This article was downloaded by: [University of Wyoming Libraries]On: 01 June 2015, At: 16:46Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Educational Studies: A Journalof the American EducationalStudies AssociationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/heds20

Unlikely Crusader: John EldredSwearingen and African-American Education in SouthCarolinaEdward Janak a & Peter Moran aa University of Wyoming ,Published online: 02 Apr 2010.

To cite this article: Edward Janak & Peter Moran (2010) Unlikely Crusader: JohnEldred Swearingen and African-American Education in South Carolina, EducationalStudies: A Journal of the American Educational Studies Association, 46:2, 224-249,DOI: 10.1080/00131941003614903

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131941003614903

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or

indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of W

yom

ing

Libr

arie

s] a

t 16:

46 0

1 Ju

ne 2

015

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES, 46: 224–249, 2010Copyright C! American Educational Studies AssociationISSN: 0013-1946 print / 1532-6993 onlineDOI: 10.1080/00131941003614903

Unlikely Crusader: John EldredSwearingen and African-American

Education in South Carolina

Edward Janak and Peter Moran

University of Wyoming

Although not a well-known figure either in educational or South Carolina history,John Eldred Swearingen had a profound impact on the schools of the PalmettoState. Guiding the schools to transition from 19th-century academies to 20th-centuryschools, Swearingen held office from 1907–1922. During these years, Swearin-gen oversaw unprecedented legislation impacting attendance, funding, and curricu-lum. Swearingen’s stance on African American education was unlike many of hiscontemporaries—he used a variety of methods to improve education and raisecon-sciousness amongst his White politician counterparts.

All of these facts would make him a worthy subject of biographical study;however, that he achieved all these things while blind makes his life and careerall the more worthy. Almost as overlooked as Swearingen’s contributions to SouthCarolina is the role the state played in the Brown v. Board of Education decision viathe Briggs v. Eliott case. Drawing from Swearingen’s own words, the papers of hiscontemporaries, and both legal and historical analysis of the involved legal cases topresent an overview of both Swearingen and Briggs, this article argues that withoutSwearingen’s visionary leadership—or if he had not been undone politically—theroad to Briggs would have been quite different—if it existed at all.

John Eldred Swearingen is a man whose name is not found in history books.However, his impact on South Carolina, serving as the State Superintendent ofEducation from 1907 to 1922, was considerable. Although Swearingen broughtthe state into the 20th century in terms of education, arguably his most significant

Correspondence should be sent to Edward Janak, University of Wyoming, Educational Studies,1000 E. University Ave, Laramie, WY 82071. E-mail: ejanak@uwyo.edu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of W

yom

ing

Libr

arie

s] a

t 16:

46 0

1 Ju

ne 2

015

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 225

legacy was bringing about awareness regarding the state of schools for marginal-ized cultures.1 While in office, Swearingen passionately advocated to improveschooling for African Americans and children of millworkers, as well as helpingto promote women in his office and around the state; however, due, in part, tothe size of the population and detailed documentation, the focus of this article ison his efforts to improve African American education in South Carolina. Eachyear, as stipulated by the South Carolina Constitution, Swearingen was requiredto produce a report on the state’s schools, which was made available to the generalpublic and distributed to state legislators. During his 15 years as state superinten-dent, Swearingen used these annual reports as a means to generate awareness attimes, bring shame at others, and call out wrongs in others. It is his words in theseannual reports that provide the launching point for the socio-educational analysispresented in this work.

Swearingen’s career is fascinating on a number of levels. On a physical, lit-eral level, Swearingen’s career trajectory is remarkable when one realizes thathe completed a university education, career, and political campaign while blind.However, the reader must avoid romanticizing Swearingen’s life as many, accord-ing to William Watkins (2001) in The White Architects of Black Education, “itappears disconnected from the world of power, partisanship, and the shaping ofthe social order” (10). Indeed, both public education and Swearingen’s life andcareer were “influenced by the forces of the power structure, the state, and thosewith an ideological agenda” (Watkins 2001, pg. 10). Keeping these relationships inmind, it is initially difficult to understand why Swearingen, coming from a White,privileged, 19th-century background, would advocate for African American stu-dents. This understanding gets even more complex when considered on a familiallevel; Swearingen was the nephew of US Senator Benjamin “Pitchfork Ben” Till-man.2 Swearingen adopted much of his uncle’s populist strain, with none of theaccompanying racism.3 Politically, the two men could not be further apart; whileSwearingen was advocating for African American schooling, Tillman (1908) wasannouncing to the South Carolina House of Representatives that “the Caucasianrace is the superior race on the globe; the flower of humanity; the race responsiblefor the history of the world;” and that “a man with white skin who consorts withnegroes . . . is not a genuine White man, but—well, I don’t know what to call him”(4–6). Clearly Swearingen’s social and familial backgrounds did little to preparehim for the advocacy in which he would later engage. Nevertheless, in the early20th century, Swearingen was among the foremost champions of improving thestate of African American schools and broadening educational opportunities forAfrican Americans in South Carolina, and he used the influence of his office topursue those goals.

The South Carolina of Swearingen’s life, in many ways, catered to contem-porary stereotype. In the immediate aftermath of the US Civil War, the federalgovernment sent troops in to the southern states to bring about immediate change.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of W

yom

ing

Libr

arie

s] a

t 16:

46 0

1 Ju

ne 2

015

226 JANAK AND MORAN

Reconstruction, as this brief period became known, helped shape Swearingen inmany ways. However, in 1877, “Yankee” troops were pulled by President Ruther-ford Hayes. For a brief period, South Carolina actually had two governments inplace—the Republican governor and (racially integrated) legislature elected underthe Reconstruction government, and a new group led by newly pardoned Confeder-ate Lieutenant General Wade Hampton, who marched across the state rallying pop-ular support. Although Hampton urged moderation and actively courted the Blackvoters, a group of his followers, known as Red Shirts for their propensity to wearblood-red shirts and masks, organized themselves into armed units and proved par-ticularly effective at intimidating Black and Republican voters alike. Facing enor-mous political and social pressure, Governor Daniel Chamberlain and the Recon-struction legislature succumbed to the group mentality, and Hampton took over.4

No better description of Swearingen’s South Carolina can be found than that ofa humorous essay sent to his Uncle Tillman. Attributed to George Fitch and titled“South Carolina as seen by a Yankee,” the unpublished essay describes the statein unflattering, yet comical, terms. Describing the population—and, by proxy,the state of race relations, the correspondent wrote that it “has 1,500,000 people,including Republicans, Chinese and Indians not taxed.” While estimating that the“population is almost equally divided between whites and negroes,”5 it had to beexplained that “one White Carolinian, when he gnashes his teeth and draws hisbreath with a low hissing sound, can make one hundred colored residents go awayin search of rest and a change of climate without waiting for the next train” (Fitch1916).

Noting with pride the state’s long history of political upheaval, Fitch (1916)continues that “South Carolina was settled about 250 years ago, but has beenunsettled ever since. It has always been noted for its nervous disposition, and itswillingness to rise up and smite the universe on all occasions.” It was with no littlepride that the author reminded the audience that “in 1861 it opened war betweenthe States by seceding with a prodigious explosion. Later it contributed Tillmanto the United States Senate and has listened to the uproarious results with prideever since. South Carolina was severely shaken by earthquake in 1886, but didnot secede at that time.” Concluding the overview of the state, Fitch ended withtwo facts: “[t]here are three religions in the State, Protestant, Catholic, and StatesRights. Between the Savannah and Pee Dee Rivers John C. Calhoun is still thegreatest man in the world and history closed in 1865.”

BACKGROUND: THE MAN AND HIS LIFE

Examining Swearingen’s early life provides little explanation for the role hewould take later in life as an advocate for African American education in the post-Reconstruction South. He was born January 9, 1875, to a family that owned one

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of W

yom

ing

Libr

arie

s] a

t 16:

46 0

1 Ju

ne 2

015

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 227

of the largest cotton farms in the upstate region of South Carolina. Swearingen’sfather was one of the first troops to enlist for the Confederacy; he fought throughoutthe war, even after sustaining injuries. After the war, in the Reconstructed south,Swearingen’s father worked avidly for African American disenfranchisement,becoming one of the Red Shirt riders that helped to end the integrated governmentthrough a campaign of terror and force.6 Like many youths of the period in theregion, Swearingen was armed at an early age: He received his first shotgun asa present for this 13th birthday. Just a few days after, Swearingen was involvedin a hunting accident. He tripped over a log; the gun discharged, and the shotpassed through his hand, peppering his face. Swearingen was completely blindedby the accident and spent the rest of his life without sight. Although many inSwearingen’s society would have allowed this accident to curtail their dreams andaccept social definitions of what the disabled were capable, Swearingen and hisfamily took it as just another challenge.

