The First Texas News Barons (Focus on American History Series, Center for American History,...

The First Texas News Barons

Focus on American History Series

Center for American History

University of Texas at Austin

Edited by Don Carleton

THE FIRST TEXASNEWS BARONSPatrick Cox

University of Texas Press

Austin

Copyright © 2005 by the University of Texas Press

All rights reserved

Printed in the United States of America

First edition, 2005

Requests for permission to reproduce material from this work should be

sent to:

Permissions

University of Texas Press

P.O. Box 7819

Austin,TX 78713-7819

www.utexas.edu/utpress/about/bpermission.html

� The paper used in this book meets the minimum requirements of

ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (R1997) (Permanence of Paper).

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Cox, Patrick, [date]

The first Texas news barons / Patrick Cox.—1st ed.

p. cm.— (Focus on American history series)

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 0-292-70948-X (hardcover : alk. paper)—ISBN 0-292-70977-3

(pbk. : alk. paper)

1. Press—Texas—History—19th century. 2. Press—Texas—History—

20th century. 3. American newspapers—Texas—History—19th century.

4. American newspapers—Texas—History—20th century. I. Title. II.

Series.

PN4897.T43C69 2005

071'.64'0934—dc22

2005007629

Contents

Acknowledgments vii

Introduction 1

Chapter 1. Texas Newspapers and Modernization 9

Chapter 2.The Evolution of the Texas Press 28

Chapter 3. Expansion and Consolidation: Individual Publishers 62

Chapter 4. ‘‘An Enemy Closer to Us than Any European Power’’ 101

Chapter 5.The Forces of Traditionalism and the Challenge

from the Invisible Empire 135

Chapter 6.Texas Newspapers, the Crash of 1929, and the

Great Depression 179

Chapter 7. Newspapers and the 1936 Texas Centennial 202

Conclusion 224

Notes 229

Bibliography 253

Index 265

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Acknowledgments

I owe a debt of gratitude to many individuals

and institutions. Research for this work was made

possible by generous grants from theA.H.Belo Foundation, the

WilliamRandolphHearst Foundations, andTheHouston Endowment.

During my two years of research in Austin, the staff and the administra-

tion of the Center for American History also provided invaluable contri-

butions and guidance in this work. Dr. David Sloan at the University of

Alabama and Dr. James Startt of the University of Valparaiso provided

critical insights and support.Dr.DonaldShawof theUniversityof North

Carolina contributed valuable theoretical insight and inspiration for this

study.Dr.FredBlevensat theUniversityofOklahomaandDr.DonCarle-

ton gave this study careful review and timely suggestions. Dr. Michael

Phillips and Paulette Delahoussaye of the Center for American History

gave valuable input into the final product. Bill Bishel, my University of

Texas Press editor, gave me direction and ample latitude for this broad,

comprehensive study. In addition, I received excellent commentary and

input from my copyeditor, Letitia Blalock, and Carolyn Cates Wylie of

UT Press.

Also, the professional staffs at themany research facilities and archives

consulted made the job of historical research much easier through their

knowledge of and expertise with their collections. Finally, JohnMurphy

of theHouston Chronicle provided the inspiration and leadership to ini-tiate this study. Murphy saw the importance that publishers and news-

papers played during this era and consistently provided support and

guidance. As a longtime newspaperman, hewas among the first who saw

the unique role that these publishers and their daily newspapers played

in our state and nation.

Special thanks go to Steve Williams and Linda Peterson of the Cen-

ter for American History, who assisted with the selection of photos and

illustrations.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Introduction

Newspaper publishers and journalists from

across Texas gathered in Galveston on October 12,

1939, to honor the ‘‘Dean of American Journalism,’’ George

Bannerman Dealey of the Dallas Morning News. Dealey, eighty, wasmarking his sixty-fifth year with the A. H. Belo Corporation, owner of

theDallas Morning News and founder of theGalveston News.TheTexasNewspaper Publishers Association hosted the tribute to Dealey, a man

with ‘‘an integrity that has never known the slightest tremor of compro-

mise or irresolution, a vision that recognizes no narrow boundaries of

place or moment.’’1

More than 400 men and women converged on the port city of Gal-

veston to recognize the distinguished Texas publisher. Fort Worth Star-Telegram publisher Amon Carter Sr. served as the toastmaster. Former

Texas governor andHouston Post publisherWilliam P. Hobby andmany

of his peers delivered tributes. Carter, Hobby, and San Antonio ExpresspublisherFrankHuntresswere theorganizersof theevent.Thehost com-

mittee also included JesseH. Jones of theHouston Chronicle,EdKiest oftheDallasTimes Herald, andW. L. Moody of theGalveston News. Jour-nalists, business leaders, educators, ministers, attorneys, elected offi-

cials, and bankers came to the celebration in Galveston, where Dealey

had begun his career as an office boy for theGalveston Daily News. Na-tional Broadcasting System president Lenox B. Lohr attended, and his

network broadcast the program nationally. Newspapers throughout the

state treated the storyas front-pagenews,with extensive commentaryand

photographs.2

In his special message to Dealey, President Franklin D. Roosevelt ex-

tended congratulations from the White House. ‘‘The completion of 65

years of continuous and varied service in themaking of a newspaper is an

outstanding event, and as you near this notable milestone I want to join

with the Texas Newspaper Publishers Association in extending hearty

congratulations and warmest personal regards,’’ the president stated.

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

Introduction

President Roosevelt called Dealey a ‘‘pioneer’’ who played a role in ‘‘the

great Texas Southwest,’’ in the building of which he had ‘‘borne so dis-

tinguished a part.’’3

Dealeyaddressed the assembled cast and quoted themotto of theGal-

veston and Dallas papers. In order to be a ‘‘great newspaper,’’ a publi-

cation ‘‘must be a distinct personality, a moral and responsible person.’’

Personal opinions and prejudices interferedwith the newspaper’s role as

a ‘‘faithful collector anddisseminatorof news.’’ The newspaper served as

‘‘a voice, an intelligence and a reasoning conscience, to interpret for the

readingpublic the ripest thought andbest judgmentof the time, touching

all questions of public concern.’’4

The Texas publishers recognized Dealey’s role as a publisher and

advocate for the community and region. Dealey and the Morning News‘‘inspired the people of Dallas’’ to construct a public education system,

encourage civic improvements and contributions, promote business and

agricultural interests, encourage city planning and public safety, and en-

courage growth and expansion.Dealeyalso servedon theboards ofmany

charitable groups and fraternal organizations and was an active Presby-

terian. In the minds of most publishers of this era, Dealey represented

the ideal newspaperman, business leader, and civic activist.He provided

a distinctive character and image in his time, the ‘‘era of the press bar-

ons.’’ In the course of the four decades prior to U.S. entry into World

War II, Dealey and his small club of Texas newspaper publishers ex-

panded theirmediaholdingsand thoroughlyasserted their influenceover

public opinion and policy making. They solidified both their ties with

the growing commercial concerns in the state and its dominant political

forces.They fostered an expanding urbanmiddle class of consumers and

civic activity. In addition, they transformed the images of their cities and

the entire state.5

During Dealey’s tenure, his community and state changed dramati-

cally, yet they retained many features of traditional culture and customs.

WhenDealeyarrived in townto takehisnewpositionasbusinessmanager

at the newly formed Morning News in 1885, Dallas was still a relatively

small city by theSouth’s humble standards.Thepopulation reachedonly

about 38,000 in the 1890 census. Far from later salad days when Dallas

would share with Houston the distinction of being a center of the inter-

national petroleum economy, residents still earned their keep manufac-

turing saddles, cigars, bricks, tiles, and other unglamorous exports. At

the meeting place of the South, theWest, and the Mexican borderlands,

Dallas in theearly 1880s still had theflavorof a frontier town that servedas

3


temporary residence to some of the nineteenth century’s most infamous

gunmen, such as John B. ‘‘Doc’’ Holliday and Sam Bass. Although the

town’s population stood at only 10,000 at the start of the 1880s, Dallas

wasalreadyburdenedwitha reputation forviolenceandboastedfifty-two

saloons, or one for every 192 residents.6

Dallas as it appeared in the late nineteenth century had vanished by

the time of Dealey’s 1939 testimonial. On the surface, Dealey’s home-

town,othermajorTexas cities, andmuchof the state lookedsubstantively

different than their southernneighbors.Dallashadblossomed intoan im-

portant city of nearly 300,000 people. An oil boom in nearby East Texas

turned Dallas into a corporate headquarters. With an antiunion, low-

wage reputation, the city turned into a national manufacturing center,

with Ford Motor Company and other blue-chip firms setting up plants

within the city limits. A branch of the Federal Reserve Bank had opened

as far back as 1913, and Dallas lending institutions made the growing

metropolis a regional financial colossus. The state’s insurance industry

was also centered in Dallas. In the first decades of the twentieth century,

Dealey played a central role in taming the city’s frontier mood, moving

voters to implement a central growth plan. In the early 1920s, Dealey

servedas a leadingopponentof theKuKluxKlan,whichcontrolledmuch

the state and the city but, with Dealey’s help, collapsed into irrelevance

by the mid-twenties. Despite the 1930s Depression, Dallas author Dar-

win Payne notes, in that decade the city emerged from being ‘‘a rather

nondescript townwith agrarianways . . . [into] a smart city of sophistica-

tion and accomplishment.’’Many inTexas and across the nation believed

that George B. Dealey played a central role in that transformation.7

Dealey’s careercaptures the rolemajor newspapersplayed in themod-

ernization of Texas in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth

century. Many Texas and other southern historians have attributed this

startling metamorphosis to the influx of defense spending and other in-

vestments by the federal government, starting in theDepression and con-

tinuing throughWorldWar II and the coldwar.This bookwill argue that

Texas modernization began early in the twentieth century and that the

state’snewspaper industryandpublishersplayedacentral role in thepro-

cess. In the 1930s change accelerated, establishing the foundation for the

modern state. This metamorphosis occurred at the height of influence

of Dealey and other Lone Star media barons.

The influence of news owners during this era resulted from a number

of factors. All institutions of mass communications inevitably fall—or at

4

Introduction

least they have since the time of early classical civilizations. Noted jour-

nalism historian Donald Shaw reached this conclusion based on exten-

sive research of many forms of communications existing over thousands

of years. Based on a combination of historical events, leadership deci-

sions, and cultural shifts in the population,massmedia institutions in the

United States have evolved and declined over the nation’s brief history.

From the early print age to the electronic era, major media enterprises

have risen to the highest levels of their medium and remained there for a

period of time. In order to remain at the top, the leadership maintained

a systematic economic and accepted authority through a combination of

financial success and popular appeal. In order to ensure this dominant

position, innovative technologywas utilized. But despite all efforts, every

form of mass media ultimately succumbs to its successors, and this was

the case with the newspaper medium.8

From the earliest days of the nation’s history, the U.S. press provided

continuous news, entertainment, and commercial promotion. News-

papers reached their greatest market penetration in the period from

WorldWar I to the 1920s.Competition, suppression ofmany foreign lan-

guage newspapers, and the economic slump that hit the nation at the end

of the 1920s led to anoverall decline innewspapercirculation.Also, com-

mercial radio appeared in the 1920s and provided stiff competition for

revenue and audiences that continued until World War II. Another ad-

versary appeared on the scene after thewar and created further diversion

of themediamarket.Televisionblitzed itsway intoU.S.homesduring the

1950s.During these decades of economic and social change, newspapers

rose and fell based on their individual abilities to deal with changes in

technology, consumer tastes, and internal organization.9

Throughout this time period, some newspapersmanaged tomaintain

an edge through a combination of strategies. Better printing processes,

lowercosts, improveddelivery systems, theuseof colorandphotography,

the utilization of wire services, special editions, and a host of other inno-

vations allowed some publications to remain on top for a period of time

that extended beyond the pinnacle years of the 1920s. As Shaw notes,

‘‘[N]omass medium has gone downwithout a struggle.’’ The leadership

of some major daily newspapers made adjustments that allowed them to

retain leadership in their respective communities and regions.Theability

to recognize change and remain aggressive and creative was central to

the continued success of these publications. ‘‘Historically, it is difficult to

find leaders . . .who remaincreative throughout thecycleof themedium,’’

5


Shaw explains. Those with the knowledge and foresight to adjust to the

needs of the medium and the audience represented the most successful

enterprises over a long period of time.10

The large, independent daily newspapers inTexas provide themodel

of those who defied the odds during this period.These publications re-

mained dominant in the state even as film and radio increased their audi-

ences during the 1930s and major daily newspapers declined in reve-

nue and influence.While a number of studies exist on U.S. newspapers

and their history, very few regional studies have explored the role, the

contributions, and the problems that faced daily newspapers and their

publishers. A regional focus must also include the identity of the news-

paper enterprise and its environment. The major dailies and their pub-

lishers in Houston, Dallas, Fort Worth, and San Antonio provide the

material and examples for this era.These publishers and their respective

media businesses, through decisive management, political leadership,

and clevermarketing, retained their dominance over civic affairs through

World War II and into the postwar era.

Many historians of the twentieth century grappled with the problem

of where to placeTexas in a regional history. In spite of its modern west-

ern image, the state remained in the southern orbit throughout the early

decades of the twentieth century. As a former slaveholding state, a mem-

ber of the Confederacy, and a leading cotton producer,Texas’ economy,

political affiliations, and social structure closely resembled those of its

southern neighbors.

The state’s economic future depended in large part on whether out-

siders definedTexas as southern, as western,more vaguely as southwest-

ern, or—by the late twentieth century—most ambiguously as part of

the Sunbelt. Individual newspaper publishers knew that their publica-

tions would rise or fall in part to the degree their home cities grew or

declined. Like many southern Progressives of their time, Texas’ metro-

politan publishers believed that the key to their state’s economic future

lay with expanded industrialization and urbanization—developments

that would, fortuitously, directly benefit newspapers by providing an in-

creased readership and advertising base.The South, however, remained

the poorest and least developed region in the country.Texas moderniza-

tion, by necessity, would be greased with northern capital. For Texas to

achieve a modern economy, the state would have to move away from the

South’s defeatist moonlight-and-magnolia nostalgia to a more forward-

looking self-image.Texasnewspapers servedas chief agents in transform-

ing Texas’ regional identity from a frontier outpost where Dixie petered

6

Introduction

out to ‘‘where the West begins,’’ as the Fort Worth city motto puts it.

Texas’ transfer from a southern identity to a more western one helped

ease the way for more northern investment, population migration, and

the increased relocation of northern businesses to the state.11

By 1950manyhistorianshad concluded thatTexashad achieved adis-

tinctive identity which diverged from the rest of the old South. As V. O.

Key observed in his landmark study Southern Politics in State and Na-tion,Texas seemed to be more ‘‘moderate’’ in its racial and class politicsand ‘‘more western than southern’’ in its social outlook. However, Tex-

ans, like other southerners, still maintained their suspicions and resent-

ment of their northern counterparts.Texans retained their long-standing

cultural and economic links to the more closely controlled, discrimina-

tory societies that dominated the South throughout the nineteenth and

most of the twentieth centuries.The emerging distinctiveTexas person-

ality primarily manifested itself in the pages of the state’s daily news-

papers during the decades up to the 1930s.12

As noted above, many historians credit World War II with changing

the face of the state economicallyand socially.Thewarcreated thousands

of jobs and new industries and resulted in a major relocation of people

from rural areas of Texas, as well as from other regions of the country,

toTexas cities. Civil rights for the state’s minorities also received a boost

from wartime demands and changes. But the groundwork for these tre-

mendous changes was laid in the three decades that preceded the great

world conflict in the 1940s. Diversification in many areas began in the

years before the war. The record is mixed, as many minorities, women,

economically disadvantaged, and even middle class residents failed to

enjoy the benefits of this expansion. How Texans marginalized by the

modernizationprocess reacted to the state’s dynamic changes in the early

twentieth century will also be explored in this study.

The following pages center on these individuals and newspapers:

A. H. Belo and George B. Dealey of the Dallas Morning News, EdwinKiest and the Dallas Times Herald,William P. Hobby and Oveta Culp

Hobby of the Houston Post, Jesse H. Jones and Marcellus Foster of the

Houston Chronicle, and Amon G. Carter Sr. of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. All of these individual publishers left records that are pre-

served in a number of archives in their respective cities and in Austin.

Unfortunately, efforts to locate any papers that belonged to Frank Hunt-

ress, ownerof theSanAntonioExpress,provedunsuccessful.TheHearst

Newspapers acquired theSanAntonioLight, the othermajordaily inSanAntonio, in the early 1920s.This acquisition, combinedwith a lack of ar-

7


chivalmaterial on theLight, excluded the publication frombeing amajor

focus of this study.

This studywill focus on keyevents, issues, and strategies from the late

nineteenth century to 1940.Thesewill include the early years of consoli-

dation and change within the newspaper enterprises and the individual

urban communities in which they were based. Actions during the early

years of the twentieth century heralded this new age of modernization

for the publishing business and how these cities were growing and de-

fining their destinies. Other chapters will examine the influence of the

Mexican Revolution, the rise and fall of the Ku Klux Klan, the onset of

the Depression, and the impact of the Texas Centennial.

These firstTexas newsbarons of the twentieth century provided adis-

tinct contribution that defined their media enterprises, their individual

communities, and the new image of the state of Texas. They provided

their assessment of ‘‘modernization’’ and applied this interpretation to

their communication businesses and their concepts of growth and social

change. In contrast to many of their southern neighbors who discour-

aged social mobility and individual initiative, these media entrepreneurs

pressed for a more dynamic, expanded urban community. Not everyone

benefited fromthesechanges, andtheroadwas litteredwithobstaclesand

unforeseen curves. Yet some of the changes undermined long-standing

racial, gender, and class distinctions in the state.The news barons advo-

cated a fundamental change in theway that Texans should live their lives

and interpret the events that impacted their livelihoods. By 1940 the

image and direction of the entire state emerged remarkably close to the

plan developed by this small group of decision makers. In the pages that

follow, this story will examine how this transformation took place.

8

CHAPTER 1

Texas Newspapers andModernization

A large number of media historians see the

dawn of the twentieth century as the birth hour of

modern journalism. Business and industrial growth, combined

with amore literate population, provided the core support for newspaper

growth and expansion. An expanding workforce with more disposable

income increased demand for information and consumer goods. News-

papers in the early part of the centurymaintained a nearmonopoly as the

primary information source forAmericans.ThemodernU.S. daily news-

paperas a complex force in business, politics, and societycoincidedwith

the rapid changes that occurred throughout the nation in the first half of

the century.Asmassproduction andmarketing increased, theU.S. news-

paper served as an essential, reliable vehicle to deliver both news and

advertisements to the public.The modern form of the newspaper, along

with the professional status of publishers and journalists, also evolved

during this growth period.1

Newspapers reached their height of popularity and influence in the

early twentieth century. The economic expansion from first decade of

the century to the boom years of the 1920s fueled this growth. Even with

the advent of other popular media such as magazines, film, and radio,

newspapers managed to show considerable growth until the Depression

years of the 1930s. The critical issues of economic expansion, race rela-

tions, institutional growth, and efforts to form social and collective iden-

tities competed for the attention of Texas newspaper publishers. They

also wanted to build their own publishing enterprises and expand their

influence beyond the borders of their urban hosts. Finally, they set the

stage for the vast changes that shook the state and the South and led from

the isolated, dusty backroads of the past to the urban skylines of themod-

ern era.

Newspaper publishers and theirdaily newspapers played a significant


role in the modernization of Texas. In the first half of the twentieth cen-

tury, their interpretation of progress provided a stimulus to some while

placing restraints on others. In the crucial development of the state’s

economy, politics, and culture, the strategies publishers pursued ap-

pealed to a significant numberof Texans.Theydefined the newdirection

for the state through the promotion of new urban commerce and a new

class of commercial elites. Further, they redefined the image of Texas and

Texans, altering the state’s orientation from a nineteenth-century rural

southern outlook to an independent and distinctly separate identity with

its own collective memory of the past.

For the purposes of this study,modernity, as applied to contemporary

U.S. society and culture, includes several features that define progress

and change: growth andwiderdistribution ofmaterial goods andwealth;

acceleration and acceptance of some civil and other rights for minority

citizens;broaderparticipation inpolitical andcivic affairs; a general sense

of accomplishment and self-security; improved systems of communica-

tions and distribution of information; and a marked departure from tra-

ditionalism and the systems, ideals, and values of the status quo. Indi-

viduals, organizations, and institutions promoting these attributes paved

the road to modernity during the era of this study. However, the manner

in which this occurred has provided a tremendous challenge to histori-

ans and other interpreters of this era. Also, modernization inTexas must

be considered within a southern context, as the state evolved a separate

identity from its neighbors in Dixie during this era.2

After the Civil War, a different South emerged with a new set of chal-

lenges. Many New South advocates in the late nineteenth century began

a crusade to improve the economic and cultural position of the region.

During the first three decades of the twentieth century, a handful of daily

newspaper publishers inTexas developed their own vision forTexas that

pointed the state to a path that brokewith the past.They played a leading

role in the making of modern Texas that began in the early decades of

the twentieth century. They laid the groundwork that allowed Texas to

emergewith adistinctive culture that separated the state from its southern

neighbors. Texas has never completely rid itself of racial and economic

discrimination. But the state certainly distanced itself from the rest of

the South as an economic leader in the post–WorldWar II era.Texas in-

disputably assumed its own separate image and a reputation distinctly

different from its counterparts in the rest of the South.

Mosthistorians credit theunprecedentedeconomic stimulusofWorld

War II as being the catalyst for massive social and economic change. As

10

Texas Newspapers and Modernization

Charles P. Roland summarized, ‘‘World War II released immense ener-

gies and kindled grand aspirations in the South.’’ However, the forces

of change were apparent even as the twentieth century began. Sectional

tensions between the North and South declined but never entirely dis-

appeared. The willingness of northerners to forego any pretensions of

imposing a multicultural and racially tolerant southern society left the

former Confederate states to determine their own futures. Despite this

laissez-faire attitude, the South was seen as a recurring national problem

in the twentieth century. Racism, poverty, illiteracy, hunger, and a host

of other social maladies plagued the South. Except for the efforts of a

few reformers and initiatives attached toNewDeal programs,Texans and

other southerners were left to design their own patchwork contribution

to the national fabric.3

The ‘‘NewSouthCreed,’’with its promise of industrial expansion and

economic prosperity, gained many adherents. In southern business and

political spheres, rapprochementwith theNorth became a reality early in

the twentieth century. Even as nationalism replaced sectionalism in this

era, attempts to bring the state and region into the national mainstream

proved a long, arduous, and sometimes inconclusive process.The prom-

ise of better times and the direction the state took originated in the pub-

lishers’ unpublishedmeetings and in the editorial offices andpressrooms

of Texas’ major daily newspapers.

The mythic cowboy and open-space image of Texas was greatly di-

minished by the ascendancy of Houston, Dallas, Fort Worth, and San

Antonio as premier commercial centers of the urban New South. The

publisher-owners selected these urban Texas centers as places to sink

their roots and bet on the future. Daily newspapers and their publishers,

editors, and writers influenced civic leadership. They often played an

active role in the physical construction and social direction of their com-

munities. In many cases, individual publishers became the focal point of

activity and leading advocates for change. Agrarian interests still played

a major role in shaping the future of the state and its image during the

twentieth century; however, the intellectual and commercial voices that

resonated from the pages and the offices of the urban newspapers played

an increasingly influential role inpolitics and society. From thebeginning

of the twentieth century, independent urban dailies staked their success

on the simultaneous expansion of their newspapers and the host city.

They also based their appeal on an expanding urbanmiddle-class group

of readers and consumers.

The distinct urban middle class in Texas and the South evolved dur-

11


ing the early decades of the twentieth century. Small numbers of mer-

chants, businesspeople, clergy, and professionals (peoplewhowould be

termed white-collar workers today) existed at the turn of the century.

Newspaper publishers encouraged the market forces and urbanization

that slowly drifted into Texas and the South and expanded this new,

urban middle class.

Publishers realized that the newspaper could reflect the new urban

motifs at the same time it set an agenda for community standards and

a future based on business expansion. This expanding force of middle-

class women and men developed their own cultural and political agenda

during theProgressive era andmaintained their Progressive outlookdur-

ing the Depression years of the 1930s. At the same time, disenfranchise-

ment ofminorities and the poordiscouraged their political participation.

The sharp decline in voters increased the influence of the news and busi-

ness elites and the urban middle class.The addition of women voters in

the 1920s resulted in the only significant increase in voter participation

during this era. Newspapers profited from this expansion. Also, profes-

sionalism and consolidation became characteristics of the daily news-

paper in this era.

Only a small group of daily newspaper publishers inTexas adhered to

this new vision for the state. These publishers held an almost religious

devotion for the idea that individuals and the community jointly bene-

fited from economic growth. The new generation of publishers reacted

to many views of the agrarian-based Populist movement of the 1890s.

The urban publishers challenged the Populist cry to overturn a system

controlled by the eastern political and economic establishment. In con-

trast, this small cadre of publishers saw the existingU.S. systemas replete

with opportunities that had not reached the South. Many newspaper

publishers teamed with other community leaders and middle-class re-

formers to form the backbone of the new Progressive movement. They

also supported new federal initiatives focused on extensive use of land

and water resources. Political contacts in Washington became as essen-

tial as those at the local courthouse and the state capitol. This support

continued in the critical years of the New Deal. With federal initiatives

under the control of the influential Texas congressional delegation, the

NewDeal never posed a threat to the existing social and economic order

of Texas cities and other urban centers in the South.The powerful news-

business-political triumvirate preserved their influence and postponed

the integration of the labor force and the social order.

As they advanced their modernization strategies, newspapers relied

12


on familiar themes and images that people associated with nineteenth-

century Texas and the rest of the South. To accomplish this goal, pub-

lishers pressed forward their vision of modernization, combining ele-

ments of their southern heritage with a more urban, commercial focus.

However, the road to the futurewas littered with obstacles. For example,

the ongoing conflict between urban modernists and rural fundamental-

ists created conflict on many fronts. Farmers and small-town residents

saw this trend toward modernity as a threat to their values and tradi-

tional behavior.They frequently collided with city dwellers in their atti-

tudes, and eventually won passage of the Prohibition Amendment to the

Constitution. In the 1920s, a resurrected Ku Klux Klan preaching anti-

Catholicism, anti-Semitism, and 100 percent ‘‘Americanism’’ created a

newchallenge. Strict segregation and lynching ofAfricanAmericans and

Mexican Americans occurred with disturbing frequency. Newspapers

andpublishersbecame involved in these issues, sometimes at the expense

of their overall goals.The departure from the burden of the Lost Cause,

with its entrenched culture and practices, was never a simple or straight-

forward process.

Themore astute publishers realized that acceptance of amodern con-

sumer culture could be established on a foundation both real and fic-

tional.Theseefforts culminatedwith theTexasCentennial of 1936.Orga-

nized and promoted by the state’s major publishers, the multiple events

embodied the new ‘‘Texan’’ image and myth that combined factual and

fictional material. These events and others provided vivid examples of

how newspapers shaped popular memory and history.To a large degree,

themythological past that formed in thepre–WorldWar II era carried for-

ward into the age ofmassmedia in the latter part of the twentieth century.

The commerce of Texas thrived on political influence, and much of

this guidance came from influential newspaper publishers.The concerns

voiced in the pages of the newspapers expressed a series of values that

remained constant despite the ebb and flowof political change. AsTexas

evolved during the century, leaving behind its rural agricultural culture

and emerging as an industrialized and service-oriented urban state, criti-

cal social questions continued to dog the state’s business and political

leaders. Issues concerning individual rights and the role of minorities

remained a pivotal concern that sometimes dominated the pages of news-

papers and the conversations of everyday Texans. Segregation and Jim

Crow reflected the southern creed for public policy and social norms.

However,many publishers began advocating tolerance and protection of

some minority rights in this pre–civil rights era.Violence against people

13


of color was prevalent in Texas. From 1882, the first year such statistics

were compiled, until 1930, Texas ranked third in the number of lynch-

ings nationwide, behind only the Deep South states of Mississippi and

Georgia.4Butmanypublishers and their newspapers took an active stand

against this barbaric, illegal practice. This position emerged over time,

but a trend toward toleranceunder the guise of lawandorder slowlycrept

into the editorials and columns of the major daily newspapers.

Southerners elected as congressmenand senatorsduring the late nine-

teenth century had little influence and provided fewnotable accomplish-

ments. Most were part of political machines whose primary interests

were patronage assignments and the internal politics of their home states.

NeitherDemocrats norRepublicans gave serious consideration to south-

erners for president or vice president.They seldom provided leadership

on national issues or were given key congressional committee assign-

ments.Not untilWoodrowWilson’s election as president didTexans and

other southerners emerge as a national political force.

As a result, few federal dollars reached the region. In addition, many

southern elected officials held ultraconservative economic views and de-

manded that government spending on any program be held to a mini-

mum.The largest federal expense in this era went to pensions for Union

CivilWar veterans.Most southernDemocrats wanted to reduce the tariff

on imports, the single largest source of income for the federal govern-

ment. But the tariff protectednorthern industries fromcheaper imported

manufactured goods and support for it provided an expanding political

base for the Republican Party outside of the South. As V. O. Key con-

cluded, the protective tariff served as the ‘‘common bond’’ that united

diverse interest groups among non-southerners. ‘‘The hegemony of the

Republican Party rested on the skillful maintenance of a combination

of manufacturers, industrial workers, and farmers,’’ Key stated.5Thus,

making arguments for federal dollars for internal improvements created

a novel approach for modernization in Texas and the rest of the South.

After the disenfranchisement efforts in the early years of the twentieth

century, voter participation dropped remarkably inTexas and the rest of

the South. During the 1890s, three of every four voters, and sometimes

even higher percentages, went to the polls. With the passage of restric-

tive laws by southern state legislatures, participation rapidly declined.

Texas passed a poll tax in 1903 and further restrictions on qualifying

voters and political parties in 1905.Turnout in Texas and the rest of the

South dropped to one out of every three eligible voters and often much

14


lower. Legal restrictions, one-partydominance, and a sense of frustration

permeated the election process for years.6

Texas ballot laws resembled those of other southern states. However,

the separateness of Texans from their southern neighbors—born of the

state’s nearness to Mexico, the presence of a third racial group,Tejanos,

and the western romance already attached to the state’s nineteenth-

century cattle drives—only intensified following the discovery of major

oil reserves at Spindletop in 1901. An entirely new commodity opened

to Texans for jobs and export. The need for expanded shipping facili-

ties along the Gulf Coast for transporting oil to northern refineries be-

came apparent. In the years leading up toWorld War I, expectations for

rising tradeandcommercial activity increased.Manyadvocatesof growth

emerged from this rising tide of new commercial activities. Rather than

contest federal initiatives based on regional biases and traditions, news-

paper publishers resolved to break with tradition and seek new oppor-

tunities sustained bymoney fromWashington. Extractive industries and

cheap labor fueled commercial growth inTexas and the rest of the South

during this time.The plantation-style industries played an essential role

in expanding the region’s commercial base.Texas publishers saw north-

ern capital andWashington dollars as an unplowed field of opportunity,

and they proved to be a critical difference betweenTexas and most of its

southern neighbors.

AsTexas evolved during the century from a rural, agricultural society

to an industrialized, service-oriented urban state, these issues also be-

came part of the national debate. With the presence of federal largesse

andgrowingdependenceon it during the century, fewpeoplequestioned

taking large slices of the federal pie, though they often heaped criticism

on the bakery in which it was prepared.

As nationalism began to replace sectionalism in the twentieth cen-

tury, attempts to bring the state and region into the national mainstream

proved a long, arduous, and sometimes inconclusive process.7In his ex-

tensive study of northeast Texas from the 1880s to the 1930s, historian

Walter Buenger argued that the area and the rest of the state underwent

a significant change heretofore unrecognized on the road to moderniza-

tion.Texas still retained itsnineteenth-century southernaffiliations in the

earlydecades of the twentieth century.However, its greatereconomic op-

portunities led tomorediversityandamorefluid society than its southern

neighbors had.These changes allowedTexans to ‘‘take better advantages

presented by theNewDeal andWorldWar II.’’ Relying on statistical data

15


in agriculture, business, and labor, as well as other demographic data,

Buenger concluded that Texas broke away frommanyof its southern ties

in the years before the Great Depression. In his examination of what he

termed the ‘‘most-southern’’ part of the state, he found Texas demon-

strated a more prosperous and tolerant attitude than states east of the

Sabine River. Racism, poverty, a one-crop economy, and a tightly con-

trolled political and business establishment limited wholesale opportu-

nity in this period. This interpretation opens the door to, but only pro-

vides a partial view of, the landscape. Planters in Texas never exerted as

complete control over the social, political, and economic future of the

region as they did in other southern states. More importantly, the locus

of power and influence moved from the countryside to the new urban

centers during this transitional period. Rural traditions retained their in-

fluence in the political and social culture. But the new urban inhabitants

and proponents came to dominate the landscape.The larger newspaper

publishers stoodalongside thenewbusiness titansas thedominantvoices

of the emerging order in the decades beforeWorld War II.8

While the South lagged behind the rest of the country economically,

many white elites thought the region was falling further behind cultur-

ally. H. L.Mencken, the oft-quoted Baltimore Sun columnist, took greatdelight in denigrating his southern neighbors. In 1915 he wrote that in

the entire region ‘‘there is not a single symphony orchestra, nor a single

pictureworth looking at, nor a single public building ormonument of the

first rank, nor a single factory devoted to the making of beautiful things,

nor a single poet, novelist, historian,musician, painter or sculptorwhose

reputation extends beyond his own country.’’ Mencken expressed a de-

cidedly white, middle-class view, defining art as an expression of ‘‘high

culture,’’ creations that could be housed in pricey, elite-oriented insti-

tutions like symphony halls and museums. The South had already, of

course, invented one of the nation’s most important arts forms ever: jazz,

a music arising from African American bars and nightclubs that also be-

came one of the United States’ most important economic exports. Men

like Mencken, however, defined art de facto as cultural markers that dis-

tinguished the white upper class and, more importantly, middle class as

separate and above social underlings.9

Metropolitan publishers, fearing that the absence of bourgeois high

artdenotedsecond-rate cities less attractive tooutside investment, shared

Mencken’s evaluation of the South’s culture. Proponents of a more di-

verse, urban society placed a relatively newemphasis on the fine arts. Al-

though keenlyaware of their provincial roots and the lack of symphonies,

16


artists, and literary talents such as those associated with the North and

the East, publishers became leaders in promoting these to business and

social elites. Proponents of cultural as well as economic change walked

a fine line in attempts to break traditions of the past while maintain-

ing their regional allegiances and disdain of all things associated with

Yankees. Italian opera, artworks of the European masters, and Shake-

spearean plays seemed as alien as northern ideas of financing andmanu-

facturing to most Texans of this era. In addition, local artists and writers

found little support in a state still dominated by its cotton culture and

one-room schoolhouses. Newspapers played an essential role in gain-

ing acceptance for these and other cultural attributes. More traditional

cultural forms, such as the indigenous music of the area, found a more

receptive audience. As railroads and commerce expanded in these grow-

ing cities, touring companies arrived to provide music, entertainment,

and theatrical productions.10

The daily newspapers often played a self-contradictory role in cham-

pioning the arts. As they attempted to shape popular opinion and create

acceptance for nationally respected forms of music, art, and literature,

they faced opposition to ‘‘outside’’ influences that smacked of northern

or foreign origins. So newspaper publishers also embarked on a program

to promote their own regional distinctiveness and nurture home-grown

cultural efforts. Thus, endeavors to expand cultural awareness in the

urban communities met opposition in the same publications that sought

to promote a separate, regional identity. Even as attempts were made to

overcome a lack of cultural accomplishment and awareness, similar yet

contradictory efforts were being made to create an identity that would

set Texas apart from the South and the rest of the nation. This cultural

awarenesswould becomemanifest in the 1930s and theTexasCentennial

of 1936.

In all areas of life in the early twentieth century,Texas and its people,

politics, business, and culture closely resembled its southern neighbors.

This strong social and cultural tie refutes the view that Texans had de-

veloped their separate identity in the previous century. Occasional ref-

erences appear in early twentieth-century Texas newspapers about im-

portant events from the pre–CivilWar era. Historian Lewis Gould states

that the ‘‘Texas culture’’ evolved as early as the independencemovement

againstMexico and became entrenched after 1836. Prior toWorldWar I,

newspaper and magazine articles from other states began to discuss the

state’s prospects for breaking the bonds of provincialism and agrarian-

ism. From a different perspective, authorTom Pilkington ties this image

17


to the emergence of Texas literature after the 1920s. Ideas related to an

independent identity took firmer hold after World War II, with the full

impetus of urbanization and economic expansion for the population as

a whole. But as Walter Buenger noted in his study, ‘‘[I]n 1904 efforts

to save the Alamo ranked far behind building a monument to Stonewall

Jackson.’’11

Newspapers proved to be a cornerstone in glorifying the Lost Cause

andproviding abalm for southern regional history.Confederate reunions

in the early twentieth century were as eagerly awaited as homebuilders’

and computer shows today. Cities throughout the South competed for

theprestige andbusiness associatedwith the large entourageof aging vet-

erans. As late as the 1920s, reunions still brought massive press coverage

and extensive planning for the larger cities. Prominent stories of former

Confederates and Civil War battles filled the pages of newspapers. Poli-

ticians touted their southern family ties and service to the Confederacy.

When an old soldierdied, his obituaryalways listed his service anddevo-

tion to the southern cause.WorldWar I, the economicboomof the 1920s,

and the disappearing generation ofCivilWar veterans altered someof the

emphasis on the southern heritage.The longest remaining bondwith the

South remained theonehardest tobreak: the ties to JimCrowsegregation

and discrimination against minority populations.

Not until the 1930s and thepromotionof theTexasCentennial of 1936

did an unalterable shift towards ‘‘Texanism’’ take place. In a departure

from the southern distortion of history, a new identity emerged as all

things Texan became a mainstay of popular culture and collective mem-

ory. From that point forward,Texans andTexas developed and exploited

their distinct, independent image in nearly every area of society and cul-

ture. Just as the newspapers trumpeted the southern view of history, the

Texas daily press led the charge to embellish and commemorate themyth

of an invincible Texas. Taking control of both the future and the past

became a necessity in determining the destiny of the Lone Star State.

Growth of Daily Newspapers and Urban TexasThe ascendancy of Houston, Dallas, Fort Worth, and San Antonio as

premier urban and commercial centers contradicted the mythic cowboy

and open-space image of Texas. An extensive amount of influence and

leadership in building these urban centers evolved from the downtown

offices of themajordaily newspapers.Western ideas of individualismand

environment visually shifted from cowboys to cowboy capitalists, and

from the countryside to the city, during these years.

18


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

Daily newspapers, their publishers, and their editors andwriters pro-

vided leadership through their publications and their involvement in

civic and financial affairs. In many cases, individual publishers became

the focal point of activity and change. Agrarian interests still played a

major role in shaping the future of the state during the twentieth century,

but the intellectual and commercial voices that resonated from the pages

of the newspapers came to play an increasingly influential role in politics

and society. Urban Texans in 1900 accounted for just 17 percent of the

state’s entire population. By comparison, one out of every two Ameri-

cans lived in a city at the beginning of the twentieth century. The trend

in Texas toward urbanization was on an irreversible track.

Despite the arrival of the space age, the Internet and communications

technology, the dominant Texan icons are still cowboys, cattle, and oil.

Most Americans today associate these images and ideas with the West.

But at the turnof the centuryTexas and its handful of small cities reliedon

cotton and cultural and political ties to the Old South. For generations,

19


Texas andTexans tied their allegiance and their fortunes to those of their

southern neighbors. Newspaper magnates and business proponents in

the largest metropolitan centers—Houston,Dallas, FortWorth, and San

Antonio—wanted their cities to more closely emulate those on the East

and West Coasts. But at this time the Old South still hung over the re-

gion like Spanish moss draped from oak trees that blocked the brightest

sunlight. Ideas of race, class, and gender in the Lone Star State tracked

those of Louisiana andGeorgiamore closely than those inCalifornia and

Washington, D.C.

A handful of southerners, including Texans, saw that the path to a

better economic future ran from the countryside into the heart of the city.

New South leaders such as Atlanta journalist Henry Grady believed that

urbanization and industrialization would bring prosperity to the south-

ern states. Cotton and cattle would still be important, but southerners

needed to attract newbusinesses and trade tobreak the agricultural chain

that kept the region down. In order to gain equal standing with the more

prosperous North, Grady and his apostles preached of this new path to

economic growth that would bring social and political stability to the re-

gion, an opportunity that would be limited to whites and then to only

thosewho supported theirNewSouth view.This creedbecame a rallying

cry for the Texas publisher owners and continued well into the middle

of the twentieth century.

Once converted, the apostles of this creedof growth andexpansion set

the agenda for change and abridged modernization.The term ‘‘modern-

ization’’has somewhatambiguousmeaning forhistorians.Taking itsmost

expansive interpretation, the ‘‘modern’’ period covers the era from the

end of the Middle Ages to the present. A tighter definition of modernity

is the period from the late nineteenth century to the present and includes

thephilosophical concepts andscientific techniquesof thisperiod.When

advocates of ‘‘modernism’’ spoke in the early to mid-twentieth century

inTexas, their objectivewas a united citizenrydedicated to economic ex-

pansion combined with a sound political and social climate. In reality,

this was modernization built upon limited participation and advance-

ment. Structure and tradition prevented nearly all minorities, many poor

whites, and most women from participation.

Those who could participate became part of the new urban business

elite that took their place alongside the land andcattle baronsof theprevi-

ous century. Urban and southern historian Blaine A. Brownell considers

this group of white business leaders the ‘‘commercial-civic elite.’’ Those

who comprised this urbanhierarchy included the largemerchants, bank-

20


ers, insurance brokers, contractors, and real estate agents. Professionals

comprised the other part of this group: journalists, attorneys, doctors,

teachers, the clergy, andcityofficials.These individuals, alongwithother

white middle-class men and women, formed the new political and social

center that gave direction and support to themovement for limitedmod-

ernization.Aspart of this group,publishers andeditors of thedaily news-

papers served as official advocates for this vision.Not everyone agreedon

all issues, and the commercial-civic elite never eliminated dissension or

completely controlled the social and political agenda. Nevertheless, the

daily newspapers represented and often took the lead on new initiatives

for the commercial-civic elite.12

Asnewspaper enterprises grewandbecame a centerpiece of the urban

landscape, the advocates for growth and industrialization preached a

constant sermon, until the Great Depression of the 1930s. Business ex-

pansion varied in each community. Houston had its oil and gas tycoons,

while inDallas bankers, insurance executives, andmerchants prospered.

The large Texas cities advanced at a similar pace, even though in char-

acter and physical appearance each had a distinct personality that re-

flected the image sought by the commercial-civic elite. Each community

followed the traditions carried forward from the post–Civil War South.

Expansion came through low-wage labor whether it was in the cotton

fields or in the refineries and shops. The separation of people based

on racial characteristics became even more pronounced in the first de-

cades of the twentieth century. Racial discrimination, along with cheap

labor, low taxes, and cooperative local governments, provided the com-

mon threads for eachTexas city during this period.The newspapers uti-

lized these distinctions to establish their own identities, which blended

with theirhometowns’.Onmostoccasions, thedailies reinforcedprevail-

ing notions and attitudes. However, publishers and editors broke from

the mainstream when actions became too offensive and threatened these

growth patterns.

This leadership group inTexas and other southern cities maintained

their dominance from the turn of the century through the 1970s—and

even later in some locales.The commercial-civic elite, almost always sup-

ported by the daily newspapers, exerted their influence over several gen-

erations. They formed the nucleus of the urban Progressive agenda for

commercial expansion, public works, federal defense spending, and im-

proved education in the opening years of the twentieth century and dur-

ingWorldWar I.This movement synthesized intowhat became the Pro-

gressivebusinessmovementof the 1920s.Themost significant challenges

21


to the movement came with the unrest created by the Mexican Revolu-

tion of 1910 to 1920, followed by the revival of the Ku Klux Klan in the

early 1920s. These conflicts were perceived as threats to modernization

and disruptive to the hegemony of the commercial elite. Another major

challenge occurred during the Great Depression of the 1930s, a tempes-

tuous time that literally swamped business and local organizations. In all

of these crises, newspapers and owner-publishers rose to the challenge.

They also recognized andworkedwith the federal government in its new

role as economic provider.Modernization, not a return to traditionalism,

served as the rallying cry. But although modernization succeeded, many

segments of the population were left to struggle in the wake of the new

trends.

World War II and the postwar era offered new challenges to the

commercial-civicelite as theyreestablished their influence.Thewareffort

and defense spending in the cold war era created tremendous economic

investment inTexas and the rest of the South by the federal government.

Many southern historians have now identified World War II as the time

in the region’s history in which resistance to widespread economic and

social change finally began to erode.Texas’ major daily newspapers and

independent publishers once again took the lead in this second era of

modernization. In a variation of the original theme, the postwar agenda

called for increased prosperity and growth. Investments fordefense, cor-

porate relocations, and new demands for Texas petroleum and chemi-

cal products fueled the postwar boom—foundations that were firmly in

place before the December 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor. Even as they

struggled up the slippery slope of progress, Texas and the rest of the

South would eventually reach a plateau of equality and opportunity as

they achieved limited modernization.

Historians have credited a numberof institutionswith the growth and

evolution of cities in the South and West. For example, Roger Lotchkin

credits the riseof themilitary-industrial growth forexpansion in thepost–

WorldWar II era.Military installations as far back as theprevious century

had exerted a tremendous economic and social impact on western and

southern cities.The ties to national defense and economic policy became

increasingly important during the first decades of the twentieth century.

City politicians, business leaders, military figures, and federal bureau-

crats formed an important coalition that affected urban expansion.13

Ronald Davis, in his studies on western U.S. cities, identifies local

institutions, the social diversity present in a community, and the area’s

modes of production as the determining factors in the individual char-

22


acter of urban settings.The uniqueness also depends on the geographic

location, the resources, and the historical setting. Despite the individual

character of areas, each community still follows a trend of common-

ality that perpetuates social and class divisions and institutionalizes the

status quo.14

Themovement from farms and ranches to towns and cities gainedmo-

mentum throughout the twentieth century, remaking the state’s emerg-

ing urban centers. By the end of the century, a remarkable transition had

taken place. In 1990 Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio ranked among

the nation’s ten largest cities. The larger metropolitan areas of Dallas–

Fort Worth and greater Houston ranked ninth and tenth in the nation in

population, but measured by the number of corporate headquarters and

the assets of their commercial banks, both of these areas were in the top

seven. The urban centers once dominated by cotton fields and grazing

cattle nowcontained sprawling subdivisions,multistoryoffice buildings,

military bases, manufacturing plants, retail centers, and busy airports.

Commerce was not the only attraction, as these growing cities also con-

tainedmajor universities and research centers, symphonies, ballets, per-

forming arts theatres, and professional sports franchises, from football

and baseball to basketball and ice hockey. Early in the twentieth century,

urban corporate expansionists plowed the fertile ground for these enter-

prises. Their vision moved the state in this direction and transformed

Texas’ regional identity.

Both newspapers and newsmakers were among the leading contribu-

tors to this process of modernization. Newspapers often carried stories

and editorials on events and people responsible for change. The news-

paperswereasmuchaproductof theevolvingmodernizationas theywere

a contributor to it. At times, the newspapers were on the cutting edge,

as when they were in the forefront to land a new business or respond-

ing to a natural disaster. Sometimes they courageously took unpopular

stands and went against the status quo, as when the Ku Klux Klan was in

its heyday in the 1920s. At other times they silently acquiesced or even

supported groups that limited civil rights andmiddle-class endeavors to

improve living andworking conditions. For yearsmanyof the state’s resi-

dents were cut out of the news because of their economic, social, ethnic,

or racial background. As the century progressed, businesses and institu-

tions expanded for some but not all.

Newspaper promoters of theNewSouth depicted the formerConfed-

eracy as a land of opportunity, but in fact it had been a placewhere one’s

chances for success or failure were to a large degree predetermined by

23


race, class, and gender.Many individuals involved in directing the future

of these local communities play a role in determining the outcome. Even

with opportunities for expansion and growth, poverty, discrimination,

and unemployment remained constant features of these communities.

Role of the Federal GovernmentThe love-hate relationshipbetweenTexans and the federal government is

the one theme that remains consistent throughout the evolution of mod-

ern Texas. From the federally subsidized lakes, airports, and highways

in Dallas to the military bases in San Antonio to the Ship Channel and

Johnson Space Center in Houston, the fortunes of these communities

depended on dollars fromWashington. Texans loudly proclaimed their

ownversionof headstrong economic independencebut steadfastly relied

on the outstretched hand of the federal government. Decision makers in

Texas actively sought federal spending, employment, and bureaucracies

as a tonic for their struggling, agriculture-based economy.

At the beginning of the century, most Texans still viewed the federal

government as thevictor in theCivilWar that forced them to remain in the

Union. Confederate veterans and their spouses and offspring still domi-

nated business and politics at the turn of the century. The only experi-

ence most people had with the federal government beyond elections was

when they made a trip to their local post office.The vivid memory of the

CivilWar and its glorified Lost Cause played well on the political stump,

but it did little to change Texans’ over-reliance on cotton and cattle. All

too often in the postwar years, depressed market conditions resulted in

hard times on the farm, especially for those regions that dependedonone

crop cash sales.The Populist revolt in the 1890s, which had widespread

support inTexas, was an indicator of the deep problems and unrest that

pervaded much of the nation at the end of the nineteenth century.

New Urban ElitesThe nation’s growing economic capacity and expanding cities at the

turn of the century signaled a new era. Industrial and agricultural out-

put expanded, per capita wealth of U.S. citizens grew, and most of the

population was literate. While the balance sheet appeared favorable to

most Americans, a closer examination of the numbers revealed startling

discrepancies. Few industries located in Texas or the South. Cities ex-

panded asmarkets for crops from rural areas, as rail centers, and as ports.

Cotton, lumber, and cattle andother foodstuffs served as themainstays of

24


commerce. Urban communities provided themanufactured goods, legal

services, banks, education, and entertainment—both legal and illegal.

Most of the advances in society occurred in the North and Midwest.

People in the South and West suffered higher rates of poverty and illit-

eracy than their peers in other regions and more often numbered among

the ill-housed, underfed, and poorly clothed. Throughout much of the

South andWest, the majority of people daily faced the grim prospect of

only one meal, which consisted of cornbread, and backbreaking work

in the fields. African Americans, Mexican Americans, and other minori-

ties faced even bleaker prospects for improvement. In addition to being

mired in poverty, they faced the task of living in a hostile environment

where the government and culture treated them as second-class citizens

under the best of circumstances.

In the small urban communities of Texas at the turn of the century, the

new elites retained their ties to the land and the traditional exploitative

economy that relied on cotton, cattle, and timber.These urban business-

men would not fit the definition of a modern professional. They could

be best described as entrepreneurs who served as a force that led their

communities and the rest of the state into a stage of abridged modernity.

During this period, the leadership of the state was no longer men who

built their wealth exclusively through agricultural empires. As southern

historian C. Vann Woodward notes, the new leaders relied on new re-

sources to build wealth and prestige and relocated to cities where they

‘‘opened stores, ran gins, compresses, and banks, invested in railroads

andmills, andplayed the speculativemarkets.’’Thisnewgroupof leaders

‘‘transformed themselves intomembers of the newclass that was creating

a commercial revolution and fostering an industrial revolution.’’15

These men differed from their predecessors in several ways. They

were not opponents of business growth and expansion but eager to take

part in new wealth-building enterprises. Proponents embraced a new

philosophy that encompassed ideas and techniques the old landowner

elites had rejected in the nineteenth century. But the new urban elites re-

quired more than just a desire for change.They needed new capital and

an atmosphere that encouraged urban commercial expansion, and they

needed public and political support to achieve their goals.They consid-

ered themselves spokesmen for the common people and critics of special

interests and privilege. Newspapers, as the central medium for this new

message of limited modernity, became an essential mechanism in bring-

ing about changes. Publishers and editors were in the forefront of debate

25


over the social and economic issues of the day. Their support became

not just a luxury but a necessity.They served as the vocal chords and the

backbone of this new body of thought.

Southern historian Dewey Grantham described this era as one in

which progress and tradition became reconciled. The improvement of

public services, the mobilization of state and local governments to side

with urban expansion, and the limitation of the benefits to upper- and

middle-class whites solidified the support of the traditional landowning

elites who remained tied to the land and agricultural enterprises. The

‘‘whites only’’ designation protected racial divisions within the commu-

nity. By limiting new industrial jobs and employment opportunities to

whites, the new business elites solidified their standing with both land-

owners and the emergingAnglo urbanworkforce in preserving the status

quo.Therewasno threat to the largeminority labor force that landowners

utilized for their agricultural operations. As long as schools, transporta-

tion, and jobs were limited to whites, no realistic opportunities became

available for minorities that would lead to independence and prosperity.

And if the urban daily newspapers maintained their support for these

positions, political battles would be fought within the existing power

structures of the community and state. Newspapers could remain com-

fortable in their new role as boosters forchange and reform that primarily

benefited middle- and upper-class white citizens. This support for the

middle class and discriminatory politics was expressed in a restrained,

paternalistic tone rather than hostilely.

In the early years of the twentieth century, expansionbecame the cure-

all for the region’s woes. Growth appealed to most Texans regardless of

whether they lived in the city or the countryside. Bone-dry women activ-

ists and saloonowners in the citycouldfight to thedeathoveralcohol, but

they saw eye to eye on the issue of expanding industry and business. Dry

advocates saw new converts to the Progressive cause of a moral, cleaner

community.Wets saw more faces at the bar and consumers of their bev-

erages. Newspaper publishers saw more advertising dollars and more

readers to add to their circulation.

‘‘Yellow journalism,’’ known for its sensational and often exaggerated

style, descended on newspapers in Texas and the South at the end of

the 1890s and in the early 1900s and fit the uneasy mood of this transi-

tional era. Editors fired shots at one another almost as often as theyaimed

at stories of corruption, crime, and scandal. More recent studies of the

era and this well-known style of journalism broaden the interpretation

of the age.Yellow journalism encompassed the lurid stories, gossip, and

26


partial truths for which it is well known. Following the lead of the New

York press, newspaper publishers around the nation emulated many of

the elements and tactics associated with yellow journalism: bold head-

lines, multicolumn illustrations,more prominence for sports and society

news, and widespread use of anonymous sources for stories.

Thus, even as many decried and lampooned the Hearst and Pulitzer

publications for theirexcessive ‘‘yellowism,’’manypublishers recognized

the trend appealed to readers and advertisers alike. With widespread

competition among evening and morning newspapers in major metro-

politan cities, even the most conservative publishers adjusted their poli-

cies tomeet the demands of the public and the challenge from their print

rivals. Some critics in the era commented that the ‘‘vultures that feed on

it are dying from it,’’ but elements of yellow journalism invaded the South

and theWest and found widespread acceptance in practice.16

Newspapers at the turn of the century carried more local and national

advertising than previously, a reflection of the growing marketplace and

the expanding role of newspapers. Ads became more plentiful. They

carried more varieties of goods and services. Their appeals and illustra-

tionswere as variedas the advertisers, and family-ownedconcerns looked

to develop brand recognition and a loyal customer base. National brands

with catchy slogans began to appear on the pages of most daily news-

papers. Their ads and revenue fueled the growth of the daily press as

editions carried more pages and circulation climbed.

In the first decade of the twentieth century,most cities had at least one,

and more often two or more, daily newspapers. By 1910, 89 newspapers

hit the urban streets of Texas between morning and evening. The num-

ber of dailies rose to 110 in 1920 and remained fairly constant for the next

four decades. From 1950 to 1965, newspapers in the standard metro-

politan statistical areas, which had 83 percent of all daily circulation, in-

creased in size per issue by more than one-third. By 1950 Texas had 115

daily newspapers, 26 semiweeklies, 562 weeklies, and 300 other peri-

odicals.Trends that developed for daily publications continued through

the 1960s and the total number remained fairly constant.

These trends reflected the influence of northern business practices

and standards on southern enterprise. This contradicts many notions

that Texas businesses relied solely on their own initiative and ingenuity

as they built successful operations.

27

CHAPTER 2

The Evolution of the Texas Press

Spanish-Language Newspapers

The first newspapers in Texas were Spanish-

language publications in the early 1800s. The first

newspaper recorded in the colonial period was a publication

issued by the Gutiérrez-McGee filibustering expedition, which entered

Texas in 1813 in an ill-fated attempt to seize control of theSpanish colony.

The first publication actually printed in Texas was theGaceta de Texas.Issued inNacogdoches, theMexican Advocatewas printed in both Span-ish and English in 1829. Several other English papers appeared during

the period when Texas was the northeastern frontier of the Republic of

Mexico.

Spanish-language and Spanish-English newspapers remained a part

of Texas history in the colonial era and during the Republic and state-

hood in the nineteenth century. These independent publications fol-

loweddifferent political paths.ElRayoFederal andElNoticioso del Bravoof BrownsvillecalledonMexicans tooverthrowPresidentAntonioLópez

deSantaAnna.SanAntonio’sfirstSpanish-languagenewspaper,ElBeja-reño (1855–1856), was launched to defendTejano interests. Communityleaders like the Navarros and Seguíns displayed alarm over the power

and sometimes violent actions of white settlers who sought to displace

the Tejanos. El Bejareño in the 1850s provided its readers with stories

on democracy and U.S. history and translations of U.S. laws. Tejano

Spanish-language newspapers inTexas numbered 150 in the nineteenth

century and more than 300 in the twentieth. Some communities had as

manyas a half-dozen publications to choose fromby the turn of the twen-

tieth century. Similar to other independent newspapers of this era, most

of these publications suffered from a small circulation, poor advertising

revenues, and a lack of capitalization.

Press censorship and persecution during Porfirio Díaz’s thirty-year

rule in Mexico (1877–1880, 1884–1911) forced editors and political fig-


ures toflee the country forTexas,where theyestablishednumerousparti-

sanorgansboth forandagainstDíaz.ThemostnotableSpanish-language

paper of the first half of the twentieth century, La Prensa (1913–1963),

which began publication during the Mexican Revolution, was consid-

ered thevoice of elite, exiled conservative intellectuals. Foundedby Igna-

cio E. Lozano, La Prensa employed some of the most famous writers

of Latin America. More recent bilingual U.S. newspapers have advo-

cated greater social and economic equity. San Antonio, El Paso, Laredo,

Brownsville, and Houston have been home to the largest number of

newspapers. At least forty-eight Texas communities produced Spanish-

language newsprint between 1900 and the 1990s.

Nineteenth-Century Anglo Newspapers in TexasEnglish-language newspapers in Texas began with the publication of

theTelegraph and Texas Register atWashington-on-the-Brazos when the

residentswere citizens of theRepublic of Mexico. PublisherGail Borden

andhis printing presswere among the last to depart SanFelipe before the

advancing Mexican Army. He was nearly captured again by Santa Anna

inHarrisburg.However, inBuffaloBayou the troopsdisposedof theReg-ister’s press and burned the office.TheTelegraph andTexas Registerwasthe most consistent and reliable publication in the days of the republic

and early statehood.The first daily newspaper in the statewas theMorn-ing Star, which began publication on April 8, 1839, using an old press

in the office of theTelegraph and Texas Register.The revolution, paper shortages, lack of ink and a problem com-

mon to many publishers—a lack of capital—interrupted publication

of many early newspapers. Editors were subject to the social and eco-

nomic conditions, as well as the everyday afflictions.The first publisher,

E. Humphreys, died of yellow fever within the first year of publication.1

As historian Marilyn Sibley notes in her study of the antebellum state

press, special interests and politics dominated the early newspapers in

Texas. Once Texas became independent of Mexico, many publications

appeared and succumbed seemingly as fast as a change in the weather.

Early newspapers promoted land speculation, advertised goods and ser-

viceson their frontpages, and repeatedgossip andunreliable information

as news.The standards and conduct acceptedby the earliestTexas news-

papers are a far cry from the professional practices of publications today.

Nearly all of the major publications supported the Democratic Party.

But factions evolved over the protection of slavery and preservation

of the Union. Sam Houston served as the lightning rod for this debate,

29


as most editors became either pro- or anti-Houston, depending on their

position in the great debate over the extension and protection of slavery.

John Marshall, the fiery editor of the State Gazette, served as Houston’s

main antagonist and became the leader of the state Democratic Party’s

anti-Houston wing in the late 1850s. Eber Worthington Cave, Hous-

ton’s strongest defender and the owner and editor of the NacogdochesChronicle, also published Houston’s Campaign Chronicle in the 1857

governor’s campaign. In this era, partisanship, politics, and newspapers

worked together. Just as antagonists were expected to battle over issues

and personalities, no one questioned an editor’s right to take a partisan

political position and also hold a party office.2

In 1842 the oldest newspaper that is still publishing, the GalvestonNews, began as a semiweekly. TheGalveston Zeitung, probably the firstGerman-language newspaper in Texas, traced its beginnings to 1847.

The first papers printed by religious denominations also appeared in the

1840s.Most of the antebellumcommunities in the state had a newspaper,

and the larger communities such as San Antonio, Galveston, and Hous-

tonhad twoormore.But nearlyall of thesepublications ceasedoperation

within a year after the outbreak of the Civil War. During Reconstruc-

tion, most weekly newspapers were back in operation. Only a handful of

daily newspapers resumed operation and half of those were in Galves-

ton.The numberof dailies increased to over fifty by the 1890s and nearly

doubled within the next decade. The largest of those founded in the

nineteenth century which continued publication well into the next cen-

tury included the Austin American-Statesman, Dallas Morning News,Galveston News, San Antonio Express, San Antonio Light, Houston Post,andVictoria Advocate.

Manyearly newspapermenwore a numberof hats at their publication.

With the exception of a fewdailies, they worked on publications that ap-

peared weekly, semiweekly, or triweekly.The content and appearance of

their newspapers resembled that of newspapers in other southern states.

News from overseas andWashingtonD.C., as well as reprints from other

papers, especially the New Orleans Picayune, appeared in print along-

side local stories and advertisements. Editors spoke theirmind, and their

writingswere frequently political and sometimes personal in nature.The

publishers, the editors, and inmany instances the printers of earlyTexas

were mostly well educated by the standards of the day. They fearlessly

took sides in campaigns, lampooning political aspirants as frequently as

theyopposedothereditors.However, even in issuesdatingback tobefore

the Civil War, they also wrote on the religious, educational, economic,

30


and social needs of their communities and the state, while avoiding news

which might have cast local citizens or businesses in a negative light.

Promotions on the merits of their region appeared in order to attract im-

migrants to a sparsely populated area. Editors constantly preached on

the need for new businesses and industry inTexas.With their extended,

locally authored columns, many nineteenth-century editors appeared to

be more interested in influencing opinion than simply reporting events.

African American NewspapersThe first African American newspapers appeared in the United States

before the CivilWar, but none appeared inTexas until after Reconstruc-

tion. Because of the long-standing discriminatory attitudes that existed

among a majority of white Texans, the first black-owned publications

served as the voice of those who lived in communities divided by racial

animosity. Although these newspapers and publishers suffered dire eco-

nomic straits, they served a purpose in providing a voice for and uniting

the African American citizenry.The eventual success of themodern civil

rights movement had its roots in the first black newspapers.These pub-

lications represented those who sought to quietly wage battles against

discrimination and local power structures, often in the face of threats,

violence, lynchings, and destruction of African American homes and

businesses.

Richard Nelson published theGalveston Spectator (1873–1885), theearliest newspaper in the state with black ownership and management.

Nelsonmoved toGalveston after theCivilWarandbecame active in busi-

ness and Republican Party politics. TheGalveston Spectator supportedRepublican political candidates and urged blacks to pursue education

and participate in public affairs. After an unsuccessful bid for Congress,

Nelson established the Freeman’s Journal, another weekly for the Gal-veston black community, which continued until 1893.

3

The Houston Informer and Texas Freeman is considered to be the

oldest African American newspaper still published west of the Missis-

sippi. Charles N. Love, with the help of his wife, Lilla, produced the

first four-page issue in 1893. Love advocated the annulment of JimCrow

laws, equal pay for black teachers, the hiring of black postal workers,

and the Carnegie Library for Negroes in Houston, completed in 1912.

C. F. Richardson Sr. published the paper’s successor, the Houston In-former, from 1919 until January 3, 1931, when it was acquired byattorney

CarterW.Wesleyand twobusinesspartners,whomerged itwith theTexasFreeman to form theHouston Informer and Texas Freeman.

31


Wesley rose to prominence as an astute businessman and community

leader. He was at the center of many important issues that involved the

African American community in the years of Jim Crow. The HoustonInformer and the Dallas Express became the primary alternative pub-lications for black citizens in Texas. The Informer acquired a printing

company, employed 1,500 people at its peak, and is credited with start-

ingmany black writers in their careers. Even afterWesley’s death and the

demiseof segregation, the Informer remainedpopular inHouston’sblack

community. In the 1990s, the Informer survived under publisher and

editorGeorgeMcElroy.TheDallas Express ceased publication in 1970.4

The San Antonio Register was founded by its owner and publisher,

Valmo C. Bellinger, and first appeared in print on April 10, 1931. The

papercontinued for the next forty-seven years, changing ownership early

in 1979. Of its three editors, the most important were the first, JasperT.

Duncan, and the third, Ulysses J. Andrews, the latter the editor for forty-

threeof theoriginal newspaper’s forty-eight years.With thedemiseof the

rival Inquirer in 1934, theRegister’s local, state, national, andworldnewscoverage expanded.The paper alsoworked to ensure that San Antonio’s

black community would continue its electoral support for Democratic

political candidates backed by the newspaper.5

While their news coverage was sporadic and editorials often avoided

direct challenges to the white community during the era of Jim Crow

segregation, the black press served as a critic of the most extreme prac-

tices. Lynching and attacks on members of the black community that

went unreported in the establishment press received significant attention

in the pages of these small urban newspapers. They also served as the

conscience and the seedbed for the modern civil rights movement that

emerged in the years prior toWorldWar II and gainedmomentum in the

postwar period. As early as the 1920s, prominent AfricanAmerican pub-

lishers helped finance NAACP lawsuits that challenged segregation laws

and customs.The newspaper publishers played critical roles in working

with thewhite business establishment and brokering changes in the civil

rights era.

Texas at the Turn of the CenturyAs Texas cities grew in size, economic power, and diversity in the late

1800s and early 1900s,Texas urban newspapers increased in complexity,

sophistication, and influence. San Antonio, the Spanish colonial capi-

tal of Texas, claimed the title of largest city in the state at the dawn of

the twentieth century. San Antonio had 53,321 inhabitants, according to

32


the 1900 U.S. census, while close on the heels of the Alamo City were

Houston (44,633) and Dallas (42,638). All threewere large inland com-

mercial trade centers. These three cities surpassed Galveston (37,789),

the largest port city on the Gulf of Mexico, which served as the leading

city in the state at the endof the nineteenth century. FortWorth (26,688),

Austin (22,258), and Waco (20,686) were the only other Texas cities

whose populations exceeded 20,000 inhabitants. With a population of

3 million in 1900,Texas remained largely rural. More than eight of every

tenTexans in 1900 lived in rural areas. Urban areas became increasingly

dominant as the century unfolded, but not until afterWorldWar II did a

majority of the state’s residents reside in communities larger than 2,500

people.

The minority of Texans who resided in cities in the early 1900s still

relied on their neighbors in the country to sustain the economy. Cotton,

corn, and cattlewere the primary cash crops.Texas continually led other

states in cotton production and beef on the hoof, but ranked near the

bottom in processing these homegrown products. Prior toWorldWar II,

no more than 3 percent of the cotton from Texas farms was milled in

the state. Crop diversification expanded, but cotton remained king over

other crops grown in Texas. Lumber and wood products sustained the

economic growth of the state during the early part of the century. Saw-

mills were plentiful, but very few pulp and paper plants located inTexas.

Texas remained aproviderof rawmaterials thatwere turned into finished

products in richer industrial centers outside the state. The millions of

longhorns that roamed the prairies were gone by 1900. One of the few

remaining herds survived at the San Antonio Zoo.Yet the ranching busi-

ness still thrived, asTexas raised the largest number of cattle, sheep, and

goats in the nation.Thenumberof packingplants increased after the turn

of the century, but the rails that replaced the western trails of the 1800s

still transported millions of head of cattle to processing facilities in the

Midwest and northern states.Wool andmohair were also taken to the out

of state mills.6

Following the discovery of oil at Spindletop in 1901, petroleum slowly

began to transform life in the Lone Star State. Before the Lucas gusher

at Spindletop, Corsicana had served as the center of the state’s oil ac-

tivity. Oil production increased as many new fields were discovered in

the coming decades. Not until 1930, with the discovery of the immense

EastTexas field, did petroleum replace cotton as the symbol of the state’s

wealth.With the approachofWorldWar II, nearlyone inevery sixTexans

linked their livelihood to the oil industry. Production remained centered

33


in rural areas, but the new industry generated many jobs and businesses

in cities as the century continued.

Lynchings and Violence—Press Coverageof Minorities in the Early 1900sThe largest cities in the statewere littlemore thancrossroadhamlets com-

pared to the massive, diverse cities in the northern states at the turn of

the century.While San Antonio retained its leadership as the largest and

oldest community, New York, Chicago, Boston, and many other estab-

lished northern cities dwarfed their Texas counterparts. Yet like their

oversized cousins,Texas cities hadmultiple problems that resulted from

rapid growth and the boom and bust cycles in the U.S. economy. Texas

communities, like their counterparts in other southern states, labored

under the stigma of racial segregation. As a result of Jim Crow segrega-

tion, African Americans and Mexican Americans remained outside the

economic and socialmainstream fordecades.However, distinctminority

communities emerged in the largest Texas cities with separate commer-

cial enterprises.

The poll tax, a levy required to obtain authorization to vote in an elec-

tion, served as cornerstone of electoral reform. InTexas, newspaper edi-

torials argued that the tax would define the voter base and cleanse it of

‘‘repeaters and floaters.’’ Prior to the poll tax proposal, Texas required

no registration of voters. In 1902 the San Antonio Express editorializedthat thepoll taxwouldprevent ‘‘fraudulent elections.’’Thenewspaperaf-

firmed its support for an amendment to the state constitution: ‘‘No sharp

candidatewill buy tax receipts for purchasable voters six or eightmonths

in advance. He cannot buy them for floaters who move from county to

county to vote, even if he were willing to do so.’’ Such arguments mar-

ginalized the state’s many migratory farmworkers—the impoverished

Anglos, Mexican Americans, and African Americans who crossed the

state, following growing seasons and searching for better working con-

ditions and wages. State legislators who supported the registration law

advanced similar arguments. However, as one political historian noted,

the argument reflected ‘‘pious talk used as a means of winning popular

support for disenfranchisement.’’ Some of the reform methods also led

to other abuses at the ballot box as they heightened requirements and

reduced voter rolls.The actual intent of the movement was to disenfran-

chise African American voters and whites who supported the Populist

Party in the 1890s. The movement also served as a reaction to congres-

sional legislation in the1890s thatprovidedprotection forminorityvoters

34


and federal oversight of elections. In reality, threats, violence, and other

intimidation tactics aimed at black voters had already reduced minority

participation by 1900.7

Daily newspapers covered more visible methods to restrain African

Americans. Public executions drew large crowds in Texas, especially

when the convicted were African Americans. At the February 26, 1910,

hangingofSamWashingtonandGusThompson in the townofWharton,

thousands gathered towitness the end of the twoAfricanAmericanmen.

TheWharton Spectator announced the time and date of the execution

in advance and provided descriptions of the ropes that had been used to

hang other men. The men had been tried and found guilty of separate

shotgun slayings of twoAfrican Americanwomen and, theDallasMorn-ing News reported, their execution ‘‘in most all of its phases was beyondprecedent’’ because of their actions on the scaffold. The audience, pri-

marily African American, numbered in the thousands. As they watched,

the condemned pair sang, preached, and prayed. Both men confessed

their guilt and then listened to talks delivered by several ‘‘colored preach-

ers.’’ As the pair sang ‘‘Nearer, My God, toThee,’’ Sheriff Robert Koehl

placedblack capsover their heads and said, ‘‘Good-bye, boys.’’The sing-

ing stopped, the Houston Chronicle reported, at 1:15 p.m. as ‘‘both of

the condemned men were dangling from the twin ropes.’’ Both news-

papers reported that Washington died instantly of a broken neck. The

News stated thatThompson ‘‘choked todeath, struggling considerably.’’8

A ‘‘deplorable tragedy’’ occurred shortly after the dual hangings: the

shooting of Mrs. Effice Kepner by her husband and brother-in-law. As

‘‘hundreds of negroes’’ passedby theKepnerhomeduring thedaybefore

the double execution, several family members believed the large num-

bers of black travelers represented a ‘‘negro uprising for the annihilation

of the white people’’ and determined to protect their household. That

night, Effice Kepner and her mother-in-law rushed out of the house to a

nearby shed where two family members stood guard with shotguns.The

men fired on the twowomen in the mistaken belief that they were under

attack,killingEfficeKepnerandwoundinghermother-in-law.TheWhar-ton Spectator described the accidental shootings as one of the ‘‘saddest

accidents which has ever occurred inWharton County.’’9

A few days later and hundreds of miles to the north, mob violence

erupted in Dallas when thousands of people rioted and lynched Allen

Brooks after seizing him in a county courtroom where he was on trial.

According to the Dallas Morning News, about 200 white men and one

‘‘conspicuous Negro’’ fought past deputies and policemen and seized

35


Brooks, who was accused of ‘‘one of the most heinous crimes since the

days of Reconstruction.’’ The group of men tied a rope around Brooks’

neck,beathim, and threwhimheadfirst fromasecond-floorwindowonto

the ground below. Members of the ‘‘maddened crowd’’ dragged Brooks

up Main Street to the Elks’ Arch. Climbing a telephone pole at the cor-

ner of Main and Akard near the arch, an unidentified man pulled the

rope across one of the iron spikes. ‘‘Brooks’ body was pulled up until it

dangled about four feet above the ground.’’ The only clothing remaining

on Brooks was a tattered flannel shirt and undershirt, as members of the

crowd grabbed torn pieces of cloth and bits of rope for souvenirs. The

News speculated that the fall from the window may have killed Brooks

before the crowd lynched him from the telephone pole.10

Following the removal of Brooks’ body by police, a crowd of 10,000

people surrounded the jail where he had been a prisoner in an attempt

to force police to release two other black men convicted of murdering

whites. A former Dallas County sheriff described the crowd as the ‘‘best

organized andmost determinedmob in thehistoryof Texas,’’ anddozens

ofmen attempted to batterdown the front doorof the jail and foughtwith

police. Officers permitted a small group of men to search the building.

In anticipation of the mob’s assault on the jail, Sheriff Ledbetter had al-

ready spirited the two prisoners out of town in a taxi during the lynching

of Brooks. The mob finally dispersed that evening when the convicted

men could not be found in the jail or in other public buildings.11

TheBrooks affair made the news in other cities.TheHouston Chroni-cle’s page one coverage reported, ‘‘Dallas Courthouse Raided by Mob

and Negro Killed.’’ After Brooks was taken from the courtroom and

strung up on a telephone pole, the Chronicle reported of the mob that

‘‘despite its great size there appeared to be little excitement and therewas

no shooting.’’ The Chronicle also reported the failed attempts to seize

other inmates from the jail. The following day, theChronicle stated that

a grand jury planned to investigate the Dallas lynching. ‘‘It is believed,

however, the investigation will be a mere formality and that there will be

no prosecution.’’ Within twenty-four hours of the ‘‘day of thewildest ex-

citement,’’ themilitia that had been called in departed. And in a sure sign

that order was restored, the Dallas saloons reopened.12

The Dallas Morning News editorial expressed shock at the day’s

events. ‘‘There never was yet a mind powerful enough or subtle enough

to justify lynching. It is in every case an irreparable hurt to society,’’ the

editors stated.However, not every participant joined themob ‘‘movedby

a lust for bloodshed.’’ The newspaper stated that many expressed frus-

36


tration at delays and inequities in the justice system. Often the law was

used as ‘‘the means for saving fiends from fair and prompt punishment.’’

Until the systemwas reformed, theNews complained, ‘‘public sentimentand all its agencies will be practically helpless against such outbreaks of

popular passion.’’

The Reverend E. P. West, pastor of the First Baptist Church, con-

demned mob violence and commended the News for its position. In a

letter to the editor, West called for ‘‘reform in the present delay in trial

procedure and still more urgent need for a closing up of the number-

less loopholes in the law.’’ When higher courts reversed convictions of

a ‘‘heinous crime’’ due to a ‘‘mere technicality or subterfuge, they fur-

nish incentive and motive to just such spectacles of violence as that in

Dallas.’’ Thus, while mob violence and lynching gave the community a

black eye,West and most whiteTexans ignored the underlying causes of

this race-based crime.13

The Chronicle editorial essentially condoned the citizen action, al-

though it proclaimed that ‘‘the Chronicle stands against mob violence.’’The Houston editors justified the crowd’s reaction due to the nature of

the crime and frustrationwith the judicial system. ‘‘A beast of a negro de-

filed by lecherous assault not a woman, not a girl, but a dimpled-cheeked

innocent babe, and when he did he placed himself beyond the pale of

every law of civilized man,’’ the editorial proclaimed. Brooks suffered at

the hands of themob because he ‘‘forfeited his right to live.’’ Because the

courts and law enforcement authorities failed in their jobs, ‘‘the people

retook the power into their own hands for a season and executed it their

own way.’’ In Brooks’ case, ‘‘a patient and long suffering people reached

the point where they could stand no more.’’ As long as the law toler-

ated convicted criminals to remain unpunished, theChronicle predicted,future mob action would take place.

14

Based on these and other occurrences involving violent action against

racial minorities, little distinction can be drawn between Texas and the

rest of the South.Texas newspaper editors, who spent enormous energy

promoting the virtues of their communities, looked favorably upon exe-

cutionsofAfricanAmericans.Legal executions, such as the 1910hanging

ofWashington andThompson, reinforcedcommunity standards and the

distinctions drawn between racial groups. Public executions served as a

warning to blacks that racial violencewould not be tolerated. From petty

crimes to capital offenses, blacks could expect quick retribution from law

enforcement authorities.Thecourseof events fromtrial to executionpro-

ceeded uninterrupted forWashington and Thompson. Since both men

37


were accused of murdering black women, the community allowed the

legal process to run its course.

