In Re: Campaign of Senator Bilbo Brief Submitted by the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party

    BRIEF SUBMITTED BY THE MISSISSIPPI FREEDOM 
DEMOCRATIC PARTY

For The Consideration of

CREDENTIALS SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE DEMO­
CRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, THE DEMO­
CRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, CREDENTIALS 
COMMITTEE OF THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL 
CONVENTION, DELEGATES TO THE DEMOCRATIC 
NATIONAL CONVENTION.

Prepared by:
Joseph L. Rauh , Jk.

Assisted by 
E leanor K . H olmes 
H. M iles Jappe



INDEX

INTRODUCTION .....................................................................  1
STATEMENT OF FA C TS.. ...................................................  5

I. W HY THE MISSISSIPPI FREEDOM DEMO­
CRATIC PARTY WAS FORM ED............................. 5
A. Negroes Have Traditionally Been Excluded From All

Participation in the Mississippi Democratic P a rty .. 5
(i) Party Runs State...................................................  5

(ii) Party Prevents Negro Registration.................... 6
(iii) Total Exclusion of Negroes.........................   11
(iv) Conclusion .................................................  13

B. The Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party Desires
to Work Within the Framework of the National 
Democratic Party...........................................................  14

II. ORGANIZATION AND OPERATION OF THE MIS­
SISSIPPI FREEDOM DEMOCRATIC PA R TY .......... 15

(i) Freedom Party Formed.......................................  15
(ii) Freedom Party Follows Law ...............................  15

(iii) Freedom Party Convention........ ................. . 18
(iv) Freedom Party Delegates Certified.................... 20

III. OPERATION OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEMOCRATIC
PARTY ................................................................................  21

(i) “ Traditional”  Party Asserts Independence. . . . .  21
(ii) “ Traditional”  Party Opposes National Platform 22

(iii) “ Traditional”  Party Attacks National Leaders 23
(iv) “ Traditional” Party Villifies Negroes................ 26
(v) “ Traditional” Party for Goldwater...............    31

(vi) Twenty Years of Political Perfidy...................... 32
(vii) “ Traditional” Party Leaders Duck Convention 33

(viii) Conclusion ............................................................. 34

Page

— 2216-0



11 INDEX

LEGAL ARGUMENTS FOR SEATING MISSISSIPPI 
FREEDOM DEMOCRATIC PA R TY .............................  36

I. THE RULES OF THE CONVENTION FORBID 
THE SEATING OF THE “ TRADITIONAL” MIS­
SISSIPPI DEMOCRATIC PARTY DELEGATION.. 36

A. Paragraph (1) of the Rules Forbids the Seating of the
Delegation of the “ Traditional”  Party Because That 
Party Has Not and Can Not Give the Required As­
surances Concerning the November Ballot................ 37

B. Paragraph (2) of the Rules of the Convention For­
bids the Seating of the Delegation of the “ Tradi­
tional”  Party Because the Delegates Do Not Come 
as “Bona Fide Democrats” Willing to “ Participate in
the Convention in Good Faith” .................................  43

II. THE DELEGATION OF THE “ TRADITIONAL” 
PARTY SHOULD NOT BE SEATED BECAUSE 
THE STATE CONVENTION WHICH SELECTED 
AND CERTIFIED IT WAS ILLEGAL AND UN­
CONSTITUTIONAL .........................................................  47

A. The Convention of the “ Traditional” Party Was
Illegal and Unconstitutional Because That Party 
Runs the State of Mississippi and Uses Its Power to 
Exclude Negroes From Registration and Participa­
tion in the Political Processes of the State.............. 47

B. The “ Traditional”  Party and Its Convention Are 
Regulated in Detail By the State and Its Actions in 
Excluding Negroes Are State Action in Violation of
the Fourteenth Amendment.........................................  50

Page



INDEX

HI. ANY FAIR COMPARISON OF THE TWO PARTIES 
CAN, IN LAW AND IN EQUITY, LEAD ONLY TO 
THE SEATING OF THE DELEGATION REPRE­
SENTING THE FREEDOM PARTY .......................... 53

A. The Standard to Govern Convention Action Is Which
of the Two Groups Exhibits Good Faith to the Na­
tional Party and Carries on Its Activities Openly and 
Fairly ..............................................................................  56

B. The Freedom Party Delegation Must Be Seated
Under Any Standard Relating to Fairness and Good 
Faith ...............................................................................  60

CONCLUSION ........................................................................... 62
APPENDIX A .................................................................   63
APPENDIX B ...........................................................................  67
APPENDIX C ...........................................................................  72

T able of Cases

Bell v. Hill, 74 S.W. 2d 113, 123 Tex. 531 (1934).................. 48
Cain v. Page, 42 S.W. 336, 19 K.L.R. 977 (1897).................. 2
Davis v. Hambrick, 58 S.W. 779, 109 Ky. 276 (1900).......... 1
Davis v. State, 23 So. 2d 87, 156 Fla. 178 (1945).................. 47
Kearns v. Ilowley, 41 A. 273, 188 Pa. 116 (1898)..................  2
Nixon v. Condon, 286 U.S. 73 (1932).......................................  47
Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536 (1927)...................................  47
Phelps v. Piper, 67 N.W. 755, 48 Neb. 724 (1896).................. 1
Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952).............................................  37
Ray v. Gardner, 57 So. 2d 824, 257 Ala. 168 (1952).............. 58
Re Woodworth, 16 N.Y. Supp. 147 (1891).............................  57
Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944)........................47,48,49
Smith v. McQueen, 166 So. 788, 232 Ala. 90 (1936)...... 1
Spencer v. Maloney, 62 Pac. 850, 28 Colo. 38 ( 1900 ) . . . . . . .  57
State v. Hogan, 62 Pac. 583, 24 Mont. 383 (1900)......... 57,58
State v. Johnson, 46 Pac. 533, 18 Mont. 548 (1896)......  58,59
State v. Rotwitt, 46 Pac. 370, 18 Mont. 502........... ..............  58,59
State v. Weston, 70 Pac. 519, 27 Mont. 185 (1902)................ 58

Page



IV INDEX

Stephenson v. Board of Election Commissioners, 76 N.W. 914,
118 Mich. 396 (1898)...............................................................  56

Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461 (1953).......................................  47,49
Tonis v. Board of Regents of XJ. of State of New York, 295

N.Y. 286, 67 N.E. 2d 245 (1946).........................................  44
United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941)........................ 47
Wood v. State, 169 Miss. 790, 142 So. 747 (1932).................  1

M iscellaneous

Address by Judge Tom Brady to the Commonwealth Club of
; California at San Francisco, Oct. 4, 1957.............................  30

Annotation, 151 A.L.R. 1121.....................................................  52
Bfady, Tom P., Black Monday (1955) pp. 12, 73, 69............ 29,30
Cannon, Democratic Manual for the Democratic National

Convention of 1964, PP- 15, 35.............................................  5,37
18 Am. Jur., Elections, §§ 135, 136........................................... 2,57
18 U.S.C. 241, 242......................................................................... 53
Holtzman, The Loyalty Pledge Controversy in the Demo­

cratic Party, 1960, p. 21...........................................................  44,45
Law Enforcement in Mississippi, a Special Report of the
' Southern Regional Council, July 14, 1964...........................  3,52
Life Magazine, February 7, 1964, p. 4 .....................................  27
Mississippi Code...................................................................8,10, 50, 51
Mississippi Free Press, April 18, 1964, p. 1, 4 . .......................  8
Mississippi—Subversion of the Right to Vote, Pamphlet of 
1 the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, Atlanta,
V-Georgia..............................................................................  9
Official Proceedings of the Democratic National Convention,

1956, p. 822.......................    45
Platform and Principles of the Mississippi Freedom Demo­

cratic Party............................................................................... 19, 63
Report on Mississippi, January, 1963, p. 23...........................  10
Report of the United States Commission mi Civil Rights,
0-1963, p. 2 0 . . . ..........i ............. ......................... .......................  6

Page



INDEX V

Page
Resolution of the Democratic National Committee contained 

in February 26, 1964 Call for the 1964 Democratic Na­
tional Convention..................................................................... 2

Silver, James W., The Closed Society (1963), p. 60.............. 26,31
The Citizen, Official Journal of the Citizens’ Councils of

America, December, 1963, p. 10.............................................  29
The Johnson Journal, Vol. I l l ,  1963, p. 1...............................  21
Time Magazine, August 16, 1963, p. 17...................................  23



BRIEF SUBMITTED BY
THE MISSISSIPPI FREEDOM DEMOCRATIC PARTY

Introduction

The question whether to seat the delegation of the Mis­
sissippi Freedom Democratic Party or the delegation of 
the “ regular”  or “ traditional”  Mississippi Democratic 
Party may well prove the most significant contest before 
the Democratic National Convention of 1964. For the issue 
is not simply which of two groups wears shiny badges of 
accreditation, but, far more fundamentally, whether the 
National Democratic Party takes its place with the op­
pressed Negroes of Mississippi or their white oppressors, 
with those loyal to the National Democratic Party or those 
who have spewed hatred upon President Kennedy and 
President Johnson and the principles to which they dedi­
cated their lives. In the final analysis, the issue is one of 
principle: whether the National Democratic Party, the 
greatest political instrument for human progress in the 
history of our nation, shall walk backward with the bigoted 
power structure of Mississippi or stride ahead with those 
who would build the State and the Nation in the image of 
the Democratic Party’s greatest leaders—Thomas Jeffer­
son, Andrew Jackson, and Franklin D. Roosevelt.

This is a legal brief and as such will cover both the facts 
and the law. But the legal precedents are necessarily lim­
ited, for the courts of this country have many times made 
clear that they will not decide political questions or inter­
vene in disputes between rival delegations seeking recogni­
tion at a party convention.1 This Convention and only this 1

1 Davis v. Hambrack, 58 S.W. 779, 109 Ky. 276 (1900); Phelps v. 
Piper, 67 N.W. 755, 48 Neb. 724 (1896); Smith v. McQueen, 166 So. 
788, 232 Ala. 90 (1936); Wood v. State, 142 So. 747, 169 Miss. 790 
(1932).

(1)



2

Convention can decide who are the proper delegates per­
mitted to join in its deliberations.2 3 As Governor Paul B. 
Johnson said in his keynote address to the Mississippi 
Democratic Party Convention on July 28, 1964, the ques­
tion of which delegation to seat “ is a decision that the 
National Party will have to make.”  And this was also 
conceded ten days earlier by Mississippi Democratic Party 
Chairman, Bidwell Adam, who said that the National Con­
vention ‘ 4 * * could seat them [Freedom Party] if they wanted 
to . . . They could seat a dozen dead dodos brought there 
in silver caskets and nobody could do anything about it.”  8 
Without appreciating Mr. Adam’s analogy, the principle is 
clear beyond peradventure of doubt that this Convention is 
the court of last resort.

But the sparsity of legal precedents does not mean an 
absence of legal principles and guideposts to assist the 
Convention in arriving at its choice between two rival 
delegations. We believe that the rules of the Convention 
and accepted legal principles, as applied to the facts of 
this dispute, demonstrate overwhelmingly that the only 
valid decision this Convention can make—both in law and 
in equity—is to seat the delegation duly chosen by the 
state convention of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic 
Party on August 6, 1964.

The Freedom delegation comes as “ bona fide Democrats 
who have the interests, welfare and success of the Demo­
cratic Party at heart, and will participate in the Conven­
tion in good faith . . J We come as volunteers to lend sup­

2 18 Am. Jur., Elections, §136; Cain v. Page, 42 S.W. 336, 19 
K.L.R. 977 (1897); Kearns v. Howley, 41 A. 273, 188 Pa. 116 (1898).

3 New York Times, July 20, 1964, p. 21.
4 Resolution of the Democratic National Committee contained in

February 26, 1964 Call For the 1964 Democratic National Con­
vention.



3

port to the nominees of this Convention and to spread the 
principles and platform of the Democratic Party. We come 
as representatives of a functioning political organization; 
for this and other reasons 5 6 7 8 the challenge of the Freedom 
Party has no counterpart anywhere else in the South. And 
we come with the support of State Democratic Conventions 
or State Democratic Committees of California, Colorado, 
District of Columbia, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, 
New York, Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin who have 
recognized the legality of our position and the justice of 
our cause.

The “ traditional”  Mississippi delegation does not come 
as “ bona fide Democrats”  willing to “ participate in the 
Convention in good faith . . .6 The delegates to the state 
convention of the Mississippi Democratic Party on July 
28th arrived in cars bearing Goldwater bumper stickers,7 
“ openly voiced themselves during recess and prior to the 
convention being called to order, as favoring the candidacy 
of Senator Barry Goldwater, ’ ’ 8 adopted a Goldwater plat­
form,9 and then recessed until September 9 “ for the purpose 
of allowing the Convention to swing to Goldwater . . . ” 10 11 
This recess is the regular short interlude which takes place 
once every 4 years to attend the National Convention while 
the rest of the time is spent in calling President Kennedy 
a “ dimwit” 11 and President Johnson a “ counterfeit con­

5 See Law Enforcement in Mississippi, a Special Report of the 
Southern Regional Council, July 14, 1964, which concluded that 
Mississippi is “ not like any place else” (p. 6).

6 See n. 4, supra.
7 New York Times, July 29, 1964, p. 18.
8 Jackson Clarion-Ledger, July 29, 1964, p. 18.
9 See pp. 22 to 23, infra.
10 Jackson Clarion-Ledger, July 29, 1964, p. 18.
11 See p. 24, infra.



4

federate.” 12 13 Indeed, it is not clear why the “ traditional”  
Party leaders should even want to send delegates to the 
Convention of a national party from which they regularly 
declare their independence and to which they continuously 
profess deep-seated animosity. Quite likely it is because 
they do not want any other group—e.g. the Mississippi 
Freedom Democratic Party—to function in Mississippi as 
the representative of the National Party. Obviously, this 
strategy of fighting against the National Party and still 
not allowing any other group to represent it in Mississippi 
is what Governor Johnson had in mind when, in his key­
note to the July 28th state convention, he said “ this is a 
time . . . for carefully-designed strategy . . . for judiciously- 
chosen words.”  But no matter how “ judiciously-chosen”  
the words, the “ carefully-designed strategy”  is one of “ bad 
faith”  to the National Democratic Party.

