. Editorials as such were missing from the colonial newspaper, but at the same time objective news reporting characteristic of the modern newspaper was not a style used by the colonial publisher. His story written in the form of an essay was often, if the occasion warranted it, interspersed with editorial comment. Then, too, discussion of public affairs was carried on through contributed letters, sometimes written by the publisher himself, and all bearing pen names. Copy of all sorts—news of other colonies, of England and the con-tinent, features such as sermons, poems, essays, and letters—was ob-tained from the newspapers exchanged by the colonial printers and from newspapers brought in by ship captains from overseas. This source was supplemented with letters received by local citizens and reports relayed by travelers. In no sense did a colonial publisher, even in larger towns, have access to a formal news gathering agency. "Gazette" was the most popular title for the colonial newspaper. This stemmed from the prestige enjoyed by The London Gazette, the official newspaper of the British government. Hence if a publisher wished to imply or convey a semiofficial status for his paper he titled it "Gazette." 5 This custom was especially popular in the southern colonies. William Parks, official printer to Lord Baltimore's province in Maryland, began this trend when, in 1727, he began the Maryland Gazette. It was con-tinued in South Carolina by Thomas Whitmarsh who, in 1732, started the South Carolina Gazette at Charleston. Four years later, in 1736, William Parks, who had become official printer to Virginia, established at Williamsburg the first Virginia Gazette.6 Thus North Carolinians, whose commercial and cultural ties were with Williamsburg or Charles-ton, had access to a local newspaper well before the press was estab-lished in that colony.7 And in the Virginia Gazette of Parks they had one of the most handsome newspapers published in the colonies; a journal especially distinguished for its literary quality. Parks had oper- 5 Mott, American Journalism, 43-65; Clarence S. Brigham, Journals and Journeymen (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1950), 12, hereinafter cited as Brigham, Journals and Journeymen. 8 Clarence Saunders Brigham, History and Bibliography of American Newspapers, 1690-1820 (Worcester, Massachusetts: American Antiquarian Society, 2 volumes, 1947), I, 218; II, 1,037, 1,158. 7 That these two newspapers circulated in North Carolina may be inferred from the number of North Carolina items, especially advertisements, appearing in their pages. Also, as late as 1777, the Virginia Gazette (Williamsburg) published by Alexander Purdie and John Dixon, and later by Dixon and William Hunter was advertised in The North Carolina Gazette (New Bern), July 18, 1777. 4 The North Carolina Historical Review ated presses and published newspapers in England before coming to the colonies.8 Like Benjamin Harris of Publick Occurrences, Parks brought to colonial journalism the more advanced newspaper heritage of England. William Parks provided North Carolina with more than just a good newspaper. From his shop in Williamsburg this colony acquired its first printer, James Davis. After some years of indecision, North Caro-lina's Assembly agreed to authorize a revision of its laws and then, in 1749, decided to establish a public printing office to print this revision. James Davis was named to that office at a salary of £160 proclama-tion money. He arrived in New Bern and set up his press June 24, 1749.9 Not much is known about the early life of James Davis. He was born in Virginia, October 21, 1721; where is not known. But in 1745 he was living in Williamsburg.10 Whether he received training in his art from William Parks is also not clear. Davis, however, was a skilled printer. The only printer in either Virginia or Maryland after 1725 was William Parks. Parks left Maryland to locate in Williamsburg in 1734; he had been operating a branch shop there since 1730. His successor in An-napolis was Jonas Green, who did not come to Annapolis until 1738. At that time Davis was seventeen years old, a little old to begin an apprenticeship. To go to Charleston or Philadelphia, the nearest print-ing offices, or elsewhere in the colonies, was an expensive undertaking at that time. It seems logical, then, to assume that Davis learned his trade under Parks. This certainly would be no discredit to James Davis, for William Parks was as skilled as any printer in the colonies. The record is equally uncertain about the source of Davis' printing equipment. Colonial printers used a wooden printing press, much like those used by Gutenberg and the pioneers of printing in the late fifteenth century. With such a press a good, stout pressman could 8 Lawrence C. Wroth, "North America (English Speaking)," in R. A. Peddie (ed.), Printing: A Short History of The Art (London, England: Grafton, 1927), 351-352, hereinafter cited as Wroth, "North America." 9 See Mary L. Thornton, "Public Printing in North Carolina, 1749-1815," The North Carolina Historical Review, XXI (July, 1944), 183-191, for complete account of Davis' public printing career; Walter L. Clark (ed.), The State Records of North Carolina (Winston, Goldsboro, and Raleigh: State of North Carolina, 16 volumes and 4-volume index [compiled by Stephen B. Weeks for both Colonial Records and State Records], 1895-1914), XXIII, 314-315, hereinafter cited as Clark, State Records. Davis was not the first experienced printer to come to North Carolina. Hugh Meredith, Benjamin Franklin's partner in Philadelphia, retired and came to North Carolina in 1732, where he remained until 1739. Carl Van Doren, Benjamin Franklin (New York: The Viking Press, 1938), 100-101, 117. 10 William S. Powell, The Journal of the House of Burgesses, of the Province of North- Carolina, 17A9 (Raleigh: State Department of Archives and History, 1949), ix, here-inafter cited as Powell, Journal House of Burgesses. James Davis and the Newspaper 5 turn out about 200 impressions an hour. Occasionally some versatile printer like Christopher Sower in Pennsylvania built a press for his own use, but until after 1769, when press building became common in Philadelphia and Boston, presses were imported from England. The same was true for type; not until after the Revolution was the American printer freed from English type founders, though in 1769 Abel Buell in Connecticut began to experiment in the manufacture of type from blank punch to finished letter. Furthermore, type was expensive; so most colonial printers began work with the used type of a London printer. Paper and ink were another story. William Rittenhouse opened a paper mill near Germantown, Pennsylvania, the same year, 1690, that Publick Occurrences was issued in Boston. In 1743 William Parks, backed by Benjamin Franklin, began a mill near Williamsburg. Be-fore 1765 there were nine mills operating in the colonies. But it is doubtful that they provided sufficient paper to supply the printing trade, especially for finer printing. In all probability, Davis, along with other printers, was dependent on England for much of his paper. Ink, however, was available in the colonies. 11 A typical print shop in the American colonies contained two presses, type, and the necessary forms, rules, and other appurtenances in sufficient quantity to enable the printer to produce books, a weekly newspaper, and the daily job work that came to his shop. Books, such as the Journals and the revisal of the laws produced by James Davis, used up a great quantity of type. Often the forms were left standing —that is, they were not broken up and the type redistributed until the job was completed. To provide enough type for this kind of work and still have enough available for other productions such as a newspaper, required quite an outlay of capital. For example, the shop of Jonas Green in Annapolis contained over 2,000 pounds of type of varied sorts. The value of the type greatly exceeded the total value of all the rest of his equipment. The total appraisal of such a shop amounted to nearly £ 100 sterling. 12 When James Davis' shop was destroyed by a hurricane in 1769 he doubtless sustained a great loss, for not only was his "house a mere wreck," but also his printing office was "broke to pieces, his papers destroyed and types buried "Lawrence C. Wroth, The Colonial Printer (Portland, Maine: The Southworth- Anthoensen Press, 1938), gives a description of the mechanics of eighteenth-century printing. 12 Worth, "North America," 330. 6 The North Carolina Historical Review in the sand." The <£3 he received from the Assembly for his loss of money was small recompense indeed.13 It is doubtful, of course, that when Davis came to New Bern he had as complete a shop as that of Jonas Green. To print the procla-mation money,14 his first work, and the Journal of the House of Burgesses issued late in 1749, he needed only a small font of type and a press. About this time, however, he began work on the revision of the laws, for which he had been hired. Governor Gabriel Johnston wrote December 21, 1749, that the revisal is "now in the press." 15 Though Governor Johnston expected this to be completed by the middle of the next summer, it was advertised in The NOth Carolina Gazette of November 15, 1751, as "just publish'd." This may have been, however, a second edition, which included the laws passed at the September 26-October 12, 1751, session of the Assembly. An earlier edition, bearing the same imprint date, 1751, ended with the laws of 1750. Meanwhile, Davis had printed the Journal for the Assembly session of 1750, was at work on the one just over, pre-sumably had done job work, and in August, 1751, had begun The NOth Carolina Gazette. Whether he printed "the Speeches and Addresses at the Opening of each Session," as required by the act establishing his office, 16 is not known. In any case, to have produced the work he is known to have done required a well equipped shop. Where Davis acquired his type and equipment must be con-jectured; available records give no hint. One such attempt was made by William S. Powell,17 a competent student of early North Carolina history. He compared certain printed works of Davis with those of William Parks and noted a striking similarity in the type used by the two men. Then he compared the work of William Hunter, who suc-ceeded Parks in the operation of the Williamsburg press when the latter died in 1750, and found no such similarity. Mr. Powell suggested that "perhaps Parks purchased a new supply of type and sold all or part of his old fonts to Davis." This quite possibly was the case, for otherwise Davis would have had to buy type from England or from another colonial printer. Had he done so the similarities observed by Mr. Powell would not have been apparent. As to the source of Davis' press or presses, even conjecture is of no help. Nevertheless, James "William L. Saunders (ed.), The Colonial Records of North Carolina (Raleigh: State of North Carolina, 10 volumes, 1886-1890), VIII, 74, 136-137, hereinafter cited as Saunders, Colonial Records. 14 Saunders, Colonial Records, IV, 1,023. 15 Saunders, Colonial Records, IV, 924. 16 Clark, State Records, XXIII, 314-315. 17 Powell, Journal House of Burgesses, xi. James Davis and the Newspaper 7 Davis began printing in North Carolina with a well equipped shop capable, under the direction of a skillful printer, of executing good work. His early productions indicated that. James Davis was twenty-eight when he came to New Bern in 1749. Settled, apparently possessing some money, and with a five-year con-tract as official printer to the colony, he established himself in the town. One of his first acts was to acquire property. When the Governor and Council met in April, 1749, and again that fall, Davis was among those applying for land. He was granted 200 acres in Johnston County and the same amount in Craven County.18 Then he obtained several lots in New Bern itself; one on the southwest corner of Broad and East Front Streets where after March, 1752, he moved his printing office from its first location on Pollock Street. 19 While thus providing for his economic future, Davis at the same time assured himself a domestic future; he married a local widow, Prudence Hobbs, the daughter of William Carruthers of Beaufort County.20 So prepared, James Davis could link his fortunes to the future of New Bern. In 1750 this future looked good. New Bern, founded in 1710 by Baron Von Graffenried for persecuted Palatines and Swiss, had survived the horrors and destruction of the Tuscarora War. It was no longer at the edge of the colony. To the north, the Albemarle region had long been settled, and south of the town, the Cape Fear region was increasing in population. New Bern was thus a centrally located town convenient to the more settled portions of the colony. Moreover, Governor Johnston had made an effort in 1746—unsuccess-ful, however—to make New Bern the official capital of North Carolina. As a result, several government offices, including that of the printer, were fixed there.21 This prominence, plus good connections with the back country and a fair port on the Neuse River, attracted merchants. By the time James Davis arrived and became established, New Bern had, perhaps, more mercantile firms than any town in the colony.22 These circumstances no doubt prompted Davis to begin a news-paper. In August, 1751, from the "Printing-Office, near the Church," The NOth Carolina Gazette was issued. The first number of this paper 18 Saunders, Colonial Records, IV, 950, 965. 18 Alonzo T. Dill, Jr., "Eighteenth-Century New Bern," The North Carolina Historical Review, XXIII (January, 1946), 53, hereinafter cited as Dill, "Eigrhteenth-Century New Bern"; The NOth Carolina Gazette (New Bern), March 13, 1752, July 7, 1753, hereinafter cited as The NOth. Carolina Gazette. 20 Dill, "Eighteenth-Century New Bern," 53. 21 Saunders, Colonial Records, IV, 836-837, 844. 22 Hugh Talmage Lefler and Albert Ray Newsome, North Carolina : The History of a Southern State (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1954), 102, hereinafter cited as Lefler and Newsome, North Carolina; Dill, "Eighteenth-Century New Bern," 47. 