One of the greatest contradictions in United States history is the core belief that “we the people” are created equal, that we are all entitled to equal rights, to fair treatment under the law, that no one person is entitled to more rights than anyone else – and yet throughout our history, people have been denied equal rights, denied due process, and treated unjustly.
The history of our country is one in which people have always had to advocate for their rights, to protest against wrongs being committed by those in power, to protect themselves and those who need protection. Waterbury’s history is no different. There are countless stories of Waterburians standing up for what’s right, making their voices heard in an effort to make the world a better place. One such story involves The Clansman, a theatrical production that came to Waterbury in 1906, based on a book of the same name written by a Baptist minister, Rev. Thomas Dixon, Jr. The Clansman, as the name suggests, glorified the Ku Klux Klan and vilified Black men. In 1915, The Birth of a Nation, a blockbuster movie based on Dixon’s play and book, was released. Both the play and the movie were loudly protested by people in Waterbury who made it clear that racism wasn’t welcome here.
 |
| The Clansman, with images from the movie (from archive.org) |
Thomas Dixon
The Clansman was written by Rev. Thomas Dixon, Jr., a Baptist minister born in the South who had spent close to twenty years in New York City. Dixon also wrote a novel with the same title, part of a trilogy created in response to Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Dixon thought that Northerners had been duped into believing that Black people were deserving of equality, and he sought to convince them of white supremacy through his novels and play.
Dixon’s personal opinions were made clear in an article he wrote for The Metropolitan Magazine in September 1905. Titled “The Story of the Ku Klux Klan,” the article presented the KKK as “a great Law and Order League” created in response to what Dixon called “a reign of terror under Negro rule in the South.” This was Dixon’s description of Reconstruction, a period in which Black men in the South were able to vote and serve in elected office. The “reign of terror” was nothing more than the existence of democratically elected officials who happened to be Black.
Dixon described the KKK’s founders as “peace-loving, law-abiding, God-fearing, patriotic Southerners.” Black Southerners were described by Dixon as insolent thieves who had the audacity to mock their former enslavers. He saw Black men as beasts clawing at white girls—mixed race marriages were particularly upsetting to Dixon.
At no point does Dixon cite specific examples of Black men doing anything that could be considered unlawful or terrible. For Dixon, a white supremacist, seeing Black people enjoying the same legal and social rights as white people was terrifying and offensive. Barbaric lynchings of Black people by the KKK, a true reign of terror, were seen by Dixon as perfectly acceptable ways to enforce “law and order.”
Dixon’s twisted world view, one in which white men terrorizing the country through brutal murders were law-abiding patriots and Black men serving in elected office were monsters simply because they were Black, was popularized through his books, his play, and his movie. Millions of people, dazzled by his writing, accepted Dixon’s distortions as reality.
Although Dixon had no connections to Waterbury, a white pastor in Waterbury, Albert G. Lawson of the First Baptist Church, endorsed one of Dixon’s books in 1911. Both men were Baptist ministers and would have known each other through church activities.
 |
| The Garden Magazine, April 1911 |
Waterbury Responds to The Clansman
Even before The Clansman was produced, Thomas Dixon was known in Waterbury as a voice for violent white supremacy. In 1903, the Waterbury Democrat published side-by-side responses from Dixon and Booker T. Washington regarding “the race question.” Dixon promised genocide, a race war in which white people would “sweep the negro people off the face of the continent.” Booker T. Washington, in contrast, saw violence as “unworthy of either race” and instead advocated for peaceful discourse and a professional resolution of differences.
 |
| The Waterbury Democrat, March 23, 1903 |
Jim Crow laws enforcing segregation and rampant lynchings were at the heart of “the race question.” Black Americans sought equal rights as citizens of the United States, but were denied at every level. In November, 1905, African Methodist Episcopal Bishop Henry M. Turner in Macon, Georgia expressed his frustrations with the U.S. Supreme Court, declaring that “damnable institution has robbed the negro of every vestige of human or manhood’s rights.” Bishop Turner issued a challenge to Thomas Dixon, offering to debate him on “the negro question.” (“Attacks the Court,” Waterbury Democrat, 25 November 1905, p. 7)
When news broke that The Clansman was scheduled to be performed at Poli’s Theater on East Main Street, Waterbury was in an uproar. The Clansman had been protested at cities throughout the nation as it toured from state to state, and Waterbury was no exception.
