On a Garbage Strike

In spring, 1968, and only six weeks into his new administration, Memphis, Tennessee Mayor Henry Loeb came face-to-face with a problem that divided his city along social lines and racial lines. The black garbage men of Memphis walked off the job in order to call attention to poor working conditions and poor wages. The strikers also asked for city recognition of a sanitation workers union.

For the 47-year-old Mayor Loeb, the issue was a simple one. The strikers, as government employees, stood on shaky legal ground he believed. In 1965, the Tennessee State Supreme Court ruled that, as essential workers, government employees could not strike. The mayor spoke of this ruling as his primary reason for opposing the strike. In his mind, he was simply following the court’s decision regardless of how he felt about the issue as an individual.

For his constituency, which consisted of at least 87% white at the time, there were other, more pressing issues involved in the situation. Attempts to set up a labor union by the black sanitation workers in Memphis touched off deeply rooted feelings of hatred among Loeb’s mostly white, Anglo-Saxon/Protestant, deeply southern constituency. These feelings are reflected in a letter of support the mayor received in the weeks of that winter and early spring 1968, a letter from a woman named Pauline Johnson. She wrote, “I sleep better knowing you are our loyal mayor [and] I’m praying that you will be blessed as you stand tall and big in your job.” The word big was underscored. “Thank God for men like you,” she says in her conclusion. That letter was typical of the support Loeb received from not only local letters but also from people all across the south as news of the garbage strike spread.

Different people wrote to call the strikers anarchists, a goon squad, and a bunch of hoodlums. The word communists was used often in the letters, and some even called the union organizers “satanic.” They made reference to Lucifer as well. Some saw Loeb’s stance against the strikers as being god-inspired work. Typical of these more strident letters is the one by a man named R H. Koons who said he was 76 years old. He begged Loeb to “please stand firm and don’t give in.” He tells the mayor that all the problems of Memphis was the union’s fault. “Most of the union heads are Catholic,” Koons advised, showing that some Loeb supporters were anti-Catholic as well as anti-union and racist. And Koons also invoked the Bible. “Anyone who understands the New Testament in the Bible can prove that [nowhere] Jesus ever told his followers to disregard the law.” Like many other letter writers, Koons used language that was both apocalyptic and millennial. He used racist rhetoric against the strikers. And many others wrote letters like Koons did.

Loeb felt the letters expressed the will of the people who had elected him. It would have made sense that his natural inclinations would be to support the unions, but he didn’t. Loeb was a staunch segregationist, which is somewhat surprising given his background And, besides, he felt duty-bound to support the court system. Loeb came from a Jewish family in Memphis, a city with a large middle-class Jewish community. Both of his father’s parents had immigrated to the United States from Germany one hundred years before. His grandparents knew what racial and social discrimination was like.

Loeb, however, bowed to the pressure of the white community and opposed the strikers, refusing to bow to their demands as the garbage began piling up on the streets of the city he led. The strike went on for over two months. Violent clashes began to be waged in various Memphis neighborhoods. Loeb ordered the police to break up any marches or demonstrations, using violence if needed. In a previous role for the city as the Public Works Commissioner, Loeb had overseen the sanitation department, and, in that capacity, had done nothing to improve the plight of the garbagemen. He didn’t allow overtime, there were no sick days allowed, and outdated equipment that was dangerous and unsafe was not replaced. As mayor, Loeb again refused to take action to make their jobs better. That’s when the almost 1,500 minority members of the sanitation department went on strike.

One letter Loeb received stands out from the majority. It came from a garbageman named John Jones. Jones sent a poem along with a letter to the mayor. The poem said, in part, that it was “not by her houses neat/not in her well built walls/not yet again/neither by her docks or streets/a city stands or falls by her men.” Jones was calling for the mayor to do the right thing, the American thing, the moral thing, and support the improvement in the working conditions. But Loeb wouldn’t budge. The atmosphere was ripe for violence to continue because of Loeb’s staunch segregationist inaction.

And a man not from Memphis but who strongly supported the union came to stand with the strikers and march with them, even if it meant facing that violence to achieve the needed changes to the garbagemen’s working conditions. His plan was to combat the strong-arm tactics of Loeb with peaceful non-violence. Sadly, that man would face violence on April 4, 1968. That’s when, while leaving his motel in Memphis to attend a strikers’ meeting, Martin Luther King, Jr., would be shot and killed.