8 The North Carolina Historical Review has not survived;23 in fact, only six issues are available today. But from these one can see what North Carolina's first newspaper was like. It was the standard folio of colonial journalism; four pages each measuring eight and a half by twelve and a half inches—what printers call a crown sheet—and issued weekly. The earliest number extant, that of November 15, 1751, was printed two columns to the page, as was the last number surviving, that of October 18, 1759. The issue of April 15, 1757, was numbered 133, indicating that Davis either suspended the Gazette for awhile or that he adopted a new numbering system. In either case, between the number issued November 15, 1751, and that of October 18, 1759, there was little change in format. In the earlier number there was no period after "NOth" and the imprint was run under the title on page one. But the issue of April 15, 1757, had a period after "NOth." and the imprint appeared at the bottom of the back page. The same was true also of the last extant number, October 18, 1759. The Gazette was available "at Four Shillings, Proclamation Money, per Quarter"; and "Advertisements of a moderate Length, are inserted for Three Shillings the first Week, and Two Shillings for every Week after." It is not likely that the contents would appeal to a newspaper sub-scriber today, despite Davis' slogan which appeared just under the title: "With the Freshest Advices, Foreign and Domestic." Page one was usually reserved for an essay, such as "The Temple of Hymen. A Vision," in the number for November 15, 1751; or "Reflections on Unhappy Marriages," the feature for March 6, 1752. This fare was varied, however, for on page one of April 15, 1757, was a letter taken from the Bristol-Journal, an English paper. It was signed "Five Mil-lions" and addressed "To the Right Honourable W. P., Esq." Doubt-less this was William Pitt, just called to lead England in her struggle against the French. The writer advised him to avoid the pitfalls of public office—bribery, ease, and title. News, of course, was not overlooked. It was, however, primarily foreign and run under simple headings, such as "London, July 5," "Genoa, Sept. 15" or "From The Westminster Journal of July 25." This was hardly "fresh" by modern standards, but certainly current enough to colonial readers, though three months or more old. Domes-tic news was usually run on pages three or four. In the Gazette for March 6, 1732, for example, there were stories from Philadelphia, 23 Charles Christopher Crittenden, North Carolina Newspapers Before 1790 (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press [Volume 20, Number 1, of The James Sprunt Studies in History and Political Science] 1928), 11, hereinafter cited as Crit-tenden, North Carolina Newspapers Before 1790. James Davis and the Newspaper a r> r\ r " r n T A jo a n? 7-* nn rr* • y v ^ .zz i\ \j> is A j \ yi v j /i Z^ H/ I I i U,\l he frefic I , Urmccs, Foreign and D •«>•• s<5*5 -^( <,-!»> •<*•» «?« &.:«': Irfeksb tijmm SeC &, I IboM ftt God f Jbwed i; -v t h Iduts b Ms "Tl» eT^mb | r ti 15, 175 l' jr ss?e of rAe NOth Carolina Gazette featured an essav of T A%Jh e^andH H y lXy A VlS1°n - Fr0m the SleS °f the A"hives ' State De^artS 10 The North Carolina Historical Review December 31; Boston, October 21; and New York, December 16. This did not always mean that the news included concerned only events in the cities named. Under the New York date line just mentioned was a story about an epidemic in Honduras which had resulted in the death of many, especially women. Affixed to this story in brackets was this comment: "A fine Time now, for our Ladies of Pleasure to make their Fortunes." Not an editorial, but a shrewd observation by Editor Davis. Then under the head "Williamsburg, September 20" in the number for October 18, 1759, was a letter from New York, dated September 4, 1759, describing the military campaign in the Niagara region. This was followed by the headline, "Newbern, Octo-ber 18," and this item: On Friday last, an Express arrived here from Charles Town [Charleston, S. C] on his way to Virginia, with Dispatches from Governor Littleton to the Governor of Virginia; the Occasion of which is said to be, the Cherokees taking up Arms in Favour of the French; and that they are assembling in Bodies to make Depredations on our Frontiers. Local news was given its due when the occasion warranted. One regrets that more issues of The NOth. Carolina Gazette are not avail-able for the period of the French and Indian War. Advertising in these few issues of The NOth. Carolina Gazette was nearly always found on the back page, printed without display or illustration; much like the classified columns of a modern newspaper. Besides official notices, such as Acting-Governor Matthew Rowan's Proclamation announcing surveys being made by a South Carolina commission in Anson County, or the Craven County sheriff's announce-ment of a jail break in New Bern,24 the advertisements were for mer-chandise, land or runaway slaves. The arrival of a trading ship was also the occasion for advertising. One ship, docked at Beaufort, had on board dry goods, hardware, china, medicines, paint, and other goods to be sold or exchanged for deerskins, tar, or fur. 25 Too, James Davis used the columns of his paper to offer for sale The Laws of North Carolina, lampblack, printed forms, and other such wares. Advertising was a major source of revenue for the colonial publisher, as indeed it is for today's publisher. But of greater significance, ad-vertising enables one to gain an insight into the social and economic * The NOth. Carolina Gazette, July 7, 1753. 26 The NOth. Carolina Gazette. October 18, 1759. James Davis and the Newspaper 11 life of a community such as New Bern. This more than makes up for the sparseness of local news.26 James Davis apparently stopped publication of The NOth. Caro-lina Gazette sometime after October 18, 1759. Isaiah Thomas, an early historian of colonial newspapers and himself an active printer at the time, says the Gazette was discontinued around 1761. 27 At any rate, Davis began a new paper in June, 1764. Meanwhile, during the years when he published The NOth. Caro-lina Gazette, James Davis was active on other fronts. In 1753 he published the Reverend Clement Hall's A Collection of Many Chris-tian Experiences, the first nonlegal book by a citizen of North Caro-lina to be published in the colony. Hall was rector of St. Paul's Church in Edenton.28 But publication was incidental to Davis' other activity that year; he became involved in politics. In 1753 he was made a member of the Craven County Court, an office he held for twenty-five years. One of his first duties was the supervision, with another member, of the construction of a new courthouse in New Bern.29 The next year he was elected sheriff of Craven County, and while holding this office was chosen by the electorate of New Bern to represent them in the Assembly. This, however, was highly irregu-lar; the House refused to seat him, deciding that he was "not Quali-fyed to serve as a Member for the Town of New Bern he having been Sheriff of Craven County at the time of his Election." Davis appar-ently preferred a career in the Assembly to that of sheriff, for he resigned the latter office and in 1755 was again elected to the As-sembly. 30 In 1756 Davis was returned to the Assembly by the people of New Bern. Among several bills that he introduced during this session, was one that provided for an improvement in the local government of New Bern. It passed to become the first municipal election and tax law for New Bern.31 Up to this time every able-bodied resident in New Bern was expected to work on the streets. Under Davis' bill, citizens were permitted to tax themselves to pay for this work. Also 28 For sample advertising in eighteenth-century North Carolina newspapers, see Wesley H. Wallace, "Cultural and Social Advertising in Early North Carolina News-papers," The North Carolina Historical Review, XXXIII (July, 1956), 281-309. "Isaiah Thomas, The History of Printing in America (Worcester, Massachusetts: American Antiquarian Society Proceedings, Volumes V and VI, 1874), VI, 167. 28 William S. Powell, "Eighteenth-Century North Carolina Imprints: A Revision and Supplement to McMurtrie," The North Carolina Historical Review, XXXV (January, 1958), 56. 29 Dill, "Eighteenth-Century New Bern," 53. 80 Julian P. Boyd, "The Sheriff in Colonial North Carolina," The North Carolina His-torical Review, X (April, 1928), 174-175; Saunders, Colonial Records, V, 245, 529. "Saunders, Colonial Records, V, 672; Clark, State Records, XXIII, 451-456. 12 The North Carolina Historical Review town commissioners, who before had been appointed by the Assem-bly, could now be elected by the citizens. Davis went back to the Assembly in 1757; and this time he turned his attention to commerce. In the spring session he introduced a bill to improve navigation at Port Bath. That fall he presented a memorial from various merchants for improving the inspection law on certain commodities exported from the colonies, and he was appointed to the committee to draft such a bill. 32 For two additional years Davis represented New Bern in the Assembly, bringing in bills for the improvement of public ferries and the completion of the courthouse begun under his supervision several years before.33 Then in 1760 he was chosen to represent Craven County. At this session, however, he was not as active as he had been previously; in fact, he was fined for nonattendance.34 After this James Davis halted his legislative career for awhile. In the meantime, in 1755, he had become New Bern's postmaster. This job was compatible with his work as a newspaper publisher. Then in October of that year when North Carolina's Assembly established its first postal service, Davis was awarded the contract. By this act, Davis obliged himself, for the sum of £ 100 10s. 8d., "to send all pub-lick letters, Expresses and Dispatches relating to this Province to any Part thereof for the service of the same and once every Fifteen Days send to Suffolk in Virginia and Wilmington on Cape Fear River for the publick a proper messenger to receive Letters and Dispatches at these places; to be conveyed where directed for the full Term of one year." 35 This contract was renewed the next year; but in 1757 Gov-ernor Arthur Dobbs complained of Davis' negligence. The Assembly then divided the contract among three applicants. Davis obtained the route from New Bern to Wilmington for which he was paid <£40. The next year, however, he received the entire contract again.36 No doubt the establishment of a public postal route relieved Davis of one problem. In 1752 he was censured by the Assembly for not delivering to the members the printed laws and journals to which they were entitled. In his defense, Davis claimed that he had sent them, in some instances several times over. But he had not done so by a special messenger. To have employed such, he said, would have meant "a Considerable Reduction in his Salary, so much that it will 32 Saunders, Colonial Records, V, 840, 898. 33 Saunders, Colonial Records, V, 1,051, 1,152; VI, 145, 168. 84 Saunders, Colonial Records, VI, 164, 493. 85 Saunders, Colonial Records, V, 555-556, 734. 30 Clark, State Records, XXII, 735; Saunders, Colonial Records, V, 920, 1,038. James Davis and the Newspaper 13 scarce be worth his while to keep a Press, especially as his whole Salary is not much above half what every other Public Printer in America has." 37 Nevertheless, the censure stood. Nor were matters helped any in 1754 when his printing contract was renewed for three years at the same old salary of <£160. The next year, however, the Assembly relented and voted Davis an extra allowance of <£20 "for his extraordinary Service in his Office this Session inclusive." 38 When, in 1757, this contract expired, the Assembly having "found by experience that a Printing Office is of great utility to this Province and very much tending to the Promotion of useful Knowledge among the people," Davis was reappointed for another three-year term. But in 1760 it was renewed for a one year term only, though his salary was raised to <£200.39 But in 1762, Henry Eustace McCulloch, a member of the Council from Wilmington, tried to get the job for Alexander Purdie, later to achieve distinction as copublisher with John Dixon of William Parks' old Virginia Gazette at Williamsburg. The House, however, refused to concur and Davis was again named public printer. 40 It is not clear whether or not McCulloch's attempt to replace Davis as public printer was inspired by Governor Dobbs' dissatisfaction with Davis. But there was no doubt about the Governor s attitude when the question of Davis' appointment came up in 1764. After the Council, acting as Upper House, had killed the House resolution naming Davis public printer, Dobbs sent a letter to the Speaker say-ing he could "never approve of the late Printer appointed by the Assembly upon account of his negligence. . . ." The House accepted this and appointed a committee to find a new printer. For one reason or another they were not at once successful, but Governor Dobbs was. He found Andrew Steuart in Philadelphia and informed the House that he had appointed him "His Majesty's Printer." Upon hearing this the members adopted and sent a stinging resolu-tion to the Council; the House declared: "We know no such Office as his Majesty's Printer of this Province and of no Duties Fees or Emoluments annexed or incident to such Office and that the said appointment is of a new and unusual nature unknown to our Laws, and is a violent stretch of power." The Governor and Council, of course, retorted that it was the King's "undoubted prerogative to nominate and appoint a Printer to publish his proclamations and 37 Saunders, Colonial Records, IV, 1,344-1,345. 38 Clark, State Records, XXV, 266; Saunders, Colonial Records, V, 555. 39 Clark, State Records, XXV, 349, 455-456. 40 Saunders, Colonial Records, VI, 913. 14 The North Carolina Historical Review orders of government, and to publish his laws"; the only right the House had was "to appoint a Printer to publish their votes and resolu-tions during their sessions." Whereupon the House resolved that James Davis "be appointed to Print the Laws & Journals of this Session of Assembly"; that Andrew Steuart be paid <£ 100 for his expense and trouble in coming to North Carolina; and that the treasurers not pay out any money "without the Concurrence or direction of this House." 