After attending the Cedar Springs School for the Blind and Deaf, Swearingenbecame the first blind person enrolled at the South Carolina College, now theUniversity of South Carolina. Initially, his application had been rejected; however,Swearingen met with the trustees personally and was granted provisional accep-tance. The provisions were twofold: first, Swearingen would be personally andfinancially responsible for providing any assistance he may need; and second, atthe first indication that college life was too challenging for the young blind man,he would be removed. Instead of struggling, Swearingen thrived; he developed hiskeen intellect into an amazing ability to recall details and voices once he heardthem. By graduation, Swearingen achieved academic excellence records that stoodunbroken for 50 years and reportedly knew every student and faculty member byvoice.

Swearingen returned to Cedar Springs as a teacher and earned a reputation asbeing one of the best, hardest working, members of the faculty. However, evena promotion to principal faculty member didn’t completely appease him, andSwearingen grew frustrated with the malaise affecting South Carolina’s schools.At the urging of his friends and members of his family, he entered the race forState Superintendent of Education in 1907. Rather than attempt to downplay orhide his disability, instead Swearingen moved it front and center of his campaignmaterial. On the broadside pamphlet printed for his campaign, which he mailedto business owners in the larger towns across South Carolina, a photograph fillsthe center of the page, taking up almost one-third of the document, with no at-tempt at concealing the injuries to his eyes. Highlights of his life were printed inbanner type along each side of the photograph. To the right states his educationalexperiences: “Student at South Carolina College 1895–1899” and “Teacher inCedar Springs Institute 1899–1908.” To the left are two more biographical state-ments: “Born January 9, 1875” and “Made Blind by the Accidental Discharge of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of W

yom

ing

Libr

arie

s] a

t 16:

46 0

1 Ju

ne 2

015

228 JANAK AND MORAN

his Gun while out Hunting January 13, 1888” (“John E. Swearingen: Candidate”1908).

He won election that year and held the position until 1922. Although itmay appear inconceivable that Swearingen would run for office, let alone win,knowing a bit about his family and character clarifies the issue. His familyhad a long, well-documented history in fulfilling patriotic duty in the military;Swearingen would be one of the first generations of men who could not serve. Hehad a long-standing interest in politics, and for a time had considered pursuing amaster’s in political science at Columbia University.7 Moreover, Swearing had adeep, abiding love of his home state and, given his interest in politics, was drawnto public service. He was passionate about education and realized, particularlyas a man who was blind, that he could accomplish more in the field by serving inoffice than by serving as a teacher.

During his tenure, Swearingen oversaw the expansion of the State Departmentfrom an office that worked in the attic of the State Capitol library to an agency thathad its own facilities in the then-towering National Loan and Exchange Building.With the advice and forewarning of his Uncle Bennie (Senator Tillman), he alsoworked to make South Carolina one of the first states ready to implement the 1917Smith–Hughes Act. He moved South Carolina’s schools from small, 19th-centuryfacilities into the 20th century by increasing school funding; encouraging small,rural districts to consolidate into larger, more efficient facilities; and providing themeans for districts to expand the overall numbers of students who attended, bothWhite and African American.

Under his supervision, South Carolina’s schools became accredited for thefirst time. Swearingen fostered (albeit somewhat contentious) relationships withnorthern philanthropic agencies such as the General Education Board to secureadditional funding. He also created two new positions within the office of statesuperintendent: supervisors of Negro schools and mill schools, charged with botha general accounting of schools serving those two marginalized populations, aswell as advocating various means to improve these schools. He would take anactive role in reducing overall illiteracy in the youth and adult populations of thestate via campaigns, such as the 1920 effort whose primary slogan was “Let SouthCarolina secede from illiteracy” (Gray and Swearingen, 1920, back cover).8

Of all the challenges faced by Swearingen, however, improving African Amer-ican schools was perhaps the greatest, and it was in advocating for improvementsin the African American schools that he was most vocal. Ironically, however,Swearingen understood the White-supremacist electoral politics of the time and,in spite of all of the work he devoted towards advancing the interests of AfricanAmerican schools, never campaigned with that in his platform and never activelysought out African American voters, a practice that was common among manySouth Carolina politicians of the period.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of W

yom

ing

Libr

arie

s] a

t 16:

46 0

1 Ju

ne 2

015

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 229

AFRICAN AMERICAN SCHOOLS IN SOUTH CAROLINA

In the early 20th century, over 80% of the nation’s African American populationlived in the southern states. During this period, the South was also the poor-est region in country and the section least able to adequately provide a basiceducation for the school age population. Furthermore, maintaining segregatedschools, with the concomitant duplication of services, further strained the abil-ity of southern states to provide an adequate public education for its youth. Ofcourse, as Horace Mann Bond (1934) explains, the effects of these limitationswere most obvious in the substandard facilities attended by Black students andin the grossly inferior education provided for African American children. Thepoint is furthered by David Angus and Jeffrey Mirel (1999), who write thatanalyzing educational data for African American students of the period illus-trates significant regional disparities. For example, there was great resistance touniversal education of African Americans. “The high school is, in its essence,nothing more than a mass-production factory,” wrote John Gould Fletcher (1962,115); “It was not and is not adapted to Southern life.” Fletcher explains thatthe large African American population created a difficulty: African Americanswere more than willing and capable of completing high school work; however,without social and economic opportunities, secondary education was essentiallyworthless.

Secondary schools particularly became exemplars of this trend. As further ex-plained by educational historian James Anderson (1988), during the period thatSwearingen was in office the American high school changed drastically from anelite, private institution into a public (theoretically, if not practically) institutionattended by all children. However, these masses did not include African Ameri-can students, as “southern local and state governments, though maintaining andexpanding the benefits of public secondary education for white children, refusedto provide public high school facilities for black children” (p. 186).

South Carolina was no exception to this rule, particularly in regard to fundingpatterns. When the census of 1900 was taken, the color barrier of educationshowed significantly in literacy rates across the state. The ratio of literate toilliterate men over the age of 21 was positive for White men (111,685 literate to15,711 illiterate), implying an effective educational system. However, for Blackmen (69,201 literate to 83,594 illiterate), the ratio was negative, implying a dearthof educational opportunities (U.S. Census Data). As detailed by Secretary of NegroEducation Charles J. Martin in his 1949 report, The History and Development ofNegro Education in South Carolina, by 1897, the state was funding $1/pupil forBlack students with no expenditures for physical equipment; that cost was morethan doubled, not including the equipment expenditures, for White students. Ofthe 1,776 Black schools in South Carolina that year, 778 were privately owned,403 were in log houses, and 1,311 were in frame buildings. This disparity is

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of W

yom

ing

Libr

arie

s] a

t 16:

46 0

1 Ju

ne 2

015

230 JANAK AND MORAN

even more pronounced in regards to secondary education. In 1896, there existed85 secondary academies in South Carolina catering to the White population, 27enrolling White females; there were just seven Black academies.

The first decade of the 20th century brought little change. For a specific ex-ample, the Forty-First Annual Report (1909) details that the Anderson School inDarlington County, a White public school listing 64 students, received $100; theAfrican American private school in Dorchester County, also listing 64 students,only received $40.9 By 1911, the Forty-Third Annual Report (1913) noted thatSouth Carolina’s private African American high schools offered fewer weeks inthe school term, fewer years in course, and fewer full-time teachers than the publicWhite schools, with the notable exception of Rock Hill.10

In spite of—or, more likely because of—these terrible conditions, Swearingenwas off to a quick start in his efforts to improve African American schools inSouth Carolina. When Swearingen took office, the state had greatly increasedper pupil spending over the last 10 years for White students—a 52% gain, from$4.98 in 1899 to $10.34 in 1909. However, African American students werenot beneficiaries of this largesse. The per-pupil spending only rose 17%, from$1.42 to $1.70 (see Table 1). Funding disparities were in every district in the state;however, they were slighter in the up-country than the low-country where the fund-ing disparities actually exceeded the average spending; in the up-country, whereoverall spending was lower, the trend was reversed (Forty-First Annual Report1901).