 |
| Postcard view of Poli's Theatre on East Main Street |
Rev. Calvin S. Whitted, pastor of Mount Olive A.M.E. Church, and Rev. Isaac W. Reed, pastor of Grace Baptist Church, held public meetings to discuss ways in which the play could be stopped from coming to Waterbury. They determined to ask Waterbury’s Mayor, William E. Thoms, to ban the play on the grounds that it was “an insult to their race and arouses the passions of unthinking and unjust men.” (“Will Attempt,” The Morning Journal and Courier, 4 December 1906, p. 9)
 |
| Rev. Whitted in The Birmingham Reporter, December 24, 1927 |
During this time period, theatrical performances had to be issued a license by the City Clerk. Licenses could be refused if the City Clerk felt that the production was problematic. Waterbury’s City Clerk in 1906, William Sandland, declared that he saw no reason to refuse a license to The Clansman and instead advised Poli’s to have extra policemen present during the play. (“’The Clansman’ Coming,” Waterbury Democrat, 3 December 1906, p. 1)
The Clansman had been banned in only a few cities. In Springfield, Massachusetts, the mayor read the book on which the play was based and declared that The Clansman was “an insult to the colored race” and that the play would only cause problems in Springfield. In Bridgeport, Connecticut, the manager of the theater that had booked The Clansman canceled the engagement following protests from Bridgeport citizens, but reinstated it a few days later. (“Bars ‘The Clansman,’” Waterbury Democrat, 5 December 1906, p. 5)
 |
| Advertisement for The Clansman at Poli's Theater in the Waterbury Democrat |
A week before The Clansman was set to open in Waterbury, Mayor Thoms announced that he was banning it. Thoms wrote to the manager of Poli’s Theater, saying that he had read the book and “examined the play” and determined that some of the scenes were “of such a nature” that they shouldn’t be performed on a public stage in Waterbury. Thoms issued instructions to the Superintendent of Police, George M. Beach, telling him to arrest anyone involved with the play if they went forward with it. (“Clansman is Barred,” Waterbury Democrat, 8 December 1906, p. 1)
Rev. Whitted and Rev. Reed were surprised by the mayor’s decision, as was everyone else involved. The pastors had been in the middle of gathering signatures on a petition asking the Board of Aldermen to stop the play. Following the announcement from the mayor, the petition was ended.
The production’s advance agent, J. J. McCarthy, hired an attorney and immediately sued the city to allow The Clansman to be performed. Mayor Thoms and the City’s attorney argued that the play would be damaging to the city’s morals, while McCarthy’s team complained that banning the play would cause a large financial loss for them. (“’The Clansman,’” Waterbury Democrat, 10 December 1906, p. 5)
J. J. McCarthey persuaded Waterbury’s Superintendent of Police George M. Beach and Detective Thomas Dodds to see a performance of The Clansman in Holyoke, Massachusetts. Superintendent Beach enjoyed the play and said “I cannot see why any howl should come from the colored population, for the worst character in the play is a white man.” (“A Good Show,” Waterbury Democrat, 12 December 1906, p. 5)
The lawsuit was decided by Judge William S. Case, who decreed that the mayor did not have the power to dictate “what ought or what ought not to be represented on the public stage of Waterbury.” Case reviewed Waterbury’s charter and ordinances and determined that the mayor’s executive order was “illegal and void.” Judge Case however allowed that the police could still shut down the play if they saw anything during a performance that “would irritate the feelings of the public into a breach of peace.” (“’The Clansman,’” Waterbury Democrat, 13 December 1906, p. 1; “’The Clansman,’” Waterbury Democrat, 13 December 1906, p. 3)
The judge’s decision was announced two days before the play was set to start at Poli’s, at which point it was too late to petition the Board of Aldermen for their intervention.