41 In short, if the Governor wanted his own printer he could also provide his salary. Thus did James Davis secure reappointment in 1764 and North Carolina get another printer. During the hassle over his appointment as public printer, Davis began in New Bern a second newspaper. This was The North-Carolina Magazine; or Universal Intelligencer. The earliest issue located is that of July 6, 1764, Vol. 1, No. 5. Counting back, Davis must have started this paper June 8, 1764. Despite the title, The Magazine was a newspaper,42 containing the current news, advertisements, and other items common to colonial newspapers. In size, however, and the method of numbering the pages consecutively throughout a volume, it did resemble a magazine. For the first year—until the issue for December 28, 1764—The North-Carolina Magazine consisted of eight pages, each six and three quarters by nine and a half inches, known to printers as a quarto. With the issue for December 28, The Magazine was reduced to four pages; no issues beyond January 18, 1765, are known. The North-Carolina Gazette of February 26, 1766, however, which Andrew Steuart began in Wilmington in September, 1764, quotes "a New Bern" paper of January 14, 1766. And Frangois X. Martin, who published a newspaper in New Bern after the Revolution, using Davis' press and equipment, mentions in his history of North Carolina that Davis published The Magazine until about 1768.43 In any event, Davis returned to his old title and format May 27, 1768, when he began The North-Carolina Gazette. Subscribers paid Ad. & number for The North-Carolina Magazine which Davis published each Friday. Apparently he expected his readers to save their copies and have them bound—preferably at his shop no doubt, for he also did bookbinding. In his imprint he an-nounced that "Any single Number may be had to complete Setts, 41 Saunders, Colonial Records, VI, 1,122, 1,200, 1,209, 1,256, 1,318. 42 Clarence S. Brigham, Journals and Journeymen, 15-18, clarifies the identity of a periodical in Colonial America as a newspaper or magazine. 43 Francois-Xavier Martin, The History of North Carolina, from the Earliest Period (New-Orleans, Louisiana: A. T. Penniman & Co., 2 volumes, 1829), II, 186. James Davis and the Newspaper 15 at 4d." Davis charged the same advertising rate as when he published The NOth. Carolina Gazette; that is, "Three Shillings the first Week, and Two Shillings for every Continuance." In retrospect, 1764 was a good year to have begun a newspaper in Colonial America. England had just won the long war with France and had emerged from the conflict with a large colonial empire and a huge debt. In an effort to cope with both these problems, English ministries began in 1763 a policy that resulted, some twelve years later, in a final rupture between England and her American colonies. Among the first measures adopted was the American Revenue Act, introduced in Parliament in March, 1764, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Grenville. Two provisions of this act, one levying duties on foreign sugar and certain commodities imported into the colony and the other tightening up the customs service, had just gone into effect when Davis began The North-Carolina Magazine. A third provision, that of prohibiting the issuance of legal tender currency in the colonies, became effective that fall. Quite naturally, then, these measures and their reception in Colonial America, occupied a prominent place in Davis' newspaper. For ex-ample, in the number for August 3, 1764, Davis began a reprint of the Sugar Act which ran through the next issue, taking up so much space he was prevented from running much else, "which," he hoped, "our readers will excuse." Then in the following number, that of August 17, he ran the text of the Currency Act, and, in this same number, began publishing a petition, which had been sent George III, protesting England's failure to exact an indemnity from France. This was concluded in the issue of August 24. It was signed "The People of Great Britain," to which Davis added, "To these the Printer here presumes to add, And the Good People of America: who will say Amen." For his paper of November 9 Davis chose a letter which had appeared in the Boston Gazette and Country Journal of Septem-ber 24 denouncing the Sugar Act, and the address adopted by New York's Assembly opposing the entire Revenue Act. Then on Novem-ber 16 he ran a letter from The New Hampshire Gazette (Ports-mouth), also in opposition to the Revenue Act, and reported that the people of Boston had agreed to cease all pomp and display at funerals in protest of the act. But the climax of his handling of the Revenue Act was the publication of James Otis' "The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved," which Davis titled "Of the Political and Civil Rights of the British Colonies." This ran through five numbers of The Magazine, beginning in that of November 23, 16 The North Carolina Historical Review 1764. In this same number he reprinted the address of the House to Governor Dobbs at the opening of the Assembly meeting in Wil-mington a few weeks before. In this the members thanked the Gov-ernor for his efforts to improve trade and commerce in the colony; but, they reminded him, "your Excellency will permit us to observe the Dilemma we are in at this Conjuncture: We once esteemed it our inherent Right, as British Subjects, that no Tax could be imposed upon us, but where we were legally represented; depending on the fundamental Principles of the British Constitution; but, unhappy for us and every Colony in America, we now too fatally experience the Contrary: In this depressed Condition, every Attempt towards im-provements appears useless." Whatever the lack of editorials in colonial journalism, an editor could succeed in conveying his opinion of a particular issue. And Davis did this well in still another issue on a matter of local interest. The question of whether North Carolina's capital was to be Wilmington or New Bern assumed special concern when it became known that Governor Dobbs was returning to England for a leave. His place was to be taken by a lieutenant-governor as yet not known. On August 10, 1764, Davis reported that a story from Wilmington announced that "one Col. Tryon, an Officer in the Guards" had been "appointed at Home" Lieutenant-Governor of North Carolina, and that Governor Dobbs expected to leave for England the next March. To this story Davis added the following: The good people of Wilmington, ever intent on the Good of the Province, and always foremost in every Scheme for its Welfare and internal Quietude, immediately upon this News, engaged a large House in Wilmington for the Reception and Accommodation of the Governor on his Arrival in the Province, upon a Certainty that he will settle among them there. But the People of Newbern, having, for their Disobedience, drank largely of the the Cup of Affliction, and entirely depending on the Goodness of their Cause, have engaged a large genteel House in Newbern, for the Governor's Residence; upon a Supposition he will settle rather in the Centre of the Province, than at Cape-Fear, a Place within Fifty Miles of the South Boundary of a Province almost 300 Miles wide, and the Passage to it gloomy and dismal, through hot parching Sands, enliven' d now and then with a few Wire-Grass Ridges, and Ponds of stagnant Water ; . . . But as the Passage, so the Entrance, dismal;—a Turkey 15s. a Fowl 2s. 8d. a Goose 10s. Butter 2s. 8d. and so pro Rata for every Thing else.—Terrible Horribility.44 44 The North-Carolina Magazine (New Bern), August 10, 1764, hereinafter cited as The North-Carolina Magazine. James Davis and the Newspaper 17 The attack on Wilmington and its hopes was followed by a full account of the whole controversy over the location of the capital, balanced in favor of New Bern's claim, of course, and titled "New-bern's Remembrancer: or, An Essay on the Seat of Government —about as ambitious a headline as he ever attempted. Concluding was this appeal: Countrymen, as the Assembly stands prorogued to some time in October next, and will then probably meet at Wilmington, your Constituents, your Country, expect that you will, to a Man, give your Attendance ; or perhaps while we are pleasing ourselves with these Golden Scenes, the Great Fiat may be passed, and the Door shut against you; the Seat of Government may be Settled at Wilmington, and then, too late, we may behold the wretched State of the Province. They have already got the Press there and intend to Give Law to us all ; and if you neglect your Duty This Time, imagine what will be done. Can you Contentedly, see the Province in this Discontented State! Can you see the Public Records Carted from Place to Place, and your Properties and Estates trusted to the Mercy of a Shower of Rain, and at the Discretion of a Cart-Driver! Forbid it Heaven ! Temporal 45 Then, on September 28 Davis, apparently having it on good authority that Tryon favored New Bern as the location of the capital, wrote in his paper: Mourn, Mourn, ye Wilmingtonians, and put on Sack cloth and Ashes, for the Measure of thy Good Things is full, and the evil-Day is coming upon thee ! Mr. Tryan [sic] , if we have any Skill in Augury, is coming to live in Peace among us, and deliver us from unleavened Bread; which nothing but his Residence on the Grassy Plains can restore and accom-plish. 46 On November 2, 1764, under a Wilmington date line of October 17, Davis reported that Tryon with his family had arrived and been duly welcomed in Wilmington. The next week, November 9, he had news of another distinguished visitor, this time to New Bern. This was the famous evangelist George Whitefield who had passed through on his way to Georgia. "At the Request of the Gentlemen" of New Bern, Davis wrote, the Rev. Whitefield stayed over through Sunday "and preached a most excellent Sermon in our Church" to a large and crowded audience. After reference to the expected adjournment of the Assembly "now sitting at Wilmington" Davis reported that 45 The North-Carolina Magazine, August 24, 1764. *° The North-Carolina Magazine, September 28, 1764. North CaroUna State Library Raleigh 18 The North Carolina Historical Review Lieutenant-Governor Tryon intended making a tour through North Carolina and was shortly expected in New Bern. But before he arrived "a Quaker Preacher, and his Wife" paid New Bern a visit and preached "to a Numerous Audience." The doctrines "which they chiefly handled," Davis observed, "Were Original Sin, and the Necessity of Regeneration; Moral Reflections on the luxuries, Pomp and Vanities of the World and a particular Caution to the young Ladies against Dress." Davis noticed "that the Caution and Advice to the Ladies, was delivered by the Preacher's Wife, who seem'd to have a more than common Influence of the Holy Spirit; as her Doctrine was delivered with great emphatic Energy and Elocution." 4T Finally the day of Tryon's visit arrived, and from Davis' description of the reception New Bern gave the Governor, it easily matched the energy and elocution attributed to the Quaker preacher's wife. A "great number of Gentlemen" met Colonel Tryon eight miles from town and escorted him into New Bern where he received the salute of "19 guns from the Artillery." That night "the Town was hand-somely illuminated, Bonfires were lighted, and plenty of Liquor given to the Populace." The next evening a "very elegant Ball" was held in the "Great Bali-Room in the Court House," in honor of the Governor, at which "were present His Honour the Governor, and his Lady, the Mayor, Mr. Recorder, and near 100 Gentlemen and Ladies." About ten they had supper, and then all returned to the ball room "and concluded the Evening with all imaginable Agreeableness and Satis-faction." The next day the Masons honored the Governor with "an elegant Dinner" where "the usual and proper healths were drank." After a week in New Bern, Tryon left for Edenton, no doubt impressed with New Bern's hospitality, if not the town itself. 48 No issues of The North-Carolina Magazine survive beyond that of January 18, 1765, so Davis' response to the decision to make New Bern the capital is not known. This action was taken by the Assembly in November, 1766.49 One can assume that he used all the journalistic devices at his command to applaud the Assembly's decision. Neither do the issues exist that reported the death of Governor Dobbs who, on the eve of his return home, died at Brunswick, near Wilmington, March 28, 1765. Davis had little reason to be fond of the Governor, but this is hardly cause to expect that he published anything derogatory. Faced with the death of the Royal Governor, *7 The North-Carolina Magazine, December 14, 1764. 48 The North-Carolina Magazine, December 28, 1764; January 4, 1765. 49 Lefler and Newsome, North Carolina, 165. James Davis and the Newspaper 19 Davis doubtless rose to the occasion with appropriate language and the customary style of turned rules wreathing the story in black borders. In all probability there was some substance in Governor Dobbs' charge in 1764 that Davis had been negligent in performing his duties. Not only had he been involved in getting The North-Carolina Maga-zine underway, but also in that same year, entirely on his own, he published a new revisal of the laws, the second since that officially published in 1751. And he began taking subscriptions for another work, The Office and Authority of a Justice of Peace.50 In the sixteen years since Davis had come to North Carolina, the printing press and newspaper had become important institutions in the life of New Bern and the colony. As printer, publisher, and citizen James Davis was established. One historian of Colonial America has said, "the role of printer in colonial life . . . offered a man of ability and ambition a greater chance to exercise influence over public policy than even the ministry." 51 To what extent this was true of James Davis it is difficult to say. But there is no question that he used his position and his talents to their fullest extent. From his printing office flowed the necessary journals and laws, well executed and free from error, vital to effective government. In his service in New Bern's government, and as legislator, he acted in the best tradition of the colonial printer. His NOth. Carolina Gazette and Magazine satisfied the cultural, political, and commercial needs of his readers in a way that no other printed matter did. News hunger is basic to human nature, and in a democratic society, even one as primitive as that exist-ing in Colonial America, the need for serious news—the necessity to know what others are doing and thinking—is essential to reaching responsible decisions. As William Hunter's Virginia Gazette, in Wil-liamsburg, described it, the newspaper provides the people with "security against Errors, ... no false doctrine in Religion, Policy or Physic, can be broached, and remain long undetected. ... It is their great Preservation against political Empericism." 52 The two papers published by Davis, though not as distinguished perhaps as those in Williamsburg, or in Boston or Philadelphia, did their part. How many readers Davis had is not known; certainly it was not many, for the number of people in North Carolina who could afford, 60 The North-Carolina Magazine, July 6, 1764. 