During the early 1930s, Gordon began holding public meetings all across the city in an effort to persuade black men and women to join the PME. Sam Hawthorne, a native Mississippian from Center in Attala County, who had relocated to Chicago in 1927, first crossed paths with Gordon sometime during the early 1930s. He recalled hearing Gordon speak “in public, on the streets,” and remembered other black Chicagoans enthusiastically talking about her.95 Deeply moved by the activist’s teachings, Hawthorne became a PME member and later established a chapter in his hometown. Another black resident in Chicago recalled hearing Gordon speak at a local park, drawing crowds of former UNIA members. Describing her as a “rebel,” the individual assumed that Gordon had been speaking on behalf of the Communist Party though he or she angrily concluded that Gordon had “no damn program.” Criticizing Gordon for integrating “lots of biblical crap” in her speeches, the individual suggested that Gordon’s appeal was only due to her ability to stir her listeners’ emotions.96
Evidently, this individual was no fan of Gordon’s, but his or her comments, along with Hawthorne’s recollections, offer glimpses into how Gordon used city parks and street corners as platforms to disseminate her nationalist ideas and build momentum for the movement. Like Garvey had done in Harlem years prior, Gordon used speeches in public spaces as opportunities to attract new members. Her efforts were fruitful. Surviving organizational records reveal that the PME drew a significant following of black men and women in Chicago and across the country during the 1930s. In the Midwest—specifically the states of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin, and Ohio—the PME boasted an estimated 2,027 members, which included an estimated 868 women.97
The weekly meetings of the PME’s main division, held at the Boulevard Hall on East 47th Street in Chicago, often drew from 200 to 350 people.98 Usually held on Sundays, the meetings began with prayer and then proceeded to the readings of minutes from the previous meeting, reports from local officers, updates from the varied divisions, and, occasionally, elections of officers to any vacant positions. The meetings were facilitated in a strict fashion, reflecting the organization’s hierarchical structure of leadership. During one meeting, for example, Gordon admonished attendees for not following the correct protocol to address the executive board. She carefully reminded them that “no speaker would be permitted to talk before . . . giving the president of that local [division] their subject” for review.99
These meetings provided an intellectual space for working-poor black men and women to engage in black nationalist discourses and address important issues of the day. Each PME meeting centered on key themes for discussion, and Gordon, along with various other male and female leaders in the organization, presented speeches that addressed these matters and then provided opportunities for members of the audience to raise questions. In one meeting, for example, the subjects of discussion were as follows: “Can the black man be completely independent in the U.S. Government? What steps could be taken to bring about a permanent solution to the race problem in the U.S.? Should the matter be delayed or should the black man act now?” In another instance, PME leaders and members discussed the key question, “Why should the black man choose Africa as his destination?”100
Reflecting on the history of race relations in the United States, PME leaders offered poignant examples to help reinforce their positions. During one meeting, they reminded those in attendance that President Abraham Lincoln had once proposed deporting former slaves to Haiti and Liberia upon the abolition of slavery. Moreover, they read excerpts from Chief Justice Taney’s racist ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had declared African Americans to be noncitizens of the United States. By evoking these earlier historical developments in their weekly meetings—and thereby deemphasizing other developments such as the Fourteenth Amendment, which effectively overturned the Dred Scott decision—PME leaders made it quite clear that in their view, race relations had not improved much since the nineteenth century and blacks were “not citizens of America, but citizens of Africa.”101 Hundreds of working-class black men and women in Chicago embraced this message.
Although the PME received considerable support from black working-class Chicagoans, many middle-class and elite race leaders opposed the organization and its goals. According to one 1936 Chicago Defender article, some race leaders in Chicago were greatly “disturbed by this bombshell which threatens to wreak havoc on all the progress the race has made in this country since emancipation.” One anonymous race leader insisted that the PME’s agenda was motivated by cowardice: “Action by this group of mis-led Negroes shows a cowardly attitude of running away from a problem instead of standing and fighting it out.”102 He went on to criticize the organization’s makeup, noting that no scientists, engineers, or doctors were members of the PME, alluding to the fact that Gordon’s organization lacked the backing of the “better class of Negroes.”103 Expressing similar sentiments, Claude Barnett, founder of the Associated Negro Press, described Gordon and PME members as “a crude, ignorant lot.”104 These comments offer a glimpse into the class divisions within black communities over the question of emigration. The black masses often embraced emigration plans in their quest for economic and social autonomy, whereas members of the black middle class and elite generally resisted these efforts.105 No doubt social status informed these perspectives as members of the black elite often saw their prospects for further economic and political advancement in the United States in a more favorable light. Those who struggled to meet their day-to-day needs, however, generally expressed a greater willingness to leave the United States—regardless of their views on black nationalism.