The large number of blacks who attended the execution served a pur-

pose in both communities. African American ministers, who used the

execution to exert their leadership, used the public hanging as an oppor-

tunity to confirm their positions as spokesmen for the black community

andmediatorswith thewhite community.TheWhartonCounty trial and

execution proceeded without interruption.Thus, no editorial commen-

tary appeared in the state’s daily press on the hanging. By its silence,

the press indicated its approval as long as the executions proceeded al-

most as swiftly as a lynch mob.The straight news coverage conveyed the

essential message to whites and blacks: lawless activities by blacks were

expected andwould not be tolerated to anydegree by thewhite majority.

The large public spectacle undoubtedly served as a warning to the black

community that punishment would be swift and sure. What was pun-

ished more often than actual crime, however, was the failure of blacks to

follow precisely the oppressive codes of racial deference demanded by

whites.

Thewell-organized proceedings inWharton stood in stark contrast to

the Dallas riot. Residents in Texas and the rest of the South witnessed

many years of this form of violence before 1910. Historian Joel William-

son termed this period the ‘‘hot time’’ because of the widespread and

systematic use of violence against black Americans. Retaliation against

blacks, especially black males, increased dramatically in the final years

of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Many factors contrib-

uted to this rise in violence. Newspaper stories and editorial campaigns

against blacks certainly contributed to the hostilities. Although some

journalists and editorialists condemned lawlessness andmob action, the

ongoing descriptions of blacks as untrustworthy, licentious, and pre-

disposed toward crime reflected the sentiments of most white Texans.

White racists created the myth of the ‘‘black beast rapist’’ and perpetu-

ated stories of ‘‘unspeakable’’ crimes committed by black men against

white women. And as demonstrated in these editorials, lynching repre-

sented a rational, civilized response by the white community to the sav-

age activities of blacks. Even the objectively written, detailed accounts

of the riot and lynching reveal the cultural bias that existed within the

newspapers and the communities. Treatment and coverage of the Afri-

can American andMexican American populations in the early twentieth

century placed Texas among the worst offenders in the South and the

nation as a whole.15

38


SpindletopTexas’ urban racial politics echoed the state’s blood-stained southern

past,but thediscoveryofoil inanobscurecornerof thestate in thefirstde-

cade of the twentieth century transformed the state’s economy, its popu-

lation, and its identity forever.When the Houston Post first covered the

story, on January 10, 1901, it announced that ‘‘oil gushed up like a water-

spout’’ on Spindletop Hill in nearby Beaumont, but the paper failed to

put the news on the front page.The Post editors were either skeptical ofthe claim of a 5,000 barrel per day output or the story arrived too late for

insertion onpage one. For the previous fourmonths,CaptainAnthonyF.

Lucas andhis crewshadendured the tauntsofmanyof Beaumont’s9,000

residents, who ridiculed the prospecting efforts at the drill site south of

town. But that morning, when the Lucas well sent a black stream shoot-

ing over 100 feet into the air, townspeople rushed to the livery stable and

sped to the scene.Many later reported the gusher sounded like a cannon

when the force of the oil, mud, and gas blew out the pipe and drilling

equipment.Charlie Ingals, a nearby farmer, gallopedhis horse intoBeau-

mont like an oil-soaked Paul Revere to give the city’s residents the news.

In his first interview that afternoon, Lucas hugged the Post reporter andproclaimed, ‘‘Its equal cannot be seen on this earth’’ and was ‘‘equal if

not superior to the oil found at Corsicana.’’16

The next day, thePost featured the Spindletop discoveryon page one.‘‘The Big Oil Well’’ was suddenly big news. An estimated 16,000 bar-

rels per day flowed from the well, whose flow was still out of control as

it gushed into the damp, chilly air. The well’s capacity was reported to

be ‘‘greater than that of any ‘gusher’ in the world.’’ On its editorial page,

Post writers said that people should not be surprised at the strength of

thewell and agreedwith previous reports that the ‘‘whole region covered

a rich oil field.’’ The editors speculated that Spindletopwas the southern

end of an immense field that stretched as far north as the Corsicana field

discovered in 1895.The newspaper predicted a boom for Beaumont as a

result of the strike and speculated that oil could be located nearHouston

that would ‘‘wonderfully multiply our energies and business.’’17

Americans hadwitnessed earlier booms in Pennsylvania and inCorsi-

cana,Texas, but no one had ever seen a gusher like Spindletop. A hastily

constructedfifty-acre reservoirwas too small to hold the oil from thewell.

As the magnitude of the strike became evident, Beaumont became the

first of manyTexas oil boomtowns. Speculators rushed to the city within

days to secure leases on surrounding properties and arrange contracts

for newwells. Syndicates quickly formed in Beaumont, Houston, Corsi-

39


cana,Dallas, and other cities for the sole purpose of finding oil and quick

riches. Like gold fever in the nineteenth century, the Spindletop gusher

created newdreams of unimaginable wealth. Continuous newspaper ac-

counts and editorials spurred this new drive for individual prosperity

with their enthusiastic reports of immense reserves awaiting discovery.

Landhadpreviously sold foronlya fewdollars anacre.Now, a lot thatwas

twenty-five by thirty-four feet (the exact space needed to erect a drilling

rig) went for $6,000.

The Spindletop well gushed for nine days, covering the surrounding

prairie with a sea of oil, before storage and holding tanks could be con-

structed.The Lucas crew finally capped the uncontrolled well after sev-

eral days, but novalvewas strong enough to control the enthusiasmof the

thousands who flocked to Beaumont. For a full week after the Spindle-

top gusher first hit, the nearbyHouston Post expanded its coverage of thestrike.The Southern Pacific Railroad advertised round-trip tickets in its

front-page ads in the Post. Artist sketches portrayed scenes of the gush-

ingwell, crowded hotel lobbies, and speculators hawking leases, photos,

andwagon rides toview the black geyser. Editorials extolled the birth of a

new industrial age for the region and the entire South—all because of the

Spindletop well. In a region that continuously sought new avenues for

economic growth, many believed the discovery was providential. At the

turn of the century, Americans used oil for lighting lamps, as lubricants,

and inmedicines.The horseless carriage used only a small fraction of the

fuel supplied by the handful of refineries in the nation. The Post sagelypredicted that oil would soon replace coal as the major fuel for trans-

portation andmanufacturing. It also foresawconstruction of pipelines to

the coast, new refineries, and more shipping and trade. Spindletop was

more than the birth of a new industry—it was the dawn of a new age.18

The Post also noted that Spindletop would rival the Pennsylvania oil

fields. Prior to the Lucas discovery, Standard Oil Company had domi-

nated the industry. Standard’s vertical operations included drilling, re-

fining, and marketing oil products. But Texas’ antitrust laws expressly

prohibited vertically integrated companies like Standard from operat-

ing in the state.This provided an opening forTexas businessmen.Many

worked on eastern capital, but they chartered their companies in Texas.

Gulf, Texaco, Sun, Mobil, and Exxon all trace their corporate roots to

the cow pasture on Spindletop Hill in 1901. Hundreds of other smaller

supply and service companies sprang up as quickly as new derricks ap-

peared on Spindletop.The first front-page ad for oil well casing and pipe

appeared alongside the beer, farming equipment, and furniture ads on

40


January 15, only five days after the Lucas gusher came in. The new in-

dustry offered more than just news—it brought increased advertising

revenues and circulations for the major daily newspapers.19

With this sudden expansion, newspaper executives faced a critical

decision in their advertising policies. Many individuals and companies

wanted to cash in on the oil boom. Newspaper ads for stock promotion

and solicitation became a major source of revenue. But many stock pro-

moters were fraudulent and robbed investors of their money. Yet their

advertisements represented a strong source of revenue for newspapers.

Newspaper executives struggled for years with ethical considerations

concerning questionable ads, trying to determine if they were necessary.

Newspapers during this period often contained dozens of solicitations

from new, inexperienced companies. The oil boom created many un-

anticipated problems that served as harbingers of the difficulties in the

transition to a modern society.

The Post editors realized that Spindletop was an important story andprovided ongoing coverage. One story contained the following passage:

‘‘Strange faces began to be seen in the streets, the post office and the tele-

graph employees were put on their mettle, shipments of cots went round

to the hotels, and then day by day the fever grew till the city roared like a

hive and trains came in crowded with impatient men who leaped off be-

fore the station was reached.’’ The reporter concluded that ‘‘Boom and

Frenzy ruled the day.’’ Unquestionably, the discovery automatically at-

tractedhundreds of people. But the ongoingnews coverage undoubtedly

fired the imagination of many people in Texas and throughout the na-

tion.Thousandsof peoplepoured intoBeaumont. ‘‘Anewclass of people

walk the streets,’’ another newspaper story noted. ‘‘New enterprises are

on every hand, street fakirs, museum attractions, and all sorts of little

money-making schemes abound in almost endless variety.’’20

Newspaper articles painted the discovery in glowing terms, but un-

savory news also worked its way into print. Although the Spindletop

boom was a bonanza for many speculators, it was not for ordinary resi-

dents, and the city of Beaumont quickly gained an unsavory reputation

that rivaled the gold camps of the previous century. Houses that once

were white turned a sullen yellow from the oil-laden air. Ham and eggs

were a dollar perorder, andwater becamemore expensive than oil.Many

residents noted that the water suddenly tasted like oil and feared their

drinkingwater was ruined. Beds were nonexistent, andmanywearymen

slept in the open or alongside streets and buildings. Gamblers, prosti-

tutes, thieves, and con men who hustled fraudulent stock offerings de-

41


scended on Beaumont.The chief of policewarned residents and visitors

towalk in themiddle of the street after nightfall and advisedmen to ‘‘tote

guns and tote ’em in your hands . . . not on your hips, so everybody can

see you’re loaded.’’21

From this time on through the remainder of the twentieth century, the

black gold from the ground and the black ink from the printer provided

a stimulus to the Texas economy. The entrepreneurs in the newspaper

business inTexaspossessedmanyof thesame traits as the independentoil

producers of this era. Both industries had maintained a presence before

the big discovery in southeast Texas. The Spindletop boom coincided

with the rapid expansion of daily newspapers.

Just as the daily newspaper served as the dominant communication

enterprise of the era, oil quickly surpassed timber, shipping, and other

aspects ofmanufacturing to become the leading industrial sector.The oil

business came to represent an economic mainstay for newspaper pub-

lishers as increasing advertising revenues appeared fromoil-related busi-

nesses, especially the booming automobile sector that emerged in the

years after Spindletop. The oil booms and the business connected with

oil also provided an ongoing source of news and features forTexas daily

editors. Petroleum changed the lives of manyTexans and influenced the

very image of the state held by its inhabitants and those outside of the

state. Coverage of the oil business remained one of the critical issues for

daily newspapers and provided the first degree of separation from the

rural nineteenth century and southern agricultural traditions of Texas.

The oil business thus contributed to the expanded business presence

of the urban daily newspapers that emerged in these early years of the

twentieth century.

Daily Newspapers in Late Nineteenth-and Early Twentieth-Century TexasThe Spindletop discovery came as the United States wasmaturing into a

more diverse, complex society.Westward expansion, industrial growth,

technological change, and urbanization contributed to this major devel-

opment of the national arena. The newspaper industry benefited from

this explosion as the presses rolled out news, information, advertising,

and advice. Newspapers, written and priced for the masses, carried the

banner in the parade of American-style democracy and capitalism. The

industry became more professional and diversified as publications fo-

cusedonprofits, efficiency, andproductivity.Media historians define the

twentieth century as the period of the modern, professional media.The

42


era of the small club ofmenwho alternately served as publishers, editors,

and sales and business managers drew to a close.The daily newspapers

that survived and prospered in this new era often resembled giant oil

and insurance companies instead of the corner groceryormom-and-pop

drugstore.22

In the mid-nineteenth century, the incisive Alexis de Tocqueville

noted that Americans prided themselves on their basic rights, especially

the right of free speech. But he issued a warning notewhen he cautioned

that a willful majority easily stifled dissent. ‘‘I do not know any coun-

try where, in general, less independence of mind and genuine freedom

of discussion reign than in America,’’ he wrote. Those who wrote tracts

supporting ideas and persons within this circle of the majority enjoyed

considerableflexibility.Tocqueville observed that thosewhostrayedout-

side the circle in support of unconventional theories and social outcasts

risked ‘‘the butt of mortifications of all kinds and of persecutions every

day.’’ This ‘‘tyranny’’ of the majority enforced its own despotism whose

terms of enforcement replaced chains and executioners with universal

condemnation.Under these circumstances, freedomof the press in prac-

tice remaineda limitedone.Thepowerof condemnation rivaled andeven

exceeded that of the Spanish Inquisition in its effectiveness in squashing

works that threatened the status quo.23

Evenwith its noticeable shortcomings,Tocqueville believed, an inde-

pendent press constituted an essential foundation for political discourse

and communication.Hedescribed theUnitedStates press as the ‘‘consti-

tutive element of freedom.’’ In the developmental years of the new repub-

lic, the nation’s newspapers acquired an indispensable position in affairs

of government and politics.With little threat of reprisal from the govern-

ment,newspapers tookdeadaimatpublicofficials as aneasymark tooffer

their growing number of readers. ‘‘Its eye, always open, constantly lays

bare the secret springs of politics and forces public men to come in turn

to appear before the court of public opinion,’’ he wrote. As journalists

pursued this course of action, they often demonstrated their own coarse

background, their passions, and other weaknesses.What often appeared

as disorderlyand confusing toEuropean observers actually provided sta-

bility to the new nation.The press obtained and stubbornly held onto its

influence and power in the growing nation.24

The lack of development in the new republic tempered the power of

the press in early America. With no licenses or governmental controls,

journals could easily arise in even the smallest communities. This free-

dom also acted to deter the influence of local publications. The great

43


numberofnewspapers in theUnitedStatesdiluted their impact andmade

the business of publishing a dubious economic enterprise. Nineteenth-

century newspapers suffered froma lack of capital, untrained employees,

stiff competition, and inability to direct national events. As Tocqueville

concluded, the vast numbers of newspapers prevented any resemblance

of coordination and efficiency. ‘‘Newspapers in the United States, there-

fore, cannot establish great currents of opinion that sweep away or over-

flow the most powerful dikes.’’ Yet even with this diffusion, he believed

that the press still exercised a strong position. ‘‘In the United States each

newspaper has little power individually; but the periodical press is still,

after the people, the first of powers.’’25

While Texas newspapers followed the national trends, witnessing an

explosion of growth in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries,

even the most successful of the daily publications remained rigorously

provincial in their appeal and influence. Publishers quickly adapted and

followed the latest patterns in business practices, technological improve-

ments, and journalisticmethods.However, their perspective for themost

part centered on local concerns, and these dominated the news and view-

points. National and foreign affairs received the attention of editors and

sometimes earned an editorial response that reflected the traditional be-

lief standards of the community. In this manner, Texas publications fell

into linewith theircounterparts inotherpartsof theSouth.Many journals

proclaimed their professional standards and independence from the yel-

low journalism of their northern counterparts, and southern publishers

and editors engaged in their own indigenous style of interpretative news.

As a business concern in their respective communities, most indepen-

dent publishers subscribed to the post-Reconstruction, pro-southern in-

terpretation of ‘‘progress.’’ This outlookmost often described economic

success, racialharmony, and intellectualpursuits in stories that contained

only marginal elements of veracity. Editors and publishers frequently

trumpeted insignificant gains as landmarks of the greatest importance.

As believers in the New South creed, these publishers touted their re-

gional distinctiveness, and they also slowly broke the chains of the past.

They subscribed to an alternate version of the future built on a somewhat

different economy and society.While ideas that touted commercialism,

urban growth, and racial accommodation appearedYankee in origin, the

newspapers slowly began to raise the questions that Tocqueville noted

earlier generations had feared to raise.These were forays into new terri-

tories of journalism and investigation. Many of the state’s leading dailies

joined with others in the South to raise questions about the unseemly

44


underside of the region. In business affairs, publishers touted nontradi-

tional businesses such as manufacturing and trade to boost the local and

regional economy.

Segregation remained sacrosanct, but a few publishers raised ques-

tions concerning lynching and the extralegal treatment of AfricanAmeri-

cans in the South. Editors and news stories questioned the dismal record

of public education and services, and some even dared to compare their

records to the their northern counterparts.The leadingpublishers, down

to the newest reporter, seldomhesitated towrap themselves in their Con-

federate ancestry for fear of being labeled a latter-day carpetbagger or

Yankee promoter. As the years progressed, some of themore visionary of

the group understood the stereotypes of their own traditions and began

to look beyond to newer ideas. Nearly all looked first to local and then to

state solutions for themost pressing problems. In a handful of instances,

some even began to look toWashington,D.C., for assistance, a trend that

accelerated during the Great Depression andWorld War II.

With the dawn of the twentieth century, U.S. daily newspapers stood

unchallenged as the dominant voice in national affairs. Located in the

commercial and political centers of expanding cities, the urban dailies

satisfied the people’s growing appetite for information. Although the

term ‘‘mass media’’ did not become commonplace until the 1920s, over

2,000 daily newspapers vied for attention in the first decade of the cen-

tury. According to media historians, newspaper readership actually in-

creased more rapidly than the exploding population. As circulation in-

creased, news coverage and advertising expanded, which maintained

populardemand for thedailies.The largepublications inNewYork,Chi-

cago, andmajor industrial areas of theNorth andMidwest rose to promi-

nence. Smaller publications in the South became influential regional

voices. Along with this growth, the presence and influence of American

newspaper leaders increased. Consolidations, mergers, and purchases

paved the way for the new media empires and their millionaire owners.

These men of influence became as important as other captains of indus-

try who changed the face and the pace of life during the first half of the

twentieth century.26

As these national publications and publishers garnered their own

headlines, a similar expansion occurred on a regional basis throughout

the nation. In Texas, most major cities contained at least two and often

three ormore daily newspapers.Competition for readers and advertising

dollars created rivalries between newspapers and their publishers. The

situation also created an atmosphere of cooperation between influential

45


local publishers who faced dailies owned by national chains. In some

cases, this also led to consolidation or the creation of new local chains

to counter the influence of the nationally syndicated newspapers. The

larger newspaper organizations, such as Hearst and Pulitzer, rapidly ac-

quired the leadership in New York and California. In Texas, however,

wealthy individual publishers and their daily newspapers held their own

and eliminated the national competitors in the first half of the twentieth

century.

Texas daily newspapers followednational trends inmanyareas.These

included improved mechanization, adoption of modern business prac-

tices and professional standards, and expanded coverage of social, cul-

tural, and political issues.ThemajorTexas dailies departed from the na-

tional mainstream in some areas and developed their own standards and

practices. To a large degree, this independence reflected the personali-

ties and beliefs of the individual owners. The dailies also reflected the

nineteenth-century heritage and belief in a unique Texas legacy. Thus

the dailies portrayed themselves as defenders of rural Texas while at the

same time promoting modern business and urban expansion. However,

Texas maintained its cultural and political allegiance to the South. The

region maintained its separate identity whose belief systems influenced

the pages of its newspapers.

The modern concept of news and the popularity of newspapers com-

posed an essential thread of the national fabric in the nineteenth century.

Prior to the Civil War, U.S. newspapers focused principally on politics.

Theyexpanded thecontentduring theyears justbefore andafter theCivil

War to include an array of stories that discussed the social and economic

life of thenewnation. Indoing so, thenewspapers represented the chang-

ing face of America. By the turn of the twentieth century, daily news-

papers had firmly established themselves as a reflection of the struggle,

growth, and change in the nation. AsTocqueville and other nineteenth-

century European observers noted, the young republic displayed strong

democratic tendencies andagreat tendency toward egalitarianism.How-

ever, faith in democracy and the capitalist system failed to be univer-

sallyapplied.Economicdevelopment and itsbenefitswerepromotedand

shared by the few rather than the many throughout the first 100 years

of the nation. This trend carried over into the twentieth century. News-

papers and their publishers in theSouth and inTexas reflected this some-

times paradoxical view.They also exhibited a stronger regional identity

than their northern counterparts.

Walter Lippmann, a distinguished newspaper columnist and intellec-

46


tual, penned one of the first developmental interpretations of the evolu-

tion of U.S. newspapers. Lippmann wrote that the nation’s press passed

through a series of three major changes as it moved into the era of mod-

ern journalism. First, at the beginning of the twentieth century, news-

papers became ‘‘professional’’ and assumed a seasoned, rational, andob-

jective approach to news coverage and dissemination. Secondly, while in

earlier stages of the press’ development, political parties had exercised

authority over the press. For instance, individual publications aligned

unwaveringly with Republicans or Democrats. Newspapers in the twen-

tieth century, on theotherhand,brokeaway frompolitical sponsorswhen

publications became commercially profitable and were supported by a

large body of readers. In Lippmann’s precise order of development, this

changeoccurred simultaneouslywith the evolutionofU.S. society.At the

time of Lippmann’s thesis, the nation was well on its way to becoming

an urban, business-oriented, and consumer-conscious society. On close

examination, Texas publishers, like many of their counterparts in other

southern states, faced a much tougher task than the well-financed and

industry-based North, due to their region’s agricultural economy and

much smaller commercial and population base. Faced with these differ-

ences, Texas publishers created their own entrepreneurial plan to build

their newspapers and communities.27

One historian who analyzed southern newspapers after Reconstruc-

tion determined that most editors waxed poetic over the romantic, har-

monious antebellum years as they struggled to establish new identities.

They saved their barbs for the allegedly northern-inspired excesses dur-

ing Reconstruction: black domination, widespread corruption, oppres-

sive taxes, and vindictive carpetbaggers intent on extracting every dollar

and pound of flesh they could from the defeated southerners. After Re-

construction ended, with the removal of federal troops and replacement

of Republican regimes, these editors consistently used themes of north-

ern domination and duplicity as arguments for a new southern nation-

alism. Reconstruction and its aftermath resulted in a redefined southern

region, as newspapers, businesses, and political leaders coalesced into

a dominant although sometimes unstable coalition. Most rural southern

newspapers exhibited these traditional characteristics until a number of

their urban counterparts began to break ranks at the beginning of the

twentieth century.28

As historian Dewey Grantham concludes, the political leadership

worked hand in hand with the influential commercial and planter elites

who, though small in number, proved to be oligarchic and conserva-

47


tive. In Texas and other southern states, this leadership ran the Demo-

cratic Party, selected its leaders, and decided the issues. Their control

extended from local courthouses and city halls to the state capitols and

halls of Congress.This influence rested on the popularity of Democratic

leaderswithwhitevoters and their ability tomaintain an alliance between

the local, state, and federal centers of power. Even though many small

farmers, laborers, and small business owners disagreed with this leader-

ship—most notably through the Populist challenge in the late nineteenth

century—theygenerally supported the conservativeDemocratic leaders.

This group formed the basic readership for newspapers. As newspapers

became increasingly reliant on commercial advertising and broader cir-

culation, their affiliation with the commercial and political elites of the

community grew stronger. In earlier times, subscribers had aligned with

newspapers primarily because of their political affiliation. By the early

1900s, readers still followed politics and relied on newspapers to bring

them relevant political news and opinions on a regular basis. Yet in the

South, people also purchased newspapers for advertising andmore gen-

eral coverage of daily events in their communities and region.29

This evolution of daily newspapers in the twentieth century altered

their character and organization. At the same time, they redefined their

communities and provided an impetus for the expanding urban middle

class. By the early 1900s, publishers of the leading daily newspapers in

Texas blazed a path to establish their publications as proponents for the

values and economic well being of the white middle class.Thus the new

daily newspapers no longer ignored business and commerce or attacked

any business not connected to agriculture. Publishers and editors be-

lieved that their expanded role should be to provide news and editorials

that stimulated their communities as centers of trade and commerce.The

daily newspaper counted itself as a leader of the business community.

Reporters and editors became more knowledgeable of business affairs,

and some began to specialize in this area. Expanded traffic in goods and

services became paramount concerns, as newspapers campaigned for a

more diverse economyduring the Progressiveyears of the early twentieth

century.

The southern Progressive era assumed its own identity within the

larger national movement. Historian George Tindall explains Progres-

sivism in theSouth as a force forchange that reinforced the region’s tradi-

tional social system. Progressivism in essence represented the successor

to the New South legacy. Reforms usually served the interests of busi-

48


nesses and the middle-income groups who owned property, operated

small businesses, and provided services to the farm economy.30

In his interpretations of Progressivism, Dewey Grantham noted the

‘‘interplayof conflict and accommodation betweenNorth and Southwas

evident in thewave of reformmovements known as progressivism.’’ The

most characteristic people in themovement were ‘‘middle-classmen and

women, inhabitants of the urban South, and representatives of the new

commercial and professional elements.’’ In general, southern Progres-

sives sought to ‘‘impose a greater measure of social order, to foster eco-

nomic development, and where possible, to protect the unfortunate.’’31

Although southernProgressivismproduced its own identity, northern

philanthropy and guidance provided an impetus to Progressive reform

movements in the early twentieth century.These included better public

schools, prison reform, child labor restrictions, public health initiatives,

and agricultural improvements. Among the long list of reforms, Prohi-

bition emerged as the issue that caught the attention of most people and

drew themost headlines in southern newspapers. By 1908 six of the thir-

teen former Confederate states had adopted Prohibition. In Texas and

other states, local option elections restricted alcohol sales in many com-

munities and rural areas.ThusProhibitionandotherProgressive reforms

that played to newspaper readers were not indigenous campaigns but

part of the national trend.32

The move toward modernization was never a monolithic movement

within the urban commercial and professional elite. Change seldom oc-

curred without opposition. One of the first moves by Edwin Kiest of

theDallas Times Herald brought significant opposition from the Dallas

clergy.When theTimesHeralddecided toprint aSundayedition in Janu-ary 1897, local pastors urged businesses to cancel ads and for people to

drop their subscriptions. Kiest, the son of a Methodist minister, coun-

tered that the pastors received ‘‘acres’’ of free space for theirdeliberations

and observations in the pages of his newspaper.TheDallas Times Her-ald and other large publications inTexas cities were all printing Sundayeditions by 1900.

33

In spite of many reform efforts, poverty, sharecropping, segregation,

disenfranchisement, discrimination, and the one-party system remained

embedded in Texas and the rest of the South. Reformers wanted to

encourage change but not at the expense of the existing social order.

They encouraged order, efficiency, and expansion fueled by economic

development. The reforms advocated in the Progressive era would not

49


have taken place without a system of strong racial controls. Progressives

wanted southern traditions and institutions to remain as familiar as favor-

ite hymns at the Sunday church service. In this spirit, southern Progres-

sives presented Jim Crow segregation and limiting access to the ballot as

forward-looking reforms that protected blacks and other inferiors from

violence and competition from racial superiors while purging the ballot

of corruptible and ignorantmen.Radical ideasof racial integration,prop-

erty redistribution, andwidespreadparticipatorydemocracy smackedof

Yankee Republicanism and were rejected.

The battles over Prohibition also absorbed much of the spirit and re-

sources of the Progressives in Texas and other southern states and di-

minished attention for initiatives aimed at improving the quality of life

for everyday people. In the late nineteenth century, the Dallas Morn-ing News drew the fire of Prohibition supporters for accepting ads for

liquor and beer, although many patent medicine ads featured cure-alls

that contained alcohol.Church leaders attempted to organize boycotts of

the News and other dailies that accepted ads that promoted alcohol con-sumption. For newspaper publishers, Prohibition as a reformmovement

increased controversy and dissent even as the movement gained stability

and expanded support in the early twentieth century.

Along with social reforms and business expansion came the call for

physical improvements inTexas cities. In order to attract more business

and improve the economic climate, publishers and editors embarked on

a crusade to make their cities more livable. This included the installa-

tion and expansion of services—clean water, electricity, street paving,

garbage and waste disposal, traffic regulation, and a host of others—in

the growing cities. Some editors joined the Prohibition crusade to ban

liquor and other alcoholic beverages as a step in solving poverty, crime,

physical abuse, anddrunkenness.Thepapers themselvesbecameamani-

festation of civic pride. Politics and social concerns still played a major

part in filling the news and editorial columns. Lengthy congressional de-

bates andpolitical scandals still occupied entire pages of a dailyas editors

maintained this nineteenth-century tradition. However, publishers and

editors believed the engine of business enterprise, coupledwith the train

of civic improvements, would lay the tracks for expansion and growth in

their respective communities.

As theworld changed, the relationship betweenTexas newspaper ex-

ecutives and their advertisers also changed. As advertising increased,

publishers became less reliant on income from circulation. Newspapers

could not survivewithout readership, but in the twentieth century adver-

50


tisers began to play an increasingly large role. Ads for goods and services

carried headlines as daring as any story. People began purchasing news-

papers for their advertising content as well as the daily news. As the dis-

play ads increased in size and number, so did the dollars that flowed into

the newspapers’ bank accounts. Business in the twentieth centurywas no

longer something to be greetedwith suspicion. Rural agricultural people

remained suspicious of the motives and profits of the urban-centered

merchants and brokers with intangible holdings who often appeared to

reap great rewards. Nevertheless, urban residents, many of whom still

relied on the farm as part of their business, broke away from these tradi-

tional roles in the growing market centers of the early twentieth century.

The urban dailies served as visible evidence of this changing relation-

ship.The newspapers also served as the communication network for this

evolution.

These changes signifieda trend identifiedas ‘‘NewJournalism.’’ Intro-

duced by Joseph Pulitzer in the 1880s, the approach set a new course for

daily newspapers in the nation.The daily press moved to become a com-

munication organ that provided information to the masses, as opposed

to serving a select readership of working class or business elites. News-

papers began shifting their focus toward becoming amass medium prior

to the Civil War. But not until the late nineteenth century did publishers

follow Pulitzer and other eastern newspapers in their focus on mass in-

formation and widespread appeal.The days of writing for a select group

of individuals and elites were over as the newspapers sought to market

news and advertisements to the widest possible audience.34

TheNew Journalism style spread throughout the nation and appealed

to a growing number of middle-class city dwellers. Newspapers focused

moreonurban-relatednews, crusades for social reform, criticismof busi-

ness and government corruption, and civic and social life. The format

included more advertising to reach a growing consumer and urban mar-

ket. When these changes were combined with improved printing pro-

cesses, better communication, and increasingly efficient management of

the big city dailies, newspapers moved into a more influential position at

the dawnof the twentieth century.They began to showaprofit, and some

of the larger papers in the North were making hundreds of thousands of

dollars a year in profits.

Remarkably, these trends reached the South. Many southerners still

looked upon their northern counterparts with suspicion and envy. But

some business and civic leaders looked north of the Mason-Dixon line

for inspiration. Larger publishers in the major urban areas of Texas and

51


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

other southern states saw the opportunities offered by themodernization

launched by northern press giants.They looked to transform their news-

paper enterprises and their communities into models of prosperity, and

so they copied the northern publishing trends.

The personnel working on the rising urban newspapers of the early

twentieth century boasted a level of professionalism unknown by their

nineteenth-century predecessors. The establishment of quality stan-

dards in journalism reflected a more general trend in U.S. society that

had begun in the mid-nineteenth century.The requirement that doctors

and lawyers receive professional training from accredited schools and

be licensed by states began before the Civil War. Other professions—

e.g., architecture, psychiatry, engineering, pharmacy, and even the min-

istry—followed suit, creating specialized training institutions andgradu-

ate school programs by the twentieth century. Professionalization not

only created acceptable standards of practice and established required

levels of training foreachfield, but also restrictedmembership in thenew,

increasingly powerful class of urban professionals who would form the

backbone of the Progressive movement. Medical schools, law schools,

and graduate programs routinely shut out women and people of color,

52


ensuring that the Progressives, the strongest political force in the early

twentieth century, would speak with a primarily white male voice.35

Even with this leadership coalition, the struggle of the new southern

urban class and Progressives to maintain power and control still faced

usually quiet but sometimes vocal opposition. Urban centers, with their

growing populations and economic base, presented the greatest chal-

lenge in the post-Populist era. By the end of the nineteenth century, the

U.S. economy and social structure dominated the new agenda. Disfran-

chisement of nearly all African Americans and many poorer whites en-

hanced the solidarity of southern Democrats and the commercial and

planter leadership. From the late 1890s through 1910, southern leader-

ship created a racially defined system that firmly segregated blacks and

browns from whites. In addition, by the turn of the century the persis-

tent intersectional hostility between North and South had largely dis-

appeared. Northern abandonment of the South’s minorities at the end

of Reconstruction, combined with the new solidarity among southern

business and political leaders, effectively ended anydramatic restructure

The daily newsroom of the Dallas Morning News around 1917. Photocourtesy Belo Corp. Archives.

53


within the former Confederate states. Efforts switched to ‘‘progressive’’

reforms that focused on unified voices and marginalization of the ‘‘race

question.’’Texansandother southernersbelieved that thisnewagewould

lead to physical improvements and economic opportunity beyond the

cotton fields. In essence, the economic growth provided by Progressive

reforms, true believers hoped, would improve life for all and mute the

din of southern racial tensions.

While all the major national newspapers exhibited some elements of

yellow journalism at the turn of the century, independently owned urban

Texas publications also adopted some of the garish qualities. Identified

most closely withWilliam Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer, yellow

journalism became known for sensational stories and headlines, colorful

writing styles, large illustrations and photos, and articles that sometimes

carried fictitious or wildly distorted information. According to Michael

Schudson, this style resulted from the publishers’ desire to reach all

potential readers.The more sensational styles were meant to appeal to a

more diverse, rapidly expanding urban center. Much of the population

consisted of new immigrants, many of whomwere illiterate or possessed

only marginal reading abilities. Those publications seeking more pres-

tige and middle- and upper-class readers provided greater resistance to

the traits associated with yellow journalism. The large Texas dailies all

exhibited some degree of sensationalism associated with yellow journal-

ism.However, as a group, nearly all of the publishers saw themselves and

their newspapers as promoters andprotectors of the statusquo.From the

very outset, publishers, their newspapers, and their idea of community

remained closely tied to one another. In their efforts to downplay divi-

siveness and hostility to commercial activities, publishers sought a stable

group of middle-class wage earners and businesspeople to support their

newspapers and shape their communities. Texas daily newspaper pub-

lishers increasingly saw yellow journalism, with its emphasis on strife,

class struggles and sensationalism, as an element of instability and soon

sought a more conciliatory tone for their newspapers.36

These two themes, the struggle over identity and incorporation of

commercial and political interests, remained at the heart of the evolu-

tion of the print media in Texas. Later in the twentieth century, news-

papers leaned toward consolidation and incorporation into regional and

sometimes national chains.The individually owned daily newspapers in

Texas retained their leadership as the premier information and adver-

tising medium until World War II. Indeed, by 1940 Texas daily news-

paper publisherswere at their pinnacle of power and prestige in the state.

54


Shortly after the war, a combination of forces led to a major shift. Radio

stations began to acquire some of the newspapers’ base of support. Na-

tional and regionalmagazines also competed for the attention anddollars

of the reading public. Further erosion of the base occurred with the ad-

vent of commercial television in the 1950s. In addition, the generation

of Texas publishers who had maintained the papers’ dominant position

began to give way. Old age, retirement, and death removed much of this

leadership by the 1950s. Changing faces, a new postwar economy and

society, and the growing presence of technology made their impact on

the daily newspaper empires across the state.

New Roles for WomenIn a more complex, sophisticated world, the dailies covered many more

stories than the street crime and political news that traditionally had

served as the newspapers’ bread and butter. Rising circulations meant

not just more readers but a greater diversity of people with special inter-

ests.Thus, by the early 1900s the Texas dailies carried a variety of news

on their pages. Stock reports and commodity prices from New York,

Chicago, and other major cities became a daily feature. Special editions

often featured histories of individual businesses, along with their stories

of expansion and growth. Women’s suffrage remained a battleground,

but more women read the newspapers in the cities as literacy rates in-

creased for both sexes.Women’s pages and female correspondents indi-

cated this change of status. Stories designed for women readers leaned

toward fashion, club news, and social events. But somewriters began to

take onmore controversial topics reflecting the causes of the Progressive

era. Suffrage, improved education, better health care, and attacks on vice

and immorality infiltrated thepages set aside forwomen readers.The city

represented a place of opportunity for the rising middle class, male and

female, and the newspapers relished their part in proclaiming that their

communities provided the greatest opportunity for those with vision.

Cities inTexas served as the rallying points for the successfulwomen’s

suffrage movement of the early twentieth century. The movement drew

uponwomen’s involvement in club organizations and civic improvement

projects, as well as highly visible participation in the Prohibition move-

ment, which was often perceived as a feminist cause. Activists faced a

number of opponents to women’s suffrage from many segments of the

community.They also tangled with social customs, racial concerns, and

other class and ethnic tensions in the community. A major focus of indi-

vidual efforts in the larger cities consisted of utilizing newspapers to pro-

55


vide news of the campaign and persuade the white male leadership to

drop their objections and eventually support the change. This strategy

also centered on convincing amajority of the urban business community

towithdraw its opposition and embrace the efforts of the suffragettes. Al-

though themajorityof Texans and other southerners still resided in rural

areas, most suffrage leaders in the South came from small and large cities

rather than rural areas.37

From 1913 to 1919, suffrage advocates began a concerted campaign in

the major cities to provide news and information on the issues through

the daily newspapers. Supporters realized that support from the state’s

leading newspapers would provide a strong impetus for their campaign,

and they made gaining this support a part of their grassroots organiz-

ing efforts.This effort coincided with existing newspaper campaigns for

other Progressive causes, such as better and cleaner neighborhoods, im-

proved schools, combating corruption in government, and Prohibition.

Many reformers, bothmale and female, supported Prohibition as at least

a partial cure for social ills such as crime, spousal abuse, alcoholism, and

a host of other contemporary maladies. To be anti-alcohol in the south-

ern Progressivemindwas to be pro-family.Most suffragists favored addi-

tional Progressive reforms favored by the state’s large dailies: a juvenile

justice system, compulsory education, protection for women and chil-

dren in the workplace, and public health improvements. By expanding

their agenda and working through the media, they significantly reduced

concernsaboutamajor shakeup in theexistingsocialorderof thecommu-

nity. As many of the suffrage leaders gained a reputation for aiding in the

causes promoted by independent publishers, they overcame traditional

resistance and gained valuable allies.

The suffragemovement at the national level dated to the era before the

CivilWar. InTexas and other southern states, suffrage became a political

issue in the 1890s but it took more than a decade for organizers to enlist

widespread support. In 1899 Morning News writer Pauline Periwinklestated in one of her columns that education and other issues favored by

women languished because of their lack of political influence. ‘‘A non-

voting citizenship is powerless to press its claim to a fair share of public

appropriation,’’ she wrote in a commentary concerning legislative resis-

tance to expanding the curriculumat awoman’s college. She added, ‘‘[A]

non-votingcitizenshipwill alwaysbe regardedas an ‘annex.’ Its onlyhope

is through the election to office of suchmen only as view their power as a

means of dispensing public good instead of dividing the ‘political pie.’ ’’

In October 1901, she wrote that ‘‘opposition to woman’s education is of

56


much the same caliber as opposition to woman’s voting. Man would let

her vote if she’d promise not to hold office, and he would acquiesce to

her presence in college if shewould agree not towin anyof the honors.’’38

Isadore Miner Callaway, writing under the pen name ‘‘Pauline Peri-

winkle,’’ beganherweeklycolumnontheDallasMorningNews’Woman’s

Century Page. Callaway was not the first woman to write a column for a

Texasdailynewspaper.TheWacoTimesHeraldand theHoustonPosthadearlier columns devoted to women’s news. But she soon became a main-

stay and voice in the Progressive reform in the early twentieth century.39

Callawayprovides anexampleofnorthern-basedProgressive ideology

transplanted toTexas. Her background, education, and professional ex-

periencepreparedher foraprominent role at theNews,where shebecameone of the most widely read columnists in the early twentieth century.

Born in Battle Creek,Michigan, in 1863, Callaway attendedBattle Creek

College and laterworked at theReviewandHerald PublishingCompany

and as an associate editor for amagazine. After a brief, unhappymarriage

to James Miner, she left Battle Creek in 1891 for work at theToledo Com-mercial. Two years later, in 1893, she moved to Dallas to write for the

Dallas Morning News.In her new Texas home, she worked as the editor for women’s and

children’s pages of the News and became active in several Progressive

organizations whose core membership represented Progressive Dallas

women. In 1896 she began her influential column on the women’s page

under the pen name ‘‘Pauline Periwinkle.’’ In 1900 she married William

Allen Callaway, a prominent Dallas insurance executive.

Her biographer, Jacquelyn Masur McElhane, concluded that Calla-

way’s efforts to utilize women’s clubs to bring about change created a

Progressive partnership in the city. In particular, she penned her persua-

sive columns to urgeDallas businessmen and politicians towork for civic

improvements in linewith those advocated by the editorial staff.Her col-

umn appeared each Monday morning on the women’s page for twenty

years.Often serving as theofficial spokesperson for the clubwomen inher

column, she pressured local and state lawmakers to pass laws and regu-

lations that would improve education and create cleaner, healthier cities.

Callaway’s columns appealed to a core audience of women in Dallas.

They also brought women’s activities and organizations into the daily

news and editorials. Her column provided a sense of legitimacy to the

expansion of women’s rights and other reform causes during this era.

In her columns, Callaway successfully advocated the establishment of

a city library, a home for juvenile offenders, a public playground, treat-

57


ment of city water, a pure food ordinance, and safety regulations. She

made her greatest political effort in the fight for women’s suffrage. She

devoted columns tonews about notable accomplishments bywomen and

thework ofwomen’s clubs inDallas and throughout the nation. She even

offered humorous critiques on fashion and men’s attitudes. According

to her biographer, of all the achievements for which she received credit,

Callaway believed her greatest contribution was her newspaper column.

Typical of her writing was a jab at the male readers and business estab-

lishment.Whenever improvements, city bonds, or an improvement cam-

paign was needed, women were encouraged to participate. But once the

moneywas secured for a project, womenwere expected to ‘‘go home and

sit down. Their help and wisdom are no longer at a premium.’’ In the

prime of her journalism career, shewrote in 1900 that ‘‘printer’s ink judi-

cially applied to the club idea is a great lubricator and will make it run

further and smoother than anything I know.’’40

Periwinkle utilized the education issue as a springboard for her suf-

frage message. Crowded and poorly funded public schools remained a

chronic problem in Texas and the South. Improving public education

became a centerpiece of Progressive reform in the early twentieth cen-

tury. In July 1906, Periwinkle advocated the election of women to local

school boards. She asked, ‘‘What could the women of Texas do to aid

their public schools?’’ The columnist called for local organizations to in-

sist on more and better-paid teachers, clean school buildings, and even

raising taxes and selling bonds for needed improvements. ‘‘The time is

ripe, too, tobeginmakingpublic sentiment forwomenonschoolboards,’’

shestated.More than four-fifthsof the teachers in thenationwerewomen.

‘‘Hence it shouldnotbe lookeduponas analarming innovation to ask that

the sex be represented in an advisory and official capacity,’’ she wrote.41

In addition to her own opinions, Periwinkle’s columns often reflected

the strategies of other women reformers in the state. She often utilized a

combination of wit and sarcasm, together with an impressive argument

supplied with ample statistics. She designed her columns to increase

public awareness andgenerate debate. Periwinkle hoped that her graphic

descriptions and appeals to the community conscience would raise the

level of discussion amongwomen andmen in the community. She clearly

hoped that her columns would bring more women out of their homes

and into more active roles in the community. She also had an impact

on her own group of editors at the News: they allowed her to cover di-

verse and controversial issues.The daily becamemore receptive to news

of women’s organizations and their calls for civic improvement. Readers

58


also followed these trends. Education remained a popular theme.A letter

to theNews inMarch 1913 stated that ‘‘thepublic school is the greatest so-

cial force of modern civilization, but its power, like a cataract, is going to

waste, or proving actually destructive.’’ The author, Mrs.W. C. Barrick-

man, called for more and better-trained teachers who could address the

‘‘intellectual and the ethical.’’42

TheNewsprovidedamplecoverageoforganizedeffortsbywomensuf-fragists.The News covered the first organizational meeting of the DallasEqual Suffrage Association at a private residence on March 13, 1913.

The forty-one charter members of the local group included a number

of veterans of many social and civic improvement efforts. A number of

younger women also appeared at this initial meeting. The group orga-

nized a ‘‘quiet but active campaign’’ to enlist support for the suffrage

movement in Dallas. Newly drafted petitions included the names of the

‘‘best knownmen inDallas’’ who favored themeasure, although the news

story provided no identities. ‘‘The women believe there will be such a

demand from the people generally that the Legislature will not dare to

decline to submit the measure.’’ Several days later, theNews announced:‘‘Dallas Has a Real Suffragette Club.’’

43

In spite of increased popular support and improved news coverage,

the suffrage movement still met resistance at the local level and in the

legislative chambers. In the Texas Senate, members debated the merits

of suffragewhile women organized in Dallas. Opponents countered that

‘‘there [is] no demand for it’’ and that women should not participate in

political affairs. ‘‘If women were thrown into sordid politics to be con-

taminatedby the atmosphereof thewardheelerandothers, itwouldmake

the woman less tender,’’ one senator argued. Another stated that women

should be ‘‘kept pure and sweet in their homes and rest upon their high

pedestal.’’ In essence, as another senator argued, ‘‘it [is] a blow to the

sanctityof the home.’’OneTexas state senatorcriticized suffrage because

it would create conditions similar to those in California and Colorado

where ‘‘white and negro girls go arm in arm.’’ The resolution to place

suffrage before Texas voters failed by more than a two-to-one margin.44

TheHouston Chronicle sided with the suffragemovement in 1915 andbegan issuing regular editorials favoring federal and state action.Marcel-

lus Foster noted that the U.S. public was interested in ‘‘justice and fair

play.’’ He noted that gender discrimination kept the literate and intelli-

gent woman from the ballot box ‘‘for no other reason than she is a woman

and has not been allowed to vote in the past.’’ The editor stated the injus-

ticewas especially offensive because ‘‘the blackest, most ignorant Negro,

59


or themost ignorant whiteman, can vote.’’ In a subsequent opinion a few

days later, the editor stated that he found no ‘‘logic against the right of

womanhood to exercise the franchise pertaining to full citizenship.’’45

Both theU.S. Congress and theTexas Legislature took up the suffrage

issue in early 1915. The Houston Chronicle provided front-page cover-

age to a petition campaign undertaken by theWomen’s Political Union to

place the issuebefore thevotersof the state.AChronicle reporter followedsome of the petitioners to City Hall, where he interviewed a number of

city officials and employees—most of whom said they favored suffrage

for women. Houston mayor Ben Campbell did not sign the petition but

stated that the ‘‘best and quickest way to get rid of the question is to let

women vote.’’46

Local and state political leaders continued to vilify and oppose suf-

frage. In Houston, they advanced their arguments during a local option

election in the summer of 1917. Public opposition in Houston was typi-

cal of that in other areas of the state and the South. Opponents linked

suffrage to racial equality and depicted it as a threat to white hegemony.

Houston representativeStanleyBeard voiced the fear that shouldwomen

be given the right to vote, ‘‘Negroes and whites would intermarry and

children of all color would sit together in the public schools.’’ The argu-

ment was particularly effective in that era of Jim Crow. Furthermore, the

bloodshed from the uprising of black troops during the summer of 1917

resurrected the worst white fears concerning racial disturbances. The

Houston Chronicle editorial of December 30, 1917, helped offset some

of the prejudicial arguments. ‘‘The same moral influence that prevents

the negro man from gaining control of political matters can, and will,

serve a similar purposewith respect to the negrowoman.’’ Furthermore,

existing laws that already severely restricted minority voting remained

in effect. Suffrage advocates also had a new argument to support their

movement—the United States was now involved inWorld War I on the

side of the Allied powers.47

Suffrage advocates turned their guns on the newspapers and the busi-

ness leaders of the community to press their cause.HortenseWardwrote

that ‘‘alien enemies’’ of the nation could vote in elections but ‘‘loyal

American women’’ could not. As part of their campaign efforts, women

suffrage leaders enthusiastically volunteered for local measures. They

worked on food conservation drives, war bond sales, and efforts to raise

medical supplies and clothing. By the end of thewar, the Equal Suffrage

Associationhadraised$2.3millionof the$12million inwarbondssold in

Harris County.Taking a visible role in the patriotic movement undoubt-

60


edly helped the suffrage cause.The ‘‘SusanB.Anthonyamendment’’ had

appeared before Congress in one form or another for fifty years. When

the crucial votewas taken on January 10, 1918, in theHouse of Represen-

tatives, the measure tallied exactly the two-thirds majority required for a

constitutional amendment.The suffrage movement finally triumphed in

1920, and newspapers had played a major role in spreading its message

across Texas.48

61

CHAPTER 3

Expansion and Consolidation:Individual Publishers

Changes in Texas cities and the state’s

newspapers can be viewed as a symbiotic relationship.

AsTexas cities becamemore cosmopolitan in outlook andmore

diverse in their populations and economies, newspapers became more

stable and professional, enjoyedmore advanced technology, and exerted

greater influence on statewide politics. This chapter will explore the

growthofdailies in the state’smajorcities:Houston,Dallas,SanAntonio,

andFortWorth. Ineachcase,publishersplayedakey role in theeconomic

development and modernization of their host cities, so much so that the

historyof twentieth-centuryTexasmetropolises became interchangeable

with the history of their newspapers.

Houston NewspapersTheHistoricalRecordsSurveyProgramwas anationwide effort to locate

and catalog all types of publications in the United States.Writers in the

WorksProgressAdministration (WPA)during theDepressionyears con-

ducted the research. Under the direction of Ike Moore, who served as

the state supervisor of theHistorical Records Survey inTexas from 1936

to 1939, newspapers were the first items surveyed by the state WPA.

TheTexas group collected data on 3,212 newspapers in Texas from the

Spanish colonial era through the 1930s. All of the larger cities in the

state contained at least one daily—and usually several—by 1901. At

the time of the WPA survey, 830 newspapers were being published in

thestate.Of these,356weredailies,butmanyof themceasedpublication,

merged, or changed their name in the first part of the twentieth century.

By 1940, only 110 daily newspapers appeared inTexas towns and cities.

Individual Texans owned themajority of these publications. Newspaper

corporations with the largest presence included the Scripps-Howard

chain with the Houston Press, Fort Worth Press, and El Paso Herald-

Expansion and Consolidation

Post.TheMarsh-Fentress chainprinted the AustinAmerican-Statesman,Waco News-Tribune,Waco Times-Herald, and Port Arthur News.1

A reviewof the newspaper collections during the period revealed that

among locally owned publications, names were changed and two papers

combined quite frequently in the late nineteenth and early twentieth cen-

tury. Single individuals or groups of individuals dominated ownership

during this period. Angry readers posed problems but were not the fore-

most threats to newspapers of this era. Financial problems and quarrels

among owners led to changes even among the oldest of publications.The

HoustonTelegram,whose predecessor was theTelegraph and Texas Reg-ister,held the longest uninterrupted record, printing the news as far backas the tumultuous years of the revolution against Mexico. But this fore-

runner of Texas newspapers died before the turn of the century, when

its editors fought over a Houston mayoral campaign and ran into money

problems. TheHouston Post eventually took over theTelegram’s offices

after it passed out of existence. Even the Post ran into financial prob-

lems in 1885, as it merged with theHouston Morning Chronicle and the

Evening Journal in order to survive.

The Houston Daily PostAt the turn of the century, the Houston Daily Post served as the lead-

ing newspaper in the Gulf Coast city. A number of influential newsmen

came on board. J. L. Watson became business manager and Rienzi M.

Johnston assumed the editorial management. Threatened by a strike in

1890,Watson converted to Linotype machines, making the Post amongthe first newspapers to use this technology.Watson subsequently gained

control of the paper and added many rising stars to the staff, illustrating

that newspapermenwere not above raiding their neighbors and competi-

tors for staff. He lured political writer Rienzi Johnston from the AustinStatesman.William Sidney Porter also joined the staff as a reporter and

columnist. Porter later gained fame as ‘‘O. Henry’’ and became one of

the nation’s premier short story writers. With J. L. Watson’s death in

1897, Johnston, G. J. Palmer, and Henry F. MacGregor controlled the

business in trust until Princeton graduate RoyWatson assumed control

in 1918. Roy Watson, a Christian Scientist, banned advertisements for

patent medicines, wildcat oil stock, liquor, wine, beer, and yeast. The

paper followed a more Progressive spirit during these reform years, but

it lost advertising revenue and soon suffered from competitive pressure

from the rivalHouston Chronicle,which had begun publishing in the fallof 1901.

2

63


But in 1901, the Post and its stable of writers provided readers with

a steady flow of news and viewpoints. For five cents per copy, readers

received a paper consisting of eight to twelve pages on weekdays and

as many as thirty on Sundays. Its front page carried a mixture of world

and national news gathered from wire reports. A substantial number of

display advertisements cluttered the side of the front page. Alongside

stories of presidential speeches and political scandals, readers viewed

local business announcements and copy forDixie Beer, irrigation equip-

ment, corsets, soap, seedpotatoes, andhair restoration.A regular feature

on inside pages was ‘‘To Make Houston Greater.’’ In its guest columns

local business and community leaders extolled the virtues of growth and

expansion as the solution to the economic and social problems of the day.

For example, lumber magnate John Henry Kirby criticized Houston’s

bankers for their ‘‘ultraconservatism,’’ maintaining they ‘‘locked up 60

percent to 90 percent of their deposits.’’ Kirby said their actions not only

limited capital for investment, but the lenders were also ‘‘unpatriotic.’’3

Manywriters advocated adeepwaterport for the city, anongoing effort

first launched by the Buffalo Bayou Ship Channel Company in 1869.

In the late 1800s, Houston’s political and community leaders requested

General HenryM. Robert, the division engineer for the Gulf of Mexico,

to recommend improvements to Congress that would deepen andwiden

the channel for ships. Galvestonwas the recent recipient of federal funds

tomake the city a deepwater port. Improvements to the channel and har-

borwere completed in 1896.Galveston officials andmerchants protested

the move as a threat to their position as the number one port on the Gulf.

The Galveston News mocked Houston’s efforts when a storm wrecked

several barges loaded with salt. ‘‘Houston at Last a Salt-Water Port,’’ the

headline proclaimed. Proponents accelerated their demands for action

following the cataclysmic storm of 1900 that swept away most of Galves-

ton.With its own protected access to the sea, the Bayou City could be-

come ‘‘one of the greatest manufacturing centers in theWest’’ and would

grow ‘‘beyond the realization of themost optimistic citizen of the present

Houston.’’ Others called for better roads, honest government, and im-

proved trade to increase the region’s economy. However, the deepwater

port remained the favorite topic of local boosters.The civic campaign for

federal money to make the city an international port and trading center

continued for the next decade.4

In 1904 George M. Bailey began the first year of his long tenure as

editor. Bailey worked as prestigious Washington correspondent for the

Dallas Morning News from 1899 until he joined the Post. While at the

64


News,Baileywasoneof thefirst reporterson thescene todescribe thehur-ricane that leveled Galveston in 1900. The inside pages of the turn-of-

the-century dailies often contained lengthy news stories of government

activities, and Bailey’s Post was no exception. He often filled space with

verbatim transactions of hearings and debates, especially when such af-

fairs attracted attention.

Texas politics attracted such attention at the beginning of the century.

U.S. senator Joe Bailey (D-Texas) was easily one of the most influential

politicians of the era (and no relation to the journalist George Bailey).

First elected to Congress in the 1890s, the legislature elevated Bailey to

the Senate in 1900. Bailey quickly established himself as the premier ora-

tor in the Senate. However, Bailey’s ties to Standard Oil and the dis-

credited Waters-Pierce Oil Company made him a controversial figure.

TheWaters-Pierce Company had violated Texas antitrust laws and was

barred from operating in the state. However, Bailey accepted a $3,300

payment from the company and worked to reinstate the Standard Oil

subsidiary in the state. Bailey’s critics charged hewas nothingmore than

the tool of John D. Rockefeller and northern monopolies. ‘‘Baileyism’’

received wide coverage in Texas newspapers, which printed committee

reports, votes, and the full debate on Bailey’s election by the state legis-

lature in 1901.

Bailey withstood the attack and gained the nomination, but questions

dogged him throughout his career. He helped his friend John Henry

Kirbyand earned $149,000 in legal fees.Cosmopolitanmagazine targetedBailey in a 1906 article as a senator more interested in protecting wealthy

corporations than the public good. Bailey remained a steadfast conserva-

tive opposed to Prohibition and other social reforms advocated byTexas

Progressives. In 1907 the state legislature investigated him once again

when theWaters-Pierce allegations resurfaced.The Post carried five fullpages of print exclusively devoted to the case. Rienzi Johnston and the

Post remained amongBailey’s staunchest supporterswhen the state legis-lature reelectedhimtoa second term in theSenate.Bailey sawhisnational

aspirations fade and left theSenate after his second term,buthe remained

a potent spokesman among conservative Democratic forces in the state.5

At the same time these lively political exchanges filled the news, most

editors accepted any type of advertisements in their pages. These in-

cluded ads for questionable products, primarily drugs and medicines to

cure nearly any ailment or suspected affliction. ‘‘Weak Men’’ were ad-

vised they could restore their vitality with Dr. McLaughlin’s Electric

Belt. Dr.Williams’ ‘‘Pink Pills for Pale People’’ helped parents improve

65


their daughters’ health in ‘‘that perilous period of their lives when they

undergo that marvelous transformation from girlhood to womanhood.’’

Heyer’s Hair Tonic guaranteed that it would prevent a man’s hair from

turning gray aswell as stop dandruff. Cupindene [sic] restoredmanhood

and cured other afflictions that included ‘‘seminal emissions, nervous

debility, pimples and unfitness to marry’’ for only one dollar per box.

Dailies at this timewere more scrupulous about their editorial copy than

the outlandish claims in their advertisements.6

Houston Post HistoryAt the turn of the century, three men directed the Houston Post. Pub-lisher J. L. Watson unexpectedly passed away at the age of thirty-eight

from tuberculosis. William P. Hobby, a new employee in the business

office, wrote a tribute to the late publisher. Hobby, who eventually be-

came the newspaper’s chief executive, would have a successful career in

Texas politics before he returned to the newspaper business in the 1920s.

At the time of the elder Watson’s death in 1896, the estate valued the

newspaperandprintingoperation at $100,000.Watsondesignated an ex-

perienced yet diverse trio to head the largest Houston daily until his son,

RoyG.Watson, came of age in 1918. George J. Palmer served as business

manager, Rienzi M. Johnston as editor-in-chief, and H. F. MacGregor

as treasurer, director, and advisor.The appointments separated the edi-

torial and business operations under Johnston and Palmer.This reflects

the newspaper’s growth into a modern business organization, with as-

signed responsibilities and a division of business and news operations.

The neworganization also considered political affiliations. Johnstonwas

a staunchDemocrat while Palmercounted himself as aRepublican.With

bothmajor political organizations represented,MacGregor served as the

mediator when partisan divisions occurred. Thus, even with the divi-

sion of news and business, politics still transcended the Post’s editorial

direction.7

Rienzi Johnston reflected the close relationship between politics and

the press during this era. Johnston, a conservative, JimHogg Democrat,

servedas akeynote speakerat statepartyconventions in the 1890s.Demo-

cratic officials urgedhim to run for lieutenant governor in 1898 to counter

Populist threats to the party leadership. Johnston declined because he

said he could ‘‘render a better service through the paper than in public

office.’’ Known by his friends and opponents as Colonel Johnston, the

Post editor spent considerable time holding court from a rocking chair

66


on the sidewalk in front of the Rice Hotel. From this point, the ‘‘bull of

thewoods’’ dispensed political wisdom to ‘‘thosewho gathered there be-

tween drinks at the Rice bar to hear him.’’ Politics and the press were

inseparable to Johnston andhis peers during this periodof acute political

awareness.8

ThePost included a talentedgroup in its editorial andbusiness offices.

Many of these young employees made significant contributions to the

state’s economic and political history.Marcellus E. Foster came toHous-

ton from Huntsville, Texas, to work for ten dollars a week. He became

markets editorandadvanced tomanaging editor. Foster’s career included

five decades in newspapers in which he became one of the founders of

theHouston Chronicle and later a columnist for theHouston Press.JuddMortimer Lewis, a cousin of J. L.Watson’s, began his long career

at the Post at seven dollars a week in the circulation department. He

caught Foster’s attention with his anonymously written poems. Foster

first published ‘‘They’dAll BeenRebels,Too,’’ followed by several other

Lewis original verses. In November 1900, Lewis’ column, ‘‘Tampering

withTrifles,’’ became a feature in the paper that lasted for decades. In an

era that predated bylines, Lewis earned the distinction of being one of

the first columnists with his name, J. M. Lewis, at the top of his articles.9

Politics and business remained the Post’s bread and butter.William P.

Hobbyessentially beganhis political career under the tutelage ofColonel

Johnston. The Post, not content with limiting its opinions to state and

national politics, opposedMayor SamBrashear in the 1900mayoral elec-

tion. Johnston and his paper backed former mayor John T. Browne as

a reform candidate. Brashear prevailed and, at the annual Democratic

county convention held after the city elections, the mayor’s supporters

passed a resolution that condemned the Post for ‘‘opposing the Demo-cratic ticket.’’ Hobby took the floor of the convention in defense of his

editorandemployer inwhatwas termedhisfirstpublic speech toaDemo-

craticgathering. Johnston later tookrevengeat the stateconvention,when

TexasDemocrats elected the outspoken editor as aDemocratic Party na-

tional committeeman, a position he held until 1912.10

In theyears followingWorldWar I, thePost sawanupheaval in itsman-

agement, as competition increased with theChronicle.TwoTexas gover-norsbecame involvedwith thenewspaper: Progressive-mindedgovernor

William P. Hobby and business-oriented governor Ross Sterling. Their

relationship with the Post in the 1920s and 1930s continued the strong

ties between the urban press and elected officials during this era.

67


Birth of the Houston ChronicleInmanyways theHouston Chronicle owed its birth to thePost.Once J. L.

Watson assumed control of the Post, he brought in Marcellus E. Foster

fromHuntsville,Texas. Foster quickly became a top reporter for thePost.Foster became the youngest managing editor of a Texas newspaper in

1899, at the age of twenty-eight. He covered the Galveston hurricane of

1900.With the clamor to find thosewho had survived the great catastro-

phe, Foster ingeniously published the names ofmany survivors, all regis-

tered at Galveston’sTremontHotel.Thus he and thePost avoided listingthe thousands who perished in the nation’s worst natural disaster in its

history. Foster covered the Spindletop oil discovery where he invested in

an option on one of the wells. Reporters and their editors of this era ap-

parently sawnoconflictof interest if a reporterhadapersonalfinancial in-

volvement in an assigned story. Foster benefited fromhisdecision and the

story.Hemade $25,000 on his well option, part of which he invested in a

new afternoon daily that began in 1901—theHouston Chronicle.Within

a year, Foster absorbed the Houston Herald. For the next decade, thePost andChroniclewere the primary sources for news, until the Scripps-McRae newspaper chain (later known as Scripps-Howard) founded the

Houston Press in 1911.11

TheChronicle,which debuted on October 14, 1901, had a circulation

of 4,378 at the end of its first month.The circulation was quite remark-

able in a city whose population was only about 45,000 people. Foster

was an opportunistic, enterprisingmanwho understood the popular ap-

peal of newspapers. In his first dozen issues, he quickly proved that he

was not afraid to take on the establishment when he believed Houston’s

best interests were not being served. His first few editions set a new stan-

dard for Houston’s newspapers.The front page carried a mixture of na-

tional, state, and local news. Editorial cartoons often appeared on page

one. Notably, no advertisements appeared on theChronicle’s front pagefrom the first days of its publication, thus breaking a longtime custom of

dailies. Foster informed his audience that ‘‘neither an unworthy article

nor a tricky business need seek advertising through theChronicle. Thisprotects both the reader and the advertiser.’’ Eight-page editions sold on

the streets for two cents each.12

In an interview forty years later, Foster described his early years at

the Chronicle. ‘‘In less than a year we had defeated the other afternoon

paper’s mayor and councilmen,’’ Foster stated. To raise more money,

he issued more stock ‘‘and gave every fellow who put up $100 cash, a

stock dividend of $150.’’ Circulation increased from 6,000 to 16,000,

68


‘‘and we were fighting all the town’s evils and winning one battle after

another.’’ TheChronicle successfully crusaded to close saloons on Sun-

day and move gambling halls away from Main Street. ‘‘These two con-

cessions to decency were considered great moral victories in those days

when Houston was a wide-open town,’’ Foster said. ‘‘We were fired by

the ignorance and enthusiasm of youth; the town was growing and we

made daring ventures.’’ Foster would later author his editorial column

under the name ‘‘Mefo.’’13

Houston responded favorably to Foster and the Chronicle. By 1904

thepaper’s circulation showed significant growth and competedwith the

Post’s. Foster printed a Sunday editionwith forty-four pages of news andadvertising and a revolutionary feature: four pages of comics in color. By

1908 Houston’s growth was attracting national attention and the news-

paper had outgrown its original downtown building. Foster turned to

Jesse H. Jones, a young builder and entrepreneur who, just twelve years

after coming to the Bayou City, was a man of growing civic leadership

and stature.The Foster-Jones relationship lasted for nearly twenty years,

throughyearsofgrowthandprosperity,until,finally, aphilosophicaldivi-

sion came between the two. But in 1908 the twoHoustonians reached an

agreement under which Jones built a ten-story plant and office building

for theChronicle at the corner of Travis and Texas Streets. In exchange,Jones received an ownership interest in the paper.

Jesse H. JonesJones had years of business experience and had already amassed a small

fortune prior to his involvement in the newspaper. Born onApril 5, 1874,

in Robertson County, Tennessee, Jones grew up on his father’s tobacco

farm and, upon completion of the eighth grade, moved toTexas to work

forhisuncle,M.T. Jones, inaHillsboro lumberyard.By theageof twenty-

two, Jones managed one of the largest retail lumber companies in Dallas

and assisted his uncle with his lumber business in Texas and Louisiana.

When M.T. Jones passed away, Jesse Jones moved to Houston during a

hot, dry summer in 1898 tomanagehis estate.Whilemanaginghisuncle’s

estate, he bought timberland in East Texas and then sold the timber for

lumberand the land to area farmers. Jones soon established sixty lumber-

yards.As anextensionof his lumberbusiness, Jonesbeganbuilding small

houses in Houston. He quickly expanded his construction business to

larger commercial buildings in the heart of the city.

Houston trailed Dallas, San Antonio, and Galveston in population

and commerce in 1900. Jones’ ornate office buildings soon dominated

69


the Houston skyline. Jones built the city’s first ‘‘skyscraper,’’ the nine-

story Bristol Hotel. Jones then constructed two ten-story structures that

included theChronicleBuilding and theGogganBuilding. By the 1920s,

he had transformed Houston’s Main Street and downtown into one of

the South’s most thriving business districts. Jones properties included

officebuildings,movie theaters, hotels, apartmentbuildings,department

stores, and parking garages. Buildings constructed, owned, or operated

by Jones in Houston included the Gulf Building, Rice Hotel, Lamar

Hotel, Kirby Building, and theHoustonClub Building.TheRiceHotel,

built on the site of one of the early Republic of Texas capitols, stood as

the largest hotel in the South in this era. The Rice Hotel became the fi-

nancial and social center of Houston. As he expanded inHouston, Jones

constructed similar buildings in Fort Worth and NewYork City. During

his first decade in Houston, he gradually sold off his lumber holdings

and sawmills to concentrate on his banking and construction business

and his partial ownership of theChronicle.14

Jonesutilized innovativefinancingagreements toconstructhisproper-

ties. Jones financed the homes he built with then-unique twenty-five-year

mortgages.These long-termmortgages made Jones’ homes more afford-

able to middle-class purchasers, many of whom were first-time home-

owners.Asmore jobs openedup in the cityandnewhomes became avail-

able for purchase, Houston began a growth pattern that would continue

for decades. Jones recognized the benefits of linking his business invest-

ments to a growing local economy and developed a vision of Houston

as a major commercial trading center for the Southwest. Although some

critics questioned his lending practices, Jones established his position as

a financial and civic leader in Houston the early twentieth century. He

established an ownership interest in several banks and finance compa-

nies. He served as chairman of the board of the National Bank of Com-

merce,whichbecameTexasCommerceBank, andas chairmanandpresi-

dent of BankersMortgageCompany. Jones acquired stock in some failing

banks and loanedmoney to other financially troubled banks.The experi-

ence served as a valuable experience later, during the Great Depression

when Jones became head of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation.

He also became a charter stockholder in Humble Oil Company. Unlike

many of his wealthy associates, Jones avoided extensive investments in

the oil business.15

Similar to its urban counterparts in Texas, the Chronicle leadershipembarked on numerous crusades to improve the city’s infrastructure and

appearance. During a 1910 campaign for paving the city’s streets, edito-

70

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


rials urged passage as a key toHouston’s economic future. ‘‘Houstonwill

tell the country whether she means to go forward out of the mud and be-

come a real city or intends to stay in themud for another ten years and let

the leadership of the Southwest be wrested away from her by Dallas and

San Antonio.’’ Successful campaigns for paved streets, water and sewage

lines, and building codes led to grander and more expensive programs.

In all of these efforts, newspaper executives worked hand in hand with

the business leadership.16

Jones and other Houston business leaders advocated the conversion

of Buffalo Bayou into a deepwater port to provide a direct link from the

city to the Gulf of Mexico. Jones viewed Chicago’s growth in the nine-

teenth centuryas amodel forHouston.Chicago served as themajorcom-

mercial center for the Midwest, with its extensive land and water trade

connections. Jones became one of the staunchest advocates for a Hous-

ton ship channel and enlisted the editorial support of theChronicle.Theventure proved successful, as Houston acquired federal support for the

project beforeWorldWar I began. Jones accepted mayoral appointment

as chairmanof theHoustonHarborBoard in 1913.Theport openedwith

a ceremony on November 10, 1914, that included President Wilson pro-

viding a remote cannon shot triggered from theWhiteHouse.By the time

Jones resigned in 1917, the new port was handling more than a million

tons of cargo a year and dozens of newbusinesses had relocated toHous-

ton. As historian David McComb concluded, Jones played a key role in

uniting the city’s civic and financial interests during a period of transi-

tion in which Houston emerged as a leading commercial center in the

Southwest. The Houston Chronicle carried numerous news stories and

editorial columns in support of the project.17

Jones’ activities and association with prominent Texas Democrats at-

tracted the attention of President Wilson. The Democratic president

offered Jones several ambassadorships, a position as assistant secretaryof

theTreasuryDepartment, andalso thecabinetofficeofSecretaryofCom-

merce. Jones turned down these offers in order to complete oversight of

ship channel construction and to continue his other business activities.

With the advent of World War I, Jones accepted a presidential appoint-

ment as director general for the Red Cross. Jones became a staunch sup-

porterof PresidentWilson.Dr. StocktonAxson,Wilson’s brother-in-law

and a facultymemberof Houston’s Rice Institute, explained thatWilson

exerted a great influence over Jones. ‘‘I know that his principles are those

of WoodrowWilson,’’ Axson said at a dinner honoring Jones. Undoubt-

edlyWilson served as an inspiration and provided extensive experience

72


in thepolitical educationof JesseH. Jones. Jonesbecameanational politi-

cal figure and a rising star in the Democratic Party during the 1920s. His

entry into the national arena as a pivotal figure in the Franklin Roosevelt

Administrationpropelledhim into turbulentwatersduring theGreatDe-

pression and World War II. Jones received many tributes over the years

and received the title of ‘‘Mr. Houston.’’ With his myriad investments

and business deals, Jones was ‘‘neither wholly saint nor wholly sinner.’’

But he became one of the most recognized figures of his generation.18

Although theChronicle remained only a minor investment in the mas-sive Jones financial portfolio, he knew the advantages of owning a daily

newspaper in the growing city. Jones viewed the newspaper as an inte-

gral part of his financial and political holdings. Jones believed that the

newspaper’s role was to serve the larger interests of the business com-

munity in the city. The newspaper served as the unofficial organ of the

city’s commercial sector. He called upon the paper to provide the neces-

sary exposure for massive civic undertakings such as the Houston Ship

Channel and forother improvements. Jones never became involved in the

day-to-day operations of the newspaper. He left that to Foster and other

staff members. BascomTimmons, Jones’ official biographer, concludes

that Jones, because of his many business interests, ‘‘paid little attention

either to itsmanagementor its policies.’’ In reality, Jones kept in veryclose

contact with his newspaper and closely watched the headlines of thePostand other newspapers around the state. Jones and Foster maintained a

close working relationship for years during their joint ownership. In his

first twenty years in Houston, in which his business interests greatly ex-

panded, Jones shunned the business of black gold while he retained and

eventually expanded his interests in black ink.19

Dallas Morning NewsTheGalveston News served as publisher Alfred H. Belo’s flagship news-

paper inpost–CivilWarTexas.Belo’s thirty-five-yearassociationwith the

News established the daily as one of the leading publications in the stateand the nation.TheGalvestonNews became the first newspaper inTexasto use regular telegraph service and was a charter member of the Asso-

ciated Press. Belo’s dedicated staff placed the newspaper in the forefront

of statepolitical coverage.Healso luredcapablewriters, editors, andpro-

duction specialists to his staff. Readers inHouston and other areas of the

state relied on the Galveston News as a dependable source of informa-tion. The success of the Galveston daily paved the way for Belo’s foray

into thenorthernTexas commercial centerof Dallas.The innovativeBelo

73


utilized a new technology that reshaped his publication enterprise and

revolutionized the industry in the late 1800s.

Belo and R. G. Lowe, a trusted lieutenant, devised an entirely new

method for dispersing information: they capitalized on the growing rail-

road network in Texas to distribute theGalveston News. By utilizing therails, theyachieved timelydistributionovera broadermarket. By 1881 the

publisherwas chartering special trains to deliver the newspaper toHous-

ton and other inland cities.TheGalvestonNews was among the first pub-lications in the nation topurchase the rotarywebpresses that printed and

folded thousands of copies per hour. Full-time correspondents covered

events in the state capital of Austin and the leading commercial centers

of Houston and San Antonio. As the state’s population and commerce

grew in the late nineteenth century, Belo and his staff wanted to establish

a branch paper, one that would have local news but access to much of

the state and national news carried in theGalveston News.They selectedNorthTexas as their new site, but they needed a more efficient and inex-

pensive method to send news. They decided to send the paper over the

telegraphwire to a separate staff and production unit at a site to be deter-

mined in North Texas. A century later, newspaper publishers followed

this trend when they began putting their pages on the Internet. Belo and

the News initiated the electronic age of newspapers with their innovativeplan for sending information over the telegraph wire.

20

TheGalveston executives choseGeorgeB.Dealey to adapt these ideas

and locate a new home for the News.Dealey spent several months study-ing a number of commercial centers in the agricultural region of North-

east Texas. These included Waco, Fort Worth, Sherman, and Dallas.

He finally recommended Dallas, a city of only slightly more than 10,000

peoplebut already thefifth-largesturbancommunity in the state.Thecity

had several dailies at the time, including theDallas Herald. Saint Louisnewspapers served as the papers of choice for Dallas and other North

Texas residents. But Dallas business leaders jumped at the opportunity

to land a branch of the prestigious Galveston News for their hometownand raised $25,000 in stock subscriptions. The support of Dallas busi-

ness leaders solidified the selection of the young city for the Belo news-

paper. This allegiance later generated criticism from rival publications

that Belo’s paper bent its coverage in favorof the business establishment.

This criticism lasted throughout much of the twentieth century.

On July 22, 1885, theGalveston News notified readers that theDallasMorning News would begin publication on October 1, 1885. The first

issue contained eight pages of local, state, and national news with an as-

74


sortment of advertisements fromDallas businesses that included Sanger

Brothers, Padgitt Brothers, and the Dallas Opera House. Circulation

began with 5,000 copies, andDealey chartered a special Texas&Pacific

Railway train to deliver to neighboring communities. Before the year

ended, the Belo Company had purchased the rival Dallas Herald. Sev-eral employees of theHerald left and formed anewdailycalled theDallasEvening Herald.TheDallas Morning News quickly became the leadingdaily newspaper, but the Dallas Evening Herald and other newspapers

remained strong competitors.

The Dallas Times HeraldVeteran newspaperman Charles E. Gilbert acquired the Evening Her-ald in 1886. Gilbert quickly built the new Evening Herald into the after-noon rival of the Morning News. Gilbert was a staunch Prohibitionist

who refused to run advertisements from brewers and distillers. Gilbert

made innovative changes in the Evening Herald. These included mul-

tiple editions on important news items (sometimes as often as three times

before a final afternoon edition) and staff-drawn illustrations to break

the monotony of continuous columns of newsprint in his publications.

Gilbert also introduced a wider, five-column format to distinguish his

paper from the News and other competitors. The rival afternoon paper

was William G. Sterett’s Daily Times, which had a smaller circulation

than the Herald. Gilbert and Sterett, facing the financial resources and

prestige of the News, merged their two dailies in 1888. The new DallasTimes Herald firmly established itself by the turn of the century. Its

pages featured more local news stories than the News which, because ofits larger resources, contained more information on state and national

issues. Like the News, theTimes Herald supported civic improvements

and increased commerce. TheTimes Herald also agreed with the Newson support for the state fairandefforts tomake theTrinityRivernavigable

for commerce.21

However, the Times Herald ran a distant second to the News at theturn of the century. Sterett had left his partnership with Gilbert to join

theNews.Also, the paper suffered from its inability tomatch the stronger

resources of the Belo publications and because of its political stands. In

contrast to the News,Gilbert and theTimes Herald supported the Hogg

administration. Most Dallas business leaders opposed Hogg and his re-

formefforts in the 1890s.Gilbert lost advertising revenue as a result of the

paper’s support forHogg.Gilbert lost theTimesHerald in 1892.By1895,after several changes of owners and editors, an experienced newspaper-

75


manassumedcontrolof theTimesHerald.EdwinJ.Kiesthadbeenwatch-ing the struggling Times Herald from his nearby office on Commerce

Street. Kiest, an Illinois native, had risen from a journeyman printer to

an executive with theWestern Newspaper Union (WNU). Like Dealey,

Kiest had little formal education but had gained firsthand experience in

the publishing business. ‘‘I had been telling everyone else how to run

newspapers with WNU,’’ he said, ‘‘so I got to thinking I could run one

myself.’’ Kiest assumed complete ownership of the daily on January 1,

1896. He became general manager, a job that included everything from

gathering news and setting type to selling advertising.22

Under Kiest, the Times Herald took controversial positions on state

and national issues but joined the consensus for local business develop-

ment and city expansion. Editorials called for the direct election of U.S.

senators and opposed the Populist call for free silver. Business expansion

required an influx of outside capital, so columns often called for more

investment to fuel the regional economy. ‘‘TheTimes Herald Stands forDallas as aWhole’’ became the motto of Kiest’s daily. Subject matter dif-

fered, but the philosophy concerning local affairs closely mirrored that

of the larger Morning News. Morality in private and public life, better

services from city government and promotion of civic events and local

charities were ongoing themes of theTimes Herald.Kiest kept the Times Herald afloat but struggled in the wake of the

larger,more profitableMorningNews.By 1900 theTimesHerald ’s circu-lation was approximately 5,500, while theMorning News boasted a totalreadership of more than 26,000. Kiest remained the head of the TimesHerald, a position he occupied for more than forty years. Although theirmethods and techniques varied, both the Times Herald and the Newsworked to reverse the long-standing tradition of combativeness and con-

frontation between publishers and their business and political enemies.