61 Carl Bridenbaugh, "America's First Man of The World," The New York Times Book Review, November 22, 1959, 1. 62 Quoted in Carl Bridenbaugh, Seat of Empire: The Political Role of Eighteenth- Century Williamsburg (Williamsburg, Virginia: Colonial Williamsburg, 1958), 28. 20 The North Carolina Historical Review or even read a newspaper, was small. The record is silent on circula-tion figures; one estimate is 100-150.53 But one thing is certain; with little competition for reading time, Davis' newspapers, as well as those in Colonial America generally, were read more thoroughly and lovingly than is the case with newspapers today. Also, with the scar-city of news media, each copy probably passed through many hands. What became America's standard reading matter, the newspaper, got off to a good start in North Carolina with James Davis and his two ventures into newspaper publishing. 53 Crittenden, North Carolina Newspapers Before 1790, 19. A SOUTHERN DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY SIMMONS VS. BAILEY IN 1930 By Richard L. Watson, Jr.* The senatorial primary in 1930 in North Carolina brought an end to the political career of Furnifold M. Simmons, a man who had been influential in both state and nation for almost fifty years. A study of this Democratic primary should be instructive, however, to others than those primarily interested in Simmons' career or in local North Caroliniana. The story of the contest, with its personal infight-ing, twisting of the democratic processes, use of emotional issues, and a lack of attention to things fundamental, serves to illuminate one of the principal ingredients in the American political system—the party primary. It points up the dilemma of a conscientious senator torn among responsibility for national legislation, concern for his local constituents, and the desire for re-election. And this particular pri-mary of 1930 in North Carolina lends support to the contention that bolting a party's nominee is a cardinal sin in American politics and leads to something almost as inevitable as divine punishment. The story of this primary as it related to North Carolina politics has for the most part already been well told. 1 Some of the local de-tails, however, call for further emphasis insofar as they contribute to an understanding of political techniques in a state such as North Carolina; also a consideration of some of the national issues of the day as they emerged in the campaign led to a better understanding both of those issues and of the relationship between the national legislative process and local politics. F. M. Simmons entered politics in 1875 at the age of twenty-one. For more than ten years he served as chairman of the Democratic state committee. In this office, he laid the basis for a political organi-zation which was to be a powerful force in North Carolina from * Dr. Watson is Professor of History, Duke University, Durham. 1 Elmer L. Puryear, Democratic Party Dissension in North Carolina, 1928-1986 (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press [Volume 44 of The James Sprunt Studies in History and Political Science], 1962), hereinafter cited as Puryear, Democratic Party Dissension. 22 The North Carolina Historical Review 1898 to 1928. Success in leading the Democrats to victory over the Republicans and Populists in 1898 and 1900 and in bringing about almost complete Negro disfranchisement resulted in his election to the United States Senate in 1901. He served as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee in the Wilson administrations; and during the 1920's, as ranking Democrat on that committee, he fought Republi-can policies and performed innumerable services for his constituents. By 1928 his political position seemed secure. Influential nationally, respected locally, he expected to be returned to the Senate for the sixth time in the election of 1930. He was seventy-four years old, it is true, and frequently ill, but he seemed able to rally his strength whenever the occasion demanded. He had made enemies in his fifty years in politics, but he had numerous friends in strategic positions politically, who would not think of hurting "The Senator" so long as he lived. Then came the presidential campaign of 1928. Since 1924, when he had supported his friend William G. McAdoo for the presidency, Simmons had distrusted Alfred E. Smith. It was not merely that Smith was a Roman Catholic, or a wet, or a Tammany man, that bothered Simmons; Smith represented an element, which if successful in Democratic politics, would change the nature of the party in which the South had played so prominent a role. Simmons fought Smith in the preconvention wrangles, and when Smith, after his nomina-tion, made John J. Raskob—a wet, a Roman Catholic, and a Republican —his campaign manager, Simmons publicly threw his considerable influence to the anti-Smith campaign in the state. In spite of the fact that he supported the local Democratic candidates, to the professional Democrats he had bolted, thereby jeopardizing his nomination in 1930.2 Quietly taking the lead in building up opposition to Simmons was Josiah W. Bailey, one of Smith's most vigorous supporters in the recent election. Fifty-seven years of age in 1930, he had been grad-uated from Wake Forest College in 1893 and immediately afterward had become editor of the Biblical Recorder, the weekly newspaper of the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina. In 1898 he asso-ciated himself with the Simmons organization and supported Simmons for the first twenty years of the century. As a reward for his services, Simmons supported his appointment by President Wilson as collector 2 Richard L. Watson, Jr., C"A Political Leader Bolts—F. M. Simmons in the Presi-dential Election of 1928," The North Carolina Historical Review, XXXVII (October 1960), 516-543. Simmons vs. Bailey in 1930 23 of internal revenue for the eastern district of North Carolina. Rela-tions between Simmons and Bailey remained friendly until the early twenties when Bailey began to be increasingly critical of some of the key people in the Simmons organization.3 Even after Bailey was de-feated in 1924 for governor by Simmons' choice, Angus W. McLean, the two men remained outwardly cordial, and as late as mid-June, 1928, Bailey insisted that he would never oppose Simmons.4 Bailey had already enthusiastically endorsed Smith, however, and as the campaign went on in 1928, he became increasingly irritated at Simmons. After the election he began soundings to discover whether anyone would have a chance of defeating the Senator in the primary set for June, 1930. He found not only that there was much anti- Simmons sentiment, but, what was more interesting, that many people were suggesting that he, Bailey, declare as Simmons' op-ponent. 5 As the New Year, 1929, approached, the state's attention turned to the inauguration of the new governor, O. Max Gardner, and for the next three months to the activities of the state legislature. Even during the legislative session, however, pro- and anti-Simmons shadow box-ing took place. When the legislature passed an Australian ballot law, for example, and put more restrictions on absentee voting, their ac-tions were interpreted as slaps at Simmons, who had opposed the Australian ballot and who had favored liberal absentee voting.6 More important, another bill was passed by which candidates in primaries were required to fill out and sign an official blank stating party affiliation and pledging their support in the general elections to "all 3 John Robert Moore, "The Shaping of a Political Leader: Josiah W. Bailey and the Gubernatorial Campaign of 1924," The North Carolina Historical Review, XLI (Spring, 1964), 190-213. * Josiah W. Bailey to C. F. Burroughs, June 19, 1928, Josiah W. Bailey Papers, Duke Manuscript Collection, Duke University, Durham, hereinafter cited as Bailey Papers. 5 See, for example, Bailey to Clyde Hoey, November 12, 1928, Bailey to W. H. S. Burgwyn and others, November 13, 1928, Bailey to Harold Burke and others, November 14, 1928, John Langston to Bailey, November 13, 1928, Robert A. Collier to Bailey, November 23, 1928, Jesse H. Davis to Bailey, November 14, 1928, Bailey Papers. See also, Puryear, Democratic Party Dissension, 23-24. 6 The News and Observer (Raleigh), January 12, 1929, hereinafter cited as The News and Observer. One of the few states not using the standard form of the Australian ballot in 1928, North Carolina adopted in 1929 a modified form by which a voter in a primary might call for assistance in voting from a member of his family, a poll official, or any person approved by the poll officials. The new absentee voting regulations no longer permitted a person to secure an absentee ballot for another and required posting at the polls the names of absentee voters. The News and Observer, March 24, 1929; Public Laws and Resolutions Passed by the General Assembly at its Session of 1929 . . . , cc. 164, 329, hereinafter cited as Public Laws with appropriate year. See also, The North Carolina Code of 1927 . . . (Charlottesville, Virginia: The Michie Company, 1928), c. 97, ss. 5960-5968. 24 The North Carolina Historical Review candidates nominated by" their party.7 Everyone knew that this bill too had been inspired by Simmons' actions in 1928. Governor Gard-ner, who was considered by some as the rising organization man in state politics, played no open role in the anti-Simmons campaign even though he supported the legislation. When, however, in May he appointed three new Democrats to the state Board of Elections, they all were enemies of Simmons, and the chairman, Judge J. Crawford Biggs, "was the first chairman of the state board in many years who was considered as an anti-Simmons man." 8 Throughout 1929, Bailey's activities were either those of a man who could not make up his mind, or of one who thought it politically expedient to play hard to get. He delivered various "non-political" addresses supporting the Eighteenth Amendment, attacking Herbert Hoover, and urging the reduction of taxes. He tried to talk down his reputation acquired in the mid-twenties of being an economic radical. But he continued to advance numerous reasons why he should not run—his health, his family, his finances.9 He particularly wrestled with his conscience. He could not forget that in 1917 he had written Simmons pledging support and promising never to run against him. He was now telling his friends that he had predicated this pledge "in my mind upon his remaining loyal to the Party. . . ." 10 It is impossible to determine what ended Bailey's uncertainty. Perhaps he was never uncertain. Several things did happen in the summer and fall of 1929, however, that gave encouragement to regu-lar Democrats. In the first place, anti-Smith Democrats had not been faring well. In Alabama, Roman Catholic-baiting Senator James Thomas Heflin, who had opposed Smith in 1928, was ruled out of the Democratic party. In the fall elections in Virginia, the regular Demo-crats overwhelmed the anti-Smith forces backed by Methodist Bishop James Cannon. North Carolinians did not miss the significance of 7 Public Laws, 1929, c. 26; W. P. Horton to Bailey, November 16, 1928, and J. 0. Carr to Bailey, November 16, 1928, Bailey Papers; The News and Observer, February 2, 1929; Greensboro Daily News, February 2, 1929; Consolidated Statutes of North Caro-lina (Raleigh: State of North Carolina, 3 volumes [Volume III, Supplement], 1920- 1924), III, c. 97, s. 6022. 8 Frank Hampton to Charles A. Hines, June 4, 1929, and M. L. Shipman to F. M. Simmons, September 15, 1929, Furnifold M. Simmons Papers, Duke Manuscript Col-lection, hereinafter cited as Simmons Papers; The News and Observer, May 31, June 9, 1929. 9 The News and Observer, July 3, 5, 1929; Ira Champion to Hampton, July 3, 1929, Simmons Papers; Bailey to R. A. Doughton, May 28, 1929, Bailey to John W. Lambeth, May 23, 1929, Bailey to C L. Shuping, November 8, 1929, Bailey to Cameron Morrison, November 12, 1929, Bailey Papers. 10 Bailey to W. B. Jones, September 13, 1929, Bailey Papers. Simmons vs. Bailey in 1930 25 these developments.11 Hours after the Virginia returns were in, Simmons received an anonymous telegram warning that the same fate awaited "other traitors of the party." Said the telegram, "one hundred thousand North Carolina Democrats are awaiting a chance at you." 12 Also, there were several factors which were turning North Caro-linians against Hoover and thus against those who had contributed to his election. In mid-July Washington society was "shocked" to learn that Mrs. Oscar De Priest, wife of Representative De Priest, a Negro, had not only been invited to, but also attended, an informal tea at the White House. Even though Simmons denounced this act, North Carolina regulars were quick to think of the incident as a "perfect example of retributive justice." 13 Even more upsetting was the undeniable fact that the United States was facing a depression for which Hoover was blamed. North Carolina's economic situation was becoming desperate, and Simmons, who had indirectly helped to elect Hoover, suffered accordingly. In short, the climate of opinion was favorable to the Democratic regulars, and it seems likely that Bailey was influenced. By mid- December he was taking the position that if he could not persuade some other Democrat to run, he would be a candidate. He did try to persuade Walter P. Stacy, Chief Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court, to announce as a candidate against Simmons. Then he turned to W. J. Brogden of Durham.14 Both refused, and pledged their support to Bailey. Bailey had already prepared an announce-ment and circulated it to friends. He promised a campaign "of respect and courtesy," but one in which he would subordinate "every con-sideration to the integrity, the unity, and the victory of the party." On January 2, 1930, he publicly announced his candidacy.15 Simmons, vacationing at New Bern, awaited public reaction to Bailey's announcement. He received quick assurances of support. Letters poured in, many describing Bailey as "easy picking." Some 11 For local press reports, see The News and Observer, June 1-2, November 6, Decem-ber 16-17, 1929. M "Former Supporter" to Simmons, November 6, 1929, with attached note by Alexander M. Walker, Simmons Papers. u The News and Observer, June 14, 16, November 18, 1929; Simmons to R. H. Harris, June 18, 1929, Simmons Papers. 14 Bailey to Doughton, November 29, 1929, and Bailey to Morrison, November 28, 1929, Bailey Papers. 