Even though the large towns in South Carolina served White students well,through 1913 South Carolina, as well as Mississippi, Louisiana, and North Car-olina, had no public 4-year high schools for African American students. Anderson(1988) notes that this situation was not unique to South Carolina; across the South,even though “southern states proceeded with vigor to make public high schoolsavailable to White children” (193), such was not the case for African American

TABLE 1Selected Per Pupil Expenditure According to Enrollment, 1908–1909

Locale White Negro Average, Both Difference

Upcountry districtAnderson $7.63 $1.92 $5.53 $5.71Greenville 5.56 2.00 4.81 3.36Spartanburg 8.42 2.43 6.08 5.99Union 6.83 3.37 4.93 3.46

Lowcountry districtBeaufort $31.86 $3.09 $6.62 $28.77Charleston 35.70 2.55 13.56 33.15Colleton 8.73 1.77 5.30 6.96Georgetown 14.76 3.15 7.53 11.61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of W

yom

ing

Libr

arie

s] a

t 16:

46 0

1 Ju

ne 2

015

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 231

students. Many large towns and cities across the South offered multiple publichigh schools for White students, but none for African American students.

Even in light of the Plessey decision, many Southern school boards were ableto perpetuate this separate but unequal system thanks, in part, to Supreme Court’s1899 decision in the Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education. When theWhite school board in Richmond County, Georgia, closed the African Americanhigh school to divert funding to elementary schools, African American citizensfiled suit. Rather than simply petitioning that the high school reopen, the plaintiffsinsisted that the White high school also shut its doors until a the African Americanhigh school could be reopened, a condition many legal scholars believe led tothe final result. The suit was decided for the school district defendants withoutdissent. The Cumming decision accomplished in education what other cases haddone in the areas of public transportation, accommodations, and other places ofsocial interaction, essentially stripping African Americans of their civil rightswhile alluding to the spurious guarantee of separate but equal. Cumulatively, asexplained by Richard Kluger (2004), the court decisions of the late 19th and early20th centuries “nullified nearly every vestige of the federal protection that hadbeen cast like a comforting cloak over the Negro upon his release from bondage”(83).

During Swearingen’s tenure in the state superintendent’s office, the UnitedStates were shaped by global events in hitherto unforeseen ways. The demobi-lization of soldiers at the end of World War I accented racial tensions across thecountry, particularly in the South. Almost 9 million African Americans lived inthe South, and African American soldiers who defended their country and foughtfor democracy across the world expected some form freedom and democracy, ifnot raised consciousness, upon their return to the United States. As J. C. Hemphillreported in the November 3, 1918 edition of South Carolina’s newspaper of record,The State:

200,000 of them [African Americans] wear the uniform of the United States army. . . .When peace is declared, these Negro men will return proud of their achievementsand conscious of the fact that they offered themselves in the cause of freedom. . . .They should naturally expect to be full sharers in the fruits of victory and partnersin the glories of triumphant peace—a heritage justly claimed. They will seek forthemselves and their children, and rightly so, not social equality but political andeducational opportunity. They will demand education and political justice. We haveproclaimed the salvation of the oppressed nations of Europe—What shall we do forthe Negro of the South? (22)

This evolved into rhetoric of a new reconstruction, a prospect that causedwidespread anxiety among White Southerners. To these unreconstructed and un-repentant Whites, if African Americans wanted to improve their station in life,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of W

yom

ing

Libr

arie

s] a

t 16:

46 0

1 Ju

ne 2

015

232 JANAK AND MORAN

it was the job of private organizations, such as churches or philanthropic foun-dations, or (more preferably) their own communities. Many White Southernersconcluded that to get the government involved in social issues such as this wouldbe tantamount to creating another Reconstruction government, with equally disas-trous results. White backlash to events and organizations that attempted to forwardAfrican American rights was swift and multifaceted, particularly in the South. AsSouth Carolina historian Walter Edgar explained in 1998’s South Carolina: A His-tory, Congressman James Byrnes addressed African American soldiers directly,explaining that the war has “in no way changed the attitude of the white mantoward the social and political equality of the Negro” (481). The South CarolinaConstructive League was formed; although purportedly wanting to “cultivate har-mony between the races,” the League also stressed that this harmony would in noway change the fact that the state was “dominated by its white citizens” (Edgar1998, 481).

A more violent example of White reaction was the Ku Klux Klan’s reemer-gence. In Greenville, for example, the Klan paraded openly and terrorized AfricanAmerican neighborhoods, and also hosted community picnics for their Whiteneighbors. These community picnics offered many politicians opportunities toaddress White voters; in fact, as reminded by James Bainbridge in his February24, 2004 article in The Greenville News, Swearingen’s friend and the best manat his wedding, J. J. McSwain, addressed such events. The Klan would prove tobe an organization that would play a significant role in the ultimate demise ofSwearingen’s career. Indeed, most Whites in the South believed that the statusquo should not change, that life was just fine under the separate but equal societycreated by Red Shirts and white sheets alike.

Swearingen, however, believed that the time had come for the governmentto improve the station of African Americans, and that the schools would be thebeginning. Nevertheless, despite Swearingen’s efforts, the educational system inSouth Carolina remained stubbornly resistant to change. It is easy to be a racistand follow the law when the law is, by definition, racist, as was life in the JimCrow South. Racism ran deep amongst the state’s politicians, and funding Blackschools was not exactly an election-winning stance.

Northern philanthropic agencies such as the General Education Board (GEB)and Jeanes and Slater funds, had begun their work in earnest, giving the nativeWhite population another reason to avoid state funding. As summarized by Watkins(2001), such organizations favored educational systems that “avoided social andcritical inquiry in favor of lessons on thrift, savings institutions, insurance andbenefit societies, and the ‘efficacy of different races on labor’“ (131). In short, theGEB and its ilk wanted to produce a generation of African Americans that were“gentle, sweet, and neighborly” that could “live in harmony with the other races nomatter their circumstances (Watkins 2001, 131).” Swearingen’s relationship withsuch organizations was extremely complicated. On one level, Swearingen’s belief

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of W

yom

ing

Libr

arie

s] a

t 16:

46 0

1 Ju

ne 2

015

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 233

system was in line with those of the Northern philanthropists. However, althoughrecognizing their worth as a significant source of funding, Swearingen frequentlyclashed with leaders such as Wallace Buttrick over their policies. He was happyto take their money, but resented any interference or control over his work.11

By the end of his tenure as state superintendent, African Americans had madeonly modest gains in terms of basic education, and the many inequities of thesegregated system remained firmly in place. The 1920 census figures cited bySwearingen in his Fifty-Third Annual Report (1921) were illustrative of the sorrystate of education—particularly that of its Black citizens: 6.5% illiteracy amongWhites, 29.3% among Blacks. Although these numbers might be construed asindicative of how little had changed, earning South Carolina the ranking of 47thof 48 states in literacy, Swearingen also cited net gains, overall.

Swearingen was not hostage to the socially constructed notions of whatmarginalized peoples were capable, just as he was not hostage to the sociallyconstructed notion of what a person who was blind was capable. So, if AfricanAmericans were still being educationally disenfranchised by the end of his tenure,why is Swearingen such a significant figure? Simply put, these disparities wouldprove fodder for many of Swearingen’s annual reports. Swearingen would directall the efforts and invective afforded to him by his office to raise awareness aboutthese issues in simple, direct language that would place him in conflict with statefigures. Truly, this was Tillman’s nephew in spirit and fire, if not in his choice ofchampioned causes.

SWEARINGEN’S ADVOCACY EFFORTS

Swearingen primarily used his annual reports as a soapbox and sounding boardfor issues about which he was passionate. Causes such as the lack of compulsoryattendance laws, the sorry state of the education of millworkers’ children, and lackof state certification standards all were trumpeted by Swearingen at one point oranother. When the state legislature passed a beneficial act, they received muchpraise, laud, and adulation from Swearingen; when they dragged their collectivefeet passing another, his reports were caustic and damning.