After the turn of the century, the rival dailies sought to establish an alli-

ancebetween the commercial sectorand the local political establishment.

Kiest also concentrated on local news and advertising.He quickly gained

circulation, and after 1910 theTimes Herald remained competitive with

or exceeded the readership of the News.

Politics and the Dallas Morning NewsFrom the very beginning, the pages of theDallas Morning News encour-aged growth, business expansion, and civic improvements. The news-

paperattempted tobe thevoiceof changeandprogress in thegrowingcity

and an advocate of moral and social responsibility. However, the News

76

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


earned thewrath of Prohibition advocates in the late 1800s as the debate

over alcohol became a statewide issue. The hotly contested issue went

down to defeat in a statewide referendum in 1887.The Prohibition issue

never faded fromthescene, asmanyadvocates aimed their rhetorical guns

at theGalveston News andDallas Morning News after the election. Bothpapers accepted advertisements for liquor, beer, and other ‘‘medicines’’

that contained alcohol, which reinforced Prohibitionists’ beliefs that ad-

vertisers exerted greater influence than readers on the twodailies. Baptist

leaders accused the journals of exerting a ‘‘baneful influence upon the

country’’ and urged a boycott of the two newspapers. At their statemeet-

ing in Dallas, delegates to the General Baptist Convention followed the

lead of MajorW. E. Penn, a lay evangelist.The Baptists passed a resolu-

tion that offered prayers for the staff of the twopapers ‘‘that theymight all

be saved finally in Heaven.’’ The News editors replied the next day that

Penn should have supplemented his concern for theNews ‘‘with a prayerfor the riddance of his church from such pestiferous excrescences.’’ The

journalistsmay have believed they had the last word, but Prohibitionwas

resurrected from its political grave within a generation.23

The paper reflected changing social attitudes when it condemned

prize fighting, betting on horse races, and segregating ‘‘fallen women’’

and ‘‘soileddoves’’ intoadesignatedareaof thecity.Calls foracity-owned

water supply and distribution system, paved streets and sidewalks, and

improved health standards became an ongoing theme. At the instigation

of George B. Dealey, the Dallas Morning News sponsored in 1899 the

Cleaner Dallas League.The organization of private citizens began work-

ing on civic programs such as city planning and beautification and urged

the reorganization of the municipal government. In order to combat the

agricultural depression of the decade, the News called upon farmers to

break away from the reliance on cotton and the ‘‘suicidal plan of the one-

crop system.’’ Diversification to other crops and livestock became the

recommended solution as editors filled the pages with articles on fruits,

vegetables, poultry, and dairy cattle. The News also began coverage of

women’s news and issues.

TheDallasMorningNews frequentlywaded into the turbulentwatersof Texas and national politics in its early years. In the final decade be-

fore 1900, theNews established its character as a potent voice in politicaland civic affairs. News editors assailed Texas governor Jim Hogg during

his two terms, from 1890 to 1894, for his allegedly antibusiness attitudes

and policies. Editors once proclaimed, ‘‘[T]he sooner the state rids itself

of this costly incubus, the better for both its credit and peace.’’ Editors

78


defended PresidentWilliamMcKinley’s reluctance to intervene in Cuba

even after the explosion of the U.S. warship Maine in Havana’s harbor.

The paper avoided the sensational stories about Cuba that appeared in

many newspapers associated with yellow journalism. In the meantime,

Texascongressmenwereamong themostbelligerent, andwar fever swept

the nation and the state.24

TheNews sent the first full-timeTexas correspondent toWashington,

D.C., in 1889. ‘‘Colonel’’WilliamSterett, an originalNews staffmember,served in the capital post for ten years. He interviewed presidents and

congressmen while covering national and international events. Sterett’s

closest friend and roommate was a young attorney who later became

one of the best known commissioners of major league baseball—Kenne-

saw Mountain Landis. Sterett made an unsuccessful run for Congress

in 1904. Texas governor Oscar Colquitt appointed Sterett to the Game,

Fish and Oyster Commission in 1910.The close association with politi-

cal figures and the lure of public office affectedmanyTexas journalists of

this era, even those at the News.Sterett became one of the best-known early correspondents for the

Dallas daily. He maintained a tolerance for most people and organiza-

tions, althoughbankersbecamea frequent target.Heclassifiedbankers as

‘‘themost ignorant people in theworld,’’ thus creating an enduring image

of them in Texas and the South. Financial institutions and their repre-

sentatives were most often associated with the North and were roundly

criticized by most southerners. Even after typewriters became standard

use, Sterett continued to handwrite his stories for many years.With the

exception of his time in government, Sterett worked at theNews until hisdeath in 1924. Future News publisherTed Dealey described Sterett, notonly as the greatest of the early day writers at the News, but also called

him a counselor and philosopher and the most unique staff person in the

newspaper’s formative years.25

Political cartoons appeared in daily newspapers throughout the state

and nation by the early twentieth century. One of the best-recognized

figures came from the pages of the News: ‘‘Old Man Texas,’’ created by

cartoonist JohnKnott, became a highly recognized and influential figure.

Knott came to the News in 1905 as the paper’s only staff artist. His car-

toons appeared irregularly until 1914, when they became a standard fea-

ture. Old Man Texas appeared as a distinguished, well-dressed older

gentleman complete with a gray handlebar moustache and tall cowboy

hat—a blend of the images of a southern colonel and a Texas rancher.

Knott and theNews editors intended for the figure to represent a firm, re-

79


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

sponsible, and sensible individual—the same image the newspaper pro-

moted for itself. Old Man Texas appeared throughout the years during

times of crises and important debates to reinforce the newspaper’s edito-

rial positions. The News strove to appeal to a broad spectrum of people

throughout the state.Thus, even as the paper promoted a more diverse,

urban economy, it relied on a traditional figure tied to the state’s rural

past.26

Old Man Texas also served as a harbinger of the state’s image as a

participant in the romanticized history of theWest. Knott’s character de-

picted an image of tradition and a culture unique toTexas. At the time of

his appearance on the editorial pages of the News, the minds and char-

acter of most Texans remained firmly tied to their counterparts in the

other southern, former Confederate states. But in a newspaper that con-

80


sistently urged its readers to look to and plan for the future, Old Man

Texas provided a link to the state’s past. As a herald for howTexans and

others would view the state, the new western image replaced that of the

southern colonel and the Confederate soldier.That new sense of history

developed over time and evolved during the decades of the 1920s and

1930s. In the eyes of Knott and the News editors, Old ManTexas repre-

sented theTexas version of Homer—the personification of the past and

the embodiment of noble tradition.OldManTexas became the new icon

on which the state’s imagewould be constructed during the years before

World War II.

At the turn of the century, a shift from the longtime emphasis on po-

litical coverage began on the pages of theNews. Politics remained impor-tant, but more stories appeared on business activities, local events, and

community affairs. The transition reflected the daily’s move toward the

newer journalism practices of the North. More emphasis was placed on

daily urban life. State, national, and international news remained an in-

tegral part of theNews.But the new trends indicated that the publication

now followed the leadingnewspapers outsideof Texas inprovidingmore

mass information and consumer-oriented advertising.Two other natural

events in the early 1900s also determined the fate of theGalveston Newsand theDallas Morning News and their respective communities.

The first major event was the Galveston hurricane of September 8,

1900. The storm brought the proud city on the Gulf to its knees. Only

a brief story on page three provided any clues about the approaching

storm.That tropical gale hadhit Florida the previous daywith only slight

damage to PalmBeach. In the same edition, theGalvestonNews reportedGalveston as the fastest-growing city in the South, as its population shot

up by 30 percent during the 1890s.When the hurricane blasted Galves-

ton Island on Saturday night, Galveston was unprepared.TheGalvestonNews suspended publication for several days as the devastated city re-

mained isolated from the rest of theworld following thedestructionof the

telegraph lines. R. G. Lowe initially estimated deaths in the thousands,

and no individual escaped some loss of family or friends. Half of Gal-

veston’s structures and improvements no longer existed. TheGalvestonNews office survived relatively intact, one of the few buildings to escape

destruction even after thefloodwaters reached the ceilingof thefirst floor.

On Monday, the News printed a one-page handbill that informed sur-

vivors about the organization of a local relief committee.The police chief

urged citizens to seize all food supplies and placed the city under mar-

tial law. ‘‘Thework of burying dead humans and animals, is progressing

81


much faster today than it did yesterday,’’ the News said. The next day,theGalveston News reported that due to the scarcity of horses and man-power in the beleaguered city, the dead were being loaded onto barges

for burial at sea.27

GalvestonNews correspondents provided eyewitness accounts for theoutsideworld formanydays after thehurricane swept the island.Thefirst

regular edition after the great storm appeared on Wednesday, Septem-

ber 12. Banner headlines proclaimedbetween 4,000 and 5,000deaths—

in a city of 38,000 people—with property loss as high as $20 million.

‘‘Words are too weak to express the horror,’’ the editors solemnly noted.

‘‘If we have lost all else, we still have life and the future, and it is toward

the future thatwemust devote the energies of our lives.’’Manybodies still

lay unburied and unclaimed. Corpses taken out to sea the previous day

washed up on the beaches.When officials realized the saturated ground

prevented mass burials, orders for cremation were issued. For days the

awful black smoke drifted over the city. But slowly, conditions improved

as survivors began to ‘‘bring order out of chaos’’ and aid from outside of

Galveston arrived. Hundreds of stories of individual heroism emerged.

Businesses reopened and advertised food with ‘‘no advance in prices.’’

The city and its newspaper recovered, but neither institution regained its

leadership position. Galveston’s position as the leading port of entry and

export in the state eroded as Houston and other coastal cities expanded

their marketing efforts.28

The second major turn of events was a change in leadership of the

News. In 1901 AlfredH. Belo Jr. inherited the leadership reins, following

the death of his father. A. H. Belo, the North Carolinian who survived

Pickett’s charge at Gettysburg, succumbed at his birthplace in Asheville,

North Carolina, on April 19, 1901.The young Belo became president of

the A. H. Belo Company. George B. Dealey remained the head of the

Dallas Morning News, while R. G. Lowe served as the corporate vice

president andheaded theGalvestonNewsoperations.ThomasW.Dealey

served as secretary and treasurer of the Belo Company.The veteran team

remained together for only a few years. Lowe became increasingly con-

cerned with the separate course the Dallas paper pursued and undoubt-

edly saw the rapid growth of theNorthTexas community.TheGalveston

andDallas editorsbothvoicedstrongsupport forcivic improvements and

business expansion. But asDallas grewat a faster rate, especially after the

1900 hurricane, the senior writers in Galveston increasingly voiced frus-

trationswith their northern counterpart.TheGalvestonNews also lost its

82


position as the flagship daily as theDallas Morning News surpassed theolder paper in circulation, revenue, and prestige.

29

The Dallas Morning News printed its twentieth anniversary issue on

October 1, 1905. The forty-four-page special edition paid tribute to the

‘‘twenty years’ progress’’ of the community and the newspaper. Just as

Dallas aspired to be the ‘‘big town of North Texas,’’ the News ownershad harbored similar ambitions when they located the Dallas edition

of their newspaper in the growing commercial center. The News occu-pied the largest newspaper building in the South in its new three-story

home on Commerce and Lamar Streets. Included among the four web

presses that printed and folded as many as 48,000 copies per hour was

the Hoe sextuple press.With a width of twenty-four feet and weight of

over 115,000 pounds, the Hoewas the ‘‘largest press ever brought to the

South.’’ Those immense presses churned out daily editions that carried a

growing number of stories and advertisements.The latest fashions from

Sanger Brothers Department Store, delicious Smith’s Ice Cream, Extra

Fine RyeWhiskey from specially selected grains, andWare’s Black Pow-

der for treatment of stomach and intestinal disorders appearedwith hun-

dreds of other items in display ads throughout the daily.30

Column after column praised the new banks, expanded railroads, the

larger department stores, and the bustling traffic in a city that nearly

tripled its population during the first twenty years of the Dallas News.Storiesof surroundingcommunities fromFortWorth toDenisonboasted

of large new mills, red barns, and homes. The increase in land prices,

people, andprosperity brought newcomforts to farmand town.The eco-

nomic improvement also carried amessage to thosewhogovernedduring

this expansion. Prosperity and good government rode together on the

same train, according to the writers of the News. As the articles heapedpraise on Dallas and North Texas communities, the News condemnedcity councils in Chicago andNewOrleans that allowed graft and corrup-

tion to influence civic improvements. Accounts maintained that ‘‘rotten

municipal politics’’ contributed to a deadly yellow fever epidemic. ‘‘The

main consideration, when it comes to sanitary improvements, is prompt-

ness in doing the work and in doing it right,’’ the News said. No behind-the-scenes combination of public officials and business should be per-

mitted to imperil citizens, because ‘‘dirty politics means a dirty city, and

it will never mean anything else.’’31

In keeping with its new Progressive stands, the News took aim at the

liquor issue during this period of reform. An investigative story by the

83


News in 1907 concluded thatmanyof the city’s saloons operatedwithouta license. Still others opened their doors in areas where city ordinances

prohibited the sale of alcohol. On November 18, 1906, the News carriedanarticle about the ‘‘fearfulhold’’of thesaloonbusinesson thecity.Dallas

had255saloons in thecentral cityandanother 120 scattered in residential

areas. Most of the central city saloons maintained licenses that were paid

for by the large breweries. ‘‘By prohibiting them from running among

our homes, you will stop the breweries from turning the morals of boys

andmen into dividends, and from coining the tears of wives andmothers

and sisters into boodle,’’ the writer lamented.32

The News regularly carried editorial statements on the desirability ofhaving a safe, pro-business community with high moral standards. As

the News stated in an editorial on April 2, 1907, ‘‘Sooner or later every

city pays the penalty of loose municipal morals, and the longer retribu-

tion is delayed the severer usually it is . . . order anddecency, and a regard

for civic and personal standards, based upon the elemental virtues, are

as vital and consistent in community life as in family life.’’ These edito-

rial statements reflected the public and political goals of the newspaper

as part of their initiative to direct the urban agenda.33

Death struck a hard blowat theNews leadership in 1906. Lowe passedaway following a sudden heart attack in January. Thomas Dealey died

a few weeks later in Mineral Wells. In February, Belo suffered a relapse

of meningitis and lingered near death at his home in Dallas. On Febru-

ary 27, 1906, Belo succumbed to his illness at the age of thirty-three.

Within the matter of a few short weeks, the News organization lost its

senior members and its young leader. George Dealey assumed responsi-

bilities as vice president and general manager for the business and news

operations.CesarLombardi,whohadmarried into theDealey family, be-

cameanother vicepresident and theeditorial director.Mrs.A.H.BeloSr.

became president of the corporation. From the time of the great storm

to the change in leadership at Belo, the News had increased in circula-

tion from 25,000 to 38,000. The publishers had also revived theTexasAlmanac and State Industrial Guide in 1904. Dealey, a force in Newsmanagement for years, became firmly entrenched as the dominant power

in the Belo organization.34

In the first decade of the twentieth century, the News advocated hun-dreds of civic changes and reforms. Prohibition, better schools, internal

improvements, increased commerce, and scientific approaches to busi-

ness and agriculture dominated the pages. Dealey took a personal inter-

est in these causes and founded the Dallas City Plan and Improvement

84


League in 1909. He enlisted support from the city’s business leadership

and promoted their issues on the news and editorial pages. Among the

most influential items affecting Dallas closely covered by the News weretheTrinityRiverfloodcontrol initiative and theKesslerPlan, a long-range

city improvement and growth strategy. The Trinity River had flooded

on a regular basis ever since the founding of Dallas. The river divided

Dallas from Oak Cliff and often created considerable destruction dur-

ing the more violent flooding events. In the flood of 1908, water covered

hundreds of homes and businesses, the city’s sewer system backed up,

railroad tracks were under water, and the rising water knocked out the

Dallas Electric Company powerhouse. Patrons at local saloons had to

wade through knee-deep water. Property damage exceeded $1 million.

The flood proved to be particularly embarrassing to a city that saw itself

as a modern metropolitan community.35

George E. Kessler, a city planner and landscape architect, was born in

Germany and moved to Dallas at the end of the Civil War. After working

in severalDallasbusinesses,hemoved toEurope,wherehe studiedurban

design. He then moved to Kansas City and designed a railroad-owned

amusement park and a plan for development of the city’s park-boulevard

system.He designed and landscaped the St. LouisWorld’s Fair grounds

in 1904. The same year he also redesigned the grounds of Fair Park in

Dallas. Kessler’s designs caught the attention of George B. Dealey dur-

ing a trip by the Dallas newspaper editor to Kansas City. Kessler and

the Kessler Plan, which would provide the first long-range plan for the

cityof Dallas, served as another example of imported ideas and expertise

changing the face of a southern community.36

After an especially destructive storm in 1908, George B. Dealey and

the News advocated a concrete viaduct across theTrinity River. His idea

originated following a trip to Kansas City, whereDealey sawa similar all-

weather intercityconnection over theMissouriRiver.The improvements

represented thework of George Kessler.TheNews carriedmany editori-als on the need to harness the untamed river.The daily also promoted the

work of the Dallas City Plan and Improvement League, which coordi-

nated a fund-raising campaign and a successful county-wide referendum

ona$600,000bondprogram.Afteranopening ceremonywithGovernor

Colquitt and most of the city’s luminaries, the viaduct opened to traffic

in 1912.The structurewas said to be the longest concrete structure in the

world at that time. The entire Trinity River flood control and improve-

ment project included more bridges, channels, and levees to protect the

community from rising waters.37

85


A second initiative that influenced the future direction of the city

emergedwith theKessler Plan of 1911.TheNews viewed the catastrophicfloods, hazardous rail and street traffic, and haphazard neighborhoods

as manifestations of unmanaged growth. Also, the scenes represented

the more chaotic and corrupt cities of the North—one facet of imported

subjects thatDealeyand companywished to avoid in their quest formod-

ernization.TheNews embarked on a long crusade for civic planning thataccompanied their editorial support for urban improvements.The edito-

rials and news coverage amplified the newspaper’s position of informing

and advocating the city as a whole entity rather than a collection of iso-

lated neighborhoods and business areas. Beyond the single issue of civic

and internal improvements, the Kessler Plan served as another symbol

for the News in its role as community advocate and molder of opinions.

The move also signified the newspaper’s position as a Progressive voice

devoted to the entire city and its commerce.The Kessler Plan suited the

newspaper’splan toconvertmassappeal intomassaction.Noothermajor

city in the state undertook this type of extensive urban planning effort

aimedat improving services, infrastructure, andoverall livingconditions.

In 1910 the News called for creation of a panel of thirty-eight promi-

nent citizens to study the needs of the city and formulate a plan of action.

TheDallasCityPlan and ImprovementLeaguewas formedand included

News editorDealey.TheLeague subsequentlycontactedGeorgeKessler,the architect of the State Fair grounds. According to theNews, the agree-ment with Kessler for creation of a twenty-five-year planwas an ‘‘epochal

event’’ in the city’s history. Published in 1912, the Kessler Plan contained

a list of improvement projects that called for concerted action, not piece-

meal or neighborhood solutions.Theprojects included a central railroad

depot, expandedTrinity River flood control, a civic center and parks, re-

moval of railroad lines andgradecrossings, andcleaningup thecity’s eye-

sores.Although it containedmanycontroversial itemsalongwithpopular

recommendations, the Kessler Plan remained the primary document for

the city for the first half of the century.38

TheNews alsobecameoneof thefirstmajordailies inTexas to supportProhibition. The liquor question dominated the political debate at the

turn of the century. A stand favoring or opposing Prohibition was a topic

in daily conversations, provided ample fodder for Sunday sermons, and

grabbed the attention of newspapers andpoliticians.With amore diverse

population, the urban communities in the state provided the greatest re-

sistance to the Prohibition movement. Alcohol consumption occurred

in both commercial and residential establishments. ‘‘There is no way to

86


estimate the amount of money taken from the home by these residence

saloons,but itmustbeenormous,’’ theNewsdeclared.Saloonsanddrink-ing violated civic and moral standards, in the opinion of the News. By1907, in line with its editorial position, the newspaper refused to accept

liquor advertising, thus depriving the News of a lucrative revenue streamand allowing other newspapers to take advantage of its stand.The battle

between wet and dry supporters would continue for years.39

George Bannerman Dealey‘‘Be sure the job is one for which you are fitted,’’ the longtime publisher

of the Dallas Morning News said. ‘‘My attainment to my present place

is not so much due to any perfection in me as to the fact that I stuck to

the job, and that is the advice I would give to others.’’ George B. Dealey

lived by those words. Dealey was born on September 18, 1859, at the

great textile center of Manchester, England.He immigratedwith his par-

ents and nine brothers and sisters to Galveston, where at the age of fif-

teen, in 1874, he began working at the Galveston News. From his first

days in themailroom, theyoungDealey received assignments in the cleri-

cal, business, and finally the news-gathering operation, asmanagerof the

Houston branch office of theGalvestonNews.A.H.Belo andR.G. Lowe

selected the twenty-six-year-old Dealey in 1885 as the business manager

for their branch publication that became theDallasMorningNews.Untilhe died in 1946, George B. Dealey personified theDallas Morning Newsand was considered the Dean of Texas Journalism for his sixty-five years

of continuous service to his newspaper.40

GeorgeDealey, more than anyother person, shaped theDallasMorn-ingNews in thefirst half of the twentieth century.Themost dramatic earlychange underDealey’s directionwasmoderating the positions for which

the publication gained its early reputation. During its formative years in

the late nineteenth century, the News used its pages to fight Governor

Hogg, the Populists, and others who challenged the political status quo.

Critics also charged that the newspaper sided with its largest advertisers

on public controversies. In an attempt to change course, Dealey selected

a public health issue that transcended political allegiances. He studied

the U.S. Army’s efforts to eradicate insects and dump sites as the most

effective means to fight yellow fever and malaria. Dealey seized on the

trash can as his symbol for reform. The News purchased the first trash

can for public use and placed it on the corner of Lamar and Commerce,

right outside the front door of the daily’s offices. The can served as a

symbol for the public health initiative.TheNewsurged citizens andbusi-

87


George Bannerman Dealey, publisher of the Dallas Morning News andconsidered the dean of Texas daily newspaper publishers. Photocourtesy Belo Corp. Archives.

ness owners to clean up their neighborhoods and the business district

to reduce the number of sites where mosquitoes could breed. As a re-

sult of the ongoing articles and editorials that urged citizens to clean up

the streets, cut overgrown weeds, and dispose of their garbage in cans

instead of their yards and alleys, the campaign brought measurable relief

in the summer of 1899. From this effort, Dealey organized the Cleaner

Dallas League. He utilized the organization of business, civic leaders,

88


and the newspaper for reform. Leaguemembers continuously promoted

themovement to reform the face of Dallas and its underlying problems.41

After the Cleaner Dallas campaign, Dealey realized the newspaper’s

power in shaping public attitudes and actions for a tangible results.The

Dallas Civic Improvement Association succeeded the Cleaner Dallas

League, andDealey strongly supported this group and the expanded role

of his newspaper. As the campaign progressed, News editorials advo-cated more parks and playgrounds, paved streets, clean water, sewage

collection and treatment, well-constructed buildings, and internal im-

provements suchasbetter-trainedpolice andfiredepartmentswithbetter

equipment. ‘‘Examples of Civic Attractiveness’’ became an ongoing fea-

ture in the early 1900s. Photos of improvements in other cities were con-

stant reminders of Dealey’s vision of how Dallas should grow.42

As a result of his leadership in the effort to clean up the city, Dealey’s

role as general manager now extended beyond business affairs into edi-

torial policies. Dealey wrote the rules for the newspaper’s operations

and procedures. These rules required the business manager to submit

editorial topics or news stories contingent on approval by the editorial

council. The managing editor and two editorial writers composed the

council.With his seniority and position in the Belo Company, Dealey’s

opinions carried considerable influence. Also, Dealey’s broad interests

and his persuasive ability provided him the opportunity for significant

input into the editorial and news gathering divisions. Dealey’s activist

campaign to improve the appearance andhealth of Dallas determined the

direction the News followed in management’s ongoing efforts to stimu-

late economic activity while building the circulation and influence of

the News.Dealey’s initiative launched the News into a new era of focus on mu-

nicipal affairs.TheNews had built its reputation on extensive coverage ofstate and national affairs. Dealey believed the paper’s one deficiency in-

volved local events. ‘‘Fora numberof years objectionswerevery generally

urged against the News because of its lack of interest in local affairs,’’ heexplained to theeditorial council.Anything regarding themunicipalityof

Dallas was of interest ‘‘not only to the people of Dallas, but to every town

in Texas.’’ The sanitary campaign increased the publication’s visibility

andpopularitywith thecitizenry.Dealeywanted theNews tobuildon thissuccess and develop its leadership in local affairs. According to Dealey

biographer Ernest Sharpe, the publisher’s ‘‘working philosophy’’ incor-

porated the newspaper into civic awareness and involvement. ‘‘Nothing

else pays so well as enlistment in some betterment movement. It pays—

89


not in simoleons nor in kudos, but in one’s right to be on good terms

with one’s self, which is about all there is in life anyway that amounts to

a hoot.’’43

Dealey’s large vision for Dallas and the News seldom distracted him

from the day-to-day operations.The first set of rules in 1899 defined the

makeupof the editorial council and requireddailymeetings. Subsequent

provisions required ‘‘fairness and justice to be accorded allmen andmea-

sures. Personal journalism of every description must be avoided.’’ The

rules for News reporters included a policy of accuracy. ‘‘A reporter who

is inaccurate is even less valuable than one who cannot write the En-

glish language,’’ the rules stated. Dealey demanded and enforced poli-

cies that emphasized responsibility for meeting professional standards.

These standards included correct grammar, punctuation, and spelling,

even for themost difficult names.He successfullyworked for the removal

of advertising from the front page in 1902. Many large dailies already re-

stricted their front page to news stories.This list included the NewYorkTimes,Washington Post, San Francisco Call, andNewOrleans Picayune.TheNewswas among the first publications inTexas to remove front-pageadvertisements. Dealey gave up his opposition to comics and the Newsbegan featuring comics in color on Sunday, March 13, 1904. Including

‘‘silliness,’’ as he termed the comic strips, increased circulation, so that

the News had nearly 47,000 readers by the end of the year.44

Another indication of Dealey’s resolve to transform both the NewsandDallas was coverage of working-class citizens and their issues. Labor

strife spread throughout much of the nation during the late 1800s. New

unions formed in the 1890s in U.S. cities to represent workers in newly

created jobsreflecting the industrial revolution.Building tradesmencom-

posed the earliest groups of organized laborers. At the turn of the cen-

tury, Dallas and other Texas cities witnessed the expansion of orga-

nized workers. Railroad workers, typographers, and streetcar operators

maintained the largest local union memberships. A strike by streetcar

workers in 1899 ended when Dallas business leaders joined with the

union to enforce the contract with the city’s privately owned transporta-

tion company.The News praised the settlement and later offered excep-tional coverage on a visit by Eugene Debs, ‘‘the apostle of modern so-

cialism.’’ The daily praised Debs’ leadership and regarded him as an

important national figure whose appearance proved the growing stature

of the NorthTexas city. Business and commercial leaders received more

coverage than unions and laborers, but the News provided coverage of

union leaders and their issues formany years.This conciliatory viewdis-

90


played by theNews toward organized laborchanged over time, especiallyduring the turbulent era of theDepression and the subsequent expansion

of unions.45

‘‘The business of a newspaper is always to be a newspaper first and a

money-making business second,’’ Dealey said. For as long as he played

a leadership role in determining community standards and directing the

growth of the city, Dealey believed that the News should play a large roleas the advocate for the growing middle class and commercial sector of

the city. The professional standards Dealey advocated for the News re-flectedwhat he believedwere the needs of a literate and educated public.

He also modeled the News as the premier advocate for growth based onthe ideas and platforms advocated on the pages of the daily. Dealey saw

no difference in making himself the arbiter for these standards for both

the newspaper and the community. In his world, the newspaper offered

continuity and the high standards for other publications in Texas and

the nation. He also wanted the News to be financially strong enough to

withstand any periods of economic downturn or political uncertainty. In

doingso,hewanted todistance theNews fromother regionalpublications

that he quietly deemed too sensational and partisan.

ManyTexas newspaper publishers lived to see their influence expand

beyond their hometowns to a national level. Dealey, who never aspired

to hold political office or appointments, rose to become one of the most

respected editors and publishers in the state. Many disagreed with his

views and opinions. But nearly all of his contemporaries admired his

convictions. In that regard, Dealey and theDallas Morning News set thejournalistic standards for the other major dailies of the state.

San Antonio Express and San Antonio LightThe oldest major city in Texas, San Antonio remained the largest and

most diverse urban community inTexas at the beginning of the twentieth

century. The city along the San Antonio River enjoyed its unique repu-

tation as a placewhere the old and the new stood side by side. Its central

plazas and streets contained adobe buildings alongside brick andmortar

banksandstores.SanAntonio, thehomeof theAlamo,Spanishmissions,

andpresidiosbecame the site of oneof themainU.S.military installations

and amagnet forcommercial activity by the early 1900s.TeddyRoosevelt

organized his RoughRider volunteers in SanAntonio in 1898when pre-

paring for war with Spain. In the late 1800s, San Antonio capitalized on

its location to become the commercial center for the cattle drives to the

north. The arrival of the Southern Pacific Railroad in 1877, along with

91


stockyards andpackingplants, ended the cattle drives.The railroads also

brought a wave of new settlers and European immigrants that made San

Antonio a truly cosmopolitan city by 1900. Mexican Americans, Ger-

mans, Italians, Anglo Americans, African Americans, and other first-

generation European arrivals mingled on the winding, narrow streets

of the old Spanish colonial capital. The high turrets of the city’s many

breweries on the San Antonio River loomed like European castles on the

Rhine.Saloonswithpolishedbars andexpensivechandelierswereneigh-

bors to stately domed cathedrals. The first cement company west of the

Mississippi River located north of the city.46

City leaders in San Antonio launched an effort in the earliest years of

the twentieth century to improve the community’s appearance and ac-

cessibility. The growing number of residents, combined with the large

numbers of people who came to San Antonio to shop, created conges-

tion along the narrow, dusty streets.When the rains came, many areas of

the city were literally impassable because of the mud. Residents along

Quincy Street complained that even six-horse teams pulling wagons

bogged down in the mud. According to residents, the only communica-

tion with the outside world in such times was by telephone, ‘‘as the tops

of the telephone poles were still abovewater.’’ Then an evenmore threat-

ening force appeared. Automobiles began clattering their way through

the city’s streets. Newspapers reported the unsightly vehicles scared

‘‘women andhorses’’ with increasing frequency. In June 1904 theExpressreported that several men visiting San Antonio—prominent delegates to

the Democratic State Convention—narrowly escaped death.The group

‘‘insisted on testing the speed of themachine,’’ and the horseless carriage

accelerated to an estimated speed of thirty miles per hour. The vehicle

collidedwith a carriage andwas demolished, ‘‘but no onewas hurt’’ with

the possible exception of some damaged egos.47

Veteran newspapermen composed the Express leadership in the earlytwentieth century. Frank G. Huntress Jr. served as president and gen-

eral manager. Huntress’ grandfather had worked for newspapers in New

York City. His father was a wealthy businessman while his mother was

the daughter of General Juan Montez, a rancher and political leader in

Mexico. Huntress was born and grew up in San Antonio in the post–

Civil War era. Like George Dealey of the Dallas Morning News, Hunt-

ress began working for the Express as a delivery boy and rose through

the ranks of the organization. He served as business manager, vice presi-

dent, and finally president and general manager during his four decades

92


with the Express. From 1910 until his death in 1955, Huntress served as

president of the Express Publishing Company and the Express Print-

ing Company. Claude V. Holland was another longtime newspaperman

with the Express. Originally from Kentucky, he worked with the Louis-ville Courier-Journal before moving to San Antonio in 1895. Holland

also participated in local Democratic Party activities in Bexar County.

John Lunsford served as managing editor. Lunsford served on several

newspapers, including editorial positions with theGalveston News andnewspapers in Chicago, St. Louis, and New Orleans before he came to

the Express in 1910.48

The Express and San Antonio prospered at the end of the nineteenthcentury. In 1895 the newspaper occupied its own three-story stone and

brick building. The triangular building stood in the city’s center at Na-

varroandCrockettStreetson the scenicSanAntonioRiver.Thestructure

was the first fireproof building, made of steel, in San Antonio. The Ex-press occupied this site until the operation moved to a larger building in1917. By 1929 the newspaper had expanded to an eight-story building

that contained the editorial, advertising, printing, and executive offices.49

The San Antonio Light emerged in 1881 as an expanded version of

the San Antonio Surprise and an afternoon daily. In 1883 A. W. Gifford

and Tom B. Johnson ran the newspaper from an office on Commerce

Street. The Johnsons changed the name to the Daily Light. Historical

records indicate that by the 1890s the paper was the only daily in Texas

that supported the national Republican Party. Given the diverse nature

of San Antonio and its dependence on U.S. military installations, sup-

port forRepublicans in the city and in an area of Texaswith a large ethnic

German population provided a base for the Republicans that lasted well

into the early twentieth century. In 1906 E. B. Chandler purchased the

newspaper from the Johnsons. A few years later, theDaily Light Publish-

ing Company purchased the San Antonio Gazette. For several years, thepublication was printed under the banner of the Light and Gazette.

In 1911 Harrison L. Beach, Charles P. Taft, and Charles S. Diehl,

all experienced newspaper correspondents, moved to San Antonio and

bought the Light and Gazette, which they renamed the Light. Beachserved as a war correspondent during the Spanish-American War and

later as an editor for the Associated Press. They leased a wire news ser-

vice and published the first full market reports in a San Antonio paper.

The Light dropped its Republican orientation and aligned itself with

more traditional southernDemocratic views. In 1924WilliamRandolph

93


Hearst bought the Light, which ended independent ownership of the

newspaper.50

San Antonio, with its diverse cultures, evoked both praise and criti-

cism fromnewspaperwriters. ChesterCrowell, a well-known author and

newspaperman in the early part of the century, applauded San Antonio

at this time as one of the ‘‘most cosmopolitan communities on this con-

tinent.’’ As a young man, Crowell held his first job at the San AntonioExpress,where hemade seven dollars a week as a cub reporter.The city’sbustling commercial area and diverse population created an elaborate

mosaic, in the eyes of the young reporter. Banks and mercantile shops

opened their doors alongside theaters, saloons, and gambling houses.

‘‘Chili queens dispensed smiles and indigestion on the plazas,’’ Crowell

commented of the local cuisine. ‘‘The red-light district was enormous,

and generally regarded as an important business asset,’’ Crowell added.

The locals regarded a Prohibitionist as ‘‘a nut, and even the Method-

ist and Baptist pastors in San Antonio usually evaded that topic.’’ For a

young man in San Antonio in the early twentieth century, ‘‘life was very

gay.’’ In fact, people in the dry areas of North Texas referred to Bexar

Countyas ‘‘BeerCounty’’ due to the popularityof alcohol among the San

Antonio populace.51

Crowell provided an insider’s look at the preparation of a newspaper

early in the century.TheAssociatedPress andotherwire services opened

at certain hours and ‘‘you could depend absolutely upon a certain num-

ber of words.’’ After the staff wrote headlines, they ‘‘impaled them on

hooks tended by copy boys, and in due time they became type.’’ Each

editor knew exactly how many stories were available. ‘‘Space was dic-

tated byadvertising; press timewas dictated by train schedules,’’ Crowell

reported. ‘‘Advertising brought in the revenue, printing produced the

goods, writing filled the unsold space.’’ The tasks to produce a daily

newspaper by this time required numerous individuals, most of whom

worked in production or advertising, rather than editorial, offices. The

staff of the daily operated on a schedule dictated by business concerns.

‘‘TheAmerican newspaper hadbeen going through an evolutionary pro-

cess,’’ Crowell observed. ‘‘We were not crusaders; we were obviously in

business.’’ Crowell’s analysis accurately portrayed the influence of the

new journalism and mass marketing on daily newspaper enterprises in

Texas. His perspective provided additional support for the necessity of

Texas publishers to incorporate business andmanagement programs im-

ported from the North.52

94


Fort Worth Star-TelegramThe twentieth-century history of the FortWorth Star-Telegram reflected

that of its influential publisher, Amon Giles Carter. Carter was born on

December 11, 1879, in Crafton,Texas. He changed his name as an adult:

after he named his son Amon Gary Carter Jr., he referred to himself as

Amon Carter Sr., although he and his son had different middle names.

Like most of his fellow publishers of this era, he had no family members

involved in the newspaper business. After working at a numberof jobs in

the small North Texas community of Bowie, he relocated to Oklahoma

andCalifornia. Hemoved to FortWorth in 1905 and became advertising

managerof theFortWorthStar.Heexcelled in the advertisingprofession.

He triumphed because as a salesman he could have ‘‘soldTupperware to

Cartier’s.’’ He had ‘‘the glibness of a snake oil peddler, the dogmatism of

a saved-again evangelist, and the sincerity of a first-term congressman,’’

according to his biographer, Jerry Flemons. Three years later, with the

backing of Colonel Paul Waples, the primary investor and a wholesale

grocer in Fort Worth, the Star merged with the Fort Worth Telegram.The Fort Worth Star-Telegram employed former Star publisher Louis J.Wortham as the chief executive of the newly merged newspaper. D. C.

McCaleb and A. G. Dawson also participated in the new venture.53

Themergerof theStar and theTelegrammarked a turning point in the

historyofnewspaperpublications inFortWorth. In theyearswhenCarter

worked on the Star, the newspaper carried sixteen pages and distributed4,500 copieswith free delivery. By 1908, lacking sufficient circulation in-

come and fighting rival publications, the Star was in financial difficulty.

Carter and Wortham decided to buy out their rival, the Telegram. Thecompeting publication published as an evening newspaper that dated

back to the FortWorth EveningMail, the FortWorthMail Telegram, andother papers beginning around 1879. The newly merged newspapers,

known as theStar-Telegram,beganpublication in 1909.Themerger gavethe publication control of the afternoon market in Fort Worth.The FortWorth Record served as themorning newspaper for the growing city.Vet-eran newspaper editor Clarence Ousley, a former managing editor of the

Houston Post, purchased the Record in 1903, two years before Carter’s

arrival in FortWorth. In 1903, with several associates, Ousley purchased

the Fort Worth Gazette and published it as the Fort Worth Record. TheRecord remained the chief competitor of the Star-Telegram for the next

two decades. Ousley was the Record ’s editor until he sold his interest inthe paper in 1913. The focus onWest Texas did not come until the next

decade.54

95


Fort Worth stood as a city in transition in the early twentieth century.

The small community on the banks of the Trinity grew in the late nine-

teenth century into a rail and cattle center. The Fort Worth stockyards

and large packing companies provided an additional boost to the city’s

commerce at the turn of the century. During the first decade of the twen-

tieth century, the population nearly tripled, from 26,000 to more than

73,000people.After 1910 thediscoveryof oil inBurkburnett andRanger

changed the complexion of the city. Oil companies, promotion firms,

wildcatters, and ‘‘every form of enterprise identified with oil activities

sprang up and flourished.’’ A guide toTexas called Fort Worth the wild-

cat center for theworld, so named for itsmany independent oil operators

and investors.55

Similar to theDallas Times Herald, Carter and his Fort Worth paper

stressed local news. For distribution, however, he looked at the model

provided by Dealey and theDallas Morning News.Utilizing the rail ser-vice, the Star-Telegram expanded west into eighty-four counties. Few

large daily newspaper publishers saw any advantage in the West Texas

market. The most arid part of the state was also the least populated. On

the surface, the miles of open lands, small cities, and ranching offered

little profit or news. But Carter saw the low density as an opportunity to

expandhis newspaper’s influence.Westward expansion alsomade sense,

as the Dallas newspapers dominated the news, circulation, and revenues

to the east. As Carter’s biographer notes, ‘‘[T]here was no larger town

between Fort Worth and the Pacific Ocean.’’ Before rail service arrived,

some papers delivered in the Panhandle arrived by stagecoach. Paved

roads, electricity, and running water remained as scarce as a day without

wind in this region until the 1940s. In the 1920s, the paper’s ranch edi-

tor often slept on the open prairie because of the scarcity of towns with

hotels and the long distances between ranch headquarters.56

Within six years of the merger, the Star-Telegram expanded from

15,000 to 40,000 circulation. As circulation increased, so too did the

number of pages, advertising, and features. A December 15, 1912, prog-

ress edition carried 250 pages that promoted commerce and business in

Fort Worth and the region. The meteoric increase in circulation carried

the newspaper to new heights by 1920. The Star-Telegram, with over

66,000 subscribers, became the largest newspaper in the state, a position

it held until the 1950s. Fort Worth and West Texas remained the focus

from the outset, but it was not until 1923 that the newspaper’s masthead

read ‘‘Where the West Begins.’’ The Star-Telegram became one of the

largest newspapers in the South, surpassing its rivals inDallas andHous-

96

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


ton in circulation. The daily served as a platform and a reflection of the

personality of its owner, Amon B. Carter Sr.

The Star-Telegram’s distribution area eventually expanded to

350,000 square miles of the western High Plains, the largest area of any

newspaper in the state. Daily home delivery extended 700 miles west

of Fort Worth. Carter and the paper successfully resisted takeover at-

tempts byWilliam Randolph Hearst in the early 1920s. Hearst sold the

FortWorth Record to the Star-Telegram in 1925. In 1922 the paper began

the first Fort Worth radio station,WBAP (‘‘We Bring A Program’’).The

Star-Telegram later established the first television station in the southern

half of the United States, in the early fall of 1948. Carter was majority

owner and publisher of the paper until his death in 1955, when he was

succeeded by his son, Amon G. Carter Jr., who served in the position

until his death in 1982.

Carter fulfilled the role of community leader and maintained a busy

schedule of philanthropic activities. As his biographer noted, Carter was

‘‘a power, a force of politics, of civic boosterism, of industrial develop-

ment.’’ He used the newspaper to push for a university inWest Texas. In

1923 Carter served chairman of the first board of regents of TexasTech-

nological College (now Texas Tech University) in Lubbock, a position

he held until 1927. He became the youngest president of the Fort Worth

Chamber of Commerce. Following the discovery of oil in North Texas,

he used his influence to persuade oil investors to move to Fort Worth.

Just as Jesse H. Jones in Houston embarked on his building career with

the new oil boom, Carter became involved in the construction of down-

town office buildings in Fort Worth. In 1911 he and other civic leaders

brought the first airplane to the Fort Worth area. In 1928 Carter’s devo-

tion to air travel paid off, when he became director and part owner of

American Airways, which later became American Airlines. Unlike some

of his fellow newspaper publishers, Carter became active in the oil busi-

ness and served as a director of the American Petroleum Institute. ‘‘He

ran Fort Worth. He loved it, lauded it, lavished gifts on it when it was

good, punished it when it was bad. Amon was the ruling body of Fort

Worth, yet he never held a public office.’’57

Carterwasnoted forhisphilanthropy, largely fromhisoil business.He

created and funded theAmonG.Carter Foundation forcultural and edu-

cational purposes. Similar to other daily newspaper publishers, Carter

received recognition for his contributions to Fort Worth and the state.

Hewas named Range Boss of West Texas in 1939, and theTexas legisla-

ture designated him an Ambassador of Good Will in 1941. He received

98


the Exceptional Service Medal from the United States Air Force and the

Frank M. Hawks Memorial Award from American Legion Post 501 of

New York City. He was an organizer and director of the Southwest Ex-

position and Fat Stock Show and a contributor to hospitals and civic

centers. He loved to entertain his political friends, business associates,

artists, and others at his well-manicured farm, Shady Oak.

As a newspaper publisher, Carter earned the respect and thewrath of

many in the business. He was quick tempered and unafraid to use the

Star-Telegram to carry on his personal crusades and vendettas. Often,

these appearedon the front page of theStar-Telegram.Healso keptmany

issues and stories out of the headlines because of his concern that they

would damage the image of the community or prove harmful to local

businesses. One critic labeled him Amon the Terrible. As Flemons de-

scribed him, Carter would steamroll anyone who stood in his way. ‘‘He

would puff up, redden, shout, cuss, even stamp his feet, and those near

himwere eithermesmerized or terrified.’’ Fromapersonality standpoint,

Carter was the polar opposite of George B. Dealey, his counterpart at

the Dallas Morning News. Carter frequently engaged civic leaders and

the newspapers of Dallas in rival activities and fierce debates. However,

when business opportunities or prospects to promote enterprises arose,

Carter would either cooperate or exploit the rivalry between Dallas and

Fort Worth.58

With their combined positions as publishers, leading businessmen,

political moguls, and community spokesmen, newspaper publishers like

Carter, Dealey, Jones, Kiest, and their peers enjoyed an opportunity not

equaledbefore or since to shapeTexas to their liking.Their shareddesire

for Texas to emerge as an economically diverse industrial power run by

business oligarchs and relying on low wages and racial segregation as

chief attractions for outside investors became state policy. With their

widespread participation in local and regional politics, the publishers

suppressed a large degree of the natural tension between the press and

government. Adversarial relationships still existed. Disagreements arose

in the context of how each newspaper enterprise and its home city ex-

panded and accommodated these changes. During this cycle of news-

paper expansion in the early years of the twentieth century, most indi-

cators pointed toward a rise in prestige and wealth for the largest daily

newspapers.

In this atmosphere, the relationship between the media and elected

representatives was cooperative, as they shared a mutual agenda of do-

mestic expansionand improvement.But all theplanningandcooperation

99


among business leaders could not direct all the forces of modernization.

As theirhumblehometownsgrew intometropoliseswealthybeyond their

wildestdreams,Texasdailynewspaperpublisherswitnessedanunprece-

dented rise of prestige and influence. However, no plan is without its

flaws or unforeseen events. Class and racial conflicts remained on the

surface with the Mexican Revolution, from 1910 to 1920, and the rise of

the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s.

100

CHAPTER 4

‘‘An Enemy Closer to Us thanAny European Power’’

Theviolence andpolitical upheaval created by

theMexican Revolution left a lasting impression on the

Southwest. From 1910 until 1920, the struggle created renewed

interest in the United States’ neighbor to the south. The United States

andMexico maintained a tense relationship that frequently erupted into

armedconflictduring thenineteenthcentury.As the tworepublicsmoved

into the twentieth century, profound changes took place in Mexico that

brought dramatic impacts far north of theRioGrande.Texas daily news-

papers took a leading role in forming perspectives and long-lasting im-

pressions during this pivotal time in the history of both nations.

A fewdays after PresidentWoodrowWilson askedCongress for a dec-

laration of war against Germany, in April 1917, the San Antonio Expresstold its readers, ‘‘[T]he reason is plain: we fight in defense of liberty.’’ As

the nation prepared to fight its first major overseas conflict of the twen-

tieth century, the overwhelming majority of Texans and the state’s daily

newspapers jumpedon theAllies’ bandwagon in the struggle againstGer-

many and the Central Powers. These spirited convictions stood in stark

contrast to the popular mood when the war began three years earlier.

When the shooting started in August 1914, people in Texas and the en-

tire nation rejoiced in the geographic and political isolation which seem-

ingly kept Americans out of harm’s way. However, inTexas theMexican

Revolution and the violence on both sides of the Rio Grande played a

significant role in shaping the attitudes of Texans on the issues of war

preparedness and military intervention.

In retrospect, in spite of the altruistic explanation providedby theSanAntonioExpress, the reasonsTexans chose to support entry into the over-seas fight were not so plain.Texans’ enthusiasm forwar evolved, not only

frompatriotic commitment, but also frommore complex reasons that set

them apart from the rest of the nation. Until the United States declared


war, public opinion in Texas remained very circumspect when it came

to direct involvement in European affairs. In contrast, Texans felt more

self-assured when the topic involved intervention in Mexico and Cen-

tral and SouthAmerica.Years of prolonged outcries byTexas newspaper

editors and politicians critical of theMexican government and ‘‘Mexican

bandits’’ during that nation’s revolutionary years overrode concerns of

neutrality.The state’s influential daily newspapers, which carefully mea-

sured their responses to the European war, demonstrated no such reluc-

tance in their discussions of Mexico. The Mexican Revolution’s impact

onTexans played amajor role in swaying public opinion away from isola-

tion toward supportingmilitary escalation, intervention, and evenwar as

viable options for resolving international crises. But as oneTexas editor

lamented concerning the nation’s military readiness, ‘‘[W]e are not even

prepared to undertake a punitive expedition into a weak and war-ridden

country on short notice.’’1

TheMexicanRevolution andWorldWar Imarked the timeof a signifi-

cant ideological shift for Texas’ leadership class.Wealthy whites had di-

rectly economically benefited from late-nineteenth-century federal gov-

ernment actions such as the subsidizing of railroad lines and Indian

removal and genocide along the rail routes.Yet since the end of the Civil

War it had been a virtual requirement for Texas politicians and public

opinion shapers on editorial pages to condemn the federal government

inWashington.The federal government, after all, had crushed the Con-

federacy and, according to southern mythology, imposed a reign of cor-

ruption and ‘‘Negro rule’’ during Reconstruction.

Texas elites argued that a strong federal government, or at least those

programs that did not directly benefit the wealthy, threatened the South

as a whole. Reform programs aiding farmers, improving worker safety,

or outlawing child labor represented for them examples of aWashington

regimegrowingwildly inpowerand spinningout of control—the civilian

equivalent of General Sherman’s troops burning Atlanta. But a new at-

titude toward Washington commenced with the imperialist adventur-

ism of the 1898 Spanish-AmericanWar, the first major conflict in which

southerners and northerners had fought side by side since the Mexican-

American War of the 1840s. Patriotic fervor surrounding the Spanish

campaign brought the South back into a spirit of shared Americanism.

InTexas, theMexican Revolution of 1910 andWorldWar I, fought from

1914 to 1918,markeda further stepbyTexas into thenationalmainstream.

Just as Progressivismencouraged greater federal and state involvement in

the economyand the lives of private citizens, issues raisedby the twowars

102

‘‘An Enemy Closer to Us’’

moved elites to demand greater federal effort to defend the homeland.

Events between 1910 to 1920 also pushed the leadership class to move

from a parochial to a more international perspective, a key ideological

component of modernism.2

As the wartime actions of the European combatants grabbed ban-

ner headlines in the nation’s newspapers, the violence from theMexican

Revolution competed as a regular front-page feature, especially in the

U.S. Southwest. Mexico’s nationalist revolt, which began in 1910, made

a dramatic impression on Texas residents and public officials. The in-

ternal conflict south of the Rio Grande often overshadowed events in

Europe, especially when the violence involved U.S. citizens and spilled

into Texas. Most Texans viewed the fighting in Europe as a monumen-

tal yet distant conflict. Unrest along the Mexican border led Texans of

all persuasions to call for Washington’s intervention and the placement

of federal troops along the international border. Sensational coverage by

Texas newspapers of pivotal events associated with the Mexican Revo-

lution resulted in an increased sense of insecurity and belligerence along

theborder,within the state, and in the rest of theSouthwest.These events

included the Plan of San Diego, PanchoVilla’s raid on Columbus, New

Mexico, and a steady stream of stories about attacks on Americans and

their property. The eventual revelation of alleged German offers of as-

sistance to Mexico in the Zimmermann telegram in early 1917 seemingly

affirmed calls by Texas editors for preparedness and intervention. The

exposure of Zimmermann’s offer to return to Mexico lands lost to the

United States in theTreaty of Guadalupe eliminated all support for Ger-

many. Sympathy for the German American community disappeared and

the remaining pacifist sentiments lost their influence as Texans enthusi-

astically mobilized for war.3

Thisprewar scenario inTexasdiffers from that of the rest of thenation.

Most historical interpretations of U.S. public opinion and the nation’s

entry intoWorldWar Ihave concluded thatWilsonheld a clearconsensus

long before he sought a formal declaration of war. Pro-Allied sentiment

in the United States, with a special affinity toward Britain, surfaced from

the outset of thewar in August 1914 and steadily increased through 1917.

In addition to sharing a common language and other cultural and politi-

cal traditions, Britain and the United States followed similar paths in the

Progressive period. When U.S. Progressives sought models for benefi-

cial changes in education, public health, and social services, they most

often looked to Great Britain for examples. Germany, on the other hand,

appeared tomost Americans as an autocratic opponent of Progressivism

103


and an ‘‘obstacle to democracy.’’ U.S. opinion also opposed the ‘‘doc-

trineofmilitarism’’ primarilyattributed toGermany.When theEuropean

war began, alleged German atrocities such as the sinking of the Lusi-tania and unrestricted submarine warfare dominated the pages of the

nation’s press—especially in the eastern financial centers. These news-

paper stories slowly reinforced anti-German perceptions and eroded the

isolationist sentiments in the Midwest and South. Problems associated

with theMexicanRevolutionmade little impact onmost Americans until

the appearance of the Zimmermann note inMarch 1917. From a regional

perspective, however, Mexico played a substantive role on affairs and at-

titudes in Texas well before the revelation of Zimmermann’s decoded

message. Texas continued to be a stronghold of isolationist sentiment

as the nation moved toward intervention in Europe, but the disruptive

events associated with the nearby Mexican Revolution inclined Texans

toward war as a viable response to foreign problems.4

Measuring the popular opinion that existed in this era before scien-

tific polls and surveys is difficult. The most accurate barometer for this

period is a selection of daily newspapers, contemporary journals, and

other recorded observations. Newspapers provide an especially impor-

tant source because of their influence during this period of U.S. history.

Texas, themost populous southernDemocratic state, represents adefini-

tive yardstick for public opinion and the press in the debate over United

States’ entry intoWorldWar I. By 1914 Texas had the fifth-largest popu-

lation among states, an estimated 4 million people. Although still rural,

Texas began during the World War I era the monumental shift to an

urban andmore economicallydiversified economy.Over 100,000people

resided in its three largest cities (San Antonio, Dallas, and Houston).

Although only half as populous as the largest Texas municipalities, El

Paso—the westernmost city on the border with Mexico—played a piv-

otal role during theMexicanRevolution. In each of these growingmetro-

politan areas, independently owned daily newspapers were the primary

source of news and entertainment for their readers. By 1912 the total cir-

culationof newspapers inTexas exceeded4million copiesper issue, thus

equaling on a daily basis the number of residents in the state.5

The publishers and editors of the twentieth century in Texas repre-

sented a sharp departure from their counterparts of the prior century.

These newspapermen considered themselves businessmen who pro-

vided more than news and editorial viewpoints. They counted their

papers and editorial positions as pivotal to the future of the state. Po-

litically, they remained traditional southern Democrats who enthusias-

104


tically supported President Wilson. They disagreed over controversial

social issues such as Prohibition and women’s suffrage. However, they

universally agreed onmanyof the era’s other Progressive ideas: industrial

expansion and internal improvements to diversify a state still rooted to its

rural, agricultural origins. At the outset of WorldWar I, each newspaper

predicted the war would increase demand for U.S. products and launch

a new economic boom for manufactured goods and agricultural com-

modities. Europe represented a substantial overseas market for cotton,

the number one cash crop produced by Texas farmers and other south-

erners.The war machines in Europe also needed petroleum, which was

music to the ears of those in this new, rapidly expandingTexas industry.

In late July 1914, Dallas Morning News president Caesar Lombarditoured Europewith his wife and family. Hewrote News general managerGeorgeDealeyabout the ‘‘exciting times,’’ asAustria andSerbiawere tee-

tering ‘‘on the verge of war.’’ Within days, nearly the whole continent of

Europehadmobilized theirarmed forces.As the guns roared throughout

Europe in August 1914, newspapers provided nearly all of the informa-

tion Americans obtained about thewar. Daily newspapers hadmade sig-

nificant technological advances after the turn of the century in gathering

news and distributing papers. Large dailies obtained information from

overseas sources via thewire services and printed the stories in the head-

lines within hours of the actual event. Special trains distributed editions

on a timely basis to readers around the state. Improved communication,

printing, and distribution methods provided readers with timely, inex-

pensive newspapers asWorld War I began.6

News about the war came quickly and filled the front pages. Editors

throughout the country exercised caution in choosing sides. The Lit-erary Digest published a nationwide poll of 367 newspaper editors in

November 1914 that reflected the initial reservations but showed a some-

what favorable disposition toward Britain. More than half the editors

responded they were neutral, 105 favored the Allies, and 20 sided with

Germany and the Central Powers. Sentiments among editors in Texas

favored neutrality. As oneTexas editor in the surveycommented, ‘‘[T]he

disposition is to shut up about the war and talk diversification of crops.’’

ThusWilson’sneutralitypolicy struck the right chord in theearlymonths

of World War I among the overwhelming majority of U.S. newspapers

and their readers, including those in Texas.7

In the early weeks of the war, editors and readers struggled to learn

about the war’s causes and understand the rapidly changing situation.

Most news coverage originated with Associated Press stories assembled

105


from Allied information. Great Britain organized a special government

office to distribute ‘‘reliable information’’ or favorable stories for the

Allies whenever possible. In the earliest days of the war, the conflict dis-

rupted Germany and Austrian news to the United States. The German

ambassador complained to Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan

thatLondon sought to ‘‘give the erroneous impression thatGermanypre-

cipitated thewar.’’ Germany soon escalated its propaganda efforts to rival

those of Britain in the battle for public opinion. The German Informa-

tion Bureau in New York City distributed its version of stories to news-

papers. Germany relied on its strong commercial presence, especially in

thewealthyand influential brewing industry, to spread itswar news.With

its history of involvement in fighting the Prohibition movement, Texas

alcohol distributors maintained a strong influence in German American

communities in the state. All of the contesting nations sought to influ-

ence U.S. public opinion with nearly the same ferocity they exerted to

persuade their own population.The major powers conducted their own

war of words in U.S. newspapers as they battled across Europe.8

As thewarring powers hurled charges at one another in the first weeks

of conflict,Texas editors urged caution, forecast widespread destruction

for Europe, and preached neutrality.The San Antonio Express wistfullyhoped ‘‘the war will be of comparatively short duration’’ because a long

conflict would bankrupt all Europe, ‘‘entailing more hardships than the

world can bear.’’ The Houston Post editors blasted the antagonists on

both sides and said ‘‘this greatest of all wars has no justification in rea-

son or civilization’’ and that ‘‘history will indict monarchy for this orgy

ofmurder.’’ TheHoustonChronicle, noting an economic opportunity forTexans, said the nation would assist Europe in ‘‘her hour of need, and

incidentally Europe will pay dearly for it.’’ The Dallas Morning Newsblamed previous and current European leaders for a ‘‘relapse into bar-

barism. It is the dead hand of the Past that grips the neck of Europe.’’

They labeledGermany’s invasionof Belgiumas a ‘‘colossal blunder’’ that

brought Britain into the war and hurt their cause with Americans. In a

subsequent editorial, theNewsurged theUnitedStates to act asmediatorand moderator between the warring nations for a settlement ‘‘that shall

not be fatal to any.’’ Born in England, George Dealey sympathized with

the Allies once the shooting started. But theNews editorial policy bowedto the president’s call for neutrality in the early years of the war.

9

Recognizing popular sentiment and undoubtedly following his own

convictions, President Wilson announced his position in a widely pub-

licized statement on neutrality on August 4, 1914. The proclamation

106


warned Americans against actively siding with any belligerent nation. In

spite of calls for neutrality from the government and editorials, German

Americans quickly voiced their anger over newspaper coverage of the

war. Persons of Germanic descent composed part of the readership of all

of the major daily newspapers in the eastern and central part of Texas.

SanAntoniowitnessed the greatest debate, with its large number of Ger-

man Texans, including an influential mercantile sector, and the Expresscarried their messages of protest. A mass meeting at the Hermann Sons’

Hall in San Antonio on August 15 issued a condemnation of Allied bias

in news stories. ‘‘Germans and Austrians have full right to defend their

existence,’’ they proclaimed.The U.S. press printed ‘‘falsehoods, which

bring prejudice against the German nation and the German citizens of

this country.’’ In an Express story alongside the local protest coverage, aGerman military spokesman charged that Britain and France purposely

broadcast falsehoods about the conduct of the war.10

From the opening rounds in August 1914, the San Antonio daily

carried the most front-page stories, photos, and commentary about Ger-

manyand theCentralPowers.OnAugust 1, theExpress’ leadstorycarriedthe headline ‘‘Kaiser Is Ready to Wield Sword.’’ The daily’s first spe-

cial section devoted to the war contained lengthy feature stories of en-

thusiastic, gleeful Germans parading in New York City with a ‘‘raging

war spirit.’’ The Express reported in a front-page story the addition of a

cablewire service that includedwar specials fromLondon, Paris, Berlin,

and all the other capitals of the major contestants. Shortly thereafter, the

paper began a series of articles that detailed the experiences of a German

army officer. In an editorial entitled ‘‘Let There be Justice,’’ Express edi-tors criticized censored war news which resulted in ‘‘one sided, ex partereports.’’Thenewspaper issuedacall for independent, impartialwarcor-

respondents whowould provide reports ‘‘regardless of whose arms may

be victorious and who is vanquished in each and every fray.’’ The large

German commercial sector, combined with the substantial presence of

German immigrants in Central Texas, maintained a strong influence on

the San Antonio newspaper until the U.S. declaration of war in 1917.11

Other Texas dailies attempted to balance their coverage in reaction

to complaints of bias in favor of Great Britain and France. The DallasMorningNews and theHouston Post carried stories within the first weeksthat dealt with press censorship and complaints by the German govern-

ment that theywere being accused of causing thewar.Germanybelatedly

attempted to label Britain as the aggressor. However, the News editorsstated that should Germany lose, ‘‘one of the very considerable causes

107


of its misfortune [would be] the violation of its own agreement to ob-

serve the neutrality of Belgium.’’ In another editorial, theNews predictedthe war would ‘‘exhaust all of the participants.’’ The editors noted the

need for ‘‘an international supreme court whichwould pass judgment on

controversies that threaten the world’s peace.’’12

The Houston Post expressed ‘‘surprise’’ in the first weeks of the war

that German Americans voiced discontent concerning news coverage.

ThePost editorials explained that no ban existed on coverage of Germanviewpoints and the daily maintained ‘‘no prejudice against the German

people or the people of any nation involved in thewar.’’ The rulers of the

belligerent nations would have to shoulder the blame. However, the edi-

tors noted that the Associated Press admitted that the only official news

of thewarcame fromEnglandandadmitted thepossibilityof information

that was ‘‘colored, perhaps exaggerated’’ due to government censorship.

Editorsurgedpatienceandscrutinyof allwarnews.Throughout theearly

months of thewar, banner headlines, photos, and extensive articles about

thewar in Europe dominated the pages of daily newspapers inTexas and

the nation. From 1914 to 1917, the Dallas Morning News evolved as the

leading pro-Allied publication in Texas. The two Houston newspapers

maintained a more balanced position during this period.13

Americans believed the nation could avoid the conflict, but immedi-

ate concerns arose among business leaders and farmers over the impact

to the nation’s commerce. The hope for immediate economic gains for

Texans vanished almost as quickly asGerman troops rolled into Belgium

and France. The British embargo of cotton shipments to Germany and

Austria-Hungary alienated some Allied enthusiasts in the state. Texas

produced over 4 million bales, one-fourth of the nation’s cotton crop in

1914. For a region still dependent on the commodity, initial fears broad-

cast doom and gloom for the economy. Governor Oscar Colquitt called

an emergency session of theTexas legislature to create a statewarehouse

and banking program to alleviate the falling prices in the state. Colquitt’s

ambitious planwas oddly reminiscent of supposedly radical Populist de-

mands in the 1890s for central warehouses and direct lines for credits

as tools for struggling farmers to increase crop prices—it gained little

public or legislative support. ‘‘Many of Governor Colquitt’s most faith-

ful friends are opposed’’ to his initiatives, the Houston Post observed.Houston state representative andbusinessman JohnHenryKirby, a vocal

opponent of the governor’s plan, predicted the crisis would end. ‘‘The

war in Europe if long continued will be America’s opportunity in a busi-

ness sense,’’ Kirby said in a statement representative of the business com-

108


munity.Nevertheless, the sudden fall in cottonprices sent political shock

waves through theWilson administration.Whenhe failed to immediately

recognize the problem and derailed protective legislation in Congress,

critics quickly labeled Wilson as pro-British. Senator Morris Sheppard

of Texas forwardeda letter fromanEastTexas farmer to thepresident that

explained the scenario in simple terms. ‘‘We have the nation’s chief crop

(cotton) which is practically a worthless commodity.’’ The cotton grower

predictedproblems at thepolls inNovember 1914because staunchTexas

Democrats ‘‘will either vote aRepublicanorSocialist ticket if thingsdon’t

change by Nov. 3rd.’’14

Southern Democrats formed the backbone of the president’s popular

andcongressional support.As thefirstDemocraticpresident in the twen-

tieth century,Wilsonwas enthusiastically backedby southerners because

of his ties to the region.They acceptedWilson’s Progressive reforms be-

cause they did not upset the existing power structure of planters, busi-

nessmen, professionals, and local officials. Federal expenditures drew

official and editorial support from southerners because public works

projects were viewed as favorable for business and expansion by news-

papers and the business establishment. But the sudden decline in cotton

prices in the fall of 1914 placed a strain onWilson’s relations with south-

ern leaders.OutgoingGovernorColquitt used the cotton crisis to launch

one final blast at theWilson administration. In remarks printed on front

pages inTexas and in newspapers in the East, Colquitt describedWilson

as ‘‘the greatest failure in the history of the presidency.’’15

TheHoustonChronicle jumpedtoWilson’sdefenseandcalled thegov-

ernor ‘‘the Benedict Arnold of democracy.’’ The Dallas Morning Newsdescribed Colquitt’s charge ‘‘a libel on Texas and on every State of the

South.’’ Colquitt’s attacks alienated most daily editors, but his final gu-

bernatorial tirade against Wilson signaled the onset of problems for the

administration inTexas.The president hoped increasedAllied demands

would reverse the declining cotton market. When southern business-

men advertised pledges to purchase bales of cotton in daily newspapers,

Wilson joined them. In a letter to theHouston Chronicle,Wilson wrote,

‘‘Please enter me as a subscriber for a bale of cotton.’’ In spite of these

private efforts at price stabilization, a vocal group of southern leaders,

includingTexans, launched the first wave of criticism directed at the ad-

ministration. Congressmen Rufus Hardy, Martin Dies Sr., Oscar Calla-

way, Jeff McLemore, James Slayden, and J. H. ‘‘Cyclone’’ Davis became

frequent critics of theWilson administration’s domestic programs for the

next two years.16

109


The cotton market stabilized when Britain, under pressure from the

Wilson administration, agreed topurchase all of theprewarcottonorders

of theCentral Powers. Cotton prices increased in early 1916, but the sud-

den drop in prices in the previous year had amuch longer impact. Histo-

rian Arthur S. Link noted the event left a ‘‘residue of intense anti-British

sentiment’’ among southerners. Adding toWilson’s headaches, the cot-

ton crisis rekindled the animosity harbored by cotton farmers and many

businessmen toward Northern financial centers. Most resented the con-

centration of money and power in the Northeast and brought this long-

standing complaint into the fray. Even if most of these producers and

businessmen retained cultural and economic tieswithBritain, their posi-

tions floundered in thewake of the cotton embargo. In addition, ongoing

complaints from German Americans struck a nerve. The U.S. sense of

fair play, combined with the desire to remain aloof from the war, added

to sentiments that favored neutrality. Texas newspapers reflected these

opinionsboth in theirnewscoverage and in theireditorials in thefirst year

of the war. In spite of the hardships created by the cotton crash, popular

opinion in thepress inTexas and the rest of theSouth remainedfirmlyop-

posed to intervention in theEuropeanwar.Wilson’s popularity remained

high, but vocal opposition fromTexas and other southern congressmen

increased.17

Wilson’s neutrality policy faced one of its most difficult tests follow-

ing the sinking of theLusitania by aGerman submarine onMay 7, 1915.

The event created a national crisis and a severe trial of President Wil-

son’s leadership. At first, the press and public reaction condemned Ger-

many.StateSenator J.C.McNealusof Dallasmade front-pagenewswhen

he called the assault ‘‘unparalleled in modern times in the wantonness,

the cruelty and the disregard of all civilized human promptings.’’ The

Texas Senate passed a resolution urging the United States to declare

war against Germany. The Dallas Morning News stated the attack was

a ‘‘crime against civilization,’’ while the Houston Chronicle described it

as ‘‘a blow to national dignity.’’ However, a few voices raised questions

about theattackevenas theLusitania’s victimswashedashore.GovernorJames Ferguson urged caution and said people should not be ‘‘swayed or

excited by the passions of the hour.’’ TheHoustonPostwarned readers to‘‘not be hasty in their judgment’’ and to place their confidence in Presi-

dent Wilson’s ‘‘wisdom, courage and patriotism.’’18

Within a few days, Germany accepted the responsibility for its sub-

marine attack but claimed Britain had armed the Lusitania and stored

ammunition in the hold of the passenger liner. News stories quotedGer-

110


man officials who charged that the Cunard Line had recklessly exposed

the passengers and that ‘‘they alone’’ bore ‘‘all the responsibility.’’ Not

every Texan blamed Germany for the Lusitania’s sinking. Popular re-action in the following weeks illustrated the divisions that existed in the

state. A letter to the Houston Chronicle said ‘‘the loss of American lives

rests entirely and exclusivelyon the British government.’’ Another reader

wrote that U.S. ammunition resulted in great losses to Germany on the

battlefield. Before condemning those responsible for the Lusitania, thenation needed to confront its role as munitions supplier to the Allies.

‘‘We . . . should not be too hasty in our judgment of thosewho face death

in dealing death, for home and native land.’’ Others placed responsibility

directly on the German government. The ill-fated liner and loss of life

was ‘‘an act of cruelty that will never be forgotten or forgiven.’’19

Texas editors pursued a cautious position. They condemned the at-

tack while urging support for President Wilson’s policy of negotiation

with Germany. After it had reacted to the horror of the passenger liner’s

sinking, theHouston Chronicle sympathized with the German Americancommunity in Texas. In an editorial entitled ‘‘Our German American

Citizens,’’ the Chronicle urged readers to consider those on which the

‘‘brunt of this crisis fallsmost heavily.’’ The editors said the attack should

not lead to a break between America and Germany and noted the local

community worked to ‘‘lessen antagonistic sentiment in this country.’’

However, this attitude did notmean that ‘‘their loyalty is in doubt should

eventualities come to pass.’’ A month later, the San Antonio Express, stillcritical of Britain, continued to advocate neutrality while defendingGer-

many.The reasons for neutrality ‘‘were as plentiful as blackberries.’’ The

Express also praised Wilson’s leadership, stating, ‘‘All of us realize that

there is a careful and judicious pilot at the helm of the ship of the state.’’

Many historians consider the sinking of the Lusitania a turning point inU.S. public opinion.However, reaction inTexas appeared tobe formain-

taining a neutral course in spite of the dramatic coverage of the sinking.20

After the sinking of the Lusitania, President Wilson sought to ex-

pand the nation’s land and naval forces.The president’s ‘‘preparedness’’

campaign appeared to some Americans to be a logical response to in-

creased tensions. Critics, which included southern Democrats in Con-

gress, saw the move as a step closer to war. The administration’s larger

defense budget and proposed 400,000 reserve troops offended many

Wilson supporters throughout Texas and the South. In spite of oppo-

sition to Wilson’s foreign policy among the majority of the Texas con-

gressional delegation,Texas editors supported the president’s positions.

111


Wilsonwas ‘‘quite in linewith the temper of the nation and the temper of

the South,’’ theHouston Chronicle said in early January 1916.TheDallasMorning News and theGalveston News each ran a poll of readers whichreportedly ran twenty to one in favor of Wilson’s stands. A prepared-

ness rally in Dallas sponsored by the mayor and theMorning News drewthousands of people who supported the president. By February 1916,

theWilson administration appearedmuch closer to involvementwith the

Allies. The Houston and Dallas editors positioned themselves firmly in

Wilson’s court on the preparedness issue, which placed them in direct

opposition to most Texas congressmen.21

Most editors quickly criticizedTexasCongressmenMcLemore,Dies,

and Callaway for their outspoken opposition to the preparedness pro-

gram. The congressional critics believed that the nation faced no real

threat fromGermanyand that the federalbudget adequatelycoveredmili-

tary expenditures. If increased funding for the army and navy had not

improved defenses, CongressmanMartinDies Sr. asked, ‘‘what has been

done with all these hundreds of millions of the people’s money.’’ How-

ever, others viewed this resistance as nothing more than disloyalty and

recruited opponents for the anti-preparedness congressmen in the 1916

Democratic Primary elections. As illustrated by editorials in the Hous-ton Chronicle, these representatives would ‘‘regret the day’’ of their criti-cism, as people in the South would stand with Wilson and ‘‘those who

support him.’’22

Editorial condemnations failed to sway critics of Wilson’s prepared-

ness program. Democrats who believed that the president’s position

placed the nation on the path to war supported Congressman Jeff

McLemore’s bill and a similar one in the Senate byThomas P.Gore.The

McLemore resolution required the president to warn Americans of the

risks they assumed if they boarded an armedmerchant ship.TheWilson

administration viewedMcLemore’s proposal as a challenge to the presi-

dent’s authority over foreign policy. The Dallas Morning News recom-mended immediate rejection and called onTexans to back the president.

According to the Houston Chronicle, congressional dissent by south-

ern Democrats was ‘‘a weakness of which every red-blooded American

should be heartily ashamed.’’ In spite of this claim, oneHoustonian fired

back that the American people opposed ‘‘militaristic expansion . . . we

are still for right and justice by word, action and example than by the

argument and display of cannon and bayonets.’’ McLemore’s resolution

languished in committee and lost in a floor vote by a two-to-one mar-

gin. Nevertheless, the dissent fromDixie Democrats continued. Subma-

112


rine warfare that targeted ships carrying civilians offended manyTexans

and the press, but public resistance among southernDemocrats to Presi-

dent Wilson brought a stronger reaction. Congressional criticism of the

president seemed to arouse the concernof Texasdaily newspapereditors

much more than the threat of German torpedoes.23

Of the eight Texas congressmen who challenged Wilson, only two

went down to defeat in the 1916 election. Congressman Oscar Callaway

lost to a pro-Wilson Democrat, James C. Wilson, the U.S. attorney for

the Northern District of Texas. Congressman-at-Large J. H. ‘‘Cyclone’’

Davisfinished third inhisbid to retainoneof the twoat-large seats chosen

by voters statewide. Callaway campaigned on the themes of opposing

wasteful expenditures by themilitaryandNorthernbusinesseswhoprof-

ited from arms manufacture and trade. The incumbent won strong ma-

joritiesof two toone in the rural countiesbutdecisively lost inFortWorth,

Wilson’s home. Newspapers in his district actually carried few of Calla-

way’s speeches in which he opposed increased military expenditures.

However, theFortWorthStar-Telegramandoneof hishometownpapers,

theComanche Vanguard, strongly opposed his reelection because of hisanti-preparedness stands. Opposition to Wilson undoubtedly contrib-

uted toCallaway’s downfall, but voters in his district’s rural counties still

considered his influence and his antiwar stand more important to their

individual interests.24

CycloneDavis, a Prohibition supporter, blamed his defeat on ‘‘booze,

boodle and big business’’ and the fact that the Democratic Party state

chairman deleted ‘‘Cyclone,’’ his popular nickname, from the ballot.The

omission obviously hurt the well-known incumbent, but having to run

against two candidates fromHouston—Jeff McLemore and Daniel Gar-

rett—also hurt his cause.McLemore’s opposition toWilson’s prepared-

ness programs was well known to Texans, yet he won reelection to the

at-large seat.TheDallasMorningNews ridiculedDavis’ remarks and hisloss to the ‘‘three-headed monster of iniquity.’’ Based on overall results

of the summer primary, Texans in 1916 tipped the scales in favor of in-

cumbents who brought home federal dollars for internal improvements

and took care of local constituents, even if they opposed the president.25

Former governor Colquitt, a staunchWilson critic, made headlines in

his 1916 Senate race against incumbent senator Charles Culberson. In

April 1916, theNewYorkWorld reported a ‘‘national campaign under thedirection of well known German-Americans to control elections in the

United States.’’ Featured most prominently was U.S. Senate candidate

Oscar B. Colquitt. TheWorld charged that Colquitt solicited German

113


support, which made him ‘‘more loyal to the Kaiser and the German na-

tion than his rival for the Senatorship.’’ With the close race inTexas, the

Worldpredicted thesizableGermanAmericanvote in thestatecouldelectColquitt to the Senate. Colquitt’s campaign centered on his opposition

toWilson and Prohibition, ‘‘which brings him great favor with German-

American voters.’’ TheWorld reprinted letters from the Colquitt Cam-

paign to Alphonse Koelble, a leader of the German-American Alliance,

andBernardH.Ridder, editorof theGermannewspaperStaats-Zeitung,requesting support. In each letter, Colquitt complained of attacks be-

cause of his unhappiness with the president’s handling of problemswith

Mexico. He also requested supporters to write letters to the editors of

Texas newspapers printed inGerman.The editors and names of twenty-

three German-language papers were enclosed with the Colquitt Cam-

paign letters. ManyTexas daily newspapers carried theWorld ’s story.26

In spite of thesedeclarations,Colquitt appeared tobeonhisway to the

U.S.Senate.Withanaggressivecampaignandstrongorganization,hefin-

ished aheadof an ailingCulbersonbymore than 120,000 votes.TheGer-

man American community and other anti-Prohibition voters provided

Colquitt with strong support. Colquitt’s long-standing position calling

for U.S. intervention inMexico also served him well among many voters

concerned with increased hostilities along both sides of the Rio Grande.