We are not only willing to serve the National Democratic 
Party here and in Mississippi, we assert our right and 
our determination to do so. We hope that the delegates of 
the Freedom Party may be placed on the temporary rolls 
of the Convention by the Democratic National Committee 
or Subcommittee 1S and that the contest may end at that 
point. If it does not, we hope that a majority of the Cre­
dentials Committee of the Convention will determine that 
the Freedom Party be placed on the permanent rolls of the

12 See p. 25, infra.
13 The Democratic National Committee has always heard chal­

lenges prior to determining which of two groups should he placed on 
the temporary rolls. For example, the Credentials Subcommittee of 
the Democratic National Committee heard the dispute over which 
Puerto Rican delegation should be seated in 1960 prior to the 
National Committee’s action on the temporary rolls. Certainly the 
challenge made by the Freedom Party is at least as significant to 
the future of the Democratic Party as that made by the Puerto Rican 
rivals in 1960.



5

Convention. But if unsuccessful there, too, we are deter­
mined to put our case before the delegates themselves.14 
We are confident that the assembled representatives of this 
great, liberal Party will not turn its back on those who 
have sacrificed so much to support it.

STATEMENT OF FACTS 

I

WHY THE MISSISSIPPI FREEDOM DEMOCRATIC 
PARTY WAS FORMED

A. Negroes Have Traditionally Been Excluded From All 
Participation in the Mississippi Democratic Party

(i) Party Runs State. The Mississippi Democratic 
Party runs the State of Mississippi. It controls the Legis­
lative, Executive and Judicial Branches of the Government 
of the State. All 49 Senators and all but one of the 122 
Representatives are Democrats. There is no substantial 
Republican Party; there is no third party. There is just 
the Mississippi Democratic Party and its leaders are the 
State. As Governor Johnson said in his keynote to the 
“ traditional”  state convention, the Mississippi Democratic 
Party “ holds all but a handful of the elective and appoint­
ive offices, from constable to governor . . . for the past 89

14 We understand that 10% of the 108-member Credentials Com­
mittee or eleven members may file a minority report (Cannon, 
Democratic Manual far the Democratic National Convention of 
1964, p. 35) and that a majority of eight State delegations may 
obtain a roll call (Id., p. 54). We are sending a copy of this Brief to 
Speaker John McCormack, the Permanent Chairman of the Con­
vention, and to Senator John 0. Pastore, the Temporary Chairman 
of the Convention, and are calling their attention to this footnote, 
so that they may be advised of the intentions of the Freedom Party 
and may in turn advise us if they have any different construction of 
the rules of the Convention.



6

years, [it] is the framework, or the structure, through 
which Mississippians maintain political unity, and operate 
self-government. ’ ’

(ii) Party prevents Negro Registration. The Missis­
sippi Democratic Party uses its powers to exclude Ne­
groes from registering and voting. Though Negroes rep­
resent over 40% of the State’s population, all voter regis­
trars in Mississippi are white. Today only some 28,500 
Negroes are registered in Mississippi, as compared to 
500,000 whites. This represents only 6.7% of the 435,000 
Negroes 21 years of age in the State; this 6.7% should he 
compared with 39.1% in Georgia, 51.1% in Florida and 
57.7% in Texas, and even Governor Wallace’s Alabama has 
over three times as high a percentage of registered Negroes 
as does Mississippi.15 While Negro registration in other 
Southern States increased sharply in recent months and 
years,16 Mississippi went in the other direction; “ the best 
estimate of 1962 registration indicates a drop in registra­
tion of 534.”  17

Keeping Negroes from registering and voting has been 
accomplished in a myriad of ways. The legislature and the 
white voter registrars have combined to make an obstacle 
course out of the simple process of registration. A series 
of state laws culminating in 1962 gives unlimited discre­
tion to the white registrars to find that Negro applicants 
cannot interpret the constitution, cannot understand the 
obligations of citizenship, are not of good moral character,

15 See report of Southern Regional Council for complete study 
of Negro registration in South. Washington Post, Aug. 3, 1964, p. 2.

16 Ibid. For example, in the two years ending this past April, 
Negro registration in South Carolina increased by 32,140—more 
than the total Mississippi Negro registration.

17 Report of the United States Commission on Civil Rights— 1963,
p. 20.



7

etc. As Professor Russell H. Barrett of the University of 
Mississippi said in a recent speech:

“ First, the whole pattern of voting requirements 
and of the registration form is calculated to make the 
process appear to the voter to be a hopelessly for­
midable one. The pattern is supposed to bristle with 
complexities which culminate in the publication of the 
would-be voter’s name in the local newspaper for two 
weeks. A major purpose of all this is to so overwhelm 
the voter that he will not have the audacity even to 
attempt registration. Behind this approach is supposed 
to be—and all too often is—a collection of fears that 
someone will challenge the voter’s moral character, 
that he may be prosecuted for perjury, or that he may 
be subjected to economic or other pressures if he 
attempts to register. Those who have for years con­
trolled state politics assume that this fear will be a 
powerful weapon against voter registration, yet the 
plain fact is that it is by far the most vulnerable of 
their defenses . . .

“ A second important point is that the law provides 
no clear or meaningful standards for its highly general 
requirements. These now familiar generalities require 
the voter to be able to explain any section of the con­
stitution, to describe the obligations of citizenship, and 
to demonstrate to the Circuit Clerk that he is good 
moral character. It is clear that those requirements 
were stated vaguely for one simple reason, to permit 
the Registrar to apply different standards to different 
people.

“ . • • it is worth quoting what was said in 1955 by 
the man who was then President of the Mississippi Cir­
cuit Clerks’ Association, Rubel Phillips. In complain­
ing about the burden placed by the new law on circuit



clerks, lie said, ‘ Many clerks feel the law is discrimi­
natory and that a burden is placed on them to dis­
franchise many persons who have been voting for 
years. . . . Lawyers with less than 10 years of experi­
ence probably wouldn’t be able to answer the questions 
properly . . . ’ ”  18

If the Negro finally does surmount all these hurdles, 
cruel economic harassment follows. Jobs are lost, credit 
withdrawn, supplies refused. Indeed, the 1962 Mississippi 
law expressly provides for publication of the names and 
addresses of applicants in the newspapers, enabling eco­
nomic pressure to be applied during the registration 
process.19

If the Negro should be able to run the registration obstacle 
course and brave the economic reprisals, dangers to life 
and limb are very real.

* In 1955, Lamar Smith, a Negro, was killed after 
urging other Negroes to vote in a gubernatorial elec­
tion. He was shot to death on the Brookhaven, Miss., 
courthouse lawn. A grand jury refused to indict the 
three men who were charged with the slaying.

* In 1961, Herbert Lee, a Negro active in voter regis­
tration activities in Liberty, Miss., was shot to death 
by a member of the Mississippi State Legislature. 
Representative E. E. Hurst, a Citizens’ Council mem­
ber, was vindicated by the coroner’s jury, which ruled 
the murder a “ justifiable homicide.”

* In 1964, a witness to the Lee killing, Louis Allen, 
was shot to death near his home. Allen had been 
harassed by local police officials several times since

18 Mississippi Free Press, April 18, 1964, p. 1, 4.
19 Mississippi Code, § 3212.7, approved May 26, 1962. See also 

Washington Daily News, August 12, 1964, p. 27.



9

the Lee killing. Local authorities there say they have 
not come up with any clues in the Allen killing.

* In 1962, Mrs. Fannie Lou Hamer of Euleville, Miss., 
Vice Chairman of the Freedom Party delegation here, 
was fired from her plantation job, where she had 
worked for 18 years, the same day she had gone to 
the county courthouse to attempt to register. The 
plantation owner informed her that she had to leave 
if she didn’t withdraw her application for regis­
tration.

* Leonard Davis of Euleville was a sanitation worker 
for the city until 1962, when he was told by Euleville 
Mayor Charles M. Dorrough, “ W e’re going to let 
you go. Your wife’s been attending that school.”  
Dorrough was referring to the Student Nonviolent 
Coordinating Committee registration school in Eule­
ville.

* Marylene Burkes and Vivian Hillet of Euleville were 
severely wounded when an unidentified assailant fired 
a rifle through the window of Miss Hillet’s grand­
parents’ home. The grandparents had been active 
in voter registration work.

* In Eankin County in 1963, the sheriff and two deputies 
assaulted three Negroes in the courthouse who were 
applying to register, driving the three out before 
they could finish the forms.

* In Philadelphia, Mississippi, in 1964, three students, 
part of the 1964 summer registration drive, were 
killed.20

20 Mississippi—Subversion of the Right to Vote, Pamphlet of the 
Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, Atlanta, Georgia, 
1964. This pamphlet reports each of the above examples except 
the last—which requires no documentation.



10

In the words of the Mississippi Advisory Committee to 
the United States Commission on Civil Eights, a body com­
posed entirely of Mississippians, “ terror hangs over the 
Negro in Mississippi and is an expectancy for those who 
refuse to accept their color as a badge of inferiority. ’ ’ 21 
And the Southern Eegional Council, a body composed en­
tirely of Southerners, recently documented “ the almost 
unrestrained lawlessness which is permitted within the 
state against one class of people.” 22

Strange as it may seem, even obstacle course registra­
tion, intense economic pressure and frightening terror are 
not all. The statutes of Mississippi provide that “ No person 
shall be eligible to participate in any primary election unless 
he . . .  is in accord with the statement of the principles of 
the party holding such primary, which principles shall have 
been declared by the state convention of the party holding 
the primary . . . ” 23 And, carrying this out, the 1960 Plat­
form and Principles of the Mississippi Democratic Party 
adopted June 30, 1960, provides:

“ We hold as a prerequisite to voting in the Missis­
sippi Democratic Primaries, or otherwise participating 
in the affairs of the Mississippi State Democratic Party, 
that the voter shall subscribe to the principles and plat­
form of the party, and shall thereby repudiate his 
affiliation with any other party whatsoever, and affirm 
his allegiance to the Democratic Party of the State of 
Mississippi and to its principles and platform.”

Probably the single most sacred principle of the Missis­
sippi Democratic Party is segregation. The 1960 Platform 
provides:

21 Report on Mississippi, January, 1963, p. 23.
22 See n. 5, supra.
28 Mississippi Code, §3129.



11

“ We believe in the segregation of the races and are 
unalterably opposed to the repeal or modification of 
the segregation laws of this State, and we condemn 
integration and the practice of non-segregation.”

The resolution at the 1964 State Convention on July 28 
provides:

“ We believe in separation of the races in all phases 
of our society. It is our belief that the separation of the 
races is necessary for the peace and tranquility of all 
the people of Mississippi and the continuing good rela­
tionship which has existed over the years.”

In a nutshell, the Mississippi Democratic Party makes a 
belief in segregation a prerequisite to participation in its 
affairs and thus in the political life and government of the 
State. A  Negro’s mere belief in his own dignity and the 
United States Constitution makes him ineligible to partici­
pate in the political processes of Mississippi.

(iii) Total Exclusion of Negroes. Never was the exclu­
sion of Negroes more successfully carried on than in the 
selection of the delegation representing the Mississippi 
Democratic Party at this Convention.

Negroes in several parts of Mississippi attempted to 
attend the June 16th precinct meetings of the “ traditional”  
Party. These meetings, in which all registered voters are 
theoretically entitled to participate, form the base of a pyra­
mid which culminates in the Democratic State Convention. 
It is in the course of this series of meetings (precinct, 
county and state conventions) that state party officials and 
National Convention delegates are elected. In this Presi­
dential election year the registered Negroes, though few in 
number, were fighting not only for their right to be included 
in the Party, but also to insure that the State Party would



1 2

remain loyal to the candidates of the National Democratic 
Party in November. To accomplish this, they pressed for the 
election of delegates who shared their views, as well as for 
the adoption of resolutions affirming loyalty to the national 
ticket.

The amount of Negro activity in the precinct meetings was 
sharply circumscribed at the outset by the outstanding fact 
of Mississippi politics: the almost complete disfranchise­
ment of Negro voters. The climate of fear that pervades the 
state acted as a further check: a sworn affidavit from a resi­
dent of Neshoba County, for example, explains that no Ne­
groes went to precinct meetings there ‘ because it was im­
possible . . .  to make the attempt . . . without suffering- 
great economic and physical harm.” 24 This is, of course, 
the county where the three students were killed in June.

But despite the obstacles, many Negroes did attempt to 
participate in the precinct, county and state conventions. 
To no avail.

In many precincts Negroes went to their polling stations 
before the time designated by statute for the precinct meet­
ings (10:00 AM), but were unable to find any evidence 
of a meeting. Inquiries addressed to public officials proved 
futile: some officials denied knowledge of any meeting, 
others claimed that the meeting had already taken place. 
In these precincts Negroes proceeded to hold their own meet­
ings and elected their own delegates to the county conven­
tions. In other precincts Negroes found the white precinct 
meetings, hut were excluded. In Hattiesburg Negroes were 
told that they could not participate without poll tax receipts, 
despite the recent Constitutional amendment outlawing such 
requirements. In still other precincts Negroes were allowed 
to attend the meetings, but were restricted in some way

24 This and other affidavits referred to are in the possession of 
the counsel for the Freedom Party.



13

from exercising their full rights: some were not allowed 
to vote, some were not allowed to nominate delegates from 
the floor, others were not allowed to take part in choosing 
those who tallied the votes. In several meetings the Negroes 
were unable to introduce their resolution calling for loyalty 
to the National Party; in others they were unable to bring 
their “ loyalty”  resolutions to a vote; and in the three 
instances where “ loyalty”  resolutions were brought to a 
vote, they were overwhelmingly defeated.

On June 23,1964, Negroes tried to take part in the second 
level of Democratic Party meetings, the county conventions. 
Most of them had been elected delegates to the county level 
by all-Negro precinct meetings. One, however, was a dele­
gate from a multi-racial meeting in Jackson. In Madison 
county, Negro delegates were excluded by a claim that the 
meeting was of the County Executive Committee (not a 
convention) and was thus open only to members. In Le­
flore county, the white convention officials refused to recog­
nize the Negroes’ credentials. In Washington county, Negro 
delegates were not allowed to participate meaningfully-— 
the meeting refused even to consider their resolution of 
loyalty to the National Democratic Party. And so on.25

By the time the apex of the pyramid was reached—the 
state convention—there was not a single Negro delegate in 
a state with 435,000 Negroes of voting age. The exclusion 
was complete. Furthermore, and possibly even more signifi­
cant here, there was not a single delegate to the state con­
vention, white or black, willing even to offer a resolution 
of support for the National Democratic Party.

(iv) Conclusion. There has not been a single Negro 
State office holder in Mississippi since 1892—the inevitable

25 The facts concerning the precinct and county conventions are 
documented by affidavits and statements in the possession of the 
counsel for the Freedom Party.



14

result of this total exclusion from the political process. 
Negroes have been harassed and brutalized by the officials 
of a state wholly controlled by the “ traditional”  Demo­
cratic Party. Yet, despite the hopelessness and tragedy of 
their position, the Negroes of Mississippi have maintained 
their belief in the democratic process and in the Democratic 
Party.