One primary area of focus was on teacher training. Under Swearingen’s tenure,the state accredited four colleges to certify African American teachers: Allen,Benedict, Claflin, and the Colored N.I. A. & M. College of South Carolina.Swearingen began a section of the Fiftieth Annual Report (1918) by acknowledgingthat although “it may be inadvisable to call attention again to the status of Negroschools . . . the situation of these schools demands careful discussion” (16).Swearingen lamented that graduates of what was at that time the only highereducation institution with a normal training program were “quickly absorbed inthe trades and industries” (Fiftieth Annual 1918, 16). Couching his discussion

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of W

yom

ing

Libr

arie

s] a

t 16:

46 0

1 Ju

ne 2

015

234 JANAK AND MORAN

in his Smith-Hughes rhetoric, Swearingen stated that the best hope for AfricanAmerican teachers was to become trained in vocational and industrial arts, noting“the industrial education of negroes has been thoroughly established throughoutthe South” (Fiftieth Annual 1918, 16).

Viewed through contemporary lenses, this belief of Swearingen’s was a demon-stration of his inherent, socially constructed racist belief that African Americanswere incapable of performing up to standard academically. There are elements oftruth to this Swearingen’s case; however, it is more likely that Swearingen, thestudent of political history, nephew of Ben Tillman, and keen observer of the po-litical process, realized that political expediency and support of African Americanschools did not have to be mutually exclusive, but the vocational model was thebest chance of funding African-American schools available to him.

Swearingen was not monolithic in his views on African American teachers, butwas open to teachers that had been provided academic, not vocational, certificationby academic colleges. One teacher, trained at Spelman College in Georgia andcertified there, had applied for South Carolina certification, and then-governorColeman Blease was opposed. On November 24, 1913, Swearingen wrote the racistgovernor, clarifying that “other graduates of this college are scattered throughoutthe State” (Blease 1911–1915). Although reassuring the governor that he did“not approve of giving them greater credit in South Carolina than they receive inGeorgia,” Swearingen typically wanted to follow the law and do what’s right: “ifthis institution is accredited by the State Board [of Georgia] and this applicantis considered deserving of a State certificate, I shall take pleasure in issuing thenecessary license” (Blease 1911–1915).

Beyond issues of teaching and certification, throughout his tenure as state su-perintendent Swearingen used his annual reports to publicize the state of AfricanAmerican schools and call for reforms. Toward the beginning of his tenure,Swearingen was relatively tactful in these calls: “Public education is admittedlythe only means of securing public intelligence,” he wrote in 1909 (Forty-First An-nual Report 1901, 9). This philosophy guided him as he explained the educationalimpasse facing the state regarding the color barrier in education: “The problemin South Carolina is found in the adjustment of the free public school to theconditions of our social, industrial, and economic life, for public education heremeans a dual instead of a single school system” (Forty-First Annual Report, 1909,9). Indeed, Swearingen was gently questioning the need for a segregated schoolsystem almost 50 years before the Supreme Court would order the dismantling ofthe dual system.

Swearingen’s 1912 Forty-Fourth Annual Report (1912) included a variety ofstatistics to demonstrate these needs (see Table 2).

Swearingen’s point is confirmed by Henry A. Bullock (1967) who cites thatbeyond the differences in facilities, other inequities were glaringly apparent inSouth Carolina’s dual educational system. The average school term for African

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of W

yom

ing

Libr

arie

s] a

t 16:

46 0

1 Ju

ne 2

015

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 235

TABLE 2Comparison of Schools, 1912

Statistic Black White

Total number of schools 2441 26353 or more teachers 43 (appx. 2%) 197 (7%)1 teacher/1 room 2272 (93%) 1910 (72%)Easy class/teacher gradation 3% 11%Total enrollment 193,440 160,830Average per pupil expenditure $1.98 $13.02

American children was 50 days shorter than was true for White students. Moreover,the state spent roughly one-tenth as much money financing the Black schools as itcommitted to White schools, and African American teachers were paid less thanone-half of the salaries earned by their White counterparts.

By 1914, tact and guile were abandoned; Swearingen’s writings were morecharacteristically direct to the point of being blunt. In the Forty-Sixth AnnualReport (1914), Swearingen rather contentiously wrote that most “district trusteesknow little or nothing about the actual operation of such Negro schools” (12).Starting his blame at the top, Swearingen explained that these district trusteessometimes

have difficulty in locating the building in which the school is conducted. They rarelysee the teacher except when their signatures are wanted. . . . The members of thedistrict board do not visit the Negro school, nor are they expected to do so. Nobodyquestions the padded rolls, and everybody seems willing . . . to accept the swornreport of the beneficiary teacher, and to apportion the school taxes accordingly.(Forty-Sixth Annual Report 1914, 12–13)

There are several events that led to Swearingen’s increasingly hard-line stance onthis issue: South Carolina politics were becoming more progressive; Blease wasvoted out;12 Tillman was nearing the end of his career and, in fact, passed awayin 1918, when Swearingen began to harden the language in his annual reportssignificantly.

Swearingen’s views put him in direct conflict with then governor ColemanBlease, one of South Carolina’s most notoriously and outspokenly racists. Amongthe planks in Blease’s platform were opposition to the allocation of White taxdollars to support African American schools and the separation of convicts alongracial lines in South Carolina prisons. Blease used Biblical rhetoric—claimingdivine separation of the races—as a basis for his beliefs. In short, Blease favoredabsolute separation of the races, complete with the disenfranchisement of AfricanAmerican voters and the repeal of the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution.Ronald Burnside (1964) provides one example in “Racism in the Administrations

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of W

yom

ing

Libr

arie

s] a

t 16:

46 0

1 Ju

ne 2

015

236 JANAK AND MORAN

of Governor Cole Blease.” In just one demonstration of his extreme racism, Bleaserefused to allow South Carolina militia representation at President Woodrow Wil-son’s inaugural parade—for fear that they might march after African Americanmilitiamen from other states.

Blease started his career as a protege of Ben Tillman, in the same populistvein. However, with time the two men’s egos clashed and they quickly becamebitter enemies. Blease’s anti-Tillman bile wasn’t lost on Swearingen; the two menengaged in heated debates via correspondence throughout Blease’s terms in office.In fact, after Tillman and Blease had their very public falling out in 1912, Bleasemade a point in taking his ire out on Tillman’s nephew. In particular, Bleaseopposed Swearingen’s practice of placing White teachers in African Americanschools and White administrators to oversee them. For example, when Bleasefound out that a White woman named Rosa Cooley was teaching at the PortRoyal Agricultural School, an African American school on St. Helena Island nearCharleston, on December 23, 1913, he immediately wrote to Swearingen “I donot understand it. There must be some mistake about it. . . . If she has receivedany appointment through the State Board of Education . . . I would certainly loveto have her immediately removed” (Blease’s Letters [1912–1914]). Predictably,Swearingen opposed Blease on this matter. In spite of the governor being ex-officiomember of the State Board of Education, Blease was unable to convince the boardthat Cooley should be removed from her position, let alone decertified.

In spite of—or, quite possibly, because of—Blease’s racist rhetoric, coupledwith Tillman’s eminent departure from the US Senate, Swearingen began increas-ing the length and directness of his calls to action, beginning in 1915. “The Negrois here, and here to stay” began Swearingen in the Forty-Seventh Annual Re-port (1915, 21). “He cannot remain ignorant without injury to himself, his Whiteneighbors, and to the Commonwealth.” Swearingen cited statistics demonstratingthe dearth of educational opportunities available to African Americans in SouthCarolina, such as 92% were still one-teacher schools, and only 22% of AfricanAmerican students were enrolled in regular attendance. He ended by asking thequestion, “Can we afford longer to allow this large element in our population tofollow their present practices and to remain in their present condition?” (Forty-Seventh Annual Report 1915, 21).

After ten years in the office and little significant progress, Swearingen truly be-gan to step up his efforts: 1917 marked a significant increase in the documentationof problems facing African American schools in the State Superintendent’s report.Richard Dana, one of the General Education Board (GEB) inspectors, describedSwearingen in a February 1, 1916, letter as being “quite a progressive person infavor of education for the Negro and he much encourages the idea” (“MayesvilleEducational & Industrial School 1902–1919”). Swearingen addressed theproblems of segregated schools. Using the strongest, most direct language to date,Swearingen explained that it was hypocritical for the state to not discriminate in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of W

yom

ing

Libr

arie

s] a

t 16:

46 0

1 Ju

ne 2

015

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 237

funding between two White high schools in the same city, but to limit fundingwhen one of those schools operated for African American students. “Personally Ifavor the use of identical standards for all schools,” (Fiftieth Annual Report 1918,24) he wrote. Swearingen explained how a fair and just system of schools wouldoperate:

If the instruction and organization of a colored high school, organized and directed bylocal school officers, and superintended and taught by men and women responsibleto local authorities, conform to the high school standards of the State, I believe sucha Negro school ought to be accepted as an integral part of our high school system.(Fiftieth Annual Report 1918, 24)

The very next year, Swearingen attempted a slightly different tactic; when quietcalls for equalized funding didn’t work, Swearingen instead began requestingsupplementary funds. “The time has come when the General Assembly oughtto authorize and direct a campaign for the better health and better industrialconditions among our Negroes,” he wrote. Of course, schools would be linked tosuch a program: “The foundation for such an effort lies in the schools. The firststep in the program for their betterment would be a modest appropriation to beexpended solely in negro schools.” To this end, Swearingen requested a “specialappropriation” of $20,000 directly to the State Superintendent’s office to be used“for the betterment of Negro schools” (Fifty-First Annual Report 1919, 41 & 44).