In the runoff with Culberson, German American organizations in the

state openly endorsed Colquitt. At a speech before a German American

organization in Houston, Colquitt reportedly asked for their support as

he criticized Wilson’s pro-Allied positions. The Dallas Morning Newsdescribed the runoff as a ‘‘question of support or opposition to theWil-

sonAdministration.’’Thanks to aggressive efforts byCulberson’s friends

andtheWilsonadministration, the incumbentmanaged toovercomeCol-

quitt in a runoff election.Most of the state’smajor newspapers sidedwith

Culberson, including the San Antonio Express, the daily most support-ive of Germany and the Central Powers. Governor Ferguson also parted

company with Colquitt and declared for Culberson.27

The News pointed out the large number of German Americans who

resided in the districts of Wilson critics. But other Texans also pro-

vided backing for the Wilson critics. This opposition included Social-

ists, stronglyorganized in a numberof East andCentral Texas communi-

ties, who fueled isolationist and anti-preparedness sentiments. Socialists

organized demonstrations and distributed their newspapers, the Rebel,Appeal to Reason, and other publications which consistently preached

against any involvement in the war. Many of their positions found a re-

114


ceptive audiencewith non-Socialists, especially tenant farmers and poor

working people. This momentum from the left gave further political in-

centive to congressional opponents, especially in the first two years of

the war. Never a majority, Socialist Party nominees ran strong in many

rural counties. In the 1916 elections, many Socialists voted for incum-

bent anti-preparednessDemocrats andPresidentWilson.AsRebeleditorTomHickeynoted, theWilson campaign slogan, ‘‘Hekept us out ofwar,’’

proved toappeal toTexansof all politicalpersuasions.PresidentWilson’s

overall popularity with Texans and the daily press overrode concerns

with his domestic and international positions.28

This continued partiality forWilson resulted not just from party loy-

alty but another major factor largely overlooked in theTexas debate over

neutrality versus preparedness. Most Texans viewed the border region

with alarm and saw the area as an unprotected, open door to the south-

western United States.Wilson’s popularity in Texas undoubtedly came

fromDemocratic loyaltyandhismoralistic foreignpolicy.Buthis tougher

policy with Mexico in the final months of 1915 contributed immensely

to the president’s standing tall in the eyes of Texans and with the state’s

majordaily newspapers. EvenWilson’s critics in theTexas congressional

delegation viewed the turmoil of theMexicanRevolutionwith alarm and

joined in the condemnation of the war-torn nation. Most Texans sup-

ported Wilson’s national preparedness program as necessary ground-

work for the battlefront along the Rio Grande, for the Mexican Revolu-

tion had spilled U.S. blood on both sides of the border.

The Mexican Revolution that began in 1910 marked the first of the

twentieth century’s remarkable national revolutions.The initial rebellion

began against the authoritarian regime ofGeneral PorfirioDíaz, who had

ruled the nation since 1876. Díaz brought stability to the young nation

through investment from foreign nations, principally the United States.

WithU.S. capital, Díaz constructedMexico’s first national systemof rail-

roads, which linked the country to theUnited States at three vital points:

Laredo, El Paso, and Nogales. In addition to the railroads, Americans

invested heavily in other areas such as petroleum, manufacturing, land,

and cattle. By the turn of the century, many Mexicans felt their destiny

was controlled by others, especially wealthy U.S. investors. Francisco I.

Madero, a wealthy landowner in Mexico, challenged Díaz in the 1910

election. Díaz and his supporters dominated the electoral process and

easily defeatedMadero.The challenger concluded that armed revolt was

the only recourse, and Madero left for San Antonio, where he devised

the Plan de San Luis Potosí, the plot for the Mexican Revolution.

115


Madero’s revolt began in November 1910 and soon enlisted the sup-

portofother leaders,notablyFrancisco ‘‘Pancho’’Villa,EmilianoZapata,

and Pascual Orozco. Their forces openly attacked government forces,

and onMay 25, 1911,Díaz abruptly resigned and left for Europe.Madero

assumed the presidency, but revolts continued, even among his most

notable supporters. Both the United States and Germany supported

General Victoriano Huerta, who ordered the successful assassination of

Mexico’s popular but besieged revolutionary president.The unpopular

Huerta likewise failed to quell popular revolts and resigned as president

in July 1914, departing Mexico on a German ship. Venustiano Carranza

eventually succeededHuerta, but clashes between the forces of Villa and

Carranza in northern Mexico and battles between the Mexican Army

and Zapata in the southern part of the embattled nation during 1915 and

1916 frequently appeared on the front pages. Because of its proximity to

Mexico, Texas became both a sanctuary and a source of arms for com-

peting factions in the Mexican Revolution.29

After Madero’s assassination, Mexican refugees inundated Texas.

Exile communities took root in many border cities and counties. The

Mexican Revolution evolved into a struggle among rival chieftains, each

with his own agenda and with backers among these expatriates. From

Texas, political exiles gave support to every major political and military

figure in the revolution. Others who sympathized with the deposedDíaz

utilized aTexas base to attack thevarious revolutionary governments that

served inMexico from 1910 to 1920.Many refugees integrated into exist-

ingMexicanAmerican communities.Most readSpanish-language news-

papers, some of which were owned by immigrants or refugees. Ignacio

Lozano, editorofLaPrensa in SanAntonio, became themost influential.Eduardo Idar also served a broad audience with La Crónica in Laredo.The Spanish-language press reported on the revolution, generally sup-

ported the Huerta and Carranza governments, and denounced the re-

pression of the Mexican exiles and the abuse of Tejanos at the hands of

AngloTexans. Both editors warned of the consequences of U.S. involve-

ment in Mexico and criticized Texas daily newspaper calls for interven-

tion.Attacks onAmericans inMexico and along the border in this period

drew increased attention from the establishment press in Texas and the

restof thenation.HistorianDavidMontejanocalled this turbulentperiod

‘‘one of the most dramatic episodes in the history of the Southwest.’’30

Even before thewar in Europe began,Texas governor Oscar Colquitt

declared that U.S. casualties and property losses in the Mexican Revo-

lution had been seriously overlooked byWashington. Colquitt, a former

116


newspaperman turned politician, capitalized on his ability to generate

headlines on this issue at the expense of President Wilson. During Col-

quitt’s first term, he preached armed intervention in Mexico as an ap-

propriate response toWilson’s policy of ‘‘watchful waiting.’’ In February

1914,GovernorColquitt received extensive press coveragewith his claim

that Mexican troops threatened Americans in Brownsville andMatamo-

ros.WhenWashington did not respond to his pleas, the Texas governor

sent fourNationalGuard companies to ‘‘defend andprotect thepeople of

this state, whom I considered the national government to be neglecting.’’

Colquitt denied any plan to send troops across theRioGrande, although

theMorning News believed that hewanted ‘‘to send some rangers acrossthe river’’ in response to a story of one Texan’s execution by Huerta’s

soldiers. During his speech in Fort Worth to the Cattle Raisers Associa-

tion of Texas, Colquitt described Wilson’s handling of Mexican affairs

as ‘‘namby-pamby.’’ As he neared the end of his second term as gover-

nor, Colquitt saw the Mexican Revolution as his ticket to the U.S. Sen-

ate. Colquitt challenged Senator Morris Sheppard (D-Texas), aWilson

supporter, to resign his seat anddebate ‘‘theMexican situation’’ as a cam-

paign issue.31

News stories of the violence against noncombatants increased. After

Mexican troops allegedly kidnapped and murdered Texas rancher Cle-

mente Vergarra in March 1914, reports circulated that Texas Rangers

crossed the river to retrieve his body. Texas newspapers released Col-

quitt’s letter toSecretaryofStateBryan,whichopenlychallenged theWil-

son administration’sMexicanpolicies.WhenColquitt requestedBryan’s

permission to allowTexas Rangers across the border to apprehend Ver-

garra’s alleged killers, theWilson administration feared an international

confrontation over the ‘‘Vergarra Affair.’’ Colquitt complained that ‘‘ban-

dits and marauders’’ from Mexico had destroyed millions of dollars in

property that belonged toTexans. In addition, Colquitt charged that for

theprevious twoyearsMexicanshadcrossed theRioGrande, kidnapped

Texas ranchers, and ‘‘butchered defenseless citizens.’’ Because the fed-

eral government refused to act, Colquitt insisted the state had the right to

cross the international boundary ‘‘in pursuit of those who commit dep-

redations upon us.’’32

Reaction to Colquitt’s threats varied. The Houston Chronicle de-

fended Wilson and accused the governor of ‘‘creating an international

incident by the impetuousmanner inwhich he tried to inject himself into

the Mexican situation.’’ TheChronicle ridiculed the governor’s ploy anddescribed the state’smilitia underColquitt’s administrationas ‘‘zealously

117


neglected’’ and unprepared to confront Mexican troops. However, the

Houston Post agreed with Colquitt, criticized the lack of federal troops

on the border, and predicted events on the border could easily precipi-

tate awar between theUnitedStates andMexico. ‘‘TheTexasRevolution

had for its cause no greater outrages than the abduction and murder of

Vergarra,’’ the Post stated.33

Even after the army sent troops to the border, Governor Colquitt re-

fused to withdraw the Rangers. He claimed that 100 Rangers could pre-

vent more robberies and murders than 10,000 regular army troops. As

family members reburied Vergarra’s body inTexas, the Colquitt-Wilson

confrontation signaled the beginning of a series of political problems for

the president inTexas. Governor Colquitt became one of the state’s first

elected officials to draw attention to the impact of an international con-

flict on domestic affairs. Colquitt remained one of the most vocalWilson

critics and continued his denunciations after he left the governor’s office.

He opened the door for other Texans to question Wilson’s foreign and

domestic policies.34

Attacks on U.S. citizens received increasing coverage in Texas news-

papers as the factional warfare continued. Typical of these stories was a

pageone article onMarch26, 1915, in theMorningNews. ‘‘AmericanFlagTorn Down by Zapata Soldiers,’’ the News headline cried.Wire reports

indicated that Zapata soldiers killed John B. McManus, a U.S. citizen in

MexicoCity, and then lootedhis house. Secretaryof StateBryanplanned

an official protest to the Carranza administration. The News editors thefollowing day wrote that the nation could not ‘‘afford to indulge in its

sense of indignation, however great may be the provocation to do so.’’

However, the attack, along with similar incidents, increased the resolve

to intervene inMexico. ‘‘It will not be because of an indignitydone to the

flag by a mob of drunken peons,’’ the News stated. ‘‘If the United States

shall go into Mexico, it will be to save the country from itself.’’35

After learning of the shootings of a number of Americans in Mexico,

in June 1915Governor James Ferguson asked PresidentWilson to station

troops in the Big Bend region to protect residents and commerce. Just

as Governor Colquitt had acted before him, the governor increased the

number of Rangers assigned to the Rio Grande Valley. However, raids

continued north of the Rio Grande throughout the summer as armed

men attacked ranches, railroads, and small communities. News accounts

attributed these conflicts to Mexican raiders. Local posses frequently

rounded up local Mexican residents suspected of participating or assist-

ing raiders.TheDallas Morning News commented on the ‘‘irony’’ of the

118


situation and the difficulties in identifying the ‘‘brigands’’ who brought

depredations to the border region. Some accounts reported the attackers

wereTexas residentswhohadvoted in recent elections.Editorsurged the

state and national government to conduct a ‘‘thoroughgoing roundup’’

and take the ‘‘drastic, not to say ruthless, treatment that this situation has

come todemand.That, in the long run,will be thequickest andmostmer-

ciful way of handling it.’’ Shortly after these condemnations, the estab-

lishedpress and government officials expressed shockwhen they learned

of the Plan of SanDiego, an organized effort to return all of Texas and the

southwestern portion of the United States to Mexico by force of arms.36

Newspapers across the state reported the discovery of the Plan of San

Diego in mid-August 1915. The San Antonio Express first carried infor-

mation about the plan. Details came from an elderly, captured Mexican

raider after an attack at Norias, sixty miles north of Brownsville, on Au-

gust 9, 1915. JoséGarcía told hisU.S. captors he ‘‘had been forced to join

the gang, which he said proposed to liberate that portion of Texas be-

tween the Rio Grande and Nueces River.’’ A fewdays later, major dailies

displayed front-page storiesonanorganizedeffort conceived in theSouth

Texas community of San Diego in January 1915. In a copy obtained by

governmentofficials and released tonewspapers, thedocument called for

aFebruary20uprisingagainst theUnitedStates thatwould freeMexicans

from ‘‘YankeeTyranny.’’ The plan called for the death of all ‘‘American’’

males in the border states older than sixteen. A new republic for ‘‘Mexi-

cans, negroes, Japanese and Chinese’’ would be formed out of the states

along the international border.37

TheFebruary 1915planneduprising outlined in thePlan of SanDiego

never materialized, but the delayed news story provoked a strong re-

action. In contrast to the measured response byTexans to the Lusitaniaattack in the summerof 1915, state leaders and the press generated a crisis

atmosphere following revelationsof thePlanofSanDiego.GovernorFer-

guson told President Wilson of the ‘‘perilous and grave’’ conditions in

South Texas. ‘‘I do not overdraw the picture when I say that a reign of

terror exists on the Mexican border,’’ Ferguson stated in his appeal.The

governor called for more U.S. troops along the entire border and prom-

ised to send his ‘‘best marksmen’’ from the Texas Rangers to the Valley.

Congressman John Nance Garner of Uvalde called for a declaration of

martial law. Thanks to widespread exposure of the Plan of San Diego’s

details in the state’s newspapers, manyTexans suddenly realized the ne-

cessityof amilitarybuildupandevencontemplatedU.S. intervention into

Mexico.These sentiments also inclined them toward supporting a mas-

119


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

sive military buildup in preparation for entry into World War I, should

the proper conditions arise.38

A quiet exception to the stampede for U.S. intervention was the

response of Ellen Maury Slayden, wife of San Antonio congressman

James L. Slayden. She regretted that news coverage moved the state and

the nation ‘‘inexorably toward war’’ in Mexico. Furthermore, she noted

that new rumors of a ‘‘Mexican uprising’’ on Diez y Seis Day (Septem-

ber 16), Mexico’s Independence Day, created still further overreaction

by Texans. Slayden sarcastically noted that many feared they would be

‘‘murdered in their little beds’’ from the rumored attacks. ‘‘I cannot get

alarmed, except for the poor flustered Mexicans, many of whom have

been killed along the Rio Grande lately with small show of reason.’’ She

also blamed the Wilson administration for making the situation worse.

120


Slayden believed both Americans and Mexicans were victimized by the

‘‘blunderingandvacillation thatourbleakExecutive [Wilson]haschosen

to call his ‘Mexican Policy’ for the last two years.’’ In spite of her misgiv-

ings, Slayden remained part of a distinct minority whose voices failed to

be heard among the cries for retribution.39

‘‘There shouldbenohalfwaymethodsused in clearing out thebandits

now terrorizing the Rio Grande Valley,’’ the San Antonio Express pro-claimed. ‘‘The lesson, to be effective, must be thorough.’’ In an area with

a heavily Mexican American majority population, the Express predicted‘‘terrible consequences’’ if the ‘‘ignorance-blinded fanatics’’ of the Plan

of San Diego gained a foothold. Front-page articles linked the Carranza

administration to the plan following confessions of captured Mexicans.

Congressman John Nance Garner openly accused Mexican government

authorities of being responsible for the ‘‘bandit outrages.’’ The DallasMorning News interpreted the plan as an expression of ‘‘the hatred of

Mexicans for the United States.’’ As justification for U.S. Army troops,

the News stated the plan resembled a ‘‘foreign invasion’’ that sought to

influence Mexicans in Texas ‘‘who are an easy prey to the delusion that

they can replant their flag on this side of the Rio Grande.’’40

Retaliation by U.S. troops, Texas Rangers, and civilian posses began

quickly, even though the raids had subsided. J. M. Fox, a Texas Ranger

captain, told the San Antonio Express, ‘‘[W]e got anotherMexican—but

he’s dead.’’ A similar report by local lawenforcement officials in Browns-

ville stated that following the apprehension of twoMexicans, ‘‘they tried

to escape’’ and both of the suspects were killed. The news article fur-

ther stated, ‘‘We could not identify them, so we left them there.’’ In San

Antonio, police arrested local leaders suspected of supporting the Plan

of San Diego. The suspects held copies of a pamphlet entitled Luchade clases (Struggle of the Classes). Although stories of widespread panicand alleged sightings of armed bands came in from many Valley towns

for several weeks, few attacks actually occurred. But Texas newspapers

kept up the campaign in favor of intervention. Several dailies displayed

photos of Texas Rangers in front of the bodies of deadMexicans. Ropes

from the Rangers’ horses led to the ‘‘bandits,’’ bound and lifeless on the

ground. Across the border, U.S. citizens in Mexico reported that Car-

ranza’s soldiers threatened them with reprisals because of the photos

and stories that were appearing in Texas newspapers. U.S. military ob-

servers concluded the ongoing violence resulted from discrimination by

whites against all Mexicans and Tejanos in an area described as a virtual

‘‘war zone.’’41

121


Most editorials and articles in Texas daily newspapers blamed the

problems on lawlessness, the unrest created by theMexican Revolution,

and the inability of Mexican Americans to determine their own futures.

‘‘The ignorance and the embittered prejudice of the peon against Ameri-

cansmakes a kind of tinder that is easily lighted,’’ theMorningNews con-cluded. The newspaper reported that most Mexicans came to the state

to work and sometimes to vote. ‘‘Both as laborers and voters they are

not highly efficient, perhaps, but cheap, and even profitable.’’ The Newsobserved that popular indignation should ‘‘be tempered by a sense of

our own culpability.’’ None of the other Texas daily newspaper editors

suggested the living and working conditions in South Texas as a source

of friction. But whatever they considered the cause, editors called for

a quick, firm response from government officials. Crushing the raiders

and eliminating the offenders became the dominant demand fromAnglo

Texas. Otherwise, theNewswarned, the Plan of SanDiegowould still be‘‘capable of incitingMexicans on both sides of the Rio Grande to acts of

violence against the people of this country.’’42

As the violence increased in South Texas, law enforcement authori-

ties made wholesale arrests of suspected Mexican insurrectionists, with

some executed upon apprehension. Thousands fled the state. The SanAntonio Express in September 1915 reported that the ‘‘finding of dead

bodies of Mexicans suspected for various reasons of being connected

with the troubles has reached a point where it creates little or no inter-

est.’’ According toTexas historianWalter PrescottWebb, at least 500 and

perhaps as many as 5,000 Mexicans were killed, while the number of

white residents and soldiers slainwas under 200.TheExpress stated that‘‘not an innocentMexican citizenhas suffered,’’ as reprisalswere resorted

to only ‘‘in pursuit of bandits or in defense of life and property.’’ How-

ever, later historians have determined the death toll amongMexicans and

Tejanos was imprecise and may have been greater than reported.43

The Houston Chronicle branded the insufficient number of federal

troops along the Rio Grande as an invitation for trouble. TheChroniclebelieved that Mexico perceived this absence as ‘‘evidence of weakness

and fear’’ on the part of the United States and issued a call to arms: ‘‘If

interventionmust come,most of us would prefer to see theUnited States

go into Mexico rather than see Mexico come into the United States.’’

The Chronicle stated that U.S. investment and the arrival of railroads

and commercial farming reversed the economic stagnation and improved

the quality of life of South Texas. This ‘‘civilized life’’ brought water-

works, ice plants, electricity, and other improvements that made the re-

122


gion ‘‘one of the most progressive sections of Texas, and this, too, de-

spite the handicap of a large and ignorant Mexican population.’’ The

increasedwealth and lackofdefense left ‘‘ignorant and illiterateMexicans

on both sides of the Rio Grande’’ the awareness ‘‘that they could raise

a little hell and secure a little plunder with immunity, and they tried it.’’

Texas newspapermen viewed peaceful expansion, expanded business,

and prosperity as a vital part of Progressive reform.The Mexican Revo-

lution appeared as the antithesis to ideas of Progressive change.Tomany

Texans who felt threatened by the upheaval, military intervention by the

United States appeared to be a plausible solution.44

Although Texas editors continued to condemn wartime atrocities in

Europe and preach neutrality, the same newspapers justified wholesale

armed reprisals against Mexico. Texas newspapers steadily increased

their rhetoric against Mexico as they continued to temper comments

about thewar overseas.The European war seemed distant, but the revo-

lution in Mexico appeared far more threatening to Texans as the vio-

lence spilled into the state. Fears of a Mexican uprising, especially in

SouthTexaswherewhiteTexans remainedadistinctminority,made their

way into the news and editorials of the major dailies. Editors pummeled

Mexico, as theybelieved theattacks and the rumorsof revolts represented

a threat to the life, stability, and economic growth of the region. As the

Morning News concluded, the violence amounted to a ‘‘foreign invasion,and it is the duty of the Government to protect the State from invasion.’’

Texans interpreted the violence as an indicator of the Carranza admin-

istration’s ineptitude. In their haste to condemn the Mexican govern-

ment, none of theTexas editors linked the violence in 1915 to Carranza’s

efforts to achieve recognition for his government. However, the violence

in SouthTexas subsided after theWilson administration recognized the

Carranza government—a clear indicator that the regime in Mexico City

played a determining role in the events along the Rio Grande.45

Theonlyexception to thesenewspaperattacks onMexico andcalls for

intervention was Pancho Villa, who courted the U.S. press. Villa clearly

understood the critical necessity of both battling for victory in the fields

and winning the war for public opinion. Villa worked to promote his

image in the United States and especially Texas in the early years of the

Revolution. He gave $1,000 to El Paso charity groups assisting women

and children in prison camps. He frequently met with local officials and

had a well-publicized meeting with El Paso mayor C. E. Kelly on the

international bridge in November 1913. He told George Carothers of the

U.S. State Department that he would not be ‘‘dragged into a war with

123


the U.S. by anybody.’’ El Paso served as a major supply center for Villa.

TheEl Pasonewspapers recognized the tremendous economic boom the

conflict brought to their community.46

The El Paso Times provided ample evidence of Villa’s popular sup-

port in the northern Mexican state of Chihuahua. Villa confiscated the

large haciendas and properties of the wealthiest landowners. But these

seizures came at the expense of Mexican owners, not Americans whose

supportVilla still desired.Villa failedonhis revolutionarypromise todis-

tribute land,buthedeliveredmuch-needed foodto thousandsofpoverty-

strickenMexicans. In late 1913, he provided beef to urban and rural resi-

dents at a reduced price, thanks to the plentiful supply of cattle on the

ranches underVillista control. ‘‘UnemployedMexicans of the devastated

lumbercamps andmines are being given daily rations,’’ theElPasoTimesreported. As a result of this generosity, thousands joined his forces and

thousands more supported the revolutionary leader. Equally important

to him, he gained favorable coverage in newspapers in Texas and the

Southwest.Wholesale redistribution of lands and other radical reforms

took a backseat toVilla’s strategic needs by 1915, as hewas also fighting to

deny U.S. recognition of the Carranza administration. But defeats in the

field andwell-publicizedU.S. losses in the region gradually increased the

pressure on the revolutionary leader and threatened his positive image

in the U.S. press. Eventually, Villa joined the Texas and U.S. roster of

dangerous revolutionaries.47

As long asVilla remained entrenched along the border, PresidentCar-

ranza faced increased criticism from Texas and the U.S. press for his

inability to control the chaos. Texas newspaper accounts contradicted

Carranza’s claims that Chihuahua was ‘‘completely pacified’’ and that

government troops had PanchoVilla on the ropes. Many perceived Car-

ranza’s inability to suppress PanchoVilla in the north as a further indica-

tion of the need for intervention. The Carranza government recognized

it faced a two-front war: on the battlefields of Mexico and over public

opinion in the United States. The Carranza government increased its

efforts to supply news to the press in order to improve his image and

offset stories from the more colorful Villa, who remained a more popu-

lar figure thanks to coverage by U.S. newspapers.Wilson administration

officials and senior military officers initially favored Villa, but attitudes

shifted after theU.S. president recognizedCarranza andhis constitution-

alist government in October 1915. Villa resented the move and realized

his days could be numbered as he contemplated his future.48

124


In a November 2, 1915, editorial, the El Paso Morning Times down-played reports of Villa’s threats of retaliation against the United States.

The editors discounted the claim he made following theWilson admin-

istration’s recognition ofCarranza that hewould ‘‘whip theUnitedStates

Army.’’Villa’s losses in thefieldduring thesummerof 1915 forceda retreat

to the arid mountains of Chihuahua and Coahuila near the Texas bor-

der. The newspaper stated that the Carranza administration, not Villa,

maintained responsibility for any ‘‘disorders’’ that harmed Americans or

their property in Mexico. ‘‘In the meantime, Villa will, perhaps, have

something more to say,’’ the editors predicted, but they doubted his

desire to confront theUnited States.The editors believedVilla’s reliance

on Texas and the United States for weapons and sanctuary would off-

set his anger over the Carranza recognition. However, Villa realized his

weakened position required bold action or his revolutionary days would

quickly end. He also harbored suspicions that Carranza had bargained

away Mexican territory in exchange for recognition. Desertion among

Villa’s troops and officers increased. Rumors reported in El Paso news-

papers described ‘‘rainy day’’ money hidden in the city should Villa and

his followers flee north of the Rio Grande.The El Paso Herald reportedthat someof Villa’s former friends nowdescribedhimas a ‘‘savage animal

at bay’’ whowould strike ‘‘anything and everything’’ that came near him.

Others told the newspaperVilla seemedprepared to take ‘‘rash steps.’’ In

January 1916, agroupof Villistas stoppeda train inChihuahua, forced the

Americans from the train, and then executed all but oneof the group.The

incident served as a harbinger of an attack that galvanized the nation.49

U.S. newspapers registered shock and indignation as they reported

Pancho Villa’s foray across the border to Columbus, New Mexico, in

March 1916.With banner headlines similar to those that announced the

openingshotsofWorldWarI, thestate’sdailiesprovidedextensivecover-

age and commentary. Villa’s attack on March 9, 1916, completely sur-

prised the community and the U.S. Army. About 500 men ransacked

the city and killed 16 Americans. Every daily newspaper in the state de-

votedextensive coverage andcommentary to the startling attack.TheSanAntonio Express urged Washington to act swiftly to stop ‘‘the long reign

of banditry’’ and takeVilla and his sympathizers ‘‘dead or alive.’’ Because

the Mexican government appeared unable to control or defeat Villa, the

Morning News called for the United States to ‘‘use its own forces to do

what Carranza has failed to do, even in the face of Carranza’s protest.’’

The News also warned that if Carranza resisted the U.S. troops, ‘‘the

125


action may lead to events which would culminate in intervention.’’ The

Houston Post proclaimed that former governor Colquitt’s demands for

troops along the border was ‘‘vindicated.’’50

FollowingVilla’s raid, PresidentWilsonquicklyorderedGeneral John

Pershing and 10,000 U.S. army troops into Mexico in ‘‘hot pursuit’’ of

theVillistas. ‘‘The situation is an explosive one,’’ theMorningNews said.TheDallas daily ran front-page cartoonswhich illustrated the difficulties

facing U.S. troops. One showed a wary Uncle Sam reaching into a patch

of prickly pear cactus for a sombrero-topped figure clutching a knife.

Another cartoon, entitled ‘‘Villa’s Chief Ally,’’ portrayed a caricature of

Villa handing a rifle to barefoot man labeled ‘‘Ignorant Class.’’ Villa says,

‘‘Death to thegringos!Theyare invadingourcountry.’’Evenafter theWil-

son administration reached an agreement withCarranza’s government to

allowPershing’s troops to findVilla, no one could predict how theMexi-

can populationwould receive Pershing’s force.Most editors chose to aim

their sights atCongress for neglecting the border situation because of the

debateoverpreparedness. ‘‘Thewhole episodeoffers a complete andem-

phatic answer to the opponents of preparedness,’’ theHouston Chroniclereplied. ‘‘We are not even prepared to undertake a punitive expedition

into a weak and war-ridden country on short notice.’’51

In the days andweeks that followed,many unsubstantiated stories ap-

peared about the elusive Villa. He appeared in dozens of locations, had

been captured, wounded, trapped, strangled, and defeated. Contradic-

tory stories about Villa, the condition of the U.S. troops, and rumors of

attacks along the border appeared almost daily. The uncertainties cre-

ated confusion in the editorial offices and concern in theWilson admin-

istration. ‘‘Out of Mexico we get little or no news,’’ the Morning Newscomplained. But they received a ‘‘large quantity and varied assortment of

guesses as towhat is happening andwhat is going to happen inMexico.’’

The Dallas editors believed much of the unsubstantiated gossip origi-

nated in ‘‘the busy lie factories’’ of El Paso ‘‘for the very purpose of forc-

ing intervention.’’ Even as they recognized the problem, the stories con-

tinued to dominate the front pages. A frustrated El Paso businessman

seemed to echo popular sentiment about Pershing’s difficulties. W. H.

Aldridge wrote Congressman-at-Large Jeff McLemore, ‘‘[T]he people

will have to depend on themselves when the time comes, and not the

army.’’ A March 11, 1916, El Paso Herald editorial complained that the

city appeared to outsiders as ‘‘a little frontier settlement inhabited chiefly

by adventurers and fugitives from justice.’’52

Wilson recognized themilitarydifficulties and thepolitical traps along

126


the border. In his Statement andWarning that he gave the press,Wilson

explained the Mexico expedition was for the ‘‘single purpose of taking

the bandit Villa . . . and is in no sense intended as an invasion of the re-

public.’’ He also requested the media to withhold publication of troop

movements andwarned of ‘‘sinister and unscrupulous interests’’ spread-

ing alarmist reports. Wilson asked the press to refrain from publishing

‘‘unverified rumors of unrest in Mexico.’’ Editorial commentary heartily

approved of Wilson’s statements.Texas editors aimed their barbs at their

congressmen who opposedWilson’s preparedness policy.They blamed

Washington for inadequate troops and supplies on the Mexican border.

Wilson understood the mood in Texas and capitalized on the agitation

that pervaded popular opinion. Shortly before Villa’s raid, Wilson told

East Texas congressman AlexanderWhite Clegg that some of his Texas

colleaguesdidnotunderstand ‘‘the real sentimentof thepeople at home.’’

Fact and fiction fromMexico fueled the fires for preparedness.53

While Pershing’s force tracked Villa across the remorseless deserts of

Chihuahua, another attack on May 5, 1916, by Mexican forces occurred

north of the border in the remote villages of Glenn Spring and Boquillas

in theBigBend region.The smallU.S. garrison atGlennSpring included

nine soldiers of the Fourteenth Cavalry. The troopers took shelter in an

adobe building following the nighttime assault by fifty raiders, although

some accounts said asmany as several hundredMexicans participated in

the foray. The attackers killed three soldiers and wounded four others.

Twocivilians, includinga ten-year-oldboy, alsodied innearbyBoquillas.

TheWilson administration and themilitary again blamed the conflict on

Villa. Governor Ferguson expressed the feelings of many when he advo-

catedU.S. intervention inMexico to ‘‘assume control of that unfortunate

country.’’ As J. S. M.McKamey, a banker in the SouthTexas community

ofGregory, concluded, ‘‘[W]eought to take thecountryoverandkeep it.’’

As an alternative, McKamey told Congressman McLemore the United

States should ‘‘buy a few of the northern states of Mexico,’’ because it

would be ‘‘cheaper than going to war.’’ The San Antonio Express urgedtheMexican government to cooperatewith Pershing’s force, in pursuit of

those who participated in ‘‘organized murder, plundering and property

destruction.’’54

Texas newspapers provided ample coverage of border conflicts and

Pershing’s expedition throughout 1916. In contrast, very little coverage

appeared on the Mexican Constitutional Convention in Querétaro dur-

ing this same period. As Pershing’s forces trudged across the northern

deserts and mountains, Mexican delegates sought to incorporate social

127


and economic reforms that covered landownership, labor, and restrict-

ing foreign investment.Most of these ideas ran contrary toU.S. concepts

of private ownership and Progressive reform. The Texas press, similar

to the Wilson administration, saw the Revolution primarily as a threat

to U.S. property and lives on both sides of the Rio Grande. Newspaper

stories not onlydisplayed the inherentmistrust of Mexico and its people,

but also revealed the fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the

MexicanRevolution itself. Public attention remained focused on thevio-

lence andonPershing’s attempts to cornerVilla.DuringPershing’s inter-

vention, a joint commission composed of appointees from both nations

failed to reach any resolution over the right of the United States to keep

troops in Mexico.55

The U.S. force spent the rest of 1916 in the deserts and mountains

of northern Mexico, where they sparred with the elusive Villa and also

fought units of Carranza’s army. ‘‘Our army would be the laughing stock

of the whole world were Villa and his band of cut-throats to make good

their escape,’’ the State Topics journal commented on Pershing’s efforts.This expedition and the military buildup in Texas occurred at the same

timeWilson preached neutrality in the European war and ran for reelec-

tion on the slogan ‘‘He kept us out of war.’’ Wilson also ordered the Na-

tional Guard to reinforce the army on the border, and it remained there

from May 1916 to March 1917. Texas newspapers interpreted this esca-

lation as further evidence of Wilson’s policy of national preparedness,

tailored in this instance to protect the southern border.56

By the end of July 1916, over 100,000 guardsmen patrolled the inter-

national boundary.Troops assembled at SanAntonio and staffed a dozen

new camps along the Rio Grande in the Big Bend region. The SanAntonio Express, enjoying the city’s notoriety, boasted of the score of

newspapermen and new arrivals in San Antonio. Throughout the sum-

mer of 1916, headlines such as ‘‘Another Bandit Raid on Border’’ and

‘‘TroopersSwearMexicansKilled InjuredComrades’’ kept tensions alive

during the important election year. Even Congressman Cyclone Davis, a

thorn in the side of theWilson administration, called for intervention in

Mexico. His position indicated that even the strongest Texas opponents

of national preparedness supported armed escalation and intervention

because of the border crisis.Wilson’s aggressive actions toward Mexico

in the months before the general election certainly added to his popu-

larity in Texas. The president’s moves also forced the administration’s

congressional opponents to curtail their opposition to increasedmilitary

expenditures. In the 1916U.S. Senate runoff election,Wilson supporters

128


accused former governor Colquitt of ‘‘carrying the Mexican vote.’’ Col-

quitt’s criticism of Wilson’s Mexican policy came back to haunt him as

Senator Culberson used the issue to win reelection. After nine months

in northern Mexico, Pershing’s force returned to Fort Bliss in El Paso

without Villa, early in 1917.Troops stationed along the border remained

until 1920, long after U.S. soldiers returned from Europe.57

As a result of the ongoing conflicts with Mexico,Texas became a cen-

tral training center for the nation’s military well in advance of the United

States’ entry intoWorldWar I inApril 1917.Texas businesses enjoyed the

new prosperity that resulted from the military buildup. Attitudes sharp-

ened among Texans as tensions along the border increased and news-

papers focused on the upheaval in Mexico. Thus, by 1916 the Mexican

Revolution became the dominant issue inTexas. Events associated with

Mexico overshadowed the war across the Atlantic on the front pages of

Texas daily newspapers and in the minds of everydayTexans.What had

largely been a regional concern with Mexico soon became national in

scope, with the release of the Zimmermann telegram in March 1917.

Only weeks after Pershing’s return to U.S. soil in January 1917, reve-

lations of Germany’s plan for Mexico made national headlines. British

intelligencedecipheredGerman secretaryof stateArthurZimmermann’s

coded transmission to his ambassadors inWashington andMexico City.

The British then passed the contents to theWilson administration, who

released the text of the message on March 1, 1917. The plan called on

Mexico to reconquer ‘‘the lost territories of Texas, NewMexico andAri-

zona.’’ The proposal promisedMexico that if that nation sidedwithGer-

many and encouraged Japan to join the Central Powers, Germany would

provide ‘‘generous financial assistance.’’ British intelligence intercepted

the message and sent its contents to President Wilson only a few days

before he took his second oath of office. Neither the Mexican nor the

Japanese governments knew of its contents until they were publicized

by theWilson administration.The story hit the streets of Texas with the

force of a political hurricane.58

Widespreadpublic indignation erupted inTexas andacross thenation

whenGermany’s proposal became front-page news inMarch 1917.Many

Texas newspapers reacted with alarm and the story inflamed passions

across the state.TheDallasMorningNewsdevoted its entire frontpage tothe startlingnews.Apageone illustrationentitled ‘‘TheTemptation’’ pic-

tured a horned German figure offering a bag of money to a man wearing

a sombrero.The devil character pointed toward a mapwithTexas, New

Mexico, and Arizona. Editors linked the plan to other German ‘‘atroci-

129


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

ties’’ anddescribed theplanas ‘‘an act of hostility, a true casus belli.’’Divi-sions inMexicomade the plan’s execution unlikely, butGermany’s effort

fed on ‘‘the traditional animosity that is felt toward the United States by

somanyof the ignorantmasses.’’TheHoustonPostdeclared in its bannerheadline, ‘‘Germany Plotted against U.S.’’ The Post editors denouncedGermanyanddeclared that Zimmermannwas ‘‘utterly ignorant of condi-

tions inMexico’’ if hebelieved theCarranza government couldundertake

an invasion of Texas and the rest of the Southwest.The San Antonio Ex-press,which also carried extensive news of the conspiracy, delayed com-ment on its editorial page for several weeks. The editors still wished to

avoid offending the influential German mercantile community.59

Shortly after the Zimmermann revelation, theMorningNews declaredthat ‘‘this country is in reality at war now.’’ The revelation readily con-

firmedearliercalls byTexas editors foramilitary buildupbasedonevents

inMexico.TheDallas daily concluded that a de factowar already existed

between theUnited States andGermany. ‘‘Mexicowas our firstmistake,’’

130


the News said as it linked the border nation to Germany. In the editor’s

view, the nation’s overly tolerant policy toward Mexico reflected similar

restraint with Germany, which continuously tested U.S. neutrality with

its submarine attacks and diplomatic shenanigans. The News remarkedthat following the diplomatic high road resulted only in insults from

Mexico.Also, theeditorsbelieved that in far toomanycasesMexico’soffi-

cial actions resembled statements and positions taken by Berlin. Along

with its prediction of U.S. entry into World War I on the side of the

Allies, the News observed that the patient policy in dealing with Mexico

had been an unfortunate mistake. ‘‘We should have taken action at the

beginning of troubles,’’ the News declared after a review of events in

Mexico.The conclusion echoedopinionsheldbya greatmajorityof Tex-

ans by this time. The years of revolutionary activity in Mexico that pro-

duced the fear and anxiety in the state nowencouragedTexans to forsake

their misgivings about intervention in foreign affairs. Instead of having

reservations, Texans were now predisposed to intervene against foreign

powers.60

For the next fewweeks, themajorTexas dailies kept up a steadydrum-

beat of stories linking Mexico with Germany. ‘‘[I]t is not fantastic to be-

lieve that much of the trouble we have had with Mexico has been the

result of German propaganda and German bribery,’’ the Morning Newsdeclared. The Houston and Dallas dailies stoked the fires as often as

possible as they linked the German intrigue in Mexico with submarine

warfare and other efforts by the Central Powers that took advantage of

poorer, neutral nations. Front-page editorial statements reinforced hos-

tilities.The News carried a page one illustration of a German submarinesailing away from three sinking, unarmedU.S. ships.TheNews stated theZimmermann affairwas the final ‘‘unprovoked act of aggression’’ and that

Americans should ‘‘recognize the fact that Germany is already making

waron theUnitedStates.’’TheNews added, ‘‘It is not extravagant to thinkthat German agents have been financingVilla for a year ormore, and that

his raid on Columbus is chargeable to German instigation.’’61

President Wilson, who campaigned in 1916 on his ability to keep the

nation out of the European conflict, reversed his stance and asked Con-

gress to declare war on Germany in April 1917.The president listed the

Zimmermann telegramand its threats againstU.S. securityamonghis rea-

sons for wanting to abandon neutrality and enter the war.The president

listed many other reasons, but the one that mattered the most to many

Texans was Germany’s ties to the government inMexico City. Germany,

based on its record in Mexico, posed a real threat as both an external

131


and internal enemy. The San Antonio Express noted that ‘‘Dr. Zimmer-

mann’s error’’ conclusively linked the unpopularMexican regime toGer-

many. ‘‘The quarrel is against the Prussian government, not the German

people,’’ the Express editors explained in their justification of Wilson’s

declaration of war. ‘‘It is not a time for doubt or impatience as to the

activities of the powers that be at Washington,’’ the Express concluded.Following release of the Zimmermann telegram, Ellen Maury Slayden

noted the grim tone of the nation’s capital. She wrote that her husband

called the German government ‘‘fools to believe that poor war-wrecked

Mexico could be of use to them!’’ Even the most ardent peace advocates

acknowledged that war seemed inevitable.62

President Wilson and his military leaders on the Mexican border uti-

lized the instability created by the revolution to build popular support

for preparedness inTexas and the rest of the nation.The administration

enlisted thewilling support of Texas daily newspapers in the effort towin

public opinion and overcome the opposition to military escalation.With

the revelation of the Zimmermann message, most Texans believed that

Mexico’s neutrality existed only on paper and was conveniently ignored

when opportunity appeared in the form of German arms and money. By

this time, Germany had established a strong presence inMexico’s affairs

andwas influencing thenews in thewar-ravagednation.Texasdailynews-

papers and their leadership interpreted anti-U.S. sentiment in Mexico

and among Mexican Americans as partiality to Germany.This equation

added to the suspicions harbored byTexans that Germany maintained a

greater influence thanWashington in Mexico’s future.

German officials and spies operated in Mexico and directed sabotage

in theUnitedStates, but never to the extent thatmany inTexas imagined.

After the war, theWilson administration disclosed detailed information

acquired on German activities inMexico. Germany coordinated its anti-

Allied news with its embassies and consulates, but their efforts never ap-

peared to dramatically alter critical events in Mexico that had an impact

on theUnitedStates.Frictionerupting fromtheMexicanRevolutionpro-

vided the real stimulus for newspaper stories and editorials inTexas, not

the prodding from the German government and its news agency. These

articles reflected theentrenchedprejudice towardMexicoandall persons

of Hispanic descent that most Anglo Texans held. After years of stories

that included atrocities,murders, anddestruction, state government offi-

cials and business leadership seemed to agree that Mexico lacked the

ability to govern itself. These leaders believed that only the intervention

132


of theUnitedStates government anda returnofU.S. businesswouldoffer

relief to the war-torn nation.

PresidentWilson askedCongress for a declaration of war against Ger-

many on April 2, 1917. Congress provided one a few days later. His war

message received the praise and endorsement of Texas’ leading news-

papers. Editorials condemned German ‘‘lawlessness,’’ ‘‘brutality,’’ ‘‘in-

humanity,’’ and attacks on the nation’s neutrality. Editors directed their

criticism at the German government and its ‘‘Prussian’’ and ‘‘militaris-

tic’’ rulers. Even theDallas Morning News, the most pro-war daily in thestate, endorsed Wilson’s call ‘‘not to crush the German people’’ but to

destroy theGerman government, the ‘‘blight on theworld’s civilization.’’

The conflict in Mexico and German involvement remained in the fore-

front. Even as the nation began to mobilize for the battle overseas,Texas

editors urged people to keep a sharp eye on the Rio Grande.TheDallasMorning News said Germany ‘‘has made war on us at home with torch

and bomb’’ and reminded its readers of the Zimmermann intrigue. ‘‘We

may find an enemy closer to us than any European power,’’ theHoustonPost surmised. ‘‘War upon the fields of Texas is not beyond the powers

of the imagination. Home guards may be needed.’’63

As a notice to those still opposed to the war, the state’s newspapers

immediately issued warnings against suspected traitors. ‘‘German sub-

jects or sympathizers who speak in terms of contempt of the government

and country whose hospitality they enjoy must expect unpleasant treat-

ment,’’ theHouston Post darkly hinted. Disparaging remarks against thewar effort invited retaliation. Congressman McLemore, the only Texan

who opposed the war resolution, received tremendous criticism from

Dallas andHouston dailies.TheDallas Morning News and other south-ern newspapers notified readers of attempts by ‘‘German agents to stir up

Negroes.’’ U.S. government agents reported that clandestine efforts by

Germans in the South had resulted in a plan to lure AfricanAmericans to

Mexico ‘‘withaview tocrippling industries in the southwhichdependon

negro labor.’’ Other news stories in April 1917 warned of Mexican troop

movements close to the Rio Grande. Unverified incidents and rumors

about invasion fromMexico continued to appear in the news that fueled

wartime fervor in Texas.64

Texasnewspapermenchampioned theUnitedStates’ entry intoWorld

War I for ‘‘defense of liberty.’’ With enthusiastic support from the state’s

newspapers, nearly amillionTexans volunteered formilitary service and

entered the draft and several hundred thousand saw active service. The

133


Wilson administration continued to show its gratitude to Texas as in-

creased funding for military bases, supplies, and internal improvements

poured into the state, aprocess acceleratingTexas industrialization.Also,

the anti-preparedness Texas congressmen who won reelection in 1916

suffered a different fate in 1918. Roundly criticized by the state’s dailies,

McLemore,Slayden,andDiesdeparted thepolitical sceneeither through

retirement or losing in the Democratic Primary.With the ouster of these

congressmen, the major daily newspaper publishers solidified their rela-

tionships with friendly incumbent congressmen, who received ongoing

support through editorials and extensive coverage.

Texans pointed to years of conflict along the border as evidence that

the strugglehad indeed landedon the shoresof theUnitedStates longbe-

fore its official entry into thewar inApril 1917.OnceTexans looked south

at the political unrest and revolution in Mexico, news stories and edito-

rials stirred an enthusiastic response among the state’s citizenry that had

once harbored strong reservations over a large national military. South-

ern support for a largermilitary in these years paved theway for southern

Democrats, long marginalized in national debate, to reenter the national

mainstream. Just over a decade later, southern Democrats, led by the

Texas congressional delegation, played a lead role in the early NewDeal

coalition.The groundwork for this had been laid when affairs inMexico

and along the Rio Grande provided Texans with a particular awareness

of the necessity for preparedness and armed intervention, events neces-

sitating a growth in federal power and investment in the state. Bitterness

over the legacy of World War I led in the 1920s to a reactionary resur-

gence represented by groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. For the rest of

the twentieth century, theTexas upper classes remained divided.On one

side stood reactionary conservatives who saw increased federal power

and spending as dangerous portents of socialism and social equality. On

the other stood modernizing elites who saw a more involved federal gov-

ernment as a stabilizing force and a partner of big business in promoting

the expansion of the state’s economy. Still facing opposition, moderniz-

ing elites, backed by the state’s major newspaper publishers, would be

able to defeat reactionary forces like theKuKluxKlan and reassert politi-

cal control by the end of the 1920s, but only after a long and very public

battle.

134

CHAPTER 5

The Forces of Traditionalism and theChallenge from the Invisible Empire

The Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s represented a

threat to the commerce and social structure of a rapidly

changing state and nation.The rise and fall of the Klan inTexas

and theUnitedStates and its representation in thepressmark anewchap-

ter in media history. The return of prosperity in the mid-1920s and the

rise of business Progressivism quieted the most reactionary pleadings.

When prominent political leaders began leaving the Klan and then run-

ning against it, its influence waned. Internal dissension within the Klan

hierarchycreated additional headaches that alienated itsmembers.How-

ever, before this reaction took place, a handful of leading newspapers

and publishers resisted the Klan’s base appeals and attempts to take the

region into a more extremist and exclusionary direction. By providing

public resistance before other business and political establishment fig-

ures denounced the Klan, a handful of newspapers provided the initial

opposition and placed the only effective restraints on the secret order.

Events associated with the Klan redefined community perceptions and

solidified the leadershipbynewspaperpublishers in the state’s twomajor

commercial centers—Houston and Dallas.1

The decade of the 1920s werewatershed years for United States jour-

nalism for a number of reasons beyond the larger socioeconomic trends.

World War I brought a distinctive change in the way that Americans

looked at the news and how newspapers provided coverage of events.

Wartime propaganda, coupled with the rise of public relations, altered

the way in which newspapers viewed events and obtained information.

More and more businesses and government agencies came to rely on

professionals to provide prepared news items and respond to press in-

quiries. Although the United States sided with the victorious Allies in

WorldWar I,manyAmericans came to believe that thewarwas too costly

and its peace settlements unsatisfactory.The laudable goals of peace and


self-determinationvoicedbyPresidentWoodrowWilson appeared to fall

victim to greedy, self-serving European colonial powers. His democratic

ideals seemed as vulnerable as the exposed troops before machine guns

during the bloodywar.Many citizens felt manipulated by European pro-

paganda that distorted news in order to gainU.S. involvement in thewar.

But the war created more demand for news and commercial adver-

tising. Interpretative journalism took professionalism one step further.

Objectivitybecame increasingly important through the applicationof the

scientific method to news reporting. Detachment and independence of

preconceived notions seem to have been the ideal forWalter Lippmann

and other advocates of a purist approach to total objectivity. In a world

that seemed to be more concerned and absorbed with news, the new

heroes in societywere thosewhoprovided the information in a clear, rea-

soned manner. For example, political commentary reached new levels of

scrutiny on the editorial pages. Signed columns began to appear where

writers emphasized and commented on events, individuals, and trends

of the era.The newspaperwars against theKlan illustrated these changes

through the dramatic confrontation of several of the leading daily news-

papers and the Klan over power and prestige in the principal urban cen-

ters of the state.2

In his study of the Ku Klux Klan in the Southwest, historian Charles

Alexander characterized the Klan movement as a reaction to the rapid

industrialization and urbanization in the immediate aftermath of World

War I. InTexas,majorcities surged inpopulationduring thedecade from

the economic boom brought on by the war. Dallas’ population grew

from 92,000 in 1910 to nearly 159,000 by 1920, while Houston moved

from 78,000 to over 138,000 in the same period. Fort Worth witnessed

similar growth, going from 73,000 to 106,000. San Antonio, with its

largemilitarybases, swelled themost, expanding from96,000 to161,000.

Nearly every city in the Southwest experienced notable expansion and

a large Klan membership in the early 1920s. Dallas had more Klansmen

than any other city in the nation, about 13,000 in 1924. Until the Klan

moved into Texas in 1920, the organization remained small and ineffec-

tive, with chapters inGeorgia, Alabama,Mississippi, andTennessee.No

Texan enrolled in the Klan until Sam Houston Klan no. 1 organized in

Houston on October 9, 1921.3

Along with this rapid urban population increase, a sense of lawless-

ness, trumpeted by newspapers and politicians, permeated the region.

Murders, robberies, and assaults drew public attention, but violation of

the liquor laws proved to be the most frequent violation. Bootlegging, as

136

Traditionalism and the Invisible Empire

it became known, increased in centers of wealth and around oil boom-

towns.Widespread violation of Prohibition, combined with other vices,

confronted the new urban dwellers. The Klan’s resurgence fed on the

fears of middle-class urbanites, who felt existing law enforcement was

too inefficient or inept to copewith thedisorder.Newspapers that promi-

nently displayed crime stories played into the hands of Klan organizers.

The fear for one’s property and family drove many into the ranks of

the Klan. In his analysis of the Klan in the Southwest, Alexander dis-

cusses other traditional and contemporary forces that motivated Texans

to join thenewest versionof the secret order.Antipathy towardCatholics,

Jews, African Americans, and Mexican Americans played a secondary

role for those in the organization who sought preservation of the status

quo and a staunch public morality.The Klan’s reformist appeal inTexas

and the Southwest centered on its efforts to imprint its version of lawand

orderandpersonal behavior, although ‘‘a defined strain ofmoral bigotry’’

clearly existed.4

Initial opposition to the Klan first arose on the front pages of large

urban newspapers outside of Texas and the South.The influential NewYork World began a series in September 1921 that documented the vio-

lence, extremism, and financial shenanigans of the revived organization.

TheWorld charged Klan leaders with bilking members of an astound-

ing $40 million as they built a ‘‘thriving business in the systematic sale

of race hatred, religious bigotry and ‘100 percent’ anti-Americanism.’’

Many newspapers throughout the nation reprinted the series, including

the Dallas Morning News and the Houston Chronicle. The revelationslaunched congressional hearings, but theWorld ’s exposé backfired, asthe Klan organization grewand prospered evenmore from the exposure.

As media historian Rodger Streitmatter observed, the detailed articles

provided the newKlan with its first national publicity and gave the order

information on ‘‘the exact elements of the Klan that potential members

found so appealing.’’ Instead of widespread outrage, theKlan’s influence

expanded outside of the South and found new support in western and

northern states.5

Other factors contributed to the rapid rise of theKlan in the Lone Star

State. In Texas, drys associated blacks and browns with the wet side on

the Prohibition issue. They also maintained a long tradition of viewing

minorities and their communities as centers of corruption and vice based

on their opposition to Progressive reform.The Houston riot of 1917 in-

stilled fear in the white population that strengthened any doubts in that

city about the correctness of segregation.

137


The Klan’s opposition rose from a core group of business elites in

communities who opposed the divisive programs, the disruption of the

community, and what appeared to be a middle-class threat to their hege-

mony. Newspapers in Dallas and Houston provided public leadership

for the business sector and local politicians to fight the Klan’s positions

and threat to the existing order. In his analysis, Alexander determined

that the Klan’s failure to elect any of its statewide candidates in the 1924

Democratic Primary sealed its fate in Texas. Anti-Klan forces seized the

initiative and elected members to the state legislature and local offices.

These defeats signaled the demise of theKlan as a force inTexas politics.

The spirited opposition of 1924 only occurred after several newspapers

had taken a public stand against the secret order. In subsequent years in

the 1920s, states where Klan nominees found electoral success replaced

Texas as banner states for the hooded order. Following Miriam Fergu-

son’s Texas gubernatorial victory, prominent Klan members left and the

organization’s influence declined.6

Within a few years, the Klan had virtually none of its former strength

inTexas and the rest of theSouthwest. In 1925 the state legislaturepassed

an anti-mask bill recommended by Governor Ferguson. Internal divi-

sions hurt theKlan. Bitter rivalries, accusations of financial abuse in local

Klaverns, and political losses took their toll. Membership and support

declined in nearly every community where the Klan held influence. By

1928 only a few thousand members and a handful of local chapters re-

mained in the state. The Klan label, which had once promised business

and political success, became an expensive price tag that most respect-

able Texans no longer sought. In the 1928 presidential election, many

of the Klan’s remaining and former leaders opposed Democrat Al Smith

in favor of Republican Herbert Hoover. Their efforts, in combination

with those of dry, anti-Klan Democrats, gave the state to a Republican

presidential nominee for the first time since the Civil War.7

The Klan Rides into TexasThe second Ku Klux Klan re-formed in a special ceremony at Stone

Mountain, Georgia, in 1915. Colonel William Joseph Simmons resur-

rected the Reconstruction-era organization, which had largely disap-

peared in the 1870s, with assistance of Edward Young Clarke and Eliza-

beth Tyler, two energetic young promoters who propelled the Klan into

a national social and political movement during the 1920s. The Klan

drew on its Reconstruction predecessor in style and organization, but

extended its white sheets to exploit a wider area of social unrest. The

138


secondmovement based its appeal on racial prejudice, enhanced by new

pronouncements of morality and resistance to foreign influences. The

Klan also capitalized on propaganda strategies never utilized by the Re-

construction Klan. Building on the U.S. government’s successful propa-

ganda efforts in World War I, the Klan used paid organizers, advertise-

ments, promotions, and public ceremonies successfully to increase the

secret order’s membership and influence and advance its distorted view

of citizenship.8

WorldWar I and its aftermathprovedanopportune time for the revital-

ized Klan to expand.The filmThe Birth of a Nation played to audiencesaround the country in 1915 and depicted a romanticized version of the

Ku Klux Klan, one in which the Klan saved the South from carpetbag-

ger and ‘‘Negro rule’’ in the Reconstruction era. The silent screen epic

was immensely popular, drawing praise from President WoodrowWil-

son, who viewed it at theWhite House.The Birth of a Nation provided avisual andmoral backdrop to the flames and racial animosity that burned

in the era of strident Jim Crow laws.

In addition to building its appeal on racism, the Klan took advantage

of resentment toward other ethnic groups, Catholics, and anyone else

determined to be a ‘‘foreigner.’’ Americans were troubled by the losses

suffered duringWorldWar I in Europe and divided over the peace settle-

ment. The ongoing Mexican Revolution forced thousands of Mexican

citizens to flee north to Texas and other southwestern states. For over

a decade, fears of massive immigration of a largely Spanish-speaking,

Catholic population, combined with the violence highlighted by Texas

newspapers, added to anxieties and prejudices. The post–World War I

red scare also played into the hands of Klan promoters. Suspicions of

communism and anarchy introduced by foreigners and undesirable im-

migrants fanned the flames of uncertainty. Rising unemployment after

World War I added to unrest. A steady stream of men looking for work

poured into Houston, Dallas, and other Texas cities. Some found work

butmany remained unemployed in the turbulent uncertainty afterWorld

War I.

The United States has frequently witnessed times of social upheaval

immediately after the conclusion of a major conflict, and crime and law-

lessness seemed to be on the increase immediately after World War I.

TheHouston Postwarned that the large numberof unemployedmenwasliterally ‘‘an invasion of criminal vagrants.’’ Attitudes and fears about ex-

cessive crime and the inability of law enforcement authorities to combat

the surge fueled the anxieties of the time. Newly elected Texas governor

139


Pat Neff told the state legislature that hewas very alarmed at the ‘‘spirit of

lawlessness.’’ He criticized the ‘‘loose method of dealing with violators

of the law.’’ He proclaimed ‘‘Law and Order Sunday’’ and called on the

citizens and law enforcement officials to confront the growing wave of

criminal activity.Violations of the recently enacted Prohibition law were

the most common. But other concerns included gambling, prostitution,

and robbery—traditional rallying points for urban Progressives and the

daily press.9

Texasandmanyotherareasof thecountryoffered fertile ground for the

moral pronouncements and easy remedies to clean up society promised

by the reborn Klan.Thanks to the marketing talents of Clarke and Tyler,

theKlan spread throughout theSouthand theMidwest as a result of a cre-

ative marketing scheme. Field organizers enlisted the support of promi-

nent members of the community to draw in large numbers of recruits.

These organizers, called Kleagles, received fourdollars from the ten dol-

lar ‘‘donation’’ or initiation fee. Field organizers first concentrated on

community leaders, followedbyothermiddle- andworking-classwhites.

As long as someone was white, Protestant, and native-born and would

part with ten dollars, organizers viewed him as a potential member. In

addition, the national organizationmanufactured all of the Klan clothing

and regalia. The national headquarters became so profitable that news-

papers called its Atlanta offices the nightgown palace. Many promoters

and those in the hierarchy of the Invisible Empire made fortunes when

the Klan was in its heyday of the early 1920s.

The new urban middle class and many professionals found the Klan

a new haven for social and business contacts. With their meteoric rise

and strong presence in the state, very fewTexas newspapers challenged

the Klan’s appeal or its methods. Many publishers feared the loss of

readers, advertising revenue, and disrupting the existing racial and so-

cial order. Chester Crowell, a former editor who left the state just prior to

theKlan’s appearance, noted thatmost newspapers and their staffs either

supported the secret orderor ‘‘followed theTexas journalistic traditionof

neutrality.’’Crowell claimed that up to ‘‘ninetypercent of thenewspapers

of Texas were represented in the Klan, usually through their advertis-

ing departments.’’ Since most of the business community and the source

of advertising revenue in Texas affiliated with the Klan, then following

the popular trend sometimes becameprofitable. Part of theKlan’s appeal

rested on its commercial message. When the Klan reached its zenith of

power in the state in the early 1920s, only a few publishers and editors

openly challenged the organization and its leaders. This select group of

140


newspapers who elected to confront the Klan suffered a substantial loss

in circulation and advertising revenues.10

The Klan and its leaders believed that they had discovered fertile

groundfornativist appeals inTexas.Theyalsobelieved that theyhadneu-

tralized the majority of the state’s newspapers and their editorial pages:

the reform spirit identifiedwith the Progressive era took a hard right turn

on the road to modernization as a consequence of their influence. Klan

leaders took advantage of the crusading spirit associated with the social

movements of that era and capitalized on their methods. The organiza-

tion appealed to fundamental insecurities that reflected both the uncer-

tain times and prejudices that had been carried forward for generations.

W. E. B. DuBois, a leader in the NAACP, recognized the underlying

motivation of racial hatred. DuBois wrote in 1926, ‘‘The kind of thing

whichmen are afraid to or ashamed to do openly byday, they accomplish

secretly, masked, and at night.’’11

Houston—The First Klan ObjectiveThe Klan selected Houston as its first Texas target. Sam Houston Klan

no. 1 was organized by A. R. Upchurch, one of the top Kleagles, in Sep-

tember 1920. The local made its first public appearance during a re-

unionof theUnitedConfederateVeterans onOctober 9, 1920.Klansmen

mounted on horses rode as others marched on foot alongside the aging

CivilWar veterans in awell-attendedparade.Afloat carried a banner that

stated ‘‘Wewill be here forever.’’ Simmons appeared shortly thereafter in

a well-publicized appearance at the First Christian Church in Houston.

Other local dens soon followed in nearby Humble, Goose Creek, Beau-

mont, and Galveston. Charter members included many of the leading

businessmenof the community, ‘‘silk-stockingmen from the banks, busi-

ness houses and professions.’’ Although accurate membership numbers

could not be obtained, theHouston-area Klan organization grew quickly

in the early 1920s, attracting as many as 8,000members.The Klan never

would have reached such an impressive level without the participation

of some of the leading business and professional men in the community

alongside other wage earners and working-class residents. Many elected

officials thought it expedient to jumpon the bandwagon, as they believed

the growing sentiment for the organization offered a significant political

opportunity. Local Klaverns held a number of widely attended gather-

ings whose ceremonial initiations were complete with torchlight, white

robes, and burning crosses.12

Astrongcontributing factor thatundoubtedlyassistedearlyKlanorga-

141


nization inHoustonwas thememoryof the racial hostilities that occurred

in 1917 between African American troops and the local police. Resent-

ment against the armed black troops resulted in an onslaught of racial

slurs directed against the soldiers. Some police officers went out of their

way to harass the minority troops. Hard feelings accelerated into the

August 23 confrontation known as the Houston riot of 1917. In a gun

battle between the troops and the police, fifteen whites and four blacks

died.Houstonwasplacedundera curfewuntil the entirebattalion, under

orders, quickly left. Klan organizers used this tragic event as a warning

to white Houstonians should the Army ever reassign African American

troops to the city.

Houston also became home to one of the Klan’s most outspoken pub-

lications,Colonel Mayfield’s Weekly, named for Billie Mayfield. Mayfield

was aWorld War I and Spanish-AmericanWar veteran. During the Gal-

veston labor strike of 1920, he served as the provost marshal of theTexas

National Guard under General Jacob F. Wolters. When the Guard was

criticized in Houston newspapers for its heavy-handed methods, May-

field ordered three soldiers to arrest the editor of the Houston Press.Following a storm of protest, Wolters relieved Mayfield of his Galves-

ton assignment after a highly publicized inquiry. Until the paper sold in

September 1924,Mayfield’sWeekly kept up a steady barrage of attacks onCatholics, Jews, African Americans, and others he judged to be without

propermoral standards.Themost prominent journalistic target centered

on Marcellus Foster and theHouston Chronicle.13

The campaign of violence and intimidation began in early 1921. In

February a party of Klansmen led by George B. Kimbro Jr. kidnapped

Houston attorney B. I. Hobbs, who was well known in the city for the

largenumberofdivorcecaseshehandled forbothblackandwhite clients.

Klansmen cut off his hair, administered tar and feathers, and left Hobbs

in the middle of downtown on San Jacinto Street. After the attack the

Klan posted signs throughoutHouston on telegraph poles and treeswith

warnings against racial mixing. The Chronicle, the Post, and the Pressall carried articles on the attack. Klan members abducted several other

white men in the next few months. Attorneys seemed to be the favored

targets, although other local businessmen received similar ‘‘warnings.’’

The secret order’s first reportedAfricanAmerican victimwas J. Lafayette

Cockrell, a dentist accused of having relations with a white woman.

Hooded figures seized Cockrell at gunpoint, drove him out of town,

then anesthetized and castrated him.The violent conduct of Klan mem-

bers, coupled with an exposé on the organization’s leaders and financial

142


background, brought the issue to the forefront in 1921. In a letter to the

Chronicle, lumber magnate John Henry Kirby, a friend of both Foster

and Jones, called on the Klan to disband for their violations of constitu-

tional rights. Kirby, along with Joseph S. Cullinan, Foster, and a handful

of other community leaders organized the American Anti-Klan Associa-

tion.MayorOscarHolcombe,whoadmittedattendingoneKlanmeeting,

criticized the increasing violence in the city and publicly denounced the

Klan and its methods.14

Most of Houston’s commercial elites sympathized with the Klan’s

moralistic and racial views, but they saw the rise in the public beatings

andclandestine activities as a threat to thepublic imageof the community

and, just as important, theirownpolitical hegemony.Theymust certainly

have felt their leadership position compromised by an increasingly active

group of white working-class members and small business owners who

banded together under the moralistic banner of the new Klan. As histo-

rian Norman Brown wrote, the ‘‘white sheets covered some strange bed-

fellows,’’ as many from the ranks of organized labor, professional busi-

nessmen, andmerchants initially joined theKlan.Thesewerepeoplewho

comprised the majority of the electorate as well as provided the dollars

for local businesses.With the Klan and its appeals seemingly as popular

as ice creamon a summerday, opponentswaited for the neworganization

to wither under the light of public scrutiny.15

Until the tide turned, the few vocal critics of the Klan carefully fo-

cused on violations of individual rights without attacking specific indi-

viduals. Concerns were also voiced over the secret, clandestine activities

of the organization that so vociferously preached morality and confor-

mity. Opponents also relied on the pen of Marcellus Foster to articulate

the dangers the Klan posed to the city. Foster presented their arguments

in editorials directed against the Klan and its leadership. Foster wrote

‘‘Why themask, if only law and order are desired?Why anonymity, if the

common good is sought? Does decency need a disguise?’’16

In September 1921, Joseph Pulitzer’s New York World published a

series exposing abuses and illegal acts of the Klan. Only three major

dailies in Texas picked up the articles for publication in the state: the

Dallas Morning News, along with its sister paper the Galveston DailyNews, and theHouston Chronicle. These dailies provided the most out-

spokencriticismof thesecretorder inTexas.All threepublicationsserved

as ongoing critics of the Klan and its tactics from the outset of the Klan’s

appearance in the state. They saw the Klan as a threat to law and order

and individual rights.TheWorld ’s series brought even greater attention

143


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

to the Klan’s activities in the South. Rather than curtailing the Klan’s

activities, its membership increased in Texas and many states after the

stories were published, much to the chagrin of the few publications who

openly challenged the Invisible Empire. Many regarded the exposé by

the Northern newspaper as a benefit to the secret organization.

The Klan vs. the ChronicleTheChronicle began publishing theWorld ’s exposés in September 1921.Foster arranged for the series after learning about it in detail at a summer

convention of newspaper executives in Atlantic City, New Jersey. Foster

telegraphed Jones about the articles at the same time he arranged for the

Chronicle to run the stories on the front page. Foster told Jones in a let-

ter a few days later that he assumed the risk for theChronicle ‘‘because Ibelieved it our duty so to do.’’ However, he warned that ‘‘Simmons and

his crowd may file libel suits.’’ Foster said that since he was away from

Houston when the Klan exposé first hit the streets, he had not received

any immediate reaction. ‘‘But I am quite sure it will make some secret

144


enemies for us.’’ Foster warned that he anticipated threats and ‘‘possibly

some cowardly act.Those things neverdeterme, however, in doingwhat

I think is right.’’ The veteranHouston editor also saw this as an opportu-

nity toasserthis independenceand,hebelieved, thevoiceof theChroniclein shaping the city’s future.

17

Prior to the articles’ publication in theChronicle,Foster told Jones thathe had shared proofs of the articles withW.O.Huggins, attorney for the

Chronicle and also a shareholder in the corporation. Foster was anxiousto release the series, even without consulting Jones. But he made a point

of letting Jones know that he had not acted unilaterally.Huggins believed

that potential lawsuits would be filed by individuals directly linked to

the Klan but that they would have no ‘‘serious consequences.’’ The men

agreed to publish the articles without a list of the Kleagles, the individual

Klan leaders. ‘‘We did not want to give anybody excuse for suit except

the head officials,’’ Foster wrote.18

Jones replied a few days later. By this time, Jones had read the stories

and downplayed their impact. ‘‘I do not consider it a serious matter one

way or the other,’’ he wrote. ‘‘It is great advertising for the K.K.K., and

while it exposes the bunk, I doubt if it amounts to more than news, un-

less it arouses the law-making bodies.’’ Jones said he found the articles

somewhat long and tedious but ‘‘adroitly written and interesting.’’ He

told Foster that he had heard some ‘‘slight rumblings about it being an

ill-advised policy for theChronicle, but that does not influence me in theslightest.’’ Jones reaffirmed Foster’s position when he stated the news-

paper should ‘‘stand for the right, without fear, financial or otherwise.’’

Jones said that the best course for Foster and the newspaperwas to ignore

any threats or challenges.19

When Foster returned to Houston from the East, he immediately

joined the fight with the Klan. Jones, in the meantime, left for NewYork.

Foster proclaimed that the battlewith theKlanwas the ‘‘biggest thing that

theChronicle ever undertook and it has been our greatest victory.’’ Fosterbelieved that had the Klan gone unchallenged, ‘‘rioting and revolution’’

would spread throughout the state and ‘‘no man’s life would have been

safe.’’ He compared the situation inTexas to that in Georgia.The home

turf of the revived Klan illustrated the strength and appeal of the move-

ment. None of the three daily Atlanta newspapers had ‘‘the courage to

comeout openlyandfight theKlan.’’ Foster said the publishers inAtlanta

feared the organization and its ties to state government.20

Jones and otherChronicle investors undoubtedly feared a loss of reve-nue from the newspaper’s outspoken opposition to theKlan. Both Foster

145


and Jones received warnings that the uproar would hurt revenues. In the

weeks after the first articles on the Klan appeared in theChronicle, Fostersaidonlyoneof thenewspaper’smajorclients reduced its advertising: the

W. C.Munn&Co. store, which ran larger ads in thePostwhile reducingtheir accounts at theChronicle (however, overall department store adver-tising in theChronicle was double that of the Post). Foster believed that

Munn had his own internal business problems but predicted he would

return to the newspaperandpurchase ‘‘more space than ever.’’Munnwas

‘‘imbued with the Klan spirit of hate and animosity,’’ Foster said. ‘‘It is

amusing tome to see the spiritmanifestedbyabigotedBaptistKlansman,

and especially one who has been favored so by theChronicle.’’21

A few days later, Foster erroneously predicted that the battle against

the Klan would be quickly replaced by other concerns that directly im-

pacted the city and its inhabitants. The local streetcar company, for in-

stance, wanted an extension of its franchise and competed for attention

in the newspapers. ‘‘I rather think from nowonwewill be in a position to

ignore theKlan, rather than further advertise or attack that organization,’’

Foster wrote to Jones. ‘‘In other words, I believe it is pretty near dead,

especially in Houston.’’ The editor believed a policy of silence was best,

unless the secret orderdid ‘‘something thatmakes it necessary to get after

them again.’’ Within a few days, Foster saw his bold prediction quickly

shredded by a violent confrontation in another Texas community.22

Several thousand Klan members assembled for a Saturday night pa-

rade at the small town of Lorena fourteen miles south of Waco. When

McLennan County sheriff Robert Buchanan and several deputies at-

tempted to stop the procession, a fight erupted. In the confrontation,

Sheriff Buchanan, Ed Howard, an off-dutyWaco policeman, and Louis

Crow, aLorenabusinessman, all suffered seriouswounds.Buchananwas

shot and Howard and Crow suffered stab wounds. The Chronicle fea-tured Buchanan and Crow on page one as ‘‘victims’’ of the Klan. Crow

died from his stab wounds within the week, while Sheriff Buchanan re-

covered. Amonth-longMcLennanCounty grand jury investigation sub-

sequently condemned Sheriff Buchanan and his deputies. According to

the grand jury, which undoubtedly represented the Klan’s interests, the

sheriff and his deputies ‘‘grossly violated every law of humanity’’ and

were unfit for their positions.23

Foster immediately saw the Lorena incident as an opportunity to con-

front the growing presence of the Klan. In a front-page editorial, Foster

caustically encouraged the KKK to move the ‘‘Imperial Palace of the Im-

perial Wizard of the Imperial Ku Klux Klan’’ to Texas.The Klan openly

146


defied lawenforcement authorities in theLorena episode, hemaintained.

Texas Klansmen ‘‘have beaten and blackened more people in the last six

months than all the other states in the Klan Kingdom combined,’’ Fos-

ter wrote. With such a dubious record, Foster said that Texas now had

a better claim than Georgia to serve as the Klan capital. Thanks to the

masked lawbreakers, Texas witnessed a ‘‘tarring and feathering party of

real terrorism.’’ The editor noted with some irony that cotton farmers

who had recently sold their crops at a terrible loss were only too will-

ing to pay $6.50 for a Klan cotton robe that only cost $1.50 in materials

and labor.24

TheChronicle received praise and condemnation for theKlan articles.H.E.Allenwrote that ‘‘realmen and realAmericans comeout in the open

with their faces bare of any mask and denounce the evil doer.’’ He added

that the nighttime reprisals by the Klan were ‘‘contrary to law and order

and the Constitution.’’ Walter Turner of Cuero believed that only the

press would be effective in combating the Klan. ‘‘I wish there were more

newspapers to lay the facts before the people,’’ he stated. But William

Hughes of Longview blasted the Chronicle for publishing ‘‘a lot of in-genious falsehoods’’while the editor ‘‘failed to appreciate the issuewhich

brought the Klan into existence.’’25

TheChronicle’s anti-Klan campaign lasted much longer than the fewmonths that Foster originally predicted. For the next four years, articles

and editorials attacking the secret order appeared on the Chronicle’spages. Jesse Jones’ fears that the publicity the Klan receivedmay have in-

creased its appeal provedwell founded. Instead of receding into themist,

the organization gained strength and popularity in the state.With many

community leaders andbusinessmenparticipating in theKlan, fewnews-

papers or politicians challenged the organization in its formative years.

Texas became aKlan stronghold as the hooded order expanded itsmem-

bership and presence. In doing so, the Klan challenged the leadership

position of the daily newspapers and their vision of growth and pros-

perity. The Klan and its supporters also challenged one of the bedrock

principles of the newspaper publishers: an orderly community focused

on business expansion.

Throughout the formative years of the 1920s Klan,Colonel Mayfield’sWeeklymaintained a steady barrage of racially oriented diatribes againsttheKlan’s opponents.He took special pleasure in taunting Foster and the

Chronicle.Mayfield mixed a blend of attacks against African Americans,

Catholics, and Jews, who he contended acted in a grand conspiracy to

upend Protestantism andU.S. government. Hewarned that the Catholic

147


Church designed its ‘‘propaganda for colored consumption’’ and would

appoint ‘‘big, black, burly, bestial negro priests to take confessions of

whitewomen.’’ As the organization attempted to align itself more closely

with mainstream Protestant churches, the Klan’s newspaper reprinted

sermons from Baptist andMethodist ministers who preached the Klan’s

gospel. The fundamentalists frequently linked vices and immoral acts

with the Jewish or Catholic hierarchy while they applauded the Klan for

having stands that favored a righteous community. The growing popu-

larityof theKlanbecameevident to readersofMayfield’sWeekly.Mayfield

claimed over 50,000 subscribers in 1922. By 1923 Mayfield obtained

many full-page ads fromoil syndicates and stock companies.He also had

ads from establishment furniture, clothing, merchandise, and insurance

companies.26

Realizing that it was in a battle for public opinion, the Klan’s Houston

newspaper expressed frequent condemnation of the media and the film

industry.Mayfield told his readers that Jews andCatholics controlled the

motionpicture business andwere advocating racemixingwhen theypor-

trayed white and black actors together on the screen. In one front-page

photo,Mayfield ridiculed films that displayed ‘‘Jewactors clinging to the

necks of Negro vamps.’’ The Klan editor linked the Houston Chronicleto his critics and stated, ‘‘All Texas knows that the motives behind their

pages is the money of Catholics and Jews.’’ Mayfield accused Marcel-

lus Foster of editing a ‘‘Jewish trade journal’’ and employing ‘‘spies and

traitors to discredit the Klan.’’ Mayfield also directed his wrath against

some of Houston’s commercial elites for their outspoken remarks about

the Klan. Among these targets were lumber magnate John Henry Kirby

and oil tycoon Joseph S. Cullinan. These businessmen, along with Fos-

ter and several others, organized the American Anti-Klan Association in

Houston in 1922.27

While the Klan presented a challenge to the business and Progressive

establishment, a select number of its leaders began to speak out in 1922.

Cone Johnson, a respected dry from the East Texas community of Tyler,

responded to one popular initiative of the Invisible Empire in an ‘‘Open

Letter on Klanism’’ published in theHouston Chronicle.TheKlan circu-lated thousands of copies of a friendly sermon by George C. French, the

pastorof the FirstMethodist Church in Bonham.Cone Johnson charged

that French was ‘‘led astray by the insidious propaganda’’ of the Klan

and declared that the organization’s threat to the nation was more seri-

ous than the one posed by imperial Germany in World War I. Johnson

said the Klan’s attacks on individuals mocked the U.S. system of justice.