B. The Mississipi Freedom Democratic Party Desires to 
Work Within the Framework of the National 

Democratic Party

At its convention on August 6,1964, the Mississippi Free­
dom Democratic Party unanimously resolved that, “ We 
deem ourselves part and parcel of the National Democratic 
Party and proudly announce our adherence to it. We affirm 
our belief that the National Democratic Platform of recent 
years has been a great liberal manifesto dedicated to the 
best interest of the people of our Nation of all races, creeds 
and colors.”

These were not just words to bring to this Convention. 
Those who organized the Freedom Party had a deep dedi­
cation to the National Democratic Party. They did not 
seek an alliance with Eepublicans; they did not try to form 
a third party. They sought and still seek to be a part of 
the National Democratic Party.

Indeed, earlier this year and despite the obstacles that 
have been outlined above and more, the Freedom Party ran 
candidates in the June 2nd Democratic primary. Mrs. 
Victoria Gray, Freedom Party National Committeewoman, 
opposed Senator John Stennis; Mrs. Fannie Lou Hamer, 
likewise a Freedom delegate, opposed Representative Jamie 
L. Whitten; the Reverend John Cameron opposed Repre­
sentative William M. Colmer; and Mr. James Houston 
opposed Representative John Bell Williams. Defeat cannot



15

blur this very real effort to work within the framework of 
the Democratic Party.

These primary candidates of the Freedom Party ran on 
the Platform of the National Democratic Party. They 
articulated the needs of all the people of Mississippi, such 
as anti-poverty programs, medicare, aid to education, rural 
development, urban renewal, civil rights. They identified 
themselves with the National Party and its leaders. They 
demonstrated, even before the August 6th Freedom Party 
state convention, that they were “ part and parcel of the 
National Democratic Party.”

*  #  #  =K= *  #  . #

That is the story of why the Mississippi Freedom Demo­
cratic Party was formed—because the Negroes of Missis­
sippi, totally excluded from political life by the Mississippi 
Democratic Party, nevertheless made their choice to work 
within the framework of the National Democratic Party. 
Now we turn from why the Mississippi Freedom Democratic 
Party was formed, to its organization and its operation.

II

ORGANIZATION AND OPERATION OF THE 
MISSISSIPPI FREEDOM DEMOCRATIC PARTY

(i) Freedom Party Formed. The Mississippi Freedom 
Democratic Party was officially established at a meeting in 
Jackson, Mississippi, on April 26, 1964. The 200 to 300 
delegates present elected a temporary state executive com­
mittee of 12 persons and the committee met regularly there­
after. The Party is open to all Democrats in Mississippi 
of voting age, regardless of race, creed or color.

(ii) Freedom Party Follows Law. The Mississippi 
Freedom Democratic Party has made every possible



16

effort to follow the laws of Mississippi regulating political 
parties.

* It prepared a Freedom Registration Form and en­
rolled voters into the Freedom Party. As of the 
moment of the completion of this Brief, over 50,000 
Mississippi residents of voting age were registered 
in the Freedom Party. Rev. Robert Spike, Executive 
Director of the Commission on Race and Religion of 
the National Council of Churches, described the 
Freedom Registration as “ a remarkable achievement 
in the face of the most serious obstacles.” 26

* During the weeks of July 19 and 26, 1964, there were 
precinct meetings in 26 counties throughout the State 
of Mississippi. An estimated total of 3500 persons 
participated in these meetings.

■* During the week of July 27, 1964, county conven­
tions were held in 35 counties at which a total of 282 
delegates were elected to the state convention. In 9 
of the 35 counties the Freedom Party was unable to 
hold precinct meetings in the precincts because of 
various forms of harassment; instead, the precinct 
meetings were held immediately preceding the county 
conventions.

* Some county meetings in addition to the 35 were held 
in Jackson, since holding them in the proper coun- 28

28 In November, 1963, 83,000 Mississippi citizens, largely Negroes 
barred from the “ traditional'’ Party, voted for Mr. Aaron Henry 
(Chairman of the Freedom delegation here) for Governor in a mock 
election. Only the cruelest harassment prevented the Freedom Party 
from doubling that figure in the present registration. The type of 
harassment ranged from the murder of the three boys in Philadelphia 
down to the beating of two Freedom registration workers driving a 
truck containing Freedom registration forms.



17

ties would have endangered lives. Neshoba county, 
with the county seat at Philadelphia, Mississippi, was 
an example of such a county.

* On August 6, 1964, 240 delegates assembled at the 
Freedom Party state convention in Jackson to elect 
the officers of the Freedom Party, choose the dele­
gation to this Convention and adopt a Platform and 
Principles.

* Efforts were made to register the Freedom Party 
with the Secretary of State of Mississippi both before 
and after the state convention of August 6th, but all 
such efforts were rebuffed.

The figures on Freedom Party registration and the at­
tendance at precinct and county conventions demonstrate 
the seriousness with which the Party has gone at its task 
of organizing a state party to serve the National Party. And 
all of this was accomplished in the face of ugly harass­
ment and intimidation.

Harassment took a variety of forms. Bequests made in 
Sunflower County, Lauderdale County, and Madison County 
for maps or descriptions of precinct boundaries were not 
even answered. Attempts to publicize precinct meetings as 
required by state law proved futile as newspapers and radio 
stations refused to print the advertisements or to announce 
them. In some areas of the state it was felt that the meet­
ings could not be safely publicized as earlier announcements 
had led to bombings or attempted burnings in Pike County. 
In Leake County a radio station requested the Party to 
withdraw- its announcement. The manager of the station, 
displaying letters from the mayor, the chief of police, and 
the sheriff, feared reprisals against the property of the 
station as well as the families of the employees of the sta­



18

tion. Meeting's were often followed by arrests of local par­
ticipants for minor driving offenses or interrogation of 
those who had attended. In one case, a truck carrying 
Freedom Registration forms was detained for over a day, 
two of its occupants taken to jail and beaten and two other 
of its occupants told to start walking back to Jackson. 
These incidents only complemented the continual harass­
ment of the Party. In one day, June 24, 1964, the Jackson 
office of the Council of Federated Organizations reported 
16 incidents of intimidation or violence, and other days in 
which ten or more such incidents were reported were not 
uncommon.27.

(iii) Freedom Party Convention. The Freedom Party 
convention of August 6 democratically elected a National 
Committeeman (Rev. Edwin King), a National Committee- 
woman (Mrs. Victoria Gray), 44 delegates and 22 alter­
nates to the Convention. They are honorable, hard-work­
ing and loyal Mississippians; 28 their names are set forth in 
Appendix B, but addresses and biographies, in the posses­
sion of counsel, are withheld for reasons of personal safety. 
Many of them are making great personal sacrifices to attend 
this Convention; they do so because of their deep dedication 
to the liberal principles of the National Democratic Party.29

The delegates to the state convention unanimously ex­

27 The facts concerning harassment and intimidation are docu­
mented by affidavits and statements in the possession of the Counsel 
for the Freedom Party.

28 The delegation has 64 Negroes and 4 whites. The Party is open 
to all Democrats, and the number of whites on the delegation was 
limited solely by the number willing to brave certain reprisal.

29 By secret ballot, as required by Mississippi statute, Mr. Aaron 
Henry and Mrs. Fannie Lou Hamer were elected Chairman and 
Vice Chairman of the delegation, respectively. Mrs. Annie Devine 
was elected Secretary.



19

pressed their dedication to the National Party in the fol­
lowing Statement of Loyalty:

“ As members of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic 
Party:

“ 1. "We undertake to assure that voters of the State 
of Mississippi will have the opportunity to cast their 
election ballots for President Lyndon B. Johnson and 
the Vice Presidential nominee selected by the Demo­
cratic National Convention at Atlantic City, and for 
electors pledged formally or in good conscience to the 
election of President Johnson and the Vice Presiden­
tial nominee, under the Democratic Party label and 
designation.

“ 2. We go farther than the above undertaking re­
quired by the rules of the Democratic National Con­
vention and pledge to work dauntlessly for the election 
of President Lyndon B. Johnson and the Vice Presi­
dential nominee selected by the Atlantic City con­
vention.

“ 3. We deem ourselves part and parcel of the Na­
tional Democratic Party and proudly announce our 
adherence to it.

“ 4. We affirm our belief that the National Demo­
cratic Platform of recent years has been a great liberal 
manifesto dedicated to the best interest of the people 
of our Nation of all races, creeds, and colors. We will 
proudly support the 1964 platform and the 1964 candi­
dates of the Democratic National Party.”

The Convention also adopted a platform supporting full 
employment, collective bargaining, food stamp programs, 
medicare, civil rights, reapportionment, job retraining, an 
anti-poverty program, United Nations, foreign aid, and



20

the Peace Corps. In a word, it identified itself with the 
basic programs and principles of the National Democratic 
Party.30

(iv) Freedom Party Delegates Certified. The Free­
dom Party delegates elected at the August 6th con­
vention were certified to the Chairman, John W. Bailey, 
and the Secretary, Mrs. Dorothy Vredenburgh Bush, 
of the Democratic National Committee that same day and 
the certification was delivered to Mr. Bailey’s office on 
August 7th, the day after the convention. This certification 
was contained in a letter of August 6th from Mr. Lawrence 
Guyot, Chairman of the Freedom Party, to Mr. Bailey, 
requesting that the delegation be seated in place of the 
delegation chosen on July 28th by the Mississippi Demo­
cratic Party. This challenge followed an earlier letter from 
Mr. Aaron Henry, previous chairman of the Freedom Party, 
to Mr. Bailey, dated July 17, 1964, challenging “ the dele­
gation of the ‘ regular’ Democratic Party”  and asserting 
“ the right of the delegation of the Mississippi Freedom 
Democratic Party to be seated at the National Convention 
as the true representative of Mississippi Democrats.”  Mr. 
Bailey was invited in the July 17th letter to attend the state 
convention on August 6th or send an observer, but he was 
not able to do so. The text of the Freedom Party letters of 
July 17th and August 6th are set forth in Appendix B.

30 The Platform and Principles of the Mississippi Freedom Demo­
cratic Party, adopted at the state convention on August 6th, is set 
forth in full in Appendix A.



21

III

OPERATION OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEMOCRATIC
PARTY

(i) “ Traditional”  Party Asserts Independence. Where­
as the Freedom Party has made every effort to work 
within the framework of the National Democratic Party, 
the “ traditional”  Party has been at equal pains to 
demonstrate its independence of the National Party. The 
Mississippi Democratic Party has over and again declared 
in public speeches and printed matter that it is not a part 
of the National Democratic Party. The campaign litera­
ture for the election of Governor Paul B. Johnson, in Novem­
ber of 1963, could not be clearer on this point: ‘ * Our Mis­
sissippi Democratic Party is entirely independent and free 
of the influence or domination of any national party”  . . . 
“ The Mississippi Democratic Party, which long ago sepa­
rated itself from the National Democratic Party, and which 
has fought everything both national parties stand for . . .”  
“ Both the National Democratic Party and the National 
Republican Party are the dedicated enemies of the people 
of Mississippi.”  31 As late as June 25th of this year, Gov­
ernor Johnson announced, “ We haven’t left the National 
Democratic Party, the National Democratic Party has left 
us.” 32 Former Governor Ross Barnett flatly stated that 
“ there is no place for Mississippi today in national Demo­
cratic or Republican parties. ’ ’ 33 Former Governor J. P. 
Coleman said, “ This party has always been separate and 
distinct from the national party.” 34 And Bidwell Adam, 
State Democratic Chairman, publicly announced he was

31 The Johnson Journal, Vol. I ll , 1963, p. 1.
32 Jackson-Clarion-Ledger, June 26, 1964, p. 14.
88 Biloxi-Gulfport Daily Herald, March 26, 1963, p. 1
34 Biloxi-Gulfport Daily Herald, May 10,1963, p. 1.



22

“ through with the National Democratic Party. The Na­
tional Democratic Party will have to get somebody else to 
carry their banner. ’ ’ 35 Governors Coleman, Barnett and 
Johnson and State Chairman Adam, the leaders of the 
“ traditional”  party, may sing a different tune through their 
underlings at this Convention, but they cannot hide the 
words they use in Mississippi—that they will have nothing 
whatever to do with the National Democratic Party.

(ii) “ Traditional”  Party Opposes National Platform. 
The Mississippi Democratic Party has done far more 
than merely shout that it is not a part of the National 
Democratic Party. More fundamentally, it has opposed, and 
today opposes, everything for which the National Party 
stands.

On August 16,1960, after the Kennedy-Johnson ticket was 
nominated, the recessed state convention resolved “ that we 
reject and oppose the platforms of both National Parties 
and their candidates.”  Their leaders—the same leaders 
who are sending a delegation to this Convention—success­
fully campaigned for unpledged electors who cast their votes 
against President John P. Kennedy and Vice President 
Lyndon B. Johnson.

At their state convention just last month the “ tradi­
tional”  Party passed resolution after resolution opposing 
everything which the Democratic National Party has done 
and for which it stands. The state convention called for 
the repeal of the Civil Eights Act of 1964 which it denounced 
“ as a naked grasp for extreme and unconstitutional Fed­
eral power”  and “ a betrayal of the American people.”  It 
favored “ getting the United States out of the United Na­
tions, and the United Nations out of the United States.”  It 
favored limiting the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and 
removing certain of its members. The general philosophy

35 Montgomery Advertiser, September 29, 1962, p. 7A.



23

of the “ traditional”  state convention was probably best 
expressed in the following resolution:

“ We express our admiration, and appreciation of 
Governor Eoss E. Barnett and Governor George C. 
Wallace, of Alabama for their able, courageous, patri­
otic and effective work in awakening the American 
people to the utter necessity of the return of this 
country to true Constitutional Government and indi­
vidual freedom.

“ We are greatly indebted to Governor Wallace for 
his tremendous visit to Mississippi, and he and Gov­
ernor Barnett occupy a permanent place in the heart 
of every true Mississippian. ”  86

(iff) “ Traditional”  Party Attacks National Leaders. 
The violent opposition of the “ traditional”  party to 
the National Democratic leaders is almost too well known 
to repeat in this Brief. Governor Johnson may now speak 
with “ judiciously-chosen”  words so he can get his delega­
tion seated here, but he was not so judicious in his cam­
paign in 1963. Time after time he referred to the “ Ken­
nedy albatross”  around the neck of his opponent or around 
the country’s neck.* 37 Four days before his election, Gov­
ernor Johnson shouted that “ my determination is to do 
anything I can to get the Kennedy dynasty out of the White

86 This resolution sanctifying Governor Wallace only highlights 
the irony of excluding the Alabama delegation (apparently everyone 
agrees to this exclusion), while at the same time even considering 
the seating of the “ traditional” Mississippi delegation. The 20 years 
of political perfidy of the “ traditional” Mississippi Party makes 
the Alabama record seem almost like one of continued loyalty.