Admittedly, this was clearly a paltry sum for a state that operated almost 2,500African American schools, a great number of which were little more than one-room shacks. Compared to his earlier calls to equalize the schools, many wouldargue this change in tactics was tantamount to complete intellectual and socialretreat. Contemporary readers must keep in mind, however, that at the time sucha sum was considered exorbitant. In “Public Schools of South Carolina Duringthe Administration of J.E. Swearingen 1909–1923,” a brief statement reflectingon his entire tenure, Swearingen remembered what happened in a similar fundingrequest:

The legislature was asked for $20,000.00 to lengthen the school term in communitiesunable to run five months. Discussion among the lawmakers was active and acrid.One gray-bearded senator inquired caustically, ‘How will the State Superintendentof Education use so large a sum?’ The appropriation was voted by a majority ofone–the presiding officer casting the deciding ballot. (John E. Swearingen Papers,box 4, folder 95)

However, when viewed not as a retreat, but as a change in tactic, the requestprovides some insight into Swearingen’s character and principles. At a time whenmost White South Carolinians were content to neglect the education of the school

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of W

yom

ing

Libr

arie

s] a

t 16:

46 0

1 Ju

ne 2

015

238 JANAK AND MORAN

age Black population in almost every meaningful way, Swearingen had the courageto press for improvements in their schools. One as politically astute as Swearingenunderstood the realities of the time and knew that such requests must begin slight,then be allowed to snowball over time.

Swearingen presented an optimistic, yet still realistic, view of race and educa-tion in South Carolina his 1919 report the following year. In Swearingen’s view,there were “excellent Colored schools” that had “been maintained for years” in thecities of Columbia, Florence, Sumter, Marion, Darlington, Newberry, Greenville,and Greenwood. However, he drew a clear distinction between those schools andthe schools that served the great majority of the Black population elsewhere inthe state. Swearingen maintained that “the contrast between these schools and theNegro schools in the country is most striking,” and he concluded that educationalopportunity was a motive in the shifting demographics. “This contrast helps toexplain the exodus of Negroes from the farm. Many are crowding into the townsto secure better school advantages for their children.” Using these statements asa foundation, Swearingen argued for a continuance and enlargement of the dis-cretionary apportionment: “If illiteracy is ever removed from South Carolina, itmust be removed from nearly one-quarter of a million Colored adults. It is easierand cheaper to teach the children of these illiterates than to teach their parents”(Fifty-Second Annual Report 1920, 18).

Sadly and frustratingly, South Carolinians were not fully prepared to improvethe lot of all races; education did not improve much over the following yearsfor African American students. Racial rhetoric accordingly shaped Swearingen’s1921 discussion of the illiteracy problem in South Carolina in the simple lament:“Every handicap clogging the development of our State rests heavily upon theNegro. Illiteracy, disease, crime and poverty can not be greatly reduced, much lessremoved, until literacy, health and industry are given to the Blacks. Verily for us,this is the White man’s burden” (Fifty-Fourth Annual Report 1922, 36).

By the end of his term in 1922, no superintendent of the first half of the 20thcentury had a greater impact on the funding of the public schools of the state.Swearingen increased state funding more in pure dollars and percentage growththan any superintendent who held office between 1907 and 1940 (Dreyfuss 1997;see Table 3).

TABLE 3State Spending and Increases Under Swearingen and Immediately After

White Black

Year Spending Increase $ Increase% Spending Increase $ Increase%

1907 $1,148,474 $267,2501923 $11,561,850 $10,413,376 90.0 $1,400,151 $1,132,901 80.91940 $14,417,449 $2,855,599 19.8 $1,769,868 $369,717 20.9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of W

yom

ing

Libr

arie

s] a

t 16:

46 0

1 Ju

ne 2

015

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 239

Beyond funding, Swearingen’s legacy in improving Black schools of SouthCarolina include two other major issues: finding positive ways to use Northernphilanthropy to improve the schools, and bringing about awareness of the issuesfacing Black schools and how those issues impacted the state as a whole. Inthis regard, it can be argued that Swearingen foresaw, in part, the very notionof “interest convergence” explained by Derrick Bell (1980), that “the interest ofBlacks in achieving racial equality will be accommodated only when it convergeswith the interests of Whites” so long as the means of such achievements doesnot threaten “the superior social status of middle- and upper-class Whites” (95).Ultimately, Swearingen sided with justices that would come 30 years after thatprogress could only be made so long as it appeared inoffensive to White-dominantsociety or “counted among the interests deemed important” (Bell 1980, 95).

Swearingen’s efforts, however much or however nominal their eventual out-come, provided White society its means of making enough progress that they feltsomething had been done to improve the situation for African Americans withouttoppling the status quo. In retrospect, it was actually quite a socio-political bal-ancing act achieved by Swearingen—however, one that would prove ultimatelyunsuccessful in the purest of political explanations.

THE UNDOING OF A CAREER IN PUBLIC SERVICE

At the end of his term, Swearingen provided a typically understated assessment ofthe gains made among African Americans in “Public Schools of South CarolinaDuring the Administration of J.E. Swearingen 1909–1923”

The population of South Carolina was 53% Negro and 47% White. The Negroes wereone generation removed from slavery. About half of them were illiterate. A StateSupervisor of Negro Schools was appointed through the cooperation of the GeneralEducation Board of New York. This policy was severely criticized, but it has broughtgeneral improvement in the Colored schools. This is clearly shown by the springingup of high schools for Negroes, although the opening of the first Colored high schoolprovoked much criticism. (John E. Swearingen Papers, box 4, folder 95)

Swearingen was understating things when he said his stance on African Amer-ican education “provoked criticism;” in fact, his outspokenness regarding AfricanAmerican education led to his eventual career downfall. In 1922, Swearingen de-cided to run for governor. Having campaigned every 2 years for the previous 12,Swearingen had the means and machinery in place to win the election. However,he decided to withdraw from the race shortly before the election. Swearingen’sson, John Jr., maintained in a November 1, 2002 unpublished interview that hisfather withdrew when he was informed that the Ku Klux Klan would oppose his

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of W

yom

ing

Libr

arie

s] a

t 16:

46 0

1 Ju

ne 2

015

240 JANAK AND MORAN

candidacy (tape 1, side 1). Although there is no direct evidence this occurred,several items of circumstantial evidence seemingly bear out the son’s belief.

First, the best man at Swearingen’s wedding was Congressman J. J. McSwain,who as previously described, was at least casually involved with the Klan. It couldhave—indeed, was likely to have—been McSwain who was a participant in astory recounted by Mary Swearingen in her 1950 memoir, A Gallant Journey: Mr.Swearingen and His Family. She tells the following story, adding more credenceto the Klan opposition theory: “I remember the night before his withdrawal, agroup of men visited him. He had always considered them friends. They urgedthat he withdraw from the governor’s race because the ‘cards have been stackedagainst you’“ (M. Swearingen 1950, p. 114). If it was McSwain among this group,it would also provide a likely explanation as to why the Klan would wait to showtheir resistance to Swearingen: He was somewhat under McSwain’s protection.