Sylvester Z. Poli and his attorney took aggressive action against Mayor Thoms, asking for an injunction to be issued to prevent the mayor from having Superintendent Beach shut down the play. The court complied, issuing a temporary injunction banning Thoms and Beach from doing anything to stop the play “before any unlawful act has been committed.” (“Mayor Held Up,” Waterbury Democrat, 14 December 1906, p. 4)
The Clansman opened on December 15, 1906. Half a dozen policemen were present to stop any protests, but none were made. A local reviewer agreed with Superintendent Beach, that the “most despicable” character in the play was a white man. The play by this time in the tour had been modified to remove “most of the objectionable features.” The opinions of Black audience members was not printed in the newspaper. (“’The Clansman,’” Waterbury Democrat, 15 December 1906, p. 1; “’The Clansman,’” Waterbury Democrat, 17 December 1906, p. 4)
The Birth of a Nation
The Clansman was given new life on the big screen in 1915, when Thomas Dixon contracted with director D. W. Griffith for The Birth of a Nation, a three-hour silent film based on the play and Dixon’s novels. Griffith was a pioneer in filmmaking and The Birth of a Nation wowed audiences with new camera techniques. Impressive cinematography made it a “must see” movie, but the story was incredibly damaging. Black people were depicted as barbarians ravaging white people, who were depicted as good and beautiful.
 |
| Scene from The Birth of a Nation |
At this time, movies traveled the country similar to theatrical productions. The Birth of a Nation was viewed by the NAACP in New York City in March, 1915, but didn’t arrive in Waterbury until October. The NAACP was horrified by the movie, reporting that certain scenes were “more vicious and indecent” than in the book. They petitioned the National Board of Censors, which had already approved the film for public viewing, and Board of Censors agreed to withdraw their approval (their approval or disapproval was not legally binding). The film had also been screen in Washington, D.C., where President Woodrow Wilson and Chief Justice White saw it and reportedly “expressed approval.” (“Vicious Picture Film Condemned by Censors,” The New York Age, 4 March 1915, p. 1, 4)
The New York Age, a Black newspaper, condemned the movie for its potential to cause “incalculable harm.” In particular, in an age of lynchings based on false accusations of rape, they were upset by the depiction of a “big, degraded looking Negro... chasing a little golden-haired white girl for the purpose of outraging [raping] her; she, to escape him, goes to her death by hurling herself over a cliff.” The newspaper speculated on the effect this scene would have upon the millions of people who viewed it.
Black communities throughout the United States protested The Birth of a Nation, fearing that it would inspire racism and lynchings. In September, a riot broke out in Philadelphia when police armed with clubs and revolvers attacked a crowd of a thousand Black protesters picketing in front of a theater (protest organizers had called for a “dignified protest.”) Fifty white theater-goers joined the police in attacking the protesters, using clubs provided by the theater. One protester was arrested. (“’Birth of a Nation’ Films Start Riot at Phila. Theatre,” The Bridgeport Times and Evening Farmer, 21 September 1915, p. 7)
In Waterbury, The Birth of a Nation was scheduled to be shown at Poli’s Theater during the week of October 25, 1915. Ten days before the film was set to open, no doubt remembering what happened when his theater booked The Clansman, Sylvester Z. Poli met with Mayor Martin Scully to discuss the situation. The two were reportedly old friends, and Poli invited Scully to come see the movie at his Hartford theater. Mayor Scully left the meeting saying that he saw no reason to stop the movie from being shown in Waterbury. Poli bragged that Waterbury was the smallest city to show the film and that he had personally convinced D.W. Griffith to add Waterbury to the bookings. (“’The Birth of a Nation’ Coming,” Waterbury Democrat, 15 October 1915, p. 2; “Famous Film to be Shown Here,” Waterbury Republican, 15 October 1915, p. 5)
 |
| Advertisement for The Birth of a Nation at Poli's Theater in the Waterbury Republican |
Rev. Joseph Murphy, born into slavery in Kentucky during the 1830s, hired Attorney Joseph Bergin to assist in protesting The Birth of a Nation in Waterbury. Rev. Murphy, who had served as pastor of the A.M.E. Zion Church in Middletown and recently lived in New Haven, gave his address in Waterbury as 44 Hopkins Street, where he may have been staying with family. Murphy wrote a letter that was published in the Waterbury Democrat on October 20, 1915:
Honored Sir:
As a veteran of the Civil war, a preacher of the gospel, and a defender of the colored race, may I enter as strongly as I can a protest against the playing here in a local theater of a picture called “The Birth of a Nation,” advertised as authentic history. I have not had the opportunity of seeing this picture but my brother pastors in Hartford, where the picture was recently shown, have given me information regarding it sufficient to cause me here and now to enter a most emphatic protest through your paper to the city officials, or to those who have it in their power to prevent the showing of this picture here, to stop it. The colored people are law-abiding citizens which this picture makes them not to be. We object strenuously to the parts showing a negro chasing a white girl, and to the Ku Klux Klan who are mentioned in this story but are known as “night riders” out to slay and kill. This picture incited riots in Philadelphia and Chicago when played there and why borrow this trouble for this city where we are at peace and where the colored man is trying to and succeeds as a respected citizen?
