The Pink Franklin Case & The NAACP

      The Pink Franklin case is most noted for being the NAACP's first legal challenge on behalf of the Negro race. 

     The Case: (Orangeburg county, S. Carolina):   In 1907, Pink Franklin, 21, a Negro day laborer (some versions claim he was sharecropper), agreed to preform work and signed a labor contract for which he was paid up front.  When Mr. Franklin failed to show up to preform his agreed upon work, the employer holding his contract swore out a warrant for his arrest. Constable Henry Valentine decided to wait for Mr. Franklin to voluntarily come in and pay back what he owed.  After two months of waiting for Mr. Franklin to come in and settle up, which Mr. Franklin failed to do, the constable finally decided he had to act. Constable Valentine, along with another man, Constable W.M. Carter, (both Americans) went to Mr. Franklin's home at around 3 a.m.  (since day laborers would leave for work at the crack of dawn, this was not an unusual time).  Once there they waited until daybreak to approach the Franklin home.  Constable Valentine obtained the assistance of a neighbor of Mr. Franklin, a white male, who was also his current employer. The ruse was was to offer work to Mr. Franklin and hopefully with the offer of work, lure Mr. Franklin out of his shanty. However, Mr. Franklin refused the work and stayed in his home, whereupon Constable Valentine decided to enter the home and there make the arrest.  Apparently, the front door was left ajar when the neighbor left the premises. Constable Valentine, after rapping on the front door with a "metal object" (likely his pistol) and shouting his presence, which produced no reply,  proceeded into the home.  Mr. Franklin then suddenly emerged with his gun and shot Constable Valentine. Constable Valentine, however, though mortally wounded,  was still  able to get a round off himself, which struck Mr. Franklin in the shoulder.  After shooting Constable Valentine, Franklin then turned his gun to the rear door, where Constable Carter went to prevent an escape, and continued to fire.  Constable Carter wound up seriously wounded by Franklin's gunfire. Mr. Franklin's wife was also wounded  though apparently by her husband's wild shooting.   Mr. Franklin, along with his wife, were both arrested for the murder of the Constable Valentine and wounding of Constable Carter.  1

    Pink Franklin, who was represented by Negro attorneys, pleaded self-defense, claiming Constable Valentine failed to identify himself before entering his home; and that he (Mr. Franklin) feared it was a burglar and therefore had the right to protect himself and his family.  After an all-American jury was selected, the prosecutor presented his case, which was fairly straightforward and simple: (1) Even though it was early morning, Mr. Franklin was already awake and in a full conscience state; (2) Constable Valentine rapped loudly on the front door with a metal object and identified himself as he walked into Mr. Franklin’s house; (3) Mr. Franklin knew someone was at his front door, which is why he retrieved his gun  (and by the voice announcing his presence, Franklin had to realize it was a white male).

    The all-American jury certainly had to be aware that Mr. Franklin was aware that taking money for a job and not fulfilling his obligation would constitute theft,  and therefore he should have expected the constable to be coming to his residence to arrest him. The  jury also didn't believe Mr. Franklin's obvious tall tale about defending himself from a white burglar -- indeed,  just what on earth would a white male burglar hope to find of value in the tiny home of Mr. Franklin, a marginally employed day-laborer? When the jury returned with their verdicts,  Mrs. Franklin was acquitted of all charges. However, Mr. Franklin, the jury decided, intentionally ambushed Constable Valentine with the intent to murder him.  He was held accountable for his actions and found guilty of murder.  The judge sentenced him to death.  In essence, the all-American jury refused to pity Mr. Franklin; nor did the judge. But this was the pre-compulsory integration South.  And in the South at this time the prevailing general attitude among Americans was that the Negro simply was not to be pitied because of his race.  However, the NAACP had just come into existence (dominated by northern Christian socialists, who called themselves “progressives”) … and they were in fact demanding pity based on color - even if it involved murder.  
 
    In 1910, Mr. Franklin’s case came to the attention of an American named Albert Pillsbury, who was an attorney willing to do pro bono work for the NAACP.  The Franklin case represented a scenario that would play itself out countless times over the course of the next 50 years for the NAACP, where they, in obvious efforts to curry favor among the black race, always would side with blacks, criminal or civil cases, and imply that the black man, or the black race, was getting taken advantage of, hoodwinked or bamboozled by the too often racist, inhumane and heartless American population (i.e. white Christian males).  

