Rebecca Latimer Felton Defended

Rebecca Latimer Felton

I must admit that I was pleased to note that my article “Rebecca Latimer Felton: Forgotten Feminist” drew an extended response from “Georgia Lawyer.” But, after reading the remarks I feel like the story of the fellow ridden out of town on a rail.  “But for the honor of the thing, I just as soon walked.”

But I take solace as a self-confessed amateur historian that most of his or her factual comments are simply wrong.

So, in the spirit of Rebecca Latimer Felton, let me respond.

If “Georgia Lawyer” had read my little screed carefully, he or she would have noted that I did not and do not approve of lynching.  You ask if I was familiar with Felton’s writings.  The quote to which you refer I actually provided (in part) in the article with the cite to the Talmadge biography.  So yes, since I cited that quote in the article, you may say that I know something about her opinions.

In the article I also set forth some of her racial opinions at length on other subjects such as women’s suffrage.

“Georgia Lawyer” stated that I have given the wrong name for the black lynching victim.  “If Sam Hose (not “Horse,” as recounted by you)….”   Maybe “Hose” is correct.  Biographer Talmadge did not think so.  See pages 116 and 117 of Rebecca Latimer Felton: Nine Stormy Decades by John E. Talmadge, published by the University of Georgia Press in 1960.  As an amateur historian I chose to rely upon her biography.  While not a primary source, it should be reliable.

And your source was?  Inquiring minds want to know.

Let us turn to the example of Rev. Dr. Andrew Sledd.

“Georgia Lawyer” missed the point of Felton’s criticism of Sledd.  He evidently never dropped a tear over the suffering the of victims of Horse (or, if your prefer, Hose).  Mr. Alfred Crandall was brutally murdered.  Mrs. Crandall was then raped by Horse next to the body of her husband.  These facts apparently never intruded on the Sledd narrative.  These are “inconvenient facts” and swiftly found their way to the memory hole.  Felton suspected that Sledd was looking for promotion in the academy – particularly from Northerners – and his subsequent career, included what Talmadge called Emory’s “restitution” to Sledd in 1915 (appointing him professor of Greek and Latin literature) would support her view.  “Georgia Lawyer” has provided even more details showing that Sledd did not suffer for his opinions.

Felton’s point was that Sledd made no effort to balance the lynch mob’s behavior with the provocation of Horse’s crimes.  This crime came at a time that her liberal biographer had to admit was “an alarming outburst of Negro violence and white reprisals…” as I mentioned in the article.  She felt Sledd was pandering to self-righteous Yankees.  Regional self-loathing or self-promotion?

So at a time of increasing violence against Whites by Blacks Felton choose the White side.  The lynching of Horse did not occur in a vacuum.  Further, I had quoted Felton herself, (as paraphrased by Talmadge) when she said in 1897: “Of course, she had rather see the brute hanged legally, but if he confessed to a mob, then he stood condemned by civilization, with the possible exception of Boston” (Talmadge, p. 114).

“Georgia Lawyer’s” comments have inspired me to do another disquisition on lynching which I hope to have available before long.  Stay tuned. Film at eleven.

But let me say again so you don’t miss it again: Lynching is bad.  It was bad then.  It is bad today.  And it continues today.  I will discuss that in the future. Unfortunately people will protect themselves when they think the law has failed them.  It is an ugly human truth that transcends racial boundaries.  Does “by any means necessary” ring a bell?

As a lawyer, I presume that “Georgia Lawyer” chooses his or her words carefully.  “Georgia Lawyer”  contrasts Felton and Sledd and comments that Felton, “stands convicted by her own words of being a racist, an advocate of lynch mob justice, and a demagogue.”

While we do not, to the best of my knowledge, make “racism” a crime (yet) I can not help but note that, like “Georgia Lawyer’s” hero, Sledd, you have not a drop of sympathy for the victims of a century ago – unless they were blacks lynched by irate white mobs.  By contrast, when today we have a “wilding” or lynching of whites by black mobs society is asked to understate the rage in the black community, etc. I do detect a pattern here.  Equality demands that we treat victims differently based on their race.