148


The Progressive spokesman said the organization ‘‘seethes and teems in

a spirit of contempt of our courts, and therefore our government.’’ The

incident illustrates the depth of the Klan’s reach in the state and the divi-

sive atmosphere that swirled around the organization and its members.28

The Klan Becomes PoliticalTheNewYorkTimes reported onDecember 10, 1922, that the ‘‘[s]hadowof theKuKluxKlan’’ extended to theU.S.Congress and the organization

hadgainedsignificantpolitical strength throughout thenation.Texaswas

one of two ‘‘banner states’’ for the Klan.The pro-Klan Senate candidate

won his election while many officeholders opposed to the organization

lost their races. Judges, sheriffs, state representatives, andmany local offi-

cials owed their election to the Klan in 1922. The fight in the Lone Star

State was bitter as lifelong friends and families split over the issue. ‘‘The

organization is out to control the State,’’ said one anonymous official.29

Houston’s Klan leadership, riding the crest of popularity with its

growingmembership, decided to accept the challenge from the business

establishment. After a well-attendedmeeting, theHoustonKlan selected

Murray B. Jones, a former county court at law judge, to challengeMayor

Holcombe. The Klan hoped to draw support from its membership and

allies to defeat the one-term mayor and also take other city positions on

the ballot. Both the Post and the Chronicle supported Holcombe, and

the downtown business leaders united behind theyoung reform-minded

mayor. The Post, always restrained when dealing with the Klan, recom-

mendedHolcombe’s reelection in early December based on the mayor’s

record of improvements in city street paving, sanitation, and other ser-

vices.Post editorGeorgeM.Baileywrote that thepaper had ‘‘nopersonal

or political animosity toward Judge Jones’’ and said he was a ‘‘splendid

public citizen and public official.’’ The Post carried a front-page story

on Christmas Day about donations of food and clothing to 135 needy

families by Houston Klan no. 1.30

Speaking for the Klan and Judge Jones, Colonel Mayfield’s Weeklycharged that Mayor Holcombewas too easy on criminals and tolerant of

gambling and bootlegging. In awell-coordinated attack,Houston super-

intendent of police GordonMurphy resigned and told the press that the

mayor controlled the police department and ‘‘crime, vice and bootleg-

ging flourish as a result.’’ Billie Mayfield told his readers that Holcombe

hadparticipated in anumberof late-night gamblingparties and later sup-

pressed a police department investigation of the affair.Holcombe ranked

alongside Foster on theKlan andMayfield’s list of top targets.Holcombe

149


ordered an investigation of the Klan’s influence in the Houston Police

Department and openly criticized the secret organization.31

Holcombe denied the allegations of both Murphy and Mayfield and

countered with his own strategy to offset the Klan’s last-minute attack.

Less than aweek before the election, a delegation of Baptist ministers as-

sembled at a closed-doormeeting at the RiceHotel. MayorHolcombe, a

Baptist himself, and his attorney, Robert Cole, attended alongside May-

field andhis counselor,LawrenceWilliamson.Aftera stormy session that

lasted seven hours, the ministers unanimously concluded that the gam-

bling charges against Holcombe were unsubstantiated. Billie Mayfield

left in disgust and claimed the meeting was ‘‘stacked on him.’’ The Postpraised the ministers’ conclusions in an editorial and stated the mayor

was ‘‘cruelly maligned.’’ A record number of city voters went to the polls

theSaturdayafterChristmas.Outofnearly20,000 total votes,Holcombe

wonwith a 1,177-votemajority.Mayfield’s ill-conceivedployand the last-

minute ministerial blessing undoubtedly shifted sentiment toward Hol-

combe. But themayor’s narrow victory illustrated the strength theHous-

ton Klan held in the community.32

The Goose Creek TwelveGoose Creek, on Galveston Bay in eastern Harris County, thirty miles

southeast of Houston, was a Klan stronghold. Goose Creek was a small

community at the turn of the century that quickly grew following the

discovery of oil. After the Goose Creek oil field opened in 1915, a boom-

town grew up on the coastal prairie.The town grew larger in 1917, when

RossS.Sterling,presidentof HumbleOil andRefining, andPricePruett,

a local landowner, organized andbuilt theGooseCreek andDaytonRail-

road to connect the oil field with the Southern Pacific line at Dayton. On

January 28, 1919, Goose Creek citizens voted to incorporate. Not long

after, GooseCreekKlan no. 4 became one of the first andmost influential

Klaverns in the state.

In January 1923, R. H. Armand, twenty-eight, and Mrs. R. H. Har-

rison, a widow of thirty, were taken at gunpoint from the woman’s home

by a dozen or more hooded men. Rumors of an alleged adulterous affair

between the widow and the young man had circulated in the commu-

nity prior to their seizure. The white-robed attackers flogged Armand

and poured oil on his open wounds. The masked men also beat Har-

rison and cut her hair off at the scalp. The assailants then returned the

pair toGoose Creek. OnlyHarrison’s seven-year-old daughter, whowit-

nessed the couple’s seizure, provided information toHarrisCounty sher-

150


iff T. A. Binford.The sheriff faced a wall of silence from local residents,

and neither Armand norHarrisonwould provide any information on the

assault. ‘‘The residents here fear to mix up in any of the affair, and even

Armand refuses to talk for fear that Imaybe aKlansman,’’ Sheriff Binford

stated.33

The Post editors condemned the attack. ‘‘Burglary, theft, arson or

highway robbery are serious crimes, but they pale into insignificance

compared to unlawful invasion of one’s home and the brutal infliction of

injury upon one’s person,’’ the editorial stated. A Harris County grand

jury convened to investigate the attacks. Following the Post editorial andthepending investigation, theGooseCreekKlan issueda statementdeny-

ing any involvement in the case and offered to cooperate with the inves-

tigation. ‘‘We condemn that spirit of lawlessness in any and every com-

munity,’’ the local Klan stated in its release. In a timely arrest, Sheriff

Binford announced that a suspectwas in the county jail inHouston.Har-

rison’s young daughter identified Claude C. Buckley as one of the cul-

prits. Buckley denied the charge and was later released. Sheriff Binford

announced other arrests would follow as the grand jury proceeded in its

investigation.34

Colonel Mayfield’sWeekly directed its wrath against theChronicle andJudge Robinson. Billie Mayfield, the owner and editor (not related to

Senator Earle B. Mayfield), served as the Klan’s chief spokesman during

the early 1920s. Mayfield accused Judge ‘‘Nero’’ Robinson of selecting

a grand jury composed of ‘‘a bunch of Knights of Columbus and Jews

to pass on the Ku Klux Klan.’’ Mayfield said that the acts committed by

the Klan benefited the community. Mayfield said that the judge had read

accounts in the Houston ‘‘Press and the lamentableChronicle’’ and was

‘‘embued with the idea that the Klan is all wrong.’’ Mayfield also praised

the Klan for its activities in Goose Creek while criticizing the sensational

coverage provided by the Chronicle and the Press. He claimed that the

Klan alone had turned thewild andwoolly boomtown into a responsible,

God-fearing community.35

During the grand jury investigation, a number of Goose Creek busi-

nessmenappearedat theHarrisCountyCourthouse toanswerquestions.

They included a filling station owner, a barbershop owner, an oil field

worker, a former deputy sheriff, and other local men who testified be-

hind locked doors. The presence of many local business owners indi-

cated the depth of support the Goose Creek Klan retained among the

middle- and working-class whites in the community. In the grand jury’s

final report, no indictments were issued. However, the jurors stated they

151


believed thewhippingswere the actions of the localKlan, the ‘‘samebody

of men apparently organized for the purpose of regulating the morals of

that community.’’36

District Judge Cornelius W. Robinson refused to let the incident

pass. Judge Robinson impaneled another grand jury to investigate the

Harrison-Armand beating and other allegations of Klan violence in the

Goose Creek community. In May 1923 the grand jury reported that in

the previous two years the Goose Creek area had suffered from a ‘‘reign

of terror.’’ At least twenty men and women had been beaten by mem-

bers of an ‘‘organizedmob, generally in disguise.’’ Thevictimsweremost

often taken from their homes at night, beatenby theirabductors, and then

given ‘‘moral advice’’ concerning their reputed transgressions.When the

violence was at its height, people were ‘‘terrorized and overawed’’ by

the night riders. However, as a result of the unfavorable publicity that

Goose Creek received in Houston’s newspapers, conditions improved.

The people declared things had gone ‘‘too far and must be stopped, or

the town will be disgraced and ruined.’’37

The Harris County Grand Jury eventually indicted twelve men with

felonies that included assault andpossessionof prohibitedweapons.The

charges involved theHarrison-Armand incident and several other whip-

pings of local residents. In July the dozen pleaded guilty tomisdemeanor

charges and received $100 fines in connection with the floggings. In-

cluded in the group were a justice of the peace and several well-known

businessmen. As he sentenced the defendants, Judge Robinson lectured

the groupand told them, ‘‘[N]oman, no set of them,has a right to take the

law in their own hands.’’ Those who seized people from their homes at

night for punishment had ‘‘somethingwrong in your upper story.’’Hous-

ton’s editors hoped the public trial and settlement would ‘‘close a most

offensive chapter in Harris County’s history.’’38

When he tired of lecturing about the evils of alcohol and dancing,

Mayfield took particular delight in attacking theChronicle andMarcellus

Foster. He called theChronicle a ‘‘rabid and sensational yellow journal’’

and a ‘‘real menace to the community.’’ Mayfield said the Post jumped‘‘from one side to the other so fast I can’t tell where it stands.’’ The Pressfell in linewith theChronicle but ‘‘nobody takes it seriously’’ because theeditor of the Scripps newspaper was ‘‘an imported yankee out of all sym-

pathy with the Southern people.’’ In addition, its principal writer was

‘‘an alcoholic idiot.’’ Foster and theChronicle were the main enemies ofthe Klan in Houston. Mayfield said Foster was guilty of ‘‘stirring up dis-

152


cord, strife and arraying neighbor against neighbor.’’ Even though the

Klan in Houston was ‘‘composed of the highest class of citizens,’’ Fos-

ter attempted to engender bitterness in Houston ‘‘because he thinks his

Jewish advocates want it done.’’ Mayfield in another editorial said Foster

‘‘hasn’t the social prestige of a buck nigger’’ in Houston.39

The Goose Creek trials coincided with other revelations of Klan vio-

lence in Texas and neighboring states. Well-publicized kidnappings,

beatings, and murders in Mer Rouge, Louisiana, and other communi-

ties tarnished the Klan’s image for upholding law and order. Lashings

of bootleggers was one thing, but beating women and applying tar and

feathers to professional white men raised concerns among Klan mem-

bers and sympathizers. Most Texans probably agreed with the Klan’s

positions on religion, race, and morality, but many were offended by the

violence, especially when it involved a woman or an individual who held

somepositionwithin thecommunity.With little control exertedby thena-

tional organization, local Klans felt free to interpret and enforce morality

and standards as they saw fit. But the Klan leadership understood the

opposition that violent acts created among themore respectable elements

of the business community, which they still hoped to attract.

A new Klan leadership emerged that wanted to break away from this

image of night riding and violence. In order to counter the unfavorable

publicity generated by hundreds of reports of incidents of late-night ter-

rorism, the Klan leadership embarked on an ambitious program. Hiram

Wesley Evans, the former ExaltedCyclops of Dallas Klan no. 66, quickly

rose through the Klan hierarchy as an advocate of political action. Evans

encouragedKlanmembers to run foroffice or support candidates in local

and state elections that would strengthen the organization’s influence.

He himself seized power from the Simmons-Clarke faction in Atlanta.

The new ImperialWizardwanted tomove away from theKlan’s vigilante

image and replace it with amore acceptable veneer.The newKlan policy

in 1923 emphasized politics and public relations as it discouraged open

violence.40

Houston civic leaders opposed to the Klan worried over its tenacity

and influence. Houston businessman J. S. Cullinan wrote in late 1923,

‘‘[T]hemembership of the Klan hasmore than doubled.’’ As a supporter

of the Chronicle and the Klan opposition, Cullinan expressed his frus-

tration in battling the Invisible Empire. ‘‘They have gradually extended

their political activities, permeated the courts and the control of peace

officers, and have continued to exact tribute from the helpless, particu-

153


larly among those of the Jewish race and probably to a lesser extent from

Catholics,’’ Cullinan said. The battle against the Klan in Texas was far

from over.41

Excluding African American VotersAs the Klan’s influence spread its shadow over Houston, the Harris

County Democratic Executive Committee announced in early 1921 that

the county’s African Americans would not be allowed to vote in the pri-

maryelections administered by the party. In nearly every area of the state,

a candidate for office whowon the Democratic Primary became the ulti-

matewinner of any subsequent general election. By the 1920s,Texas was

solidly a one-party state and this status was not threatened with a politi-

cal resurgence of minority voting. African American voters had largely

been excluded from the electoral process following passage of the 1903

and 1905 Terrell Election Laws.These state laws granted county execu-

tive committees the ability to require additional qualifications for voter

participation and thereby control elections. County Democratic Parties

began to systematically restrict voters based on their race. The poll tax,

in effect after 1912, acted as an economic restriction on voting by the

poor, which embraced most minority citizens. Nevertheless, some vot-

ing by African Americans continued, primarily in the larger cities where

a small black middle class resided and where minority voters were orga-

nized as part of an urban political machine.The demands for full exclu-

sion not surprisingly occurred during the rise of the Ku Klux Klan in the

early 1920s.42

Harris County Democratic chairman James S. Griffith announced on

January 27, 1921, that ‘‘Negroes will not be allowed to vote’’ in the Feb-

ruary local election for mayor and other city positions after a unanimous

decision by the four-member executive committee. Notably, on the same

day, theHoustonPostcarrieda front-page story, ‘‘NegroBurnedatStake,’’concerning an unseemly attack by a mob in rural Arkansas on an Afri-

can American accused of murdering two whites. Reaction to the Harris

County Democratic Party’s action came quickly.Two African American

editors, Charles Norvell Love of the Texas Freeman and W. L. Davis

of theWestern Star, filed an injunction against Griffith. District Judge

Charles E. Ashe ruled the question could not be resolved by the court, as

‘‘the question was purely a political one, to be settled within the party.’’

Theplaintiffs appealed thedecision, even though theFebruary 9 election

was held as scheduled. Oscar Holcombe won the first of many mayoral

campaigns on a rainy, cold day that witnessed a record turnout of over

154


26,000 voters. No incidents were reported of black Houstonians being

turned away from the polls by election judges.43

The Supreme Court finally heard the Love v. Griffith case after the

election.The Court ruled that since the exclusion applied to an election

that had already occurred, the question was moot. However, the Court

provided some encouragement to the plaintiffswhen they noted the issue

would have posed ‘‘a grave question of Constitutional law’’ had it been

presented prior to the election. Although Love andDavis’ suit failed, the

NAACP national office in NewYork took note and soon became directly

involved in Texas in the monumental fight concerning the voting rights

of African Americans. Over the next thirty years, a number of landmark

civil rights cases arose through theTexas courts, most involvingNAACP

participation.44

Dallas: Klan Capital of the United StatesTheKlan rapidly expanded inDallas. Itsmembership included business

leaders, professionals, and members of the clergy. Of particular concern

to Klan opponents was the Klan’s influence in city and county offices.

The Dallas police commissioner, the chief of police, the Dallas county

sheriff, and most law enforcement officers swore allegiance to the secret

order. Dr. HiramW. Evans, a Dallas dentist, rose to assume leadership

of the national Klan as its Imperial Wizard. Z. E. Marvin, owner of the

Magnolia Building, became the Dallas Grand Dragon. The Klan’s first

major public appearance occurred on May 21, 1921, in a massive parade

in downtown Dallas. At the height of Klan influence, State Fair organiz-

ers designated October 24, 1923, as Ku Klux Klan Day. Thousands of

Klan members poured into the city for the remarkable event. TheTexas100 Per Cent American declared the event was quite successful, noting

that ‘‘Imperial Wizard Evans delivered an address, ‘Menace of Present

Immigration,’ to one of the largest gatherings ever congregated on the

Fair Grounds.’’45

The News confronted the Klan immediately after its first downtown

parade inMay 1921.The editorial stated that the ‘‘spectacle of eight hun-

dred masked and white-gownedmen parading the streets . . . was a slan-

der on Dallas.’’ The paper proclaimed that ‘‘white supremacy was not

imperiled.Vice is not rampant.The constituted agencies of government

are still regnant.’’ A handful of Dallas civic and political leaders finally

rallied to counter the Klan’s rapid expansion in the city. George Dealey,

former Texas lieutenant governor and attorney general Martin Crane,

former governor Oscar B. Colquitt, and a handful of leading business

155


figures formed the Dallas County Citizens League to fight the Klan. A

well-attended city hall rally on April 4, 1922, heard Crane demand an

end to the Klan’s extralegal efforts.46

The News took up the fight against the Klan when the newspaper ranthe entire New York World series in 1921 that exposed the Klan’s inter-

nal operations. Throughout 1922, the News ran many stories critical of

the Klan, with a focus on the violence and secrecy that became trade-

marks of the organization.TheNews featured beatings andwhippings inDallas and other communities. Headlines included warnings and reve-

lations: ‘‘Judge Points to Dangers of Klan,’’ ‘‘Ku Klux Klan is Menace to

Society,’’ and ‘‘Officers Obeying Hooded Gangsters, Judge Tells Sun-

day School Class.’’ An editorial on March 2, 1922, ‘‘Bed Sheets in the

Meeting-House,’’ criticized ministers who sympathized with the Klan.

‘‘The grave consequences of a sincere error, made in the pulpit, upon a

great moral question, can not be overestimated. It behooves pastors and

preachers of all faith to give the most careful consideration to these con-

sequences.’’ When the News attacked the bedrock of the community’s

religious establishment, they created an uproar throughout Dallas.47

TheKlan served asmore than a threat to lawandorder.Dealey,Crane,

and other civic leaders viewed the Klan as a direct threat to their hege-

mony. Dealey spent nearly his first two decades at the helm of the Newstirelesslyworking tomakeDallas a leadingcommercial center.Dealeyand

others realized northern investors would turn a cold shoulder on Dallas

becauseof thewarmembraceof theKlan.TheNewsmaintained its steadybarrage of criticism against theKlanwhileDealey,Crane, and the council

leaders waged a behind-the-scenes war within the business community

against their hooded opponents. Nevertheless, Dallas remained perhaps

the strongest of local Klan organizations in the entire nation from 1921

until 1924.

Anti-Klan publicity and organizational efforts in the cities inspired

others across the state to speak up. University of Texas professor Roy

Bedichek encouraged the Dallas County Citizens League to organize

opposition in other locales where Klan influence silenced political and

press criticism. ‘‘You may not know it, but the Dallas News and affiliated

papers andHoustonChronicle are the only papers of state circulation thatare taking any stand in thismatterat all.’’ Bedichek faultedGovernorNeff,

whomhedescribed as having ‘‘asmuchguts as a cotton-tailed rabbit,’’ for

refusing to publicly confront the Klan.With additional committees com-

prised of civic leaders in the rest of Texas, Bedichek predicted increased

156


newspaper scrutiny. ‘‘A showof hands is necessary in order to give these

spineless editors enough courage to speak out,’’ Bedichek concluded.48

Many spoke out, both in favor of and in opposition to the Klan. Phil

Day of Houston complained in a letter to Crane that whenever ‘‘rowdies

and hoodlums’’ broke the law, ‘‘you and your Roman Catholic followers

are always ready to call a mass meeting and condemn one of the best

bodies of men in the world—the Ku Klux Klan—in order to do the bid-

dings of Rome and to help the Pope rule this world.’’ In the small East

Texas town of Gilmer, attorney M. P. Mell explained to Crane that Klan

opponents ‘‘seemed to be intimidated and are not making much show.’’

Mell noted the local clergy sided with the Klan, which capitalized on

anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish doctrines that increased ‘‘prejudice in the

heartsofpeople.’’TheTexas 100PerCentAmericancarried inflammatoryarticles that asserted Jews and Catholics posed a threat to the nation.

49

Letters supporting the Klan filled files of the News office. W. E.

Quarles, an officer in the Kirven State Bank, said that the ‘‘majority of

my customers have notified me that after June 1, they are donewith your

paper.’’ Pastor Sam H. Campbell of the First Baptist Church in Dallas

canceled his subscription. ‘‘I have become convinced that much of the

crimewave that is sweeping over the State of Texas is due to the editorial

policy of your paper . . . You seem to be obsessed with the idea that you

must ‘rule or ruin.’ ’’ SimSmith of Bonhambelieved that by taking on the

Klan, the News suggested that it was ‘‘connected with the Catholics or

else getting substantial contributions from them, one or the other.’’ Smith

stated the Klan seemed to be the beneficiary of these attacks inNortheast

Texas. ‘‘I am not a member of them as yet but the Dallas News is gettinglots of members for them here (I know this to be a fact) by fighting them

so hard, and it is also hurting their circulation.’’50

Others inquiredabout thenumberofCatholicson thenewspaper staff.

M. P.Williamson inquired if any stockholders or employees of the Newsthat had ‘‘any influence in the direction of its policies’’ was a Catholic.

Dealey responded tomost letters, and conducted a surveyof his own staff

to determine the number of Catholics employed at theNews.TomFinty,

Newsmanagerandadirector, encouragedDealey to reveal the truth aboutthe religious affiliations of the staff. ‘‘I believewhat is hurting the News isthatmanypersonshave come tobelieve that it is trying tohide something.

The truth will cure the evil,’’ Finty said. Dealey replied that of the 500

employees, a few were Catholic and nearly all of the stockholders were

Protestant.Dealey listedhismembership in thePresbyterianChurch and

157


provided the affiliation of other directors of the News.Dealey stated thatTom Finty was unaffiliated with any church but ‘‘his folks are Christian

Scientists.’’51

While theNews leadershipaggressivelyconfronted theKlan, theTimesHerald attempted to avoid the controversy altogether. Publisher Edwin

Kiest undoubtedly understood the problems that the Klan created in the

community. But he alsowitnessed the backlash directed against theNewsfor their defiant anti-Klan position. Some employees of theTimesHeraldwere enrolled asmembers of theDallas Klan.However, in an editorial on

April 11, 1922, Kiest leveled his first charges against the Klan. In a mild-

tempered statement, Kiest called for ‘‘peace, happiness and prosperity.’’

‘‘Clannishness,’’ he observed, ‘‘breeds intolerance and unhappiness and

poverty.’’ In his conclusion, he called for an end to factional strife, adding

‘‘I’m for Dallas!’’ Kiest wistfully hoped that the Klan issue would simply

disappear, but the Invisible Empire was growing in strength during this

period. Phil Fox, a managing editor of the Times Herald, resigned his

position at theTimes Herald in 1923 and moved to Atlanta to work for

Hiram Evans, the Imperial Wizard of the Klan.52

Dallas Klan no. 66 essentially ignored the Times Herald and fought

back against the News and the newly formed Citizens League. At

their own April mass meeting, where they inducted 2,342 candidates,

the organization claimed the press unfairly criticized them for ‘‘un-

American’’ activities. The leadership boasted that crime had declined

once the Klan became active, and they offered a $1,500 reward for the

arrest of those responsible for recent floggings.They boasted, ‘‘[T]here

are no I WW’s, Bolshevists or Agitators against the United States Gov-

ernment in Dallas, nor is there any more an imminent racial problem

confronting us here.’’ In order to improve its image, the Klan announced

a donation of $40,000 to the New Hope Cottage, which would care for

‘‘the orphans and helpless waifs of our city.’’ The increased pressure on

theKlan strengthenedboth their numbers and their resolve inDallas, and

they showed no evidence of weakening. TheTexas 100 Per Cent Ameri-can, the Klan’s Dallas-based newspaper, flaunted their importance and

taunted the Morning News.Without the News articles and attack on the

Klan, the order ‘‘could not possibly have grown by leaps and bounds

as it has.’’ As the battle moved onto a larger stage, the Klan remained a

dominant force in Dallas, in spite of its ongoing battles with the News.53

Klan-backed candidates swept to victory in the 1922 Democratic Pri-

mary, despite theNews’ support for a slate of anti-Klan candidates. Priorto the election, editorials had urged support for their choices, assert-

158


ing that the Klan-backed candidates represented thosewhose ‘‘deeds are

evil’’ andwho held a ‘‘masked loyalty to a secret aim.’’ However, the Klan

handilywon this round.Thewinning candidate fordistrict attorney led a

parade of Klan supporters past theNews offices and referred to them as a

‘‘dirty, slimy,Catholic-owned sheet.’’Thevictorious group thenparaded

to theTimes Herald offices for speeches and celebrations.54

In 1923 Dealey reported to his stockholders that the threat from the

Klan had peaked. ‘‘The Ku Klux Klan agitation against our papers on

account of our determined stand on this important question has about

subsided, and while we are not yet out of the storm of business depres-

sion . . . we are built on a solid foundation and are facing what may come

with confidence and optimism.’’ Dealey’s optimism in this case and his

faith in his community proved unfounded. In addition, the company had

to juggle its books to maintain its profitability. Both theDallas MorningNews and theGalveston News witnessed a decline in cash balances and

lower dividends at the end of 1922.55

In his 1924 annual report to stockholders, Dealey reported that circu-

lationduring theprevious year haddeclined.But he refused toblame this

loss on the newspaper’s anti-Klan editorial policy.The report stated that

the Star-Telegram’s circulation had increased at the same volume that

theMorning News’ circulation had decreased. Dealey citedmanagementpractices, as the Star-Telegram and theTimes Herald had invested morerevenues in circulation and offered more advertising discounts. How-

ever, theprofitabilityof theNews remainedsolidduring these tumultuousyears. ‘‘It is quite possible that the net ofThe News has been more thanthe combined net of the two papers [the Star-Telegram and the TimesHerald],’’ Dealey stated. ‘‘Our competitors inDallas and FortWorth, for

the sake of building volume, have indulged in practices that we deem to

be unsound and unbusinesslike.’’ However, Dealey reported that over-

all profit from the newspaper was $80,000 less than that of the previous

year. The war with the Klan apparently created both opportunity and

difficulty for the News in this unsettled era.56

The challenge from the Klan and the financial uncertainties led to an-

other momentous decision. Jeannette Peabody, daughter of A. H. Belo,

the company founder, expressed concern with the loss of revenue and

profitability resulting from the protracted battlewith theKlan. Company

statements from the previous year’s annual meeting undoubtedly led to

questions about Dealey’s decisions and his management of the news-

paper operations. Peabody filed numerous letters with Dealey on the

company’s management practices and finances. She expressed concern

159


that the competition was ‘‘stronger than ever.’’ Thus Dealey and other

corporate directors faced dissension both from within and without the

organization.57

In response to the rising threats, the A. H. Belo directors decided to

sell theGalvestonNews toW. L.Moody Jr., a well-known business leader

in the port city.TheGalvestonNews served as the leading paper formuchof the nineteenth century. But since 1910, the daily had diminished in im-

portance andbegun losingmoney.Dallaswas also now four times the size

ofGalvestonandprovidedamuch largerfinancialbase for thenewspaper.

‘‘Signing of the contract of sale was something akin to the cutting of my

heartstrings,’’Dealey stated. In a specialmessage to stockholders,Dealey

acknowledged the historic ties between the two daily publications. But

timeandevents resulted in thedivestitureof the formerparentnewspaper

from the more robust offspring. The sale of the Galveston daily allowed

for a continuation of the dividend to stockholders and increased the cash

assets of the company to $400,000. The sale also allowed the company

management to focus on its holdings in Dallas and concentrate its efforts

on Dallas for many years to come.

The Fergusons ReturnIn 1924 the Klan planned to capitalize on its political gains and win the

governor’s office.The hooded order campaigned actively for Judge Felix

Robertson.HismainopponentwasMiriamA.Fergusonwhosehusband,

James E. Ferguson, had been impeached as governor in 1917 and de-

clared permanently ineligible to hold a state office.However, Farmer Jim

Ferguson remained the idol of the ‘‘boys at the forks of the creeks’’ and

other rural voters.Despite of the legislature’s baragainst his holdingpub-

lic office, he entered the 1922 U.S. Senate race, which he lost to Earle

Mayfield, the Klan-supported candidate. But Jim Ferguson never left the

political arena and continued his own crusade through his wife’s candi-

dacy. For its part, the Klan touted Mayfield’s victory and the success of

many Klansmen in winning local offices and seats in the state legislature.

From a political standpoint, Texas became the banner state for the In-

visible Empire in 1922.The stagewas set for 1924, when the Klan aimed

to capture theTexas governor’s office and extend its domination of state

and local politics.58

Miriam Ferguson’s campaign was in part a fight to vindicate her hus-

band; it was also based on her outspoken opposition to the Klan. Her

chief opponent, Felix Robertson, was the son of a Confederate general

and a veteran of World War I. The Dallas attorney had served a brief

160


term as a judge and campaigned in favor of better public education and

law enforcement without new taxes. Robertson, a Baptist and staunch

Prohibitionist, also claimed to be a ‘‘praying judge’’ and called on Tex-

ans to return to the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule. He led

all candidates in the first Democratic Primary but was forced into a run-

off with Ferguson. The campaign filled with slogans like ‘‘Bonnet and

not a hood,’’ and ‘‘Two governors for the price of one.’’ Jim Ferguson

directed his wife’s campaign and toured alongside her, making most of

the speeches. Farmer Jim took great delight in telling his audiences the

story of the arrival of the Klan’s Grand Wizard, Hiram Evans, in Texas

just before the runoff election. Evans allowed his black servant to stay

with him in thePullman car (reserved forwhites only).Whendiscovered,

the servant hurriedly left, only partially clothed. Ferguson revealed that

‘‘ex-Gizzards Simmons and Clarke were whore lovers and the present

Grand Dragon [Evans] is a nigger lover.’’ Ferguson later charged that

Judge Robertson drank enough liquor ‘‘to float a battleship.’’ The race

lookedmuch like the Senate campaign twoyears earlier.Throughout the

state large numbers of politicians and voters flocked to Mrs. Ferguson’s

support in the secondprimary, not because theywere for her but because

they were against Robertson and feared the Klan’s ascension as a major

political force in control of the Democratic Party.59

TheTexas 100 Per Cent American, the Klan-backed publication, de-

nounced ‘‘fragrant’’ JimFerguson’s efforts to elect his wife. Fergusonwas

in leaguewithFatherKirwin, the ‘‘flag insultingCatholic political priest.’’

These ‘‘enemies of democracy’’ threatened to derail support for Robert-

son, who was characterized as the ‘‘most relentless foe of law-breakers.’’

Robertson received the official endorsement of the Texas Klan during a

two-dayDallasmeetingof Titans andCyclopses.Robertsonmadeexten-

sive campaign stops around the state in the spring, frequently appearing

with Klan officials and local politicians at his side. Dallas Klan Cyclops

A.C.Parker touredwithRobertsononone trip.Robertson told admirers

at a Houston Klan rally that he stood for ‘‘all good and holy things and

against the bad.’’ Newspaper articles also featured his campaign strategy,

which called for lower state taxes, free school textbooks, enforcement of

the Prohibition laws, and more support for the University of Texas.60

The Democratic nomination under ordinary circumstances guaran-

teed victory in the general election in the era of one-party politics in the

state. But Miriam Ferguson’s victory over Robertson in the primary en-

couragedmanydryDemocrats todo theunthinkable—support aRepub-

lican in the fall election.TheRepublican State ExecutiveCommitteemet

161


behind closed doors on September 5, 1924, and nominated George C.

Butte, dean of the University of Texas Law School. Butte resigned as

head of the Law School and began his campaign by telling voters that he

had never been a member of the Ku Klux Klan, at the same time urging

people to elect the man and not vote for the party.Tom Love, Jim Fergu-

son’s former Democratic opponent, chaired a group of drys named the

GoodGovernment Democratic Leaguewhoworked for Butte’s election.

A host of other anti-Ferguson opponents lined up in Butte’s corner in a

determined effort to block the Fergusons’ return to the capitol.61

Houston, already a center of Klan power, became a hotbed of Fer-

guson opposition led by a number of prominent business leaders and

several newspapers. Among the most influential were Houston oil mag-

nate Ross Sterling, who acquired the strugglingHouston Post in August1924.ThePost,once the leadingnewspaper inHouston,had lost its num-

ber one position to theChronicle. Sterling, who had sold his interests inHumble Oil and Refining Company to StandardOil of New Jersey, now

had the time and money to develop his interests in politics. Sterling first

acquired the newest daily, the Houston Dispatch. RoyWatson, the pri-

mary stockholder in the Post, sold his interests to Sterling for a record

$1,150,000, twice the value of its entire assets.Watson announced on the

sale on July 30, 1924. He said that the Post would remain in Houston

‘‘in the hands of men known for their civic activities and home inter-

est.’’ Sterling quickly merged the two newspapers to form the newHous-ton Post-Dispatch on August 1, 1924. Sterling became chairman of the

board, and former Texas governor and Post managing editorWilliam P.

Hobby came on board as president. Hobby wrote that they would sup-

port ‘‘everycause that is good’’ tomake themorning newspaper competi-

tive again. Former Dispatch editors assumed most of the management

positions when the two publicationsmerged.Throughout the 1920s, the

Houston Post-Dispatch continued as theChronicle’s rival.62

A few blocks away, Marcellus Foster provided his own perspective of

the Post’s new owners. In a letter to Jesse Jones, he confirmed the pur-

chaseprice andruminatedonhisownposition.Foster said that friends in-

formedhim that ‘‘the paper he [Sterling]wanted to really put out of busi-

ness was theChronicle and the man he wanted to ruin was Foster.’’ Afterthe bruising 1924 primary campaign and the protracted battle against

the Klan, Foster also complained that he was tired of being the target of

‘‘vile personal abuse. That is the thing that makes me want to quit the

game.’’ After assessing the sale of the Post, Foster predicted that if the

162


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

Chroniclewere sold, hewould ‘‘retirewith something between $800,000and $1,000,000. You would get a similar profit.’’

63

In the first Democratic Primary election, both the Post and DispatchsupportedHoustonianLynchDavidson forgovernor.His third-placefin-

ish to Robertson and Ferguson left these two Houston newspapers up

163


in the air. Neither Sterling nor Hobby harbored any trust or love for the

Fergusons. In its first issue, an editorial noted that the newPost-Dispatch‘‘has no word of disparagement for Mrs. Ferguson personally.’’ How-

ever, the editors expressed alarm over her candidacy because they clearly

understood the influence Jim Ferguson would have with his wife as gov-

ernor and that hewould be ‘‘getting his clutches on the state government

again.’’ However, they disliked Ferguson’s rival as well. ‘‘The alternative

to Jim is a Clan governor.We cannot get away from it.What is a good citi-

zen to do in a situation like that?’’ As determined by Sterling andHobby,

the politically active Post-Dispatch declared its neutrality. Miriam Fergu-

son’s victory left the door open for subsequent endorsement of George

Butte. Jim Ferguson took note and planned his course of action.64

In a pre-election rally for his wife, Jim Ferguson spoke to a packed

City Auditorium the Saturday before the November election. Foster told

Jones that Ferguson not only attacked Butte and Tom Love, as reported

in the newspapers, but also disparaged Hobby and Sterling. ‘‘We didn’t

print any personal reference to Sterling or Hobby,’’ Foster wrote, ‘‘but it

was a terrible castigation.’’ Foster classified the speech as the most severe

of Ferguson’s well-known attacks on his critics. ‘‘But then Ferguson has

been hounded, vilified and goaded so much by the Post-Dispatch crowdthat you could hardly blame him for exposing those fellows whom he

had befriended and then turned on him,’’ Foster explained.Many people

in Houston knew of the verbal assaults, but it was only through word

of mouth, as none of the newspapers carried this portion of Ferguson’s

speech.65

In Foster’s recap of the address to Jones, Ferguson announced to the

large gathering that duringhis termas governor, Sterling came tohim ‘‘on

his knees’’ requesting assistance for a number of family-owned banks.

Sterling asked Ferguson to direct state funds to several lending institu-

tions in order to keep them solvent. According to Ferguson, Sterling’s

bankswere near collapse and in violation of state banking laws. Sterling’s

banks included a number of his family members as stockholders, which

added to his and their embarrassment. Ferguson agreed to deposit state

money to keep the banks out of receivership.The state funds that bailed

out the banks allowed Sterling to buy the Houston Post which, Fergu-son concluded, became ‘‘a scandal sheet to vilify me.’’ Ferguson labeled

Sterling ‘‘themost contemptible, ungrateful hound that ever lived on this

earth.’’ His attacks on the Sterling and the Post were just a warm-up for

the roasting Ferguson saved forWilliam P. Hobby.

Farmer Jim then turned his sights on Hobby, who became governor

164


when the state legislature forced Ferguson from office. Ferguson de-

scribed Hobby as ‘‘not very strong mentally.’’ Ferguson claimed his own

popularity brought Hobby into office on his coattails. ‘‘He is another

low-down, ungrateful dog that turned on the man that had made him,’’

Ferguson charged.When he realized that he would succeed Ferguson as

governor,Hobby linedupwith the enemy. Ferguson calledHobbya ‘‘low

despicable character’’ for allowing hismother to take the ‘‘pauper’s oath’’

to obtain an old-age pension while he made money as an elected offi-

cial and newspaper publisher.While serving as governor, Hobby’s wife

‘‘furnished the brains’’ and ‘‘ran things while he was going around half-

drunk,’’ Ferguson charged. Although embarrassed by Ferguson’s tirade,

Foster supported his observations about Mrs. Hobby. ‘‘You will doubt-

less agreewith him that the tribute to his wifewasmost deserved,’’ Foster

glibly wrote to Jones.66

Jesse Jones was busily working for Democratic presidential nominee

JohnW. Davis in 1924. He left no written record of his reaction, but he

undoubtedly noted the discord at home between Texas Democrats and

between theChronicle and the Post. By this time, Jones was philosophi-cally and politically aligned with Sterling, Hobby, and other establish-

ment Democrats against the Fergusons. But he realized therewas little to

gain in the local infighting, especiallywith his involvement in the national

campaign. However, Jones undoubtedly took note of Foster’s observa-

tions and comments. Foster wrote that while he had not been a Fergu-

son enthusiast, he admired Ferguson’s outspoken manner, regardless of

whomhe offended. Foster also revealed another secret to Jones.The edi-

tor noted he too had been subjected to ‘‘personal attacks’’ by the Post,so after Ferguson’s vitriolic speech, ‘‘I must admit that I have no tears

to shed.’’ However, the political controversy formed a breach between

Jones and Foster that would soon turn into a wide gulf over the future of

theChronicle.67

In the general election campaign,Miriam Ferguson again condemned

theKlan’s tactics.Shecalled for registrationofall secretorganizationsand

ananti-mask law.She rode theanti-Klancoalition tovictory inNovember,

withnearly285,000votes to233,000 forherRepublicanopponent.Even

though he never wanted their support, George Butte benefited from the

strongest Klan organizations. Houston, Dallas, Fort Worth, Beaumont,

andWaco, cities that traditionally votedDemocratic during this era, pro-

vided majorities for the Republican gubernatorial nominee. Klan sup-

porters tipped the balance in these areaswhen they joinedwith Ferguson

critics and bona fide Republican voters.68

165


Miriam and Jim Ferguson triumphantly returned to Austin in January

1925, riding in the same Packard in which they drove away in disgrace in

1917.Thousandsofpeopledescendedon thecapital towitness theFergu-

sons’ return to political power. Along with the change in administration,

new faces in other state offices and the legislature signaled trouble for

theKlan.The lieutenant governor, attorney general, andmany legislators

elected on anti-Klan pledges took office. Crusading newspaper editors

and local officials nowhadmore support in their battles against the secret

order, but everyone knew the conflict was far from over.

The Ferguson administration began on a conciliatory note. As a result

of the Fergusons’ conflict with the University of Texas and its powerful

alumni, which dated back to Jim Ferguson’s first term as governor, both

Fergusons met with members of the Texas Ex-Students’ Association to

bury the hatchet.The governorwanted the organization to submit names

for the seven positions open on the Board of Regents. Among the new

group of nominees recommended to the governor were two influential

newspaper editors whowere among themost outspoken critics of the Ku

Klux Klan: Marcellus Foster of the Houston Chronicle and Ted Dealey

of the Dallas Morning News. Dealey later declined the nomination, but

Foster accepted and the state senate confirmed the nomination.The Fer-

gusons made the selections for political reasons, but after the prominent

fight against theKlanwaged by these twomajor newspapers the appoint-

ments represented a major recognition of their role in making public the

actions of the Invisible Empire.69

In a session noted for austerity, the legislature approved an anti-Klan

bill thatmadeattacksonpersonswhilewearingamaskordisguisepunish-

able by a minimum of five years in prison. Lesser punishments extended

to thosewhoworemasks while in parades, entering churches, or appear-

ing in some public places. Governor Ferguson signed the bill with a pen

fashioned from a steer horn and stated, ‘‘[W]e are literally taking the bull

by the horns and breaking his neck.’’ The war of words directed at the

Klan was finally paying off. Klan membership was on the decline and

by mid-1925 stood at less than 100,000 members. Texas was no longer

ranked as the number one Klan state. Except for a battle with legislators

over an amnesty bill to restore Jim Ferguson’s political rights, Governor

Ferguson cooperated with the legislature and the state press. Nearly all

of the major newspapers in the state gave her high marks. Foster and the

Chronicle remained among her strongest advocates.70

Although many Ferguson opponents feared that liquor would re-

166


appear, no significant legislative or editorial battles erupted. As legisla-

tors left Austin for home inMay 1925, harmony best described the atmo-

sphere. However, knowledgeable capitol insiders and reporters noted

that while Miriam Ferguson performed her duties, Jim set up his own

adjacent office.The former governor attended meetings of state boards,

agencies, and commissions and regularly met with legislators and others

involved in major decisions, especially those that involved money. Al-

though some scholars now believe that Miriam Ferguson exerted more

authority in the decision-making process thanpreviouslyacknowledged,

Jim Ferguson undoubtedly maintained a strong influence. The ‘‘Gover-

nors Ferguson’’ were observed having heated exchanges, and she often

disagreed publiclywith her husband.Nevertheless, Jim’s activities as gu-

bernatorial advisor soon created political headaches for his wife.

Jim Ferguson remained at odds with former governor and newspaper

publisher William P. Hobby, the man who replaced him in the gover-

nor’s office. He also intensely disliked Fort Worth Star-Telegram pub-

lisher AmonCarter.OnNovember 28, 1925, the Fergusons announced a

$500 reward for the arrest and conviction ofwealthy liquor law violators,

thoseworth at least $5,000.The announcement, without openly naming

Hobby or Carter or other wealthy Texans who violated the Prohibition

laws, clearly had an impact on the state’s publishers. At this time, the

state’s prison ranks were swollen with poor people who had been con-

victed for violations such as manufacturing moonshine for personal use.

The Fergusons accused Carter of being drunk at the University of Texas

andTexasA&Mfootball game in 1925. JimFergusonalso said thatCarter

held a party for someFortWorth oilmen andgave his guests souvenir imi-

tationBibles and hollowcanes—each ofwhich contained liquor.Miriam

Ferguson claimed that Carter was waving one of the suspect canes at the

football game when stadium police escorted him from the event.

Not to be outdone, Carter used the event to promote himself and his

battle with the Fergusons. After the confrontation at the football game,

praise poured in for Carter and found its way into the pages of the Star-Telegram. Hundreds of letters and telegrams congratulated him for his

public confrontation with the Fergusons. Bryce L. Twitty of the Dallas

Public Schools wrote that the ‘‘present regime is leading head-over-heels

to anarchy and we need more men like ourself and Mr. Moody.’’ F. S.

Osmon of Houston wrote that the Ferguson administration wanted to

‘‘get the public mind away from the more shameful conditions at Austin,

especially in the State Highway Department.’’ P. L. Agar in New York

167


City told Carter, ‘‘I had a good time [talking to] Marcellus Foster a year

ago . . . about his support for this dear old lady. I told him then I thought

he would live to see the day that he would regret it.’’71

As the battle raged on in the newspapers, Governor Ferguson wrote

Carter on November 30 and requested his resignation from the West

TexasTechnological College Board.The storymade front-page news on

the following day as Carter released the information to the state’s press.

The Star-Telegram headline announced ‘‘Carter Refuses to Resign from

Tech Board’’ and the Morning News announced ‘‘Resignation of Carter

Asked byGovernor.’’ In the news article, GovernorMiriam Ferguson ac-

cused Carter of operating an ‘‘old-fashioned barroom’’ that included a

bar with a foot rail and sawdust on the floor for the Oil Men’s Associa-

tion in Fort Worth. At a party, Carter gave souvenir canes to his guests

that contained a hidden vial ‘‘some 30 inches in length that contained ap-

proximately one pint of beverage.’’ Governor Ferguson claimed to have

one of the suspected canes in her possession.72

R.A.Underwood, a Plainviewbankerand vice chairman of the board,

toldCarter that his departure from the boardwould be ‘‘disastrous to the

college; itwouldbedisastrous toWesternTexas, and theState of Texas as

a whole.’’ Former governor Pat Neff, who appointed Carter to the board,

instructed him to ‘‘stay put’’ and said that any thoughts of resignation

wouldbea ‘‘foolish thing.’’TexasTechpresidentP.W.HornurgedCarter

to stayandpraised him forcontributions ‘‘no otherman in the state could

have rendered.’’ The public battle died down at the end of the year, but

the animosity between Carter and the Fergusons remained for years.73

TheFerguson administrationbegan to run intomoreproblems as they

replaced the Klan as the primary political news item. Miriam Ferguson

announced in her first message to the legislature that she would follow a

liberal pardonpolicy.Duringher first year in office, she signedover 1,200

pardons, paroles, and other types of reprieves. The generous pardon

policy soon aroused sharp criticism from the press andmanycommunity

leaders. Some opposed the policy because of their sincere opposition

to alcohol and those who trafficked in liquor. Critics emphasized that

the release of convicts associated with Prohibition violations occurred

because Jim Ferguson was a wet and took money in exchange for influ-

encing his wife’s decisions. Rumors of bribery circulated, but no proof

was ever obtained. Governor Ferguson challenged her critics when she

announcedplans to releaseup to seventy-five tubercular inmates andpar-

doned forty-five ‘‘penniless and friendless’’ African American prisoners

in recognition of Juneteenth. Jim Ferguson told theChronicle that ‘‘poli-

168


ticians were trying to scare up an issue to run for governor on next year’’

but predicted ‘‘they can’t win on it.’’74

Additional criticism was stirred up by stories of irregularities involv-

ing the selection of state-purchased student textbooks and Jim Fergu-

son’s promotion of his newspaper, theFerguson Forum, to firms that hadbusiness with the state.The state highway department became the most

contested agency because of the vast sums of money it spent and its large

number of employees. In 1925 the state highway department employed

3,500 individuals and had a budget for construction andmaintenance of

$20million annually.The amount exceeded the combined expenditures

forpublic andhighereducation in the state.Thehighwaycommissioners,

appointed by the governor, invited Jim Ferguson to sit with them at their

meetings. From the time Miriam Ferguson took office in January 1925,

Jim Ferguson never missed a meeting and all the sessions were closed to

the public. Contracts began to be awarded to individuals and companies

that had no experience in highway construction. Huge sums of money

were delivered to these firms—all of whom were Ferguson supporters

and advertised in the Ferguson Forum.75

Louis W. Kemp, the new executive secretary of the Texas Highway

and Municipal Contractors Association, quickly brought up a number

of irregularities in state highway contracts for public scrutiny. Following

a visit with Jim Ferguson on August 15, Kempwent to Attorney General

Dan Moody about allegations that the Sherman-Youmans Construction

Company of Houston was using state equipment for a private paving

contract. Kemp also reported on other questionable practices involving

the state highway department. Moody subsequently filed an injunction

against the Sherman-Youmans Company. Ferguson denounced the suit

as a political trick instigated by his enemies. ‘‘The whole thing started

with a bunch of Ku Kluxers and a few sore-head contractors who have

been kicked away from the pie counter,’’ Ferguson told the Chronicle.Kemp countered with a series of articles published byDonH. Biggers in

the JohnsonCity RecordCourier, a small weekly publication nearAustin.The articles, published in the column ‘‘The Goat Bleats,’’ detailed alle-

gations of excessive expenditures, arbitrary bids, unfulfilled contracts,

and shoddy work. In the meantime, the attorney general continued his

investigation of the highway department.76

The case that caused the greatest embarrassment for the Ferguson ad-

ministration involved the American Road Company. Attorney General

Moody filed suit against the company seeking to recover $650,000 of

excess profits. Moody announced that the company, chartered in Dela-

169


ware for the sole purpose of securing contracts from theTexas Highway

Commission, subcontracted work at slightly more than $600,000 and

pocketed over $1.1 million in profits. In the subsequent settlement in late

November, the company returnedover$285,000 to the state treasuryand

agreed to cancel all business in Texas. Frank Lanham and Joe Burkett,

two of the three state highway commissioners, also resigned in the midst

of the scandal. Members of the legislature began calling for a special ses-

sion, and talk of impeachment involving aGovernorFergusononce again

swept the state.77

In 1919 theChronicle settled a series of lawsuits filed by Jim Ferguson

in Bell County that alleged libelous and defamatory statements. Fergu-

son agreed to a $15,000 settlement.78Foster defended Jim Ferguson fre-

quently in his editorial columns. ‘‘For a man who is so often described

by his enemies as the ‘champion of crookedness,’ Jim Ferguson seems

to profit personally very little. When he was thrown out of the gover-

nor’s office eight years ago hewas practically bankrupt.’’ Foster said that

‘‘Farmer Jim’’ repurchased his 8,900-acre Bosque County ranch with a

note and was still paying off debts from his business and political pur-

suits. Ferguson was ‘‘more successful talking to farmers than in making

a farm profitable.’’79

Foster’s support for the Fergusons met with criticism and praise from

readers. One critic said that he refused to subscribe, ‘‘not because you

fought the Ku Klux Klan so hard, but because you fought for the Fergu-

sons.’’ H. Thomas, who said he always voted Democratic, would vote a

Republican ticket beforevoting for a Ferguson. ‘‘Awaywith JimFerguson

as well as the tar and feather element.’’ E. O. Zeanon said that Ma Fergu-

son was ‘‘one of the finest women that has ever trod Texas soil,’’ and that

‘‘with Jim Ferguson her legal advisor’’ she would show the people that

they had ‘‘the greatest administration that Texas has ever known.’’80

Foster included Jones andhis business activities in his columns.While

he was away in New York, Jones kept in communication with his asso-

ciates in Houston. He spent at least thirty minutes each day talking to

his bank, hotel, lawyers, contractors, architects, and friends. The cost

was about $100 per day, ‘‘but he says it’s lots cheaper than visitingHous-

ton every time he wants something done.’’ Jones constructed a number

of buildings in NewYork during the 1920s including the Mayfair Hotel

at Sixty-second Street and an apartment building on Fifth Avenue. Jones

maintained an office on Madison Avenue.81

Foster’s counterpart at theHouston Post-Dispatch,George M. Bailey,

maintained a different slant on Jim Ferguson.The Fergusons had a large

170


following as a result of ‘‘1300 or morewho have been deprisoned during

the past year.’’ Bailey focused his attacks on the get-rich-quick schemes

of the American Road Company and applauded Attorney General Dan

Moody’s effort to recover $650,000 of the contract.82

The conflict over the Fergusons led to a war of words between Bailey

andFoster.BaileydescribedFosterasa ‘‘funny littleman’’whose ‘‘tattered

garments of respectability have been patched with cloth from the locker

of Jim Ferguson.’’ Bailey denied accusations that the Post was ‘‘klan-controlled or has any klan sympathies or affiliations.’’ In his reply, Foster

stated that Ross Sterling, the prominent owner of thePost-Dispatch,was‘‘one of the original troglodytes of SamHoustonKlan no. 1’’ which hated

theChronicle and its editor.Beginning in 1909, Foster and Jones entered into a series of financial

agreements through which Foster was provided equity in the Houston

ChroniclePublishingCompany.Foster remainedaspresidentof thecom-

pany and editor-in-chief of the newspaper. The first contract provided

JonesandFostereachwith$72,200ofcapital stockof thecompanywhose

value was placed at $200,000. The pair agreed not to sell stock unless

both men agreed to it.The contract also specified buyout provisions for

one another should Jones and Foster disagree over management and edi-

torial policy.83

M.E.Tracy informed Jones of the sale of thePost in 1924 toRoss Ster-ling, the Houston oil executive and future governor. The Hearst news-

paper chain failed in its efforts to obtain the Post. ‘‘If Hearst is so anxious

to get intoHouston hewill not fail to make a good bid for theChronicle,’’Tracypredicted.Tracy said that theChronicle suffered froma lot of ‘‘dead

timber’’ and that morale and efficiency suffered. Tracy said he had no

quarrel with the editorial policy but was critical of the management of

the newspaper. ‘‘You have backed both Mr. Foster and theChronicle likea Spartan,’’ Tracy stated. Jones apparently replied he had no intention

at that time of changing management or selling the newspaper. At the

time, Joneswas busyas finance chairman for theDemocratic presidential

nominee and the Democratic National Committee.84

However, thesimmeringdisputebetweenFosterandJonessoonboiled

over. At the end of 1925, Foster wrote a series of letters to Jones com-

plaining about thePost and attacks authoredbyRoss Sterling. ‘‘His refer-

ences tome have been very sneering and untruthful, including deliberate

mis-quotations, but I hardly think it worthwhile to take him seriously,’’

Foster wrote. A few days later, Foster said, ‘‘[O]ne of the things about

this business that is always somewhat disheartening and discouraging is

171


the fact that I must submit to the vile attacks of vile creatures like R. S.

Sterling.’’ Foster added, ‘‘He has such a hate for me that I know hewould

be glad to employ one of his dirty henchmen to even cut my throat, if

he thought he could do it without being seen.’’ Jones tersely responded,

‘‘[Y]ou do yourself no credit or the Chronicle in continuing to slur and

discredit him though I suppose the feud will continue as long as you

both are in the newspaper business.’’ Jones voiced further concerns. He

told Foster that although he had been directed to hold regular meetings

with theChronicle’s directors, ‘‘you failed to call any meetings or to havethem.’’ Jones also warned Foster, ‘‘[Y]ou have overdrawn your account

very heavily without authority from the Board of Directors and suggest

that you arrange to pay the overdraft.’’ Jones informed Foster that W. O.

Huggins would represent him in all matters during his absence from

Houston.85

As thedisputeover theFergusons andChroniclepolicywidened, JonesemployedW.O.Huggins, also amemberof theChronicle board, to serveas an intermediary. Huggins held several sessions with Foster in Novem-

ber and December 1925. Huggins provided lengthy memos to Jones

following each conversation. Huggins reported that although Foster re-

mained cordial, he said that Jones failed to understand the political and

financial implicationsof thenewspaper. ‘‘He said that youhadnever tried

to do things that would expand the business of the Chronicle, that youhad never put a cent into it but had always been taking from it,’’ Hug-

ginswrote to Jones.The following day,Huggins urged Jones to intervene

and remove Foster from the Chronicle. Huggins and Foster discussed a

buyout. After some discussion, Foster wanted $750,000.Huggins urged

Jones to act. ‘‘There has never before been a time when you would be

supported by the public in taking charge as amajority stockholder as you

would be at this moment and there probably will never be such a time

again,’’ Huggins stated.86

Jones replied toHuggins a fewdays later.His statements indicated that

Jones had alreadydecided to remove Foster. Although Jones admitted he

was ‘‘reluctant to take control of the property . . . his attitude toward me

does not warrant any special consideration.’’ Jones accused Foster of a

desire to ‘‘deceive the public and the heads of the departments as to the

ownership of the stock and altogether occupy a false position.’’ He also

said thatFoster’s regularcolumnswere ‘‘in agreatpart sillyand frequently

objectionable and offensive to a large part of the clientele.’’ Finally, Jones

said, ‘‘the principal purpose of the corporation during the last two years

172


apparently has been to furnish an ample supply of cash for extravagant

living, and an outlet for intimate personal views that are not interesting

to many people.’’ Jones concluded, ‘‘[W]e must remember that his state

of mind is not good and I should like to apply the Golden Rule, but it is

not easy for ordinary mortals to turn the other cheek.’’87

TheexchangesbetweenFoster,Huggins, and Jones stand in stark con-

trast to the account in BascomTimmons’ biography of Jones.Timmons

maintains that ‘‘[r]elationsbetween Jones andFoster remained amicable’’

during this period. In this account, the entire discussion and settlement

occurred during ameeting in Jones’ NewYork hotel in 1926.While Jones

andFostermet inNewYork, themeetingwasnot a simplediscussionover

editorial policy. The session was merely the culmination of the growing

division between the two men. The author alludes only to the political

disagreements between Jones and Foster and makes no mention of the

mistrust and accusations. Clearly, Jones was ready to make a change—

with or without Foster’s agreement.88

In early 1926, the twenty-year relationship between Jones and Foster

came to an end.OnFebruary 20, Foster sold his interests in theChronicleto Jones for $162,500 cash and $500,000 in bonds. Foster would remain

as president of theChronicle at $20,000 per year but could be terminatedby mutual consent. Foster agreed that he would not work for another

publication for ten years unless he obtained Jones’ consent. In a letter

to Foster following the agreement, Jones told his former partner, ‘‘[W]e

have no fear about the future of ‘TheChronicle.’ Itmay not always follow

your ideas but we are going to try to have it stand for the best interests

of the community that it serves. None of us have our talent or brilliancy

in writing but we will do the best we can.’’ After a summer vacation in

California, Foster returned to theChronicle for the remainder of the year.In 1927, he assumed the reins as editor-in-chief of theHouston Press, theScripps-Howard afternoon daily in Houston.

89

Foster seldommentioned the division from theChronicle. In an inter-view many years later, he said that he sold his share of the business ‘‘be-

cause of stockholding controversies that nearly wrecked my brain and

health.Went to California that year and slept, rested and played for six

months.’’ He returned to Houston where he ‘‘was asked to take editorial

charge of theHouston Press.’’ Foster remarked that his association with

Scripps-Howardwas ‘‘the happiest of all my long newspaper life. I know

they have nothing to sell on the side—nothing they want to promote.’’

Foster remained as editor of the Press until 1941 and died in 1942.90

173


Commercial Radio Comes to TexasIn the midst of the struggles with the Klan and the social changes of the

1920s, the major daily newspapers in Texas made a significant step that

wouldultimatelychange thenatureof theirmediaholdings.WFAARadio

became one of the first fifty commercial radio stations that went on the

air in 1921.Within a few years, the number of stations across the nation

numbered several hundred and consumer purchases of radios for home

and business boomed. The Texas daily newspaper publishers entered

the new communications market, not entirely confident or clear on the

mission of the newest form of mass media.

Walter Dealey, a son of George B. Dealey, first became interested in

the radio as an extension of theDallasMorningNews operations.He ob-

tained the first license in Texas in June 1921 for radio stationWRR after

convincing his skeptical father to approve the venture. ‘‘If we put in a

sending station now, it will be comparable to when theGalveston DailyNews established a branch paper in Dallas. Back then the idea was to

ship the news by wire.The time has come to ship the news by wireless,’’

the younger Dealey successfully argued. A. J. Tyrer, an official with the

Department of Commerce, notified the News of its approval for a broad-cast license with the call lettersWFAA.The Office of the Radio Inspec-

tor in New Orleans issued the License for Land Radio Station no. 456

on June 14, 1922. The News radio team, upon receiving theWFAA call

letters, determined that this would stand for ‘‘Working for All Alike,’’

and the station was promoted as ‘‘a radio service of the Dallas Morn-ing News.’’91

The first broadcast took place on June 26, 1922. As reported in the

News daily edition, ‘‘[N]ews bulletins of the Dallas Morning News andtheDallas Journal are broadcast by radio at 9 p.m. daily except Sunday.’’The article stated that prior to the news reports, the results of baseball

games would be announced.The early broadcasts in the 1920s included

entertainment, music, and religious programs. Classical, jazz, religious,

and hillbilly music entertained listeners in the earliest years. At the end

of 1922, an article stated that jazz music appeared to be on the rise as

an audience favorite.The News reported, ‘‘Dizzy Four leads with RadioFans,’’ from the number of letters received by the station about this local

jazz group.92

Other stations popped up across the state, many of them owned and

operated by major daily newspapers. These included WBAP in Fort

Worth, owned by Amon Carter’s Star-Telegram; KPRC in Houston,

owned by Ross Sterling and the Houston Post; WOAI in San Antonio,

174


owned by Frank Huntress’ Express-News. Jesse Jones owned station

KTRH in Houston but did not officially combine it with the Chronicleuntil 1934. During the 1920s, Texas developed more stations than its

counterparts in other southern states.This became a point of contention

for many southern politicians. Southern radio stations and the number

of radios owned by southern families trailed the rest of the nation for

the next two decades. By 1930, three out of every four families in the

North had access to a radio. In the South, barely one of every three fami-

lies tuned in to commercial radio broadcasts. More stations broadcast in

Texas by 1930 than any other southern state.93

WFAA in Dallas became the first radio station to offer educational

programs and radio dramas, including the series ‘‘Dramatic Moments

in Texas History.’’ The station carried the first state championship foot-

ball game.Within the first year, the station carried weather reports, news

analysis in a ‘‘Current History’’ segment, farm programs, and play-by-

play reports of baseball and football games. However, these were not

live. Announcers read from newswire reports. Broadcasting took place

in the offices of the News building and were later moved to the Baker

Hotel indowntownDallas.After 1925, the stationoccasionally broadcast

a women’s program on topics that included music, fashion, and home-

making. The daily editions of the News featured theWFAA schedule as

part of its efforts to promote both its print and broadcast enterprises.

Agricultural news and weather expanded in the first years of operation.

In 1925, a surveyof radio listeners to farmprograms inTexas,Oklahoma,

and Louisiana showed that WFAA and WBAP in Fort Worth were two

of the top five stations in the three-state region.94

In his 1923 report to stockholders, Dealey explained the purpose of

WFAA and the investment in it. He said that the total cost of the 500-

watt transmitter and other equipment came to $18,000, while expenses

ran from $600 to $700 per month. ‘‘While this is a rather heavy expense,

still we believe that the investment has been well worth while from the

standpoint of building good-will for our papers,’’ the publisher stated.

In the early years of operation,WFAA offered no advertising. Thus the

corporation absorbed all of the operational costs. AsDealey explained in

his statement, publishers saw the radio stations as an extension of their

news andpublic service operations, not as a source of revenue.This view

changed within a few years, as commercial advertising became another

source of funds for the corporation. However, even with the growth of

revenues from business advertising, the company refused to accept po-

litical ads for candidates during the 1920s. In its renewal application in

175


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

1927, M. L. Goodwin described the type of stations desired by the gov-

ernment’s licensing agency, the Federal Radio Commission. Goodwin

advisedWalter Dealey that the company should include comments with

its application stating that WFAA refused to allow ‘‘use of the station

for political campaigning’’ and that the station was ‘‘high class in every

respect.’’95

Jesse Jones came to a similar conclusion inHouston. His attorney and

friendW.O.Huggins told Jones thatby1928theHoustonPost hadstartedusing advertisements during its broadcasts on KPRC. The announce-

ments resulted from the ‘‘free service given to users of space in the Post-Dispatch,’’ Huggins stated. ‘‘It makes it very hard and often impossible

for theChronicle to competewith thePost-Dispatch as to that advertiser.’’The Chronicle board members had resisted investing in a radio station

176


because of the negligible returns. ‘‘It looks like the time has come when

wecanno longer ignore the radio,’’Huggins said.By the endof the 1920s,

the Chronicle joined the growing number of major daily newspapers in

Texas and theSouthwhoowned a radio station as an integral part of their

media enterprise.96

Battles Won and LostThe pivotal battles against the Klan and the more widespread cru-

sade against the Ferguson administration reaffirmed the leadership of

the major Texas publishers and their newspapers. As political leaders

dodged the Klan or joined forces with the Invisible Empire, only a hand-

ful of newspaper publishers and editors took a proactive, public stance

of defiance. In addition to confronting the Klan in print, Dealey, Foster,

Jones, and others worked behind the scenes to encourage opposition in

the business and professional community and among the elected leader-

ship. In doing so, they also strengthened their own position as leaders

in civic and political affairs. Their challenge also grew from the belief

that the new urban middle-class economy of the region faced a direct

challenge from the Klan.The Klan conflicted with the prosperous, mod-

ern image that the newspaper publishers had defined over the previous

two decades. Newspaper readers and advertisers were not always loyal,

especially when publications took unpopular positions, but theMorningNews and theChronicle, the twomost vocal opponents of the Klan, man-aged to survive themayhemandexpand theirauthority in thecommunity.

The clash with the Klan represented a turning point in the relation-

ship between the perception of the daily newspaper and its role in the

community. Many critics of the time saw the newspapers as contributing

to the divisions in society. Although both critics and supporters of the

Klan utilized the media for their own advantage, the rifts created within

the commercial elites and thepolitical establishment created instability in

Texas during these boom years.The newspapers, and particularly those

editors and publishers who took unpopular public stands, established

their publications as targets for retaliation.Newspaperaudiences and ad-

vertisers demonstrated that loyalty was not blind and complete. Choices

weremade on issues other thanwhich paper had the broadest circulation

or provided the most information.

As in nearlyevery type of conflict, even thevictors suffercasualties and

losses. George B. Dealey, the Morning Newsmanagement, and the BeloCompany suffered financial losses for several years in the early 1920s. In-

ternal questions arose over Dealey’s management and leadership. Rival

177


newspapers in the region, primarily the Times Herald and the Star-Telegram, clearly benefited from the turmoil. Carter and the Star-Telegram purchased the FortWorth Record from theHearst Newspapers

in 1925, therebyconsolidating the FortWorth daily as the dominant pub-

lication inWest Texas.The uncertainty during the dark days of Klan su-

premacy undoubtedly led to Belo’s decision to sell theGalveston News.The battle with the Klan and the Fergusons led to friction and the ulti-

mate break between Marcellus Foster and Jesse H. Jones at theHoustonChronicle. Although both theChronicle and theMorning News emergedfrom theseprolongedbattles in thepostWorldWar I era, the composition

and voice of both institutions significantly changed. Despite dramatic

changes, these publishers and their individual enterprises contributed to

modernization through expansion, improved public services, and better

technologies. By the end of the 1920s, the major dailies in the state ex-

panded their financial positions and circulations as they increased their

influence in public affairs. They also reasserted their political influence

at the local and state levels. With the demise of the Klan and the defeat

of the Fergusons, the political front remained static until the 1930s and

the Great Depression.

On the surface, the Fergusons offered a clear alternative to the Klan.

While Fergusonism offered a definitive alternative to the Invisible Em-

pire, it also represented views that ran counter to thoseof themajor news-

paper publishers. The Fergusons represented a voice from the past that

represented the rural, uneducated, andpoor. In the eyes of the daily pub-

lishers, the Fergusons and their supporters represented a view that op-

posedProgressive reformasdefinedby thepublishers.MarcellusFoster’s

vocal support for the Fergusons contributed to his demise as an inte-

gral part of the Houston Chronicle. As part of their effort to transform

and modernize the state, the publishers’ confrontations with the forces

of traditionalism secured their position as proponents of modernization.

However, the road to modernism held unforeseen twists and turns for

newspaper publishers. The struggles with the Klan and the Fergusons

during the booming years of the 1920s left an indelible mark. The vic-

tory over the forces of southern traditionalism did little to significantly

improve the relationship between white Texans and minorities. Those

changes would not begin to emerge until the 1930s.

178

CHAPTER 6

Texas Newspapers, the Crash of1929, and the Great Depression

In the months following theWall Street crash

of 1929, many people in the United States, including

throughoutTexas, refused tobelieve that hard timeswere ahead.

Despite the many danger signals that had appeared years beforehand,

most Americans were stunned at the stock market’s October collapse.

AfterOctober 29, 1929, themarket lost more than 40 percent of its value

in a matter of a few weeks. President Herbert Hoover, in his first year

of office after his smashing victory in 1928, also refused to recognize

the problem or understand its ramifications. Like most Americans, he

believed that the economy was sound and that the market would cor-

rect itself. Most Texas officials and business and civic leaders supported

President Hoover’s views. Dallas business leaders predicted a rebound

‘‘to the great benefit of legitimate business throughout the country.’’ The

San Antonio Express boasted, ‘‘Here is no boom, no artificial inflation

of values or fictitious prosperity based upon the shifting sands of rash

speculation and unsound promotion.’’1

Realities of the Depression soon descended on even the most opti-

misticof Texans.TheDepressionandthereaction to theeconomicdown-

turn introduced new trends that accelerated during the war years and in

the postwar era. Although still prevalent at the outbreak of WorldWar II,

significant cracks showed in the southern foundation of tradition, class,

and racial order.Adecline in sharecropping and rural poverty, challenges

to the all-white primary, growth in urban areas, the increase in federal

initiatives—all these and more had led to disruption of institutions and

attitudes inTexas and other southern states.Unionization, public power,

bridges, dams and paved roads, federal relief efforts, and many other

reforms spread across the Dixie landscape, graphically illustrating the

initially under-appreciated social revolution underway.2

Even as late as the spring of 1931, predictions were still being made


that the Depression was to be short lived. No Texas elites anticipated a

challenge to the prevailing social order. The Fort Worth Star-Telegramstated, ‘‘[I]nAmerica,wedon’t knowwhathard timesare.Certainly these

times are not hard, except for the utterly improvident, the idle, and the

shiftless—and all times are hard on them.’’ The newspaper failed to talk

about the difficulties now facing most Texans. Nearly two years after the

Wall Street crash, the construction business had disappeared completely

in most Texas cities and towns. Although pockets of prosperity existed

in the state, most of the agricultural areas suffered.The oil industry con-

tinued to pump money and jobs into the state’s economy but could not

absorb all of the unemployed workers.

The discovery of oil in the great East Texas field in 1931 that drew

people fromTexas and surrounding states failed to offset growing unem-

ployment. An estimated 10,000 laborers who traveled to the East Texas

boom area could not find jobs.The January 1, 1931, edition of theDallasMorning News featured a photo of six jobless men huddled around an

open fire within sight of the Dallas skyline. In Houston, where oil was

stored, refined, and shipped, nearly one in four remained out of work.

‘‘Hobo camps’’ popped up along the San Antonio River and otherTexas

communities.3

By 1931mostTexans realized thedifficulties now facing themwere not

ephemeral. Banks around the state began to close for lack of funds and

from unsound investments. Foreclosures of businesses and farms began

to rise in 1931.Also, in urban areas layoffs began to increase as businesses

reduced their payrolls and scaled back on production and services.The

TexasNationalBank inFortWorth closed its doors in January 1930when

it could not provide money to all of its depositors. In September 1931,

San Antonio’s City Central Bank andTrust Company failed.TheCity of

San Antonio lost nearly 20 percent of its annual budget when the bank

closed. San Antonio forced many of its public employees to leave their

jobs. The city also abandoned its relief program for the unemployed.

People remained nervous about their money in local banks. Many hid

money in mattresses and buried cash in jars behind their homes.4

Dallas Morning News publisher George Dealey warned his managerslate in the summerof 1931 that the economic downturnwas creating sub-

stantial problems for the newspaper. ‘‘Our establishment is geared up

andmanned foramaximumvolumeof business butwe are suffering from

a minimum,’’ Dealey revealed. He urged all department heads to work

‘‘harder than ever to increase receipts and in saving every possible dol-

lar of unnecessary expense.’’ Concerned that such an admission might

180

Newspapers and the Great Depression

create tension in the newspaper’s offices, Dealey informed only a small

number of employees. ‘‘For obvious reasons I am not sending this mes-

sage inwriting to eachdepartment, but asking all to come tomyoffice and

read it. Please consider it private and confidential.’’ The dire letter con-

tained the initials of twenty-six staff members. Even with the lean years,

no employees lost their jobs on the News from layoffs or cutbacks. As

long-time employee Tom Simmons observed, nearly everyone believed

in the ‘‘two most difficult tasks—the second most difficult was getting

employed at theDallas News and the first most difficult was getting fired

by theDallas News.’’5

DallasMorningNews editor DickWest began his career at the daily in

the Depression years.West recalled that many journalism graduates en-

listed their parents’ aid to obtain newspaper jobs. ‘‘Their fathers, if they

had anymoney,were paying newspapers to hire them.’’West startedwith

the News at $15.40 per week and was ‘‘very glad’’ to have both the job

and the money.6

For rural Texans, hard times seemed to be a fact of life even before

the October 1929 crash. The situation deteriorated further in the early

1930s.Cotton, the state’s numberone cash crop, fell to five cents a pound

by 1931. At those prices, farmers needed three times the amount of cot-

ton to make payments on their bills. Prices for corn and cattle dropped

to half their 1929 levels. Prices for all types of items fell during the same

period, but the money farmers received from their crops dropped even

faster.Tomakemattersworse, cottonproduction reached17millionbales

in 1931, the second-largest crop ever harvested in the state. Texas and

other southern states considered government action to halt the freefall in

cotton prices but were unsuccessful.7

Faced with mounting costs, the state legislature looked for areas

to reduce spending. A special legislative committee recommended the

closing of four-year public colleges in Alpine, Nacogdoches, Canyon,

SanMarcos, andKingsville.The legislators undoubtedlydreaded the re-

action of any public recommendations for cuts at the University of Texas

or Texas A&M. But they fearlessly concluded that Texas had too many

colleges and that they were an ‘‘unnecessary extravagance and a burden

on the taxpayers.’’ The report frightened each of the small college host

cities targeted and received critical responses from their small daily pub-

lishers. The San Marcos Daily Record wondered why so many colleges

were marked for ‘‘slaughter’’ and asked, ‘‘[W]hy doom the Texas State

Teachers Colleges which are economically administered and have the

largest groups of students in the state?’’ After themajordaily newspapers

181


alsopickedupthecry, the legislature failed toacton the recommendation.

But the colleges saw substantial reductions in their budgets, while teach-

ers and professor salaries experienced smaller paychecks after 1932.8

TheDepressionhitminoritycitizens especiallyhard.Officials in some

cities denied relief to Mexican Americans and African Americans on the

grounds that whiteTexans needed the limited funds and jobs.The Rev-

erend C. C.White, an African Americanminister in the East Texas com-

munity of Jacksonville, worked to keep his family and church together.

He and his wife, Ada, provided food formany friends and strangers who

appeared at their kitchen door. ‘‘There wasn’t any money,’’ White said,

‘‘and hungry folks got to where they’d be around our house about sup-

pertime.’’ Meals often consisted of nothing more than cornbread.9

Unless mentioned as part of a crime, fewAfrican Americansmade the

pages of the state’s dailies. The economic plight of minorities in a Jim

Crow state received scant attention in the press or in the halls of gov-

ernment. Even in editorial offices that saw themselves as tolerant and

not as judgmental as the rest of the population, prejudice manifested its

presence in the day-to-day operations. In a memo to his editors, George

Dealeycommentedon theuseof theword ‘‘Negro’’ andwhen it shouldbe

capitalized. ‘‘When used as an adjective, theword should not be capital-

ized,’’ Dealey explained. ‘‘For example, negro church, negroDemocrats,

negro murderers. Use lower case.’’10

As the economy deteriorated, newspapers and some civic leaders

urged private charities and local governments to provide relief and jobs.

However, most could not cope with all the demands placed on them by

the unemployed and the thousands of farm and city families seeking as-

sistance. Furthermore, no organization possessed the resources to meet

the growing disaster.TheRedCross, the SalvationArmy, church organi-

zations, and other private groups announced by 1931 that they could not

meet the increasing demands for food, shelter, and financial assistance.

As theDepression held its grip on the state and nation in the early 1930s,

peoplebegan to realize thatprivateorganizations, local governments, and

good intentions could not turn the economy around. By the time the

national election arrived in November 1932, Texans and the rest of the

nation were looking for a new leader to take on the Great Depression.

The Houston Bank CrisisBy the fall of 1931, two of Houston’s seven banks were practically insol-

vent.The Public National Bank&Trust and the Houston National both

were considering closing their doors. Jesse Jones, before he became head

182


of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC), called a meeting of

all top-level bankers in the city at his thirty-third-floor office in the Gulf

Building to resolve the pending financial crisis of the two banks. The

group convenedon aSundayafternoon,October 25, 1931, and spent two

days in negotiations in an effort to reach a cooperative agreement to re-

solve the dilemma. Finally, the group agreed to obtain capital from the

five solvent lending institutions to prop up the two failing banks and to

raise additional contributions from the local utilities and a cotton bro-

kerage firm.

Throughout the twoextendedsessions in Jones’ office,no information

appeared in the daily newspapers until the beleaguered financial leaders

had reached a final agreement. Jones easily quashed the story in his own

publication. As the bankers sweated over their decisions and possibly

other financial institutions in the region neared collapse, the HoustonPost-Dispatch carried stories on German war reparations to the United

States and announced the kickoff of the annual Community Chest cam-

paign for needycitizens.The omission of news coveragewas not byover-

sight but design.11

In his book onhis years as head of theReconstructionFinanceCorpo-

ration, Jones cited theHouston crisis as a precursor to others that would

follow as the Depression continued. ‘‘With all our care and precautions,

it had not been possible for all the leading bankers in town to hold two

all-night meetings without a considerable number of people knowing of

it and wondering what it was all about,’’ Jones stated. In order to avert

a run on the Houston banks and prevent any premature news coverage

of the agreement, Jones said he persuaded the Houston Post-Dispatchto delay news of the agreement until their morning edition on Tuesday,

October 27. The National Bank of Commerce, in which Jones was the

primary investor, took over the PublicNational Bank&Trust. As a result

of the consolidation, the National Bank of Commerce was ‘‘one of the

largest and strongest banks in the city.’’The familyof JosephF.MeyerSr.,

pioneers in theHouston business community, acquired theHoustonNa-

tional Bank.The following day, thePost-Dispatchwistfully noted the an-nouncements ‘‘should serve to stimulate a feeling of optimismwhich has

not been apparent in the city for some time.’’12

The unprecedented secret agreement saved the city’s banks andmany

smallerareabanks thatweredependent on themajor lending institutions.

Jones used his position during this crisis to suppress a story that he be-

lieved would not only damage the banks in Houston but also harm the

spirit and image of the community. As owner of the Chronicle, he had

183


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

no problem in limiting coverage of the bankers’ closed-door meetings.

Jones also had provided behind-the-scenes loans to businessman Jack

Josey and William P. Hobby to purchase the Post-Dispatch from Ster-

ling. Because of Jones’ aid in the purchase of the Post-Dispatch,Hobby

undoubtedly felt an obligation to withhold coverage at Jones’ request.

In this case, Jones determined that the public’s right to know was tem-

porarily offset by the impending crisis, which was narrowly averted as

a result of the joint agreement. As Jones and others stated for years to

come, as a result of the agreement no bank runs occurred and not one

Houston lending institution failed during the Depression.13

Jones remained veryadept at creating publicity for himself, andhewas

just as canny at withholding information until the proper moment. The

lessons he learned in Houston served him time and again when he be-

came chairman of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation in February

1932. As head of the RFC, Jones held press conferences as often as twice

a week. Jones frequently asked correspondents not to disclose specific

184


information if he felt the informationmight be ‘‘hurtful.’’ In return, Jones

built a working relationship with the press. ‘‘I had the best possible co-

operation from the correspondents,’’ he said. ‘‘They were really helpful

in dispelling fear.’’14

Politics and News of the Great DepressionTheDaisyBradfordno. 3, a successful ‘‘wildcat’’ oil well drilled byC.M.

