Blocking Racial Intermarriage Laws in 1935 and 1937:
Seattle's First Civil Rights Coalition
by Stefanie Johnson
http://depts.washington.edu/civilr/antimiscegenation.htm


-

Eastern Europeans not White!
The bill introduced by King County representative Dorian Todd would
have outlawed marriage between whites and nonwhites. The most curious
part of the bill is its definition of white as "persons whose
ancestral lineage can be traced to inhabitants of any European
country which had a political existence, or a national identity, or
racial distinction as a self-governing state prior to 1800, except
those of Eastern and southeastern Europe embracing the Balkan
peninsula or states, and Russia as now delineated..."
The anti-Slavic and anti-Semitic racial demarcation echoed theories
promoted by Adolph Hitler's Nazi party in 1935.
*
The Voice of Action, published by the Communist Party, rallied
opposition to the 1935 bill that would have banned racial
intermarriage in Washington State. In the article below, Revels
Cayton, son of coalition leader Horace Cayton Sr., claims that the CP
led the fight that defeated the bill.
*
The Northwest Enterprise covered the campaign for the African
American community, providing a more complete view of the coalition
*
When the legislature took up the issue of racial intermarriage in
1937, the Northwest Enterprise again helped rally the black community
to fight the new bill.
*
The Philippine American Chronicle kept the Filipino community
informed of efforts to stop the 1935 Todd bill

-


In an era of American history marked by racial segregation and anti-
immigrant attitudes, Washington was an anomaly as the only state in
the West, and one of only eight nationwide, without laws banning
racial intermarriage. During the early to mid-twentieth century,
Washington was known throughout the region and the nation for its
liberal social policies. Interracial couples often traveled long
distances from states with anti-miscegenation laws to marry in
Washington .[1] The National Urban League distributed a pamphlet that
advertised the freedoms that blacks enjoyed in Seattle .[2]

This progressive legacy surely would not exist had it not
been for the concerted efforts of an array of civil rights activists.
When anti-miscegenation bills were introduced in both the 1935 and
1937 sessions of the Washington State Legislature, an effective and
well-organized coalition led by the African American, Filipino, and
progressive labor communities mobilized against the measure.

The movement against anti-miscegenation laws had two
different, yet inseparable, long-term impacts on the progressive
movement in Washington State . The first is obvious: it blocked
legislation that would have created a precedent for other legally-
mandated civil rights violations. The second effect is a bit more
subtle, but equally important. In the process of disarming the anti-
miscegenationists, activists uncovered their own weapon—the power of
collaborative action—that would aid their charge for social reform.
As they spoke with others in one voice against oppression and
discrimination, each independent advocacy group found unprecedented
persuasive influence. While the power of grassroots organizing was
well-known, as were the prototypical benefits of populist movements,
there had not been a civil rights-related effort of such scale and
diversity in Washington State up until this point. In this new model
for Washington State, independent actors argued on behalf of the
interests of others and in the end, achieved their initial self-
interested goals that had motivated them to action.

However, members of this coalition were not solely
interested in their own group's individual goals. By working
together, they came to view their own struggles as interconnected
campaigns in the fight for the equality guaranteed to them in
America . While on the surface their desires—not to mention their
lives—were often very different, at the heart of the issue and in
their desire for American ideals, their goals were indistinguishable
from one another. In his novel/memoir America is in the Heart, Carlos
Bulosan, a Filipino activist, captured the idealistic sentiment that
motivated and encouraged members of the coalition:

We in America understand that the many imperfections of democracy and
the malignant disease corroding its very heart. We must be united in
the effort to make an America in which our people can find happiness…
We must live in America where there is freedom for all regardless of
color, station and beliefs. America is a warning to those who would
try to falsify the ideals of freemen… America is also the nameless
foreigner, the homeless refugee, the hungry boy begging for a job and
the black body dangling on a tree…We are all that nameless foreigner,
that homeless refugee, that hungry boy, that illiterate immigrant and
that lynched black body. All of us, from the first Adams to the last
Filipino, native born or alien, educated or illiterate—We are
America ! [3]

The threatened anti-miscegenation legislation put Washington's
reputation and the lives of its racial minorities at risk, giving
them a stake in this legislation in numerous ways. Additionally, this
legislation threatened the political influence of the state's
famously strong leftist labor organizations in their constant
struggle to expand the rights and privileges of the disenfranchised.
The Communist Party and some labor unions viewed this attack on
minority rights also as an attack on the working class. In the name
of solidarity, the labor left threw its energy behind defeating this
measure.