“Georgia Lawyer” further states: “Mrs. Felton, who “served” as a U.S. Senator for 24 hours in a public relations stunt, when the U.S. Senate was not even in session (not the several days cited by you) . . .”

Well, once again I suppose “Georgia Lawyer” was working with information provided by internet savants.  As I stated, the evident propaganda goal is to minimize Felton when she is not erased from the books.  Let’s look at the facts as reported by Talmadge.

Governor Hardwick appointed Mrs. Felton to the Senate on October 2, 1922.  The Senate was out of session, as you comment. Mrs. Felton wired her acceptance.  Some suggested that President Harding call a special session to seat her.  Harding did call a special session to press some legislation and Senator-elect Walter F. George stood aside so she could serve.

Felton sat in the Senate on the first day in which the only business were resolutions on the death of Thomas E. Watson and another member.  The Senate then adjourned.  The following day saw Felton in attendance again.  The Senate took up her admission and then recessed to hear the President speak.  Upon return, Felton was then sworn in.  The following day – the third day after she was seated on the Senate floor and the second after she was sworn in Felton made a speech and then left.  Walter F. George than took his seat.  These events took place between Monday, November 20, 1922 and  Wednesday, November 22, 1922  (Talmadge pages 140-49).

Does that qualify as a “few days” in your book?  It does for me – at least as an amateur historian.  I await the instruction of my betters.

Felton’s day on the floor before being sworn in and the two days she sat on the floor after being duly sworn in, it is apparent that your statement that the Senate “was not even in session” is, as Winston Churchill said, fraught with ‘technological inexactitudes.’  Of course, I could be wrong.  Talmadge offers a citation to the Congressional Record (67th Congress, 3rd Session, page 23) for her remarks.  But he could be wrong also.

You appear to be wrong in each and every fact with which you take issue if Talmadge can be relied on.  Please show us your better sources.

Let’s get a little snarky and discuss perspective.

Modern America holds only one required test for orthodoxy and acceptance.  The point of my article was that you must be at least non-”racist” if not anti-”racist.”  My point was brilliantly seconded by the “Georgia Lawyer” in his or her conclusion that Felton “is an embarrassing skeleton in Georgia’s closet, and richly deserves to be forgotten, if not roundly condemned, for the immoral actions she condoned and advocated.”

Poor Felton.  She is to be (and has been) “convicted,” “condemned” and “forgotten.”  And not for any action – just her opinions.  As a “racist” she is beyond the pall.

What is a “racist?”  We might as well define “racism” or “racialism.”  The American Heritage Dictionary, 1983 edition said: “1.  The belief that some races are inherently better than others.  2.  Racial prejudice or discrimination.”  Prejudice is also defined: “1.  A strong feeling for or against something formed before one knows the facts; bias.  2. Irrational hostility toward members of a particular race, religion or group.”

Can one be a “racist” if one comes to his conclusions after study of the facts or personal experience? Would he then be “pre-judging?”  Is an anti-racist who has not studied the other side prejudiced?  These questions are never considered by our academic or media elites.

Actually, I would submit that almost all people of all colors today do not believe that the races ARE equal.  Some believe that the races can be MADE equal.  Others believe, as in the dictionary definition, that there is an inherent difference that forbids full and complete equality.  If the left believed the races WERE equal, then all the programs of set asides, affirmative action, quotas, etc. designed to repress White achievement and assist Blacks (and, increasingly, other sections of our delightfully diverse salad) would be unnecessary.

Felton’s opinions on race were based on her observations and experience.  They were and remain based on the virtually uncontested fact that at present the races are not equal.  But because Felton and others are unwilling to say that the races can be made equal, they are cast into outer darkness and condemned.  It is simply a question of biology.

My point in the article is confirmed by “Georgia Lawyer.”  Because of Felton’s opinions, this interesting historical figure is not even a trivial pursuit question.  As I said, “When mentioned at all, she can be expected to be excoriated by the present guardians of official history.”  And so she was.  “Georgia Lawyer” was on duty and flew to arms at once.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.