15 Bailey to W. B. Council, December 26, 1929, and Bailey to Morrison, December 28, 1929, Bailey Papers; T. B. Ward to Hampton, December 29, 1929, and George Pell to Simmons, November 18, 1929, Simmons Papers; The News and Observer, January 3, 1930. See also, unpublished announcement in Bailey Papers and Puryear, Democratic Party Dissension, 25-27. 26 The North Carolina Historical Review N &> Furnifold M. Simmons, long-time senator from North Carolina, was defeated by Josiah W. Bailey in 1930. From files of the State Department of Archives and History. writers declared for Simmons because of his experience. Others venerated him as the "leader who navigated the ship of State through the troublous waters of the 'nineties." "Stay in Washington, keep your money, and let your friends, 'the people' look after the election/' was the advice of one of his leading supporters.16 In spite of the apparent optimism of his friends, Simmons realized that he faced fundamental difficulties in organizing his campaign. His enthusiastic supporters were the anti-Smith Democrats, number-ing by a generous estimate, only 70,000 or 80,000. Since Smith had received 286,000 votes in the presidential election, Simmons would have to gain about 100,000 Smith votes and keep all the anti-Smith votes to win the nomination.17 Under these circumstances, Simmons' 16 George Rountree to Simmons, January 16, 1930, and N. C. Hines to Simmons, January 3, 1930, Simmons Papers. "Simmons to Hines, January 4, 1930, Simmons Papers. The estimate is based on the assumption that the anti-Smith Democrats voted for Democrat O. Max Gardner for governor in 1928. Smith received 286,227 votes, and Hoover received 348,923. Gardner received 362,009 votes for governor, and Republican H. F. Seawell received 289,415. H. M. London (ed.), North Carolina Manual, 1931 (Raleigh: North Carolina Historical Commission [State Department of Archives and History], 1931), 89, 99; Morning Herald (Durham) , January 5, 1930, hereinafter cited as Morning Herald. Simmons vs. Bailey in 1930 27 > ..;::::. : Josiah W. Bailey, one of North Carolina's leaders in many fields, won Furnifold M. Simmons' seat in the United States Senate in 1930. Photograph by courtesy of Mrs. Josiah W. Bailey, Raleigh. early moves were exceedingly cautious. Although he announced for re-election on January 11 he did not make known his choices for his campaign organization until February 19. Then he named two Smith supporters, Charles Hines of Greensboro as campaign manager and John Langston of Goldsboro as chairman of his campaign advisory committee. The anti-Smith forces were represented by Mrs. Charlotte Story Perkinson, a dedicated prohibitionist who was named assistant manager.18 Bailey's hopes lay in the support of the regular Democrats. Thus he had most to lose by a campaign that might further divide the party and most to gain by effective organization. On February 7, Bailey announced that his campaign would be in the hands of Judge James J. Manning of Raleigh as chairman of the campaign committee and C. L. Shuping of Greensboro as manager.19 Following this announce- 18 The News and Observer, January 12, February 21, March 4, 1930; Frank McNinch to Simmons, January 18, 1930, and Memo for the Press, March 8, 1930, Simmons Papers. See also, Puryear, Democratic Party Dissension, 28, 32-33. 18 The News and Observer, February 8, 1930; Bailey to Morrison, January 12, 1930, Bailey Papers. See also, Puryear, Democratic Party Dissension, 31. 28 The North Carolina Historical Review ment, Shuping and Manning went to work, keeping "the long dis-tance phone busy," setting up precinct organizations and writing to approximately 25,000 chosen voters. Bailey began what he called a campaign of silence, which permitted public appearances and com-mencement addresses, but no official campaign speeches. The aim was to eliminate factionalism; and at the same time to point to the irony of Simmons' asking "as a reward for his bringing about the de-feat of the Democratic party that that party shall choose him in the June primary for its Senator of the United States." 20 In spite of increasing evidence that regulars including the great majority of the young Democratic voters were against him,21 Simmons and his leading supporters were not pessimistic. They hoped that the prohibition issue would still have appeal, that ministers and women voters would rally as they had in 1928, and that the momentum of Simmons' long service and prestige would carry him through. Indeed the prohibition issue gave Simmons a real advantage in view of his close identification with the dry forces in 1928.22 On the other hand, Bailey, though by choice a dry, had not been enthusiastic about statutory prohibition in earlier days. Shortly after the announcement of his candidacy, however, he pledged that he would support legisla-tion for more effective enforcement. Moreover, he let it be known that he questioned Simmons' dedication to the dry cause and apparently never-repudiated campaign literature which implied that Simmons "had been drinking all his life until his doctor stopped him." 23 Few prohibitionists, however, could have been convinced that Sim-mons was not their champion. "Oh, if we can only keep Prohibition, Mr. Simmons," wrote one official of the WCTU. "It really ... is difficult to tell which direction the United States is going in—when we realize what Communism, Socialism, Atheism, the Wets, and the rest of that Crowd are doing. . . ." The Anti-Saloon League actively sup-ported Simmons, and in April, Ira Champion, one of its principal national officials, came to North Carolina to work personally for Simmons. Indeed he warned Frank Hampton, Simmons' energetic 20 Bailey to Morrison, February 10, 1930, James J. Manning to V. 0. Riddle, March 10, 1930, D. (F.) Batts Shuping, March 21, 1930, Bailey Papers. See also, Puryear, Democratic Party Dissension, 30. 21 Morning Herald, Daily Charlotte Observer, hereinafter cited as Charlotte Observer, and The News and Observer, March 15-16, 1930. 22 The News and Observer, March 29, April 2, 8, 1930; Hampton to J. A. Taylor and others, telegram, March 26, 1930, and William G. McAdoo to Simmons, April 14, 1930, Simmons Papers. 23 The News and Observer, January 22, 1930, Bailey to J. P. Tucker, April 1, 1930, Bailey Papers; Hampton to the Rev. S. F. Conrad, May 16, 1930, Simmons Papers. See also, Puryear, Democratic Party Dissension, 38-39. Simmons vs. Bailey in 1930 29 secretary, that more money was needed to organize the "ministers and the women and the moral forces." If they are not "touched" at once, he concluded, "the Senator is gone." 24 Neither Hampton nor Simmons had to be told that a promising source of votes lay with the women voters, and Charlotte Story Perkinson assumed the responsibility of rallying the ladies. A cham-pion of both prohibition and woman's rights, she insisted that "God directs great movements," and "that in His wisdom the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified that the Eighteenth Amendment might be held." 25 She set up local organizations, wrote campaign tracts, and kept in touch with WCTU officials and with the auxiliaries of the American Legion. "We can ill afford that his labors in the United States Senate should cease," she wrote, "until the Heavenly Father shall declare all his good work on earth at an end." 26 Unfortunately for Simmons, Bailey followers publicized the record of the two men on woman suffrage. They could show that Bailey's support of it dated from 1917 when a measure to give women the vote in municipal elections was introduced into the state legislature. 27 Simmons at that time had been definitely opposed to woman suf-frage. Indeed, he never really favored the Nineteenth Amendment and suggested ratification by the North Carolina legislature only to please President Wilson. North Carolina leaders in the campaign, who had not forgotten Simmons' position, took delight in reminding their friends of the irony of Simmons' now calling for the woman's vote. 28 Simmons' supporters devoted considerable effort to informing re-ligious organizations of the moral issues of the campaign. A member of his campaign committee was also a district secretary of one of the women's missionary societies. She informed the membership that she was engaged in "missionary work" in her support of Simmons. "None other but a Christian gentleman," she wrote, "could have had [the] courage" to oppose Smith in 1928.29 Simmons himself wrote 24 Mrs. R. E. Williams to Simmons, April 22, 1930, and Champion to Hampton, April 30, 1930, Simmons Papers. 25 The News and Observer, April 24, 1930. 28 Hampton to J. G. Fearing, February 8, 1930, Charlotte S. Perkinson to Mrs. R. A. Harris, March 12, 1930, Perkinson to Mrs. A. D. Frank, March 12, 1930, Perkinson to Hampton, April 18, 1930, Simmons Papers. 27 Bailey to H. W. Lilly, April 7, 1930, Bailey Papers. See A. Elizabeth Taylor, "The Woman Suffrage Movement in North Carolina," The North Carolina Historical Review, XXXVIII (January, 1961), 45-63; (April, 1961), 173-189, for a detailed study. ^Woodrow Wilson to Simmons, June 19, 1920, and Simmons to Joseph P. Tumulty, April 6, 1920, Woodrow Wilson Papers, Division of Manuscripts, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.; E. Delia Carroll to Editor, The News and Observer, May 16, 1930; Gertrude Weil to Manning, April 22, 1930, Bailey Papers. See also, Puryear, Democratic Party Dissension, 39. 29 Anna Graham to "My Dear Women," April 1, 1930, Simmons Papers. 30 The North Carolina Historical Review personally to numerous ministers. Although he assured them that he would not wish them to exceed "the bounds of propriety," he warned that if it were proven "that a political leader can be destroyed in North Carolina for the reason that he stood with the moral and Church leadership, the consequences to future battles for moral issues will be very hurtful indeed." 30 Ministers reacted in various ways to these appeals. Some declared publicly for Simmons and distributed literature. One, with a congre-gation of 500 people, promised to deliver their vote. At least one Baptist minister addressed a mimeographed letter urging support of Simmons as a "Pioneer against the Liquor trade now being arraigned by the devil and his hosts." 31 But others denounced the political activities of the ministry. One friend of Bailey described the organiza-tions of preachers and women as "lying coiled in the grass of preju-dice and hypocrisy and striking with their venomous fangs passers by." 32 Although Simmons favored appeals to the moral forces, he relied principally upon his record in the Senate to persuade his constituents that he should be returned, and it was one of the jobs of Frank Hampton, Simmons' secretary, to see that the Senator's efforts were properly publicized. Simmons was the leading Democratic expert on the tariff and flatly refused to participate personally in his own re-election campaign for the legitimate reason that he was needed in the continuing tariff battle that had opened with the special session of Congress in March, 1929. Simmons' part in the tariff controversy may have been a mixed blessing for him. North Carolinians were divided on the issue, and Simmons himself was no doctrinaire free trader. He was pragmatic rather than dogmatic, preferring a low tariff, but quite sensitive to the North Carolina situation. For example, mica was mined in seven or eight counties in the western part of the state, and the mica interests let it be known that their support in the primary depended on a higher tariff on mica, and Simmons was apparently able to satisfy them.33 Much more complicated was the question of the aluminum tariff. 30 See, for example, (Simmons) to the Rev. Gerald H. Payne, March 28, 1930, Simmons Papers. 31 J. A. Hartness to Simmons, March 19, 1930, the Rev. J. M. Flemming to Simmons, January 28, 1930, Hampton to Fleming, April 18, 1930, Simmons Papers; Conrad to the Baptist Ministry of North Carolina, May 23, 1930, Bailey Papers. 32 The Rev. Sankey L. Blanton to Bailey, May 24, 1930, and Brevard Nixon to Bailey Campaign Headquarters, May 9, 1930, Bailey Papers. 33 G. P. Fortner to Simmons, January 10, 1930, W. W. Bailey to Simmons, February 14, 1930, David T. Fance to Simmons, April 8, 1930, Simmons Papers. Simmons vs. Bailey in 1930 31 The Aluminum Company of America had announced extensive power projects in the western part of North Carolina which might result in the expenditure of perhaps $125,000,000 in the state in less than ten years. Such a building program was attractive to a section tra-ditionally poor. Already one project had been started in Macon County. It was rumored that a larger project was "held up indefinitely because of tariff uncertainties." One of Simmons' political friends in-formed Hampton, moreover, that people were getting the word that Simmons' action in committee in favor of a low tariff had resulted in the loss to the state of some $52,000,000 in power projects. 34 Simmons gave careful attention to this problem. He claimed that he had fought in conference to prevent a more substantial cut in the rates. He concluded, however, that aluminum prices were too high, that western North Carolina would not be penalized if duties were reduced, and so supported lower duties. 35 An issue upon which Simmons counted to keep at least the eastern part of the state loyal to him was that of internal improvements. He had been a member of the Senate Committee on Commerce since 1906 and had fought frequent battles to improve water navigation in North Carolina and elsewhere. Some of these efforts came to a climax during the primary. He continued to fight for a third lock on the Cape Fear River which would make the river navigable to Fay-etteville and gained authorization for dredging a 30-foot channel in the same river to Wilmington.36 He also continued to gain appropria-tions for the Intracoastal Waterway which envisaged a protected channel for small boats and barges from New England to Florida. A curious issue having to do with the waterway came to a head during the primary campaign. Before the Civil War, a lock and dam 34 T. H. Vanderferd to Hampton, March 4, 1930, and William D. Harris to Simmons, March 15, 1930, Simmons Papers; W. W. Watt to Manning, April 30, 1930, Bailey Papers; Norman Cocke to Lee S. Overman, telegram, March 12, 1930, in Lee S. Overman Papers, Southern Historical Collection, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, hereinafter cited as Overman Papers. 35 J. Fred Rippy (ed.), F. M. Simmons, Statesman of the New South (Durham: Duke University Press, 1936), 68; Simmons to W. D. Harris, March 17, 1930, Simmons Papers. 