37 See e.g. Biloxi-Guljport Daily Herald, July 2, 1963, p. 11; id., 
July 18, 1963, p. 26; Jackson Clarion-Ledger, July 17, 1963, p. 1; 
Time Magazine, August 16, 1963, p. 17.



24

House.” 38 Johnson’s campaign advertisement spoke of 
eliminating ‘ ‘ Kennedyism from our state ” ; 39 he said the 
choice was between “ political dictatorship sponsored by 
John Kennedy”  or constitutional government.40 He said 
that unless President Kennedy is defeated in 1964, “ you’ve 
seen your last free election;” 41 and only this past July 
28th at the state convention, Governor Johnson repeated 
his belief that this “ threatens to be the last free election 
in this fair land.”  Johnson said point number one in his 
program “ will be to spearhead an all-out effort to secure 
cooperation from other governors and leaders to get the 
Kennedys out of the White House” 42—small wonder, too, 
since he had already referred to them as “ dimwits” . 43 An 
official Johnson campaign ad showed a picture of a bed in 
which President Kennedy had slept and then stated: ‘ 4 Make 
sure that Kennedy never sleeps there again . . ,” 44 As 
though to clinch the matter, Governor Johnson’s victory 
statement after his election proclaimed to the voters that 
“ your victory is one over the Kennedys, the Adlai Steven- 
sons and the northern Democratic overlords who also would 
like to destroy our way of life.” 45 And as recently as 
August 13 of this year, the Washington Post reported that 
Governor Johnson laced into the Johnson Administration 
as that “ shifting, vacillating, crawfish government in 
Washington.”

Other spokesmen for the “ regular”  party have also made

38 Jackson Clarion-Ledger, Nov. 2, 1963, p. 8.
39 Biloxi-Gulfport Daily Herald, August 16,1963, p. 9.
40 Biloxi-Gulfport Daily Herald, August 17, 1963, p. 1.
41 Biloxi-Gulfport Daily Herald, Sept. 5, 1963, p. 9.
42 Memphis Commercial Appeal, October 26, 1963, p. 9.
43 Biloxi-Gulfport Daily Herald, July 18, 1963, p. 26.
44 Biloxi-Gulfport Daily Herald, July 9, 1963, p. 6.
45 Jackson Clarion-Ledger, Nov. 7, 1963, p. 1.



25

clear their violent opposition to the National Party’s lead­
ers. Former Governor Eoss Barnett, the true hero of the 
“ traditional”  state convention, has time and again referred 
to President Johnson as a “ counterfeit confederate” . On 
the 4th of July of this year he termed President Johnson 
a “ counterfeit confederate who resigned from the South 
and may one day soon resign from the white race as well 
. . . ”  40 A few days later he said, “ I would vote for Senator 
Goldwater before I would vote for Lyndon Johnson, a coun­
terfeit confederate.” 46 47 And on July 22nd the Clarion- 
Ledger reported from Houston, Texas: “ Calling Lyndon 
Johnson ‘ a counterfeit confederate, ’ Barnett said ‘ he ’ll need 
more than an 87-vote landslide in Texas’ to win the Novem­
ber election.”

Governors Johnson and Barnett have been ably assisted 
by other leaders of the “ traditional”  party in their attacks 
upon Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. Mrs. Florence 
Sillers Ogden of Eosedale, sister of the Speaker of the Mis­
sissippi House of Eepresentatives, “ flayed the Kennedy 
administration and called on America’s woman-power to 
turn back the tide of constitutional destruction which is en­
gulfing the nation . . . Never, never vote for a liberal . . . 
[We stand for] free enterprise and prayer in the schools 
[and oppose] ‘Kennedys, disarmament, and Commu­
nism’ ” 48 Congressman John Bell Williams said that 
“ Kennedy is the most predatory chief executive of all time. 
If we don’t stop him and his brother Bobby, human liberty 
will disappear from this nation and the face of the earth. ’ ’ 49 
Judge Thomas Brady, temporary chairman at the recent 
“ traditional”  state convention, went beyond attacks on

46 Jackson Clarion-Ledger, July 6, 1964, p. 5.
47 Jackson Clarion-Ledger, July 18, 1964, p. 8.
48 Jackson Clarion-Ledger, Jan. 20, 1963, p. 10.
49 Biloxi-Gulfport Daily Herald, July 23, 1963, p. 7.



26

Presidents Johnson and Kennedy and called Speaker Sam 
Rayburn, who presided over Democratic National Con­
ventions more often than any man in history, “ that egg- 
headed man from Texas who is an arch-traitor to the 
South.” 50

Quite possibly a short excerpt from the Jackson Clarion- 
Ledger just after President Kennedy was assassinated best 
sums up the Mississippi “ hate”  campaign against the lead­
ers of the National Democratic Party:

“ At Pascagoula, attorney Robert Oswald resigned 
as president of the Mississippi Young Democrats. ‘ The 
tragic event in Dallas, Texas, in the light of the ‘ Hate 
the Kennedy’ attitude of the leadership of the Missis­
sippi Democratic Party and its present administration 
should require no further explanation for my ac­
tion.’ ” 51

(iv) “ Traditional”  Party Villifies Negroes. This atti­
tude of hatred towards Presidents Kennedy and John­
son, who worked so hard and effectively for civil 
rights, is hardly surprising when one pauses to consider the 
almost barbaric attitude of the leadership of the “ tradi­
tional”  Party to Negro citizens. To seat the delegation of 
Paul B. Johnson and Ross Barnett, while barring the Free­
dom Party from the convention door, would be a deliberate 
insult to the Negroes of America who support the National 
Party at the behest of those who would destroy it.

The undisputed leader of the Mississippi Democratic 
Party is Governor Paul B. Johnson. Mr. Johnson’s attitude 
is, purely and simply, one of bigotry. On July 9, 1963, he 
bragged that “ in the past few years we lost 270,000 good-

50 Silver, James W., The Closed Society (1963), p. 50.
51 Jackson Clarion-Ledger, Nov. 23,1963, p. 5.



27

for-nothing lazy Negroes . . . ” 52 On July 27, 1963, he said 
that Mississippi needs “ an education program to teach some 
of our Negroes that they are wasting their time staying in 
Mississippi.”  53 Along the same lines, he said, “ You can’t 
ask . .. Negro leaders what they want. Y ou . . .  tell ’em what 
they’re going to get.”  54 And in the Citizens Council Maga­
zine for December, 1963, he is quoted as saying: “ I am 
proud to have been part of the resistance last Pall to Mere­
dith’s entrance at Ole Miss” —resistance for which he is 
now under criminal charges for contempt of federal court. 
During his 1963 campaign, he repeatedly said, “ You know 
what the NAACP stands for: Niggers, alligators, apes, 
coons and possums.”  55 And on July 3rd of this year, when 
Governor Johnson was asked if owners of public accommo­
dations should comply with the Civil Eights Act signed by 
President Johnson the day before, he told newsmen, “ I don’t 
think they should.” 56 And a few days later, Johnson re­
fused even to talk with Commerce Secretary Luther Hodges 
and former Governor LeEoy Collins, President Johnson’s 
civil rights relations team.57

Governor Eoss Barnett, Paul Johnson’s co-leader of the 
“ traditional”  Party and his co-defendant in the criminal 
contempt case, has a similar attitude towards Negroes. Only 
last month he cried out, “ Let there be no misunderstanding 
regarding ?ny position and my determination to unflineh-

52 Jackson Clarion-Ledger, July 9, 1963, p. 10.
53 Jackson Clarion-Ledger, July 27, 1963, p. 6.
54 Life Magazine, Feb. 7, 1964, p. 4.
55 Time Magazine, Aug. 16, 1963, p. 17.
56 Jackson Daily News, July 3, 1964, p. 2. Again illustrating how 

Mississippi stands aloof from, the changing South, Governor John­
son’s statement on the Civil Rights Act should be compared with 
that of those numerous other Southern leaders who have called for 
compliance.

57 Jackson Clarion-Ledger, July 8, 1964, p. 1.



28

ingly and steadfastly continue to support Governor Wallace 
as long as he is in the race.” 08 Nothing less could have 
been expected from the Governor, who, like Governor Wal­
lace, was in open and malicious defiance of the Supreme 
Court and the President of the United States. Flatly stat­
ing that “ there is no case in history where the Caucasian 
race has survived social integration,” 58 59 he interposed the 
rights of the Sovereign State of Mississippi against the 
Federal Government. His disregard of constitutional au­
thority impelled President Kennedy to use federal marshals 
and troops so that a single Negro could enter the University 
of Mississippi.

The bigotry of both Governors Barnett and Johnson to­
ward the Negroes of their State is nowhere better evidenced 
than in their successful warfare against public school in­
tegration. Governor Johnson, in a speech to the Citizens 
Council on October 25, 1963, made clear his determination 
to keep Negro children out of white schools at any cost:

“ As your governor, and as a man, I will resist the 
integration of any school anywhere in Mississippi. The 
closing of our schools is not the only answer. We can 
and will maintain a system of segregated schools! When 
local authorities are organized to resist and not sur­
render, your governor has great powers which have not 
yet been used.

“ We learn from our mistakes. I am proud to have 
been part of the resistance last Fall to Meredith’s en­
trance at Ole Miss. Mississippi stirred the admiration 
of the world by her spirited stand against the Federal 
invaders. Yet, it is plain now that we might have done 
more, and should do more the next time. Interposition

58 Jackson Clarion-Ledger, July 18,1964, p. 1.
59 M em phis Commercial Appeal, Sept. 14,1962, p. 1.



29

of your governor’s body between the forces of Federal 
tyranny and bis people, including our children, is a 
price not too great to pay for racial integrity. I pledge 
you here tonight that I am prepared to pay such a price! 
Remember, there is no such thing as ‘ token’ integration. 
So-called ‘ token’ integration is just a break in the levee 
that leads to the flood. ’ ’ 60

What this means in further Mississippi violence only time 
can tell. Federal court orders are already in existence re­
quiring partial integration of schools in Jackson, Biloxi and 
Leake County, Governor Johnson has yet to withdraw the 
position he so vigorously espoused before the Citizens 
Council last fall.

Possibly the most notorious bigot in the leadership of the 
“ traditional”  Party is Judge Thomas Brady, who acted as 
temporary chairman of the “ traditional”  state convention 
on July 28th and is the present “ traditional”  National Com­
mitteeman. He is the author of the famous ‘ ‘Black Monday”  
in which he called for the formation of a 49th state where 
Negroes could be sent and in. which he termed the CIO and 
NAAOP “ Communist-front organizations.” 61 In 1957 in 
an address to a California audience, Brady, who doubles as 
a State Supreme Court Judge, told his audience:

“ I can, however, safely say that based upon the tests 
which are available from World War I, and from per­
sonal experience, there is a vast gulf of difference be­
tween the I. Q. of the Negro of the South, as well as in 
America, and the average white man. It is because of an 
inherent deficiency in mental ability, of psychological 
and temperamental inadequacy. It is because of in­

60 The Citizen, Official Journal of the Citizens’ Councils of 
America, December, 1963, p. 10.

61 Brady, Tom P., Black Monday (1955), p. 73, 69.



30

difference and natural indolence on the part of the 
Negro. All the races of the earth started out at approxi­
mately the same time in God’s calendar, hut of all the 
races that have been on this earth, the Negro race is the 
only race that lacked mental ability and the imagination 
to put its dreams, hopes and thoughts in writing. The 
Negro is the only race that was unable to invent even 
picture writing. ’ ’ 62

Equally degrading to Negroes is this statement by Judge 
Brady:

“ The purpose of this comparison is not to embarrass 
or humiliate anyone. You can dress a chimpanzee, 
housebreak him, and teach him to use a knife and fork, 
but it will take countless generations of evolutionary 
development, if ever, before you can convince him that 
a caterpillar or a cockroach is not a delicacy. Likewise 
the social, political, economic and religious preferences 
of the negro remain close to the caterpillar and the 
cockroach . . .  It is merely a matter of taste. A cock­
roach or caterpillar remains proper food for a chim­
panzee.”  63

In 1960, Judge Brady was the only National Committee­
man who refused to take the loyalty oath required by the 
rules of the Democratic National Convention. He returned 
to Mississippi and supported the unpledged elector slate 
against those pledged to John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. 
Johnson and termed the Democratic Platform “ very similar 
to the Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Repub-

; 62 Address by Judge Tom Brady to the Commonwealth Club of 
California at San Francisco, Oct. 4, 1957.

63 Black Monday, p. 12.



31

lies. . . . ”  64 65 Only recently he called for an economic boycott 
against businessmen who voluntarily comply with the Civil 
Rights A ct.66 Although he has never previously had the 
gall to present his credentials to the Democratic National 
Committee, the “ traditional”  state convention had the 
effrontery to elect him as a delegate to this Convention.00

(v) “ Traditional”  Party for Goldwater. The “ tra­
ditional”  state convention of July 28 showed the true 
colors of that Party in more ways than just electing 
Brady a delegate. The delegates arrived in ears bearing 
Goldwater bumper stickers,67 “ openly voiced themselves 
during recess and prior to the Convention being called to 
order as favoring the candidacy of Senator Barry Gold- 
water”  68 and then recessed until September 9 “ for the pur­
pose of allowing the Convention to swing to Goldwater 
. . ,69 As Richard Corrigan reported to the Washington Post 
from Jackson on August 2, 1964:

‘ ‘ In their convention last week, the Democrats muffled 
their enthusiams for Sen. Goldwater to protect their 
delegation to Atlantic City. They voted to send an un­
instructed delegation and resolved that the national 
convention’s nominees will appear on the ballot here 
next November, come what may.

“ The Jackson convention took these steps to head off

64 Jackson Clarion-Ledger, October 26, I960, p. 14.
65 Jackson Daily News, July 8, 1964, p. 6.
86 Recently, Brady has even announced that he will attend the 

Democratic National Committee meeting prior to the Convention. 
Memphis Commercial Appeal, August 6, 1964, p. 18. Brady’s suc­
cessor as committeeman will be E. K. Collins, who, on Sept. 25, 1962, 
proclaimed: “ We must win this fight regardless of the cost in human 
lives.” Silver, n. 50, p. 118.

67 See n. 7, supra.
68 See n. 8, supra.
69 See n. 10, supra.



32

the challenge of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic 
Party, a bi-racial pro-Johnson organization which will 
try to unseat the regulars at the national convention.