Despite the resistance that Gordon and her supporters faced from some race leaders, the organization continued to gain momentum. In addition to the weekly meetings on the Southside of Chicago, the PME began to hold meetings in various parts of the city, and its influence began to spread across the nation. This expansion can be credited to Gordon’s commitment to “street strolling” along with her followers’ active recruiting efforts. With the help of Harry Collins, a PME organizer, the organization opened a new branch in East Chicago, Indiana, during the early 1930s with an estimated 400 members. Another organizer, Tommie Thomas, managed to maintain a PME branch in Grady, Arkansas, for a short period of time until the group dissolved in 1940. Likewise, Leonard Robert Jordan oversaw a PME branch in Jersey City, New Jersey, while fellow PME member William Ashley Fergerson formed a local chapter in Palatka, Florida, after reading about the PME in the Pittsburgh Courier.106 The median age of the organization’s membership was between forty and fifty, representing the age group that would have been most impacted by the Garvey movement.107 The only surviving membership roll, obtained by FBI officials in 1942, indicates that the organization had an estimated 4,100 official members in chapters all over the country, including the states of Illinois, Washington, Indiana, Maryland, Arizona, Mississippi, Missouri, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, and Florida.108 The majority of the PME’s membership—about 65 percent—was male.109
Gender Roles and Women’s Leadership in the PME
Despite the strong representation of men in the PME, women held a variety of visible leadership roles and decision-making positions in the organization. In addition to Gordon as president, women served as national organizers while others were members of the organization’s board of directors and supervisors of PME chapters. Alberta Spain, who Gordon carefully mentored during the 1930s, served as secretary and a member on the organization’s executive council.110 Likewise, Mrs. W. L. Stubbs served as one of the executive officers. Details about these women’s personal lives are scarce, but organizational records reveal that they both became actively involved in the PME shortly after its debut in Chicago. As executive officers, both women were granted a number of leadership duties that distinguished them from the lay members of the organization. As members of the executive council, they were responsible for “decid[ing] all questions arising between [l]ocals, s
ubordinated Society appeals, International questions and all matters affecting the good and welfare of the organization and the members at large.” As members of the PME’s executive council, they also had the power to approve and reject the appointments of officers in the organization.111
While women like Spain and Stubbs maintained positions on the PME’s executive board, other women supervised local divisions of the organization. For instance, Lydia Jernigan, a homemaker, served as supervisor for the PME chapter in Galesburg, Illinois, during the 1930s and early 1940s.112 Born in Mayfield, Kentucky, in 1888, Jernigan had relocated to Illinois with her stepparents and eight siblings during the Great Migration. Her spouse, Hampton Jernigan, a native Mississippian, worked in a local metal factory in 1920 and, later, as a watchman for a railroad company before losing his position sometime during the late 1930s.113 While Lydia Jernigan oversaw the local PME chapter in Galesburg, other women in the PME served as secretaries and others as “lady presidents.” In the PME, women leaders had much more flexibility than in the Garvey movement. Under Gordon’s leadership, the title “lady president” was used as a way to distinguish between male and female leaders; there is no evidence to suggest that “lady presidents” in the PME were solely confined to a woman’s division.
Moreover, women leaders in the PME were not expected to answer to male leaders in the organization. All members and leaders of the PME were answerable to Gordon, who set the parameters for each division and position. While she worked in conjunction with members of her executive committee, often seeking their advice and making decisions based on a majority vote, Gordon exerted control by chairing weekly meetings, limiting who could serve in leadership positions, and carefully overseeing the activities of each division.114 As “lady presidents” of a local division, women leaders in the PME worked under Gordon’s leadership regardless of who actually presided over the specific chapter. Second, although many men in the PME served as presidents of local divisions, the position was not gender specific. Female presidents (and vice presidents) could be found in a number of local PME divisions. Mary Bailey, for example, was appointed president of the PME chapter in Pittsburgh.115
Even though Gordon’s PME provided a platform for black nationalist women to serve in multiple leadership capacities, the organization still upheld certain traditional gender roles. The organization’s constitution explicitly stated that while lay members, regardless of sex, could hold leadership positions, women could only hold the office of president when “there is not sufficiency among the male[s].”116 Given the predominance of men in the organization, this clause is peculiar but not entirely surprising. It demonstrates how Gordon, like other black nationalist women during this period, attempted to uphold the patriarchal and masculinist ideals generally endorsed by black nationalist organizations.
The PME’s Protective Corps division further illustrates this point. Modeled after the UNIA’s African Legion—a military division comprising male Garveyites—the Protective Corps represented the paramilitary division of the PME.117 Similar to the UNIA’s African Legion, the purpose of the PME’s all-male Protective Corps was to provide the protective arm of the future black nation-state. Foreshadowing the Deacons for Defense and Justice, an armed self-defense civil rights organization that emerged during the Black Power era, members of the PME’s Protective Corps were trained in military discipline.118 The inclusion of the Protective Corps in the PME underscores the longstanding significance of the principle of armed self-defense in the black nationalist tradition.119 Although the PME did not publicly endorse armed self-defense—as did later black nationalist groups—the organization’s leaders understood its utility as a viable method for securing civil and human rights. Not surprisingly, members of the PME’s Protective Corps carefully guarded weekly PME meetings in Chicago and other parts of the country in order to ensure that activists would be ready to respond to white supremacist violence.