  Albert Pillsbury, along with another American, Oswald Garrison Villard, Treasurer of the NAACP, petitioned the Governor of South Carolina for clemency for Mr. Franklin. Frances Blascoer, a Secretary for the  NAACP, also traveled to S. Carolina to persuade Mr. Franklin's Negro attorneys to allow the NAACP to represent Mr. Franklin before the S. Carolina Supreme Court.2    Mr. Villard petitioned Booker T. Washington as well to get involved in this case, but he showed no interest in it (no prominent Negro men seemed willing to come to Mr. Franklin’s aid - at least there is no existing record of their efforts). The Governor of South Carolina, Martin Ansel, whether persuaded by the NAACP or other fellow Americans, did commute Mr. Franklin’s sentence to life in 1911.   Mr. Franklin was paroled for "good behavior" in 1919 by the new [American] governor of South Carolina, Richard I. Manning. 

12 years for the intentional murder of a white man?!  It seems the cruel, heartless and inhumane Americans that the NAACP was claiming took advantage of the black man everywhere, well, really wasn't quite everywhere.  

-----------------------------------------

1. The Crisis Magazine's version states, which was a version likely created by the Negro defense attorneys, that the Constable Valentine "barged" into Franklin's tiny home, then, without uttering a word, made his way to the bedroom, and upon seeing Mr. Franklin and his wife, immediately opened fire. This version should be regarded as nonsense. Common sense tells us the constable, entering a darkened home, would certainly have announced his presence - and more than once.  Also of note is that Franklin could have shouted to the white person that he that he had a gun, which Franklin clearly did NOT do. Why?  While no one knows exactly what happened in the Franklin home that early morning, reasonable common sense tells us that Franklin intentionally ambushed the constable. The prosecutor, the jury and the judge all believed this to be the case. And if you would like to see many many examples of the negro ambushing white people, here is a link.    LINK

2. There is also a claim that Secretary Blascoer met with the Governor of South Carolina on Mr. Franklin's behalf. Highly unlikely, as the Governor would not have known of the existence of the newly formed NAACP.  I'm also skeptical of the claim that the NAACP hired lawyers for Mr. Franklin, as the organization at that time had no money to do such a thing. 


http://www.paperlessarchives.com/the_crisis.html
archived newspaper account LINK

NAACP and Their Pro Bono Lawyers

  

Dominant Male Group Theorem and historical structure of a human society:  
Prior to 1964, all human societies in recorded history basically followed the same pattern to their establishment, which was homogeneity in their race, language and religion. These characteristics undoubtedly played a vital role in maintaining stability within the society. For example, note how few civil wars have been recorded since the time of the ancient Greeks (regarding the American Civil War, as president Lincoln said to a group of prominent Negroes "..consider what we know to be the truth. But for your race among us there could not be war.").₁

Since all of human history demonstrates a predispose male grouping behavior in the establishment of a society, as well as its continuation (at least I cannot find a single exception in recorded human history), let's express this grouping pattern for the establishment of a society in the following way::

When a male group (males similar racially, linguistically and religiously) establishes claim to a geographic area, this group then seeks to create a society. A society must have a social stratification system; and when that social stratification system exists ... a society is then formed. When the society is formed the male group that created it becomes the Dominant Male Group. There are two primary functions a society serves, which allows it to achieve stability and longevity: (1) stratify the Dominant Male Group; (2) perpetuate the Dominant Male Group.

Again, there is no known deviation from the above grouping behavior for establishing a society's social strata (that I'm aware of) prior to 1964.

Females historic role within a society: Prior to 1964, throughout human history females had always been separated from the males; and never allowed into the male group's social strata. Female's historic role within a society was simply to procreate for the male group...and to raise the children. Keeping the females separate wasn't - isn't - a pejorative act by males. Females lack 'true status' (as do males outside the DMG). Theoretically then , that is if the DMG theorem is an immutable law of human nature, as all of human history suggest it is, if the social stratification system (systems specifically stratified by occupational titles) created by the DMG is compromised ... the structure itself will become compromised. Collapse of the system would seem to be inevitable.