‘‘Dad’’ Joinerduring theearlyyearsof theDepression, changed the faceof

East Texas.The massive field covered five counties and contained about

one-third of the nation’s oil reserves. The discovery of large deposits of

oil in East Texas created an economic boom that providedmuch-needed

jobs for the region. Thousands of people poured in to the communities

of Kilgore,Tyler, and Longviewas 3,400wells pumped over 200million

barrels of oil by 1932. Dallas became the home of many oil companies.

Dallas banks provided loans for the oil business. Many people made for-

tunes during the years of the East Texas oil boom. But the massive vol-

ume of oil drove the price down from one dollar per barrel in 1930 to

eight cents by 1931. Even though the low price reduced profits, many in-

dependent operators disputed the need to reduce production. Others,

including the larger companies, argued for reductions and conservation.

These disputes over regulation of oil production continued for years and

created much hostility in the region.

TheTexasRailroadCommissionattempted tobringpeace to thesitua-

tion and adopted rules inApril 1931 to reduce the supplyof oil.However,

manyoil operators defied the state’s orders.Whenprices foroil remained

low, the major companies refused to buy oil from the East Texas field for

their refineries.Smaller independentsbeganshipping theirownoil,oper-

ating their own refineries, and selling gas at their own stations. Threats

of violence forced Texas governor Ross Sterling to declare martial law in

the region. InAugust 1931 the governor sent theNationalGuard intoEast

Texas to enforce state laws and stop oil production. Governor Sterling

said the troops were necessary to combat lawlessness and spread of the

‘‘hot oil’’ crisis. (Hot oil was petroleum produced in excess of the state-

ordered requirements.) Sterling,whopreviously had served as an official

of Humble Oil Company, sent in General JacobWalters, an attorney for

the influential Texas Company, as head of the National Guard to enforce

state laws. As a result, Sterling received attacks for siding with the large

corporations against the independents. Oil prices began to rise, but hot

oil still flooded the market and kept prices depressed.15

The failure of the cotton program and dispatching of National Guard

185


troops to the East Texas oil fields hurt Governor Sterling’s reelection

bid. At the same time the governor confronted the political crisis in East

Texas, he also witnessed the loss of much of his own capital.The loss of

thePost and his bank interests in the fall of 1931 undoubtedly took its tollon the governor-publisher. Former governor Miriam Ferguson, who lost

to Sterling in 1930, returned for a rematch in 1932.

‘‘The political situation is becoming very acute and, frankly, as the

set-up looks now I have my serious doubts as towhether Governor Ster-

ling can defeat the Fergusons in the coming election,’’ predicted Star-Telegram publisher Amon Carter. Fearful of a return by the Fergusons

in dire economic times, Carter explained to HarryWiess of Humble Oil

and Refining that the ‘‘times are set-up’’ for a Ferguson victory. Carter

unsuccessfully attempted to talk Sterling out of running for reelection.

He also stated, ‘‘[T]here is a grave question as to howmany newspapers

in the state will support the Governor for a second term.’’16

Carter met with Governor Sterling and wrote to him about his con-

cerns. ‘‘You have gone through some of the most trying times we have

seen, aperiodwheneverybody isprone tocriticize andwheneverypublic

official has been more or less under fire for refusal to permit the treasury

tobeopened to allwhoappealed,’’Carterwrote. ‘‘Resentment against the

established order of things and those in office is apt to be pronounced, as

unjust as it is.’’ Carter explained that he and the FortWorth paper would

support the governor if he chose to run again, although he clearly argued

in favor of the incumbent stepping aside for another candidate.17

Carter’s pleas to the governorclearly expressed the sentiments held by

the state’s leading publishers. All of the major daily newspapers feared

the ongoing economic problems created by the Depression. All of them

loathed the Fergusons as dangerous demagogues and symbols of the

state’s wild, corrupt past. Although most of these publishers and edi-

tors recognized the sentiments expressed by Amon Carter, they failed

to convince Sterling to step aside for another business-oriented candi-

date. They undoubtedly felt sympathy for Sterling, a fellow newspaper

publisher and a respectedmember of the business community. As Amon

Carter accurately predicted, the governor carried far too much political

baggage to overcome the latest Ferguson political revival.

The rising discontent created by the economic depression produced a

nearly impossible climate for the incumbent governor. Sterling narrowly

lost to Miriam Ferguson in the 1932 Democratic Primary, his second

contest with her. Both Jim andMiriam Ferguson remained popular with

the poor and underprivileged, of which there were undoubtedly more

186


in 1934. Also, the election coincided with the nomination of Franklin

Roosevelt as Democratic nominee for president. Like President Hoover,

Governor Sterling was blamed for the hard times and not doing enough

to help people. The support of the major daily newspapers in the state

failed to offset the overwhelming need to change the prevailing order in

Austin and inWashington.Miriam Ferguson’s victory marked one of the

few times in which a candidate captured the governor’s mansionwithout

the support of amajority of the state’smajordaily newspapers.However,

this was not be the final political surprise of the 1930s.

The second Ferguson administration coincided with FDR’s first two

years in office.The Ferguson administration supportedmost of the early

New Deal programs. Texas voters passed an amendment to the state

constitution for allocating $20 million in relief. Texas also approved the

Twenty-first Amendment, which ended Prohibition in the nation. The

Ferguson administration, however, encountered controversy over two

issues.

A large number of Texas Rangers were appointed, which made the

law enforcement agency a private political army for the Fergusons. The

Texas Rangers had openly supported Governor Sterling’s unsuccessful

1932 reelection effort. When Governor Ferguson took office in January

1933, she retaliatedbyfiring all 44Rangers.The legislature created anew

Ranger force and Ferguson filled the positions with her own supporters.

She enlarged the force by commissioning over 2,300 Special Rangers.

Texas newspapers andofficials ridiculed thenewRanger force as corrupt

and inefficient, and newspapers revealed the pasts of new Rangers who

had been convicted of murder, gambling, or theft.

The administrationwas also criticized for issuing toomanypardons to

convicted felons. Finally, Jim Ferguson once again created controversy:

he andLawrenceWestbrook, head of theTexasRelief Commission,were

accused of using relief funds to build a political organization, for which

they received wide news coverage.

Without exception, the major dailies roundly criticized the second

Ferguson administration. Attacks focused on corruption and Jim Fergu-

son’s seemingly unbridled influence on his wife’s gubernatorial duties.

Miriam Ferguson elected not to run for a third term of office in 1934,

citing the long-standing Texas tradition of governors serving only two

terms.Texas newspaper publishers, however, claimed credit for forcing

MiriamFerguson’s retirement.GeorgeB.Dealey boasted in his 1934 cor-

porate report of the Morning News’ battles against ‘‘Fergusonism.’’ He

pointed to the victorious slate of statewide candidates endorsed by the

187


News, alongwith the defeat of three candidates in the 1934 election ‘‘whorefused to repudiate Ferguson’s endorsement.’’

18

TheFergusons fueled the news and editorial pages of the large dailies,

but another infamousTexas duo briefly overshadowed the political dog-

fights in Austin. Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow shot their way onto

the front pages and created a wave of terror throughout Texas, Okla-

homa, and Louisiana. ‘‘With a ruthlessness that would chill the most

hardened heart, the Clyde Barrow–Bonnie Parker–Raymond Hamilton

gang of desperadoes, wrote in letters of blood another gory chapter of

Texas’ criminal history,’’ theHoustonPostdeclared in its front-page story.The news stated that Bonnie andClyde killed twoTexas highway patrol-

men and ‘‘gleefully poured streams of lead into their prostrate bodies,

then sped away, laughing gaily.’’ The following day, the Post editorialcalled formodernization of lawenforcement following the ‘‘banditry and

butchery which shocked and shamed Texas over the weekend.’’ To en-

force their position, the editors stated that ‘‘not since the days of 1835,

whenTexas was in revolt against the power of the Dons, and Indian sav-

ages ran with Mexican oppressors in a welter of lawlessness, has the law

been so impotent against its malefactors.’’19

Bonnie Parker selected theHoustonPost as an outlet for her public let-ters. In a letter mailed from the small East Texas community of Groveton

in April 1934, Parker announced that she and Clyde had separated from

RaymondHamilton. ‘‘We did not do business together.We have decided

to say apart and if one of us gets in the other one can get him out.’’ The

letter’s author remarked that ‘‘the officers have give notice to the turist

to be very careful and stop when they are told to. I also ask them to be

very carful who they tell to stop.’’ Themessage ended ‘‘Respt. Clyde and

Bonnie.’’ The Post editors turned the envelope and its contents over to

law enforcement authorities, who concluded the letter appeared to be

authentic.20

As respect for law enforcement declined during hard times, crime

rose in the state. Texas became the home of some nationally known vio-

lent criminals: Machine-Gun Kelly and Raymond Hamilton joined with

Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker as major news topics.When Governor

Ferguson did not seek reelection, Texas Attorney General James Allred

ran for governor in 1934 on a campaign to clean up the Texas Rangers

and support the Roosevelt administration’s New Deal programs. Allred

was aware of the growing concernwith the rise of crime and the increased

attention it received in the state’s newspapers.He capitalized on the pub-

lic’s concern produced by the sensational news headlines in 1934. In

188


Allred’s first term as governor, the legislature created the Texas Depart-

ment of Public Safety (DPS). The governor appointed a three-person

DPS commission to oversee theTexas Rangers, theHighway Patrol, and

a headquarters unit with a crime lab.TheRangers became part of amod-

ern law enforcement organization free from political domination, but the

force continued to suffer in its relations with the state’s minorities for

years to come.21

With the onset of the Depression, South Texas congressman John

Nance Garner rose to national prominence. ‘‘For the first time in history

a speaker’s gavel made of Texas mesquite banged upon the dais of the

house’’ as Garner became Speaker of the House when the Democrats

reclaimed Congress in the 1930 elections. As he assumed the powerful

position of Speaker, Garner stated, ‘‘I made no promises as a candidate

for this office, and I make none now.’’ Over President Herbert Hoover’s

opposition, Garner pushed through a $1 billion public works bill and

funded the Reconstruction Finance Corporation with another $1 billion

and included his friend, Houston publisher Jesse H. Jones, on the first

RFCboard. Critics viewed this as a radical move, but the press gaveGar-

nerwidespreadpublicityas theprimaryDemocratic congressional leader

inopposition to theHooverWhiteHouse.WilliamRandolphHearstpro-

moted Garner for president in a nationwide radio address, January 11,

1932, followed bya serialized story, ‘‘TheRomantic Storyof JohnNance

Garner,’’ in theHearstnewspapers.SanAntoniohostedastatewide ‘‘Gar-

ner for President’’ rally as the Uvalde congressman became a regular fea-

ture in the Texas press.22

The New Deal in Texas and Newspaper ReactionGarner’s career at this time captures the transitional nature of the Texas

eliteworldview in theearly 1930s.Thepublicworksprojects and theRFC

thatwere passed throughGarner’s efforts represented a sharpbreak from

southern economicorthodoxy,which insisted thatmarkets rise and fall as

a result of natural cycles.Traditionally, southernDemocrats insisted that

state and federal governments should step aside during economic crises

and not even intervene to provide relief for themost desperate among the

unemployed, for fear of disrupting those cycles. The market could best

heal itself, traditional Dixie thought insisted, but Garner was unwilling

to wait. Garner’s support for $2 billion in federal spending to end the

Depression was seen by some as radical, even though the RFC—which

loanedmoney to banks in the hope that they would lendmoremoney for

business projects, eventually creating new jobs—reflected a conserva-

189


tive, trickle-downeconomic theory.Even so,whenHearst floatedGarner

as a presidential prospect, the Speaker of the House presented himself

as a rock-ribbed conservative committed to balanced budgets. Garner’s

WhiteHouse bid floundered in 1932, but Democratic nominee Franklin

Roosevelt picked him as his running mate to provide regional balance

on the ticket and placate conservatives uncertain of Roosevelt’s ideologi-

cal allegiance. A party loyalist, Garner accepted and helped steer many

of Roosevelt’s early NewDeal programs through Congress, although by

the late 1930s he dramatically split with the President over issues such as

deficit spending and FDR’s support of the labor movement.23

Franklin Roosevelt promised a ‘‘New Deal’’ for Americans and won

a sweeping victory in the November 1932 presidential election. At his

inauguration, Roosevelt told the nation he would use the power of the

federal government to ‘‘wage a war’’ against the Depression.The Roose-

velt administration immediately launched a massive effort to stimulate

the nation’s economyand restore thepeople’s confidence in business and

government. The results included an unprecedented number of federal

programs aimed at directly combating poverty and unemployment.

George Seldes gained fame as one of the foremost press critics of

the twentieth century. Seldes, a former reporter and editor for the Pitts-burghLeaderand thePittsburghGazette,publishedacritical reviewof the

newspaper business in the mid-1930s. ‘‘The press, instead of furnishing

Americawith sound economic truth, furnished the lies and buncombe of

themerchants of securities, which termed an economic debacle a techni-

cal situation,which called it the shakingout of bullish speculators,which

blamed everything on lack of confidence.’’ With the exception of the ini-

tial crash in October 1929, the explanations of the ‘‘patriot-economist’’

Seldes placed the main cause of the Depression on economic conditions

in European nations.

During the first years of the Depression, corporate and government

leaders, in cooperation with the major newspapers, ignored the under-

lying causes and the realities of the economic downturn. Critics charged

that the nation’s newspapers created a false sense of security among the

U.S. public concerning the probable length of the Depression. Instead

of investigating unemployment, living conditions, discontent among

farmers and laborers, and the foreign impact on the U.S. economy, the

major newspapers reported only wishful thinking from economists and

governmentofficials.Newspapers continuouslyoffered reassurances that

‘‘good times were in sight again, that prosperity was just around the cor-

ner, that we had scraped bottom, that we were on the road to recovery.’’

190


Seldes declared that the press, ‘‘which failed the public in 1929, can res-

cue it [the economy] today.’’24

Seldes aimedmost of his barbs at the anti-Roosevelt publishers in the

North and East. Somewhat surprisingly, Seldes, along with the major

Texas publishers, saw the newRoosevelt-Garner administration as a real

hope for change in the bleak economy of the early 1930s. Many pub-

lishers in the North received criticism alongside other business leaders

as selfish, narrow-minded capitalists concerned only with their corpo-

rate revenues. Southern publishers largely escaped this criticism, at least

in their home regions, because of their traditional allegiance to Demo-

cratic candidates. In the November 1932 election, the Roosevelt-Garner

team swept to victory with an overwhelming victory.They carried forty-

two states to Hoover’s six. Roosevelt carried Texas with 734,000 votes

to Hoover’s paltry 98,000.

As the new administration prepared to take office in March 1933,

news stories and editorials from the smallest crossroads community to

the crowded metropolitan centers speculated on the change. The SanAngelo Evening Standard ran a series of feature stories on the nation’s

economic ills. Walter Lippmann’s syndicated column argued for infla-

tionarymeasures.The newspaper even ran free ads for those seeking em-

ployment.Texasnewspapers also carried extensive reports on theRoose-

velt and the Garner families. As the Evening Standard commented on

FDR’s inaugural speech, it sounded optimistic. ‘‘It is enough of a ‘New

Deal’ to save the country’s morale.’’ Surprisingly, like many other news-

papers in the once again solidly Democratic state, the column spared

blaming President Hoover for the nation’s calamity. ‘‘This depression

has made more alibis for people who have never made a success of any-

thing . . . and has made failure more respectable than any other time in

our history.’’25

Similar to the largerdailies,HoustonHarte’s SanAngelo papers com-

mented favorably on the bank holiday in March. Local bank officials

apparently expressed concerns to the newspaper about additional fed-

eral oversight, but the newspaper stood by the administration and de-

clared that the emergency legislation restored confidence in the bank-

ing system. Unlike San Antonio, FortWorth, Dallas and dozens of other

citieswith bank failures, SanAngelo’s three banks remained solvent.The

Emergency BankingAct stood as an example of ‘‘another instancewhere

state’s rights must be subservient to the national good.’’ Following their

review by federal bank examiners, the city’s banks reopened for business

on March 15, 1933. The West Texas newspaper also joined ranks with

191


President Franklin D. Roosevelt (left) appointed Houston Chroniclepublisher and businessman Jesse H. Jones to chair the ReconstructionFinance Corporation. Photo courtesy CAH (CN08130).

other dailies in support of repeal of Prohibition. Although the editorial

noted that the ‘‘beer bill could easily become amonument to stupidity,’’ it

viewed the endof the national experiment as beneficial. ‘‘Right orwrong,

the tidal wave is upon the country.’’26

President Roosevelt selected Jesse H. Jones of Houston to head the

Reconstruction Finance Corporation. As previously noted, the RFC

used federalmoney to provide loans to the nation’s banks and businesses

hardest hit by the Depression. The RFC attempted to stem the tide of

bank failures and business closures with low-interest loans. During the

next five years, the RFC loaned over $10 billion to banks, railroads, con-

struction programs, and private businesses. All of this money was re-

paid with interest, which made the RFC one of the most successful New

Deal agencies. Jones became known as one of the most powerful men in

Washington.27

Another Roosevelt supporter and influential publisher turned down

suggestions that he take a position inWashington. Amon Carter’s name

appeared inWill Rogers’ nationally syndicated column as a potential sec-

192


retary of war.The humorist said that Carter was ‘‘well liked by all Demo-

crats and 50 percent of the Republicans.’’ Although he had never served

in a government position, Carter would ‘‘handle our army mighty well

in peace and put us in a mighty pretty war if the occasion arises.’’ As a

footnote to the Rogers’ column, Carter added his own comments in the

Star-Telegram. ‘‘The publisher of this paper never has accepted politicalappointment of any character and has no intention of so doing.’’

28

Withhis friendsGarnerand Jones as twoof themost influential admin-

istration leaders, Carter remained in FortWorth and constantly besieged

Washington with requests. President Roosevelt became a recipient of

Carter’s hospitalityanddonations onhis frequent trips toTexas.Accord-

ing toAmonCarter’s biographer JerryFlemons,Carter, alongwith Jones,

‘‘rustled so much government money for the Lone Star State during the

Depression that Washington wags spoke of it as the ‘star loan state.’ ’’

Along with the influential Texas congressional delegation, Carter and

other Texas publishers quickly utilized their political connections to at-

tract federal dollars to the state formassive construction and employment

projects.29

The Allred administration in Texas chose to work closely with the

federal government to combat the effects of theDepression inTexas. All-

red focused his efforts on a number of agencies and programs created to

fight unemployment and hard times. These included the Civilian Con-

servation Corps (CCC), the Public Works Administration (PWA), the

WorksProgressAssociation (WPA), and theNationalYouthAdministra-

tion (NYA).The federal government pouredover $100million intoTexas

in these programs alone to provide jobs and projects for the people of

the state.The CCC enrolled over 10,000men from the ages of seventeen

to twenty-eight in forty-two different camps in the state. Over 50,000

Texans joined the CCC towork in camps across the nation at thirty dol-

lars per month from 1933 to 1942. CCC workers constructed state and

local parks, planted trees, and worked on soil and water conservation

projects. State parks established by the CCC include those at Bastrop,

Davis Mountains, Garner, Goliad, and Palo Duro Canyon.30

Texas daily newspapers provided nearly unanimous support for these

projects, unlike the national dailies which, for example, criticized the

CCC. Critics derided the legislation to conserve and regenerate the na-

tion’s forests as ‘‘a presidential hobby.’’ InTexas, the sentiment reflected

recognition that the program was designed to create jobs and protect

natural resources. The Dallas Morning News stated the CCC provided

jobs for ‘‘feedingmenwhoneed food.’’TheNational IndustrialRecovery

193


Act (NIRA), which provided $3 billion in publicworks projects, also re-

ceived editorial support from Texas dailies. Although some expressed

concernover thepresident’s authority to approveprojects,most reflected

the sentiments of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, which stated in an edi-

torial, ‘‘[T]he nation welcomes the experiment.’’31

Lyndon Johnson, then an enthusiastic, twenty-seven-year-old New

Deal supporter, headed the National Youth Administration (NYA) from

1935 to 1937. Johnson employed over 10,000 students a month, part-

timeor full-time, tohelp inoffices, roadsideparks, highwayconstruction,

campgrounds, and public schools. Students also received financial as-

sistance for education in return for participation in the NYA. Unlike the

CCC, theNYA included youngAfricanAmericanwomen andmen in the

program. About 19,000 Texas blacks enrolled in the program based on

‘‘need.’’ Thiswas the only program in the South that enrolledminorities,

but that fact never surfaced in any of the newspaper reports about the

popular program.32

The PWA and theWPA providedmillions of dollars for public build-

ings, schools, post offices, hospitals, coliseums, anddams.Over600,000

Texans worked for the agency between 1935 and 1943. Men and women

earned between forty-five and seventy-five dollars per month.TheWPA

provided workers for these projects and also funded the arts, literature,

writing, andmusic.AswithmostotherNewDeal employmentprograms,

the agencydissolvedwith the advent of WorldWar II and the subsequent

increased demand for workers in defense industries and in the armed

forces.33

Newspaper reaction to New Deal policies and to the president him-

self varied across the nation. The desperate straits in which the nation

found itself in early 1933 provided an atmosphere of suspense and an-

ticipation for the new president. In the first 100 days—and indeed well

intoRoosevelt’s first term—most newspapers supported the administra-

tion’s expansion of the federal government’s role in the economy. Even

with the confusion and contradictions that resulted from someNewDeal

programs,mostnewspapers remainedessentially supportiveof thepopu-

lar president. Because of the close connections prominent Texans had

with high levels of the Roosevelt administration, the state’s newspapers

in the early years added their praise while providing extensive coverage

of developments in the nation’s capital. The Texas delegation exercised

immense clout. From 1933 to 1938, eight Texans held regular commit-

tee chairmanships and Sam Rayburn became House majority leader in

1937.TheTexasdelegation thus found itselfwell-positioned toguarantee

194


a flowof NewDeal dollars back home, a situation newspaper publishers

and manyTexas businessmen found congenial to their interests.

With the Texas press behind him and with his tremendous influence

as vice president, crusty JohnNance Garner ruled the legislative process

and the fate of New Deal programs. FDR relied on Garner and other

congressional TexasDemocrats. SamRayburn,Melvin Jones, James Bu-

chanan, and Hatton Sumners were among the influential congressmen

who chaired key committees and pushed New Deal legislation forward

forbankingandsecurities regulation, rural electrification, farmsubsidies,

business loans, and massive public works projects. Senators Tom Con-

nally and Morris Sheppard exerted similar influence in the Senate, with

their friendGarnerpresidingover theSenate. JesseH. Jones and theRFC

provided millions of dollars in loans for business and industry. News-

paper publishers and theTexas business community understood that the

road out of the Depression now led to Washington. They also realized

they stood to benefit from their close connections in the capital.

As the Depression maintained its grip over the state and the nation,

businesses and individuals fought to survive the economic downturn.

Although it sustainedmounting losses for several years, theDallasMorn-ing News showed a profit in its 1934 annual report. George B. Dealey

reported that the publication finished theyear $83,000 in the black. ‘‘For

the first time since 1930, it is possible for me . . . to open my yearly re-

port on an optimistic note and to close it with a prediction of even greater

things to come,’’ Dealey told the board in early 1935. How other Texas

newspapers fared in the sameperiod remains unclear, but all of themajor

independent dailies faced difficult circumstances in the early 1930s due

to declining advertising revenues.34

In an attempt to expand circulation and gain advertising, many news-

papers expanded theircoveragebyaddingnew features.Alongwithnews

coverage and editorials, nationally syndicated news columnists provided

insight into and critiques of the New Deal. Respected columnist Walter

Lippmann echoed the thoughts of many Texans, not only those in the

press offices but from all walks of life. In a series of columns that ap-

peared in the New York Herald-Tribune in March 1933 and also ran in

many Texas dailies, Lippmann declared that the nation’s economic tur-

moil posed a challenge as serious as any foreignwar.The nation required

‘‘unity,’’ as opposed to ‘‘division of authority.’’ Lippmann believed that

Roosevelt’s first months in theWhite House, especially his quick action

in the banking and currencycrises, renewed the confidence of a skeptical

population.35

195


Across the nation as the months went by, press support for the New

Deal declined even though the general public embraced Roosevelt’s

efforts to combat theGreatDepression. Press criticism ranged fromcom-

plaints about regulation of the stock market, banking, and agriculture to

claims that Roosevelt wanted to eliminate press freedoms and had retali-

ated against his media detractors. When Roosevelt and Garner sought

reelection to their second term in 1936, more than half of the nation’s

major dailies supported the Republican ticket of Kansas governor Alf

Landon andChicagoDaily News publisher FrankKnox. Forty percent ofthe major newspapers supported the incumbent administration in post-

election surveys. Knox represented a vocal group of national publishers

critical of Roosevelt.These included Robert McCormick of theChicagoTribune, William Randolph Hearst and the Hearst newspaper chain,

Harry Chandler of the Los Angeles Times, and E. D. Stair of the DetroitFree Press.Many feared that Roosevelt wanted tomake the national press

conform to his personal ideas of ‘‘fair journalism.’’36

InTexas, all of themajor independent daily newspapers endorsed the

Democratic incumbents.The Scripps-Howard chain, which had a pres-

ence in the largest Texas cities, also strongly supported the Democrats.

The traditional allegiance to Democrats remained solid during the early

1930s among thepress andbusiness establishment of the state.WithGar-

ner, Jones, and other influential Texans in positions of authority, Texas

publishers no doubt considered their own access, along with the public

support in the state for both the NewDeal and the president, as decisive

factors in joining the New Deal camp. Criticisms regarding Roosevelt’s

supposedly heavy hand in dealing with press critics never appeared in

themajorTexas publications. Although some of the NewDeal programs

drew some editorial scrutiny, no serious challenge arose from the Texas

press until Roosevelt’s efforts to change the SupremeCourtmembership

in 1937.

Harte’s San Angelo Evening Standard reflected the views of the

staunch Roosevelt press in rural Texas. Prior to the election, the news-

paper remarked, ‘‘Mr. Roosevelt pursued an uncharted course, mistakes

were inevitable, but theywere always rectified as soon as it became appar-

ent they were mistakes.’’ The San Angelo publisher also predicted that

Texas would support the Democratic incumbents by a margin of eight

or nine to one. The prediction proved to be remarkably accurate, as the

Roosevelt-Garner team easily carried the state in November by a seven-

to-one margin.With the election completed, the San Angelo paper pro-

196


claimed in January 1937 that a general consensus held that ‘‘recovery is

no longer just around the corner, instead, it is here.’’37

Roosevelt’s efforts tochange themakeupof theSupremeCourtopened

a rift inTexasand theSouth that altered the fateof his second termand the

NewDeal.Muchof the landmark legislationduringRoosevelt’s first term

met with a roadblock at the Supreme Court. The archconservative high

court overturned many landmark bills such as the National Industrial

Recovery Act, the Agriculture Adjustment Act, and many other mini-

mum wage bills enacted by individual states. No justices retired during

his first term, soRoosevelt produceda legislative initiative that essentially

increasedSupremeCourtmembershipbyamaximumof sixnew justices.

The news touched off a national debate and pushed Garner and other

southern Democrats to declare their public opposition to what became

known as the court-packing proposal. Garner issued his opinion when

he held his nose and turned his thumb down when the bill was read to

the Senate. Garner then left for vacation in Texas, while many southern

senators and congressmen announced their shock and indignation at the

president’s proposal. During the summer and fall of 1937, congressional

opposition extended to other New Deal legislative proposals regarding

labor standards, along with requests for increased funding for NewDeal

public works projects.To add to the tension, an antilynching bill passed

the House in 1937 but not the Senate due to a filibuster by southern

senators in 1938. The impasse created tension among the Democratic

majority and effectively ended Vice President Garner’s crucial support

for Roosevelt’s legislative program. As a result of his opposition and his

control over both houses ofCongress,Roosevelt began to refer toGarner

as the ‘‘conniver-in-chief,’’ while Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes

said that Garner was ‘‘sticking his knife into the President’s back.’’38

The uproar caught most Texas publications by surprise. The una-

nimity and praise for the administration evaporated more quickly than

a thunderstorm on a hot summer day. The major dailies had supported

the administration’s efforts to fight unemployment through publicworks

spending,managementof farmsurplus, andmonetarypolicies.They saw

that four years of the New Deal, particularly with Garner, Jones, Ray-

burn, and other Texans in positions of power, had channeled millions

fromWashington to the state.The long-sought goals of NewSouth advo-

cates of an earlier generation seemed obtainable, even in the midst of

the Great Depression. But the political weather suddenly changed the

peaceful climate to a stormy one.39

197


Roosevelt’s desire to change the Supreme Court ended with a deci-

sive defeat of his proposal in the Congress. Most Texas editors agreed

with the New York Times when it concluded that the decision was ‘‘in

reality a vote against the Administration rather than a vote against the bill

itself.’’ Half of the votes against the legislation came from congressional

Democrats.40

As a result of Garner’s opposition to most of Roosevelt’s proposals,

especially those involving government spending, the president unwisely

decided to retaliate.The final blow to the Garner-Roosevelt alliance oc-

curred with the president’s attempt to purge Democratic congressmen

who were opposed to him in the 1938 elections. Garner used all his in-

fluence to defend his congressional friends, even though the opposition

bloc voted against almost everything the president desired. Roosevelt

took to the field in support of southern Democrats who favored his pro-

grams as he proclaimed that the South was the ‘‘Nation’s No. 1 economic

problem.’’ InTexas, Roosevelt supporter Lyndon Johnson won a special

election to the Central Texas post replacing the recently deceased James

Buchanan of Austin, the House Appropriations chairman and a Garner

ally.ButRoosevelt lostCongressmanMauryMaverickSr. of SanAntonio

andother supporters in the South.TheRepublicans gained eight seats in

the Senate and eighty-one House seats in 1938, thus weakening Demo-

cratic support in thenowfractiousDemocraticParty.Garner’s frosty rela-

tionswith theWhiteHouse continued as amore conservative coalition of

southernDemocrats andRepublicans controlled the fate of controversial

domestic legislation.41

TheTexasnewspapers conductedadelicatebalancingact in their sup-

port for Roosevelt and their devotion to Garner. National labor leader

John L. Lewis accused Garner at a House Labor Committee hearing on

July 27, 1939, of being a ‘‘labor-baiting,whisky-drinking, poker-playing,

eviloldman.’’ In response toLewis’well-publicizedremarks,Texasnews-

paper editors posed as ‘‘Milk-Drinking, Rag-Chewing, Fun-Poking Evil

Old Editors’’ in defense of Garner at their 1939meeting. Garner’s popu-

larity increased among Texas editors as they sensed an opportunity to

elect the first Texan into theWhiteHouse in 1940. Asmanyeditors oper-

ated under the assumption that Roosevelt would not seek a third term,

speculation increased and Garner served as a likely candidate for the

Democratic presidential nomination.42

WithRoosevelt’s silence on running for an unprecedented third term,

Garner and his supporters launched a campaign to capture the Demo-

cratic presidential nomination for the 1940 election. Polls and the press

198


agreed that if Roosevelt didnot run,Garnerwas the favorite for thenomi-

nation. Newspapers throughout the nation speculated about who the

Democratic candidates would be for more than a year. Garner’s close

friend Congressman Sam Rayburn chaired his second effort to win the

Democratic Party nomination. As New Yorker Robert M. Harris ob-

served to Rayburn, Garner ‘‘would make our country one of the greatest

Presidents in history’’ and he called Garner the ‘‘best-qualified’’ candi-

date during ‘‘thismost serious crisis in the historyof our country.’’While

Roosevelt remained silent about his decision, the uncertainty created

controversy in the ranks of the politicians and the press in the nation and

the Lone Star State.43

State leaders and publishers, torn between their allegiance to John

Nance Garner and to Franklin Roosevelt, struggled with their decisions.

As San Antonio mayor and Roosevelt supporter Maury Maverick con-

cluded, most Texans still favored the president and the NewDeal. ‘‘The

City of San Antonio has direct relations with the CCC, the NYA,WPA,

and numerous federal agencies, and they have been most happy and

pleasant,’’ Maverick stated. ‘‘We fight over things that aren’t very conse-

quential andwemust realizewhat is going on in Europe,’’ he added. And

as Fort Worth resident Ed Tillman told Rayburn, ‘‘While John Nance

Garner may be a worthyTexan, President Roosevelt will go down in his-

tory as one of the greatest AMERICANS of all time.’’44

Thepresident’spolitical futureposed justoneconcern forTexaselites.

The Houston Post, in an April 1934 editorial entitled ‘‘combating com-

munism,’’ asked if the ‘‘American majority in Houston has been giving

too little thought to the Mexican minority here.’’ A rapid increase of im-

migrants fromMexico augmented their numbers inHouston. Andwhile

most of these new arrivals were ‘‘quiet, industrious and law abiding,’’ the

editors cited awarning fromR.H.Kelley,Houston chairman ofCatholic

Action—‘‘Mexicans are susceptible to communistic influences’’—and

warned of dangers to the community posed by the ‘‘Mexican contin-

gent here if it should become predominantly communist.’’ Kelley and the

newspaper encouraged religious education, declaring that ‘‘there is no

better way to combat communism than to teach the essential principles

of the Christian religion to children.’’45

Concerns of white Texans regarding racial minorities loomed in the

backgroundbehind the growingdisenchantmentwithRoosevelt. South-

ern leaders watchedwith growing apprehension as Roosevelt and north-

ern Democrats openly courted African American voters. As demon-

strated by the 1936 election results, northern blacks deserted the party

199


of Lincoln by the thousands in a historic realignment. However, unlike

other southern Democrats who bolted the convention hall when African

American congressman Arthur Mitchell seconded Roosevelt’s nomina-

tion,Texans remained.The state’s press gave scant attention to the event.

However, by 1936 the JeffersonianDemocrats formed in opposition to

New Deal programs and policies. The dissidents proclaimed their alle-

giance to the traditional southern view of state’s rights, which translated

into a continuation of white supremacy, limited government, and curtail-

ment of the federal presence. Included among the organizers that year

were Houston timber and oil magnate John Henry Kirby, who a decade

before had joinedwith theHoustonChronicle and defied theKlan.Other

chartermembers fromTexas included historian and frequent newspaper

contributor J. Evetts Haley and former congressman JosephW. Bailey Jr.

Prominent supporters included Thomas L. Dixon, author ofThe Clans-man, Georgia governor Eugene Talmadge, and Huey Long, protégé of

the Reverend Gerald L. K. Smith. Senator James A. Reed (D-Missouri)

chaired the national organization. The Jeffersonian Democrats received

financial support from northern ultraconservative businessmen Pierre

Du Pont and General Motors’ Alfred Sloan. A large-scale campaign of

letters to the editor critical of Roosevelt and the NewDeal funded by the

Jeffersonian Democrats became a standard feature of daily newspapers

in Texas and the rest of the South for the remainder of FDR’s life.

Even with their denouncements of the administration in 1937 and

1938, Texas publishers never reached the level of vitriol expressed by

such national figures as Robert McCormick of theChicago Tribune andFrank Gannett, who organized the National Committee to Uphold Con-

stitutional Government. Gannett launched a national, well-funded cam-

paign todefeat the court bill.46Asdissension increased in theDemocratic

ranks, Editor and Publishermagazine observed the growing newspaperopposition and credited the press with lifting the ‘‘curtain’’ on what it

described as Roosevelt’s true intentions.47

Garner’s friendship with Houston Chronicle owner and RFC direc-

tor Jesse Jones entered into the national Democratic Party and presiden-

tial politics. Jones’ biographer Bascom Timmons described Garner as

Jones’ best friend inWashington during the 1930s. Both had differences

with the president and the arch New Dealers in the administration, and

both loomed prominently among many Democrats as potential nomi-

neeswhen speculation arose as earlyas 1937 aboutRoosevelt’s successor.

Jones received strong support at a Democratic victory dinner in 1937.

Garner coyly boosted Jones as a manwho could ‘‘hold the party strength

200


andpollmore independentvotes thananyothermanwecouldnominate.’’

Although many news stories and editorials touted Jones, he deferred to

his friend Garner, who truly wanted to run as the Democratic nominee.

As Roosevelt delayed his announcement on a third term, Jones threw his

support to Garner and the veteran Texas political leader entered several

Democratic primaries. ‘‘Garner for President BoomCaps Long Career’’

and similar headlines appeared inTexas daily newspapers in early 1939.

Roosevelt finally declared his candidacy for a third term and easily

won thenomination.Garner subsequently returned toTexas, concluding

nearly forty years of service inWashington. As a member of Roosevelt’s

reformed cabinet, Jones remained in Washington to administer signifi-

cant wartime programs for the United States inWorld War II.48

Thepolitical divisions reflected in theGarner-Roosevelt split reversed

the early reform measures of the New Deal. The pages of major news-

papers reflected the demise of the reform spirit as concerns increased

over labor strife, anexpanding federal government, and far-reachingNew

Deal programs. The shift from strong endorsement to measured sup-

port of New Deal policies reflected the strong ties that publishers and

the Texas leadership inWashington maintained.Texas newspaper pub-

lishersneverprovidedabroadagenda for solving theproblemsof chronic

unemployment, racial discrimination, education, and health disparities

or the myriad other problems exacerbated by the Great Depression.

However, they provided support for continued expansion and modern-

ism during the period. They also recognized the need to participate in

the NewDeal as a means of coping with nagging problems that had long

tormented Texans and other southerners.

The encouragement and cooperation of theTexas press with the fed-

eral government depended on noninterference with the segregated sys-

tem of the South and preservation of the existing political and social

order. During the 1930s, the northern press and political leaders leveled

little criticism at the segregated South. Regionalism remained an issue,

but Roosevelt and the New Deal administrators attempted to focus on

the symptoms of thesemultiple problemswhile preserving healthy press

relations among southern newspaper publishers. Regionalism actually

made a revival during this period in the South and especially in Texas.

Texas marked its centennial year in 1936, which brought new active in-

volvement by the state government in theTexas economy and the nation

in defining the modernization of the state.

201

CHAPTER 7

Newspapers and the 1936Texas Centennial

The 1936 Texas Centennial joined the ranks

of four other major expositions in the nation during the

years of the Great Depression. Preceded by Chicago’s Century

of Progress Exposition (1933) and SanDiego’s PanamaCalifornia Inter-

national Exposition (1935), and followed by the Golden Gate Interna-

tional Exposition in SanFrancisco (1937) and theNewYorkWorld’s Fair

(1939), theTexasCentennialExpositionwasacelebrationofU.S.history,

knowledge, and commercial enterprise. As Business Week magazine de-scribed theTexas centennial celebrations of 1936, the festivities blended

‘‘patriotism and business.’’ Promoters intended to attract outside capi-

tal and visitors and provide them with exposure to the Lone Star State.

The exposition spread far beyond the fairgrounds inDallas to become an

exercise in redefining the state’s character and its institutional memory.

The state’s newspaper publishers served as a driving force in the creation

and promotion of centennial events. As theydebated the course between

tradition andmodernization, the publishers also cemented the newwest-

ern image of Texans, a legacy that was carried forward for the rest of the

twentieth century.1

The new Texan mythology—the western, cowboy mystique—owes

much to the newspapers and publicists of this era.Myths are not entirely

fiction. They represent historical events and people that are re-created

and turned into legends. These mythic events and figures illustrate the

central feature of the romanticized past. In the Depression of the 1930s,

western images came to represent ‘‘individualism, self reliance, and in-

tegrity in the face of a corruptworld.’’The image of cowboys andoutlaws

was well defined by the 1930s. Dime novels, films, magazines, music,

and newspapers utilized western figures as heroic characters. Billy the

Kid, Buffalo Bill Cody, Frederick Russell, OwenWister, and Theodore

Roosevelt came to represent distinct figures in popular memory of the

Newspapers and the Texas Centennial

idealized West. Outlaws, cowboys, artists, writers, and politicians pro-

vided a grand tapestry upon which popular memory of the Texas past

arose. Popularmedia helped define the image of thewestern cowboy and

played the significant role in vitalizing Texas of the past.2

Texans also continued to glorify their southern background. As Paul

Gaston stated inTheNewSouthCreed,myths ‘‘are not polite euphemismsfor falsehoods, but are combinations of images and symbols that reflect a

people’s way of perceiving truth . . . they fuse the real and the imaginary

into a blend that becomes a reality itself, a force in history.’’ Glorification

of the antebellum South and the Confederacy in the six decades follow-

ing the Civil War served as the central theme for public memory in the

region. The entire fabric of southern history became woven into what

became known as the Lost Cause interpretation.The motivation for the

Lost Cause mythology came from the desire of southerners to copewith

the seemingly un-American experience of defeat and at the same time to

rationalize slavery, secession, and the failures of the Confederacy. Advo-

cates successfully introduced a ‘‘correct’’ version of history that allowed

fora southernbias in interpretation.Manyhistorians nowagree that ‘‘[i]n

terms of how Americans have assessed and understood the Civil War,

Lost Cause warriors succeeded to a remarkable degree.’’3

Throughthe1920s,Texans interpreted theirhistoryasviewedthrough

the southern lens. From the 1870s through the early twentieth century,

former Confederate leaders rose to dominant positions in the state’s

business, political, and educational centers. This legacy helped south-

erners justify their clouded past as they prepared for the future in a

nation dominated by northern capital and enterprise. Newspapers re-

countedstoriesofConfederateveteransandeulogized theirdeaths.Asso-

ciationsof formerConfederatesgainedwidespreadcoverageandsupport

for philanthropic efforts. Supporters downplayed slavery or the South’s

long record of racial violence, characterizing both issues—and African

Americans themselves—as irrelevant. Reunions, meetings, commemo-

rative events, statues, and buildings were a tribute to the Lost Cause and

the southern interpretation of history. Little of past suffering, depriva-

tion, death, and destruction made its way into print.

TheLost Cause providedmore than a patriotic reinterpretation of the

past. In the view of some historians, at its fruition, allegiance to the Lost

Cause ‘‘elevated it above the realm of common, patriotic impulse’’ and

made it the equivalent of a state religion in theSouth. Southern adherents

created a mythological past that raised individuals to saintly positions

who lived a godlike existence. ‘‘Lee andDavis emerged as Christ figures,

203


the common soldier attained sainthood, and southern women became

Marys who guarded the tomb of the Confederacy and heralded its resur-

rection.’’ The Civil War became a sacred event with inviolate doctrines:

the war occurred for the right to self-government, not slavery; and Con-

federates were not traitors but acted against a corrupt northern society

bent on imposing its will on the South.4

As the last generation of Confederate veterans died out and the grand

reunions held their final parades in the 1920s, a successor movement

made its way into Texas in the 1930s. The seeds of the Texas creation

myth fell on well-prepared ground. Just as the Lost Cause found its im-

petus in the tumultuous decades after the Civil War, the rise of the new

Texan mythology occurred during the nation’s worst economic depres-

sion.TheTexasmyth followed the same pattern as the earlierNewSouth

construction.The unpleasant realities of the past were obliterated, while

the pictures of pride and progress were displayed for all the world to see

and read.

Since the 1930s had no revitalized economy or boom like the 1920s,

urbanpromoters sought to provide the publicwith a past that theywould

feel proud of, one in which they had faced challenges fearlessly, so they

would look beyond their existing problems and focus on the future. By

utilizing traditional values associatedwithnineteenth-century rural prin-

ciples, business and themedia reassured people that they acknowledged

and respected their honored past. As situations arose in the Great De-

pression that questioned the foundations ofU.S. capitalism, its valuewas

reaffirmed by recognition of a heroic past and its challenges, recalled

through a history where individuals were able to overcome great odds

and adversity. The promoters of this new heroic Texan image recalled

earlier generations who seemingly made clear-cut decisions when con-

fronting a common enemy.ThepioneerAngloTexans and creators of the

Republic of Texas appeared as ready-made historical actors to replace

the Confederates enshrined by the Lost Cause mythology.

Texas declared its independence from Mexico in 1836. After a series

of disasters at the Alamo and Goliad and during a long retreat, a force

led by Sam Houston defeated Santa Anna, the president of Mexico and

leaderof its army, atSan JacintoonApril 21, 1836.TheRepublic of Texas

existed for nearly a decade prior to its annexation into the United States.

The infant republic endured and awaited admission to the United States

as the nation debated over the extension of slavery and the admission

of slave and free states.The state’s revolutionary heritage, along with its

204


colonial andNative American history, suddenly ascended in the 1930s as

a rival to the celebration of the Confederate past.

How this spirited image of Texas’ past became part of the collective

memory of the state and the nation derived from the centennial celebra-

tions of the 1930s. As John Bodnar explains concerning public memory

in theUnitedStates, collective ideasoriginate from ‘‘apoliticaldiscussion

that involvesnot somuch specific economicormoral problemsbut rather

fundamental issues about the entire existence of society: its organization,

structure of power, and the very meaning of its past and present.’’ The

TexasCentennial certainlyoccurredduringoneof themost economically

trying times in the nation’s history. Many civic leaders joined with the

newspaper publishers to extol the financial benefits of these large-scale

celebrations. ‘‘Texanism,’’ the rise of a Texas heritage and associations,

assumed a newmantle of importance.The beliefs, symbols, stories, lan-

guage, images, and physical structures that encompassed this new pub-

lic memory originated in this centennial era. Furthermore, the image of

Texas as a distinct region apart from the Old South gained its impetus

in the public sphere during this period. Much of this improvised cul-

tural heritage (which maintains a presence to this day) originated with

the ideas and promotions of the Texas daily newspaper publishers.5

In 1936 Texas celebrated the one-hundredth anniversary of its inde-

pendence with centennial activities across the state. The state and fed-

eral governments each provided $3 million to kick off the events. Local

communities also sold bonds to finance construction of new projects.To

prime the pump,Washington providedmoney for many of the buildings

and Centennial projects, which provided thousands of jobs for Texans.

Formore thanadecade,LowryMartin, advertisingmanagerof theCor-sicana Daily Sun, served as the workhorse of the centennial movement.A central part of Martin’s strategywas to obtainmassive support from the

Texas newspaper industry and the endorsement by the state’s political

establishment. Themes focused on the individuality and frontier spirit

of nineteenth-century AngloTexans. During the years of planning, Jesse

Jones servedon the statewide coordinating committee, but his tenurewas

markedbyuncertaintyas to the scopeof the centennial celebration.Com-

petingbusiness andpolitical activities alsodistracted Jones from the task.

Jones maintained reservations about the feasibility of having only one

primary exposition site modeled after world fair expositions of the early

twentieth century. The onset of the Depression and his appointment to

the RFC brought an end to his leadership on the Centennial Commis-

205


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

sion, but Jones eventually played a role in obtaining federal government

financing for many centennial-related projects during the 1930s.6

Lowry Martin and the Texas Press Association kept the centennial

celebration effort alive after Jones’ departure from the board in 1930.

Martin provided an ongoing stream of information, surveys, and promo-

tions to newspapers. As economic conditions worsened throughout the

state, the concept of a statewide commemoration of its birthday began

to gain momentum. Many civic and political leaders viewed a centen-

nial celebration as a potential stimulus to revive the flagging economy.

Thecampaign resulted in a constitutional amendmentpassedby the state

legislature and submitted to the voters during the November 1932 gen-

206


eral election.The amendment, which called for a celebration combined

with an unspecified commitment for funding by the state, passed during

the same election in which Texans overwhelmingly voted for Franklin

Roosevelt and John Nance Garner.7

Houston’s civic and political leaders believed the competition for the

main exposition came down to a battle between Houston and Dallas. If

the selection involved only historic considerations, Houston would have

been a natural choice because of its role in Texas independence and the

early republic. ‘‘But that equation is entirely eliminated by the centennial

law,’’ theHouston Post editors wrote. ‘‘It is now simply a matter of which

city makes the highest bid.’’8

A state commission selected Dallas as the location for the official ex-

position. Not to be outdone, Houston, San Antonio, and Fort Worth

scheduled their own celebrations. Neighboring Fort Worth created the

Texas Frontier Centennial and a ‘‘Winning of theWest’’ celebration. San

Antonio andHoustonhostedevents to commemoratebattles of theTexas

Revolution. The newly completed San Jacinto Monument and Histori-

cal Museum opened on the anniversary of Sam Houston’s victory over

Santa Anna’s army in April 1836. Numerous events throughout the state

extended the celebration to nearly every county. Huntsville, Sam Hous-

ton’s hometown, featured the initial sale of the Texas Centennial post-

age stamp. Stamford held a cowboy reunion and roundup. Crystal City

hosted a spinach festival and proclaimed the cartoon character Popeye as

honorary mayor. Every major daily in the state published a special cen-

tennial edition, sometimes totaling more than 100 pages, stocked with

history, anecdotes, and ads.9

Centennial editions, similar to anniversary and other special com-

memorative publications, served newspapers and the larger community.

Thesehighlypublicizednewspapers validated thepublication as theoffi-

cial collector and interpreter of historical memory. Centennial publica-

tions enhanced the role of cultural authority and opened the door for

other businesses and individuals to enlist in the narrative effort. Edito-

rial content and the selection of historical articles remained the preroga-

tive of the editorial staff.The presentation was nearly as important as the

content of these commemorative issues. Large, eye-catching print and

artwork such as photos and other illustrations formed an essential part

of the grand exposition that unfolded throughout the edition.

In 1934, on theHouston Post’s fiftieth anniversary, the newspaper fea-tured a front-page reproduction of a congratulatory letter fromPresident

Roosevelt. Vice President John Nance Garner and other Texas politi-

207


cal leaders sent messages commending the Post on its anniversary and

civic leadership. Fort Worth Star-Telegram publisher Amon Carter pro-

claimed the Post to be a newspaper whose influence in Texas politics

‘‘at all times has been statewide.’’ Dallas Morning News editor Ted

Dealey noted the Post ‘‘grew with the city’’ and won for itself ‘‘respect

and honor.’’10

As a premier example of the commemorative editions of this era, the

Dallas Morning News celebrated its 1935 golden anniversary in grand

style. Alongside stories of the dedication of Boulder Dam and the dis-

covery of a lost manuscript of Sam Houston’s account of the Battle of

San Jacinto, the News published congratulatory letters from President

Roosevelt, Vice President Garner, and many other state and national

leaders. Congratulatory messages from officials and other newspapers

occupied several pages.Themajorityof the paper featured local histories

and stories that accentuated the growth of Dallas and Texas—accounts

of organizations, construction, industrial expansion, and the 1936 State

Centennial—and photos from the previous fifty years. News presidentG. B. Dealey highlighted and recounted important stories of the previ-

ous fifty years of national and local importance.One story featuredW.D.

Austin, an original subscriber, who had read ‘‘every copy’’ of the news-

paper since its initial publication in 1885.11

Dealey’s page one editorial on the fiftieth anniversary of the news am-

plified his philosophy and expounded on the role the newspaper had

played inDallas’ development and growth.TheNews beganwhenDallaswas ‘‘an overgrown, Topsy-like town, unkempt, with little paving.’’ In

working with civic leaders, the News ‘‘exerted all its power to lead and

to co-operate with the thousands of men and women who are respon-

sible for the Dallas of today.’’ Dealey stated he intended to have the influ-

ence in promoting civic development expand statewide. ‘‘Always it has

spent time, thought, money and effort in printing matter to inculcate a

desire for attractiveness and beauty of every kind in its urban centers and

countryside. It has desired to be the champion of all kinds of whole-

some education and to develop the finer things of life.’’ He also attrib-

uted the paper’s success to the efficient, ever-faithful and loyal interest of

and work’’ of the News employees. Dealey planned to pursue the same

course in the following years—striving tomake the daily a respected and

influential regional publication. The golden anniversary edition served

as a prelude to even loftier plans for the News in the upcoming centen-

nial year. The commemorative issues of that year provided the standard

208


for other newspapers, from the hectic daily publications to the smallest

weekly tabloids.12

John Bodnar states in his analysis of collective memory that civic

leaders select commemorative events for a number of reasons.These in-

clude events that calm anxiety and evoke change, and efforts to solicit

support from the general citizenry and to promote exemplary behavior.

The special editions of newspapers and centennial promotions in 1936

clearly supported each of these criteria. Anxiety over the ongoing eco-

nomic depression maintained its hold over the population, and one of

the stated goals of centennial proponents was to have a celebration that

would improve the collective outlook of the citizenry. As evidenced by

the intense competition among the large cities for the coveted centen-

nial headquarters, widespread support from the major urban communi-

ties existed. In the promotions for all the celebrations, proponents urged

citizens to participate and extol the virtues of a past built on traditional

American ideas—independence, liberty, freedomof expression, and the

desire to establish a better society.13

As the leading proponents of the centennial, the state’s major news-

paper publishers reaffirmed their position at the center of cultural and

political leadership. They recognized that their individual positions as

community leaders, along with their role as newspaper publishers, de-

pended on the success of the centennial-related activities. In addition,

growth and financial success depended on the continuation of the daily

newspaper as the focal point of communication in the community. As

the centennial events gained acceptance and achieved regional and na-

tional recognition, the newspapers and their publishers reached the apex

of approval by the citizenry.

Publishers also contributed to what may be termed the origin myth,

which took firm root in the collective memory of Texans. Fort WorthStar-Telegram editor J. M. North described these sentiments in a 1935

letter toDallas Morning News editorTed Dealey. ‘‘The history of Texasbegan 100 years ago,’’ North stated, which conveniently ignored the en-

tire historyand role of NativeAmericans, Spain,Mexico, France, and the

United States prior to 1835.The historical interpretation promoted and

distributed during the centennial provided an explanation that accom-

modated the racial and economic views of the state’s hierarchy. Briefly,

Texas fought for its freedombecauseofSpanishandMexicanmisruleand

oppression.These hardyAnglo-Saxon pioneers created a land of oppor-

tunity after the conquest of the native populations and the government in

209


Mexico City.The state’s business and political leaders combined forces

to forge a new frontier and began promoting newcommunities where life

would peacefully progress andwhere conflict would be downplayed and

avoided.These themes accommodated the prevailing racial stereotypes,

class distinctions, and cultural prejudices of the era.MexicanAmericans

were associated with barbarism and hostility. African Americans were

viewed as inferior and uncivilized.This interpretation ignored coopera-

tive efforts and public/private cooperation in favor of private initiative.

The Populists, Socialists, and other political movements outside of the

mainstream were conveniently ignored.14

Once it was chosen as the main site for the state celebration, Dallas

acted as a magnet for the state’s celebration. Planning and promotion for

the main event took place in Dallas. News of the event was disseminated

from Dallas through special publications and the pages of the MorningNews and theTimes Herald. Newspapers throughout the state receivedCentennial News, a weekly publication with information on the progressof the event, andTexas Centennial Review, a newsletter with ideas and

information on local events. From the largest cities to the smallest com-

munities in the state, the centennial emerged as the leading issue of the

day. Its patrioticmessagemoved into diverse areas and populations, with

its unifying themesof Texashistoryandviewof Texas as a state that stood

separate from the others in the nation. As the Dallas Morning News re-ported on April 1, 1935, ‘‘every progressive community in the state, it

would seem, is busy’’ with a centennial program.15

The selection of Dallas embarrassed and frustratedmajor daily news-

paper publishers in Fort Worth, Houston, and San Antonio. Amon

Carter, the Star-Telegram, and Fort Worth civic leaders moved to close

the gap after learning that Dallas had the winning bid for the state cen-

tennial. As they worked to secure state funds for their own celebration,

the Star-Telegram moved to quench some of the fire that burned in the

competition for the centennial competition. The two newspaper enter-

prises, which often threw barbs at one another through their editorial

pages, realized the centennial offered a potential economic boom in the

midst of the Depression. ‘‘We can’t conceive of people coming to see the

LivestockCentennial andnot seeing themainCentennial atDallas,’’Star-Telegram editor J. M. North wrote to Ted Dealey of the Morning News.‘‘We believe that two attractions will supplement and benefit each other

and that neither can possibly be hurt by the other.’’16

A number of precedents of cooperation between the Fort Worth and

Dallaspublishers existedbefore the centennial projects.Thenewspapers

210


and civic leaders had cooperated to form the Trinity River Canal Asso-

ciation in 1930. The Trinity River flowed through both cities and sev-

eral hundred miles later emptied into the Gulf of Mexico. Community

and business leaders had sought millions of dollars in federal funding to

dredge theTrinity River and open thewaterway for commercial shipping

andbarge traffic. In support of the jointproject, theMorningNews stated,‘‘[T]here need be no uneasiness about FortWorth in thematter.’’ For the

first time, the News acknowledged Carter’s motto for his newspaper andcommunity. The News also acknowledged Carter’s vision and political

prowess. ‘‘ ‘Where the West Begins’ looms now and aims to loom con-

siderably more,’’ the editorial stated. Carter’s friend and Trinity River

Canal booster Silliman Evans wrote, ‘‘[T]here can be no further doubt

but that the Dallas Morning News has officially accepted Fort Worth as

‘Where theWest Begins.’ ’’17

Editor and Publishermagazine noted the centennial promotions werea boon to newspaper businesses in the state. While the promotions

yielded increased employment, more advertising, and a jump in the

tourist trade immediately, the benefits of these ‘‘farsighted newspaper-

men’’ would also accumulate in subsequent years. ‘‘The more people

who visit Texas and see its wonders and get acquainted with its citi-

zens, the more peoplewill invest their capital and their lives inTexas, ac-

cording to the shrewd judgment of Texas publishers,’’ the article stated.

George Dealey immodestly predicted that the exposition would create

‘‘more development and greater posterity in the state of Texas than have

the last 25 years.’’ Amon Carter, Fort Worth Star-Telegram publisher,

TomGooch, editor of theDallasTimes Herald, James Pollock, businessmanager of the Fort Worth Press, and John Payne, Houston Press busi-ness manager, joined in the rosy predictions. For emphasis, the article

included a cartoon of a cowboywearing a largewestern hat with ‘‘Texas’’

on the brim and a basket over a candle that proclaimed ‘‘Texas Billion

Power Candle Light.’’18

With their rival expositions, Dallas and Fort Worth gained national

headlines as evidence of a ‘‘major outbreak of exposition fever.’’ In June

1936, Business Week magazine described the festivities as ‘‘an amiable

blend of patriotism and business.’’ The competing shows may have ap-

peared to be a tribute to the rivalry between the two cities, but the maga-

zine reasoned both communities would enjoy the ‘‘chime of cash regis-

ters’’ from crowds, anticipated to number in the millions, making their

way to the twoTexas cities.The article noted the substantial contribution

from the federal government and the local and state contributions. It also

211


lauded the two expositions’ success in attracting large corporations such

as the large automakers, for which each city constructed its own multi-

million structures at the Dallas fairgrounds. The Dallas Morning Newsattempted to downplay the rivalry. In a July 15, 1936, editorial, the Newsstated, ‘‘In the Frontier Centennial our neighbor to the West preserves

the tradition of the Old West in the spirit of the jazz age.’’ The ‘‘highly

publicizednotion’’ of the competitionbetween theDallas andFortWorth

exhibitions was a ‘‘press agent’s dream. It has no real bearing on the suc-

cess of either the Centennial Central Exposition inDallas or the Frontier

Centennial in Fort Worth.’’19

Centennial fundsprovidedconstructionand landscaping forFairPark

in Dallas. Construction provided much-needed jobs, but labor strikes

by Dallas building trades union members slowed down construction.

The state contributed over $1million, while the federal government con-

tributed $1.5 million and funded more than fifty Dallas mural projects

as part of the Public Works of Art Project. The Texas Hall of State,

a million-dollar building to honor Texas heroes, became the center of

the permanent buildings. The park site included museums and exhibi-

tionbuildings forpetroleum, industry, communications, agriculture, and

transportation. Centennial visitors enjoyed rides and entertainment on

the Midway, as well as a re-creation of Judge Roy Bean’s courtroom in

the Jersey Lily Saloon and Admiral Richard Bird’s Little America camp

in Antarctica. President Roosevelt, hosted at a dinner by R. L. Thorn-

ton and other Dallas bankers, appeared in Dallas amid great fanfare.

TheDallas newspapers carriedmanypositive promotional stories for the

event.Fewstories appeared that involved labor strifeduring theconstruc-

tion appeared in the dailies.The special centennial editions of theDallas

newspapers completely omitted any news of labor problems.20

The main exposition also contained the Hall of Negro Life, the first

time that African Americans were recognized at a national exposition.

African American business and community leaders worked with cen-

tennial promoters for this landmark appearance. The Dallas Express,which had a history of attacking lynching, voting restrictions, and seg-

regation, advocated inclusion of the hall in the centennial fairgrounds.

The newspaper and local black leaders obtained entrance to the state

fair in Dallas on a single day, designated ‘‘Negro Day.’’ African Ameri-

can business leaders saw a greater opportunity for themselves through

the Centennial. Once Dallas won the selection for the main centennial

celebration, theExpress told its readers that theNegroChamberof Com-mercewas working with the Dallas business community to participate in

212

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


the events andgain a shareof the anticipatedbusiness.TheExpress statedthat the ‘‘Dallas Negro Chamber of Commerce has sought to assure for

the Negroes of Dallas suitable accommodations and participation in all

of the departments of this celebration.’’21

After agreeing to support the Dallas exposition and participate in the

bond campaign, the Hall of Negro Life received $100,000 as part of

the $3million federal appropriation.The centennial exposition received

support from African Americans in Texas despite the fact that unem-

ployment and poverty ranmuch higher in black communities than white

communities in both rural and urban areas. InDallas, AfricanAmericans

representedhalf the city’s unemployed in themid-1930s.Onlyonemajor

African American business, the Excelsior Mutual Insurance Company,

managed to survive to 1937. Thus the Hall of Negro Life represented a

symbol of hope and accomplishment for the black community. Included

in the hall were murals of African Americans providing contributions of

music, art, and religion to thenation.The exhibit also represented a small

achievement in opposition to the segregated life of the 1930s. A. Maceo

Smith, an African American insurance executive, led a concerted effort

to have the Hall of Negro Life included at the exposition. Smith’s early

work with the Dallas NAACP and white business leaders established a

pattern thatwasexpanded in thecomingdecadesas theAfricanAmerican

community began to increase its efforts to combat segregation.22

At the dedication of the centennial exposition on June 7, a host of

dignitaries and thousands of visitors attended. As Sam Acheson of the

Dallas Morning News wrote, the festivities opened ‘‘before the largest

crowd ever gathered in the Southwest.’’ An estimated 250,000 people at-

tended, ‘‘making it the greatest occasion in the history of Dallas and the

most notable event inTexas since SamHouston andhismen changed the

course of the NewWorld at San Jacinto.’’ Extensive coverage over radio

stations and the state’s newspapers heightened the enthusiasm for the

great event. Texas governor James Allred introduced Secretary of Com-

merceDaniel Roper. As he inserted a gold key and unlocked the ceremo-

nial gate, Roper proclaimed, ‘‘Texas welcomes the world.’’23

SecretaryRoper escorted a delegation of officials, some ofwhomwere

descendants of StephenF.Austin, andother state and local leaders. Later

that day, Roper dedicated the Federal Building and visited the Hall of

Negro Life. In his speech that evening, entitled ‘‘Texas and the Nation,’’

Roper surprised many by praising the progress of African Americans.

‘‘No people in all history can show greater progress in their achievement

in seventy-three years than the American Negro,’’ the Commerce sec-

214


retary said. ‘‘This is traceable to their patient, loyal, patriotic attitude

toward theircountryand to their gifts of soul andsong.’’TheDallasnews-

papers carried the remarks as part of the coverage of the opening cere-

mony. But later, the Dallas Morning News carried more critical stories

that depicted African Americans in a less flattering light. ‘‘History of

Negroes from Jungles toNow’’ and ‘‘black faces deep into slices of water-

melon’’ were among the racist, condescending phrases used in coverage

of the Hall of Negro Life. The statements undoubtedly provided some

comfort to fair organizers who acquiesced to the demands of African

Americans. But tomake sure that no onewould overlook the state’s Con-

federate heritage, a statue representative of the Confederacy stood in the

center portico of theCentennial Building. Confederate leaders appeared

prominently in murals in the Great Hall of State. President Franklin

Roosevelt dedicated a statue of Robert E. Lee on his horse Traveler as

one of the centennial highlights. Allegiance to the Old South and Con-

federacy remained strong, even as civic leaders elevated the Texas Lone

Star alongside the Stars and Bars.24

As mentioned earlier, Amon Carter pushed for a separate centennial

site for FortWorth. Following the untimelydeath of Will Rogers in 1935,

Carter urged amemorial coliseum in honorof his friend. Rejected by the

PWA, the plan was reborn in the form of a Frontier Centennial Exhibi-

tion. A 135-acre tract west of downtown Fort Worth, formerly occupied

by themilitary, became the chosen site.TheFortWorth FrontierCenten-

nial Exposition emerged as Amon Carter’s cause célèbre. Carter united

theFortWorthbusiness community behind thepromotion as thewestern

alternative to theDallas celebration.Thevenuewould offer the entertain-

ment and lavish productions that Carter believed that the Dallas venue

omitted.The Fort Worth Star-Telegram declared that Fort Worth would

become the beneficiary of increased jobs and would receive favorable

publicity for the city’s businesses. Carter’s newspaper andWBAP radio

carried daily stories and promotions of the event. A series of front-page

editorials in 1935 boasted of the benefits. ‘‘Fort Worth can stage a show

that in appeal to visitors will equal that of any other city or the main Cen-

tennial itself at Dallas,’’ Carter wrote. The benefits would bring ‘‘large

and immediate cash-drawer returns to every businessman, professional

man and property owner in Fort Worth.’’25

Carter lobbied his friends in Washington to assist with the funding.

After obtaining a loan and grant from the PWA along with privately

funded bonds for the multimillion dollar project, Carter learned in early

June1936that fundswere insufficient tocompleteconstruction.Hewrote

215


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

VicePresident JohnNanceGarner, onlydaysprior to thededication, that

the Fort Worth production needed more money. ‘‘Costs have exceeded

estimates thirty to forty percent.’’ He claimed that the project provided

jobs formore than3,000people. ‘‘Canyounot seeyourwayclear togiving

us some relief immediately,’’ Carter said. ‘‘I assure you that it would be a

Godsend to us.’’ Carter wroteRFCChairman Jesse Jones soliciting loans

up to $500,000. ‘‘There would not be a Chinaman’s chance for you to

lose a penny on this note,’’ Carter stated. If Jones faced any legal prob-

lems, Carter observed, ‘‘[Y]ou would be fully justified in waiving them,

as no doubt you have found necessary inmany cases where you have ren-

dered emergency financial assistance.’’ Carter concluded that everyone

would be protected in the investment and would be amazed at the ‘‘mag-

nificent’’ production. ‘‘Nothing like it ever has been shown in America.’’

Eventually, another $50,000 in federal money found its way to the Fort

Worth promoters.26

When Carter obtained funding for the Fort Worth exposition, he and

216


fair organizers raced to open before their Dallas neighbors, but delays

forced the FortWorth exposition to open amonth after the one inDallas.

Carter utilized the staff of the Star-Telegram and WBAP for publicity,

planning, and accounting for the Fort Worth production. Prior to the

official launch, Carter invited hundreds of newspaper publishers and

editors to attend a preview. WBAP radio provided an hour-long show

that fed to network radio around the nation. At the July opening, news

reports stated the production was ‘‘a startling blending of Texas long-

horns, cowpunchers, chuck-wagons, six-pistols and naked Indians, with

showgirls, BillyRoseian scenic effects, PaulWhiteman’smusic andSally

Rand’s bubbles.’’ President Roosevelt telegraphed congratulations to

Carter from the schooner yacht Sewanna off the coast of Nova Scotia.

‘‘Best of luck to you all,’’ the president wrote.27

Governor Allred and other state political and business leaders offi-

cially launched the opening. New York director Billy Rose featured a

highly anticipated floor show, the ‘‘Frontier Follies,’’ at theCasaMañana.

One of the attractions of the show was a ‘‘chorus of some 500 beau-

tiful girls.’’ Rose also brought his acclaimed Jumbo, a one-ring-circusmusical production, to the theatre. ‘‘The atmosphere of a Texas town

of 1849 will be perfectly re-created,’’ one account stated. ‘‘There will be

soldiers, Indians, Mexicans, cowboys, wagon trains, stage coaches, buf-

falo, all the frontier business enterprises, such as trading posts, saloons

and dance halls—all open for business.’’ The floor shows and the liquor

attracted the crowds. According to Carter’s biographer, ‘‘[I]llegal liquor

was served everywhere because Amon had made a deal with the state’s

Liquor Control Board.The summer heat often made the FortWorth ex-

position unbearable, but throngs of people continued to appear. Critics

and visitors praised the productions for months.28

TheTexasCentennial Exposition inDallas closed inNovember 1936.

The Fort Worth Frontier Centennial suspended most operations by

Thanksgiving. More than 6 million people attended the six-month-

long celebration in Dallas and an estimated 1 million visited the Fort

Worth show.Visitors includedPresidentFranklinRoosevelt andhiswife,

EleanorRoosevelt,Vice PresidentGarner, and a host of national and fed-

eral officials. Over 350,000 schoolchildren fromTexas and other states

attended the centennial celebrations.The Dallas and FortWorth events,

especiallywhencombinedwithothers around the state, expanded thena-

tional awareness of Texas.The festivities laid the foundations for a grow-

ing tourist trade. The centennial events also provided economic relief

in the form of thousands of jobs and substantial improvements in many

217


communities around the state. Finally, the celebrations offset some of the

concerns about the ongoing economic depression and lifted the spirits

of many of the state’s citizens. For newspaper publishers, the increased

revenues, circulation, and recognition provided welcome relief in the

difficult years of the Great Depression. Publishers whose proclamations

appeared extravagant in 1935 actually achieved many of their goals.29

In Dallas, the closing of the fair led to a monumental decision: to

create the Dallas Citizens Council, chartered in 1937 to plot the city’s

future. Charter members in the elite group included independent Dallas

publishers G. B. Dealey and Edwin J. Kiest. The group embraced busi-

nessmen, insurance and utility executives, and bankers drawn from the

city’s civic leadership. No reporters, educators, attorneys, women, mi-

norities, or members of the clergy were included in the original coun-

cil. The organization sought to influence the course of business, civic

projects, local politics, and major organizations such as the chamber of

commerce.The group’s membership changed, but the Council success-

fully controlled Dallas for the next fifty years.The Council accepted the

premise thatDealey in particular had advanced formany years:Dallas, as

representedby thebusiness community, should speakwithonevoice and

offer a business-oriented agenda for the people of Dallas.The insecurity

created by theDepression, the success of the centennial celebration, and

the near unanimous conviction that the city’s business leadership pro-

vided the best direction created the glue that held this group together for

years to come.The insular, self-perpetuating, confidentorganizationbest

resembled the Dallas Morning News, which, under Dealey’s leadershipand with its consistent policy of promoting business, survived the eco-

nomic challenges of the Depression and remained a closely held family

operationwith a securebaseof longtime loyalmanagers andemployees.30

In another sense, the centennial events and their promotion by the

state press illustrated the desire to accept Washington’s expanded pres-

ence, especially in the form of federal dollars. As long as the social and

politicalorder remained inplace in thestate,Texansmaintained theiralle-

giance to the traditional one-party Democratic system. Projects such as

those represented by the centennial allowedTexans to boast of their indi-

viduality which, on the surface, set them apart from the rest of the South

and the nation. The New Deal projects and the expanding role of the

federal government sometimes produced criticism and divisions within

the business and political leadership of the state. Although some grew

increasingly nervous about President Roosevelt’s policies and the direc-

tion of the Democratic Party,Texas editors took solace in the knowledge

218


that friendly Texans still commanded major positions in the legislative

and executive branches. Even with their power and influence in Wash-

ington, newspaper publishers and Texans from all walks of life realized

the Depression retained its grip over the region and the nation.

Kenneth Ragsdale, author of a history of the centennial, reports that

many out-of-state visitors ‘‘expressed their praise for the ‘new Texas’;

they found not the ‘countrified folks’ they had expected, but an ‘ultra-

modern’ culture. This changing attitude among non-Texans ultimately

created a great cultural impact on the state, negating the ‘pride with

shame’ syndrome and instilling a new sense of state pride inTexas.’’ Re-

gional self-consciousnesswas, after all, not a congenital deformity.Dallas

retailer and civic stalwart Stanley Marcus reflected on the impact of the

centennial on his city and the state. ‘‘I’ve frequently said that modern

Texas history started with the celebration of the Texas Centennial, be-

cause it was in 1936 . . . that the rest of America discovered Texas. The

spotlightwas thrownonTexas andpeople from all over theUnitedStates

came here.’’31

Labor strife also became a concern during the centennial celebration,

andTexas newspaper publishers becamemore critical of organized labor

by 1937.The sit-down strikes that closed many coalfields and manufac-

turing plants in 1936 garnered headlines and criticism from southern

politicians andnewspapers.Manybelieved that the strikes violatedprop-

erty rights, and that PresidentRoosevelt andhis administrationprovided

tacit support to the unions. Sentiment against organized labor in Dallas

amongthebusinesscommunitydiscouragedunionorganizing, especially

after the closing of the centennial expositions. But violence and death

erupted during an especially bitter strike at the Dallas FordMotor Com-

panyplant in 1937.Ford, longknownas abastionof antiunion sentiment,

retaliated against organizers and workers in the summer and fall of 1937.

The victims of Ford’s hired thugs included plant workers, CIO organiz-

ers, and Dallas residents who expressed sentiments in favor of the em-

ployees.The enforcers attackedover fifty individuals and killed oneman.

In scenes reminiscent of the Klan activities of the early 1920s, targeted

Ford employees were ‘‘taken for a ride’’ to an isolated area away from

town, where they were beaten.The Ford gang seized Barto Hill, a labor

organizer fromTennessee, and administered abeating, then stripped and

tarred and feathered their victim, much as the Klan had done a decade

earlier.They dumped Hill in front of theDallas Morning News office. A

photo of the victim appeared the following day in the newspaper. Gov-

ernor Allred called in the Texas Rangers, and the National Labor Rela-

219


tions Board (NLRB) eventually conducted hearings on Ford’s activities

in Dallas.

Labor organizers claimed Ford’s violent acts would end only when

the business establishment and the daily press criticized the automaker’s

tactics. Unlike their reporting of the earlier Klan-orchestrated violence,

the Dallas dailies downplayed the incidents and provided little coverage

of the NLRB hearings and investigation.The dailies’ concern over labor

strife mirrored that of theTexas congressional delegation of this period.

The national press, which included theNewYorkTimes, reported Ford’santiunion activities and the labor board’s actions; it also noted the city’s

growing reputation for hostility to groups that opposed large businesses.

AfterWorldWar II began, Fordworkers nationwide becamemembers of

the United AutoWorkers as a result of federal court action and a national

agreement between Ford and the unions.32

Texas newspapers aligned with most Texas businesses in the 1930s

in expanding their opposition to organized labor. In this case, the pro-

business bias of the publishers clearly outweighed their editorial assess-

ment of community living standards andworking conditions. As in other

southern cities, the dominant leadership accepted federal assistance to

provide unemployment wages and other relief efforts. But they resisted

any challenges to the prevailing wage schedules or large-scale efforts at

unionization. Many business and political leaders also feared unionism,

especially the CIO, as an open door to racial integration. The Dallas

Open Shop Association, organized in 1919, opposed union activities in

the city and subjected members who knowingly hired union workers

to a $3,000 fine. The members represented the city’s chamber of com-

merce, which worked closely with the Dallas newspaper establishment.

The local AFL leadership cooperated with businesses that resisted CIO

organizers, and the labor leaders refused to publicly condemn violence

and atrocities. In 1937 the Nation called attention to the city’s antilaborpositions in the critical story ‘‘Dallas Tries Terror.’’ Based on the resis-

tance in the South to CIO organizing attempts in cities like Dallas, his-

torian George B.Tindall concluded that the ‘‘South remained predomi-

nantly nonunion and largely antiunion.’’33

Dailynewspapers showedevidenceofprosperityas a result of the 1936

centennial celebration. But the recession of 1937 hit Texas and the na-

tion with a vengeance.TheMorning News closed its long-running Semi-Weekly FarmNews andmerged itwith the daily.Dealeycomplained in hisannual report that with the exception of radio station WFAA, all of the

220


BeloCorporation publications lostmoney in 1938.Dealey sold the after-

noonDallas Journal toHoustonbusinessman JamesWest.Commenting

on the sale, Dealey reported that the corporation received only twenty

cents on the dollar, ‘‘but we were perhaps lucky to receive anything.’’34

Even after World War II began in Europe, publishers still faced

difficulties in maintaining their newspapers as a profitable enterprise.

George B. Dealey turned over the presidency of the News toTedDealey,his son. The Belo Corporation annual report disclosed that advertising

rates still fell short of supporting the newspaper operation. The report

stated that both ‘‘leading newspapers’’ in the city, theNews and theTimesHerald, lost money. However, the Dallas corporations survived, as they

were ‘‘supported largely by radio revenues.’’ Belo owned WFAA, while

the rival Times Herald Corporation owned KRLD. Ted Dealey stated,

‘‘We have the modest conviction that theDallas News is being managedmore sanely and more wisely than is the business of our nearest rival’’

and that the ‘‘competitive situation will adjust itself.’’ With this disclo-

sure, he asserted, ‘‘[W]e confidently anticipate that, in the long haul, we

will come out ‘at the top of the heap.’ ’’35

Historian Dewey Grantham surmises that by the end of the 1930s,

the New South formula won the debate over the character of the south-

ern economy. The New Deal provided a source of new capital with few

strings attached in the form of the federal government. Along with regu-

lations for industry, finance, agriculture, and labor, some of the old walls

of resistance and blame that Texans and other southerners hurled at the

rest of the nation came tumbling down.Themetropolitan newspapers of

the state took the lead alongsideTexas politicians who formulated these

fresh ideas. Differences continued to exist and lead to conflict and criti-

cism, especiallywhen issues involvedachallenge to the statusquo, that is,

when they related to segregation and the region’s labor system.Whiledis-

pleasurewith the Democratic Party increased in the years prior toWorld

War II, the disputes failed to completely dampen loyalties to the national

Democratic leadership.Publishers retained theircloseconnections to the

federal leadershipandreliedon theentrenchedTexascongressionaldele-

gation and their allies in the government to offset any serious challenges

to the dominant coalition back home.36

Whilehistoriansagree that the federalpresenceexpanded in theSouth

during the 1930s, disagreement exists on the extent of its impact on the

region and its meaning for this generation of Americans. Formany, espe-

cially the rural poor, African Americans, and Mexican Americans, their

221


suffering continued and conditions sometimes deteriorated during the

1930s.Yet life formany rural and urbandwellers, including someminori-

ties, showed some degree of improvement. Texas and the South were

not entirely agrarian. Urban communities expanded and their workforce

increased, due in part to widespread urban support for federal initia-

tives. These programs, aided and abetted by the urban daily press, pro-

vided an alternative to the poor tenant farmers of the region. Although

theycriticizedmany federalprogramsandonlyoffered lukewarmsupport

for others,Texas daily newspaper publishers acknowledged this shift in

alignment and advocated the establishment of federal programs in the

region. Public power, minimum wage, work standards, relief programs,

federal loans to business, improvement of public education, and other

NewDeal programs found fertile ground and editorial support from the

state’s leading newspapers.