38 See The News and Observer, May 20, 1930; Cape Fear River at and Below Wilming-ton, N. C, and Between Wilmington and Navassa, Report on Review of Reports Hereto-fore Submitted on Cape Fear River Below Wilmington, N. C, and Between Wilmington and Navassa, House Rivers and Harbors Committee, Doc. No. 39, Seventy-first Congress, Second Session, cited in Statutes at Large of the United States, XLVI (1931), Pt. 1, 923; Simmons to J. E. Ashcraft, May 15, 1930, Simmons Papers; Cape Fear River, N. C, Report on Preliminary Examination and Survey of Cape Fear River, Above Wilmington, N. C. with View to Construction of Lock and Dam About 15 Miles Below Fayetteville, House Docs., Seventy-first Congress, Third Session, No. 786 (Serial 9,387) ; Report of Chief of Engineers, 193U, Seventy-fourth Congress, First Session, No. 7 (Serials 9,946-9,947), Pt. 1, 393; Report of Chief of Engineers, Army, 1935, Seventy-fourth Congress, Second Session (Serials 10,043-10,044), Pt. 1, 474-475. 32 The North Carolina Historical Review had been constructed at Great Bridge, Virginia, to keep high tides from flowing into Currituck Sound and thus interfering with the operation of the Albemarle and Chesapeake Canal, a sea level, pri-vately- owned canal. Currituck Sound, through which the canal ran, was a fresh water sound of about 300 square miles. It was considered "the most productive single area in America of black bass," and was also a favorite feeding ground for migrating birds. Consequently Currituck became a sportsman's paradise representing an estimated investment of $5,000,000 in hunting homes and clubs. 37 In 1912 Congress authorized the purchase of the Albemarle and Chesapeake Canal as one link in the recently launched Intracoastal Waterway. At the same time, the Army Engineers apparently con-cluded that the lock was not essential for navigation, and it was abandoned. Within a comparatively short time, the bass became fewer, and the grasses upon which the migrating birds fed died. It seemed clear that with the abandonment of the lock and dam at Great Bridge, the salt water of the Chesapeake was pouring in and chang-ing the whole environmental complex of Currituck Sound. A vigorous campaign led by local interests but widely supported by conservationists developed to restore the lock. Representative Lindsay Warren of Washington, North Carolina, brought the ques-tion to the attention of Congress, and the Senate Committee on Com-merce, of which Simmons was a prominent member, requested an investigation by the Board of Engineers. In 1929, three and a half years after this request, the board submitted a report containing detailed analyses of the problem of the canal but concluding that no lock was necessary for navigation and that it was uncertain whether a lock would preserve the fish and restore the grasses. In February, 1930, Outdoor America carried an article under Simmons' signature describing the situation and appealing "to the people of America for help to avert" a tragedy. An editor's note on this article, reported that Simmons for at least fifteen years had "waged a battle, almost single-handed, to ward off" the destruction of the preserve.38 Almost simultaneously with the publication of the article, a hearing was held in which Simmons' testimony in favor of 37 The discussion of the Currituck Sound Problem is taken largely from Hearings Before the Committee on Rivers and Harbors, House of Representatives, Seventy-first Congress, Second Session, on the Subject of the Construction of a Lock in the Chesapeake and Albemarle Canal Section of the Inland Waterway from Norfolk, Virginia, to Beau-fort Inlet, North Carolina, January 28, 1930. 88 The News and Observer, January 29, 1930. It is possible that the basic draft for Simmons' article was prepared by Wayne Johnson, a New York attorney. Hampton to Wayne Johnson, October 29, 1929, Simmons Papers. Simmons vs. Bailey in 1930 33 the bill was again featured, and well before primary day the restora-tion of the lock was approved. Such publicity aided Simmons, and the opposition was quite legitimately exercised at the nature of the publicity. Indeed Bailey supporters insisted that Representative War-ren had done more than Simmons to keep the issue alive, and emis-saries were dispatched into the Currituck area to inform the voters that Warren had initiated the investigation as soon as he had entered Congress in 1925.39 Actually both Simmons and Warren played important parts in securing approval for the restoration. Warren had organized much of the campaign, and his committee work had been skillful and effec-tive. Nonetheless, Simmons persistently kept at the engineers who were turning in unfavorable reports; he saw that hearings were held, and that decisions were appealed. He succeeded in relieving the locality of having to assume any of the cost of restoration. He argued vigorously that the Intracoastal Waterway was a federal project, that navigation was a federal responsibility, and that to maintain a haven for migratory birds was part of a treaty obligation with Canada.40 One national issue with which any sensitive local politician would be involved in 1930 was that of chain stores. The increase in the number of chain stores in the 1920, s had created an atmosphere comparable to the anti-monopoly campaign of the 1890's. State legislatures, traditionally responsive to small town appeal, began to approve statutes discriminating against the chains. In 1928 the Sen-ate directed the Federal Trade Commission to undertake "an inquiry into the methods of chain store marketing and distribution." 41 In North Carolina the controversy became lively. The legislature in 1929 approved a measure which would require a fifty-dollar license for every cash retail store operated as a part of a chain in the state. 42 39 Bailey to Herbert Peele, January 25, 1930, Charles J. Moore to Shuping, May 21 and 23, 1930, Bailey Papers. 40 Hearings Before the Committee on Commerce, U. S. Senate, Seventy-first Congress, Second Session on H. R. 11781 . . . , Pt. 4, May 19, 1930; Statutes at Large of the United States, XLVI (1931), Pt. 1, 922; Lindsay Warren to Richard L. Watson, Jr., August 5, 1961, in author's files. 41 See Chain Stores : Cooperative Grocery Chains . . . and Chain Stores : Growth and Development of Chain Stores . . . , Senate Docs. Nos. 12 and 100, Seventy-second Con-gress, First Session (Serial 9,501) ; Ray B. Westerfield, "The Rise of the Chain Store," Current History, XXXV (December, 1931), 359; "Anti-Chain Store Legislation in Congress," Congressional Digest, IX (August-September, 1930), 202; Chain Stores, Final Report on Chain-Store Investigation, Letter . . . transmitting in Response to Senate Resolution 22A, 70th Congress, Final Report of Federal Trade Commission of Its Investigation of Chain-Store Industry, Senate Docs., Seventy-fourth Congress, First Session, No. 4 (Serial 9,896). 42 The Supreme Court upheld this statute in Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. et. al. v. Maxwell, Commissioner of Revenue, 284 U.S. 575 (1931). 34 The North Carolina Historical Review Public meetings were held, and the issue was debated on the radio. In fact, so colorful became the radio broadcasts of W. K. Henderson, owner of station KWKH at Shreveport, Louisiana, in opposition to the chain stores, that attempts were made to prohibit his programs.43 Simmons was deluged with letters urging him to come to the aid of Henderson and to support the anti-chain store movement. Even though he was reputed to be associated with conservative business interests, actually by disposition he favored local merchants in rural areas. He endorsed the Federal Trade Commission investigation, and lost no opportunity during the primary to let it be known that he considered chain stores a menace. Undoubtedly, as one of his or-ganizers told him, his anti-chain store activities had some effect "where the cross roads store or the filling station is the forum for polit-ical discussion." 44 Bailey, apparently considering Simmons' stand demagogic, was less outspoken on the issue. Some of his followers, however, were concerned about Bailey's reticence. Robert R. Reynolds, rising Ashe-ville politico, warned that "the fight against the chain store is literally sweeping this section. Stand with the home people," he urged Bailey. "Fight the foreign owned chains" that carry "every dollar they get . . . with the exception of the small amount of rent and salaries . . . to New York City." 45 More significant in its lasting implications than the chain-store issue in the campaign was the role of organized labor. In 1929 and 1930 emotions in the state were highly charged on this subject be-cause of the violence that had broken out during strikes at the Loray Mill in Gastonia and the Marion Manufacturing Company at Marion in 1929. At Gastonia, the chief of police and an unarmed striker, Mrs. Ella May Wiggins, and at Marion, six strikers were killed. The issue was complicated because at Gastonia, Communist organ-izers were active; thus not only the rights of labor in the mill, in the community, and in the courts, but also the extent of radical partici-pation, were involved.46 43 New York Times, January 10, April 27, 1930. 44 The News and Observer, February 23, April 1, 1930; Hampton to John H. Hawley, telegram, April 29, 1930, Simmons to T. M. Kessler, April 19, 1930, D. B. Overcash to Simmons, April 6, 1930, J. H. Canay to Simmons, undated, Simmons Papers. 45 Bailey to Robert R. Reynolds, February 17, 1930, Reynolds to Bailey, February 18, 1930, John T. Wilkins to Shuping, April 23, 1930, J. C. Coston to Bailey, April 12, 1930, Bailey Papers. 48 For accounts of these strikes, see Liston Pope, Millhands and Preachers: A Study of Gastonia (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1942) ; Samuel Yellen, American Labor Struggles (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1936) ; Broadus Mitchell and G. S. Mitchell, The Industrial Revolution in the South (Baltimore, Mary-land: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1930); and R. E. Williams, "The Textile Battle and Its Present Significance," The News and Observer, May 5, 1929. Simmons vs. Bailey in 1930 35 Simmons was faced with the need of taking a stand on the issue when Senator Burton K. Wheeler introduced into the Senate on April 29 a resolution calling for a congressional investigation of the textile industries of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Simmons' southern sensibilities were roused by this resolution, and he promptly insisted that, if there were to be any investigation, it should be of the textile mills throughout the United States and not just in the South. He admitted that southern mills paid lower wages but argued that the southern worker enjoyed advantages such as lower rents, free water and light, and fuel at cost. Beware of propa-ganda that slanders the South, he warned; and at the same time, be aware of substandard working conditions in New England mills and in the needle trades of New York. Some unions, he alleged, want "to control and dominate the factory," and deny "the right of North Carolina citizens to work . . . unless they belong to these unions." 47 Simmons generally had received the support of trade unions in the past; his attitude in this debate, however, created doubts in the minds of his labor constituents. As soon as he was apprised of this, he hastened to re-establish himself. He assured them that he had "deep sympathy for our laboring classes," that he believed that the "murderer of the poor woman at Gastonia" should be brought to justice, and that there should be an investigation by the "impartial Federal Trade Commission." 48 Simmons apparently lost little if any ground by this episode. An "act of God" of March 8, 1930, however, put Simmons on the spot politically and must have undermined whatever support he had built up among labor leaders. Probably when Simmons learned of the death of United States Supreme Court Justice Edward Terry Sanford, he saw an opportunity to strengthen his political position. Sanford was a southerner, and it was assumed that he would be re-placed by a southerner. North Carolina had two excellent candidates. Simmons himself preferred Chief Justice Stacy of the North Caro-lina Supreme Court. Stacy, however, was a Democrat, and Simmons "Congressional Record, LXXI, Pt. 1, 630-632; Pt. 2, 1,379-1,384; Pt. 4, 4,221-4,226; Senate Committee on Manufacturing, Working Conditions of Textile Industry in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee, Hearings. ..71st Congress, 1st Session, on S. Res. b9, Authorizing Committee on Manufactures, or Any Duly Authorized Sub-Com-mittee Thereof, to Investigate Immediately Working Conditions of Employees in Textile Industry of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee, May 8, 9, and 20, 1929 (Washington, D. C: Government Printing Office, 1929). See also, Puryear, Democratic Party Dissension, 22. ^Simmons to F. Wilson, October 28, 1929, Simmons to Louise Ingersoll, November 14, 1929, J. L. Hamme to Simmons, December 6, 1929, Simmons to William Green, December 11, 1929, Simmons to Hamme, December 20, 1929, Simmons Papers. 36 The North Carolina Historical Review was quite aware that Justice John J. Parker, of the United States Circuit Court and a Republican, had a much better chance for pres-idential appointment and senate approval. Simmons, therefore, backed both of these men for the nomination, and when Hoover chose Parker, Simmons considered himself committed to his sup-port. 49 Although at first senatorial approval of the appointment seemed assured, opposition quickly developed. Some Democrats, even south-erners, opposed Parker because he was a Republican; liberal sen-ators, sensitive about the complexion of the Supreme Court, con-sidered Parker too conservative and not sufficiently distinguished; the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People was suspicious of his position on the racial question; and the labor leadership insisted that one of his decisions on the circuit court showed that he sympathized with the yellow-dog contract. The question was a complex one; but, whatever the validity of the argu-ments raised, the coalition was sufficiently strong to defeat Parker's confirmation on May 7, one month before the primary. Simmons consistently supported Parker and voted for his confirmation. He undoubtedly would have lost many votes had he turned against Parker, but at the same time his vote meant that union members who considered the yellow-dog contract a symbol of enslavement would no longer give him their support.50 Although it had its weak points, Simmons' record on the national political scene by 1930 was perhaps more impressive than that of any North Carolinian who had preceded him in the Senate. Simmons' regular return to Washington in four previous elections had depended not only upon his record, but also upon his organization. Now the organization no longer could be relied upon, and Simmons and Hampton were too professional to think that the record alone would suffice. Voters must have the record thrust upon them; they must be registered and shepherded to the polls; and their votes must be counted. Simmons' concern about such practical matters led to an attempt on the part of his organization to persuade the state board of elections to see to it that the various Democratic election officers (registrars, poll holders, and markers) would be divided equally be- 49 Simmons to A. W. McLean, March 14, 1930, and Simmons to C. A. Hines, March 14, 1930, Simmons Papers. For a detailed discussion of this question, see Richard L. Wat-son, Jr., "The Defeat of Judge Parker: A Study of Pressure Groups in Politics," The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, L (September, 1963), 213-233. 