With the Communists and organized labor beside them, the
Filipino American and African American communities pressured Olympia
in protest of the anti-miscegenation bills. Chinese Americans and
Japanese Americans were also involved in less direct ways. The
contributions and commitments of the different communities varied.
In truth, all were important in what they contributed and the angle
they were able to argue. In reality, none of these actors can be
divorced from one another. The movement was shaped by its
contributing actors—from the quiet contributions of the Chinese and
Japanese communities to the strong leadership of the combined
organizational efforts of the black, Filipino, and labor communities—
and its success invariably hinged on the contributions of each.

1935: House Bill No. 301

In February 1935, King County Representative Dorian Todd
proposed House Bill No. 301: a prohibition on marriages of persons of
Caucasian ancestry to "Negroes, Orientals, Malays, and persons of
Eastern European extraction."[4] Days earlier, King County Auditor
Earl Miliken received a request for a marriage license from a
Filipino man and a white woman. Resolved to prevent the interracial
couple from wedding, Miliken denied the request. Soon after, then-
King County Prosecutor Warren Magnuson informed the auditor that
there was no legal recourse to prevent the marriage. But Miliken was
not to be dissuaded. Claiming to speak on behalf of the concerns of
parent-teacher and women's organizations and pleading on a case for
decency, convinced Magnuson that something must be done.[5] Magnuson
in turn proposed the bill to Representative Todd, who carried the
measure to the floor of the state legislature, where it was
introduced. What began as an attempt to stop a single Filipino man
from marrying a white woman had quickly evolved into a movement to
separate all people into racial categories that would determine who
they could and could not marry. But the breadth of the bill also
helped mobilize and unite a broad constituency against it. The bill
never went to a vote; it was tabled by the Committee on Public Morals.
[6]

In response to the bill's introduction, Seattle 's black
community forged the Colored Citizens' Committee in Opposition to the
Anti-Intermarriage Bill, and chose veteran political leader Horace
Cayton, Sr. as its spokesperson. The committee organized the combined
efforts of Sound End Progressive Club; the NAACP; the Urban League;
churches; the communist League of Struggle for Negro Rights (LSNR);
the Filipino Community of Seattle, Inc.; the Washington Commonwealth
Federation and the Communist Party. The ongoing efforts of the
Citizens' Committee included lobbying efforts in Olympia and hosting
protest meetings at the Phyllis Wheatley YWCA and First AME Church .
In addition, the Citizens' Committee received thousands of protest
letters and telegrams, which were passed onto Olympia . [7]

In the black Seattle the efforts of the Colored Citizen's
committee were backed by the community's major newspaper,, the
Northwest Enterprise , and by key churches. Churches such as the
First AME and Mt. Zion Baptist rallied their congregations, hosted
meetings, and provided leadership. In general, churches disseminated
information regarding the issue to Seattle 's black population via
their congregations. The Northwest Enterprise, on both February 7,
1935 and February 14, 1935, offered reports connecting the anti-
miscegenation measure and the related churches and religious
organizations working on the issue.

Announcements under the "Church Notices" section of the
paper suggested the importance of the African American press and
churches to the anti-miscegenation bill movement. One reported on a
mass meeting of the Colored Citizens Committee at the First A.M.E.
Church .[8] In addition to general announcements of upcoming events,
the "Church Notices" section often detailed the sermons of each
church from the previous week. One such summary reported that at the
morning service the congregation of Grace Presbyterian Church heard
Horace Cayton offer "a plea for support to defeat House Bill 301."
Calls to action were embedded in the day-to-day announcement. For
example, the above announcement regarding Cayton's remarks was
followed by this announcement: "Last Friday evening the Phyllis
Wheatley Girl Reserves presented a two-act comedy at the church that
was well-attended." [9]