TheTexas publishers adhered to their consensus philosophy that had

carried them forward from the early years of the twentieth century.This

approach continued in the difficult years of the 1930swhendebate finally

moved fromdisagreements over Prohibition to substantive issues that in-

volved business expansion, labor and race relations, support for public

education, and improved health services.The publishers also helped set

a tone of race accommodation and tolerance, albeit within a segregated

system.Thenewspapers remainedopposed to federal antilynching legis-

lation and affirmed their support of the poll tax.They steadfastly refused

to carry news of accomplishments by African Americans and Mexican

Americans. They tolerated the discrimination exercised in most of the

NewDeal programs inTexas and the rest of the South.Yet by the 1930s,

the major dailies in the state refused to enter into the vile, race-baiting

tirades to which many southern politicians and newspaper publishers

subscribed. They endorsed the very programs that were to provide a

seedbed of expanded opportunity to all people, regardless of their skin

colororbackground.Thedifferences in the racial communities remained

wide, but some bridgeswere established through the support of theNew

Deal and its promise of a better life. The era marked the beginning of

a period when the southern press would have to recognize a need for

reshaping the region’s economic and social structure.

Reviewing the accomplishments of the centennial year, the editors of

theTexas Almanac believed the events signaled a ‘‘return of prosperity’’and ‘‘served the purpose of bringing full realization that the old Texas

had passed—that the centennial event meant more than the passing of a

222


mere historic milestone.’’ The soil and natural resources still held great

wealth for the state’s citizens and businesses. After 1936, proponents be-

lieved that expanded opportunities in the form of manufacturing would

supersede agriculture and extractive industries that relied on natural re-

sources. In the midst of the Great Depression, Texas had finally passed

‘‘into cultural and economic adulthood.’’37

223

Conclusion

The newspaper publishers who reigned over

their domains for the first four decades of the

twentieth century set the stage for the expansion and social

change during World War II and the postwar era. The publishers, who

followed diverse paths and had unique circumstances in their individual

communities, identified and promoted a combination of factors leading

to the modernization of Texas and the development of a distinct Texas

image. Texas transformed due to economic growth spurred by federal

and regional financial support of infrastructure, the military, and civic

improvements. Oil and gas exploration, real estate and construction, ex-

panded agriculture, and the increased sophistication of financial and

professional services for the extractive industries represented a second

essential component.Tourism, encouraged by celebratory events, inter-

pretive history, and the newTexas mythology provided a third element.

Finally, the civic leadership and the political influence tied to the daily

news establishment created the culture in which these activities could be

accomplished. In spite of the economic downturn and the struggles of

the 1930s, all of these components were firmly in place in time for the

1940s boom.

The most spectacular population growth occurred in the southwest-

ern cities of the nation by 1940. Before the explosive growth years of

World War II, Los Angeles, San Diego, Houston, Dallas, San Antonio,

and Oklahoma City had each surpassed 200,000 residents. Fort Worth

closely followed with 177,000. In the Southwest, only Los Angeles and

Denver exceeded the three largest Texas cities in population.1

In 1938 President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration issued its

Report on Economic Conditions of the South and called the region ‘‘the

Nation’s No. 1 economic problem.’’ The devastating report provided de-

tailed information on a population ‘‘ravaged by an inadequate diet, poor

health, unacceptable housing, and inferior public services.’’ The survey

supported many other reports that detailed the economic woes of the

Conclusion

southern states. Even with this bleak regional picture, Texas offered a

glimmer of light for a different future. Texas began to break away from

the pack of other southern states in many important areas. From 1930 to

1940, the state’s population increased 10 percent, to 6.4 million, making

it themost populous state in the South and the sixth-largest in the nation.

Fort Worth, Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio’s increase exceeded 10

percent, as most of the state’s growth in this decade occurred in urban

areas. By 1940 the urban population of 45.4 percent heralded the state’s

population shift from countryside to cities. In the rest of the South, only

two in ten resided in ametropolitan area. Inwholesale trade,Texas led all

southern stateswith over $2billion in sales and alsowas first in retail sales

and trade. Bank deposits totaled almost $3 billion, nearly triple the level

of 1933. Per capita income, which decreased nationwide from $596 in

1930 to $579 in 1940, showed an increase inTexas from $375 to $423 in

the decade of theDepression.Only Florida andVirginia exceededTexas

on this categoryamong the southern states.Takenas awhole, southerners

obtained only 60 percent of the national per capita average income.2

Manyhistorians and social scientists point toWorldWar II as the cata-

lyst that catapultedTexas and the rest of theSouth into a stageofunprece-

dentedgrowthandurbanization.DuringWorldWar II, approximately40

percent of nationalmilitary expenditures found their way into the South.

The federal government invested$100billion inweapons,militaryequip-

ment, and training bases. Texas experienced the largest gain among all

the southern states. Millions of people moved into the region during the

war. The vast influx of people, federal expenditures, and infrastructure

created a dramatic change in the region.3

Without a doubt, theTexas landscape underwent a dramatic transfor-

mation during thewar years and in the subsequent postwar boom.Many

other areas of the South and West underwent similar changes. Texas,

however, occupied a unique position in this transition.The groundwork

for change began decades prior to World War II. A cadre of the urban

elites—newspaper publishers, bank presidents, attorneys, and business

leaders—paved the way for these dramatic changes and led the charge

toward modernization. In the early decades of the twentieth century,

they solidified their leadership and vision of a new urbanized popula-

tiondrivenbya consumereconomyand an expandingmiddle class.They

promoted their own enterprises and their respective communities, often

at the expense of departing from their stated goals of expansion through

modernization.

As advocates of themodernization foundation, the publishers defined

225


their version of the future in their advocacy of the extractive and service

industries. Agriculture, along with oil and gas production, provided the

extractive wealth. New services, including banking, finance, insurance,

and real estate, fueled the urban, service-driven expansion. Finally, fed-

eral dollars that financed infrastructure and military installations com-

pleted the third leg of this triangle.Dollars fromWashington contributed

to the growth and strengthened the political alliances between the pub-

lishers and the influential Texas congressional delegation. Not everyone

benefited from this expansion, but this program set the pattern for the

future. In this construction, the publishers managed to be the promoters

of growth and reform, but not at the expense of radical social change.

The pages of the daily newspapers and the publishers’ philosophies

reflected and promoted many of the traditional values carried forward

from the nineteenth-century agrarian culture. Thus, while much of the

image andculture of the state evolved into adistinct identity by the 1930s,

the push toward modernization had its limits. The expanding urban

middle class and the commercial business elites maintained their views

onracial identities, religiousaffiliations,business and labor relations, and

a regional consciousness.4

The publishing and broadcast operations of the Texas media giants

withstood the tests of economic depression and political challenge. In

thesedecadesof economic and social change, individual publisherspros-

pered if they adapted to changes in technology, consumer tastes, and

internal organization. In particular, theDallas Morning News, theHous-ton Chronicle, the Houston Post, and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram as-

cended to the highest levels of prosperity and influence. Each of the

publishers possessed the business acumen, political connections, and

personal vision to adapt to changing times.They did not march in lock-

step, but their voices clearly boomed across the political and social land-

scape. They expanded their enterprises into other areas of communica-

tions.They alsowithstood incursions from larger chain news operations

that dominated the business in other states.5

As most newspaper businesses reached their zenith in the 1920s and

began a slow descent through the following decades, the major Texas

publishers maintained their dominance for another generation. Finan-

cially successful, combined newspaper and radio operations proved a

winning corporate combination. As circulation and revenues expanded,

the publishers managed to make choices that ensured them continued

success and domination in their regional media markets. Their politi-

cal biases and involvement would not meet today’s criteria of objectivity,

226

Conclusion

but their cozy connections with the political elite provided tangible and

often profitable results. By the end of the 1930s, these media compa-

nies and their owners had achieved success that made them the envy of

many of their out of state rivals. By the 1930s, they had also managed to

defineanew image for the state.Basedon their level of influence,financial

stability, and market penetration, the major Texas publishers were well

placed for the coming economic boom of the 1940s through the 1970s.

Furthermore, the leading Texas publishers were able to pass on their

legacies and their media corporations to their successors. G. B. Dealey

became the first of this generation to pass away.The eighty-six-year-old

publisher died in 1946. Ted Dealey, his son, stepped into his place as

the head of the Dallas Morning News. Amon Carter Jr. became pub-

lisher of the FortWorth Star-Telegram on the death of his father in 1955.

JohnT. Jones, nephew of Jesse H. Jones, became publisher of theHous-ton Chronicle. Jesse H. Jones died in 1956. Former Texas governor and

Houston Post publisherWilliam P. Hobby died in 1964. His wife, Oveta

Culp Hobby, and laterWilliam P. Hobby Jr., their son, assumed control

of the Post. Their companies included the daily newspaper, radio, and,

by the early 1950s, television stations. This second generation of pub-

lishers facedmany newchallenges afterWorldWar II that changedmany

of the relationships established during the era beforeWorld War II.

Even as the business leaders outdistanced their counterparts in other

southern states, one main goal of modernization remained to be accom-

plished.Thestate retained its long-standingcultural ties to therestrained,

discriminatory societies that dominated the South during this era. Al-

though the distinctive Texas personality primarily manifested itself in

the pages of the state’s daily newspapers during the 1930s, segregation

and discrimination remained an obstacle on the path to modernization.

Social and economic reforms in this period applied primarily to white

middle- and upper-class urban communities. After World War II, the

civil rights movement—followed by more large-scale movements that

provided more rights for women, the disabled, the poor, the aged, and

others—served as serious challenges to the social order. These groups,

many of whom were left behind in the initial stage of modernization be-

fore World War II, saw significant gains sprout from grounds that were

seeded during the early decades of the twentieth century. Newspapers

and other media neglected minority members of the community. With

only a few exceptions, they succumbed to the prevailing social standards

of discrimination and segregation.

Commentator and author Bill Moyers, in a discussion on journalism

227


and history, notes that while both professions concern themselves pri-

marilywithpast events, ‘‘journalismencourages themakingof snap judg-

ments and the drawing of facile conclusions: history tends to grow out

of sustained study and a patient resolve to connect the dots.’’ Journalists

have alwaysbeenpraised andplaguedby short deadlines and the require-

ment of instant analysis.Historians have a longer viewand extended time

for summation and reflection. But historians and journalists share simi-

lar criticisms of their coverage and conclusions. ‘‘Bad history can have

consequences as devastating as bad journalism,’’ Moyers observes. And

to compound the problem, ‘‘not writing about someone can write them

out of existence.’’ People without voices, whether omitted by journalists

or historians, can be erased faster than the pies at a family reunion.Many

of their stories and history are lost, while some are still buried in the files

of the newspaper morgues.6

George B. Dealey proclaimed that the news publications of his era

represented the best of hope and progress. As he told an appreciative

audience in 1939, their publications served as ‘‘a voice, an intelligence

and a reasoning conscience, to interpret for the reading public the ripest

thought and best judgment of the time, touching all questions of public

concern.’’Not all of the important issueswere addressed fairly andobjec-

tively, but the publishers provided a guiding hand in the modernization

of Texas during the early twentieth century.

228

Notes

Works frequently cited in the notes have been identified by the following

abbreviations:

AGCP AmonG.CarterSr.Papers,MaryCoutsBurnettLibrary,TexasChristian

University, Fort Worth,Texas

Belo A. H. Belo Archives, Belo Corporation Foundation, Dallas, Texas

CAH Center for American History, University of Texas at Austin, Austin,

Texas

DHS Dallas Historical Society, Dallas, Texas

HMRC Houston Metropolitan Research Center, Houston,Texas

JP Jesse H. Jones Papers, Houston Endowment, Houston,Texas

LOC Library of Congress,Washington, D.C.

WRC Woodson Research Center, Fondren Library, Rice University, Houston,

Texas

Introduction1. ‘‘HonoringGeorgeBannermanDealey,’’October 12, 1939,GeorgeB.Dealey

vertical files, CAH;Dallas Morning News,October 13, 1939.

2. W. P. Hobby to Amon G. Carter, August 2, 1939, Amon G. Carter toW. P.

Hobby,August 7, 1939, Box 13 (1939)/15, AGCP;FortWorth Star-Telegram,Octo-

ber 13, 1939.

3. Dallas Morning News,October 13, 1939.


5. DallasMorningNews,October 13, 1939;GrahamMurdock andPeterGold-

ing, ‘‘The Structure, Ownership and Control of the Press, 1914–1976,’’ in News-

paper History from the Seventeenth Century to the Present Day, ed. George Boyce,

James Curran, and PaulineWingate, 136.

6. Patricia Evridge Hill,Dallas: The Making of a Modern City, xxiii–xxiv.

7. Hill,Dallas, 129–160; A. C.Greene,Dallas USA, 72; Darwin Payne, BigD:

Triumphs and Troubles of an American Supercity in the 20th Century, 32–34, 126–

127, 77–109, 177.

8. Donald L. Shaw, ‘‘The Rise and Fall of American Mass Media: Roles of

Technology and Leadership,’’ Roy W. Howard Public Lecture in Journalism and

Notes to Pages 5–15

Mass Communication Research, no. 2, April 4, 1991, Indiana University School of

Journalism, Bloomington, 3–4.

9. Shaw, ‘‘Rise and Fall,’’ 7–8.

10. Shaw, ‘‘Rise and Fall,’’ 26–29.

11. The construction of Texas’ regional identity is a major theme of Michael

Phillips, ‘‘The Fire This Time: The Battle over Racial, Regional, and Religious

Identities in Dallas, Texas, 1860–1990,’’ Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at

Austin, 2002.

12. V. O. Key Jr., with the assistance of Alexander Heard, Southern Politics in

State and Nation, 254–261.

1. Texas Newspapers and Modernization1. WilliamDavidSloan, ed.,TheAge of MassCommunication,321–322;Edwin

Emery and Michael Emery, The Press and America, 259; Michael Schudson, The

Power of News, 53–71; Jean Folkerts and Dwight L. Teeter Jr., Voices of a Nation:

TheHistory of MassMedia in the United States, 315–317. All of thesemedia histori-

ans recognized the twentieth century as the point at which daily newspapers across

thenationdemonstrate significant change inorganization, structure andappearance

which coincides with the economic expansion and growth of corporations during

this period.

2. Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, ‘‘TheAnxietyof History:The SouthernConfron-

tation with Modernity,’’ Southern Cultures 1, no. 1 (fall 1994). Fox-Genovese iden-

tifies three elements of modernity: material progress, political democracy, and ‘‘au-

tonomous’’ individuals.

3. Charles P. Roland, The Improbable Era: The South since World War II,

9–10. Other classic studies of the region in this era include V. O. Key Jr., with

the assistance of Alexander Heard, Southern Politics in State and Nation; Dewey

Grantham,The South in Modern America;George B.Tindall,The Emergence of the

New South, 1913–1945;W. J. Cash,TheMind of the South; and C.VannWoodward,

Origins of the New South, 1877–1913.

4. Jacquelyn Dowd Hall, Revolt against Chivalry: Jessie Daniel Ames and the

Women’s Campaign against Lynching, 134–135.

5. V. O. Key Jr., Politics, Parties, and Pressure Groups, 234; Edward L. Ayers,

The Promise of the New South, 49. Union pensions from the federal treasury far

exceeded similar pensions to Confederate veterans funded by southern state legis-

latures. Funding for federal pensions provided millions of dollars to veterans well

into the 1920s.

6. Ayers, Promise of the New South, 309.

7. Grantham,The South in Modern America, 23–24. A number of studies pro-

vide interpretationsofconflict andchange in the latenineteenth-andearly twentieth-

century South: Paul M. Gaston,The New South Creed: A Study in Southern Myth-

making; John S. Ezell, The South since 1865; Woodward, The Origins of the New

South, 1877–1913; Roland,The Improbable Era; Donald Davidson et al., I’ll Take

230


MyStand:The South and the AgrarianTradition, byTwelve Southerners;W. J.Cash,

The Mind of the South.

8. Walter L. Buenger, The Path to a Modern South: Northeast Texas between

Reconstruction and the Great Depression, xv–xvii.

9. LawrenceW. Levine best captured the separation of U.S. art into ‘‘high cul-

ture’’ and ‘‘lowculture’’ and the implications this process had for the country’s class

politics, inHighbrow/Lowbrow: The Emergence of Cultural Hierarchy in America.

10. ‘‘The Literature of a Moral Republic,’’ Smart Set 47 (October 1915): 152–

153, quoted in Fred C. Hobson, Serpent in Eden: H. L. Mencken and the South, 21,

and in Ayers, Promise of the New South, 372.

11. Lewis L. Gould, Progressives and Prohibitionists: Texas Democrats in the

WilsonEra,30–31; Buenger,ThePath to aModern South, 123–131;TomPilkington,

State of Mind:TexasLiterature andCulture,3–9.Among the articles citedbyGould

is ‘‘Texas toRule theUnited States in the Future?’’ from theChicagoRecord-Herald,

March 25, 1911. Pilkington examines the regional and environmental influence on

Texas writers and their interpretations of the state and its people in shaping the

image of Texas culture.

12. Blaine A. Brownell, ‘‘Urbanization,’’ in Encyclopedia of Southern Culture,

ed. Charles ReaganWilson andWilliam Ferris, 1436–1437.

13. Roger W. Lotchkin, ‘‘The Metropolitan-Military Complex in Perspective:

San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego, 1919–1941,’’ in Gerald D. Nash, ed.,

The UrbanWest, 19, 20.

14. Ronald L. Davis, ‘‘Western UrbanDevelopment,’’ in JeromeO. Steffen, ed.,

The AmericanWest: New Perspectives, New Dimensions, 175–195.

15. Woodward, quoted by JamesC. Cobb, ‘‘Beyond Planters and Industrialists:

A New Perspective on the New South,’’ in Redefining Southern Culture, 9.

16. W. JosephCampbell,YellowJournalism: Puncturing theMyths,Defining the

Legacies,7–13, 33.Campbell provides thebroadest interpretationof yellow journal-

ism, one that extends beyond the traditional definition of the trend as a sensational

stylewithmore emphasis on crime and vice. For earlier interpretations, seeDelos F.

Wilcox, ‘‘The American Newspaper: A Study in Social Psychology,’’ Annals of the

American Academy of Political and Social Science 16 ( July 1900): 56–92; Sidney

Kobre,TheYellow Press and Gilded Age Journalism; Frank Luther Mott, American

Journalism: A History, 1690–1960, 539.

2. The Evolution of the Texas Press1. TheHandbook of TexasOnline, s.v. ‘‘Newspapers,’’ <http://www.tsha.utexas

.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/NN/een8.html>

2. Marilyn Sibley, Lone Stars and State Gazettes: Texas Newspapers before the

Civil War, 74–75, 264–267.

3. TheHandbook of TexasOnline, s.v. ‘‘GalvestonSpectator,’’ <http://www.tsha

.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/GG/eeg8.html>

4. Houston Chronicle,March 28, 1987;Handbook of Texas Online, s.v. ‘‘Hous-

231


ton Informer,’’ <http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/HH/

eeh11.html>

5. Handbook of Texas Online, s.v. ‘‘San Antonio Register,’’ <http://www.tsha

.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/SS/ees20.html>

6. Texas: A Guide to the Lone Star State, 60–62.

7. San Antonio Express, October 25, 1902, as quoted in Frederic D. Ogden,

The Poll Tax in the South, 10–11. The Federal Elections Bill, labeled the Force Bill

in the South, never passed in this era but remained on the congressional agenda

as a Republican initiative for many years. An earlier study of poll taxes and their

abuse appeared inDonald S. Strong, ‘‘The Poll Tax:TheCase of Texas,’’ American

Political Science Review 38 (August 1944): 698.

8. Dallas Morning News, February 27, 1910;Houston Chronicle, February 26,

1910;Wharton Spectator, February 25, March 4, 1910.

9. Wharton Spectator,March 4, 1910.

10. Dallas Morning News,March 4, 1910.

11. Dallas Morning News, March 4, 1910. In its extensive coverage of the

lynching, the News reported extensive damage to the courthouse. Officials closed

saloons and Governor Campbell ordered the militia to assist local law enforcement

authorities.

12. Houston Chronicle,March 3, 4, 1910.


14. HoustonChronicle,March 4, 1910.TheChronicle ran other editorials in sub-

sequentweeks, blaming thecourt systemand its ‘‘antiquatedand inefficient system.’’

The newspaper defended individual judges and stated ‘‘no corruption in Texas

courts’’ existed. As the editors stated onMarch 10, ‘‘The law should not be made a

travesty by reason of senseless precedents.’’

15. Joel Williamson,The Crucible of Race: Black-White Relations in the Ameri-

can South since Emancipation, 309–310, 513.

16. Houston Daily Post, January 11, 1901. The front-page articles that day re-

ported debate in the U.S. Senate over the nation’s policy in the Philippines, a dis-

pute between Houston and La Porte over a proposed deepwater port, and a pos-

sible lynching of an African American in Indianapolis because of his marriage to a

white woman.

17. Houston Daily Post, January 12, 1901. The largest well prior to Spindletop

produced 6,000 barrels per day compared to the 100,000 barrels per day from the

Lucas well in 1901.

18. Houston Daily Post, January 15, 16, 20, 1901.

19. James R. Chiles, ‘‘Spindletop,’’ American Heritage of Invention and Tech-

nology 3, no. 1 (1987): 34–43;Houston Daily Post, January 15, 1901.

20. HoustonDaily Post,April 28, 1901;GalvestonDailyNews,February 3, 1901.

Both articles quoted in Judith Walker Linsley, Ellen Walker Rienstra, and Jo Ann

Stiles,Giant under the Hill: A History of the Spindletop Oil Discovery at Beaumont,

Texas, in 1901, 133–135.

232


21. Houston Daily Post, January 15, 1901;Texas: A Guide to the Lone Star State,

196–197.

22. William David Sloan and James G. Startt, eds., The Media in America: A

History (5th ed.), 281–283. Other media and newspaper histories that consider the

twentieth century as the modern, professional era for journalism include Edwin

EmeryandMichaelEmery,ThePress andAmerica, andSidneyKobre,Development

of American Journalism.

23. Alexis deTocqueville,Democracy in America, ed. Harvey C.Mansfield and

DelbaWinthrop, 244.Many scholars considerTocqueville’smultivolumework one

of the most influential commentaries on the character and development of the U.S.-

style democracy.

24. Tocqueville,Democracy, 177–178.

25. Tocqueville,Democracy, 177–178.

26. Sloan and Startt, Media, 282.

27. Walter Lippmann, ‘‘Two Revolutions in the American Press,’’ Yale Review

20 (March 1931): 433–441.

28. Thomas D. Clark,The Southern Country Editor, 170–171.

29. Dewey Grantham, The South in Modern America, 11–12; Sloan and Startt,

Media, 243–244.Continuewith a list of southern historians:Grantham;W. J. Cash;

C. Vann Woodward, Origins of the New South, 1877–1913; V. O. Key Jr.; Paul M.

Gaston.

30. GeorgeB.Tindall,TheEmergence of theNewSouth, 1913–1945,5–6.Anum-

berof studies examine southernprogressivismand its initiatives in theSouth.These

includeW. J. Cash,The Mind of the South;Dewey L. Grantham, Southern Progres-

sivism: The Reconciliation of Progress and Tradition; Richard Hofstadter,The Age

of Reform: FromBryan to F.D.R.; J.MorganKousser,The Shaping of Southern Poli-

tics: Suffrage Restriction and the Establishment of the One-Party South, 1880–1910;

Arthur S.Link, ‘‘TheProgressiveMovement in theSouth, 1870–1914,’’NorthCaro-

lina Historical Review 23, no. 1 (1946): 172–195; George B.Tindall,The Persistent

Tradition in New South Politics;Woodward,Origins of the New South, 1877–1913.

The classic Texas study is Lewis L. Gould, Progressives and Prohibitionists: Texas

Democrats in theWilson Era.

31. Grantham,The South in Modern America, 46.

32. Grantham,The South in Modern America, 48–57.

33. JamesV. Lovell, ‘‘Dallas Story,’’DallasTimesHerald,August 29, 1949.The

story came from the January 25 and 27, 1897, editions of theTimes Herald, located

in the Dallas Times Herald Collection, Belo.

34. Don C. Seitz, Joseph Pulitzer: His Life and Letters, 100–102.

35. An excellent study of the rise of professionalism in many fields is Samuel

Haber,The Quest for Authority and Honor in the American Professions.

36. Michael Schudson, Discovering the News: A Social History of American

Newspapers, 119.

37. Elna C. Green, Southern Strategies: Southern Women and the Woman Suf-

233


frage Question; RutheWinegarten and Judith N. McArthur, eds.,Citizens at Last:

TheWomanSuffrageMovement inTexas;ElizabethYorkEnstam, ‘‘TheDallasEqual

Suffrage Association, Political Style, and Popular Culture: Grassroots Strategies of

theWoman SuffrageMovement, 1913–1919,’’ Journal of SouthernHistory 68, no. 4

(November 2002): 817–848; JanelleD. Scott, ‘‘Local Leadership in theWomanSuf-

frage Movement: Houston’s Campaign for the Vote, 1917–1918,’’ Houston Review

12, no. 1 (1990): 2–22.

38. Dallas Morning News,May 22, 1899, October 7, 1901, quoted in Jacquelyn

Masur McElhaney, Pauline Periwinkle and Progressive Reform in Dallas, 134, 139.

39. McElhaney, Pauline Periwinkle, xv–xix. Sam Acheson, 35,000 Days in

Texas: A History of theDallas News and Its Forebears, 218–225.

40. McElhaney,PaulinePeriwinkle,xv–xviii;DallasMorningNews, sec. 5, p. 11,

October 1, 1935.McElhaneydesignatedCallawayas one of the newbreed ofwomen

journalists who advocated and worked for social reform. Callaway left no memoirs

or private papers.

41. Dallas Morning News, July 9, 1906, quoted in McElhaney, Pauline Peri-

winkle, 149.


43. Dallas Morning News,March 13, 16, 1913.


45. Houston Chronicle, January 10, 13, 1915.

46. Houston Chronicle, January 7, 1915.

47. Houston Chronicle, February 24, 1915, December 30, 1917.

48. Scott, ‘‘Local Leadership in theWoman Suffrage Movement,’’ 16–18;Hous-

ton Chronicle, June 6, 1917.

3. Expansion and Consolidation1. Texas Newspapers, 1813–1939, foreword; Texas: A Guide to the Lone Star

State, 121–122.

2. Houston: A History and Guide, 206–207.This 1940 guidebook was a pub-

lication of the Work Projects Administration, a New Deal program that included

support for writers and other artists.

3. Houston Daily Post, January 6, 13, 1901.

4. Houston Daily Post, January 5, 1901; George Fuermann, Houston: Land of

the Big Rich, 145.

5. HoustonDailyPost, January 17, 1901, January 21, February 4, 1907;LewisL.

Gould, Progressives and Prohibitionists: Texas Democrats in theWilson Era, 16–21.

The Waters-Pierce Oil Company paid a $1.8 million judgment when it was con-

victed of violating the state’s antitrust laws.The settlement was the largest inTexas

history and held the record until larger recoveries in the 1930s.

6. Houston Daily Post, January 11, 12, 17, 1901.

7. Edward W. Kilman, ‘‘The History of theHouston Post,’’ 34–35, March 26,

1941, Oveta Culp Hobby Papers, WRC. Kilman’s history ran a series in the Post,

234


but several articles were never published. Kilman presented the series to publisher

William P. Hobby.

8. Kilman, ‘‘History of the Houston Post,’’ 36–37.



11. Houston: A History and Guide,WPA, 207–208.

12. Houston Chronicle,October 15, 1901.This edition was actually Foster’s sec-

ond issue. No first-day issues of theChronicle survived in the newspaper’s morgue

or in archival collections.

13. ‘‘TheManontheCover:MarcellusE.Foster,’’Scripps-HowardNews, reprint

in Marcellus Foster vertical file, UT Board of Regents, CAH.

14. Bascom N.Timmons, Jesse H. Jones: The Man and Statesman, 61–73;The

New Handbook of Texas, vol. 3, s.v. ‘‘Jesse Holman Jones,’’ 984–985.

15. Timmons, Jesse H. Jones, 85–96.

16. Houston Chronicle, February 15, 1910.

17. David McComb,Houston: A History, 67; Timmons, Jesse H. Jones, 90–91;

Houston Chronicle,November 10, 1914.

18. Fuermann, Houston: Land of the Big Rich, 81–86; The New Handbook of

Texas, s.v. ‘‘Jones,’’ 985; Timmons, Jesse H. Jones, 146.


20. Sam Acheson, 35,000 Days in Texas: A History of theDallas News and Its

Forebears (1938; repr., Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1973), 95–100.

Acheson creditsWilliamNewman, the trafficmanagerof theTexas and PacificRail-

road, with the original idea of sending news over the wires.

21. Michael V. Hazel, ‘‘The Making of Two Modern Dailies,’’ Legacies 9, no. 1

(1997): 11.

22. Hazel, ‘‘Two Modern Dailies,’’ 12.

23. Acheson, 35,000 Days in Texas, 136–137.


25. Dallas Morning News,October 8, 1924, October 1, 1935, sec. 4, p. 7.

26. Dallas Morning News,October 1, 1935, sec. 4, p. 13.

27. Galveston News, September 8, 10, 11, 1900.

28. Galveston News, September 12, 13, 17, 1900.

29. Dallas Morning News, April 21, 1901.



32. Dallas Morning News,November 18, 1906.

33. Dallas Morning News, April 2, 1907.


35. JackieMcElhaney, ‘‘After theDeluge: The Impact of theTrinity River Flood

of 1908,’’ Legacies 11, no. 2 (fall 1999): 17–21;Dallas Morning News,May 26, 1908.

36. DallasMorningNews,March20, 1923.DarwinPayne,Dallas:AnIllustrated

History.William H.Wilson, ‘‘Adapting to Growth: Dallas, Texas, and the Kessler

235


Plan, 1908–1933,’’ Arizona and theWest 25 (autumn 1983).The Handbook of Texas

Online, s.v. ‘‘Kessler, George E.,’’ <http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/

articles/view/KK/fke44.html>

37. McElhaney, ‘‘After the Deluge,’’ 21–25; Ernest Sharpe,G. B. Dealey of the

Dallas News, 140–144.

38. Robert B. Fairbanks, ‘‘Making Better Citizens in Dallas: The Kessler Plan

Association and Consensus Building in the 1920s,’’ Legacies 11, no. 2 (fall 1999):

26–28;DallasMorningNews,February 26,May26, 1910.TheKessler Plan covered

many issues that dealt with transportation, education, utilities, and local gov-

ernment but failed to provide a financial strategy for the complete package of

recommendations.

39. Dallas Morning News,November 18, 1906, April 2, 1907.

40. ‘‘Honoring George Bannerman Dealey,’’ program for George Bannerman

Dealey, October 12, 1939, George B. Dealey vertical files, CAH.

41. Sharpe,G. B. Dealey, 82–85;Dallas Morning News,March 8, 1899.

42. SamH. Acheson, ‘‘First Citizen of Texas,’’Texas Almanac, 1947–1948, 33–

39.

43. Sharpe,G.B.Dealey, 141. Sharpe quotesDealey’s philosophy from a speech

to the Dallas Critics Club on January 2, 1934.

44. Sharpe,G. B. Dealey, 110–116, 301–303.The rules of 1899 defined the roles

of the managing editor, business manager, and departmental heads.When Dealey

initiated the removal of front-page ads, he prepared a memo on October 8, 1902,

that listed fifty-two comparable metropolitan dailies which no longer carried ads on

the front page and seven which still maintained the practice.

45. Patricia Evridge Hill, Dallas: The Making of a Modern City, 68–71; Dallas

Morning News,May 15, 1899.

46. Texas: A Guide to the Lone Star State, 322–330.

47. San Antonio: An Authoritative Guide to the City and Its Environs,American

Guide Series,Work Projects Administration, 38–39.

48. Men of Affairs of San Antonio, 87, 159, 167. No archival records for Frank

Huntress and the early years of the San Antonio Express are available to researchers.

49. San Antonio Express,November 26, 1940.

50. The Handbook of Texas Online, s.v. ‘‘San Antonio Light,’’ <http://www.tsha

.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/SS/ees5.html> No archives of the San

Antonio Light are available to researchers for the period of independent ownership

prior to its purchase by Hearst Newspapers.

51. ChesterT.Crowell, ‘‘StrangeNews fromTexas,’’ AmericanMercury4,no. 15

(March 1925): 324–325.

52. Chester T. Crowell, ‘‘Journalism in Texas,’’ American Mercury 7, no. 28

(April 1926): 472–473.

53. Seymour V. Connor, ed., Builders of the Southwest. Fort Worth Star-

Telegram, June 24, 25, 1955. Amon Carter Sr. vertical files, CAH, University of

Texas at Austin. Jerry Flemons, Amon: TheTexanWho Played Cowboy for America,

236


xix. The Handbook of Texas Online, s.v. ‘‘Amon Carter, Sr.,’’ <http://www.tsha

.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/CC/fca69.html>

54. Jimmy Donaldson, ‘‘The Voice of theWest,’’Texas Historian,March 1981.

Phillip J. Meek, Fort Worth Star-Telegram: ‘‘Where the West Begins.’’ Texas News-

paper Directory; The Handbook of Texas Online, s.v. ‘‘Amon Carter, Sr.,’’ <http://

www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/ff/eef4.html>

55. Texas: A Guide to the Lone Star State, 261.

56. Flemons, Amon, 53.

57. Flemons, Amon, xix.

58. Flemons, Amon, 79.

4. ‘‘An Enemy Closer to Us than Any European Power’’1. Houston Chronicle,March 16, 1916.

2. The role of the Spanish-AmericanWar in reconciling the Southwith the rest

of the nation is among the topics brilliantly explored by David W. Blight in Race

and Reunion: The Civil War in American History.

3. The best study of foreign involvement in Mexico during the revolution re-

mains Friedrich Katz,The Secret War in Mexico: Europe, the United States, and the

Mexican Revolution.

4. James D. Startt and William David Sloan, The Significance of the Media

in American History, 192–195. Many interpretations examine the national debate,

ethnic divisions, isolationist sentiments, and pivotal events that influenced political

affairs and the nation’s entry into World War I. A select group of national and re-

gional histories include Arthur S. Link,WoodrowWilson and the Progressive Era,

1910–1917, 147–149, and Link,Wilson: The Struggle for Neutrality, 1914–1915, 6–

20.Link isWilson’sbest-knownbiographerandeditorof hispersonalpapers.Other

historians with similar views on neutrality and intervention include Robert H. Fer-

rell,WoodrowWilson andWorld War I, 1917–1921, and Ross Gregory,The Origins

of American Intervention in the First World War. Recognized historians who base

their conclusions on southern opinions include Dewey W. Grantham, The South

in Modern America, 76–77, and George Tindall,The Emergence of the New South,

1913–1945, 171–174. In Texas, the pivotal work on this topic is Lewis L. Gould,

Progressives and Prohibitionists: Texas Democrats in theWilson Era, 150–184.

5. Texas Almanac and State Industrial Guide, 1914, 98, 135, 234. No compre-

hensive study currently exists of newspapers in the South or Southwest for this era

in United States history.

6. Sharpe, G. B. Dealey, 176–177. Lombardi and his family left for Switzer-

land and arrived only hours before the borders closed.They returned to the United

States as German armies entered Belgium.

7. William David Sloan and James D. Startt, eds.,The Media in America (5th

ed.), 281–284; ‘‘American Sympathies in the War,’’ Literary Digest, November 14,

1914, 939, 977–978.

8. Sloan and Startt, eds., The Media in America (5th ed.), 282–283; Edwin

237


Emery andMichael Emery,The Press in America, 297–304;Dallas Morning News,

August 9, 1914; Anti-Saloon League, The Brewers and Texas Politics, 1, 2; U.S.

Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, Brewing and Liquor Interests and German Propa-

ganda, 1, 2.The published court records from the state’s 1915 antitrust suit against

the brewers and liquor interests revealed extensive involvement and contributions

to German Americans and other minorities in an effort to defeat Prohibition. The

Senate Judiciary hearings in 1919 provided details on contributions by German

American organizations on Prohibition and candidates.

9. SanAntonioExpress,August 2, 5, 1914;HoustonPost,August 3, 1914;Hous-

ton Chronicle, August 4, 5, 1914; Dallas Morning News, August 6, 9, 19, 1914;

Sharpe,G. B. Dealey, 183. Among historians of early twentieth-century Texas, the

DallasMorningNews is generally considered themost influential of the state’s daily

newspapers. But each of the papers selected for this study commanded influence

within the state and region.

10. San Antonio Express, August 16, 1914.

11. San Antonio Express, August 1, 14, 18, 23, 25, 1914.

12. Dallas Morning News, August 9, 28, 1914.

13. Houston Post, August 12, 24, 1914.

14. Letter from J. L. Hegler to Morris Sheppard, in Arthur S. Link, ed., The

Papers of WoodrowWilson, vol. 31, pp. 12, 248–249; clippings, Oscar B. Colquitt

Papers, January–March 1914, 2E205, CAH; Houston Post, September 26, Octo-

ber 23, 1914; Gould, Progressives and Prohibitionists, 151–161; Anthony Gaughan,

‘‘WoodrowWilson and the Rise of Militant Interventionism in the South,’’ Journal

of Southern History 65 (1999): 771–808. Governor Colquitt, a former newspaper-

man turned politician, thrived on publicity. He received national coverage for his

denouncements of Wilson during his final term as governor and later as an unsuc-

cessful candidate for the U.S. Senate.

15. HoustonPost,December 28, 1914;DallasMorningNews, January 3, 7, 1915;

San Antonio Express,December 30, 1914.

16. Wilson to Houston Chronicle, September 8, 1914, in Link, ed.,The Papers

of WoodrowWilson, vol. 31, p. 12;Dallas Morning News, January 10, 1915;Houston

Post,December 27, 1914;Houston Chronicle editorial (undated), Oscar B. Colquitt

Papers, November–December 1914, 2E205, CAH; Grantham,The South in Mod-

ernAmerica,75–76;Gould,Progressives andProhibitionists, 151–161.Condemning

Colquitt’s attack, The Dallas Morning News stated on March 29, 1914, ‘‘of all the

Governors this State has had in recent years, Governor Colquitt has proved himself

pre-eminently the unfittest.’’ With the exception of Wilson’s letter to the Houston

Chronicle, little correspondence of substance betweenTexas editors and President

Wilson in this period beforeWorld War I exists inThe Papers of WoodrowWilson,

edited by Link, or in the complete Library of Congress microfilm collection of Wil-

son’s papers. Publishers andeditors appeared to let theireditorial pageobservations

convey their attitudes.

17. For a full discussion of the cotton crisis, See Arthur S. Link, ‘‘The Cotton

238


Crisis, theSouth, andAnglo-AmericanDiplomacy, 1914–1915,’’ inTheHigherReal-

ism of WoodrowWilson andOtherEssays, 309–329. For its political impact onTexas

and congressional reaction, see Gould, Progressives and Prohibitionists, 151–161.

18. DallasMorningNews,May9, 11, 1915;HoustonPost,May 11, 12, 1915;Hous-

ton Chronicle, May 9, 10, 1915. For a full discussion of the Lusitania crisis, see

Arthur S. Link,Wilson, vol. 4:Confusions and Crises, 1915–1916.

19. Houston Post,May 11, 12, 1915;Houston Chronicle,May 9, 10, 18, 1915.

20. Houston Chronicle,May 20, 1915; San Antonio Express, July 5, 1915; Link,

Wilson, vol. 4:Confusions and Crises, 142–167.

21. DallasMorningNews, January 31, February 1, 2, 3, 1916;HoustonChronicle,

January 9, 28, February 2, 1916; San Antonio Express, February 2, 1916; Timothy

Gregory McDonald, ‘‘Southern Democratic Congressmen and the First World

War,’’ Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington, 1962, 141–142. AlthoughWil-

son’s congressional critics receivedwidespreadnews coverage, they remained in the

minority among members of their own party and in the House and Senate.

22. Houston Chronicle, March 6, 1916; Dallas Morning News, March 9, 1916;

DennisK.McDaniel, ‘‘TheFirstCongressmanMartinDiesof Texas,’’Southwestern

Historical Quarterly 102, no. 2 (October 1998): 131–162.

23. Houston Chronicle,March 6, 7, 1916;Dallas Morning News,March 8, 1916;

State Topics, March 25, 1916, McLemore Papers, 2E435, CAH; Gould, Progres-

sives and Prohibitionists, 162–164; McDaniel, ‘‘Martin Dies,’’ 153–154; McDon-

ald, ‘‘Southern Democratic Congressmen,’’ 152–154, 248–257. Southern Demo-

crats voted by a ten to one margin to table the McLemore resolution. Seven Texas

congressional Democrats joined McLemore in the losing battle to keep the resolu-

tion alive: Black, Buchanan, Burgess, Callaway, Davis, Eagle, and Slayden. Those

supporting the administration’s position were Garner, Garrett, Hardy, Rayburn,

Smith, Stephens, Sumners, and Young. The Texas delegation in the House re-

mained evenly divided on most preparedness issues in 1916 until the final votes for

war in early 1917.

24. Fort Worth Star-Telegram, July 27, 1916; T. L. Miller, ‘‘Oscar Callaway and

Preparedness,’’West TexasHistorical AssociationYearbook 43 (1967): 80–93.Miller

reviewedmany small newspapers in the 12th Congressional District and found very

little coverage of Callaway’s most critical remarks on the military and the Wilson

administration.

25. Dallas Morning News, July 23, 24, 26, 1916; San Antonio Express, July 23,

24, 25, 1916.

26. NewYorkWorld, April 23, 1916;Dallas Morning News, April 24, 1916; San

Antonio Express, July 19, 1916. This story and others on German involvement in

the Texas election from theWorld are contained in the Oscar B. Colquitt Papers,

2E206, CAH. The 1916 Democratic Primary runoff election featured former gov-

ernor Oscar B. Colquitt and incumbent U.S. senator Charles Culberson. Colquitt,

a longtime critic of the Wilson administration, lost the runoff election when Gov-

ernor Ferguson directed anti-Prohibition forces to support Culberson in the runoff

239


and Prohibition supporters moved to the incumbent. Support forWilson, personal

politics, and Prohibition played a large role in this campaign, but the Senate race

also contained elements of appeals to nativism.

27. Houston Post, July 23, 1916; Houston Chronicle, August 8, 1916; Dallas

Morning News, July 23, 26, 1916; San Antonio Express, July 19, 27, 28, August 28,

1916; Gould, Progressives and Prohibitionists, 175–183.

28. Dallas Morning News,March 9, 1916; James R. Green,Grass-Roots Social-

ism:RadicalMovements in the Southwest, 1895–1943,351–352;Gould,Progressives

and Prohibitionists, 162–165, 178–183.

29. Many studies of theMexicanRevolution and its impact on theUnited States

exist: Don M. Coerver and Linda B. Hall, Texas and the Mexican Revolution: A

Study in State and National Border Policy, 1910–1920; Arnoldo De León,Mexican

Americans inTexas: A Brief History;CharlesH.Harris III andLouis R. Sadler,The

Borderand the Revolution;Glenn Justice,Revolution on the RioGrande;Michael C.

Meyer,The Course of Mexican History; David Montejano, Anglos and Mexicans in

theMaking of Texas, 1836–1986; James Sandos,Rebellion in the Borderlands: Anar-

chismand thePlan of SanDiego, 1904–1923;Paul J.VanderwoodandFrankN.Sam-

ponora, Border Fury; The Handbook of Texas Online, s.v. ‘‘Mexican Revolution,’’

<http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/MM/pqmhe.html>

30. Richard Griswold del Castillo, ‘‘TheMexican Revolution and the Spanish-

Language Press in the Borderlands,’’ JournalismHistory 4 (summer 1977): 42–47;

Montejano, Anglos and Mexicans, 117–125. Montejano concludes that the Mexican

Revolution contributed to increased polarization between Anglos and Mexicans

and provided the context for the hard-fought battles and increased discrimination

in South Texas. Castillo states that the handful of Spanish-language newspapers

published in theUnited States circulated to a wide audience throughout the South-

west and Mexico. These newspapers served as forerunners of the intellectual and

political movement among Hispanics in the Americas.

31. Clippings, Oscar B. Colquitt Papers, May 1913–December 1915, 2E205,

CAH; Dallas Morning News, February 28, March 11, 1914; Fort Worth Star-

Telegram,March 10, 1914; Gould, Progressives and Prohibitionists, 116–119. Based

on numerous out-of-state clippings, Governor Colquitt received coverage in many

newspapers around the state and nation when he attacked the Wilson administra-

tion’s position on Mexico.

32. Undated clippings from New York American, Oscar B. Colquitt Papers,

January–March 1914, 2E205, CAH;Dallas Morning News, February 28, 1914.

33. Houston Chronicle,March 3, 1914;Houston Post,March 11, 1914.

34. San Antonio Express,March 13, 1914. In his final term, Governor Colquitt

sided with James Ferguson against Tom Ball in the 1914 Democratic gubernatorial

campaign. Colquitt’s foes in the Wilson administration, which included Postmas-

ter General Albert Burleson and other Texans in the president’s administration,

publicly sided with the unsuccessful Ball.

240


35. Dallas Morning News, August 1, 8, 9, 1915.

36. Dallas Morning News, August 1, 8, 9, 1915.

37. Dallas Morning News, August 12, 1915; San Antonio Express, August 10,

12, 1915.


39. Ellen Maury Slayden, Washington Wife: Journal of Ellen Maury Slayden

from 1897–1919, 270–271. Ellen Maury Slayden, wife of Democratic congressman

James Luther Slayden, accompanied her husband to Washington, D.C., Mexico

City, and many areas of Texas during his twenty-one years in office, which covered

the period from the Spanish-AmericanWar throughWorldWar I. She openly criti-

cized President Wilson, whom she believed was ‘‘narrow-minded, too much of a

Presbyterian, and toomuchof the schoolteacher.’’ She alsobelievedhis understand-

ing of Mexico, its people, and its politics, ‘‘was completely wrong.’’ She filled her

journal with candid, often critical observations of people and events of the day.

40. DallasMorningNews,August 13, 14, 1915; San Antonio Express,August 10,

12, 14, 1915.

41. DallasMorningNews,August 13, 1915; San Antonio Express,August 10, 12,

1915; Charles H. Harris III and Louis R. Sadler, ‘‘The Plan of San Diego and the

Mexican–United States War Crisis of 1916: A Reexamination,’’ inThe Border and

the Revolution, 71–98; Montejano, Anglos and Mexicans, 117.


43. San Antonio Express, May 10, 14, 1916; Montejano, Anglos and Mexicans,

117–125; F.ArturoRosales,PobreRaza, 101;Harris andSadler, ‘‘Plan of SanDiego,’’

81–82.These historians are among an increasing numberwho raise questions about

these events as presented in Texas newspapers and official reports.

44. Houston Chronicle, August 14, 26, 1915.

45. Dallas Morning News, August 13, 1915. Similar statements appeared in the

San Antonio Express, theHouston Post, and theHouston Chronicle during the same

time period. Subsequent historical research has revealed that the Carranza govern-

ment used the raids in South Texas as a bargaining point for U.S. recognition. In

support of this position, several historical studies documented the Carranza gov-

ernment’s assistance of men, supplies, and shelter to those involved in the South

Texas raids. See Harris and Sadler, ‘‘Plan of San Diego,’’ 76–81, and Coerver and

Hall,Texas and the Mexican Revolution, 90–91.

46. El Paso Herald,November 15, 1913, February 3, April 24, 1914.

47. El Paso Times,December 27, 1913, January 17, 1914.

48. JosephA. Stout Jr., Border Conflict: Villistas, Carrancistas, and the Punitive

Expedition, 1915–1920, 18, 26–27; del Castillo, ‘‘The Mexican Revolution and the

Spanish-Language Press in the Borderlands.’’

49. El Paso Herald, September 22, November 9, 19, 1915; El Paso Morning

Times,November 2, 1915; Joseph A. Stout Jr. and Clifford A. Perkins, ‘‘The Revo-

lution Comes to Juarez,’’ Password 22, no. 2 (summer 1977): 67–69; Stout, Bor-

241


der Conflict, 15–22; Coerver and Hall, Texas and the Mexican Revolution, 95–98;

Vanderwood and Samponora, Border Fury, 122–123.

50. Dallas Morning News,March 11, 14, 1916; San Antonio Express,March 11,

1916;Houston Post,March 12, 1916.

51. DallasMorningNews,March 13, 14, 16, 1916;Houston Chronicle,March 16,

1916; Link, ed.,The Papers of WoodrowWilson, vol. 34, pp. 364–366.

52. W. H. Aldridge to Jeff McLemore, April 19, 1916, Correspondence 1909–

1918, Jeff McLemore Papers, 2E435, CAH;DallasMorningNews,March 24, 1916;

ElPasoHerald,March 16, 25, 1916. In response to criticismsof people creating false

stories, the El Paso City Council passed an ordinance in March 1916 that levied a

fine on those who issued ‘‘fake’’ war reports.

53. Link,ed.,ThePapersofWoodrowWilson,vol.34,pp. 175,364–366;Houston

Chronicle,March 26, 1915; San Antonio Express,March 26, 1916.

54. J. S. M. McKamey to Jeff McLemore, May 13, 1916, McLemore Papers,

2E435, CAH; San Antonio Express,May 13, 14, 1916.

55. Stout, Border Conflict, 93–102. Stout’s extensive use of Mexican military

andgovernment records revealed theCarranza administration’s concernoverpublic

opinion and coverage of the revolution in United States newspapers.

56. San Antonio Express, August 7, 13, 1916; State Topics, April 15, 1916,

in McLemore Papers, 2E452, CAH. State Topics, edited by Congressman Jeff

McLemore, was an influential political journal opposed to Prohibition.

57. San Antonio Express, July 2, 4, 5, 8, 12, 1916; Dallas Morning News, Au-

gust 5, 1916; undated clippings fromHouston Post,Oscar B. Colquitt vertical files,

CAH.

58. Coerver and Hall,Texas and the Mexican Revolution, 118–119.

59. Houston Post,March 1, 2, 1917;DallasMorningNews,March 1, 2, 1917; San

Antonio Express,March 1, 2, 1917.

60. DallasMorningNews,March7, 1917;U.S. Senate,Liquor Interests andGer-

man Propaganda, 1581–1582, 1686–1689. In the 1919 U.S. Senate hearings con-

cerning Germany’s influence onMexico, the government provided confirmation of

German ownership of Mexican newspapers and the distribution of news from the

German Information Service as part of Germany’s attempts to influence the press

and public opinion in Mexico against the United States. However, the committee

provided no assessment on the direct impact of these German actions. German in-

volvement inMexican government andmilitary affairs dating back to the Plan of San

Diego is still disputed by scholars who have examined official documents relating to

this era. See Coerver and Hall, ‘‘Huertistas and ‘Huns,’ ’’ inTexas and the Mexican

Revolution, 109–122, andHarris andSadler,TheBorderand theRevolution,71–133.

61. Dallas Morning News,March 2, 12, 15, 20, 1917.

62. San Antonio Express,March 27, 31, April 1, 4, 1917; Slayden,Washington

Wife, 294.

63. Houston Post,April 7, 9, 1917;Dallas Morning News,April 4, 5, 1917. Con-

242


gressmen McLemore and Slayden and several other Wilson critics witnessed the

end of their political careers in the 1918 Democratic Primary elections.

64. Dallas Morning News, April 5, 9, 1917;Houston Post, April 9, 1917.

5. The Forces of Traditionalism and theChallenge from the Invisible Empire

1. Rodger Streitmatter, Mightier than the Sword: How the News Media Have

Shaped AmericanHistory, 119–121. Othermedia historians who have noted the role

of newspapers that defied the Klan include DavidM. Chalmers,Hooded American-

ism: The History of the Ku Klux Klan, and Kenneth T. Jackson,The Ku Klux Klan

in the City: 1915–1930.

2. Michael Schudson, Discovering the News: A Social History of American

Newspapers, 153–155.

3. Charles C. Alexander, The Ku Klux Klan in the Southwest, 25–39; Texas

Almanac, 1952–1953, 75–76.

4. Alexander, Klan, 20–22.

5. NewYorkWorld, September 6, 1921; Streitmatter, Mightier than the Sword,

105–110.

6. Alexander, Klan, 199.


8. WilliamDavidSloan, ed.,TheAgeof MassCommunication,407.TheWilson

administration created a new government agency, the Committee on Public Infor-

mation (CPI), to provide information to the public, control wartime information,

and build support for the overseas commitment. The CPI successfully provided

sanitized news, advertisements, speakers, andmaterials to justifyAmerica’s involve-

ment, support for the administration’s programs, and making wartime sacrifices.

9. Alexander, Klan, 29–31;Houston Post,December 20, 1920.

10. Chester T. Crowell, ‘‘Journalism in Texas,’’ American Mercury 7, no. 28

(April 1926): 477–478.

11. W.E. B.DuBois, ‘‘The Shape of Fear,’’North AmericanReview 223, no. 831

(1926): 293–294.

12. Greene, Casey, ‘‘Guardians against Change: The Ku Klux Klan in Houston

and Harris County, 1920–1925,’’ Legacies 10, no. 1 (1988): 8–9.

13. Greene, ‘‘Guardians against Change,’’ 4–5.

14. Greene, ‘‘Guardians against Change,’’ 10–11.

15. Norman Brown,Hood, Bonnet, and Little Brown Jug: Texas Politics, 1921–

1928, 53.

16. Houston Chronicle, September 7, 1921.

17. Marcellus Foster to Jesse H. Jones, September 8, 1921, M. E. Foster–J. H.

Jones Correspondence, 1921–1923, Box 22, JP.

18. Foster to Jones, September 8, 1921, M. E. Foster–J. H. Jones Correspon-

dence, 1921–1923, JP.

243


19. Jones to Foster, September 14, 1921, M. E. Foster–J. H. Jones Correspon-

dence, 1921–1923, JP.


dence, 1921–1923, JP.


dence, 1921–1923, JP.


dence, 1921–1923, JP.

23. Linda Elaine Kilgore, ‘‘The Ku Klux Klan and the Press in Texas, 1920–

1927,’’ master’s thesis, University of Texas at Austin, 1964, 61–62. Kilgore’s study

covered several daily newspapers with a focus on the Denison Herald ’s and the

Dallas Morning News’ anti-Klan editorial policies.

24. Houston Chronicle,October 3, 1921.

25. Houston Chronicle,October 9, 1921.

26. Colonel Mayfield’s Weekly, March 25, 1922, copy, Lynch Davidson Scrap-

book, 1921–1923, CAH.

27. Colonel Mayfield’sWeekly,March 3, 1922, CAH.

28. HoustonChronicle,April 16, 1922, copy, LynchDavidsonScrapbook, 1921–

1923, CAH.

29. NewYork Times,December 10, 1922.

30. Houston Post,December 5, 25, 1922.

31. ColonelMayfield’sWeekly,December 9, 1922, quoted inGreene, ‘‘Guardians

against Change,’’ 14–15.

32. Houston Post,December 20, 27, 31, 1922, January 1, 1923.

33. Houston Post, January 13, 1923.

34. Houston Post, January 17, 19, 20, 1923.

35. Colonel Mayfield’sWeekly,October 22, 1921, quoted in Kilgore’s ‘‘Klan and

the Press,’’ 186–187, 194.

36. Houston Post, February 2, 1923.

37. Houston Post,May 6, 1923.

38. Houston Post, July 25, 26, 1923.

39. Colonel Mayfield’s Weekly, January 20, November 17, 1923, quoted in Kil-

gore’s ‘‘Klan and the Press,’’ 195, 198.


41. J. S. Cullinan to R. B. Creager, December 19, 1923, J. S. Cullinan Papers,

MSS 69, Box 38–13, HMRC.

42. Brown,Hood, Bonnet, 149–150.

43. Houston Post, January 27, February 8, 10, 11, 1921. No editorial comment

was ever made following the decision by the Harris County Democratic Executive

Committee.

44. Love v. Griffith, 266 U.S. 32, 45 Sup. Ct. 12 (1924); Robert Haynes, ‘‘Black

Houstonians and theWhite Democratic Primary, 1920–1945,’’ inHouston: A Twen-

tieth Century Urban Frontier, 119–120.

244


45. M. M. Crane to Governor Pat Neff, May 2, 1922, Crane Papers, Corre-

spondence, May 1922, 3N105, CAH; Patricia Evridge Hill, Dallas: The Making

of a Modern City, 100–101; Texas 100 Per Cent American, October 26, 1923, Ku

KluxKlanCollection,HMRC.TheCranePapers containextensivecorrespondence

from Crane and the Dallas County Citizens League on efforts to fight the Klan. A

number of unique Klan documents and official forms are noteworthy in the Crane

Collection.

46. Dallas Morning News,May 22, 1921; Dallas County Citizens League, ‘‘The

Case against theKuKluxKlan,’’ KuKluxKlanmaterials,CAH;Ernest Sharpe,G.B.

Dealey of the Dallas News, 198–200.The League’s published executive committee

members and principals called for public trials and religious liberty and opposed

the secret oaths and business boycotts of the Klan.

47. DallasMorningNews,March 2, 1922;Darwin Payne, ‘‘TheDallasMorning

News and the Ku Klux Klan,’’ Legacies 9, no 1 (spring 1997): 16–27.

48. Roy Bedichek to Martin Crane, April 2, 1922, Crane Papers, Correspon-

dence, 4 January 1922–12 April 1922, 3N104, CAH.

49. PhilA.Day toM.M.Crane,April 7, 1922,M.P.Mell toM.M.Crane,April 5,

1922,CranePapers,Correspondence, 4 January 1922–12April 1922, 3N104,CAH;

‘‘The Jews andCatholicsChallenge—KlanWill Accept,’’Texas 100PerCent Ameri-

can, June 1, 1923.

50. W. E. Quarles to Dallas News, May 30, 1922, 316; Sam H. Campbell to

Dallas News, May 2, 1922, A6667, 314; Sim Smith to Walter A. Dealey, July 25,

1922, A6667, 315, DHS.

51. GeorgeH. Evans toG. B.Dealey,March 6, 1922; G. B. Dealey toGeorgeH.

Evans, March 8, 1922, A6667-36, 314; Tom Finty to G. B. Dealey, typed memo,

June 23, 1922, A6667-36, 316, DHS.

52. Dallas Times Herald, April 11, 1922; Reg Westmoreland, ‘‘Dallas Dead-

lines,’’ 215–218, Box 1, Dallas Times Herald Collection, Belo. Westmoreland ob-

tained his information about Klan membership among the Times Herald from an

oral history interview with former publisher John W. Runyon and editor-in-chief

Allen Merriam.

53. Press statement, Dallas Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, April 8, 1922, Crane

Papers, Correspondence, 4 January 1922–12 April 1922, 3N104, CAH;Texas 100

Per Cent American,October 22, 1922.

54. Payne, ‘‘Dallas Morning News and the Ku Klux Klan,’’ 24.

55. ‘‘To the Stockholders of A. H. Belo & Company,’’ January 23, 1923, p. 3,

Box 7, A. H. Belo Corporation Archives, Belo. The company increased the value

of its real estate properties from $112,000 to $300,000 to offset declining revenues

and increased expenses and improve the bottom line. The report also indicates all

of the growth in the preceding ten years occurred at theDallas Morning News.The

Galveston News remained stagnant.

56. ‘‘To the Stockholders ofA.H.Belo&Company,’’ January 17, 1924, pp. 4–8,

Box 7, A. H. Belo Corporation Archives, Belo.

245


57. Jeannette Peabody to G. B. Dealey, November 24, 1922, A6667, 182, DHS;

Payne, ‘‘Dallas Morning News and the Ku Klux Klan,’’ 25; Sharpe, G. B. Dealey,

200–201.

58. Brown, Hood, Bonnet, 128. Brown has a thorough discussion of the 1922

Senate race and its impact onTexas politics.The anti-Klan press viewedMayfield’s

election as an endorsement of Prohibition and progressivism, as opposed to Fergu-

son’s tainted reputation as an impeached governor and wet supporter.

59. Brown,Hood, Bonnet, 212–214, 226–234.

60. Texas 100 Per Cent American,May 16, 1922;Houston Chronicle,May 4, 23,

1922;Dallas Morning News,March 29, April 24, 1922, Clippings of Felix Robert-

son, 1924, Lynch Davidson Scrapbook, CAH.

61. Brown,Hood, Bonnet, 245–249; George C. Butte vertical file, CAH.

62. EdwardW. Kilman, ‘‘History of theHouston Post,’’ 68–70,March 26, 1941,

Oveta Culp Hobby Papers, WRC; Houston Post, July 31, 1924; Houston Post-

Dispatch, August 1, 1924.

63. Foster to Jones, July 29, 1924, M. E. Foster–J. H. Jones Correspondence,

1924, JP.

64. Kilman, ‘‘History of the Houston Post,’’ 71; Houston Post-Dispatch, Au-

gust 1, 1924.

65. Foster to Jones, November 3, 1924, M. E. Foster–J. H. Jones Correspon-

dence, 1924, JP.


dence, 1924, JP.


dence, 1924, JP.

68. Mike Kingston, Sam Attlesey, andMary G. Crawford,TheTexas Almanac’s

Political History of Texas, 284–287. Of the larger counties in the state, only Bexar

County, with its large anti-Klan vote in San Antonio, provided a majority for Fer-

guson in November 1924. Bexar County maintained one of the larger groups of

Republican voters during the early decades of the twentieth century.


70. Brown,Hood, Bonnet, 265–268; Alexander, Klan, 199.

71. Bryce L.Twitty to AmonCarter, November 30, 1925; F. S. Osmon to Amon

Carter, December 1, 1925; P. L. Apgar to Amon Carter, December 1, 1925; Box

15, AGCP.

72. Fort Worth Star-Telegram, December 1, 1925; Dallas Morning News, De-

cember 1, 1925;Houston Post-Dispatch,December 1, 1925.

73. R. A. Underwood to AmonCarter, December 9, 1925; PatM. Neff to Amon

Carter, December 2, 1925; P. W. Horn to Amon Carter, December 5, 1925, Box

15, AGCP.

74. Houston Chronicle,May 25, 1925.


246


76. HoustonChronicle,August 16, 17,25, 1925;Brown,Hood,Bonnet,284–288.

77. Houston Chronicle,December 17, 1925; Brown,Hood, Bonnet, 289–292.

78. ‘‘Settlement and Hold Harmless Agreement,’’ October 14, 1919, Houston

Chronicle Publishing Co. Lawsuits, 1919–1925, Box 22, JP.

79. Houston Chronicle, January 24, 1926.

80. Houston Chronicle,December 16, 1925.

81. ‘‘Plays and People,’’ February 24 (no year), M. E. Foster Clippings, Box

22, JP.

82. Houston Post,November 8, 1925, February 25, 1926.

83. ‘‘Memo of Agreement,’’ December 21, 1909,M. E. Foster–J. H. Jones Agree-

ments, 1909–1912, Box 22, JP.

84. M. E. Tracy to Jesse H. Jones, July 26, August 4, 1924, Tracy-Jones Corre-

spondence, 1924, Box 22, JP.

85. Marcellus Foster to Jesse H. Jones, November 2, 5, 1925; Jesse H. Jones to

Marcellus Foster, November 9, 1925, 1925 Correspondence, Box 22, JP.

86. W.O.Huggins to JesseH. Jones,November 3, 4, 1925,W.O.Huggins–J.H.


87. Jesse H. Jones toW. O. Huggins, November 9, 1925,W. O. Huggins–J. H.


88. Bascom N.Timmons, Jesse H. Jones: The Man and Statesman, 121.

89. ‘‘Sales Contract,’’ M. E. Foster and Jesse H. Jones, February 20, 1926;

‘‘Memorandum of Agreement,’’ M. E. Foster and Houston Chronicle Publishing

Company,May 1926; JesseH. Jones toMarcellus Foster, July 17, 1926, in 1926Cor-

respondence, Box 22, JP.

90. ‘‘TheManontheCover:MarcellusE.Foster,’’Scripps-HowardNews, reprint

in Marcellus Foster vertical file, UT Board of Regents, CAH.

91. A. J.Tyrer to A. H. Belo Co., telegram, June 6, 1922, and ‘‘License for Land

RadioStation,’’ Permit#456, 1:1,WFAARadioCollection;A.H.BeloCorporation,

‘‘Commemorating One Hundred and Fifty Years, 1842–1992,’’ 5, 17, Belo.

92. George M. Stokes, ‘‘A Public Service Program History of Radio Station

WFAA-820,’’ 84–87, Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University, 1954. Copy in

WFAA Radio Collection, Belo.

93. C. Joseph Pusateri, ‘‘Radio History,’’ in Encyclopedia of Southern Culture,

ed. Charles Reagan Wilson and William Ferris, 938; Jesse H. Jones speech on

KTRH–Houston Chroniclemerger, April 19, 1934, JHJ 214, LOC.

94. Stokes, ‘‘History of Radio StationWFAA,’’ 94–117.

95. George B.Dealey, ‘‘To the Stockholders of A.H. Belo andCompany,’’ Janu-

ary 23, 1923, Box 7, A. H. Belo Corporation Archives; M. L. Goodwin to W. A.

Dealey, March 23, 1927, 1:2, WFAA Radio Collection, Belo. Dealey included no

information about WFAA to stockholders in the 1924 report.

96. W. O. Huggins to Jesse H. Jones, October 4, 1928,W. O. Huggins–Jesse H.


247


6. Texas Newspapers, the Crash of 1929,and the Great Depression

1. Dorothy DeMoss, ‘‘Resourcefulness in the Financial Capital: Dallas, 1929–

1933,’’ inTexas Cities and the Great Depression, byRobert C. Cotner et al., 117–118;

Dallas Morning News,October 30, 1929; San Antonio Express,October 29, 1929.

2. Studies on the 1930s Great Depression and its impact are numerous. Great

debate among historians still exists over the impact of the New Deal and the Great

Depression on the region. These include Numan Bartley, The New Deal and the

South;William J. Cooper and Thomas E. Terrill,The American South: A History;

Gilbert Fite,Cotton Fields NoMore: Southern Agriculture, 1865–1980; JackTemple

Kirby,RuralWorldsLost:TheAmericanSouth, 1920–1960;PaulE.Mertz,NewDeal

Policy and Southern Rural Poverty;Bruce J. Schulman, FromCotton Belt to Sunbelt:

Federal Policy, Economic Development, and theTransformation of the South, 1938–

1980; Douglas Smith, The New Deal in the Urban South; and George B. Tindall,

The Emergence of the New South, 1913–1945.

3. DeMoss, ‘‘Dallas, 1929–1933,’’ 124–125;WilliamE.Montgomery, ‘‘TheDe-

pression in Houston, 1929–1933,’’ in Texas Cities and the Great Depression, 160–

162; Mary Maverick McMillan Fisher, ‘‘San Antonio I: The Hoover Era,’’ inTexas

Cities and the Great Depression, by Robert C. Cotner et al., 59–61.

Roger Biles,The South and the New Deal, 21–24;Houston Post-Dispatch, Janu-

ary 28, 1931; DeMoss, ‘‘Dallas, 1929–1933,’’ 121–123.

4. Fisher, ‘‘San Antonio I: The Hoover Era,’’ 55–57.

5. G.B.Dealey, ‘‘ToHeads andSub-Heads of Departments,’’ August 25, 1931,

Folder 2, Box 2, DMN Collection; Tom and Jean Simmons, interview by Judith

Garrett, February 20, 1986, Belo.

6. CharlesRichard (Dick)West, interviewby JudithGarrett, spring 1986,Belo.

7. Calvert and De León,History of Texas, 313–314.

8. Merry K. Fitzpatrick, ‘‘Local Solutions Not Adequate: San Marcos, 1932–

1933,’’ inTexas Cities and the Great Depression, 47–49.

9. C. C. White and Ada Morehead Holland, ‘‘No Quittin’ Sense,’’ reprinted

inTexas History Documents, ed. Randolph B. Campbell, 60–61; Robert A. Calvert

and Arnoldo De León,The History of Texas, 2d ed., 309–310.

10. G. B. Dealeymemo,May 30, 1934, Folder 2, Box 2, DMNCollection, Belo.

11. Houston Post-Dispatch,October 26, 1931.

12. Jesse H. Jones and Edward Angly, Fifty Billion Dollars: My Thirteen Years

with the RFC, 85–86; Bascom N. Timmons, Jesse H. Jones: The Man and the

Statesman, 156–161;Montgomery, ‘‘Houston, 1929–1933,’’ 156–157;Houston Post-

Dispatch,October 27, 28, 1931.

13. Contract,May10, 1937; ‘‘MemorandumREHoustonPostCompanyStock,’’

January20, 1949,Box26,HoustonPost, 1932–1949, JP. Jonesfinanced thepurchase

of the newspaper and retained an option on the entire stock of the Post.

14. Jones, Fifty Billion Dollars, 84.

15. Calvert and De León,History of Texas, 311–312.

248


16. Amon Carter to HarryWiess, April 27, 1932, 36A, Box 15, AGCP.

17. Amon Carter to Governor Ross Sterling, February 25, 1932, 36A, Box 15,

AGCP.

18. ‘‘1934 Annual Report,’’ 7:5, A. H. Belo Corporation Papers, Belo.

19. Houston Post, April 2, 3, 1934.

20. Houston Post, April 13, 1934.

21. BenProcter, ‘‘TheTexasRangers,’’ in BenProcter andArchie P.McDonald,

eds.,The Texas Heritage, 213–218.

22. Houston Post-Dispatch, December 8, 1931; San Antonio Express, Febru-

ary 22, 1932.

23. William E. Leuchtenburg, Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal, 6–8,

252; Anthony J. Badger,The New Deal: The Depression Years, 54–55.

24. GeorgeSeldes,Freedomof thePress, 149–150, 160.TheSeldes interpretation

of theDepressionreflected therevisionist interpretation,whichplaced thecauses for

the Depression on large corporations and monopolies in the United States. Seldes

publishedLords of the Press in 1938, where he accusedAmerican newspapers of ex-

ploiting child labor, abusing labor, andusing theFirstAmendment to avoid taxation

and regulation.

25. Robert F. Colwell, ‘‘San Angelo, 1933–1936: Drought, Flood, Depression,’’

inTexas Cities and the Great Depression, 173–174; San Angelo Evening Standard,

March 2, 3, 1933.

26. Colwell, ‘‘San Angelo, 1933–1936,’’ 174; San Angelo Evening Standard,

March 15, 23, 1933.


28. Fort Worth Star-Telegram, January 23, 1933.

29. JerryFlemons, Amon:TheTexanWhoPlayedCowboy for America,469–470.

30. TheNewHandbook of Texas, vol. 2, s.v. ‘‘Civilian ConservationCorps,’’ 118.

31. D.W. Brogan, Roosevelt and the New Deal, 35; Fort Worth Star-Telegram,

May 17, 1933.

32. The New Handbook of Texas, vol. 4, s.v. ‘‘National Youth Administration,’’

950.

33. TheNewHandbookof Texas,vol.6, s.v. ‘‘WorksProgressAssociation,’’ 1075–

1076.

34. ‘‘1934 Annual Report,’’ 7:5, A. H. Belo Corporation Papers, Belo.

35. Gary Dean Best,The Critical Press and the New Deal, 35–43. Best concen-

trated his study on seven newspapers, most of which harshly criticized Roosevelt

and New Deal programs. No Texas newspapers are included in the study and the

Baltimore Sunwas the only publication close to the South. According to Best, col-

umnists Frank Kent andMark Sullivan ranked among Roosevelt’s foremost critics,

while RaymondClapper and Ernest Lindley wrote pro–NewDeal columns. Arthur

Krock of the NewYork Times,whowas pro–New Deal, was not syndicated but was

widely quoted.

36. Best,CriticalPress and theNewDeal,27–30.EditorandPublishermagazine

249


compiled theendorsements in the 1936presidential election.TheRoosevelt-Garner

ticket easily defeated Landon-Knox, carrying every state but Maine and Vermont.

37. Colwell, ‘‘San Angelo, 1933–1936,’’ 186–187.

38. Patrick Cox, ‘‘John Nance Garner,’’ in Profiles in Power: Twentieth-Century

Texans inWashington, edited by Kenneth E. Hendrickson, Jr., Michael L. Collins,

and Patrick Cox, 53–56; Biles, The South and the New Deal, 141–145; Dewey L.

Grantham,The South in Modern America, 134–136.

39. Grantham, The South in Modern America, 149–151. Grantham noted that

newspaper editors Ralph McGill of the Atlanta Constitution, Hodding Carter of

the Greenville Delta Democrat-Times, Virginius Dabney of the Richmond Times-

Dispatch, and Jonathan Daniels of the Raleigh News and Observer as a group had

long been critical of the ‘‘malignant aspects of Southern life.’’

40. NewYork Times, April 9, 1938.

41. Biles,The South and the New Deal, 144–147.

42. Dallas Morning News, July 27, November 17, 1939;Time,March 20, 1939,

12–13.

43. Robert M. Harris to Sam Rayburn, July 28, 1939, and Ed Tillman to Sam

Rayburn, April 15, 1940, Political–Garner for President, 3R278, Rayburn Papers,

CAH.

44. ‘‘Statement of Honorable Maury Maverick, Mayor,’’ April 30, 1940, Maury

Maverick Sr. Papers 2L49, CAH; Ed Tillman to Sam Rayburn, April 15, 1940,

Political–Garner for President, 3R278, Rayburn Papers, CAH; San Antonio Ex-

press, April 30, 1940.


46. Best,Critical Press and the New Deal, 31.

47. Editor and Publisher,March 20, 1937, as quoted in Best,Critical Press and

the New Deal, 115.

48. Austin American, February 27, 1948; San Antonio Light, January 8, 1939;

Timmons, Jesse H. Jones, 274–277.

7. Newspapers and the 1936 Texas Centennial1. BusinessWeek, June 6, 1936, 17, copy from 15-109, AGCP.

2. DavidHamiltonMurdoch,TheAmericanWest: The Invention of aMyth, 98.

3. Paul Gaston, The New South Creed: A Study of Southern Mythmaking, 9;

Gary W. Gallagher and Alan T. Nolan, eds.,The Myth of the Lost Cause and Civil

War History, 1–2.

4. LloydA.Hunter, ‘‘The ImmortalConfederacy:AnotherLook atLostCause

Religion,’’ in Gallagher and Nolan, eds.,The Myth of the Lost Cause and Civil War

History, 185–186.

5. John Bodnar, Remaking America: Public Memory, Commemoration, and

Patriotism in the Twentieth Century, 14–15.

6. Kenneth B. Ragsdale,The Year America Discovered Texas: Centennial ’36,

8–19.

250


7. Ragsdale,Centennial ’36, 22–29.

8. Houston Post,March 18, 1934.

9. TheNewHandbook of Texas, vol. 6, s.v. ‘‘TexasCentennial,’’ 297–298.Every

major daily in the state published a special centennial edition, sometimes totaling

more than one hundred pages, stocked with history, anecdotes, and ads.


11. Dallas Morning News, October 1, 1935, sec. 1, pp. 1–6; sec. 3, p. 1; sec. 5,

p. 11.

12. Dallas Morning News,October 1, 1935, sec. 1, p. 1.

13. Bodnar, Remaking America, 15.

14. J. M. North Jr. to Ted Dealey, July 26, 1935, 16, Box 13, AGCP; Joseph

Michael Phillips, ‘‘The Fire This Time: The Battle over Racial, Regional, and

Religious Identities in Dallas,Texas, 1860–1990,’’ Ph.D. dissertation, University of

Texas at Austin, May 2002.

15. Ragsdale,Centennial ’36, 119–121;Dallas Morning News, April 1, 1935.

16. J. M. North Jr. to Ted Dealey, July 26, 1935, 16, Box 13, AGCP.

17. Silliman Evans to AmonCarter Sr., January 7, 1931,Trinity River Canal As-

sociation, Box 15-3, AGCP.

18. ‘‘Publishers See Permanent Gains,’’ Editor and Publisher, June 20, 1936,

reprint in Box 15-10a, AGCP.

19. Business Week, June 6, 1936, 17, located in AGCP Papers, Box 15, #109;

Dallas Morning News, July 15, 1936.

20. Dallas Morning News, June 12, 1936; Patricia Evridge Hill, Dallas: The

Making of a Modern City, 118–119. The Dallas Open Shop Association, organized

in 1919, opposed union activities in the city and subjectedmembers who knowingly

hired union workers to a $3,000 fine. The local AFL leadership cooperated with

businesses who resisted CIO organizers and refused to publicly condemn the vio-

lence and atrocities. (See ‘‘Dallas Tries Terror,’’ Nation, October 9, 1937.) Based

on the resistance to CIO organizing attempts in cities like Dallas and others in

the South, historian George B. Tindall concluded the ‘‘South remained predomi-

nantly nonunion and largely antiunion’’ (Emergence of the New South, 1913–1945,

515, 522).

21. Dallas Express, September 22, October 20, 1934. Select copies of the Ex-

press are in the CAH newspaper collection.

22. Ragsdale, Centennial ’36, 305; Phillips, ‘‘The Fire This Time,’’ 276–280;

James David Boswell, ‘‘Negro Participation in the 1936 Texas Centennial Exposi-

tion,’’ master’s report, University of Texas at Austin, 1969, 1. Phillips described the

Negro Hall of Fame as ‘‘an island of integration.’’

23. Dallas Morning News, June 7, 1936; Ragsdale,Centennial ’36, 231–232.

24. Dallas Morning News, June 8, 20, 1936; Ragsdale, Centennial ’36, 232;

Phillips, ‘‘The Fire This Time,’’ 292.

25. Ragsdale, Centennial ’36, 214–218; Fort Worth Star-Telegram, August 30,

1935, March 25, 1936.

251


26. AmonG.Carter toVicePresident JohnNanceGarner, July 23, 1936,Box 17-

10b; AmonG. Carter to Jesse H. Jones, July 8, 1936, Box 15-10b, AGCP; Ragsdale,

Centennial ’36, 210–220, 288–289.