I am eighty years of age, I have been through the horrors of the war which resulted in freeing the slaves and I beg and beseech you to use your influence with the proper authorities in protest with this picture.
It is not going to do any good to see the Civil War and the reconstruction period enacted again under the guise of entertainment. Granted that it is the greatest picture ever shown, isn’t it only just to assume that the colored man has rights and should not be placed in a position to have the white man jeer him as he will after he sees this picture?
Please, Mr. Editor, use your influence, and I ask it on behalf of the colored population of Waterbury.
Respectfully,
Rev. Joseph Murphy,
44 Hopkins Street
Rev. Murphy’s letter was followed by a letter from Col. Fabian B. McKinney, a Waterbury real estate agent who came here from Virginia. McKinney’s letter was published in the Waterbury Democrat on October 22:
My Dear Sir: Kindly allow me, through the columns of your esteemed publication, to take up my stand with Rev. Joseph Murphy and on behalf of the colored people of Waterbury enter a protest against the exhibiting of this picture called “The Birth of a Nation” at a certain local theater next week. The colored population of this city are good citizens every one, industrious and worthy members of our church and civil life. Why should they be subjected to the injustice hurled upon them by this picture. The film is deceitful for under the guise of history it paints a repugnant picture of our people and in doing so subjects the colored people of every city it is shown in to uncalled for embarrassment. This very same picture has created race riots in Baltimore, Boston and Chicago and has been practically barred from showing in the south. I am not predicting any race riots for Waterbury for that is quite impossible but I do predict that within the next few days the colored people of this city will use every available means and influence at their command to suppress the picture. It might be interesting to add that when the Irish Players came this country a few years ago and staged several objectionable plays degrading the Irish race the Irish-Americans, clergy and sympathisers all over the country arose and violently protested against these plays being presented to the American public. The result was that the plays were suppressed and prohibited practically everywhere. Now here is a picture that degrades the colored people even more so than the Irish were humiliated—why can it not be suppressed. I appreciate the fact that “The Birth of a Nation” is a wonderful production but even so those who produced it might have found a better subject for their theme than digging up a deplorable portion of our history that has been buried beneath the onward march of the progressive and respectable colored race of to-day.
Yours in behalf of justice,
Col. F. B. M’Kinney
Despite the protests, the film was shown at Poli’s to packed audiences. The Waterbury Republican published a scathing review by Charles A. Colley on October 28 (signed “C.A.C.”) that called out the movie for glorifying the Ku Klux Klan, reminding readers of “white men burning negroes at the stake without a trial” and of the recent lynching of a Jewish man, Leo Frank, in Georgia. Colley, a white real estate developer, was president of the Chamber of Commerce and served on the committee overseeing the construction of the new City Hall building on Grand Street. Colley was responsible for the installation of the now-landmark clock on the Green, which was completed in November 1915.
Colley wondered if the “southern ladies” who cried at the ending of the movie would show as much sympathy for a Black girl “chased by a white man and jumping from a high rock to save her honor.” Although Colley criticized the hypocrisy of racism, he still fell into the racist trap of believing that northern carpetbaggers controlled Black people in the South after the Civil War, a trope in which Black adults were like children, easily manipulated by clever white people.