50 Senate Judiciary Committee, Confirmation of John J. Parker to Be Associate Justice of Supreme Court, Hearing Before Subcommittee, 71st Congress, 2d Session, Apr. 5, 1930 (Washington, D. C: Government Printing Office, 1930), passim. Simmons vs. Bailey in 1930 37 tween Bailey and Simmons followers. The state board, however, when it met on March 29, 1930, announced that the normal practice of following the advice of county chairmen would be continued. Since most county chairmen now favored Bailey, it was generally con-ceded that Bailey had won an important round by gaining control of the party election machinery in most localities. 51 There was in fact something wrong with the Simmons organiza-tion. Hampton, informed that the campaign "was a mess" and going "by default," was discouraged. Devoted to the old senator, he could not bear the thought of his defeat. He worked day and night, writing letters, telephoning, drafting broadsides, raising money. Not a tem-perate man, he occasionally blew up. "Ungrateful skunks . . . and sons of bitches who have eaten bread from the Senators table," he wrote on one occasion, "are fighting him all over the State and trying to bring a great career to a close in humiliation and defeat and break his heart and throw him out in his old age." Vigor and inspiration were needed; and, since Simmons would not give it, the next best thing was for Hampton to provide it. He had intervened personally in the presidential election of 1928, and his intervention had ap-parently contributed to the success of the anti-Smith forces. Now late in May, 1930, he established himself at the Hotel Sir Walter in Raleigh and took over Simmons' organization.52 Sensing that there was now a danger of losing even the anti-Smith voters, Hampton gave a go-ahead signal to Frank McNinch, brilliant lawyer, eloquent speaker, and chairman in 1928 of the anti-Smith Democratic organization in North Carolina. McNinch was delighted to turn his oratorical guns against "Raskob and the liquor crowd." Hampton also made every effort, as had been his custom, to persuade his friends in state office to get, in a "proper way of course," a good supply of absentee certificates and ballots. One of his closest friends, however, reminded him of the new absentee ballot law that required each voter to request his own ballot. At this Hampton was irritated. Convinced that the Bailey crowd would get as many absentee ballots as they wanted, he informed Frank Grist, commissioner of labor and printing, that he knew Grist would not be able to get ballots through 111 The News and Observer, March 29-31, 1930; Bailey to Morrison, April 1, 1930, Bailey Papers; (H. G. Branston) to Hines, March 31, 1930, and Opie Edwards to Hamp-ton, April 1, 1930, Simmons Papers. See also, Puryear, Democratic Party Dissension, 35. 62 Hampton to Lee Hampton, April 29, 1930, Hampton to Simmons, telegram, May 25, 1930, and McNinch to Simmons, May 27, 1930, Simmons Papers. See also, Puryear, Democratic Party Dissension, 32-34. 38 The North Carolina Historical Review regular channels but that he had expected Grist to get them anyway.53 Frustrated in his efforts to get the absentee ballots himself, Hamp-ton made a special secretary in Simmons' office responsible for the numerous North Carolinians in Washington. The secretary interviewed each North Carolinian personally, obtained applications for their bal-lots, and followed them up to be sure the applications were received. In some instances, at least, requests for absentee ballots directed to county boards of election were charged to Simmons' personal ac-count. 54 Another problem for the professional organizer was the restriction upon spending money in the campaign. North Carolina laws required regular reporting of the amounts spent "to aid in the campaign or elec-tion of any candidate for any office in a primary or general election." Furthermore it was illegal for a senatorial candidate to "spend or allow others to spend" more than his annual salary as a senator.55 In practice, these laws were widely ignored, and many expenditures were made locally which were not reported. Such a relaxed interpre-tation of the law seems to have been accepted, but there was always danger of an outside investigation.56 In 1930, for example, a special committee of the United States Senate, of which Gerald P. Nye was chairman, was appointed to investigate senatorial campaigns.57 The organization of neither Simmons nor Bailey lived within either the letter or spirit of the law. Some efforts were apparently made to keep the expenditures of central headquarters within the $10,000 limits provided for a senator, but even the most conscientious efforts in a tough campaign would probably have failed. One or more cam-paign headquarters had to be maintained. Literature had to be printed and mailed. These functions were more or less open and aboveboard. Somewhat different was the problem of the "worker." In the Simmons camp, for example, the professionals did not have 63 McNinch to Simmons, May 27, 1930, McNinch to Hampton, June 3, 1930, Hampton to LeRoy Martin, May 5, 1930, Hampton to Frank D. Grist, May 12, 1930, Grist to Hampton, May 16, 1930, Hampton to Grist, May 17, 1930, Simmons Papers. 54 F. Hunter Creech to J. A. Hartness, June 4, 1930, and Sadie Larkins McCormick to J. A. Taylor, June 5, 1930, Simmons Papers. 55 He might, in addition, pay his personal travel and subsistence expenses while cam-paigning. The North Carolina Code of 1931 ... (Charlottesville, Virginia: The Michie Company, 1931), c. 82, s. 4185; Public Laws, 1913, c. 164. 56 See, for example, Cameron Morrison's testimony in Senatorial Campaign Expendi-tures, 1930, Hearings, 71st Congress, 2nd Session, Pursuant to S. Res. 215, Authorizing Appointment of Special Committee to Make Investigation into Campaign Expenditures of Candidates for Senate: North Carolina, Oct. 13 and U, 1930 (Washington, D. C: Government Printing Office, 1930), 9, hereinafter cited as Senatorial Campaign Expen-ditures. 67 Senate Resolution 215, approved April 10, 1930, Congressional Record, LXXII, Pt. 8, 6,841. Simmons vs. Bailey in 1930 39 confidence in the "moral forces" getting to the polls unless the work-ers got them there. And workers were professionals who expected payment for their services. John Langston reported, for example, that "every party worker that has been effective in the past" would work for Bailey if they were not paid. Bart Gatling, Simmons' Raleigh man-ager, warned Hampton early in May that "the other side has already made offers to my men, and I am in danger of losing them." He re-quested $600.58 Bailey was also bombarded with requests to pay workers and meet other expenses of getting voters to the polls. Neither his organization nor Simmons' tried to keep check on how much was spent locally. Some of these expenditures were large. Cameron Morrison, for ex-ample, gave $2,000 to Bailey's campaign which was reported. He gave in addition $1,000 to a young man who "loved Mr. Bailey," $500 each to Bailey's managers in Richmond and Scotland counties, and $3,000 to Bailey's manager in Mecklenburg County. James Pou, Bailey's father-in-law, contributed $750 which was reported. But he also paid two field workers, bought radio advertising, and increased his con-tributions to charity. His unreported contributions amounted to about $1,500. Moreover, it appears that bills unpaid on primary day were not included within the official $10,000 amount; Shuping paid per-sonally between $5,000 and $6,000 worth of these bills. None of this amount was reported.59 Another issue which produced charges and countercharges was that involving the Negro. Simmons was still known as the "chieftain of white supremacy," a title which was bestowed upon him out of the "overflowing love and appreciation of the white people of the State for his fearless and magnificent leadership in the great White Supremacy Revolution." 60 Simmons had gained votes in the past because of this reputation. His supporters hoped to profit from it again. The Negro question was raised as a campaign issue early in April, 1930, when the Reidsville Review devoted its pages on April 2, 1930, to an article in support of Simmons. It praised Simmons especially for his white supremacy activities and contrasted them with Bailey's position. Bailey, it asserted, had at the turn of the century opposed separate railway cars for the white and colored races, had endorsed a proposal to reduce North Carolina's representation if Negro suffrage 68 Langston to Simmons, April 2 and 23, 1930, and Bart Gatling to Hampton, May 7, 1930, Simmons Papers. 59 Pou and Shuping testimony in Senatorial Campaign Expenditures, 31-38, 22. 60 Frank Hampton, For the Senate (campaign pamphlet), 7, Simmons Papers. 40 The North Carolina Historical Review were restricted, and had sneered at the white supremacy issue. Indeed the Review accused Bailey of recommending independence in party, and of voting for McKinley in 1896.61 The Review article was tightly packed and rather difficult reading. Consequently, Frank Hampton and his brother Parks prepared a circular containing a more popular version of the same story. They were aided by the fact that several prominent Negroes such as James Shepard, president of North Carolina College, and a Negro news-paper, the Carolina Times of Durham, favored Bailey. The Hamptons took an attack on Simmons, made by the Times, and printed it beside allegations that Bailey opposed segregation and disfranchisement. "The idea of anyone opposing separate cars for the white and blacks will work wonders in the western counties," wrote Parks Hampton. And Frank urged that at least 50,000 copies of the circular should be printed with the thought that they be widely distributed particularly where "the prohibition issue is not popular." 62 The explosive nature of the issue made a counterattack necessary. Bailey insisted that there was "not a word of truth in the circular." He denied that he had sneered at white supremacy, insisting that his first political speech had been in support of the suffrage amendment. He explained his advocacy of political independence by saying that as editor of the Biblical Recorder, a religious paper, he "had to pursue an independent course." 63 Bailey's denials were combined with at-tacks on Simmons. One piece of Bailey literature was in the form of a letter to Simmons written by a voter who had voted for Hoover because of Simmons' leadership. "The first thing that Hoover did was to give a tea in the White House to a Negro wife of the Negro Con-gressman De Priest," said the repentant voter. "My eyes were opened and I was ashamed. I realized that I had voted against all the instincts of my Southern blood. . . ." M The racial issue became more complicated when it was learned late in May that 375 Negroes had registered in Raleigh to vote in the Democratic primary. Reaction to this news came swiftly. The 61 Biblical Recorder (Raleigh), November 23, 30, December 7, 21, 1898, and April 25, 1900, quoted in Reidsville Review, April 2, 1930. 62 James Shepard to Bailey, January 4, 1930, Bailey Papers; Parks Hampton to Frank Hampton, telegrams, April 17, May 1, 1930, Frank Hampton to Parks Hampton, April 28, May 1, 5, 1930, Simmons Papers. The circular is attached to letter, J. K. Norfleet to Shuping, May 21, 1930, Bailey Papers. 63 Mary Stewart to Editor, Charlotte Observer, May 24, 1930; Bailey to John H. Cathey, May 29, 1930, Bailey Papers. See also, the draft of a campaign circular, The Charges Against Mr. Bailey, Bailey Papers. 64 Editorial, Pender Chronicle (Burgaw), May 15, 1930, reprinted as campaign broad-side, Simmons Papers. Simmons vs. Bailey in 1930 41 Raleigh News and Observer called it "a dagger at the heart," saying that the Negroes should not have been allowed to register as Demo-crats since all Negroes were Republicans. Educated Negroes should be protected in their right to register and vote Republican, edi-torialized The News and Observer. "They do not desire to be guilty of the fraud of posing as Democrats." 65 Simmons, thinking that the local "Jones faction" had registered the Negroes in order to gain votes for Bailey, announced publicly that he was "shocked and amazed" and urged the exposure of "the instigators of this indefensible scheme." 66 The Bailey organization was obviously alarmed. As one Pamlico County man put it, "But for God's sake, yours and mine, and all North Carolina, don't let the 'niggers' in Raleigh vote in a Democratic pri-mary." "The Simmons forces are using that strong against Bailey and it is having effect. . . ." Bailey himself denied that his organization "had anything to do with the registration," and accused the Simmons organization of blackening his character.67 On May 31, Bart Gatling, Simmons' Raleigh manager, challenged every Negro registered as a Democrat. Although he initially indicated that he would challenge them on the sole grounds that they were Negroes, the actual complaint put party affiliation or educational qualifications as the basis for the challenge. Of the 472 Negroes chal-lenged, 149 appeared to answer the challenge. With few exceptions all claimed to be Democrats of long standing; most of them were given literacy tests; and all except three were permitted to remain on the Democratic rolls. 