During the 1935 efforts to block the anti-miscegenation
legislation, the Northwest Enterprise, covered two related nationwide
stories on attempts to prevent interracial relationships, punctuating
the importance of protecting the existing civil rights within
Washington State . One article told of the extremes that others
across the nation would go in order to overcome discriminatory
marriage laws. Weeks after the introduction of the bill in Olympia ,
the paper reported on a white "Romeo" who had a "pint of blood
injected into his arm to defeat Georgia 's law against
intermarriage."[10] Following the injection, the man took an oath
before authorities, testifying that he did not have pure Caucasian
blood, thus legalizing his marriage. The article goes on to inform
readers that this "Romeo," Dr. Fred Palmer, found good fortune in his
life following this decision, that "despite the forebodings of his
family and his white friends, upon whom Dr. Palmer turned his back,
his marriage is recorded as having been highly successful."
Furthermore, it reported that, "Dr. Palmer's business is also said to
have prospered in spite of warnings that his marriage would ruin it."
[11]

One week later, the Northwest Enterprise ran a similar
front-page story; in this case a "not desirable" couple consisting of
an African American man and a white woman received an eviction notice
from their Harlem landlord based on this categorization.[12] This
article went on to highlight the parallel between this case and a
case from Chicago , where court officials attempted to prove the
insanity of a woman based on the fact that she had married a black
man. In the end, the court officials admitted that this woman, Jane
Newton, was "exceptionally brilliant." Despite this, over the course
of the trial the prosecutors developed a case against both the man
and the woman based on a history of activism. The story reports that
in the end the court freed Jan Newton, but convicted her husband
on `disorderly conduct' charges, highlighting the considerable
lengths to which the government would go to prevent interracial
relationships.[13]

Much like the Northwest Enterprise , the Philippine
American Chronicle reported on the inherent flaws of the anti-
miscegenation bill and the leadership of its community in the fight
against it. Early in the 1935 legislative session, the paper carried
an editorial, "Intermarriage Dilemma," discussing the merits of
intermarriage. Its author questioned the idea that intermarriage
is "fatal" and points out that people have marriage is a risky
venture regardless of race—one that individuals had freely joined for
centuries. He contended that marriage should be determined by love,
as it always had been, arguing,

As humans under the laws of a supreme being, irrespective of race,
color or creed, we have the right to pick our mates, whether she be
(sic) a white or a colored one, and nothing matters so long as both
couple adore and understand one another.

Still, recognizing the complexities raised by
intermarriage, the article discussed the fact that no relationship
could be divorced from its environment. Intermarriage might affect
standing in the public, as well as affect the treatment of their
children. But, in the end, the author reassured his readers that
while the social implications of intermarriage might not be easy,
loving individuals should not avoid marriage because of the potential
to face discrimination. He wrote, "could all the people be
cosmopolitan, could the people be broadminded enough to mind their
own business" they might recognize that in reality, at their heart,
these people were the same, and perhaps more enlightened than most of
society for recognizing this common bond despite appearances. [14]

A different editorial reminded the readers of the
Philippine American Chronicle that under the Declaration of
Independence, the United States recognized that all men are created
equal, endowed with inalienable rights that while not set in the
Constitution, created an important ethic to respect and enshrine in
law. The writer continued, "the pending marriage law…renders the
impossibility of enforcing Americanism in the sense that it breeds
sectionalism among the peoples of this country… [it] entirely
deprives either party of those intending to marry of their rights to
the pursuit of happiness." Pleading to the sentiment of his readers,
he writes that the United States is known throughout the world as
the `melting pot,' but that with laws such as the anti-intermarriage
bill, "the fire that keeps the pot melting is now smoldering into
ashes of insignificance."[15]