Colley ended his letter by saying that Black people “should not shrink from [the movie], but go out to meet it and defy it.”
 |
| Charles A. Colley's letter to the Waterbury Republican |
Two more letters from were published in the Waterbury Republican on October 30. The first was from Rev. John W. MacDonald, pastor of Mount Olive A.M.E. Zion Church, who expressed appreciation for Charles Colley’s letter:
Sir:—I have been asked to say something in relation to “The Birth of a Nation.” It is sometimes wise to be silent, especially when speaking will do harm rather than good, to one born in the south and knowns conditions first hand, it is given to know some things “Unlawful,” as Paul says, “to speak.” I do not think the negro’s side has been treated so fairly as by Mr. C. A. C. [Charles A. Colley]. Since I have been living in Waterbury a colored girl, her parents, and brother were lynched in the cultured state of Georgia simply in defence of her honor. Where one renegade Gus [the blackface villain in the movie] has chased one white girl several hundred refined southern white gentlemen have chased comely colored girls and caught them too. The tens of thousands of mulattoes are unmistakeable evidences of the truthfulness of the assertion.
The northern man who sympathizes with the dastardly deeds of the notorious Ku Klux Klan should remember this nefarious organization wreaked its vengeance far more upon the northern man who went south after the Civil war than the innocent negroes. Think of John Brown born in Connecticut. This organization strung defenseless white men to the doors of their homes for their families to observe next morning when they went forth to look.
The scene where one white man goes into a low dive of bad negroes and clears out the ranch alone is largely overdone. You can not find one white man, north or south, who really knows or understands a desperate set of negroes who would dare enter such a dive single handed. He would be as brave and reckless as Senator Foraker’s soldier at Brownsville that would dare charge hell with a bucket of water.
As for the play reflecting on the negro it is a total failure. The thinking negro when he contrasts the present condition of the race in America with that of his brother in Africa not only thanks God for “American Prejudice” but even for slavery. We know God is dealing with us as He did with Joseph. We were driven from the ballot box in 1876 and from that day every political subterfuge has been resorted to in order to keep the negro from exercising his suffrage. But today if a federal law was enacted debarring the illiterate and fairly enforced there would be far more whites in the south than negroes shut out. The southern gentlemen have submerged their own poor whites seeking to keep the negro down. No class—the aristocrat nor the poor class—has made the progress in the south as the negro. Give the thoughtful negro the opportunity and the vicious element justice in the courts, and they will get rid of this renegade Gus. Go to Mound Bayou City , Miss., and Boby Aklahowa, and other negro towns, where every officer from the mayor to the dog catcher is a negro and you will find but a very few renegades.
Mr. C. A. C.—The real negro after second consideration is not shrinking from “the Birth of a Nation” but is meeting and defying it. Dr. DuBoise of New York, one of the brainest men in the country, has already produced a “Pageantry of the Negro” and another negro has produced another both of which have came out since Griffith’s picture and are regarded as great productions. When one negro, living in Wake county, N.C., where Tom Dixon was born, donates annually to churches, schools and charity, $10,000, he is defying this play. When one single negro insurance company in Dunham, N.C., less than forty miles from Tom Dixon’s birth place, did a business in the last fiscal year of $476,999, it is defying the same.
It must be remembered at the close of the Civil war when Hon. Thad Stevens became that work of uplift for the negroes, they were ignorant, harmless and degraded. According to United States bureau bulletin, 1915 this “Tom Dixon renegade Gus” owns 922,000 farms, 45,000 business enterprises, 695 drug stores, 240 wholesale houses, 600 business leagues, fifty-three banks, 1,000 undertaking establishments, 2,500 retail merchants, 38,360 churches, and worth in all $700,000,000. Send to Hampton Normal school and secure a copy of the October number of “The Southern Workman” and read the speech “The Ties of Brotherhood” by Bolton Smith. He is a Tennesseean. Learn how he would solve the negro problem. He declares “That in bringing slavery to an end the Anglo-Saxon people who chanced to settle in the northern states rendered their brethren of the south and especially the poor white people of the south, perhaps the greatest service one people ever rendered another. The emancipation proclamation freed them as really as it did the negroes; more so, in fact, as their future is more unlimited.”