“ When the State convention reconvenes on Sept. 9 
it is expected to endorse Sen. Goldwater.”

But all this was only the final act of 20 years of political 
perfidy by the Mississippi Democratic Party, to which we 
now turn.

(vi) Twenty Tears of Political Perfidy. In 1944, 
the Mississippi State Democratic Convention freed its 
presidential electors from the obligation to vote for the 
National Convention nominees.

In 1948, the Mississippi delegates bolted the National 
Democratic Convention. National committee members and 
other leaders of the Mississippi Democratic Party disasso­
ciated themselves from the National Democratic nominees 
and supported the “ States Rights”  candidates. The Gov­
ernor of Mississippi, Fielding L. Wright, joined the States 
Rights ticket as Vice Presidential nominee and helped cap­
ture the State for Strom Thurmond.

In 1952 and 1956 the Mississippi Democratic Party con­
tinued this guerrilla warfare against the National Party. 
It redoubled its efforts to exclude Negroes loyal to the Na­
tional Party and it “ interposed”  segregation against the 
principles of the National Party. Nevertheless, in both the 
1952 and 1956 National Conventions, the “ regulars”  were 
seated at the expense of loyalist delegations seeking the 
right to support the National Party.

In 1960 the 4 4 traditional ’ ’ state convention recessed so its 
delegation could attend the National Convention. After the 
nomination of President Kennedy and Vice President John­
son, the reconvened state convention rejected these candi­
dates and opposed the platform adopted by the National



33

Party. With the vociferous support of then Governor Bar­
nett, the unpledged electors won the November election and 
all eight Mississippi electorial votes were cast for Senator 
Byrd of Virginia.

In 1964 history is about to repeat. As we have already 
seen, the “ traditional”  convention recessed so it could 
send delegates to this Convention and then reconvene “ for 
the purpose of allowing the [State] Convention to swing to 
Goldwater . . .” 70 Can this Convention blind itself to what 
everybody sees?

(vii) “ Traditional”  Party Leaders Duck Convention. 
The “ traditional”  Party’s contempt for the National Party 
is evidenced once more in the delegation which it is 
sending to this convention. Governor Johnson is not a 
delegate; neither is the Lieutenant Governor, the Attorney 
General, ex-Governor Barnett, ex-Governor Coleman, Sen­
ator Stennis, Senator Eastland, any of the five Congress­
men, or even the Party Chairman. As George Carmack, a 
Scripps-Howard staff writer, reported from Jackson the 
day after the Convention, this is a “ Joe Doakes delega­
tion.”  71

The state convention had obvious reasons for sending a 
“ Joe Doakes delegation. ’ ’ There is no one among the group 
who can be asked to make a pledge to the National Conven­
tion or whose pledge, if asked and given, would bind the 
leaders of the “ traditional”  Party. There is no one to 
pledge the leadership of the Party to support President 
Johnson. There is no one to pledge the leadership to admit 
Negroes to the Party in the future. There are only the 
Joe Doakeses to warm the Mississippi seats at the National 
Convention and thus to keep the Freedom delegates from 
being seated. We believe we have the right to ask whether

70 See n. 10, supra.
71 Washington Daily News. July 29, 1964, p. 7.



34

this Convention is going to prefer the Johnson-Barnett 
minions to loyal Democrats who have been crushed under 
their boots.

(viii) Conclusion. For 20 years, the Mississippi Demo­
cratic Party has not wanted to be a part of the National 
Party. It has claimed its independence of the National 
Party and its leaders have spewed hatred upon the 
candidates and principles of the National Party. Why, 
then, do they come here every four years and ask to 
be seated in the National Party? The answer is not 
far to seek. While the “ traditional”  Party does not 
want to be a part of the National Party, it does not want 
any other group to represent the National Party in Missis­
sippi.72 They want their cake and they want to eat it, 
too. They want the seats at the National Convention (so no 
one else can have them and represent the National Party 
back in Mississippi) and they want to be independent. They 
are engaged in political preclusive buying—they are trying 
to buy the seats at the Convention so the Freedom delegates 
won’t get them, but they don’t want to pay for the seats 
with loyalty to the National Party.

The Democratic Party has permitted this political double 
dealing for two decades. After 20 years, the questions before 
the Convention are becoming clear: Is the National Party 
once again going to seat those who oppose it? Is it going to 
seat the representatives of a recessed state convention that

72 On August 12, 1964, the “ traditional” Party obtained a tem­
porary restraining order forbidding the Freedom Party from using 
the word “ Democratic” in its name. This order is obviously a 
nullity—no state can deny Negroes participation in its Democratic 
Party and then bar them from forming a state group of their own 
to represent the National Democratic Party in that state. More 
significantly here, this is simply another device to keep the National 
Party out of Mississippi.



35

will find a method of supporting Barry Goldwater on Sep­
tember 9? Or is it, at long last, going to seat loyal Demo­
crats ready and willing to support the National Party, its 
candidates and its principles?

We turn now to the legal answers to these questions.*

* The above statement of facts has been reviewed for accuracy 
by Barney Frank, Teaching Fellow in Government and General Edu­
cation at Harvard University, who spent substantial time in Mis­
sissippi collecting facts for the Freedom Party. Many others assisted 
in providing the facts outlined above.



36

LEGAL ARGUMENTS FOR SEATING MISSISSIPPI 
FREEDOM DEMOCRATIC PARTY

I

The Rules of the Convention Forbid the Seating of the 
“ Traditional”  Mississippi Democratic Party Delegation.

The 1956 and 1960 Democratic National Conventions 
adopted the following rules :

“ (1) It is the understanding that a State Demo­
cratic Party, in selecting and certifying delegates to 
the Democratic National Convention, thereby under­
takes to assure that voters in the State will have the 
opportunity to cast their election ballots for the Pres­
idential and Vice Presidential nominees selected by 
said Convention, and for electors pledged formally 
or in good conscience to the election of these Presi­
dential and Vice Presidential nominees, under the 
Democratic Party label and designation;

“ (2) It is understood that the Delegates to the 
Democratic National Convention, when certified by the 
State Democratic Party, are bona fide Democrats who 
have the interests, welfare and success of the Demo­
cratic Party at heart, and will participate in the Con­
vention in good faith, and therefore no additional 
assurances shall be required of Delegates to the Demo­
cratic National Convention in the absence of cre­
dentials contest or challenge. . .”

The Democratic National Committee has recommended 
that the rules quoted above again “ be adopted as rules 
applicable to the 1964 Democratic National Convention.”  
In line with this recommendation, these rules are contained



in the Call for the 1964 Democratic National Convention 
issued by Chairman John M. Bailey on February 26, 
1964.73

These two rules, considered separately or considered 
jointly, prevent the seating of the “ traditional”  Missis­
sippi Democratic Party. We deal with each paragraph 
of the rules separately.

A. Paragraph (1) of the Rules Forbids the Seating of 
the Delegation of the “ Traditional”  Party Because 
That Party Has Not and Can Not Give the Required 
Assurances Concerning the November Ballot.

Paragraph (1) of the rules requires a State Democratic 
Party in certifying delegates to this convention to under­
take to assure that voters in the State will have the op­
portunity to vote for the presidential and vice presidential 
nominees selected by the Convention with pledged electors 
under the Democratic Party label and designation.74 The 
“ traditional”  Democratic Party has not and under the 
laws of Mississippi cannot give this assurance; thus its 
delegation cannot be seated at this Convention.

On March 2, 1963, the Mississippi State Legislature at 
the “ 1st Extraordinary Session of 1963”  amended the 
laws of Mississippi to beep electors pledged to the nominees

73 Cannon, Democratic Manual for the Democratic National Con­
vention of 1964, P- 15.

74 Paragraph (1) of the rules is solidly based on the Constitu­
tion. Where a state authorizes a political party to choose its 
nominees for presidential electors in a state-controlled party pri­
mary election and to fix qualifications for the candidates, it is no 
violation of the Federal Constitution for the party to require the 
candidates for the office of presidential elector to take a pledge 
to support the party’s National Convention choices for President and 
Vice President or for the Party’s officers to refuse to certify as a 
candidate for presidential elector a person otherwise qualified who 
refuses to take such a pledge. Ray v. Blair. 343 U.S. 214 (1952).



38

of the Democratic National Convention off the ballot in 
1964 and to put unpledged electors on the ballot in their 
place. Section 4 of Senate Bill No. 1522 adopted by the 
legislature on that date provides that “ a primary election 
shall be held the first Tuesday in September in the year 
of the general election for President and Vice President 
. . . ”  Section 3 provides that at this September primary 
election there is to be on the ballot a slate of electors sup­
porting the candidates for president and vice president of 
the national political party if 10% of the membership of 
the state convention so determines; also, upon motion sup­
ported by 10% of the membership of the state convention, 
a group of unpledged electors is to be on the primary ballot. 
Under Section 4 “ the group of electors receiving the most 
votes at said [primary] election shall be placed upon the 
ballot in said general election as the electors of the said 
political party in this state, and no other group of electors 
shall be placed upon the said ballot as such electors of the 
said political party in this state.”

The purpose of this 1963 law is as clear as its language— 
to keep electors pledged to the presidential and vice presi­
dential nominees of the national ticket off the ballot. The 
sponsors of the bill described it as an attempt to keep 
Kennedy off the ballot as a Democrat in Mississippi.76 
Under the plan, two sets of electors would be proposed, 
one for the national ticket and one against. Whichever 
set lost would have to run as independents in the final 
presidential election. “ Legislative backers said the move 
would show before election time that Democratic senti­
ment in the state was opposed to the National Administra­
tion . . ,” 7C And the Johnson Journal (Vol. I l l )  in sup- * 78

76 Biloxi-Gulfport Daily Herald, March 26, 1963, p. 1.
78 Biloxi-Gulfport Daily Herald, April 4, 1963, p. 1.



39

porting the candidacy of Paul B. Johnson for Governor 
stated as follows:

“  ‘ The Free Elector Plan is the foundation to future 
political independence for Mississippi and, as your 
governor, I shall utilize my every resource to assure 
the success of this plan.’ Lt. Gov. Paul B. Johnson, 
who steered the enabling legislation to Senate passage 
earlier this year, has made this commitment to the 
the great majority of Mississippians who join with 
him in demanding that the decent, conservative citizens 
of America take the offensive in the national struggle 
against alien ideologies.

“ The Free Elector Plan is designed to withhold the 
electoral votes of several states (17 now have the neces­
sary laws) from the presidential candidates of both 
national political parties so that, in a close contest 
like the 1960 election, these withheld votes would con­
stitute the ‘ balance of power.’ ”

In view of the language and purpose of last year’s 
Mississippi law, it is impossible for the “ traditional”  
State Democratic Party to undertake to assure that Presi­
dent Johnson and his vice presidential running mate will 
be on the ballot in November with pledged electors. On 
the contrary, under existing Mississippi law, President 
Johnson must subject himself to a primary contest under 
the most unfavorable and improbable circumstances. In 
simple terms, the President of the United States and the 
head of the Democratic Party is required to run a primary 
election for the privilege of a place on the ballot under 
the name of his own party. Certainly this is the farthest 
thing from an assurance that he will be placed on the 
ballot with pledged electors. And what happened at the



40

July 28th “ traditional”  state convention in no way changes 
this. Let us examine what did in fact happen there.

To begin with, the “ traditional”  Party adopted a reso­
lution stating that:

“ In keeping with the fair-play of Chapter 32 of 
the Laws of Mississippi of the First Extraordinary 
Session of 1963 providing for one slate of electors to 
support the candidates for President and Vice-Presi­
dent of the National Democratic Party, and a separate 
slate of electors who have announced their purpose 
not to support the said candidates of the National 
Democratic Party, that the voters of Mississippi will 
definitely have the opportunity, in the November, 
1964, General Election, to cast their election ballots 
for the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Nominees 
selected by the National Democratic Party at the 
Atlantic City Convention with electors pledged to sup­
port said Nominees.”

The pledge contained in the above resolution is mean­
ingless under the existing laws of the State of Mississippi. 
Unless electors pledged to President Johnson and his run­
ning mate win the September primary,77 there is no way 
of their getting on the ballot under existing Mississippi 
law. Apparently, Governor Paul Johnson understands 
this very well. Thus he “ said in Ms keynote address [at 
the State Convention] that he was ready to call a special 
session of the Legislature ‘ to make sure that everyone in 
the state has a right to a choice’ in November.”  78

Even Governor Johnson now recognizes that, under the

77 It now appears unlikely that there will even be a September 
primary as required by law.

78 New York Times, July 29, 1964, p. 18.



41

existing laws of Mississippi, President Johnson and his 
running mate will not be on the ballot in November with 
pledged electors. He therefore promised to call a special 
session of the legislature to get President Johnson on the 
ballot. But he has not done it. The significant point is 
that the Governor, after saying he would call a special 
session of the legislature to change the law of Mississippi, 
has failed to do so and there is nothing to stop the recon­
vened convention of September 9th. from reversing the 
meaningless pledge it gave at its July 28tli Convention.

Furthermore, and equally importantly, the resolution of 
the “ traditional”  Party quoted above is not in conform­
ance with paragraph (1) of the rules. Paragraph (1) re­
quires that there be assurance that the presidential and 
vice presidential nominees will be on the ballot with 
pledged electors “ under the Democratic Party label and 
designation.’ ’ The resolution of the “ traditional”  Party 
does not mention “ under the Democratic Party label and 
designation” ; that resolution would be fully met if the 
electors for President Johnson and his running mate were 
placed on the ballot as independents, but this would, of 
course, wholly fail to satisfy paragraph (1) of the rules.

Nor can this refusal to promise to put the electors for 
President Johnson and his running mate on the ballot 
“ under the Democratic Party label and designation”  pos­
sibly be considered an oversight. Paragraph (1) of the 
rules is crystal clear. The Freedom Party with no real 
experience in politics followed the rule with precision (see 
p. 19, supra). The “ traditional”  Party had a reason 
for leaving out this part of the pledge—they wanted to 
find a way of letting Mississippians vote Democratic and 
still not vote for President Johnson. Consequently, they 
decided to withhold the Democratic Party label and desig­
nation from President Johnson, so they could use it for



42

unpledged electors or for electors pledged to Senator 
Goldwater.