Do you think America is as stable politically today under the compulsory integration laws than before the laws were passed (specifically, the Civil Rights Acts '64, 65, '68)?


Historical Group Recognition (HGR): In order to build societies throughout human history males from the dominant male group used "group recognition", or HGR. All racial and ethnic groups on our planet ... are here today because of this recognition characteristic.

'True status': The theory behind 'true status' infers that only members of same male group (racially, linguistically, religiously similar)  may have status in a male group social stratification system (macro or micro group structure). 

-------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------

NAACP

From the NAACP's beginning (1910) to around 1925, in these formative years, and with the organization basically destitute year in and year out, the NAACP was forced to rely on white male attorneys who were willing to work  pro bono (without compensation). There were three lawyers who were willing to do the bulk of this kind work for the advancement of the NAACP ::

-- Albert Enoch Pillsbury (born 1849 - died 1930)

-- Moorfield Storey (born 1849 - died 1930)

-- Arthur Spingarn (born 1878 - died 1971)
Note: black lawyers at that time could not afford to work pro bono.  

   However, there are two things regarding the NAACP in these formative years which I find more than a little troubling (and I hope you do as well)  :: 1) the legal strategy they used; 2) the apparent hypocrisy of the white pro bono attorneys.

1.   Legal Strategy::  Much emphasis is generally given in today's literature to the legal strategy the NAACP' employed in pursuing its lauded integration agenda. However, there is another aspect to this strategy which has been given little importance or recognition (if any) and I think it bears pointing out: the NAACP's  activities were not in any way consistent with existing rules for lawyers in 1910 --   all the way up to 1964 for that matter.  Also never noted is the unprecedented special treatment NAACP lawyers consistently received at the hands of the New York State Bar. That is, what ethical boundaries other lawyers were either forced by their state bar to accept, or morally bound to respect, the NAACP lawyers were always allowed to freely engage in violating. Lawyers (in 1910) were supposed to represent for a fee individuals, companies or, from time to time, a group of any other sort seeking redress over a legal issue or point of law.  Lawyers were not supposed to stir up lawsuits, advertise their services in any media or call upon prospective clients and offer their services pro bono . However, for the NAACP lawyers, when they brazenly stirred up lawsuits, or called upon prospective clients and offered their services pro bono (cases were generally selected based on whether it could create publicity for the organization), they always got a pass.  Perhaps because of the clients the NAACP were pursuing, ones that could never afford to pay a fee for lawyer services, the New York Bar allowed these guys to get away with all their ethics violations. However, the following point still needs to be driven home here: For lawyers to work for an organization, and where the primary purpose of that organization is to stir up lawsuits, claiming their efforts are for the "public good", was, prior to 1910, unprecedented in America, as well as in every other Western Civilization country. 1

2.    Hypocrisy::  I have also found it very troubling that the white pro bono lawyers for the NAACP (as well as all the other members of the NAACP who were white), who worked for or on behalf of this organization - which promoted racial integration - were unwilling themselves to practice what they were promoting.  In other words, none of the white attorneys for the NAACP were willing to live among the Negro people (Arthur Spingard was a man of considerable wealth who chose to live in an exclusively white community on a palatial estate in upstate New York); nor were they willing to send their children to a predominately Negro school; nor were they ever willing to try to make a living exclusively among the Negro population. Yet, they were essentially telling America’s White population that integration and race-nullification was the right direction for their people; and not only was it the right direction, but the moral one as well.  The way I understand hypocrisy, this does appear to fit the definition. If integration of the races, still an unknown concept in human history at that time (1910 to 1925), was, as the NAACP was claiming, actually the right course to commit to, it does seem that the ones promoting this "radical" new agenda should be the ones at very least practicing it themselves. 

------------------------------------

On July 2, 1964, the political / economic system of Compulsory Inclusionism (Civil Rights Act) was created in the USA, and its main purpose was/is to integrate the Dominant Male Group (white Christian males). NOTE: It's also interesting to note that only countries of Western Civilization origin have established - thru written laws - a compulsory integration system. (the ability of white males to become slaves to their written laws...never ceases to amaze me)

AGAIN, do you think America is as stable politically today under the compulsory integration laws than before the laws were passed (e.g. Civil Rights Acts '64, 65, '68)?