Just two pages earlier, Mary also recounts Klan opposition to her husband interms of his refusal to play politics with his position. “He never considered thepolitical effects of his decisions,” she recalled. “When the KKK accused him ofgiving teacher certificates to Catholics, Jews, and Negroes, he said frankly, ‘Ofcourse I do. What do you expect me to do? Break the law to suit prejudice?’“ (M.Swearingen 1950, 112). It seems reasonable to conclude that the most outspokenadvocate for African American educational rights would have earned the wrathof the Klan regardless—or particularly because—of family standing. More likelythan being under McSwain’s protection, the Klan was probably perfectly contentto allow the blind superintendent to make his public declarations and modest stepsas State Superintendent, a position that wielded little to no actual power other thanthe bully pulpit in the state. However, when Swearingen stepped out of that smallbox, the Klan likely felt compelled to act.

Swearingen’s previous clashes with Coleman Blease also returned to hauntthe educational visionary. Blease would have been Swearingen’s opponent inthe gubernatorial race, and it was to Blease’s delight that Swearingen with-drew. Blease quickly began supporting the candidate running against Swearin-gen for State Superintendent, launching into what could understatedly be calleda smear campaign. Swearingen’s integrity, honesty, and even faith were calledinto question, and Blease used Swearingen’s rebuttals out of context, releasingthem to the press or slipping them into his speeches as examples of perceivedattacks.

Even the millworkers, for whom Swearingen had advocated tremendously,turned against him at Blease’s instigations. In many respects, Blease was the heroof the millworker, and Bleaseism appealed to the spirit of the White working class.Tapping into senses as disparate as appealing to Whiteness and masculinity, as wellas a healthy mistrust of government and the seemingly aristocratic politicians whoran it, the millworkers were manipulated by Blease’s rhetoric.13 In later personalcorrespondence to family friend Sophie Rasor (September 19, 1922), Swearingen

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of W

yom

ing

Libr

arie

s] a

t 16:

46 0

1 Ju

ne 2

015

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 241

noted that the millworker vote went against him approximately three to one (JohnE. Swearingen Papers, box 3, folder 84).

Just as the wave of reform-minded spirit crested and receded across the nation,Swearingen lost the election. It is ironic that the man who, in a letter to news-paper editors of South Carolina (April 14,1908), wrote that politics was not hisprofession and described the office of State Superintendent as being “educationalrather than political” (John E. Swearingen Papers, box 2, folder 58); who led themost progressive reform period in South Carolina, if not the South’s, educationalexperience of the time, was ultimately undone by politics. He remained out of thepublic eye the remainder of his life, only reemerging twice: first to get a statuededicated to his uncle, Benjamin Tillman, erected on the grounds of the capi-tol building in Columbia; second to unsuccessfully campaign in 1930 for StateSuperintendent against the man who defeated him in 1922.

SWEARINGEN AND EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY

It would be easy to attribute Swearingen’s motivations toward improving schoolingfor the marginalized populations of South Carolina as political in nature. As thenephew of Pitchfork Ben, and avid follower e of the Congressional Quarterly, anoutspoken opponent of Bleaseism, an agitator amongst the state’s legislators whowas almost as frequently found under the capital dome as in his office, much ofSwearingen’s life would seem to substantiate this belief. All we have to counter itis the man’s own words:

I have entered the race for state Superintendent of Education because I wish thehonor and privilege of working for the development of our public schools. Politicsis not my profession, but I have always cherished the ambition to serve my nativeState. . . . The office is one of dignity and importance. It is educational rather thanpolitical. (“John E Swearingen: Candidate” 1908, italics added)

The question of why Swearingen became such an advocate of African Americaneducation is one for which there is no conclusive answer. It may be attributable tothe fact that he had first-hand knowledge of discrimination, based on his blindness,causing him to doubt social norms, or perhaps it stemmed from a desire to prove hismasculinity, in contrast to the feminized view that society at the time had of peoplewith disabilities. It may simply be that he was one of the most enlightened publicfigures in South Carolina in the early decades of the 20th century. Whatever thereason, Swearingen’s determination to address the inequities of South Carolina’ssegregated school system proved to be almost prophetic.

Although there is no immediate link between Swearingen and the issues of seg-regation and transportation that later emerged in Clarendon County, the parallels

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of W

yom

ing

Libr

arie

s] a

t 16:

46 0

1 Ju

ne 2

015

242 JANAK AND MORAN

between Swearingen’s concerns and the eventual legalities are striking. Indeed,his concerns regarding some of the most glaring inadequacies and inequalities inthe African American schools foreshadowed the legal challenges to segregatededucation that the state faced in the 1940s and 1950s. In particular, the pivotalcases that emerged out of Clarendon County dealt with issues, which had troubledSwearingen some 30 years earlier. Swearingen had noted that the transportationof students in South Carolina would begin as soon as the state and school districtsobtained the revenue necessary to underwrite such a program. Commenting thatthis trend was “growing in favor” with districts, Swearingen cited 72 districts in 29counties that used 119 vehicles to transport 16,015 students. Swearingen opinedthat the transportation of students by the schools gave “satisfaction to teachers,pupils, and patrons.” He also predicted, with characteristic optimism, that “thewider use of transportation, like so many other progressive tendencies within theschools, simply waits for increased school revenues” (Forty-Ninth Annual Report1917, 26).

However, like so many other issues relating to the public schools during thisperiod, even school transportation was broken along racial lines. As schools inSouth Carolina were providing transportation for their White students at districtexpense, as differentiated by Anderson (1988), African American school studentswere another matter completely: “Unlike for White children, southern state andlocal governments refused to provide transportation for Black children” (150).One example cited by Anderson explained that local African American parentsraised private funds to purchase a school bus, as the local district wouldn’t providea bus. This refusal came even in light of many students having to leave their homesby 6 a.m. to get to school on time, and many students suffered from overexposureto cold weather.

Swearingen knew that districts could not consolidate and enlarge schools un-less pupils could get to these schools, and that state-supported funding was thebest solution. When, in 1916, he predicted that the transportation of studentswould occur as soon as schools obtained the revenue, his prediction proved that,although a product of his racist society, Swearingen could craft policies that were,particularly for his time, advantageous for African Americans: Swearingen calledfor transportation of public school students both African American and Whiteequally. Despite his support for an equitable system of school transportation, whatdeveloped in South Carolina was patently unequal.

Across the South, as school districts began to provide transportation for Whitestudents at public expense, most state and local governments refused to providebuses for Black children. South Carolina was no exception. In 1946, the state ofSouth Carolina spent $1,887,233 busing White students, but just $46,574 trans-porting African American children (Seventy-Eighth Annual Report 1946). Somecounties spent nothing at all on busing for Black students, reasoning that taxescollected from White citizens should not be used to support the segregated Black

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of W

yom

ing

Libr

arie

s] a

t 16:

46 0

1 Ju

ne 2

015

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 243

schools. In Clarendon County, although the school district operated 30 buses forWhite children, none had ever been provided for African American students (Irons2002, 48).

Such a development would surely have troubled Swearingen both because ofthe blatant inequality of the arrangement but also because it clearly defied thelaw. Indeed, the initial legal challenge to separate but equal education in Claren-don County hinged on the school district’s refusal to provide buses for AfricanAmerican students. Although that case was subsequently dismissed, as the Blackplaintiffs were pressured to drop the suit, it is a noteworthy example of Swearin-gen’s convictions regarding educational equity and his foresight concerning equalprotection of the laws. Moreover, Swearingen’s recommendation 30 years ear-lier that both Black and White children benefit equally from the transportationissue was crucial to his larger objectives of improving Black education generallyin South Carolina. To be sure, there were other substantial shortcomings in theeducation of South Carolina’s African American children, but one of the majorobstacles for many students was distance. If nothing else, providing buses wouldhave advanced Swearingen’s designs of improving the accessibility of educationfor thousands of African American children.

Swearingen’s efforts to promote greater equity in South Carolina’s segregatedschool system also touched upon a second legal challenge filed in ClarendonCounty. With the dismissal of the school bus case, a new group of African Ameri-can plaintiffs filed suit alleging that the White schools of Clarendon County weresuperior to those provided for African American students in terms of facilities,curricula, and in other material respects. Styled as Briggs v. Elliott, the suit high-lighted many of the inequalities of the segregated school system that Swearingenhad consistently addressed in his annual reports more than 3 decades earlier. In1949, Clarendon County maintained 61 schools for 6,531 African American stu-dents and 12 for the county’s 2,375 White students. The school district placedthe total value of the Black schools, the great majority of which were dilapidatedone-room structures, at roughly $195,000. By contrast, the 12 schools for Whitechildren were valued at almost $675,000, despite the fact that these facilitiesserved about one-third as many students as the African American schools (Kluger2004, 8). Furthermore, the school district spent $179 for each White student, just$43 for each Black student (Irons 2002, 51). Moreover, the Black schools were insession about 1 month less than White schools, had far fewer curricular options forstudents, and were generally staffed with teachers who had less formal educationthan was true of their White counterparts (DeCosta 1947).