Aside from editorial arguments, the Philippine American
Chronicle reported on the involvement of the Filipino community in
the movement against the anti-miscegenation bill, with a particular
emphasis on Filipino labor unionists.. Late in February of 1935,
members of the Cannery Workers' and Farmers' Labor Union Local 18257
went to Olympia to voice their opinions against the legislation. One
of the delegates, himself married to a white woman and father of a
son with that woman, remarked in the newspaper, "In protesting
against the bill, I am prompted by its future effect not only on my
son, but to others of American mothers and fathers. It would be
unfair for any government to manage the affairs of one's heart."
Another protester argued that the bill was unconstitutional in that
it deprived either party of their rights in the pursuit of happiness,
and that "to dictate to whom one should marry or not marry is
obviously detrimental to our rights." He commented further that the
bill was "the most vicious bill ever presented in the House."[16]
Upon their visit, these representatives received assurance that the
bill would be defeated.[17]

In 1935, the Japanese American Courier followed the anti-
intermarriage legislation, yet the message was separate from the
coalition's efforts, and different in nature from those of Seattle 's
other racial communities. Furthermore, in comparison to the other
papers, the Japanese American Courier carried much less coverage of
the anti-miscegenation bill than both the Northwest Enterprise and
the Philippine American Chronicle. Where the Courier did write about
the issue, it was in accord with their general practices, as the
paper regularly condemned race prejudice—albeit in milder language
than employed by the Enterprise—and called for racial understanding.
[18]

There are several examples of this practice. The first
Courier article simply reported that the bill would prohibit
intermarriage and require a three-day waiting period before a
marriage license would be issued. While in this report, the Japanese
American weekly did not directly take aim at the legislation, the
paper does address the constitutionality and ethics of the proposed
legislation elsewhere in that issue. A different article recalls a
statement by Dr. Inazo Nitobe, a well-known Japanese diplomat married
to an American woman. The paper credits Dr. Nitobe with the perfect
answer to the "problem of racial marriage." When questioned on his
own marriage, Nitobe replied, "I did not marry the race, I married an
individual." The article continues pragmatically, "The problem is not
one to be regulated by law… If [those considering marriage] are
resolved to face the consequences of their union, they should be
commended rather than condemned for it takes not a little moral
courage to face a situation which is frowned on as severely as
intermarriage...such legislation is clearly discriminatory." [19]

The next issue of the Courier carried the bold
headline, "Rep. Todd's State Marriage Bill Defines Racial Groups"
with smaller subheads clarifying "Caucasian, Negro, Mongolian,
Oceanic Races Described; Marriages of Whites with Other Races would
be Banned."[20] The remainder of the article merely reprinted the
legislation as introduced, with neither commentary nor invocation of
action.

Collaboration Between Progressive Whites and Minorities
The Communist Party used its newspaper, the Voice of
Action, to highlight its opposition to the 1935 miscegenation bill.
It set itself apart from its coalition partners by arguing that the
bill was not only racist, but also anti-labor and anti-working
people. One report mentioned that one month before the end of the
legislative session, a mass meeting of the Citizens' Committee
received a telegram that unofficially told the group that House Bill
No. 301 would be killed. The report of this event is telling on
several accounts of the wider framework of action, and of labor's
self-promotion. The paper goes on to praise itself, as it writes, "it
was not an accident that the telegram came to the Voice of Action,
but that it clearly showed what a force the militant white workers,
liberals and the intellectuals had been in the fight to smash the
bill."[21] However, despite this apparent victory, the article
entitled "Continued Pressure urged on Todd Bill" cautioned against
giving up the fight without assurance that they had won. Before
elaborating on the good news, the editors warned that rather than
relying on lobbying alone, "the chance of killing the bill will
undoubtedly depend upon the continuation of wide mass protest…we
recommend redoubled protest as a safe guarantee that victories won to
date…are not lost."[22] The Voice of Action went to great lengths to
accentuate the connection between the need to fight the anti-
miscegenation bill and work in common cause with white laborers. One
article commented, "How Negro-hating goes hand-in-hand with labor-
hating, and why reactionaries use one to split the other, was shown
this week by the action of Representative Dorian E. Todd, introducer
of the vicious Todd anti-intermarriage bill."[23]