As pointed out earlier in this Brief, Mississippi is send­
ing a Joe Doakes delegation which can pledge nothing as 
far as the leadership of the “ traditional”  Party is con­
cerned. Thus, any pledge by the delegates at this Con­
vention to put the electors for President Johnson and his 
running mate “ under the Democratic Party label and des­
ignation”  would be meaningless. What is more, such a 
pledge would be worthless for the “ traditional”  Party 
violated the pledge it gave four years ago on this same 
point. At that time, in accordance with the rules of the 
National Convention, the “ traditional”  Party undertook 
to assure that the electors for President Kennedy and 
Vice President Johnson would be on the ballot “ under 
the Democratic Party label and designation.”  After mak­
ing this pledge, the “ traditional”  Party put two slates of 
electors on the ballot under the designation of “ the Demo­
cratic Party of the State of Mississippi” —one pledged to 
Kennedy-Johns on and one unpledged. In other words, 
after promising to give the nominees of the 1960 Conven­
tion the benefit of the Party label, it added a slate of un­
pledged electors under that Party label and thus rendered 
the label worthless in violation of its pledge under para­
graph (1) of the rules. As if to compound their infrac­
tion of the rules, the Mississippi “ traditional”  Party lead­
ers then supported the unpledged slate as the real Demo­
cratic Party of the State of Mississippi.

This is the situation as the Democratic Convention meets 
at Atlantic City: the laws of Mississippi prevent Presi­
dent Johnson and his running mate from being on the 
ballot with pledged electors; the Governor promises a spe­
cial session, but does not call it and instead awaits a 
reconvened session of the state convention to determine



43

Ms course. The state convention adopts a resolution which 
is meaningless under the laws of Mississippi and which 
does not meet the rules because it does not promise the 
Party label to President Johnson and his running mate 
(a provision of the rules which it breached in 1960). If 
the rules of this Convention are to mean anything, the 
“ traditional”  state delegation cannot be seated under 
paragraph (1).

B. Paragraph (2) of the Rules of the Convention Forbids 
the Seating of the Delegation of the “ Traditional”  
Party Because The Delegates Do Not Come As “ Bona 
Fide Democrats”  Willing to “ Participate in the Con­
vention in Good Faith.”

Paragraph (2) reads in full as follows:
“ (2) It is understood that the Delegates to the 

Democratic National Convention, when certified by the 
State Democratic Party, are bona fide Democrats who 
have the interests, welfare and success of the Demo­
cratic Party at heart, and will participate in the Con­
vention in good faith, and therefore no additional as­
surances shall be required of Delegates to the Demo­
cratic National Convention in the absence of credentials 
contest or challenge”

This provision is clear. First, it means that, “ in the 
absence of credentials contest or challenge,”  all delegates 
who meet the requirements of paragraph (1) with respect 
to candidates being on the ballot will be seated without any 
issue being made of good faith. But, second, it equally 
means that in the presence of credentials contest or chal­
lenge, the delegates must demonstrate that they “ are bona 
fide Democrats who have the interests, welfare and success 
of the Democratic Party at heart, and will participate in 
the Convention in good faith.”  In a nutshell, where, as



44

here, there is a contest or challenge, the delegates must 
demonstrate their good faith to the Convention. To read 
paragraph (2) any other way would be to violate the 
standard rule of construction requiring that “ each word 
will have a meaning, and not so read that one word will 
cancel out and render meaningless another. . . , ” 79

Although the history of this paragraph (2) is scant, 
what history there is also supports the construction that 
paragraph (2) is an addition in substantive requirement to 
paragraph (1) and that challenged delegates must demon­
strate their good faith. The addition of this second para­
graph to supplement the undertaking in the first paragraph 
was a concession to the “ Loyal Democrats,”  at the time 
led by Governor Daniels of Texas, who feared that the 
Loyalists in the South would be destroyed by a weaker 
pledge.80 Two challenges were presented in 1956 and the 
issue was whether the “ traditional”  delegations from Mis­
sissippi and South Carolina could conform, to paragraph 
(2) of the rules:

“ To the South Carolina ‘ loyalists’ Rawlings [Chair­
man o f  the Credentials Committee] explained that 
delegates elected in accordance with the rules of their 
state would be seated unless it were demonstrated 
that they ‘ are not Democrats to the point where they 
do not comply with the Call.’ He re-read the Call 
and inquired whether it had been read to the state con­
vention and ‘whether or not those delegates subscribed 
to those resolutions.’ The state chairman of the of­
ficial party assured him that it had been read at the 
convention, and that the delegates were elected subject

79 Tonis v. Board of Regents of U. of State of New York, 67 N.E. 
2d 245, 248, 295 N.Y. 286, 293 (1946).

80 Holtzman, The Loyalty Pledge Controversy in the Democratic 
Party, 1960, p. 21.



45

to the Call and would subscribe to the rules proposed 
in it.” 81 (italics supplied)

The Mississippi Democrats also agreed to conform to the 
Call assuring the Chairman that the state convention had 
been conducted “ in absolute compliance with the Call.” 82 *

That same year, 1956, Adlai Stevenson stated that he was 
not then in accord with the loyalty oath. “ But, speaking 
generally, I just don’t believe that honorable men who have 
been elected to high office as Democrats and by Democrats 
will come to a Democratic Convention if they are publically, 
secretly, or even conditionally pledged to support the Re­
publican candidate. . . . ” 88

Indeed, this was the interpretation put on paragraph 
(2) by the Chairman of the Credentials Committee of the 
National Convention in 1956. A rival Mississippi delega­
tion appeared to challenge the “ traditional”  Party. The 
following colloquy took place:

“ Sweetland: ‘ Now, under the rules under which we 
are now operating, under the present rules of the 
Democratic National Committee, isn’t an exception 
made in requiring a pledge of loyalty to the Party in 
the ease of contested delegations, where such pledges 
may be required?’ ”

“ Rawlings: ‘Yes, I think that is true.’ ”  84

Under paragraph (2) of the rules, there can be little 
question that where, as here, there is a contest or chal­

81 Holtzman, op. cit., p. 26.
82 Holtzman, op. cit., p. 26.
88 Holtzman, op. cit., p. 24.
84 Official Proceedings of the Democratic National Convention, 

1956, p. 822.



46

lenge, the challenged delegation must show its good faith. 
And this the “ traditional”  delegation cannot do.

As we have already seen, the “ traditional”  state con­
vention recessed so it could reconvene in September and 
then come out for Goldwater (see pp. 31 to 32, supra). 
The “ regulars”  of Mississippi are unwilling to throw 
in their lot with the National Democratic Party. 
They proclaim their independence of it; they attack its 
leaders; they support its opposition. They bar Negroes 
(overwhelmingly for President Johnson) from voting. They 
come here for the sole purpose of warming 68 seats so 
that loyal Democrats cannot have them. It is hard to con­
jure up anything more clearly bad faith than coming 
to a Convention not to help the National Party win, but 
rather to exclude someone else.

Both under paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of the 
rules the Mississippi Democratic Party delegation cannot 
legally be seated. The only procedure at this Convention 
under which the “ traditional”  delegation could possibly 
be seated would be to suspend the rules and seat them 
despite the rules. Yet everyone knows that the “ tradi­
tional”  Mississippi delegation could not obtain the votes 
of two-thirds of the delegates to this Convention needed 
to suspend the rules and seat them; they could not get one- 
third or one-sixth to take such action. Certainly it is not 
the task of the Credentials Subcommittee of the National 
Committee or the Credentials Committee of the Convention 
to suspend the rules. Rather it is their duty to interpret 
and apply the rules—so doing, the “ traditional”  delegation 
cannot possibly be seated.



47

II

The Delegation, of the “ Traditional”  Party Should Not 
Be Seated Because the State Convention Which Selected 
and Certified it was Illegal and Unconstitutional.

It is hard to believe that anyone—even the “ traditional”  
Party itself—will have the temerity to challenge the propo­
sition that the state convention which selected and certified 
the “ traditional”  delegation was both illegal and uncon­
stitutional. For the state convention of the “ traditional”  
Party was the culmination of a process of exclusion of 
Negroes in blatant violation of the Fourteenth and Fif­
teenth Amendments to the Constitution. Negroes were 
excluded from every aspect of the political process leading 
up to the state convention—registration, precinct conven­
tions predicated on registration, county conventions and 
finally the state convention—and this exclusion permeated 
and invalidated the state convention.85 It is thus unneces­
sary to go beyond this simple proposition. Nevertheless, 
to make assurance doubly sure, we are adding the points 
contained in the succeeding pages.

A. The Convention of the “ Traditional”  Party was Illegal 
and Unconstitutional Because That Party Runs the 
State of Mississippi and Uses Its Power to Exclude 
Negroes From Registration and Participation in the 
Political Processes of the State.

Nowhere else in this country has a single party such per­
vasive control of the entire state governmental machinery 
as has the Mississippi Democratic Party. As Governor

85 Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536 (1927); Nixon v. Condon, 286 
U.S. 73 (1932); United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941); 
Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944); Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 
461 (1953); Davis v. State, 23 So. 2d 87, 156 Fla. 178 (1945).



48

Paul Johnson said in his keynote address to the July 28th 
state convention:

“ The Mississippi Democratic Party, for the past 89 
years, is the framework, or the structure, through which 
Mississippians maintain political unity, and operate 
self-government. ’ ’

Hence that Party is almost solely responsible for the daily 
state-sponsored discrimination against Negroes in all areas 
of life in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. And 
that Party, through its control of the State, is the primary 
barrier to the aspiration of Mississippi Negroes to vote—all 
in violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.

Yet, 20 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that a politi­
cal party may not obstruct the free exercise of the right to 
vote. The leading case, Smith v. Allwright,se forbids the 
exclusion of Negroes from primaries through the denial 
of party membership pursuant to a resolution of the party 
convention. In the Allwright decision, the Supreme Court 
quoted extensively from a Texas opinion to make a point 
no less applicable to Mississippi:

‘ ‘ Since the right to organize and maintain a political 
party is one guaranteed by the Bill of Rights of this 
State, it follows that every privilege essential or rea­
sonably appropriate to the exercise of that right is 
likewise guaranteed,—including, of course, the privilege 
of determining the policy of the party and its mem­
bership.” * 87

In a later decision, Terry v. Adams, the Supreme Court 
refused to allow the evasion of the Constitutional responsi­

88 321 U.S. 649 (1944).
87 Id., at 655, quoting Bell v. Hill, 74 S.W. 2d 113, 120, 123 Tex. 

531, 546 (1934).



49

bilities outlined in Smith v. Alhvright. Since its own pri­
maries were subject to state regulation and therefore to 
Constitutional requirements, the Democratic Party of 
Texas had simply ratified the results of the primaries of 
the Jaybird Party which claimed the right to exclude 
Negroes, having declared itself a voluntary club. The 
Supreme Court pierced the facade and found that the real 
purpose of the Texas Democratic Party, not unlihe that of 
the Mississippi Democratic Party here, was to “ strip Ne­
groes of every vestige of influence in selecting officials who 
control the local county matters that intimately touch the 
lives of citizens.” 88

No stronger case for unseating a delegation from a state 
party committed to racial segregation can be found than 
these words from the Supreme Court in the Allwright 
opinion:

“ The United States is a constitutional democracy. 
Its organic law grants to all citizens a right to partici­
pate in the choice of elected officials without restriction 
by any State because of race. This grant to the people 
of the opportunity for choice is not to be nullified by a 
State through casting its electoral process in a form 
which permits a private organization to practice racial 
discrimination in the election. Constitutional rights 
would be of little value if they could be thus indirectly 
denied.”  89

The Supreme Court’s decisive language is a mandate 
that the “ traditional”  Mississippi delegation be unseated 
for its participation in discriminatory practices that rob 
Negroes of the franchise.

88 345 U.S. 461, 470 (1953).
89 Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 664 (1944).



50

B. The “ Traditional”  Party and Its Convention Are Reg­
ulated in Detail By the State and Its Actions in Ex­
cluding Negroes Are State Action in Violation of the 
Fourteenth Amendment.

The State of Mississippi not only regulates party pri­
maries, but also provides an extensive scheme for the regu­
lation of the internal affairs of political parties and their 
state conventions.90 Significantly, this scheme of state 
control is not at the mere suffrance of the legislature, but 
is a constitutional duty imposed by Article 12 of the Mis­
sissippi Constitution, which requires in Section 24 that:

“ The legislature shall enact laws to secure fairness 
in party primary elections, conventions, and other 
methods of naming party candidates.”

Using its authority under this section, the Mississippi 
legislature has declared that ‘ ‘ It shall be unlawful for any 
person or group of persons to set up or establish any 
political party in this state, except in the manner provided 
by the laws of this state . . . ” 91 When this section is 
read together with the quoted section of the Mississippi 
Constitution, the conclusion is unavoidable that the state 
has undertaken to regulate political parties, thereby creat­
ing a relationship between state and party not unlike that 
recognized between state and primary in the cases that 
have come before the Supreme Court.92

The type of state regulation prescribed for political par­
ties and state conventions closely parallels legislation reg­
ulating state primaries. A party must register with the

90 See Mississippi Code, § 3105 et seq.
91 Mississippi Code, § 3107-06.
92 See n. 85 and pp. 47 to 49, infra.



51

state before it can conduct primaries or elections.93 A 
wealth of detailed regulations surrounds the election of 
the state, district, and county committees of a party as well 
as the party convention itself.94 * The statute, for example, 
prescribes the mode of selection of delegates, the number 
of votes each county has at the convention, the apportion­
ment of delegates, etc.93 Whenever the statute requires 
the convening of the electors of the party, its language 
belies an interpretation condoning exclusion.96 The bar­
ring of Negroes from the state convention is thus at odds 
with Mississippi law. And the extensive state regulation 
of the “ traditional”  state Democratic Party would, if fol­
lowed, free a body intimately and officially tied in with 
voting rights from the unfairness that would and has 
tainted the electoral process in violation of the Fifteenth 
Amendment.

It is more than coincidental that the type of state regu­
lation prescribed for political parties and state conventions 
in Mississippi closely parallels legislation regulating state 
primaries in Mississippi and the rest of the country. For 
the purpose of both kinds of legislation is precisely the 
same—to insure fairness in the pre-election procedure so 
that free elections will not be subverted somewhere early 
in the process. What has been said of the state’s relation

93 Mississippi Code, § 3107-03.
94 Id., § 3107.
85 Ibid.
96 For example, Sec. 3154, providing for the election of municipal 

executive committees mandates that the chairman of the county 
executive committee “ shall . . . call a mass meeting of the electors of 
their political faith,” and Sec. 3155 requires publication of that call, 
for a three-week period preceding the mass meeting, apparently 
to assure the largest representation.