Each of these disparities clearly defied separate but equal, and by 1950 theUnited States Supreme Court had begun to rigorously examine whether segre-gated Black schools were, in fact, substantially equal to those provided for Whitestudents. In Sweatt v. Painter, the Court found that the makeshift law schoolhastily established by the University of Texas for a single Black student denied

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of W

yom

ing

Libr

arie

s] a

t 16:

46 0

1 Ju

ne 2

015

244 JANAK AND MORAN

the African American plaintiff of equal educational opportunities, as comparedto White law students. In arriving at the decision, the Court carefully comparedthe two schools and unanimously found that the African American law schoolwas inferior to the White law school in terms of facilities, as well as a host ofother intangibles. Sweatt v. Painter marked the first time that the Court found that aBlack plaintiff had been denied equal educational opportunity in a separate school.Of equal importance was the precedent established in the Court’s careful analysisof the substantial equality of separate schools, which, given the long history ofthoroughly neglecting African American schools, placed the entire structure ofsegregated education across the South in jeopardy.

To meet the Court’s new standard, southern states faced the monumental task ofimproving segregated Black schools to a level of substantive equality in compar-ison to the facilities provided for White students. Following the Sweatt decision,South Carolina governor James F. Byrnes observed that, “to meet this situationwe are forced to do now what we should have been doing for the past fifty years,”and the legislature responded by appropriating $75 million to improve the state’sAfrican American schools (Woodward 1974, 145–146). Ironically, what Byrnesand the South Carolina legislature approved in 1951 was precisely what JohnSwearingen had lobbied for more than 30 years earlier.

As early as 1912, Swearingen had voiced his opposition to the practice ofdiscriminatory funding for African American schools and the gross inequalities interms of facilities that resulted from districts appropriating three or four times asmuch money to White schools. A few years later, he addressed the disparities in theschool term, teacher qualifications, and curricula, advocating identical standardsfor all of the state’s schools. Furthermore, in 1920 Swearingen secured passage ofa special appropriation from the state legislature, albeit just $20,000, earmarkedfor the improvement of African American schools. Long before the United StatesSupreme Court or other public officials in South Carolina acknowledged thatAfrican American schools were obviously inferior to those provided for Whitestudents, Swearingen advocated change. True, he grossly underestimated just howsubstantial a commitment was required to even begin bringing the quality of Blackschool facilities to a level comparable to White schools. Nevertheless, his actionsdemonstrated foresight and are an accurate reflection of both Swearingen’s senseof fairness and his understanding of equal educational opportunity, as well as hiscommitment to improve the quality of black education generally.

CONCLUSIONS

George Counts once queried, by way of introduction to his 1929 Inglis Lecture,“When in the year 2000 the historian writes his account of the period throughwhich we are now passing, how, I often wonder, will he appraise the various

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of W

yom

ing

Libr

arie

s] a

t 16:

46 0

1 Ju

ne 2

015

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 245

educational tendencies of our generation?” The historian, Counts said, would “seeus in the strange fantastic industrial society repeating formulae handed down froman agrarian age when we should be searching with tireless effort for formulae suitedto the world as it is” (1–2). In many ways, Counts’ description is accurate. It is alsoan apt summary of Swearingen’s tenure as State Superintendent. However, whatCounts’ critique did not account for was the strong social and political mores facingthe United States generally, and South Carolina specifically, during this period. Itwould be easy for a contemporary reader to maintain that Swearingen’s policiesdid not do enough for African American education. Such an argument, however,does not take into consideration either the political nature of Swearingen’s officeor the historical context of South Carolina in the early 20th century, nor does itadequately credit a man who challenged the boundaries of accepted society at thetime.

In fact, Swearingen’s contemporaries in the African American communityviewed his time in office with high praise. No greater testament to Swearingen’sefforts to assist the African American population can be used than that of JohnBurgess, a young African American man who was on the road to earning teachercertification upon Swearingen’s election loss. On September 16, 1922, he wrote:

This letter, together with others and expressions made to you and about you will ina measure express my gratitude to you for the interest you have manifested in theeducation of the Colored people of South Carolina in general and Marion Countyin particular. I want you to feel that in me you have a friend that will ever cherishyour good work. It is with regret that I noted your defeat, but you have begun a greatwork. The man that will follow you will not have as hard a road to travel as you had,for you have made the way easier. To have been a teacher in South Carolina underyou for 15 years has been a pleasure that I shall never forget.

I had looked forward to the day when I would hold a High School Certificatesigned by you. Mr. Dominick told me that in the last examination I was low in twosubjects. I am going to pass the next one in October so that I will have the honorof holding a certificate to teach in the high schools of South Carolina signed by theState Superintendent of South Carolina under whom the educational movement ofthe state was really and truly vitalized. I pray that whatever you may do after youleave your present office that God’s richest blessings will be upon you and that willcontinue to guide you as I believe he had done in the past. (John E. SwearingenPapers, box 3, folder 88)

Swearingen accepted the dual educational system as the framework for edu-cation in South Carolina, nevertheless, he worked within that structure to pursuegreater equality of educational opportunities for African American children. Al-though his accomplishments were rather meager during his tenure, he established

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of W

yom

ing

Libr

arie

s] a

t 16:

46 0

1 Ju

ne 2

015

246 JANAK AND MORAN

a climate in which more equitable funding and the improvement of African Ameri-can schools, as well as identical standards for all of the state’s schools, were at leasta part of the discussion surrounding South Carolina’s educational system. In hisfinal Annual Report, Swearingen explained that he had tried to do what he couldfor African-American students, but reminded all that the work was just beginning:“Our White folk and Black folk must work together if the State is to be health[sic], educated, intelligent, God fearing, self-supporting and self-respecting.” Headmitted that he had been “criticized severely” for these efforts, but concludednonetheless that there was still much work to be done: “The Negroes have much tolearn and much to undertake” (Fifty-Fourth Annual Report 1922, 19). In responseto his critics, Swearingen simply explained, such as in his September 18, 1922reply to John Burgess, that he appreciated “the good will of worthy Colored menand women” (John E. Swearingen Papers, box 3, folder 89).

Lamentably, Swearingen’s successors had little inclination to carry on thework he had begun. South Carolina’s segregated Black schools would remainappallingly underfunded for the next 30 years, and the gross inequities of thestate’s segregated school system grew increasingly stark. Although virtually all ofSouth Carolina’s public officials in the first half of the 20th century were contentto neglect the African American schools and avoid a serious appraisal of separatebut equal schools, John Swearingen was not among them. Despite his blindness,Swearingen saw with greater clarity the inequality of the segregated system andendorsed some of the steps necessary to improve the educational opportunitiesof African American students. Nevertheless, his recommendations gained littletraction. Three decades later, the Black schools of Clarendon County were classicexamples of the inequity of segregation, and Briggs v. Eliott was one of the fivecases heard collectively as Brown v. Board of Education that would destroy thefacade of separate but equal education.