In another place he says: “But a change is taking place. Recently the ladies of the Nineteenth Century club, in Memphis, Tenn., held a meeting presided over by Mrs. Isaac Reese. They protested against a lynching which had just taken place and unanimously adopted resolutions.
They declared they did not desire the protection of the lynch law, as it undermined the moral spirit of their husbands, their brothers, and their sons and of the community in which they were to bring up their daughters.” He relates a familiar incident in the south, it is of one Hannibal Beatty who died in Yorkville, S.C. He was born a slave. The whole city joined in paying tribute to his memory. He was sexton of a white church forty-six years and janitor of the court house forty-one years. He was buried from the church the white minister assisted by a colored minister, conducted the services the church was crowded by whites and blacks and there were many floral offerings from both races. He pleads for a Christian like treatment of the negro—not a Tom Dixon or “Birth of a Nation” treatment.”
J.W. MacDonald
The second letter in the Waterbury Republican on October 30 was from George Lee Wooding, a white machinist who opened one of the first automobile shops in Waterbury. Wooding emphasized the unfair way in which young Black women were treated in the South, clearly implying that Southerners believed that it was “normal” for young white men to rape Black women.
Sir:—I saw the “Birth of a Nation,” and I have read C.A.C.’s comment on same in yesterday’s Republican; both are good, especially the remarks by C.A.C.
The picture deals with history. Mr. Colley’s remarks with things of today. I can state from personal observation over a period of several year’s itineracy in the south that the negro rarely gets justice done him in that part of the country. There is little law in his favor; none for the young black girl in some states at least, who might not have jumped over a cliff to save her honor, or been lauded if she had; and there is no law, so far as I know, to require white men to marry black girls they have coerced, or receive any disciplining by the courts. The offense occurring against the negro excites no comment, but the other way around incites a lynching. In the opinion of many, wild oats are the expected harvest of an uncurbed youth, so you will find the mixing of the races continues as a result, and the problem becomes more and more complex, with the remedy not yet in sight.
But those people in our city who have seen this picture this week, and have also met Booker T. Washington, as I have had the pleasure of doing, and heard him talk in his plain, earnest, matter-of-fact, simple straight-forward manner, or met some of his competent assistants and heard their views, must have enjoyed it fully as much as the picture. I personally should not care to view this spectacle twice, tho as a production of the picture machine it is O.K., and a stupendous and masterly piece; but so far as the moral effect and the lesson or benefit derived therefrom is concerned, I don’t believe it is there.
One of the best written articles I ever read concerning the liquor question was in Everybody’s magazine; and in their contest, “What I Know About Rum,” the author of the prize winning essay was pure blood negro, and a Tuskegee Institute man, Isaac Fisher by name. This contest was for the best article submitted among many hundreds, and the judges were all representative critics, and decided according to the merit of the work, as none of them had any knowledge as to the identity of the authors of the various contributions.
In the April, 1915 issue of “Everybody’s” is a letter by Booker T. Washington concerning this man, and I believe any one of us might feel justly proud, to receive such a sincere tribute; and a man, black or white, who could win more than thirty prizes in essay contests, competing with the best brains of this country, certainly deserves great credit. I should appreciate his views on this picture play, which is simply a well-advertized business proposition, and could certainly not influence a fair-minded man or woman on the negro question, after a lapse of nearly fifty years from the Reconstruction period, and I consider a large percentage of this battle-dore and shuttle-cock criticism as very transparent advertizements for Griffith’s production.
G. Lee Wooding
Although the protesters couldn’t stop Dixon’s work from being seen in Waterbury, they were able to create a public dialogue addressing the racism in the book, the play, and the movie. Instead of passively absorbing Dixon’s racism, Waterburians were encouraged to think critically about his imagery and messaging. In doing so, they also considered the problems of racism in daily life and were more receptive to ensuring that equality, liberty, and justice were guaranteed for all, not just some.
No comments:
Post a Comment