68 It is difficult to steer a straight course through the morass of charges and countercharges in the controversy over Negro voting. Actually for a good many years Negroes had been registered to vote in Raleigh elections, and the various political factions had bargained for their votes. There may not have been anything underhanded in the growing Negro registration in the Democratic party; it may have been that the Negroes themselves had made up their minds how they 65 The News and Observer, May 27, 1930. The Charlotte Observer, June 1, 1930, stated that it was "a practice common with the Raleigh politicians of using the Negro vote when it might be advantageous to do so." There were, it appeared, more than 2,000 Negro names on the old books, of which 500 were transferred to the new. 66 Simmons to Mrs. L. A. Mahler, May 28, 1930, Simmons Papers; The News and Observer, May 29, 1930. See also, Puryear, Democratic Party Dissension, 41. 67 Puryear, Democratic Party Dissension, 41 ; S. M. Carupen to Shuping, May 30, 1930, Bailey Papers; The News and Observer, May 30, 1930. See also, A. E. Jones to Shuping, May 30, 1930, Bailey Papers. 68 The News and Observer, May 29, 1930. Although Simmons wanted to make it appear that all Negroes would support Bailey, there was some evidence that Simmons, too, had Negro supporters. B. B. Lipscomb to Simmons, May 28, 1930, Simmons Papers; The News and Observer, May 30, June 4-6, 1930. 42 The North Carolina Historical Review would register. Testimony at the hearings gave some indication that the Negroes were moving into the Democratic party in North Carolina because they believed that the local Republican leadership wished to make the party "lily white." 69 The Negro issue was just one of the several devices by which the Simmons forces attempted to win supporters in the closing days of the campaign. There was some hope, for example, that former Gov-ernor Angus McLean might lead a grand rally on election eve. But McLean refused to participate, and Simmons made his own final appeal in a written statement. He asserted that he was making his case for re-election upon his record of thirty years in the Senate. He accused his enemies of ignoring his record and attacking only his failure to support Al Smith in 1928. They "ignore also the fact," he went on, that "I have voted for . . . every Democratic nominee-national, state, district, county and local—with one exception. . . ." "I have never fought a battle," he concluded, "against the welfare and glory of my country, my State, and my party." 70 By the first of June, Bailey had returned to Raleigh to work at his headquarters. Even then he had not decided to make a campaign address. Reports from the troops in the field had indicated a Simmons gain in recent weeks; and so Bailey decided to deliver one climactic, final broadcast at the Raleigh auditorium. This speech was perhaps the clearest statement of the "issues" of Bailey's campaign. He ex-plained that he had intentionally not developed any issues because he wanted to stand not on his own platform but on that of the Democratic party. He denied that Raskob, or any wet organization, had contributed to his campaign and asserted that he would "live and die in opposition to . . . the liquor traffic." He also denied that he or his associates had anything to do with the registration of Negroes. He assured his listeners that he had consistently opposed increasing the tax burdens upon the farmers and people generally. He was given a great ovation as he concluded: "From the mountains to the sea, I confidently predict that the Democracy of North Carolina will go to the polls next Saturday, determined ... to repair the damage done in 1928, and to march to a great victory in 1930, and a greater still in 1932." 71 69 The News and Observer, May 28, June 1, 4-7, 1930. 70 W. G. Holman to Simmons, May 17, 1930, Holman to McLean, May 17, 1930, McLean to Holman, May 26, 1930, C. H. England to McLean, May 26, 1930, McLean to Simmons, May 27, 1930, England to McLean, May 27, 1930, McLean to Simmons, June 2, 1930, Simmons Papers. See also, Puryear, Democratic Party Dissension, 43; The News and Observer, June 6, 1930. 71 Puryear, Democratic Party Dissension, 43 ; The News and Observer, June 6, 1930. Simmons vs. Bailey in 1930 43 Primary day, June 7, 1930, brought cloudy or stormy weather to most communities. Each side, in fact, claimed that it lost votes be-cause of the rain. 72 Nevertheless, more than 325,000 voters turned out, some 90,000 more than ever before in a North Carolina primary. Bailey received 198,867 votes, almost 70,000 more than Simmons. He carried all but 16 of the 100 counties. Simmons carried seven counties in the East—this was his home stronghold which he had strengthened by support of the waterways. He carried only Mecklenburg and Forsyth counties in the heavily populated Piedmont where the anti- Smith Democrats had won overwhelmingly in 1928. He carried no county west of Iredell. 73 The defeat plunged Simmons' friends into gloom. McAdoo found it difficult to comprehend and assured Simmons that he was worthy of being in the White House. Others were more emotional. "If Jesus of Nazareth had been crowned King of the Jews and died a natural death while enjoying imperial power, there would be few today . . . who had ever heard his name," wrote a ministerial friend. "Had Thomas Cranmer not been burned at the stake, his name would not appear on the pages of history. Had Woodrow Wilson not suffered defeat in the last days of his life, the honor of his memory would be less." 74 Superficially at least, ranks were closed after the primary in preparation for the election in the fall. In fact, there was much bitter-ness beneath the surface. From Bailey supporters came accusations that Republicans had registered as Democrats in order to support Simmons in the primary. Now that he was defeated in the primary, the accusation went on, Simmons would run as an independent in order to attract the coalition that had defeated Smith in 1928. At least some of the Simmons followers thought that the election had been stolen from them. They complained of the control of the elec- 72 J. R. Jones to Bailey, June 10, 1930, Bailey Papers; J. W. Hollowell to Simmons, June 9, 1930, Simmons Papers. 73 The counties carried by Simmons were Jones, Craven, Lenoir, Onslow, Pender (by one vote), New Hanover, and Hyde in the east; Wilson, Robeson, Caswell, Hertford, Lee, Richmond, Mecklenburg, Forsyth, and Iredell in the rest of the state. The largest number of votes polled in a North Carolina election prior to 1930 was in the election of 1928. The News and Observer, June 18, 1930. See also, Charlotte Observer, June 9, 1930. 74 McAdoo to Daniel Roper, June 10, 1930, and McAdoo to Simmons, June 16, 1930, William G. McAdoo Papers, Division of Manuscripts, Library of Congress; Horace M. Dubose, Jr., to Simmons, June 9, 1930, Langston to Simmons, telegram, June 9, 1930, Simmons to Langston, telegram, June 10, 1930, Simmons Papers; Charlotte Observer, June 10, 1930. 44 The North Carolina Historical Review tion by Bailey election officials, of the purchase of voters, and of fraudulent voting by absentee ballots. 75 Simmons became convinced that New York money had been used to rob him of the election. 76 Thus he was delighted when Senator Nye's Senatorial Campaign Committee decided to investigate the various rumors of irregularities. A very brief two-day hearing was held. Cameron Morrison, C. L. Shuping, and James Pou, among others, testified. They were on the defensive, for unquestionably they had spent more money than was permitted by law. Nonetheless, they appeared to be quite willing to talk about it rather apologetically. Editor Josephus Daniels, although he had favored Simmons, con-cluded that the hearing was a "Godsend" in that "not a scintilla of evidence was elicited to prove that Bailey got any outside money" of significance. At the same time, Daniels pointed out that it had "un-covered indefensible practices of money spent for a candidate through agencies other than the campaign committees and not reported." 77 Money was not, therefore, the principal factor defeating Simmons. The principal factor was undoubtedly the obvious one: Simmons' failure to support Smith in 1928. As Simmons' colleague, Senator Lee S. Overman, put it, "The people of North Carolina do not like ir-regularity in politics and especially from a man who had led them all these years insisting upon regularity." 78 By the time the primary campaign had begun, few of the local professional politicians were willing to support Simmons. This situa-tion was novel. Simmons had never campaigned much for himself. He had relied on local politicians. In fact, Bailey claimed that Sim-mons' reputation as a campaign fighter was something of a myth, pointing out that he had made only two political speeches in the state between 1916 and 1928. Then in 1928, wrote a Bailey man, "he made two speeches in advocacy of the election of a mossy-back, blue- 75 Bruce Craven to Bailey, June 9, 1930, W. A. Hunt to Bailey, June 9, 1930, A. A. Bunn to Bailey, June 10, 1930, Bailey Papers; Mary Jones to (Simmons), June 12, 1930, W. Henry Liles to Hines, July 10, 1930, Simmons Papers. In Catawba County, where fewer than 5,000 votes were cast, for instance, there was an estimate of 1,500 absentee votes. T. J. Ray to Simmons, August 18, 1930, C. G. Whitney to Simmons, August 8, 1930, G. W. Murray to Simmons, August 20, 1930, Whitney to Simmons, August 22, 1930, Simmons Papers. 78 Memo to the Press, June 12, 1930, Simmons to Hampton, August 21, 1930, Ward to Hampton, September 4, 1930, Hampton to Ward, September 11, 1930, Hampton to Simmons, September 15, 1930, Hampton to (Simmons, September, 1930), Simmons Papers; Overman to Bailey, June 13, 1930, Bailey Papers. 77 The News and Observer, October 14, 1930, and Josephus Daniels to Albert S. Burleson, October 11, 1930, Josephus Daniels Papers, Division of Manuscripts, Library of Congress; Charlotte Observer, October 14-15, 1930. 78 Overman to (Craige) Burton, June 14, 1930, Overman Papers; Morning Herald, June 10, 1930. Simmons vs. Bailey in 1930 45 bellied, monopoly - worshipping, DePriest - entertaining Republi-can. ... Even Simmons' ability as an organizer was being questioned. He had become increasingly accustomed to leaving the day-to-day busi-ness to A. D. Watts, Frank Hampton, and a host of other friends who had worked with him in the nineties and following decades. By 1930 some of them were dead, many were old, and a significant number of them had revolted over Simmons' stand in 1928.80 Since the Senator had not campaigned actively in the state for some years, young Democrats did not know him. Most young lawyers, the aspiring politicians, opposed him. There was rebellion against the idea of the "Simmons machine." Thus the local machinery became pre-dominantly controlled by the followers of Bailey. Under the circumstances, Simmons' only hope was to rally those who had been inspired by his stand in the 1928 election and others, such as organized labor and the corporations, who were not tradi-tionally a part of the political organization. None of these groups voted in the way hoped for by the Simmons organization. Indeed, Hampton was infuriated at the "so called moral element" which he said had deserted Simmons when he was in distress, leaving him "naked to his enemies." 81 Yet "the moral element" was divided; Bailey, a Baptist, certainly was not a wet, and he was quite successful in rallying those women who remembered that when Simmons was opposing woman suffrage Bailey was taking the lead in favoring it. Even so the prohibition issue would probably have had a more decisive effect had not the depression conveniently materialized to nullify the emotional issues. It was widely accepted that Hoover was responsible for the depression, and by 1930 all North Carolina was feeling its effect. In 1928 Simmons had indirectly helped Hoover, and he had not seriously attacked him since. The conclusion was obvious that because of his association, Simmons could be judged guilty of the depression. Simmons' supporters might point to his con-sistent record of aid to farmers, internal improvements, veterans' benefits, and other favors to constituents. In good times, this record might have been convincing; in depression times, even a constructive record of one who had bolted the party was easily forgotten. 79 Bailey to Gerald W. Johnson, January 16, 1930, Bailey to W. 0. Saunders, March 19, 1930, D. M. Stringfield to Manning, February 17, 1930, Nixon to Bailey, April 23, 1930, Bailey Papers. 80 For a detailed analysis of this situation, see Bailey to Walter Montgomery, June 12, 1943, Bailey Papers. 81 Hampton to McNinch, November 20, 1930, Simmons Papers. 46 The North Carolina Historical Review Simmons expected to receive support from labor. His decision to support Judge Parker's confirmation, however, had killed that hope. At the other extreme were the corporations whose resources appar-ently had been at the service of the Simmons organization in the past. Some expected the corporations to come to his help in 1930, but there is no evidence that they did. Perhaps they too were cooled by Simmons' actions in the Senate. Only recently he had stood against private interests' taking over Muscle Shoals; here he was no doubt judged guilty of association again—this time with that alleged radical, George Norris. Moreover, his stand on the tariff did not help him with business in general, in view of the fact that he had resisted all efforts of the Duke Power Company and others to persuade him to support a higher tariff on aluminum.82 There were no true issues that clearly separ
North Carolina. Office of Archives and History.
North Carolina. Division of Archives and History.
North Carolina Historical Commission.
|Place||North Carolina, United States|
|Time Period||(1945-1989) Post War/Cold War period|
|Description||Vols. for 1924-Apr. 1943 published by the North Carolina Historical Commission; July 1943-spring 1972 by the State Dept. of Archives and History; summer 1972- by the Office of Archives and History; by the Division of Archives and History.|
|Publisher||Raleigh : North Carolina Historical Commission|
|Agency-Current||North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources|
|Rights||Copyrighted Material see http://digital.ncdcr.gov/u?/p249901coll22,63766|
|Physical Characteristics||[a]: v. :[b]: ill., ports., facsims. ;[c]: 23-26 cm.|
|Collection||North Carolina State Documents Collection. State Library of North Carolina|
|Digital Characteristics-A||12336 KB; 144 p.|
|Digital Collection||North Carolina Digital State Documents Collection|
|Pres File Name-M||pubs_serial_nchistoricalreview1965.pdf|
|Pres Local File Path-M||\Preservation_content\StatePubs\pubs_serial_nchistoricalreview\images_master\|
North Carolina State Library
76e 7U>it& &vi