52

to party primaries is equally applicable to the convention, 
situation:

“ Under the holding in Smith v. Allwright, any statu­
tory regulation or recognition of a primary election 
would seem to be sufficient to warrant the conclusion 
that the state had taken the party and its officials as 
their agents in the conduct of a necessary part of the 
whole electoral process, and as a matter of public policy 
had elected to treat the party primary as a legitimate 
part of that process.97

Whether or not the exclusion is from primaries or from 
the convention of the chief political organ of the state, the 
result is the same—ostracism from political activity based 
solely on race. The Democratic National Convention 
should not ratify the unconstitutional practices of the State 
of Mississippi by seating delegates whose position in their 
state and Party flows from layers of unconstitutional con­
duct, and who are pledged to continue the subjugation of 
a people in violation both of the Constitution and the law7.

* # * * # * #

It is no answer to this fundamental legal and Constitu­
tional argument to suggest that it might also be applicable 
to one or more other southern states. To begin with, there 
are no contesting delegations in any of the other southern 
states. Furthermore, Mississippi “ is not like any place 
else. ’ ’ 98 Its exclusion process—from registration, from 
precinct conventions, from county conventions, from the 
state convention—is so complete that not a single Negro

07 Annotation, 151 A.L.R. 1121, 1122.
98 Special Report, Southern Regional Council, Law Enforcement 

in Mississippi, July 14, 1964, p. 6.



53

was permitted in the state convention which elected the 
delegates to Atlantic City. In other words, Mississippi Ne­
groes were not merely hampered in joining in the selection 
of delegates to this Convention; they were totally excluded 
from the process of choice. Not only in this respect, but 
also in the state-wide and unending harassment and terror 
used to keep Negroes from the polling booth, Mississippi 
differs from other southern states.

Finally, it should never be forgotten that it is a crime 
to exclude Negroes from voting." The “ traditional”  dele­
gation to this Convention is part and parcel of a con­
spiracy to commit that crime. While criminal action is 
not possible in Mississippi because white juries will not 
convict white men for excluding Negroes from political 
processes, it is a totally different thing for delegates at 
this Convention to condone these felonies. This Conven­
tion would, indeed, be compounding a felony if it were to 
seat the “ traditional”  delegation and turn away the Mis- 
issippi Freedom Democratic Party.

I ll

Any Fair Comparison of the Two Parties Can, in Law and in 
Equity, Lead Only to the Beating of the Delegation Repre­
senting the Freedom Party.

As has been pointed out earlier, Mississippi is not like 
any place else, and that is the starting point of any legal 
analysis of the relative merits of the two delegations.

In order to illustrate this point, let us take a hypothetical 
case. Suppose Senator John Doe of State X, leading a 
conservative delegation to the Democratic National Con­
vention, was challenged by a liberal delegation headed by 
Governor Richard Roe. The Convention would have little

" 1 8  U.S.C. §§241, 242.



54

difficulty in finding a standard to use in determining which 
of the two delegations to seat. The standard could only 
be: “ Which of the delegations better represents the regis­
tered Democratic voters of State X ? ”  Since State X. has a 
primary election for delegates to the National Conventions, 
all that the Democratic National Convention would have 
to do would be to determine which group was elected in the 
Democratic primary. And the same situation would apply 
in State Y where two delegations were sent to the Demo­
cratic National Convention representing rival state con­
ventions—the question would be which of those two state 
conventions better represented the registered Democrats of 
State Y?

But this test simply does not work in Mississippi. Over 
forty per cent of the population, the group most likely to 
support the nominees of this Convention, has been ex­
cluded from the “ traditional”  Party and thus from the 
political processes of the State of Mississippi. The “ tradi­
tional”  Party cannot ask this Convention to use the test 
as to who represents the registered Democratic voters of 
Mississippi when it has itself blocked the Negroes rep­
resented by the Freedom Party from becoming registered 
voters. In more legal terms, the “ traditional”  Party is 
estopped from contending that Freedom Party people are 
not registered voters when it is solely responsible for their 
not being registered.

What then should be the standard to determine which of 
the two competing Mississippi groups is to be seated at 
this Convention? Based on the legal precedents available 
and applying them to a situation where one of the con­
testing groups is excluded from the other contesting group, 
the following standard should govern: Where two groups, 
each representing a substantial number of Democratic 
voters or potential Democratic voters, appear at the Con­



55

vention and ask to be seated, the Convention should choose 
that group which exhibits good faith to the National Party 
and carries on its activities fairly and openly. Or, to couch 
this standard in terms of paragraph (2) of the rules dis­
cussed earlier (pp. 43 to 46, supra), the Convention 
should choose that group which has “ the interests, welfare 
and success of the Democratic Party at heart, and will par­
ticipate in the Convention in good faith. . . . ”

It is clear, of course, that the Freedom Party does rep­
resent a substantial number of actual and potential Demo­
cratic voters. Its registration of over 50,000 persons accom­
plished in the face of harassment and terror is a remarkable 
achievement, and there can be little doubt that the Partj- 
actually represents the full Negro potential vote of 435,000 
Mississippi Negro citizens, as well as at least some white 
citizens. The ability of the Freedom Party to carry on 
precinct meetings and county conventions throughout the 
State and to carry on a state convention in the face of 
this same harassment and terror demonstrates the great 
depth of feeling for the Freedom Party among the Negroes 
of Mississippi. Its Statement of Loyalty (p. 19, supra) 
and its other activities demonstrate that it has the ability 
and the intention to operate in accordance with the rules 
of the National Party. In a word, it is not a paper party; 
it is a real party with a great potential for the future. It 
is the only hope for the National Democratic Party in Mis­
sissippi.

Two points remain to be developed. First, the legal 
precedents do in fact support the proposition that the 
Convention should choose the group which exhibits good 
faith to the National Party and carries on its activities 
fairly and openly. Second, applying such a standard, the 
Convention must choose the delegation representing the 
Freedom Party.



A. The Standard to Govern Convention Action is Which 
of the Two Groups Exhibits Good Faith to the Na­
tional Party and Carries on Its Activities Openly and 
Fairly

Democratic National Conventions from 1836 to 1960 have 
many times been faced with competing delegations.100 
Whatever may have been in the minds of the delegates to 
the Conventions when these conflicts were resolved, the 
standard utilized to determine the outcome of the con­
tests was not articulated. Indeed, the most common 
method of resolving those conflicts has been the seating 
of both delegations without the adoption of a standard. 
But in no single instance were the equities as clearly 
with one side or the other as they are with the delega­
tion of the Freedom Party here. In light of this, and 
especially in light of the violations of the rules by 
the “ traditional”  Party (Point I) and the illegality of its 
state convention (Point II), the only result consonant with 
fairness and equity is the seating of the Freedom Party 
and the exclusion of the “ traditional”  Party.

Though the precedents from earlier conventions are not 
helpful in providing a standard to resolve the present con­
flict, judicial precedents do offer certain base-line stand­
ards, despite the current reluctance of courts to intervene 
in the disputes of political parties.101 Since judicial inter­
vention in political matters has always been cautious, 
these decisions, largely from a period when courts more 
readily took such cases, yield a moderate and minimum

100 For the convenience of the delegates to this Convention, we 
set forth in Appendix C a summary of these contests.

101 For a particularly complete opinion emphasizing the inade­
quacy of courts to handle disputes within parties, as well as a 
survey of some of the important cases, see Stephenson v. Board of 
Election Commissioners, 76 N.W. 914, 118 Mich. 396 (1898).



57

standard of fairness not alone for courts but wherever 
the concern is with what is equitable.

Judgments as to fairness almost always require looking 
beyond the trappings of mere form. One decision, rec­
ognizing how inadequate is the standard based on “ which 
of the two nominating conventions was the regular one,”  102 
offered a more penetrating standard similar to that em­
bodied in paragraph (2) of the rules of the Convention 
dealing with delegate qualifications.103 The convention 
“ organized and conducted more in consonance with the 
principles of honesty and good faith which should govern 
men”  was to be recognized. Where the essential fair 
dealing was missing, courts often shunned the easy deci­
sion for the group appearing on the surface to be regular 
or traditional.104 These decisions stand for the important 
proposition that legality, while incorporating form, pro­
cedure, and precedent, also transcends them, at least to 
the extent that what is clearly unfair is seldom legal.

The single most serious defect offending fairness that 
emerges from the judicial decisions is the failure of a state 
convention to fairly represent all members of the party. 
“ Every elector of a particular party faith or belief is en­
titled to be represented in the conventions and primaries 
of his party when party measures are to be taken, or 
delegates are to be selected . . .” 105 * The almost exclusive 
and supreme powers of state conventions to govern their 
own affairs assumes, as one court put it, that “ such con­
ventions are . . . organized assemblages of electors or dele­
gates fairly representing the entire body of electors of

102Spencer v. Maloney, 62 Pac, 850, 852, 28 Colo. 38, 48 (1900).
108 See p. 36, supra.
104 See e.g., In re Woodworth, 16 N.Y. Supp. 147 (1891).
105 State v. Hogan, 62 Pac. 583, 584, 24 Mont. 383, 393 (1900).

See also 18 Am. Jur. Elections, § 135.



58

the political party which may lawfully vote for the candi­
dates of any such convention. ’ ’ 106 The decisions leave the 
requirement of fair representation a near-axiom in such 
matters by their repeated emphasis on the simple proposi­
tion that “ a convention must be a representative body.”  107 
And they leave no doubt that an unrepresentative conven­
tion is illegal. One decision put it bluntly: “ No action by 
a state convention could validate a nomination . . . where 
the convention making it does not properly represent the 
electors of the district. ’ ’ 108

The failure fairly to represent is most offensive where 
it flows from deliberate and arbitrary exclusion, as in 
Mississippi. The only ground for exclusion recognized in 
the decisions is best stated in a well known recent case, 
Ray v. Gardner,109 where the Supreme Court of Alabama 
recognized the right to “ exclude from party action all 
persons save those holding a present party allegiance.”  
The “ traditional”  Democratic Party in Mississippi, whose 
“ party allegiance”  is questionable at best, has tossed away 
this standard to replace it with a requirement of belief in 
racial segregation (pp. 10-11, supra).

Moreover, the Freedom Party has met the test of exclu­
sion found in the few cases which discuss such a situation. 
The court in State v. Weston,110 refused to seat a group 
which claimed it had been excluded from a Democratic 
Party county convention because, as the court pointed up, 
there had indeed been an “ opportunity for all claiming to 
be delegates to present their credentials to the regularly

we State v. Rotwitt, 46 Pac. 370, 372, 18 Mont. 502, 507 (1896).
i°7 State v. Johnson, 46 Pac. 533, 534, 18 Mont. 548, 552 (1896). 
ios State v. Hogan, 62 Pac. 583, 587, 24 Mont. 383, 395 (1900); 

see also State v. Weston, 70 Pac. 519, 27 Mont. 185 (1902).
109 57 So. 2d 824, 826, 257 Ala. 168 (1952).
110 See n. 108, supra.



59

appointed committee of the convention [and] the contest­
ing delegates made no attempt to be admitted to the con­
vention by presenting their credentials to the proper com­
mittee or otherwise.”  In contrast, Mississippi Negroes 
made futile attempts all over the state to do just what 
State v. Weston impliedly requires, instead of what it 
disapproves as premature—“ immediately proceed[ing] to 
organize another convention.”  Similarly, the court in 
another case, State v. Johnson,m held that “ if such 
electors fail or decline to send delegates to the conven­
tion or if delegates sent disagree or act unwisely, then 
other matters may arise.”  But the wholesale refusal of 
Mississippi Democratic Party officials to admit or hear the 
Freedom Party people at all levels from precinct meetings 
to state convention left them with the choice of organizing 
their own convention or remaining outside the party. No 
court has frowned upon independent action under such 
circumstances of arbitrary exclusion; surely no political 
body would require citizens to choose to remain outside 
the party under the same circumstances.

The “ traditional”  Democratic Party of Mississippi, 
in excluding all except those committed to segregation, 
is entitled to no greater recognition than was the con­
vention at issue in State v. Johnson, where the call was is­
sued to “ gentlemen whom I knew to be in sympathy with 
the principles of the financial plank of the party.7 7112 The 
Court found that this convention was illegal because no 
“ opportunity”  had been given all the electors “ to say 
whether or not they desire their . . . principles to be rep­
resented.77 The result was the same in a case where a 
county was excluded.111 112 113

11146 Pac. 533, 535, 18 Mont. 548, 552 (1896).
112 Ibid.
113 State v. Rotwitt, 46 Pac. 370, 18 Mont. 502 (1896).



60

Exclusion from a state convention based on race and 
belief on matters of race is at least as serious as exclusion 
based on differences in economic policy or geographical 
location. The resulting illegality, long recognized in our 
law as offensive to the most elementary principles of fair­
ness, arises from the arbitrary denial of voice and vote. 
The representatives and proceedings of a convention il­
legal when judged by the decisions of courts and unfair 
when judged by ordinary standards of fair play, deserve 
no recognition by a national convention with the power 
to make the fair and legal choice.

B. The Freedom, Party Delegation Must Be Seated Under 
Any Standard, Relating to Fairness and Good Faith

We shall not repeat the Statement of Facts here. But 
every word in that Statement demonstrates the Freedom 
Party’s good faith towards the National Party and the 
‘ ‘ traditional”  Party’s bad faith.

The Freedom Party has demonstrated its good faith b y :
* Remaining within the Democratic Party despite the 

persecution of the Mississippi Democratic Party.
* Building a substantial organization over the opposi­

tion of the “ traditional”  Party and opening it to all 
Democrats.

* Undertaking to assure that Mississippi voters will 
have the opportunity to vote for President Johnson 
and his running mate with pledged electors under 
the Democratic Party label and designation.

* Pledging to work dauntlessly for the election of Presi­
dent Johnson and his running mate.

* Proudly announcing their adherence to the National 
Democratic Party.



61

* Affirming their belief in the Democratic platform.
* Disking- harassment and even death to participate in 

this Convention.

The “ traditional”  Party has demonstrated its bad faith 
by:

* Excluding Negroes (the group most likely to sup­
port President Johnson) from registration and from 
the Party, by harassment and terror.

* Repeatedly proclaiming its independence of the Na­
tional Party.

* Opposing the platform and principles of the National 
Party.

* Spewing hatred upon Presidents Kennedy and John­
son.

* Viciously attacking Negroes and Negro organiza­
tions.

* Enacting laws to keep the National Party off the 
ballot.

* Recessing their convention so that they can turn to 
Goldwater.

* Coming here only to keep the Freedom Party from 
being seated.

The contrast is clear; the choice is clear.114

114 The suggestion has been made that the legal case for ousting 
the “ Traditional” Party has been more clearly established than the 
legal case for seating the Freedom Party. But these cases are really 
junctions of each other. The National Democratic Party must have 
loyal representation in Mississippi. If the “Traditional” Mississippi 
Party will not provide it, the National Party must look elsewhere



62

Conclusion

The Democratic Party cannot fight the white backlash by 
surrendering to it. The seating of the Freedom delegation 
is legally and equitably right. The liberal principles upon 
which the Democratic Party has grown great demand that 
it stand with the Freedom Party at this Convention. The 
Democratic Party has won over the years when it stood 
fast for principle; it cannot win this time by hauling down 
the flag.