On a Bus Rider

You know this story.

A young Black woman in Montgomery, Alabama, in 1955, refused to give up her seat on a public bus and was arrested for her refusal. But there’s much more to her story than you may realize.

You see, we sometimes forget that the United States was a racially segregated nation within living memory. I have a memory from when I was about 4 years old of going into the “wrong” restroom at a bus station–I went into the “colored” restroom and was gently escorted out and shown the “mens” room by a nice person inside. Black Americans simply did not enjoy the same rights as White Americans. One significant but overlooked area in which this was true was in where Blacks were allowed to sit on public transportation. The laws in Montgomery, a city only about 4 hours south of where I grew up, said that Black riders could sit anywhere they wished–until the front seats were needed by White citizens. That was the law and it was enforced. So, if the bus were starting to get full, and a White person boarded, Black citizens had to get out of their seats and move to the back of the bus so the White person could sit.

And that’s what this young Black woman was fighting against when she took a stand in March of 1955 and decided she wasn’t going to move, that she had the same right to the seat as any other citizen of Alabama and the United States. The police were called, and she was arrested for violating the law. Well, the truth of the matter is that is what happened, and it’s also not what happened.

You see, the decision to test the law was made by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). In order for the unjust law to be challenged, there had to be a court case. And, the way you achieved standing (the right to have a case tried) was to have a reason for being in court in the first place–the issue has to affect that person. And the way a person can show that the law had a negative impact on them was to be arrested and have the case heard. And that’s what happened.

Except this story ends differently that you might think. You see, the young woman who got arrested in March of 1955 for not relinquishing her seat to a White person was not quite what the NAACP was looking for in a sympathetic defendant in court and in the court of public opinion. The attorneys for the group felt strongly that she was wrong for the test case on several counts. First of all, she was single and pregnant at a time when that situation still caused a negative reaction by the public at large. Secondly, she had extremely dark skin, and that was off-putting to many White people. Finally, she was only 15. So, despite the injustice she suffered, Claudette Colvin’s case wasn’t taken up by the NAACP.

It would be 9 months later before a more suitable candidate for the lawsuit, Rosa Parks, would be arrested for the same thing.

On a Powerful Racist

Jim’s legacy remains that of one of America’s most infamous racists. From what historians can piece together from various stories, Jim came from St. Louis, Missouri, and was first received public notice on stages across the country performing blackface “minstrel shows” to the delight of white audiences in the years before the American Civil War.

After the war is when Jim turned to politics and really began his pernicious campaign of hate against Black Americans. Jim, feeding on the hatred most southerners felt towards the newly-freed slaves of the region and playing on whites’ fears and prejudices, worked to pass laws that gradually wore away the precious rights that had been bought with blood on battlefields across the country during the war. Even the passage of Constitutional amendments that were supposed to guarantee rights of equality and justice before the law, voting rights, and other freedoms were worn away by the enormous amount of racist-based work Jim did across almost all states in the old Confederacy.

For example, the voting rights that Black men had won after the war were taken away by Jim’s efforts. He worked to pass laws that created such things as poll taxes (which most Black voters couldn’t pay) and literacy tests (again, which most Black voters couldn’t pass but weren’t given to White voters), thus effectively depriving Blacks of their rights as citizens. These types of laws stayed on the books in some states until the 1960s and have seen a revival in legislation requiring specific types of voter identification that Black citizens often find difficult to procure. That’s how pervasive Jim’s lasting legacy has been.

Courts, stocked with Jim’s allies, consistently applied justice unfairly to Black lawbreakers compared to White defendants. Laws were passed in many states at Jim’s direction that eroded or severely limited the ability of Black citizens to own land, to own businesses, or to travel freely. It was as if Jim’s purpose was to return Black citizens to, if not a state of legal and physical enslavement, at least a social and economic one.

And Jim’s plan worked. Jim’s efforts are why people like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. had to, in his words, “fight for something that should have been mine since birth” through the 1960s and even today. So, it’s easy to see why Jim remains today the premier racist and bigot produced by this nation. However, Jim isn’t one person, or even a person, actually.

You know him as Jim Crow.