----------

Are the following Links notable *consequences* when a DMG allows encroachment into their social stratification system?

1) LINK...

2) OJ Simpson Double Murder/ Acquittal (black jury)...

3) LINK

4) Why do blacks continue to fail? Well, ...it's got to be white people's fault - they're "born to be racist" LINK

5) 1947... Mendez, et al v. Westminister School District of Orange County (CA)... Hispanics won the case for a desegregated school... Guess what? The school is 100% Hispanic today...and they aren't complaining one bit! LINK

6) MASSACRE LINK

-------------------------------------

NOTE: In the 100 years existence of the NAACP, there has yet to be a documented case of a white male / female member of this organization that moved from their predominantly White community into a predominantly black community. 2

------------------------------------
Lincoln (1862): "We look to our condition, owing to the existence of the two races on this continent. I need not recount to you the effects upon white men, growing out of the institution of Slavery. I believe in its general evil effects on the white race. See our present condition---the country engaged in war!---our white men cutting one another's throats, none knowing how far it will extend; and then consider what we know to be the truth. But for your race among us there could not be war...  It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated."

1. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln5/1:812?rgn=div1;view=fulltext

2. I could not find a single documented case. If someone knows of a case(s), please include it below in the comment section (with a source).

Mary White Ovington - Creator Of NAACP

Mary White Ovington was born in 1865 in Brooklyn, NY. Her childhood and adolescence were (okay, not surprisingly) completely unremarkable. Her adulthood, however, once she emerged into it, from then on she seems to have been determined to be a contradiction to what others of her people were doing : She was a life-long spinster when just about every other female desired marriage; she was Unitarian when virtually all Christians believed in the Trinity; she was a socialist when the overwhelming majority of Americans were for capitalism. So it should not be surprising to see Miss Ovington in 1908 conceive of an organization (the NAACP) for which the stated purpose was what the vast, vast majority of her people were dead-set against:: integration of one race into another - black into white. 

Half a Man…

Half a Man is a book written by Miss Ovington (released in 1911). As the title implies, Miss Ovington did not believe the Negro male was a full man, only but  “half a man."1   Full manhood for the Negro male, Miss Ovington suggests , was only obtainable with integration into another race; that is; the Caucasian male society (her race), which the black man continually sought out and juxtaposed himself. Miss Ovington’s opinion of those of African descent was derived mainly from her observations of them in the Negro section of Manhattan, New York (she actually lived among the Negro people there - in a Negro tenement - to get a better understanding of them). Her book is basically a description of Negro life from slavery to the beginning of the 20th century. It entails the struggles and trials and tribulations of a people in a world they were forced to accept (the white man's ways). 2    It is also a book about the Negro male’s struggle in the urban environment of Manhattan, his legacy of slavery, his persistent unemployment, the menial jobs he is almost always assigned to (when he does find work), his criminal propensity, his inability to be a provider for his family … among many other seemingly extraneous details of daily Negro life in this borough that is more than a bit taxing on any reader's time and patients. 

  Miss Ovington was blessed with a very long life, dying in 1951 at the age of 86. Note: I wonder what Miss Ovington would have thought of her little creation (The NAACP)  had she lived long enough to see the black male-initiated Watts Riots? 

------------------------------------------------------------------

1.   Miss Ovington in her book claims to have acquired this description, “half a man”, through a conversation she had with a college-age Negro male, but her account, at least to me, simply does not ring true.

2. I refer to blacks being "forced" as individuals to accept the ways of the white man. The black race collectively, however,  had the right and opportunity to live separate from the the white population. Of course, there was no law against this. They had the right to build their own towns, their own cities, or colonize a place in America's vast amount of unsettled land (1865 to 1964). In other words, American blacks after 1865 were in fact a completely FREE people. However, free from the white man, his towns, cities...and his way of life was not what the average black man in America wanted. They integration...and integration by any means necessary. The Johnson Administration gifted them what they so desperately coveted i.e. across-the-board forced integration rights.