27. Franklin D. Roosevelt to Amon Carter, telegram, July 18, 1936, Box 17-10b;

Damon Runyon, ‘‘Gotham’s Famous Flock toTexas,’’ clipping, July 27, 1936, Box

17-10b, AGCP.

28. ‘‘Fort Worth Frontier Centennial,’’ clipping, Texas Weekly, April 11, 1936,

Box 17-10, AGCP; Flemmons, Amon, 325–326; Ragsdale, Centennial ’36, 260–

265, 282–283.

29. Ragsdale,Centennial ’36, 294–295. Ragsdale stated that both major expo-

sitions actually lost money. Profit and loss figures provedmisleading, asmanyof the

bonds and notes for the exposition were never redeemed.

30. Hill,Dallas, 123–125.

31. Ragsdale,Centennial ’36, xvii–xx, 302–303.

32. Dallas Morning News,August 10, 1937, March 10, 1940;DallasTimes Her-

ald, September 9, 10, 1937; Hill,Dallas, 150–160.

33. ‘‘Dallas Tries Terror,’’ 377; Tindall, Emergence of the New South, 515, 522.

34. ‘‘1937 Annual Report,’’ and ‘‘1938 Annual Report,’’ 7:8–9, Belo.

35. ‘‘1940 Annual Report,’’ 7:11, Belo.

36. Dewey L. Grantham,The South in Modern America, 167–168.

37. Texas Almanac Supplement, 1937, 4.

Conclusion1. 1980Census of Population, Bureau of Census, quoted inMichael P.Malone

and Richard W. Etulain,The AmericanWest: A Twentieth-Century History, 122.

2. Bulletin Almanac and Year Book, 1943, 241, 261, 264;Texas Almanac and

State Industrial Guide, 1943–1944, 61–62, 287; Numan Bartley, The New South,

1945–1980, 1, 134, 145–146.

3. Kenneth T. Jackson, introduction to Essays on Sunbelt Cities and Recent

Urban America, by Raymond A. Mohl et al., 4–5.

4. David Goldfield,Cotton Fields and Skyscrapers: Southern City and Region,

1607–1980. Goldfield provided similar arguments that while modifications in the

social andpolitical cultureoccurred in southern cities, they remainedprimarily sub-

ject to regional cultures and traditions. Other works that concentrate on the rise of

urban communities and cultures in theSouth includeGavinWright,OldSouth,New

South: Revolutions in the Southern Economy since the Civil War; Blaine A. Brow-

nell, The Urban Ethos in the South, 1920–1930; and David C. Perry and Alfred J.

Watkins, eds.,The Rise of the Sunbelt Cities.

5. Texas Almanac, 1941–42, 249, 257. In 1939 newspapers owned 28 of the

56 licensed commercial radio stations in the state. All newspapers in the state were

valued at $28.7 million. No values were assigned to radio stations in the statistics.

6. Bill Moyers, ‘‘The Big Story: A Journalist Looks at Texas History,’’ South-

western Historical Quarterly 101, no. 1 ( July 1997): 1–7.

252

Bibliography

BooksAcheson, Sam. Dallas Yesterday. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press,

1977.

�. 35,000 Days in Texas: A History of the Dallas News and Its Forebears.

NewYork: Macmillan, 1938.

Alexander, Charles C.The Ku Klux Klan in the Southwest. Norman: University of

Oklahoma Press, 1995.

Anti-Saloon League. The Brewers and Texas Politics. San Antonio: Passing Show

Printing Co., 1916.

Ayers, Edward L.The Promise of the New South.NewYork: Oxford Press, 1992.

Badger, Anthony J.TheNewDeal: TheDepressionYears.NewYork:Hill andWang,

1989.

Bartley, Numan.The New Deal and the South. Jackson: University of Mississippi,

1984.

�. The New South, 1945–1980. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University

Press, 1995.

Beckett, Hazael Williams.Growing Up in Dallas. Austin: New Hope Press, 1985.

Best, Gary Dean.The Critical Press and the New Deal.Westport, Conn.: Praeger,

1993.

Biles, Roger. The South and the New Deal. Lexington: University Press of Ken-

tucky, 1994.

Blight, David W. Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American History. Cam-

bridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, Belknap Press, 2001.

Bodnar, John.RemakingAmerica:PublicMemory,Commemoration,andPatriotism

in the Twentieth Century. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992.

Brogan, D. W. Roosevelt and the New Deal. London: Oxford University Press,

1952.

Brown,NormanD.Hood, Bonnet, and Little Brown Jug: Texas Politics, 1921–1928.

College Station: Texas A&MUniversity Press, 1984.

Brownell,BlaineA.TheUrbanEthos in theSouth, 1920–1930.BatonRouge:Louisi-

ana State University Press, 1975.

Buenger, Walter L. The Path to a Modern South: Northeast Texas between Recon-

struction and the Great Depression. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2001.

Bulletin Almanac and Year Book, 1943. Philadelphia: Evening Bulletin, 1943.


Calvert, Robert A., and Arnoldo De León.The History of Texas. 2d ed.Wheeling,

Ill.: Harlan Davidson, 1996.

Campbell,W. Joseph.Yellow Journalism: Puncturing the Myths, Defining the Lega-

cies.Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 2001.

Cash,W. J.The Mind of the South. NewYork: Vintage Books, 1941.

Castleberry, Vivian Anderson. Daughters of Dallas: A History of Greater Dallas

through the Voices and Deeds of ItsWomen.Dallas: Odewald Press, 1994.

Chalmers, David M.Hooded Americanism: The History of the Ku Klux Klan. Dur-

ham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1987.

Cheney, Allison A. Dallas Spirit: A Political History of the City of Dallas. Dallas:

McMullan Publishing, 1991.

Clark, James Anthony, andWeldonHart.TheTactful Texan: A Biography of Gover-

norWill Hobby.NewYork: Random House, 1958.

Clark,ThomasD.TheSouthernCountryEditor. Indianapolis:Bobbs-Merrill, 1948.

Cockrell, FrankM.Historyof EarlyDallas.Chicago:privatelyprintedbyMonroeF.

Cockrell, 1944.

Coerver, DonM., and Linda B. Hall.Texas and the Mexican Revolution: A Study in

State and National Border Policy, 1910–1920. San Antonio: Trinity University

Press, 1984.

Connor, SeymourV., ed. Builders of the Southwest. Lubbock: TexasTechnological

College, Southwest Collection, 1959.

Cooper, William J., and Thomas E. Terrill. The American South: A History. New

York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1991.

Davidson, Donald, et al. I’ll TakeMy Stand: The South and the AgrarianTradition,

by Twelve Southerners. 1930. Reprint, NewYork: Harper and Brothers, 1962.

DeLeón,Arnoldo.MexicanAmericans inTexas:ABrief History.ArlingtonHeights,

Ill.: Harlan Davidson, 1993.

Emery, Edwin, andMichael Emery.The Press and America.EnglewoodCliffs, N.J.:

Prentice-Hall, 1978.

Enstam, Elizabeth York. Women and the Creation of Urban Life: Dallas, Texas,

1843–1920. College Station: Texas A&MUniversity Press, 1998.

Ezell, John S.The South since 1865. NewYork: Macmillan, 1975.

Ferrell, RobertH.WoodrowWilson andWorldWar I, 1917–1921.NewYork:Harper

and Row, 1985.

Fite, Gilbert.Cotton Fields No More: Southern Agriculture, 1865–1980. Lexington:

University of Kentucky Press, 1984.

Flemons, Jerry. Amon: TheTexanWho Played Cowboy for America.Lubbock: Texas

Tech University Press, 1998.

Folkerts, Jean, andDwightL.Teeter Jr.Voices of aNation:TheHistoryof MassMedia

in the United States. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1998.

Fuermann, George. Houston: Land of the Big Rich. Garden City, N.Y.: Double-

day, 1951.

254

Bibliography

Gallagher, GaryW., and Alan T. Nolan, eds.The Myth of the Lost Cause and Civil

War History. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2000.

Gaston, PaulM.TheNewSouthCreed: A Study in SouthernMythmaking.NewYork:

Alfred A. Knopf, 1970.

Gelsanliter,David.Fresh Ink:Behind the Scenes at aMajorMetropolitanNewspaper.

Denton: University of North Texas Press, 1995.

Goldfield, David.Cotton Fields and Skyscrapers: Southern City and Region, 1607–

1980. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1982.

Gould, Lewis L. Progressives and Prohibitionists: Texas Democrats in the Wilson

Era. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1973.

Grantham, Dewey L. Southern Progressivism: The Reconciliation of Progress and

Tradition. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1983.

�.TheSouth inModernAmerica.NewYork:HarperCollinsPublishers, 1994.

Green,ElnaC.SouthernStrategies: SouthernWomenand theWomanSuffrageQues-

tion. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1997.

Green, JamesR.Grass-Roots Socialism: RadicalMovements in the Southwest, 1895–

1943. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1978.

Greene, A. C.Dallas USA. Austin: Texas Monthly Press, 1984.

Gregory, Ross.The Origins of American Intervention in the First World War. New

York: W.W. Norton, 1971.

Haber, Samuel. The Quest for Authority and Honor in the American Professions.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991.

Haldeman-Julius, E., ed. Is the Ku Klux Klan Constructive or Destructive? A De-

bate between ImperialWizardHiramEvans, Israel Zangwill andOthers.Girard,

Kans.: Haldeman-Julius Co., 1924.

Hall, JacquelynDowd.Revolt againstChivalry: JessieDaniel Ames and theWomen’s

Campaign against Lynching.NewYork: Columbia University Press, 1993.

Harris, Charles H. III, and Louis R. Sadler.The Border and the Revolution. Silver

City, N.Mex.: High Lonesome Books, 1988.

Hazel, Michael V.Dallas: A History of ‘‘Big D.’’ Austin: Texas State Historical As-

sociation, 1997.

Hill, Patricia Evridge. Dallas: The Making of a Modern City. Austin: University of

Texas Press, 1996.

Hobson, Fred C. Serpent in Eden: H. L. Mencken and the South.Chapel Hill: Uni-

versity of North Carolina Press, 1974.

Hofstadter, Richard.The Age of Reform: From Bryan to F.D.R.NewYork: Vintage

Books, 1955.

Holmes, Maxine, and Gerald D. Saxon, eds.TheWPA Dallas Guide and History.

Denton: University of North Texas Press: 1992.

Houston: AHistory and Guide.American Guide Series,Work Projects Administra-

tion. Houston: Anson Jones Press, 1944.

Jackson, Kenneth T.The Ku Klux Klan in the City, 1915–1930. NewYork: Oxford

University Press, 1967.

255


Jones, Jesse H., and Edward Angly. Fifty Billion Dollars: My Thirteen Years with

the RFC.NewYork: Macmillan, 1951.

Jones,Ted.Dallas: Its History, Its Development, Its Beauty.Dallas: Lamar and Bar-

ton, 1925.

Justice, Glenn. Revolution on the Rio Grande. El Paso: TexasWestern Press, 1992.

Katz, Friedrich.The SecretWar inMexico: Europe, the United States, and the Mexi-

can Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981.

Key, V. O., Jr. Politics, Parties, and Pressure Groups. NewYork: Crowell, 1964.

Key, V. O., Jr., with the assistance of Alexander Heard. Southern Politics in State

and Nation.NewYork: A. A. Knopf, 1949.

Kimball, Justin F.Our City—Dallas: A Community Civics.Dallas: Kessler Plan As-

sociation of Dallas, 1927.

Kingston,Mike,SamAttlesey, andMaryG.Crawford.TheTexasAlmanac’sPolitical

History of Texas. Austin: Eakin Press, 1992.

Kirby, Jack Temple. Rural Worlds Lost: The American South, 1920–1960. Baton

Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1987.

Kobre,Sidney.DevelopmentofAmericanJournalism.Dubuque, Iowa:W.C.Brown

Co., 1969.

�. The Yellow Press and Gilded Age Journalism. Tallahassee, Fla.: Florida

State University Press, 1964.

Kousser, J. Morgan.The Shaping of Southern Politics: Suffrage Restriction and the

Establishment of the One-Party South, 1880–1910.NewHaven, Conn.: YaleUni-

versity Press, 1974.

Leslie,Warren.Dallas Public and Private.NewYork: Grossman Publishing, 1964.

Leuchtenburg, William E. Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal. New York:

Harper and Row, 1963.

Levine, LawrenceW.Highbrow/Lowbrow: The Emergence of Cultural Hierarchy in

America. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1988.

Lewis,Willie Newbury.Willie: A Girl from aTown Called Dallas. College Station:

Texas A&MUniversity Press, 1984.

Lindsley, Philip. AHistory of Greater Dallas and Vicinity.Chicago: Lewis Publish-

ing, 1909.

Link, Arthur S.Wilson. Vol. 3:The Struggle for Neutrality, 1914–1915. Princeton:

Princeton University Press, 1960.

�.Wilson. Vol. 4: Confusions and Crises, 1915–1916. Princeton: Princeton


�.Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive Era, 1910–1917. New York: Harper

and Brothers, 1954.

�,ed.The Papers of WoodrowWilson. Vol. 31: September 6–December, 1914.

Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979.

�,ed.The Papers of WoodrowWilson.Vol. 34: July–September, 1915.Prince-

ton, Princeton University Press, 1980.

Linsley, Judith Walker, Ellen Walker Rienstra, and Jo Ann Stiles.Giant under the

256

Bibliography

Hill: A History of the Spindletop Oil Discovery at Beaumont, Texas, in 1901.

Austin: Texas State Historical Association, 2002.

Malone, Michael P., and Richard W. Etulain. The American West: A Twentieth-

Century History. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1989.

McComb, David.Houston: A History. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981.

McDonald,WilliamL.Dallas Rediscovered: A Photographic Chronicle of Urban Ex-

pansion, 1870–1925.Dallas: Dallas Historical Society, 1978.

McElhaney, JacquelynMasur.PaulinePeriwinkle andProgressiveReform inDallas.

College Station: Texas A&MUniversity Press, 1998.

McLemore, Laura Lyons. InventingTexas: Early Historians of the Lone Star State.

College Station: Texas A&M Press, 2004.

Meek, Phillip J. Fort Worth Star-Telegram: ‘‘Where the West Begins.’’ New York:

Newcomen Society in North America, 1981.

Men of Affairs of San Antonio. San Antonio: San Antonio Newspaper Artists’ Asso-

ciation, n.d. [1912].

Mertz,PaulE.NewDealPolicyandSouthernRuralPoverty.BatonRouge:Louisiana


Meyer, Michael C. The Course of Mexican History. New York: Oxford University

Press, 1991.

Mohl, Raymond A., et al. Essays on Sunbelt Cities and Recent Urban America.Col-

lege Station: Texas A&MUniversity Press, 1990.

Montejano,David. Anglos andMexicans in theMaking of Texas, 1836–1986.Austin:

University of Texas Press, 1987.

Mott,FrankLuther. AmericanJournalism:AHistory, 1690–1960.3ded.NewYork:

Macmillan, 1962.

Murdoch, David Hamilton.The AmericanWest: The Invention of a Myth. Cardiff,

Wales: Welsh Academic Press, 2001.

The New Handbook of Texas. Edited by RonTyler et al. 6 vols. Austin: Texas State

Historical Association, 1996.

Ogden, Frederic D.The Poll Tax in the South. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama

Press, 1958.

Payne, Darwin. BigD: Triumphs andTroubles of an American Supercity in the 20th

Century. Rev. ed. Dallas: Three Forks Press, 2000.

�.Dallas: An IllustratedHistory.WoodlandsHills, Calif.:Windsor Publica-

tions, 1982.

�. Dissenting Opinion: Carl Brannin’s Letters to the Editor, 1933–1976.

Austin: American Civil Liberties Foundation of Texas, 1977.

Perry, David C., and Alfred J.Watkins, eds.The Rise of the Sunbelt Cities. Beverly

Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1977.

Pilkington, Tom. State of Mind: Texas Literature and Culture. College Station:

Texas A&MUniversity Press, 1998.

Procter, Ben, and Archie P. McDonald, eds. The Texas Heritage. Wheeling, Ill.:

Harlan Davidson, 1998.

257


Ragsdale, Kenneth B.The Year America Discovered Texas: Centennial ’36. College

Station: Texas A&MUniversity Press, 1987.

Rogers, JohnWilliam.The Lusty Texans of Dallas.NewYork: E. P. Dutton, 1960.

Roland, Charles P.The Improbable Era: The South sinceWorld War II. Lexington:

University of Kentucky Press, 1975.

Rosales, F. Arturo. Pobre Raza: Violence, Justice, and Mobilization among México

Lindo Immigrants, 1900–1936. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1999.

Sandos, James.Rebellion in the Borderlands: Anarchism and the Plan of SanDiego,

1904–1923.Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1992.

San Antonio: An Authoritative Guide to the City and Its Environs.American Guide

Series,Work Projects Administration. San Antonio: Clegg Co., 1938.

Schudson,Michael.Discovering theNews:ASocialHistoryofAmericanNewspapers.

NewYork: Basic Books, 1978.

�.The Power of News. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1995.

Schulman, Bruce J. From Cotton Belt to Sunbelt: Federal Policy, Economic Devel-

opment, and the Transformation of the South, 1938–1980. New York: Oxford


Seitz, Don C. Joseph Pulitzer: His Life and Letters. New York: Simon and Schus-

ter, 1924.

Seldes, George. Freedom of the Press.NewYork: Bobbs-Merrill, 1935.

Sharpe, Ernest.G. B. Dealey of the Dallas News.NewYork: Henry Holt, 1955.

Sibley, Marilyn. Lone Stars and State Gazettes: Texas Newspapers before the Civil

War. College Station: Texas A&MUniversity Press, 1983.

Slayden,EllenMaury.WashingtonWife:Journal of EllenMaurySlayden from1897–

1919.NewYork: Harper and Row, 1962.

Sloan,WilliamDavid, ed.The Age of Mass Communication.Northport, Ala.: Vision

Press, 1999.

Sloan,William David, and James D. Startt, eds.The Media in America: A History.

5th ed. Northport, Ala.: Vision Press, 2002.

Smith, Douglas.The New Deal in the Urban South. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State


Startt, James D., and William David Sloan, eds. The Significance of the Media in

American History.Northport, Ala.: Vision Press, 1994.

Stout, Joseph A., Jr. Border Conflict: Villistas, Carrancistas, and the Punitive Ex-

pedition, 1915–1920. Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press, 1999.

Streitmatter, Rodger. Mightier than the Sword: How the News Media Have Shaped

American History. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1997.

Texas: A Guide to the Lone Star State. American Guide Series,Work Projects Ad-

ministration. NewYork: Hastings House, 1940.

Texas Almanac and State Industrial Guide, 1914.Dallas: A. H. Belo, 1914.

Texas Almanac and State Industrial Guide, 1941–1942.Dallas: A. H. Belo, 1941.



258

Bibliography

Texas Almanac and State Industrial Guide: Supplement, 1937. Dallas: A. H. Belo,

1936.

Texas Newspaper Directory. Austin: Texas Press Service, 1991.

Texas Newspapers, 1813–1939.Houston: San Jacinto Museum of History Associa-

tion, 1941.

Thomas, Jesse O. Negro Participation in the Texas Centennial Exposition. Boston:

Christopher Publishing House, 1938.

Thometz, Carol Estes.TheDecision-Makers: The Power Structure of Dallas.Dallas:

Southern Methodist University Press, 1963.

Timmons, Bascom N. Jesse H. Jones: The Man and Statesman. NewYork: Henry

Holt, 1956.

Tindall, George B. The Emergence of the New South, 1913–1945. Baton Rouge:

Louisiana State University Press, 1967.

�. The Persistent Tradition in New South Politics. Baton Rouge: Louisiana


Tocqueville, Alexis de.Democracy in America.Edited byHarvey C.Mansfield and

DelbaWinthrop. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Vanderwood, Paul J., and Frank N. Samponora. Border Fury. Albuquerque: Uni-

versity of New Mexico Press, 1988.

Wade,WynCraig.The Fiery Cross: TheKuKluxKlan inAmerica.NewYork: Simon

and Schuster, 1987.

Walker, Stanley.The Dallas Story.Dallas: Dallas Times Herald, 1956.

Wiley, Nancy.The Great State Fair of Texas: An Illustrated History.Dallas: Taylor

Publishing, 1985.

Williamson, Joel.TheCrucible of Race:Black-WhiteRelations in theAmericanSouth

since Emancipation.NewYork: Oxford University Press, 1984.

Winegarten, Ruthe. Black Texas Women: 150 Years of Trial and Triumph. Austin:

University of Texas Press, 1995.

Winegarten, Ruthe, and Judith N. McArthur, eds. Citizens at Last: The Woman

Suffrage Movement in Texas. Austin: Ellen C.Temple, 1987.

Woodward, C.Vann.The Origins of the New South, 1877–1913. Baton Rouge, La.:

Louisiana State University Press, 1951.

Worster, Donald.Dust Bowl: The Southern Plains in the 1930s.NewYork: Oxford


Wright, Gavin. Old South, New South: Revolutions in the Southern Economy since

the Civil War.NewYork: Basic Books, 1986.

Articles, Chapters, Manuscripts, Papers, and Public DocumentsAcheson, Sam. ‘‘First Citizen of Texas.’’Texas Almanac, 1947–1948.Dallas: A. H.

Belo, 1948.

�. ‘‘George Bannerman Dealey.’’ Southwestern Historical Quarterly,March

1947.

‘‘American Sympathies in theWar.’’ Literary Digest, November 14, 1914.

259


Bentley,Max. ‘‘TheKuKluxKlan inTexas.’’McClure’smagazine, vol. 55,May1924.

Biles, Roger. ‘‘The New Deal in Dallas.’’ Southwestern Historical Quarterly 95

(1991).

Brownell, Blaine A. ‘‘Urbanization.’’ In Encyclopedia of Southern Culture, edited

by Charles ReaganWilson andWilliam Ferris. Chapel Hill: University of North

Carolina Press, 1989.

Butler, Steve. ‘‘Honoring the Past: Confederate Monuments in Dallas.’’ Legacies: A

History Journal of Dallas and North Central Texas 1, no. 3 (fall 1989).

Cartwright, Gary. ‘‘The Old Soldier.’’Texas Monthly, February 1991.

Chiles, James R. ‘‘Spindletop.’’ American Heritage of Invention and Technology 3,

no. 1 (1987).

Cobb, James C. ‘‘Beyond Planters and Industrialists: A New Perspective on the

New South.’’ In Redefining Southern Culture. Athens: University of Georgia

Press, 1998.

Cohn, David L. ‘‘Dallas.’’ Atlantic,October 1940.

Colwell,RobertF. ‘‘SanAngelo, 1933–1936:Drought, Flood,Depression.’’ InTexas

Cities and the Great Depression, 173–174. Austin: Texas Memorial Museum,

1973.

Cox, Patrick. ‘‘JohnNanceGarner.’’ InProfiles in Power: Twentieth-CenturyTexans

inWashington, edited by Kenneth E. Hendrickson, Jr., Michael L. Collins, and

Patrick Cox. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2004.

Crowell, Chester T. ‘‘Journalism in Texas.’’ American Mercury 7, no. 28 (April

1926).

�. ‘‘Strange News fromTexas.’’ American Mercury 4, no. 15 (March 1925).

‘‘Dallas by the Decade.’’ Legacies: A History Journal of Dallas and North Central

Texas 3, no. 2 (fall 1991).

Dallas County Citizens League, ‘‘The Case against the Ku Klux Klan.’’ Dallas:

Venney Co., 1922.

‘‘Dallas Tries Terror.’’ Nation,October 9, 1937.

Davis, Ronald L. ‘‘Western Urban Development.’’ InThe AmericanWest: New Per-

spectives, New Dimensions, edited by Jerome O. Steffen. Norman: University of

Oklahoma Press, 1979.

DeMoss, Dorothy. ‘‘Resourcefulness in the Financial Capital: Dallas, 1929–1933.’’

In Texas Cities and the Great Depression, by Robert C. Cotner et al., 117–133.

Austin: Texas Memorial Museum, 1973.

Donaldson, Jimmy. ‘‘TheVoice of theWest.’’Texas Historian, vol. 42, no. 1 (March

1981).

DuBois,W.E.B. ‘‘TheShape of Fear.’’NorthAmericanReview223, no. 831 (1926).

Dulaney,W.Marvin. ‘‘The ProgressiveVoters League: A Political Voice for African

Americans in Dallas.’’ Legacies: A History Journal of Dallas and North Central

Texas 3, no. 1 (spring 1991).

Enstam, Elizabeth York. ‘‘The Dallas Equal Suffrage Association, Political Style,

260

Bibliography

and Popular Culture: Grassroots Strategies of theWoman Suffrage Movement,

1913–1919.’’ Journal of Southern History 68, no. 4 (November 2002): 817–848.

�. ‘‘How Dallas Grew . . . and Why.’’ Legacies: A History Journal of Dallas

and North Central Texas 3, no. 2 (fall 1991).

Evans, J. Claude. ‘‘The Dallas Image Unveiled.’’ Christian Century, 20 Novem-

ber 1963.

Fairbanks, Robert B. ‘‘Making Better Citizens in Dallas: The Kessler Plan Associa-

tion and Consensus Building in the 1920s.’’ Legacies 11, no. 2 (fall 1999).

Fisher,MaryMaverickMcMillan. ‘‘SanAntonio I:TheHooverEra.’’ InTexasCities

and the Great Depression, by Robert C. Cotner et al., 53–68. Austin: Texas

Memorial Museum, 1973.

Fitzpatrick, Merry K. ‘‘Local Solutions Not Adequate: San Marcos, 1932–1933.’’

InTexas Cities and the Great Depression, 47–49. Austin: Texas Memorial Mu-

seum, 1973.

Fox-Genovese, Elizabeth. ‘‘The Anxiety of History: The Southern Confrontation

with Modernity.’’ Southern Cultures 1, no. 1 (fall 1994): 65–82.

Gaughan, Anthony. ‘‘WoodrowWilson and the Rise of Militant Interventionism in

the South.’’ Journal of Southern History 65 (1999).

Greene, Casey. ‘‘Guardians against Change: The Ku Klux Klan in Houston and

Harris County, 1920–1925.’’ Legacies 10, no. 1 (1988).

Griswold del Castillo, Richard. ‘‘The Mexican Revolution and the Spanish-

LanguagePress in theBorderlands.’’ JournalismHistory4,no.2 (summer1977).

Harris, Charles H. III, and Louis R. Sadler. ‘‘The Plan of San Diego and the

Mexican–United States War Crisis of 1916: A Reexamination.’’ In The Border

and the Revolution. Silver City, N.Mex.: High Lonesome Books, 1988.

Haynes, Robert. ‘‘Black Houstonians and the White Democratic Primary, 1920–

1945.’’ InHouston: ATwentiethCenturyUrbanFrontier.PortWashington,N.Y.:

Associated Faculty Press, 1983.

Hazel, Michael V. ‘‘The Making of TwoModern Dailies.’’ Legacies 9, no. 1 (1997).

Hunter, Lloyd A. ‘‘The Immortal Confederacy: Another Look at Lost Cause Reli-

gion.’’ In GaryW.Gallagher and AlanT. Nolan, eds.,TheMyth of the Lost Cause

and Civil War History. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2000.

Jackson, Kenneth T. Introduction. In Essays on Sunbelt Cities and Recent Urban

America, by Raymond A. Mohl et al. College Station: Texas A&M University

Press, 1990.

Kilman,EdwardW. ‘‘TheHistoryof theHoustonPost.’’March26, 1941.OvetaCulp

Hobby Papers.Woodson Research Center, Fondren Library, Rice University.

Link, Arthur S. ‘‘The Cotton Crisis, the South, and Anglo-American Diplomacy,

1914–1915.’’ InThe Higher Realism of WoodrowWilson and Other Essays.Nash-

ville: Vanderbilt Press, 1971.

Link,Arthur S. ‘‘TheProgressiveMovement in theSouth, 1870–1914.’’NorthCaro-

lina Historical Review 23, no. 1 (1946): 172–195.

261


Lippmann, Walter. ‘‘Two Revolutions in the American Press.’’ Yale Review 20

(March 1931): 433–441.

‘‘The Literature of a Moral Republic.’’ Smart Set 47 (October 1915).

Lotchkin,RogerW. ‘‘TheMetropolitan-MilitaryComplex inPerspective:SanFran-

cisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego, 1919–1941.’’ In The Urban West, edited by

Gerald D. Nash. Manhattan: University of Kansas Press, 1979.

McDaniel,DennisK. ‘‘TheFirstCongressmanMartinDiesof Texas.’’Southwestern

Historical Quarterly 102, no. 2 (October 1998): 131–162.

McDonald, Timothy Gregory. ‘‘Southern Democratic Congressmen and the First

World War.’’ Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington, 1962.

McElhaney, Jackie. ‘‘After the Deluge: The Impact of the Trinity River Flood of

1908.’’ Legacies 11, no. 2 (fall 1999).

Melosi,MartinV. ‘‘Dallas–FortWorth:Marketing theMetroplex.’’ In Sunbelt Cities:

Politics and Growth since World War II, edited by Richard M. Bernard and

Bradley R. Rice. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1983.

Miller,T. L. ‘‘Oscar Callaway and Preparedness.’’West TexasHistorical Association

Yearbook 43 (1967).

Montgomery,WilliamE. ‘‘TheDepression inHouston, 1929–1933.’’ InTexas Cities

and the Great Depression, 153–170. Austin: Texas Memorial Museum, 1973.

Moyers, Bill. ‘‘The Big Story: A Journalist Looks at Texas History.’’ Southwestern

Historical Quarterly 101, no. 1 ( July 1997): 1–7.

Murdock, Graham, and Peter Golding. ‘‘The Structure, Ownership, and Control

of the Press, 1914–1976.’’ In Newspaper History from the Seventeenth Century to

the Present Day, edited by George Boyce, James Curran, and PaulineWingate.

London: Constable, 1978.

Payne,Darwin. ‘‘TheDallasMorningNews and theKuKluxKlan.’’Legacies9, no. 1

(spring 1997).

Procter, Ben. ‘‘The Texas Rangers.’’ InThe Texas Heritage, edited by Ben Procter

and Archie P. McDonald.Wheeling, Ill.: Harlan Davidson, 1998.

Pusateri, C. Joseph. ‘‘Radio History.’’ Encyclopedia of Southern Culture. Chapel

Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1989.

‘‘Racial Dynamism in Dallas.’’ New Republic, 24 March 1941.

Scott, Janelle D. ‘‘Local Leadership in theWoman Suffrage Movement: Houston’s

Campaign for the Vote, 1917–1918.’’Houston Review 12, no. 1 (1990): 2–22.

Shaw,DonaldL. ‘‘TheRise andFall ofAmericanMassMedia:Roles of Technology

and Leadership.’’ RoyW.Howard Public Lecture in Journalism andMass Com-

munication Research, no. 2. Indiana University School of Journalism, Bloom-

ington, April 4, 1991.

Stout, Joseph A., Jr., and Clifford A. Perkins. ‘‘The Revolution Comes to Juárez.’’

Password 22, no. 2 (summer 1977).

Strong, Donald S. ‘‘The Poll Tax: The Case of Texas.’’ American Political Science

Review 38 (August 1944): 698.

262

Bibliography

U.S. Congress. Senate. Judiciary Subcommittee Hearings. Brewing and Liquor

Interests and German Propaganda. 65th Congress, 1919.

White, C.C., andAdaMoreheadHolland. ‘‘NoQuittin’ Sense.’’ Reprinted inTexas

History Documents, edited by Randolph B. Campbell. New York: Worth Pub-

lishers, 1997.

Wilcox, Delos F. ‘‘The American Newspaper: A Study in Social Psychology.’’

Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 16 ( July 1900):

56–92.

Wilson,WilliamH. ‘‘Adapting toGrowth:Dallas,Texas, and theKesslerPlan, 1908–

1933.’’ Arizona and theWest 25 (autumn 1983).

NewspapersAustin American

Colonel Mayfield’sWeekly (Houston)

Dallas Democrat

Dallas Dispatch

Dallas Downtown News

Dallas Evening Journal

Dallas Express

Dallas Herald

Dallas Laborer

Dallas Mercury

Dallas Morning News

Dallas Observer

Dallas Post Tribune

Dallas Times Herald

DallasWeekly

El Paso Herald

El Paso Times

Fort Worth Record

Fort Worth Star-Telegram

Galveston News

Houston Chronicle

Houston Dispatch

Houston Post

Houston Post-Dispatch

New York American

New York Herald

New York Times

New YorkWorld

La Prensa (San Antonio)

San Angelo Evening Standard

263


San Angelo Standard

San Antonio Express

San Antonio Express-News

San Antonio Light

State Topics (Austin)

Texas 100 Per Cent American (Dallas)

Dissertations, ThesesBoswell, James David. ‘‘Negro Participation in the 1936 Texas Centennial Exposi-

tion.’’ Master’s report, University of Texas at Austin, 1969.

Davies,ElizabethDurham. ‘‘FairParkExpansion:ACaseStudyof PoliticalBias and

Protest in Urban Dallas.’’ Master’s thesis, North Texas State University, 1974.

DeMoss, DorothyDell. ‘‘Dallas during the EarlyDepression.’’Master’s thesis, Uni-

versity of Texas at Austin, 1966.

Hill, MarilynnWood. ‘‘AHistory of Jewish Involvement in the Dallas Community.’’

Master’s thesis, Southern Methodist University, 1967.

Hollingsworth,AnnP. ‘‘ReformGovernment inDallas, 1927–1940.’’Master’s thesis,

North Texas State University, 1971.

Keith, Ruby. ‘‘Early History of Dallas.’’ Master’s thesis, University of Texas at

Austin, 1930.

Kilgore, Linda Elaine. ‘‘The Ku Klux Klan and the Press in Texas, 1920–1927.’’

Master’s thesis, University of Texas at Austin, 1964.

McDonald, Timothy Gregory. ‘‘Southern Democratic Congressmen and the First

World War, August 1914–April 1917.’’ Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michi-

gan, 1962.

Phillips, Joseph Michael. ‘‘The Fire This Time: The Battle over Racial, Regional,

and Religious Identities in Dallas, Texas, 1860–1990.’’ Ph.D. dissertation, Uni-

versity of Texas at Austin, 2002.

Stokes, George M. ‘‘A Public Service Program History of Radio Station WFAA-

820.’’ Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University, 1954.

Torrence, Lois E. ‘‘The Ku Klux Klan in Dallas (1915–1928): An American Para-

dox.’’ Master’s thesis, Southern Methodist University, 1948.

264

Index

Note: Page numbers in italics indicate illustrations.

Abbot,Willis, 206

Acheson, Sam, 214

advertising, newspaper, 54, 136, 191;

and Amon G. Carter, 95; inDallas

Morning News, 74–75, 81, 83,

87, 90, 221; in Fort Worth Star-

Telegram, 96, 159; in Houston

Chronicle, 68, 69, 176; inHous-

ton Post, 63–66; and oil boom, 41;

and Prohibition, 50–51, 75, 78,

87; in San Antonio Express, 94; in

Spanish-language newspapers, 28,

29; at turn of century, 27, 45, 48

AFL, 220, 251n20

African Americans, 16, 92, 119, 133,

168, 194; attacks on, in media, 142,

147–148, 203; celebration of, at

Texas Centennial Exposition, 212,

214–215; courted by Democrats,

199–200; and lynching, 232n16;

newspapers of, 31–32; poverty and

discrimination faced by, 13, 25,

34–38, 45, 182, 210, 221–222; and

voting rights, 53, 59–60, 154–155.

See also civil rights; discrimination;

disenfranchisement; integration;

Jim Crow laws; minorities; race

relations; racism; segregation

Agar, P. L., 167–168

agriculture, 13, 47, 105; during De-

pression, 180, 195; and modern-

ization, 221–224, 226; newspaper

coverage of, 78; radio shows about,

175; and Texas Centennial, 212. See

also cattle industry; cotton industry;

urban vs. rural

Agriculture Adjustment Act, 197

Alamo, the, 204

Aldridge,W. H., 126

Alexander, Charles, 136–138

Allen, H. E., 147

Allred, James, 188–189, 193, 214, 217,

219

Alpine, 181

American Airlines, 98

American Anti-Klan Association, 143,

148

American Petroleum Institute, 98

American Road Company, 169, 171

Andrews, Ulysses J., 32

anti-preparedness sentiment, 112, 114,

134. See also isolationism; neutrality

policy; preparedness

anti-Semitism, 13

antitrust laws, 65, 234n5, 237–238n8

Appeal to Reason, 114, 115

Armand, R. H., 150–152

Ashe, Charles E., 154

Associated Press, 73, 93, 94, 105–106,

108

Austin (city), 7, 33, 74, 166, 167, 169,

188, 198

Austin, Stephen F., 214

Austin,W. D., 208


Austin American-Statesman, 30, 63

Austria-Hungary, 105, 108

Axson, Stockton, 72

Bailey, George M., 64, 149, 170–171

Bailey, Joe, 65

Bailey, JosephW., 200

Ball, Tom, 240n34

Bankers Mortgage Company, 70

Barrickman,W. C., 59

Barrow, Clyde, 188

Bass, Sam, 4

Battle of San Jacinto, 208, 214

Beach, Harrison L., 93

Beard, Stanley, 60

Beaumont, 39, 40, 41–42; Klan in, 141,

165

Bedichek, Roy, 156–157

Belgium, 108

Bell County, 170

Bellinger, Valmo C., 32

Belo, A. H., and Company (later A. H.

Belo Corporation), 1, 75, 82, 89,

160, 177, 221

Belo, Alfred H., Jr., 82, 84

Belo, Alfred H., Sr. (A. H.), 7, 73–74,

82, 87

Belo, Mrs. Alfred H., Sr., 84

Bexar County, 93, 94, 246n68

Biggers, Don H., 169

bilingual newspapers: See German-

language newspapers; Spanish-

language newspapers

Billy the Kid, 202

Binford,T. A., 151

Birth of a Nation, The, 139

blacks. See African Americans

Bodnar, John, 205, 209

Bonham, 148, 157

bootlegging, 136–137, 149, 153. See

also Prohibition

Boquillas, 127

Borden, Gail, 29

Bosque County, 170

Bowie, 95

Brashear, Sam, 67

Brooks, Allen, 35–37

Brown, Norman, 143

Browne, JohnT., 67

Brownell, Blaine A., 20

Brownsville, 28, 29, 117, 119, 121

Bryan,William Jennings, 106, 117, 118

Buchanan, James, 195, 198

Buchanan, Robert, 146

Buckley, Claude C., 151

Buenger,Walter, 15–16, 18

Buffalo Bayou, 29, 72

Buffalo Bayou Ship Channel Company,

64

Burkburnett, 96

Burkett, Joe, 170

Burleson, Albert, 240n34

Butte, George C., 162, 164, 165

Callaway, Isadore Miner, 56–58,

234n40

Callaway, Oscar, 109, 112, 239nn23,24

Callaway,William Allen, 57

Campaign Chronicle, 30

Campbell, Ben, 60

Campbell, Sam H., 157

Canyon, 181

Carnegie Library for Negroes, 31

Carothers, James, 123

carpetbaggers, 45, 47, 139

Carranza, Venustiano, 116, 118, 121,

123–126, 128, 130, 241n45, 242n55

Carter, Amon G., Foundation, 98

Carter, Amon G., Jr., 95, 98, 227

Carter, Amon G., Sr.: death of, 227;

and Jim Ferguson, 167, 168, 186;

and Fort Worth Star-Telegram,

1, 2, 7, 95–98, 174, 178, 208; as

potential secretary of war, 192–193;

and Texas Centennial, 210, 211,

215–217, 216

266

Index

Catholics, 13, 137, 139, 142, 147–148,

154, 157, 159, 161, 199

cattle industry, 20, 23, 24, 25, 33, 91,

115, 124

Cattle Raisers Association of Texas, 117

Cave, EberWorthington, 30

CCC, 193, 194, 199

censorship, 28–29, 107, 108

census of 1900, 32–33

Centennial. SeeTexas Centennial

Chandler, E. B., 93

Chandler, Harry, 196

CIO, 219–220, 251n20

circulation, newspaper, 27, 28, 45,

48, 50, 95, 104, 177, 178, 195, 218,

226; Dallas Morning News, 75,

76, 83, 84, 89, 90, 159; Fort Worth

Star-Telegram, 96, 159;Houston

Chronicle, 68, 69

City Central Bank and Trust Company,

180

Civilian Conservation Corps, 193, 194,

199

civil rights, 7, 10, 13–14, 23, 155, 227;

and African American newspapers,

31, 32. See also discrimination; dis-

enfranchisement; integration; Jim

Crow laws; race relations; racism;

segregation

Civil War, 10, 102; mythologizing of,

203–204; and newspaper publish-

ing, 30, 46; veterans of, 14, 18, 24,

141, 230n5. See also Confederacy

Clansman,The, 200

Clarke, Edward Young, 138, 140, 161

Cleaner Dallas League, 78, 88, 89

Clegg, AlexanderWhite, 127

Cockrell, J. Lafayette, 142

Cody, Buffalo Bill, 202

cold war, 4, 22

Cole, Robert, 150

Colonel Mayfield’s Weekly, 142, 147–

148, 149–150, 151

Colquitt, Oscar, 79, 85, 108, 109,

113–114, 116–118, 126, 129, 155,

238nn14,16, 239n26, 240nn31,34

Comanche Vanguard, 113

Committee on Public Information,

243n8

communism, 139, 199

Confederacy, 6, 11, 18, 23, 24, 45, 54,

80, 81, 160, 203–204, 205, 215,

230n5. See also Civil War

Congress, U.S., 60, 61

Connally, Tom, 195, 206

Corsicana, 33, 39

Corsicana Daily Sun, 205

cotton industry, 6, 17, 19, 24, 25, 33,

147; and diversification, 78; and

European market, beforeWorld

War I, 105, 108, 109, 110; in Great

Depression, 181; and moderniza-

tion, 20, 23

court-packing proposal, 197–198

‘‘cowboy’’ myth, 11, 18

CPI, 243n.8

Crane, Martin, 155–156, 157

crash of 1929, 180, 181, 190. See also

Great Depression

crime, 139–140, 188–189

Crow, Louis, 146

Crowell, Chester, 94, 140

Crystal City, 207

Cuero, 147

Culberson, Charles, 113, 114, 129,

239n26

Cullinan, Joseph S., 143, 148, 153–154

Daily Light, 93

Daily Light Publishing Company, 93

Dallas, 6, 20, 21, 69, 72, 73, 110, 179;

ascendancy of, 11, 18, 23; Depres-

sion in, 180, 191; and federal gov-

ernment, 24; Ford Motor Company

strike in, 220; growth of, 3–4; Klan

in, 155–160, 161, 165; newspapers

267


in, expansion and consolidation of,

62, 74–91; oil industry in, 40, 185;

population of, 104, 136, 224, 225;

racial violence in, 35–38; radio in,

175; rivalry of, with Fort Worth,

99; schools in, 167; and Texas Cen-

tennial, 202, 207–220; at turn of

century, 33; unemployment in,

139; war preparedness in, 112; and

women’s issues, 57–59

Dallas Citizens Council, 218

Dallas City Plan and Improvement

League, 84–85, 86

Dallas Civic Improvement Association,

89

Dallas County Citizens League, 156,

158, 245nn45–46

Dallas Daily Times, 75

Dallas Equal Suffrage Association, 59,

60

Dallas Evening Herald, 75

Dallas Express, 32, 212, 214

Dallas Herald, 74, 75

Dallas Journal, 174, 221

Dallas Morning News, 52, 53, 64–

65, 96, 144, 208, 219; on African

Americans, 35, 215; and Belo Com-

pany, 1, 245n55; on cooperation

with Fort Worth, 210–211; dur-

ing Depression, 180, 181, 193; and

G. B. Dealey, 1, 3, 7, 87–91, 99,

227; golden anniversary of, 208;

influence of, 238n9; on Klan, 137,

143, 155–156, 157, 159, 166, 177,

244n23; losses suffered by, 177,

220–221; on Mexican affairs, 117,

118, 121–123, 125, 126, 129, 130–

131, 133; modernization of, 178;

origins of, 30, 74–75; and politics,

76–86, 168; and Prohibition, 50,

78; on racial incident in 1910, 35–

37; and radio, 174, 175; success

and profitability of, 75, 195, 218,

226; and Texas Centennial, 209,

210, 212, 214; on women’s issues,

56–58; onWorld War I and events

leading up to it, 105–110, 112–114

Dallas Open Shop Association, 220

Dallas Public Schools, 167

Dallas Times Herald, 1, 7, 75–76,

96, 178, 221; on Klan, 158, 159,

245n52; Sunday edition of, 49; and

Texas Centennial, 210, 211

Davidson, Lynch, 163

Davis, J. H. ‘‘Cyclone,’’ 109, 113, 128,

239n23

Davis, Jefferson, 203–204

Davis, JohnW., 165

Davis, Ronald, 22

Davis,W. L., 154

Dawson, A. G., 95

Day, Phil, 157

Dealey, George Bannerman, 1, 2, 3–4,

7, 76, 82, 84, 85, 86, 87–91, 88,

92, 174, 206, 247n95; and civic

improvements, 78; and Dallas Citi-

zens Council, 218; death of, 227;

and development ofDallas Morn-

ing News, 74–75; and economic

problems, 177, 180–181, 220–221;

and golden anniversary of the News,

208; opposition of, to ‘‘Ferguson-

ism,’’ 187–188; opposition of, to

Klan, 155–156, 157–158, 159, 177;

personality of, 99; and racial preju-

dice, 182; and Texas Centennial,

211; and World War I, 105, 106

Dealey,Ted, 166, 208–210, 221, 227

Dealey,ThomasW., 82, 84

Dealey,Walter, 174–176

Debs, Eugene, 90

deepwater port, campaign for, 64, 72,

232n16

Democratic Party, 14, 30, 48, 53, 66,

67, 93, 162, 193; and congressional

elections of 1930; conservative

268

Index

voices in, 65; and disenfranchise-

ment of blacks, 154–155; and Jim

and Miriam Ferguson, 170; and

gubernatorial campaign of 1914,

240n34; and Jesse Jones, 72–73,

165, 171; and Klan, 161; opposition

of, to FDR, 197, 198, 218–219, 200,

221; and presidential election of

1928, 138; and presidential elec-

tion of 1932, 187, 189, 191; and

presidential election of 1936, 196;

and presidential election of 1940,

198–199; and primaries, 112, 134,

138, 154, 168–159, 161, 163, 186,

239n26, 242–243n83; and race

relations, 32; and state convention

of 1904, 92; support for, by news-

papers, 29, 47; views of, onWorld

War I, 104, 109, 111, 112–113, 115,

239n23

Denison, 83

Denison Herald, 244n23

Depression. SeeGreat Depression

Díaz, Porfirio, 28–29, 115, 116

Diehl, Charles S., 93

Dies, Martin, Sr., 109, 112, 134

discrimination, racial, 7, 10, 21, 24,

26, 49, 201, 222, 227; and the first

black newspapers, 31; against Mexi-

cans and Tejanos, 121, 240n30; and

Texas Centennial, 212–214

disenfranchisement, 14, 34, 49, 53,

154–155, 212

Dixon,Thomas L., 200

DuBois,W. E. B., 141

Du Pont, Pierre, 200

Duncan, Jasper T., 32

East Texas, 4, 33

Editor and Publishermagazine, 200,

211

editorial cartoons, 68, 79–80, 126, 211

education, public, 45, 58–59

El Bejareño, 28

electoral politics, 14–15, 30, 34, 47–48.

See also Democratic Party; disen-

franchisement; Republican Party;

suffrage for women; voting and

voting rights

El Noticioso del Bravo, 28

El Paso, 29, 104, 115, 123–124, 125,

126, 129

El Paso Herald, 125, 126

El Paso Herald-Post, 62–63

El Paso Morning Times, 125

El Paso Times, 124

El Rayo Federal, 28

Emergency Banking Act, 191

Evans, HiramWesley, 153, 155, 158,

161

Evans, Silliman, 211

Excelsior Mutual Insurance Company,

214

executions, public, 35, 37

Express Printing Company, 93

Express Publishing Company, 93

Exxon, 40

farming. See agriculture

federal government, role of, 24, 45,

102–103. See also Congress, U.S.

Federal Radio Commission, 176

Federal Reserve Bank, 4

Ferguson, James, 162, 240n34,

246n58; comeback of, after im-

peachment, 160–161, 164–171, 178,

186–188; and events in Mexico, 118,

119, 127; on sinking of the Lusi-

tania, 110; support of, for Charles

Culberson for U.S. Senate, 114,

239–240n26

Ferguson, Miriam, 138, 160–171, 178,

186, 246n68; criticism of second

administration of, 187–188

Ferguson Forum, 169

film industry, 6, 9, 148, 202

269


Finty,Tom, 157–158

Fitzgerald, Hugh N., 206

Flemons, Jerry, 95, 99, 193

Ford Motor Company, 4, 219–220

foreign-language newspapers, 5. See

alsoGerman-language newspapers;

Spanish-language newspapers

Fort Bliss, 129

Fort Worth, 20, 70, 74, 83, 113, 117,

186, 193; ascendancy of, 11, 18, 23;

city motto of, 7; Depression in, 180,

191; FDR supporters in, 199; in

Klan era, 159, 165; newspapers in,

6, 62, 95–100, 178; oil industry in,

167, 168; population of, 136, 224,

225; radio in, 174; and Texas Cen-

tennial, 207, 210, 211–212, 215–218;

at turn of century, 33

Fort Worth Evening Mail, 95

Fort Worth Frontier Centennial Expo-

sition, 207, 212, 215–218. See also

Texas Centennial

Fort Worth Gazette, 95

Fort Worth Mail-Telegram, 95

Fort Worth Press, 62, 211

Fort Worth Record, 95, 98, 178

Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 113, 168;

and Amon G. Carter, Sr., 1, 7, 167,

174, 193, 208, 227; circulation of,

159; during Depression, 180, 194;

origins of, 95–100; on politics, 186;

success of, 178, 226; and Texas

Centennial, 210, 211, 215

Fort Worth Telegram, 95

Foster, Marcellus, 7, 67, 152, 168, 206;

andHouston Chronicle, 7, 68–69,

162–163; on Jim Ferguson, 164,

165, 170–173, 178; opposition of, to

Klan, 142–149, 152, 153, 166, 177,

178; on women’s suffrage, 59–60

Fox, J. M., 121

Fox, Phil, 158

France, 107, 108, 209

Freeman’s Journal, 31

French, George C., 148

Frontier Centennial, 207, 212, 215–218

Gaceta de Texas, 28

Galveston Daily News, 1, 112, 143, 174

Galveston News, 1, 73–75, 87, 93,

245n55; decline of, 160; on deep-

water port, 64; and hurricane in

1900, 81–82; and Klan, 159, 178;

origins of, 30; on Prohibition, 78

Galveston Spectator, 31

Galveston Zeitung, 30

Gannett, Frank, 200

García, José, 119

Garner, John Nance, 119, 121, 189–190,

198–199, 239n23, 249–250n36;

vice presidency of, 191, 193, 195,

196, 197, 198, 207, 208, 200–201

Garrett, Daniel, 113, 239n23

Gaston, Paul, 203

General Baptist Convention, 78

German-American Alliance, 114

German Americans, 92, 93, 103, 106,

111, 113–114, 237–238n8

German-language newspapers, 30

Germany: and events leading up to

WorldWar I, 101–114, 129–132, 148,

237n6, 242n60

Gifford, A.W., 93

Gilbert, Charles E., 75

Gilmer, 157

Glenn Spring, 127

Goliad, 204

Gooch,Tom, 211

Good Government Democratic

League, 162

Goodwin, M. L., 176

Goose Creek, 141

Goose Creek Twelve, 150–154

Gore,Thomas P., 112

Gould, Lewis, 17

Grady, Henry, 20

270

Index

Grantham, Dewey, 26, 47–48, 49, 221

Great Britain: and events leading up to

World War I, 103–111, 129

Great Depression, 4–5, 8, 9, 12, 16,

21, 22, 45, 178, 179–201, 204, 210,

223, 248n2, 249n24; Jesse Jones

during, 70, 73, 205–206; organized

labor during, 91; per capita income

in Texas during, 225; and Texas

Centennial, 202, 218; and WPA,

62

Gregory, 127

Griffith, James S., 154, 155

Groveton, 188

Gulf Oil, 40

Haley, J. Evetts, 200

Hall of Negro Life, 212, 214, 215,

251n22

Hamilton, Raymond, 188

Hardy, Rufus, 109, 239n23

Harris, Robert M., 199

Harrisburg, 29

Harris County, 60, 150, 151, 152, 154,

244n43

Harrison, Mrs. R. H., 150, 151, 152

Harte, Houston, 191, 196

Hearst,William Randolph, 54, 93–94,

98, 189, 190, 196

Hearst newspapers, 7, 27, 54, 171, 178,

189, 196, 236n50

Henry, O. See Porter,William Sidney

Hill, Barto, 219

Hillsboro, 69

Hispanics, 132, 240n30. See also

Mexican Americans

Historical Records Survey Program,

62

Hobbs, B. I., 142

Hobby, Oveta Culp, 7, 184

Hobby,William P., 1, 7, 66, 67, 162,

164–165, 167, 184, 184, 185, 227

Hobby,William P., Jr., 227

Hogg, Jim, 66, 75, 78, 87

Holcombe, Oscar, 143, 149, 150, 154

Holland, Claude V., 93

Holliday, John B. ‘‘Doc,’’ 4

Hoover, Herbert, 138, 179, 187, 189,

191

Horn, P.W., 168

Houston, 20, 74, 98, 113, 114, 164,

167, 170, 172, 173, 192, 221; African

American newspapers in, 31–32;

ascendancy of, 11, 18, 23; bank

crisis in, 182–185; Depression in,

180; and federal government, 24;

and Galveston, 73, 82, 87; Klan

in, 141–155, 161, 162, 165; Mexican

immigrants in, 199; newspapers in,

early, 30; newspapers in, growth

of, 62–72; oil industry in, 3, 21, 39;

population of, 104, 136, 224, 225;

radio in, 174–175, 176; and Texas

Centennial, 207, 210; at turn of

century, 33; unemployment in, 139;

war preparedness in, 112; women’s

suffrage in, 60

Houston, Sam, 29–30, 204, 207, 208,

214

Houston Chronicle, 19, 163; contro-

versy over control of, 171–173; and

Jim Ferguson, 165, 168–169; and

Houston bank crisis, 183–184; and

Jesse H. Jones, 1, 7, 200, 227; on

Klan, 137, 142, 143, 144–149, 151,

152, 153, 156, 177; on Mexican af-

fairs, 117, 122, 126; origins of, 63,

68–69; on racial violence in 1910,

35–37; and radio, 175, 176, 177;

success of, 162, 226; on women’s

suffrage, 59–60; onWorld War I

and events leading up to it, 106,

109, 110, 111–112

Houston Dispatch, 162, 163–164

Houston Evening Journal, 63

Houston Herald, 68

271


Houston Informer, 31, 32

Houston Informer and Texas Freeman,

31

Houston Morning Chronicle, 63

Houston National Bank, 182, 183

Houston Post, 68, 95, 248n13; on

crime, 139, 188; on discovery of

oil at Spindletop, 39, 40, 41; on

disenfranchisement of blacks, 154–

155; and Jim Ferguson, 164, 165;

on Klan, 142, 146, 149, 150, 151,

152, 166; on Mexican affairs, 117,

126, 133, 199; origins of, 30; and

radio, 174; and Ross Sterling, 162–

164, 171, 186; success of, 226; on

Texas Centennial, 207–208; and

William P. Hobby, 1, 7, 227; on

women’s news, 57; onWorld War I

and events leading up to it, 106,

107–108, 110

Houston Post-Dispatch, 162, 164, 170,

171, 176, 183, 184

Houston Press, 67, 68, 142, 151, 152,

173, 211

Houston riot of 1917, 137, 142

Houston Ship Channel, 73

Houston Telegram, 63

Howard, Ed, 146

Huerta, Victoriano, 116, 117

Huggins,W. O., 145, 172, 173, 177

Hughes,William, 147

Humble (town), 141

Humble Oil and Refining, 70, 150,

162, 185, 186

Humphreys, E., 29

Huntress, Frank G., Jr., 1, 7, 92, 175

Huntsville, 67, 68, 207

Ickes, Harold, 197

Idar, Eduardo, 116

illiteracy, 11, 25, 54

Ingals, Charles, 39

integration, racial, 50, 220

Internet, 19, 74

isolationism, 104, 114, 237n4. See

also anti-preparedness sentiment;

neutrality policy; preparedness

Italian immigrants, 92

Jackson, Stonewall, 18

Jacksonville, 182

Jews, 137, 142, 147–148, 151, 153, 154,

157. See also anti-Semitism

Jim Crow laws, 13, 18, 31, 43, 34, 50,

60, 139, 182. See also civil rights;

discrimination; disenfranchisement;

racism; segregation

Johnson, Cone, 148

Johnson, Lyndon B., 194, 198

Johnson,Tom B., 93

Johnson City Record Courier, 169

Johnston, Rienzi M., 63, 65, 66–67

Joiner, C. M. ‘‘Dad,’’ 185

Jones, Jesse H., 71, 99, 184, 192, 200–

201; building career of, 69–70, 98;

death of, 227; and FDR, 192, 193,

196, 197, 200–201; and Marcellus

Foster, 162, 164, 165, 170–173; and

Houston bank crisis, 182–185; and

Houston Chronicle, 1, 7, 70, 72–

73; opposition of, to Klan, 143–147,

177, 248n13; and radio, 175–177;

and Reconstruction Finance Cor-

poration, 189, 192, 195, 200, 216;

and Texas Centennial, 205–206

Jones, JohnT., 227

Jones, M.T., 69

Jones, Melvin, 195

Jones, Murray B., 149

Josey, Jack, 184

journalism: advancement of, as a result

of WorldWar I, 136; comparison of,

with history, 227–228; graduates

in, looking for jobs, 181; as a pro-

272

Index

fession, 52–53; women in, 57–59,

234n40. See also ‘‘New Journalism’’

Kelley, R. H., 199

Kelly, C. E., 123

Kelly, Machine-Gun, 188

Kemp, LouisW., 169

Kepner, Effice, 35

Kessler, George E., 85, 86

Kessler Plan, 85, 86, 236n38

Key, V. O., 7, 14

Kiest, Edwin, Jr., 1, 7, 49, 76, 77, 99,

158, 218

Kilgore, 185

Kimbro, George B., Jr., 142

Kingsville, 181

Kirby, John Henry, 64, 65, 108, 143,

148, 200

Kirwin, Father, 161

Knott, John, 79–81

Knox, Frank, 196, 249–250n36

Koehl, Robert, 35

Koelble, Alphonse, 114

KPRC radio, 174, 176

KRLD radio, 221

KTRH radio, 175

Ku Klux Klan, 4, 8, 13, 22, 23, 100,

134, 135–171, 177, 178, 200, 243n1,

245n52

labor unions, 76, 90–91, 179, 190,

197, 198, 201, 219–220, 221, 222,

249n24; and strikes, 142, 212,

219–220, 251n.20

La Crónica, 116

La Prensa, 29, 116

Landis, Kennesaw Mountain, 79

Landon, Alf, 196, 249–250n36

Lanham, Frank, 170

Laredo, 29, 115, 116

Ledbetter, Sheriff, 36

Lee, Robert E., 203–204, 215

Lewis, John L., 198

Lewis, Judd Mortimer, 67

Light and Gazette, 93

Link, Arthur S., 110

Lippmann,Walter, 46–47, 136, 191,

195

Liquor Control Board, 217

literature,Texas, 17–18, 231n11

Lohr, Lenox B., 1

Lombardi, Cesar, 84, 105, 237n6

Long, Huey, 200

Longview, 147, 185

Lorena, 146–147

Lotchkin, Roger, 22

Love, Charles Norvell, 31, 154, 155

Love, Lilla, 31

Love,Tom, 162, 164

Love v. Griffith, 155

Lowe, R. G., 74, 81, 82, 84, 87

Lozano, Ignacio E., 29, 116

Lubbock, 98

Lucas, Anthony F., 39, 40, 41

Lucha de clases, 121

lumber industry, 25, 33

Lunsford, John, 93

lynching, 13–14, 31, 32, 34–38, 45,

197, 212, 222, 232nn11,16

MacGregor, Henry F., 63, 66

Madero, Francisco I., 115–116

magazine publishing, 9, 55

Marcus, Stanley, 219

Marshall, John, 30

Marsh-Fentress newspapers, 63

Martin, Lowry, 205–206, 206

Marvin, Z. E., 155

Matamoros, 117

Maverick, Maury, Sr., 198, 199

Mayfield, Billie, 142, 149, 150, 151,

152–153, 246n58

Mayfield, Earle B., 151, 160

McCaleb, D. C., 95

273


McComb, David, 72

McCormick, Robert, 196, 200

McElhane, Jacquelyn Masur, 57

McElroy, George, 32

McKamey, J. S. M., 127

McKinley,William, 79

McLemore, Jeff, 109, 112, 113, 126, 127,

133, 134, 239n23, 242–243n63

McLennan County, 146

McManus, John B., 118

McNealus, J. C., 110

Mell, M. P., 157

Mencken, H. L., 16

Mexican Advocate, 28

Mexican Americans, 92, 199; during

Depression, 182, 221–222; and

Klan, 137; lynching of, 13, 38; and

Mexican Revolution, 116, 121, 122;

poverty and discrimination faced

by, 25, 34; stereotypes of, 210

Mexican-AmericanWar, 102

Mexican Constitutional Convention,

127

Mexican Revolution, 8, 22, 29, 63,

100, 101–104, 114, 115–134, 139,

240n30

Mexico, 3, 15, 17, 28–29, 114, 204,

209–210, 237n4, 240n30, 241n39,

242n60

Meyer, Joseph F., Sr., 183

middle class, 3, 7, 16, 21, 23, 26, 70,

91, 227; evolution and expansion

of, 11–12, 48, 225, 226; and Klan,

137, 138, 140, 151, 177; and New

Journalism, 51; and Progressivism,

49; and yellow journalism, 54

Mineral Wells, 84

minorities, 53, 178, 189, 194, 222,

227, 237–238n8; and civil rights,

7, 10; concerns about, in Roosevelt

era, 199–200; during Depression,

182; disenfranchisement of, 12, 60;

lack of, on Dallas Citizens Council,

218; poverty and discrimination

faced by, 25–26, 227; violence

against, 13–14, 34–38. See also

African Americans; civil rights; dis-

crimination; disenfranchisement;

Hispanics; integration; Jim Crow

laws; Mexican Americans; Native

Americans; race relations; racism;

segregation; Tejanos

Mississippi, 14

Mobil Oil, 40

modernization, 9–27, 48, 49, 52, 62,

91, 141, 178, 201, 202, 224–228,

227

Montejano, David, 116

Montez, Juan, 92

Moody, Dan, 169, 171

Moody,W. L., Jr., 160

Moore, Ike, 62

Morning Star, 29

Moyers, Bill, 227–228

Munn,W. C., 146

Murphy, Gordon, 149, 150

NAACP, 141, 155, 214

Nacogdoches, 28, 181

Nacogdoches Chronicle, 30

National Bank of Commerce, 70, 183

National Broadcasting System, 1

National Committee to Uphold Consti-

tutional Government, 200

National Guard, 128, 142, 185–186

National Industrial Recovery Act,

193–194, 197

nationalism, 11, 15, 47

National Labor Relations Board, 219–

220

National Youth Administration, 193,

194, 199

Native Americans, 209

Neff, Pat, 140, 156, 168

Negro Chamber of Commerce, 212, 214

neutrality policy, 105, 106, 107, 110,

274

Index

111, 115, 123, 128, 131, 133, 237n4.

See also anti-preparedness senti-

ment; isolationism; preparedness

New Deal, 11, 12, 15, 134, 187, 188–

201, 218, 221, 222, 234n2, 248n2,

249n35

‘‘New Journalism,’’ 51, 94

Newman,William, 235n20

New South, 10, 11, 20, 23, 44, 48, 197,

221

New South Creed, The, 202

newspaper chains, national, 46, 54. See

alsoHearst newspapers; Pulitzer

newspapers; Scripps-Howard

newspapers

NIRA, 193–194, 197

NLRB, 219–220

Nogales, 115

Norias, 119

North, J. M., 209, 210

NYA, 193, 194, 199

Oak Cliff, 85

oil industry, 3, 4, 22, 33–34, 70, 115,

148, 150, 212, 224, 226; during

Depression, 180; and discovery at

Spindletop, 15, 33, 39–42, 68; in

East Texas, 185; in Fort Worth, 96,

98; duringWorld War I, 105

Oil Men’s Association, 168

‘‘Old ManTexas,’’ 79–81, 80, 213

Old South, 19–20, 215

Orozco, Pascual, 116

Osmon, F. S., 167

Ousley, Clarence, 95

Palmer, George J., 63, 66

Parker, A. C., 161

Parker, Bonnie, 188

Payne, Darwin, 4

Payne, John, 211

Peabody, Jeannette, 159–160

Penn,W. E., 78

Periwinkle, Pauline. See Callaway,

Isadore Miner

Pershing, John, 126, 127, 128, 129

Pilkington,Tom, 17–18

Plainview, 168

Plan de San Luis Potosí, 115

Plan of San Diego, 103, 119, 121, 122,

242n60

Pollock, James, 211

poll tax, 14, 34, 154, 222, 232n7

Populism, 12, 24, 48, 53, 66, 76, 87,

108, 210

Populist Party, 34

Port Arthur News, 63

Porter,William Sidney, 63

poverty, 11, 16, 24, 25, 49, 214; in

Mexico, 124

preparedness, war, 112, 113, 115, 126,

127, 128, 132, 134, 239n23. See

also anti-preparedness sentiment;

isolationism; neutrality policy

Presbyterian Church, 3

Progressivism, 48–50, 56–59, 65, 67,

102, 135; business, 21–22, 136;

Germany seen as opponent of,

103–104; and Klan, 137, 140, 141,

148–149, 246n58; and Mexico, 128;

and middle class, 12; newspaper

publishers as proponents of, 6, 104–

105, 123, 178; and Prohibition, 26,

56, 83; and urban professionals,

52–54; and WoodrowWilson, 109.

See also reform movements

Prohibition, 50, 65, 76–78, 94, 105,

106, 113, 114, 161, 167, 222, 237–

238n8; end of, 187, 192; as feminist

cause, 55–56; and newspaper ad-

vertisements for liquor, 50, 75, 78;

opposition to, by Jim Ferguson,

168, 239–240n26, 246n58; as Pro-

gressive cause, 26, 49, 56; and rural

fundamentalists, 13; support for,

in Dallas Morning News, 83–84,

275


86; violation of, by bootleggers,

136–137, 140

propaganda, 135, 139, 148

Pruett, Price, 150

Public National Bank and Trust, 182,

183

PublicWorks Administration, 193, 194,

215

PublicWorks of Art Project, 212

Pulitzer, Joseph, 51, 54, 143

Pulitzer newspapers, 27, 54

PWA, 193, 194, 215

Quarles,W. E., 157

race relations, 7, 9, 13–14, 34–38,

53–54, 60, 210, 222. See also civil

rights; discrimination; integration;

racism; segregation; slavery

racism, 11, 13–14, 16, 26, 139, 182, 215.

See also discrimination; Jim Crow

laws; segregation

radio, commercial, 5, 6, 9, 55, 174–

177, 214, 221, 226, 227, 252n5. See

also specific radio stations

Ragsdale, Kenneth, 219

railroads, 102; in Fort Worth, 96; and

newspaper distribution, 105; South-

ern Pacific, 40, 91–92; Texas &

Pacific, 75

Rand, Sally, 217

Ranger, 96

Rayburn, Sam, 194, 195, 197, 199

Rebel, 114, 115

recession of 1937, 220–221

Reconstruction, 30, 31, 36, 44, 47, 53,

102, 138, 139

Reconstruction Finance Corporation,

70, 183, 184, 189, 192, 195, 200,

205, 216

Red Cross, 72, 182

Reed, James A., 200

reform movements, 49–50, 65, 141;

and business, 48–49; and Dallas

Morning News, 87–90; andHous-

ton Chronicle, 70–72; and Isadore

Miner Callaway, 56–58. See also

Progressivism

Report on Economic Conditions of the

South, 224

Republican Party, 14, 31, 47, 66, 109,

232n7; in Bexar County, 193,

246n68; and Fergusons, 161–162,

165, 170; gains of, during FDR’s

second term, 198; and 1928 presi-

dential election, 138; and San

Antonio Light, 93

Republic of Texas, 28, 204

RFC. See Reconstruction Finance

Corporation

Rice Hotel, 67, 70

Rice Institute, 72

Richardson, C. F., 31

Ridder, Bernard H., 114

Robert, Henry M., 64

Robertson, Felix, 160–161, 163

Robinson, CorneliusW. ‘‘Nero,’’ 151

Rockefeller, John D., 65

Rogers,Will, 192–193, 215

Roland, Charles P., 11

Roosevelt, Eleanor, 217

Roosevelt, Franklin D., 1–3, 73, 192,

207, 208, 224, 249–250n36; court-

packing proposal of, 197–198; and

New Deal, 188, 190–191; and press,

193–196, 218–219; and second Fer-

guson administration, 187; split of,

fromVice President Garner, 201;

support of, for unions, 219; and

Texas Centennial, 212, 215

Roosevelt, Theodore, 91, 202

Roper, Daniel, 214

Rose, Billy, 217

Russell, Frederick, 202

276

Index

Salvation Army, 182

San Angelo, 191, 196

San Angelo Evening Standard, 191,

196–197

San Antonio, 6, 20, 34, 72, 74, 120,

189, 198; African American news-

papers in, 32; anti-Klan vote in,

246n68; ascendancy of, 11, 18, 23;

Depression in, 180, 191; events lead-

ing up to Mexican Revolution in,

115, 121, 128; German Americans

in, 107; military bases in, 24; news-

papers in, early, 30; newspapers in,

growth of, 62, 91–94; newspapers

in, major dailies, 7–8; population

of, 69, 104, 136, 224, 225; radio in,

174; Spanish-language newspapers

in, 28, 29; support for FDR in, 199;

and Texas Centennial, 207, 210; at

turn of century, 32–33

San Antonio Express, 91–94; 120; on

the economy, pre-1929, 179; and

Frank Huntress, 1, 7, 92–93; on

Mexican affairs, 119, 121, 122, 125,

127, 128, 130, 132; origins of, 30;

on poll tax, 34; onWorld War I and

events leading up to it, 101, 106, 111,

114

San Antonio Express-News, 175

San Antonio Gazette, 93

San Antonio Inquirer, 32

San Antonio Light, 7–8, 30, 91–94,

236n50

San Antonio Register, 32

San Antonio Surprise, 93

San Diego (Texas), 119

San Felipe, 29

San Marcos, 181

San Marcos Daily Record, 181

Santa Anna, Antonio López de, 28, 29,

204, 207

Schudson, Michael, 54

Scripps-Howard newspapers, 62–63,

68, 152, 173, 196

Scripps-McRae newspapers, 68. See

also Scripps-Howard newspapers

segregation, racial, 13, 18, 34, 45, 49–

50, 53, 99, 201, 221, 222, 227; and

Houston riot of 1917, 137; NAACP

lawsuits challenging, 32. See also

discrimination; Jim Crow laws

Seldes, George, 190–191, 249n24

Semi-Weekly Farm News, 220

sharecropping, 49, 179

Sharpe, Ernest, 89

Shaw, Donald S., 5–6

Shedd, Fred Fuller, 206

Sheppard, Morris, 109, 117, 195

Sherman, 74

Sibley, Marilyn, 29

Simmons,Tom, 181

Simmons,William Joseph, 138, 141,

144, 161

slavery, 6, 29–30, 203–204

Slayden, Ellen Maury, 120–121, 132,

241n39

Slayden, James Luther, 109, 120,

239n23, 241n39, 242–243n63

Sloan, Alfred, 200

Smith, A. Maceo, 214

Smith, Al, 138

Smith, Gerald L. K., 200

Smith, Sim, 157

socialism, 134. See also Socialist Party

Socialist Party, 109, 114–115, 210

Southern Pacific Railroad, 40, 91–92

Southern Politics in State and Na-

tion, 7

Spanish-AmericanWar, 93, 102, 142,

237n2

Spanish-language newspapers, 28–29,

116, 240n30

Spindletop, 15, 33, 39–42, 68, 232n17

Stair, E. D., 196

277


Stamford, 207

Standard Oil Company, 40, 65, 162

State Gazette, 30

State Topics, 128

Sterett,William G., 75, 79

Sterling, Ross S., 163, 184; business

orientation of, 67; defeat of, by

Miriam Ferguson, 187; dispatching

of National Guard into East Texas

by, 185–186; entry into politics of,

162; feud of, with Marcellus Foster,

171–172; and KPRC, 174; opposi-

tion of, to Fergusons, 164, 165; as

president of Humble Oil, 150

stock market. See crash of 1929

Streitmatter, Rodger, 137

suffrage for women, 55–61, 105

Sumners, Hatton, 195

Sunday editions, 49, 69

Sun Oil, 40

Supreme Court, 197–198

‘‘Susan B. Anthony amendment,’’ 61

Taft, Charles P., 93

Talmadge, Eugene, 200

Tejanos, 15, 28, 116, 121, 122

telegraph, 73, 74, 81

Telegraph and Texas Register, 29, 63

television, 5, 55, 98, 227

Terrell Election Laws, 154

Texaco, 40

Texas A&M, 167, 181

Texas Almanac, 84, 222

Texas & Pacific Railway, 75

Texas Centennial, 8, 13, 17, 18, 202–

223

Texas Centennial Review, 210

Texas Commerce Bank, 70

Texas Company, 185

Texas Department of Public Safety,

189

Texas Ex-Students Association, 166

Texas Freeman, 31, 154

Texas Highway Commission, 170

Texas Legislature, 60, 65, 138, 140;

congressional delegation from, 12;

Senate, 59, 110

Texas mythology, 11, 18, 202–204,

209, 224

Texas National Bank, 180

Texas National Guard, 128, 142, 185–

186

Texas Newspaper Publishers Associa-

tion, 1

Texas 100 Percent American, 155, 157,

158, 161

Texas Railroad Commission, 185

Texas Rangers, 117, 118, 119, 121, 187,

188, 189, 219

Texas Revolution, 207

Texas State Teachers Colleges, 181

Texas Technological College (now

Texas Tech University), 98, 168

Thomas, H., 170

Thompson, Gus, 35, 37

Thornton, R. L., 212

Tillman, Ed, 199

Times Herald Corporation, 221. See

also Dallas Times Herald

Timmons, Bascom, 73, 173, 200

Tindall, George B., 48, 220

Tocqueville, Alexis de, 43–44, 46,

233n23

Tracy, M. E., 171

Treaty of Guadalupe, 103

Trinity River Canal Association, 211

Trinity River flood control initiative,

85, 86

Turner,Walter, 147

Twitty, Bryce L., 167

Tyler (city), 148, 185

Tyler, Elizabeth, 138, 140

Tyrer, A. J., 174

Underwood, R. A., 168

unemployment, 24, 180, 189, 190,

278

Index

197, 201, 214, 220. See also Great

Depression

United AutoWorkers, 220

United Confederate Veterans, 141

universities and research centers, 23.

See also Texas A&M; Texas Tech-

nological College; University of

Texas

University of Texas, 156, 161, 166, 167,

181; Law School, 162

Upchurch, A. R., 141

upper class, 26, 54, 134, 227

urbanization, 6, 11–12, 18, 19, 20, 42,

136, 225

urban vs. rural, 11, 13, 15, 16, 33, 46,

47, 51, 80, 104, 204, 222, 225

Uvalde, 119, 189

Vergarra, Clemente, 117, 118

Victoria Advocate, 30

Villa, Francisco ‘‘Pancho,’’ 103, 116,

123, 125–129, 131

voting and voting rights, 14–15, 34–35,

154–155. See also disenfranchise-

ment; electoral politics; suffrage for

women

Waco, 33, 74, 146, 165

Waco News-Tribune, 63

Waco Times Herald, 57, 63

Waples, Paul, 95

Ward, Hortense, 60

Washington, Sam, 35, 37

Washington-on-the-Brazos, 29

Waters-Pierce Oil Company, 65,

234n5

Watson, J. L., 63, 66, 67, 68

Watson, Roy G., 63, 66, 162

WBAP radio, 98, 175, 215

Webb,Walter Prescott, 122

Wesley, CarterW., 31–32

West, Dick, 181

West, E. P., 37

West, James, 221

Westbrook, Lawrence, 187

Western Newspaper Union, 76

Western Star, 151

WFAA radio, 174, 175, 220, 221,

247n95

Wharton County, 35, 38

Wharton Spectator, 35

White, C. C., 182

Whiteman, Paul, 217

Wiess, Harry, 186

Williamson, Joel, 38

Williamson, Lawrence, 150

Williamson, M. P., 157

Wilson, James C., 113

Wilson,Woodrow, 14, 72, 136, 139;

and Oscar Colquitt, 114, 117–118,

238n16, 239–240n26, 240nn31,34;

and cotton market, 109–110; crit-

ics of, 239nn21,24, 242–243n63,

241n39; decision of, to go to war,

101, 103, 131, 133–134; and Mexi-

can Revolution, 115–121, 123, 125,

126–129; and neutrality vs. pre-

paredness, 106, 115, 117, 131–132;

and sinking of Lusitania, 111–112;

and Southern Democrats, 105, 113

wire services, 5, 105, 235n20

Wister, Owen, 202

WOAI radio, 174

Wolters, Jacob F., 142, 185

women and women’s issues, 7, 55–61,

78, 175, 218, 227, 234n40. See also

suffrage for women

Women’s Political Union, 60

Woodward, C.Vann, 25

Works Progress Administration, 62,

193, 194, 199, 234n2

World War I, 18, 21, 60–61, 72, 148;

events leading up to, 101–134,

237n4; news coverage of, 135; pro-

paganda during, 139; veterans of,

142, 160

279


World War II, 4, 22, 45, 73, 179, 194,

201, 220; dramatic changes inTexas

as result of, 7, 10–11, 15–16, 225

Wortham, Louis J., 95

WPA. SeeWorks Progress Administra-

tion

WRR radio, 174

‘‘yellow journalism,’’ 26–27, 44, 54,

79, 231n16

Zapata, Emiliano, 116, 118

Zeanon, E. O., 170

Zimmermann, Arthur, 129–130, 132

Zimmermann telegram, 103, 104,

129–133

280

The First Texas News Barons (Focus on American History Series, Center for American History,...

Documents

Transcript of The First Texas News Barons (Focus on American History Series, Center for American History,...