Respectfully submitted,
J oseph  L . R atjh, J b ., 
E leanor K. H olm es ,
H . M iles J affe .

and the National Convention may legally seat a loyal group repre­
senting substantial numbers of citizens, in the interest of building 
such representation in Mississippi for the future. The fact that the 
loyal group may be small today— or that many of its members have 
been barred from registering by the harassment and terror of the 
disloyal group— hardly demonstrates that the best interests of the 
National Party will not be served by seating the loyal group and 
thus helping it to grow. Indeed, the seating of both delegations on 
numerous occasions in the past (see Appendix C) was obviously 
designed to encourage groups other than the “ regular” group in the 
hope they would one day help the National Party.



63

APPEN D IX A

Platform and Principles of the Mississippi Freedom 
Democratic Party

The Freedom Democratic Party, believing that racial 
equality is only the first step in solving the basic problems 
of poverty, disease and illiteracy confronting American, 
society, welcomes the participation of all Mississippi citi­
zens in a joint effort to realize the goals of economic growth 
and individual self-fulfillment in a. spirit of humane con­
cern for the welfare of every person.
With all humility we ask the guidance of Almighty God in 
these difficult times. May his power and spirit fill us all 
as we approach these problems that beset us all.
We pledge to support the candidates and principles 
adopted by the National Democratic Party at its conven­
tion in Atlantic City in August, 1964.

National Affairs 
B e I t R esolved :

1. That we support the 1960 National Democratic Party 
platform, specifically insofar as the following prin­
ciples apply to the State of Mississippi.
a. Full employment as a fundamental objective of 

national policy and the necessity for federal aid 
to the depressed areas of Mississippi and the rest 
of the nation.

b. Strong state and national action to eliminate arti­
ficial barriers to employment based on race, sex, 
religion, or national origin.

c. The right to a job requires the full restoration of 
collective bargaining, and the repeal of anti-labor 
legislation designed to prevent the effective organi­
zation of unions.

d. The right of every farmer, tenant, sharecropper 
and migrant worker to a decent living through the 
raising of farm incomes and wages, national and



64

state legislation affecting wages and living condi­
tions, food stamp programs to feed needy children, 
the aged and the unemployed, and the expansion 
of school lunch and milk programs,

e. Medical care benefits to be provided as part of the 
Social Security insurance system.

2. That we wholeheartedly endorse the program embodied 
in the Civil Eights Law of 1964 and that we demand 
both state and national officials to implement the prin­
ciples of this law.

3. That we insist that all officials of the state and national 
governments take steps to insure the impartial regis­
tration of all qualified voters in the State of Missis­
sippi. We urge vigorous enforcement of the civil 
rights laws to guarantee the right to vote to all citizens 
in all areas of the country. We urge the abolition of 
the literacy test as a voting requirement. We further 
urge use of the 14th Amendment clause which allows 
for a reduction in Congressional representation when 
qualified voters are not registered.

4. That we vigorously support the Supreme Court school 
desegregation decision of 1954 and demand that imme­
diate measures should be undertaken by the state and 
national governments to guarantee that the decision 
be enforced in the State of Mississippi.

5. That we support the Supreme Court re-apportionment 
decision of 1964 and call for a just system of represen­
tation in every legislative body in the United States 
consistent with the principle that each individual has 
an equal vote.

6. That we believe that an extensive job re-training pro­
gram should be vigorously pursued by both the state 
and national governments in order that middle-aged 
people who are victims of an era of economic transition 
may continue to be self-sufficient members of the com­
munity.



65

7. That we applaud the start which has been made toward 
the amelioration of poverty under Presidents John F. 
Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson in such measures as 
area redevelopment, a broadened minimum wage, man­
power training’, food stamp legislation, and the omni­
bus anti-poverty measure. We call for the intensifi­
cation of these programs during the next four years 
under continued liberal Democratic leadership and for 
the integration of these efforts with a creative public 
works program.

8. That we strongly endorse the efforts of Presidents 
John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson to achieve 
international development and cooperation through 
such measures as support of the United Nations, a 
vigorous foreign aid program, attempts to bring about 
control of nuclear weapons, and the creation of the 
Peace Corps.

9. That we applaud the advance of freedom throughout 
the world and advocate American cooperation with 
the United Nations in a peaceful effort to eradicate 
tyranny in those areas of the world—such as South 
Africa, Angola, Southern Bhodesia, Hungary, and 
East Germany—where it still prevails.

10. That we oppose attempts by any nation or bloc to 
impose alien political systems or ideologies—commu­
nistic or otherwise—on any other nation.

11. That we vigorously condemn extremist and hate 
groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, the White Citizens ’ 
Council, the Association for the Preservation of the 
White Race, the John Birch Society, and the Black 
Muslims.

Mississippi Affairs
B e I t R esolved :

1. That we urge careful consideration of the use of federal 
funds in Mississippi to insure that such grants will not 
be used for the perpetuation of segregation.



66

Specifically:
a. That we oppose the nse of federal funds for the 

construction or maintenance of segregated commu­
nity facilities in Mississippi.

b. That we advocate the establishment of a state Fair 
Employment Practices Committee to assist in re­
viewing cases of employment discrimination.

2. That we advocate careful supervision of the use of 
federal funds in order that the withholding of federal 
funds will no longer be used as a means to threaten 
and harass Mississippi citizens who try to exercise their 
constitutional rights.

3. That we look for the appointment of federal referees to 
supervise all Mississippi electoral procedures—from 
the first attempt to register to vote to the final counting 
of ballots—until all citizens of the state can rest assured 
of a meaningful voice in a democratic society.

4. That we advocate a substantial reduction in the state 
sales tax and a proportionate increase in the income tax.

5. That we condemn the use of state tax monies to support 
the Sovereignty Commission and other organizations 
whose aim is to perpetuate the segregated society.



67

APPENDIX B

M ississippi F reedom  D emocratic P arty 
Post Office Box 3127 
Jackson, Mississippi

July 17, 1964.
Mr. John M. Bailey, Chairman,
Democratic National Committee,
1730 K Street, N.W.,
Washington 6, D.C.

Dear Mr. Bailey:

I am writing as Chairman of the Mississippi Freedom 
Democratic Party to inform you that the Party will send 
a full delegation of delegates and alternates to the Demo­
cratic National Convention in Atlantic City next month. 
Our delegation will represent Democratic residents of the 
State of Mississippi who are loyal to the United States 
Constitution and to the National Democratic Party and 
most of whom are barred from the “ regular”  Democratic 
Party by terroristic and other unconstitutional methods. 
We hereby challenge the delegation of the “ regular”  
Democratic Party and assert the right of the delegation 
of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party to be seated 
at the National Convention as the true representative of 
Mississippi Democrats. We shall present our case in full 
to the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic 
Convention in accordance with established procedures. 
We request tickets, floor privileges, badges, housing, and 
all the rights that accrue to a regular delegation.

Our delegation will be chosen through a nominating process 
of precinct and county meetings, district caucuses, and a 
state convention in accordance wnth Mississippi law. The 
procedure will be similar to that of the “ regular”  party 
except that our meetings will be open to all Democrats, 
while their meetings effectively bar Negroes.



68

You or your personal representative or representatives 
are invited to attend as observers our State Convention, 
which will be held in Jackson on August 6, 1964.
Yours for a National Democratic Party landslide in 1964!

(Signed) A aron H en ry ,
Chairman,

Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party.

M ississippi F reedom  D emocratic P arty 
Post Office Box 3127 
Jackson, Mississippi

August 6, 1964. 
By Hand.

Mr. John M. Bailey, Chairman 
Democratic National Committee 
1730 “ K ”  Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036

Dear Mr. Bailey:
On July 17, 1964, Mr. Aaron Henry, acting Chairman of 
the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party, wrote and in­
formed you that, at the State Convention of the Mississippi 
Freedom Democratic Party on August 6, there would be 
elected delegates and alternates to the Democratic National 
Convention in Atlantic City.
This is to inform you officially that the State Convention 
of the Freedom Party met in Jackson earlier today, and 
to further inform you that I have now been elected chair­
man of the Freedom Party.
The State Convention consisted of delegates from county 
conventions which, in turn, were predicated upon precinct 
conventions, as required by Mississippi law.

The State Convention elected a delegation to the National 
Convention and the members of this delegation are listed 
in full on the attachment. I hereby certify on behalf of



the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party that these dele­
gates and alternates were duly elected by the Freedom 
Party at its State Convention on this date, that they are 
loyal to the.United States Constitution and to the National 
Democratic Party and are the true representatives of Mis­
sissippi Democrats. They are therefore entitled to be 
seated at the Atlantic City Convention in place of the 
“ regular”  delegation which seeks to be seated in violation 
of the Rules of the Convention and the Constitution of 
the United States and with total disloyalty to the National 
Party.
Mr. Aaron Henry has been elected Chairman of the dele­
gation to the National Convention. I ask that he. be per­
mitted to appear before the Credentials Subcommittee of 
the National Democratic Committee, along with our Coun­
sel, Joseph L. Ranh, Jr., to present our case for seating 
on the temporary rolls of the Convention and before the 
Credentials Committee of the Convention to present our 
case for seating on the permanent rolls of the Convention. 
A Brief on the factual and legal aspects of this contest 
is being prepared by Mr. Rauh and will be submitted to 
your office not later than noon, Tuesday, August 18.
Yours for a National Democratic Party landslide in 1964!

Sincerely yours,
(S ig n ed ) L aurence G txyot,

Chairman,
Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party.

Certified by:
------- , --------, (S ign ed )
Mrs. Peggy J. Connoe,

Secretary,
Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party.

Enclosure



70

.. M ississippi F reedom  D em ocratic P arty  D elegation  :

National Oommitteewoman: Mrs. Victoria Gray 
National Committeeman: Rev. Edwin King 
Chairman of the delegation: Mr.. Aaron Henry 
Vice-chairman of the delegation: Mrs. Fannie Lou Hamer 
Secretary: Mrs.. Annie Devine...........

Delegates
Mrs. Helen Anderson 
Dr. A. D. Beittel 
Mrs. Elizabeth Blackwell 
-Mrs. Marie Blalock 
Mr. Sylvester Bowens 
Mr, J, W. Brown 
Mr. "i Charles.. Bryant 
Mr. James. Carr .
Miss. Lois Chaffee 
Mr. Chois Collier 
Mr. Willie Ervin 
Mr. J. C. Fairley 
Mr. Dewrey Green 
Mr. Laurence Guyot 
Mrs. Wins on Hudson 
Mr. Johnny Jackson 
Mr. N. L. Kirkland 
Miss Mary Lane 
Rev. Merrill W. Lindsay 
Mr. Eddie Mack 
Mrs. Lula Matthews 
Mrs. Yvonne MacGowan 
Mr. Charles McLaurin 
Mr. Leslie McLemore 
Mr. Robert Miles 
Mr. Otis Millsaps 
Mrs. Hazel Palmer 
Rev. R. 8. Porter 
Mr. Willie Scott 
Mr. Henry Sias

Alternates:
Mr. C. R. Darden 
Mrs. Ruby Evans 
Mr. Oscar Giles 
Mr. Charlie Graves 
Mrs. Pinkie Hall 
Mr. George Harper 
Mrs. Macy Hardaway 
Mr. Andrew Hawkins 
Mr. William Jackson 
Mrs. Alta Lloyd 
Rev. J. F. McRee 
Rev. W. G. Middleton 
Mr. Joe Newton 
Mrs. M. A. Phelps 
Mrs. Beverly Polk 
Mr. Henry Reaves 
Mr. Harold Roby 
Mrs. Emma Sander 
Mrs. Cora Smith 
Rev. R. L. T. Smith 
Mrs. Elmira Tvson 
Mr. L. H. Waborn



71

Delegates:
Mr. Eobert Lee Stinson 
Mr. Slate Stallworth 
Mr. E. W. Steptoe 
Mr. Joseph Stone 
Mr. Eddie Thomas 
Mr. James Travis 
Mr. Hartman Tnrnbow 
Mr. Abraham Washington 
Mr. Clifton B. Whitley 
Mr. Eobert W. Williams 
Mr. J. Walter Wright



72

APPEN D IX C

Summary of Contested Delegations—Democratic National
Conventions

Year State Action taken 1
1836 Pa. Both delegations seated and split 

vote of the state.
1848 N.Y. Both delegations appeared be­

fore the Credentials Committee 
without voting rights. Both 
seated, splitting the vote of the 
state.

1852 Ga. Both delegations again seated, 
splitting the vote of the state.

1856 Mo. Delegation seated which was 
originally approved by the Com­
mittee on Arrangements.

1860 N.Y. 
(Charleston, S.C.)

Majority report of Credentials 
Committee approved, seating 
pro-Douglas delegation.

1864 Ky. Both delegations seated, splitting 
the vote of the state.

1880 Mass.
N.Y.

Both delegations from Mass, 
seated and split vote of state. 
Only one faction from N.Y. was 
seated.

1896 Neb. Ruling by the Credential Com-
mittee favoring contesting dele­
gates reversed a decision by the 
National Committee.

11836-1956 Adapted from Richard C. Bain. Convention  D ecisions and 
V oting R ecords (Wash. The Brookings Institution, 1960).



73

Year State Action taken 1
1900 D.C. Both delegations from each was

Okla. Territory 
Indian Territory

seated splitting the vote of each.

1904 111. Contesting delegation lost in a 
floor vote on credentials.

1912 S.D. Floor upheld delegation approved 
by the National Committee and 
defeated that substituted by the 
Credentials Committee.

1936 P.R, Both sets of delegations from
C.Z. each state seated and their votes
Minn. were split.

1944 Tex. Both delegations seated and split 
the vote of the state.

1952 Tex. ‘ ‘ Regular ’ ’ delegation seated
Miss. while contesting delegation lost 

out.
Va. Delegation challenged over com-
La. pliance with requirements of the
S.C. Moody (Loyalty Oath) resolu­

tion. All were seated following 
verbal pledges of support.

1956 Miss. Delegations challenged over loy-
S.C. alty issue again. The delegations 

were seated after accepting the 
“ Loyalty Pledge.”

1960 P.R. Both delegations seated and split 
the vote of the state.2

1 1836-1956 Adapted from Richard C. Bain. C onvention D ecisions and
V oting  R ecords (Wash. The Brookings Institution, 1960).

2 N ew  Y ork  Tim es, July 12 and 13, I960.

(2216-0)