Black Emigration and FDR’s Promise of a New Deal
One of the primary goals of Gordon’s PME was to advance the cause of black emigration to West Africa—a political strategy long employed by black nationalists who saw no contradiction in making financial demands of the state or of individual white citizens while endorsing economic selfsufficiency and black political self-determination. One of the earliest efforts to advance emigration to Africa had been led by Paul Cuffe (or Paul Cuffee), a wealthy African American businessman and an avid sailor who traveled extensively to and from West Africa during the 1800s. In 1811, he visited Sierra Leone, where he began to forge ties with the nation’s leaders and arrange plans for relocation. Convinced that people of African descent could not live without discrimination in the United States, Cuffe worked tirelessly to recruit individuals who were willing to leave the country. In 1815, he successfully led a group of thirty-eight individuals to Sierra Leone, using his own funds to cover travel expenses. In the years following Cuffe’s death in 1817, the American Colonization Society (ACS) actively supported black emigration to West Africa.
During the American Civil War (1861–65) and Reconstruction (1865–77), black emigration from the United States to Liberia gradually declined as leaders such as Frederick Douglass openly criticized the ACS and African Americans’ efforts to relocate. African American leaders such as Bishop Henry McNeal Turner, however, helped to revive the movement during the late nineteenth century. Convinced that the United States had accumulated an estimated $40 billion for centuries of exploitation, Turner demanded that the U.S. federal government compensate black Americans by covering relocation expenses.120 Years later, in 1922, Garvey followed suit, supporting Mississippi Senator T. C. McCallum’s proposal to seek federal assistance to purchase or negotiate “a piece of land where the Afro-American could move towards independence under the tutelage of the United States government.”121
Gordon’s petition, therefore, was hardly unique. Similar to individuals like Garvey and Bishop Turner, Gordon believed that the U.S. government should provide financial aid in support of black emigrationist efforts. And similar to Turner, Gordon envisioned federal aid for black emigration as reparations for years of slavery and racial oppression. These convictions certainly guided her decision to launch an emigration campaign during the early 1930s. But, even more, Gordon’s emigration campaign became a crucial recruiting tool for the PME, designed to mobilize mostly working-class black Americans during the Depression—first targeting black men and women in Chicago and the U.S. Midwest and gradually including those located in various parts of the nation.
Although Gordon and other PME leaders were already committed to the idea of black emigration when she launched the organization, the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932 served to bolster their cause. FDR’s promise of a “new deal for the American people”—long before the idea became a reality—strengthened PME leaders’ resolve to advocate emigration to West Africa.122 These men and women envisioned the New Deal as the source from which they would be able to secure federal funds to leave the country. In August 1933, several months after FDR’s inauguration, Gordon and founding members of the PME completed the final draft of a proemigration petition addressed to FDR. At the time they began drafting the petition, several New Deal programs were already in place, including the Federal Emergency Relief Act—passed by Congress in May 1933 to provide hundreds of millions of dollars in aid for unemployed Americans. From the start, African American activists were concerned that the new programs would not provide economic security for dispossessed, unemployed black men and women across the country, and by 1933, evidence of exclusionary practices was clear.123 Still, this did not deter Gordon and other PME leaders from demanding federal aid for black emigration. To the contrary, they skillfully invoked FDR’s language in an effort to bolster and legitimize their demands.
From its opening lines, the PME’s drafted petition called on FDR to provide federal aid for black emigration, citing the promises of the New Deal. “Whereas the Congress has empowered the President to exercis
e his judgment in the present crisis in a manner suited to the exalted office and provided means to execute his plans for the amelioration of distress and the restoring of normalcy,” they argued, “we, the subjoined signatories, American citizens of African extraction, individually and collectively join in respectfully petitioning the President to consider our proposal, confident that his conclusions will be for the best interests of our families and of the community at large.” The petition went on to emphasize the stringent economic conditions that black Americans faced, arguing that emigration would hasten the end of the Great Depression: “The distress of the unemployed is most severely felt by such of the uneducated American Negroes who abhor alms, both public and private, in any guise; [thus] the removal of a half million of the poorest from a competitive labor market, at the time, would tend to relieve to that extent the condition and opportunities of the remainder.”124 Moreover, they advocated emigration as a logical response to the nation’s economic crisis and as a viable solution to African Americans’ harsh conditions within the context of the Depression. “Hungry, cold and miserable,” they argued, “the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness in America appears futile.” “Given an opportunity in our ancestral Africa,” they continued, “the knowledge of farming and of simple farm machinery and implements, which we have acquired here, would enable us to carve a frugal but decent livelihood out of the virgin soil and favorable climate of Liberia.”125
While Gordon and her supporters were endorsing black emigration to Liberia—to escape the economic and political upheavals in the United States—the country was undergoing an economic and political crisis of its own. In addition to insurmountable debt and growing accusations of political corruption, Liberia was also embroiled in an international scandal concerning charges of labor exploitation.126 Despite these realities, Gordon and her supporters remained steadfast in their belief that Liberia was a haven for black men and women and a viable space in which to rebuild their lives and advance the black nationalist project of nation building.
Set the World on Fire Page 9