Notes

1. The term marginalized cultures refers to groups who have historically been socially,politically, and/or educationally discriminated against in the United States. The most com-mon examples include African Americans, American Indians, Asian Americans, and LatinAmericans.2. Tillman similarly lost use of his left eye to an illness as a student; throughout the rest ofhis life, he was typically photographed in right profile.3. For a more detailed explanation of Tillman’s racism, see Francis B. Simkins (1944).4. It must be noted that, as governor, Hampton ran an unusually clean government. Cashingin the political cache he earned as a decorated Confederate veteran, he took many unpopularstances such as supporting several Black candidates, as well as Black suffrage, and preachingfiscal responsibility. He remained in the governor’s mansion until his successful campaignfor US Senate in 1879, a position he’d hold until 1891.5. According to the 1920 Census, the state was 48.6% White, 51.4% Colored.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of W

yom

ing

Libr

arie

s] a

t 16:

46 0

1 Ju

ne 2

015

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 247

6. Although Hampton campaigned on a slogan of “force without violence”, many of hissupporters took this as a suggestion, not a demand. Part of the Red Shirts’ campaign was topromote violence against African Americans who tried to exercise their social or politicalrights such as voting. There were many riots led by Red Shirts, particularly in the up-country region of the state, home to Swearingen. For further discussion of the New Southspecifically, and the South during this time period generally, see William Cash (1941), J.E. Cooke(1960), Paul Gaston (1967), John Crowe Ransom (1961), and C. Vann Woodward(1968).7. He had applied for, and was granted, temporary admission to Columbia University inNew York City. However, with the death of his father, family finances were tight and hecould not afford to go. He applied for a Fulbright scholarship but, in spite of outstandingletters of recommendation from his professors and the political weight of his uncle, wasdenied the funding—and his opportunity at Columbia.8. This campaign was undertaken mainly by Swearingen’s agent overseeing the mill schools,legendary educator of adult populations in the state Wil Lou Gray.9. For further detail on funding inequities along color lines, see Chapter 6 of James Anderson(1988).10. Although the White public high school had more weeks in the school year (36), theprivate Black Friendship High had a 4-year course of study, compared to three in theWhite Rock Hill High. To further prove the exception of the rule, Friendship employed fivefull-time teachers, compared to Rock Hill’s four.11. Swearingen’s relationship with Northern philanthropic agencies was thorny, con-tentious, and complicated. For a much more rich description, see Janak (2003), Chapter4.12. Rather than end his final term as governor, he resigned with 2 days remaining in histerm rather than have to meet the incoming Progressive, Richard Manning.13. The relationship between the millworkers and populist politicians such as Cole Bleaseis thoroughly and effectively explored in Bryant Simon (1998).

REFERENCES

Anderson, James. 1988. The Education of Blacks in the South 1860–1935. Chapel Hill: University ofNorth Carolina Press.

Angus, David and Mirel, Jeffrey. 1999. The Failed Promise of the American High School 1890–1995.New York: Teacher’s College Press.

Bainbridge, James. February 24, 2004. KKK made sporadic appearances in greenville. The GreenvilleNews, p.CC1.

Bell, Derrick. 1980. Brown and the Interest-convergence dilemma. In Shades of Brown: New Perspec-tives on School Desegregation, 90–106. New York: Teacher’s College Press.

Blease, Coleman L. (1911–1915). Letters to State Officials (1912–14). Governor’s Papers. Columbia:South Carolina State Archives.

Bond, Horace Mann. 1934. The Education of the Negro in the American Social Order. New York:Prentice-Hall.

Bullock, Henry A. 1967. A History of Negro Education in the South, From 1619 to the Present.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Burnside, Ronald. 1964. Racism in the administrations of Governor Cole Blease. In The Proceedingsfrom the South Carolina Historical Association. Columbia: State Printers.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of W

yom

ing

Libr

arie

s] a

t 16:

46 0

1 Ju

ne 2

015

248 JANAK AND MORAN

Cash, William. 1941. Of quandary—And the birth of a dream. In The Mind of the South, 185–191.Garden City, NJ: Vintage Books.

Cooke, J. E. 1960. The new south. In Essays in American Historiography, Papers Presented in Honorof Allan Nevins, ed. Donald Sheehan, 50–80. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.

Counts, George S. 1929. The Inglis Lecture: Secondary Education and Industrialism. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

DeCosta, Frank A. 1947. The education of Negroes in South Carolina. Journal of Negro Education,16(3): 405–416.

Dreyfuss, James V. 1997. John Eldred Swearingen: Superintendent of Education in South Carolina1909–1922. Columbia, SC: College of Education.

Edgar Walter. 1998. South Carolina: A History. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.Fiftieth Annual Report of the South Carolina State Superintendent of Education. 1918. Columbia, SC:

State Printers.Fifty-First Annual Report of the South Carolina State Superintendent of Education. 1919. Columbia,

SC: State Printers.Fifty-Fourth Annual Report of the South Carolina State Superintendent of Education. 1922. Columbia,

SC: State Printers.Fifty-Second Annual Report of the South Carolina State Superintendent of Education. 1920. Columbia,

SC: State Printers.Fifty-Third Annual Report of the South Carolina State Superintendent of Education. 1921. Columbia,

SC: State Printers.Fitch, George. June 14, 1916. South Carolina as seen by a Yankee. In Tillman, Benjamin Ryan.

Manuscripts—Political Collections. Incoming Correspondence: Box 50, folder 717. Clemson, SC:Robert Muldrow Cooper Library, Special Collections.

Fletcher, John Gould. 1962. Education, past and present. In I’ll Take My Stand: The South and theAgrarian Tradition, ed. Susan V. Donaldson, pp. 92–121. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State UniversityPress.

Forty-First Annual Report of the South Carolina State Superintendent of Education. 1909. Columbia,SC: State Printers.

Forty-Fourth Annual Report of the South Carolina State Superintendent of Education. 1912. Columbia,SC: State Printers.

Forty-Ninth Annual Report of the South Carolina State Superintendent of Education. 1917. Columbia,SC: State Printers.

Forty-Seventh Annual Report of the South Carolina State Superintendent of Education. 1915. Columbia,SC: State Printers.

Forty-Sixth Annual Report of the South Carolina State Superintendent of Education. 1914. Columbia,SC: State Printers.

Forty-Third Annual Report of the South Carolina State Superintendent of Education. 1913. Columbia,SC: State Printers.

Gaston, Paul. 1967. The ‘New South’. In Writing Southern History: Essays in Historiography inHonor of Fletcher M. Green, eds. A. Link, & W. P. Rembert, 316–336. Baton Rouge: LouisianaState University Press.

Gray, Wil Lou and Swearingen, John E. 1920. Midsummer Drive Against Illiteracy for White People.Columbia, SC: State Printers.

Hemphill, J. C. November 3, 1918. Southern Negro’s status after war: Reconstruction era followingclose of world conflict to demand section’s best thought for proper solution. The State: 22.

Irons, Peter. 2002. Jim Crow’s Children: The Broken Promise of the Brown Decision. New York:Viking.

Janak, Edward. (2003). John Eldred Swearingen and the Development of the Public High School inSouth Carolina. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation: University of South Carolina, Columbia.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of W

yom

ing

Libr

arie

s] a

t 16:

46 0

1 Ju

ne 2

015

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 249

“John E Swearingen: Candidate for State Superintendent of Education.” 1908. John E. SwearingenPapers, Legal Box, folder 9. Columbia, SC: South Caroliniana Library.

Kluger, Richard. 2004. Simple Justice: The History of Brown v. Board of Education and Black America’sStruggle for Equality. New York: Viking Press.

Martin, Charles J. 1949. The History and Development of Negro Education in South Carolina.Columbia, SC: State Department of Education Printing.

“Mayesville Educational & Industrial School 1902–1919”. Series 1: Appropriations; Subseries 1: TheEarly Southern Program. General Education Board Archives. New York: Rockefeller University.

Ransom, John Crowe. 1961. Reconstructed but unregenerate. In I’ll Take My Stand: The South and theAgrarian Tradition, 17–27. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.

Seventy-Eighth Annual Report of the State Superintendent of Education to the State of South Carolina.1946. Columbia, SC: State Printers.

Simkins, Frances. 1944. Pitchfork Ben Tillman: South Carolinian. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: StateUniversity Press.

Simon, Bryant. 1998. A Fabric of Defeat: The Politics of South Carolina Millhands 1910–1948. ChapelHill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

Swearingen, John E. Papers. Columbia, SC: South Carolina Library.Swearingen, John E. Jr. November 1, 2002. Unpublished interview. Chicago, IL.Swearingen, Mary Hough. 1950. A Gallant Journey: Mr. Swearingen and His Family. Columbia:

University of South Carolina Press:Tillman, B.R. 1908. Address: The Negro Problem and Immigration Delivered by Invitation Before the

South Carolina House of Representatives. January 24, 1908. Columbia: Gonzales and Ryan, StatePrinters.

United States Census Data. 2002. University of Virginia Census Information. [Online data]. AvailableFTP: Hostname: virginia.edu Directory:fisher.lib File: cgi-local/censusbin/census/cen.pl.

Watkins, William H. (2001). The White Architects of Black Education: Ideology and Power in America,1865–1954. New York: Teachers College Press.

Woodward, C. Vann. 1968. A southern critique for the gilded age. In The Burden of Southern History,83–103. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1968.

———. 1974. The Strange Career of Jim Crow (rev. 3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of W

yom

ing

Libr

arie

s] a

t 16:

46 0

1 Ju

ne 2

015