Following the defeat of the 1935 bill, the Voice of
Action compared Todd and other legislators in support of the measure
to a lynch mob. It congratulated its readers on their successful
efforts. It also largely credited itself and militant organized labor
for the victory on behalf of African Americans. The paper reported
that politicians underestimated the protest that would arise over the
Todd Bill, and, in plain language, stated, "The mistake these fine
gentlemen made was in forgetting the Communist Party." The article
further commented, "Maybe they thought that we Communists just talk
of defending the rights of the Negro people in order to catch votes,
like they do. If that was their idea, they certainly know better now…
the Negro people can plainly see that they have a true friend in the
white toilers" again, framing themselves as the defender of African
Americans.[24]

Some parts of organized labor utilized its already well-
developed social network to spread the word to workers throughout
Washington , as well as across the nation, and encouraged protest. As
a result, telegrams from unemployed organizations, United Farmers
Leagues, trade unions, Commonwealth Builders, leading white liberals,
preeminent educators and professionals flooded Olympia from
throughout the United States .[25] Others contacted the Seattle
Central Labor Council shortly after the introduction of the bill,
urging protest.[26] Likewise, Revels Cayton, prominent in both labor
and African American circles, and son of Horace Cayton, Sr., the
prominent leader of the Colored Citizens' Coalition, issued a call to
arms in Voice of Action that labeled the legislation as an attempt to
smash unity and at the top of the report, stressed the importance
with the words, "MUST ACT." He encouraged workers to pass resolutions
and send letters to the chairman of the Committee on Public Morals
demanding that he kill House Bill No. 301.[27]

1937: Senate Bill No. 342

Two years later, in February 1937, Washington State
Senator Earl Maxwell introduced a similar measure in the Senate,
prohibiting marriage between Caucasians and ethnic minorities.
However, Maxwell took the issue one step further and developed
penalties for individuals who violate the statute. Comparing the 1937
and 1935 bills, the Northwest Enterprise commented that "Senator
Maxwell has taken up the torch [from Representative Todd] and if he
were to have it his way, he would burn all the bridges of progress
that education, sportsmanship, interracial understanding and
progressive thinking have thus far carried this state through years
of steadfast advancement, unblemished by discriminatory enactment and
unhaltered by Jim-Crow laws."[28] In the end, Maxwell's bill
effectively died after it was buried in the Senate Rules committee.
While still in session and with the legislation pending before the
committee, Lieutenant Governor Meyers met with protesters from the
black community and personally pulled the original copy of the bill
from the file and gave it to the delegates. Although the bill was
essentially dead, handing over this version, typed and signed by the
sponsor, assured that there was no remaining possibility that the
bill could be enacted into law.[29]

Following the 1935 effort, the Colored Citizens'
Committee announced that it would continue to function to fight all
discriminating laws.[30] True to their word, the same organizations
emerged for the second round of the fight. Seattle 's African
American community was the central player in driving the force behind
the lobby in 1937.

While in the 1935 effort, the Northwest Enterprise called
for action, reported on coalition meetings, and followed the status
of the bill quite extensively, in 1937, the paper crusaded with
fervency. Shortly after Senate Bill No. 342 was introduced, the
Northwest Enterprise devoted over half of its front page to reports
and comments on the legislation, calling for widespread action. Apart
from the dispensing information and mobilizing blacks, the paper used
articles and editorials to argue against the logic of the bill and
its far-reaching, unintended consequences. One writer drew from
examples of other states that had intermarriage laws "in order that
all citizens may know the facts concerning such laws, and better
understand why such laws are opposed."[31] Another decried the bill
for "taking marriage, the most honorable institution of the human
species, and putting it on a legal plan with fornication, adultery,
and all the horrible sins catalogued in the Old and New Testaments.
Additionally, the article described anti-miscegenation laws as "a
subversion of objective morality that may have far-reaching
consequence…which white and colored will reap equally."[32] The
second writer questioned what constitutional rights any other person
had to take the most basic of rights from another. He argued that the
laws of love existed "rightly beyond the reach of humans," and that
any effort to threat these issues otherwise inherently offended the
institution of marriage. Furthermore, taking on perverse laws would
demoralize the people of the state and would be a "dastardly and
derogatory" infliction upon true American values.[33]

The example of other state's anti-miscegenation laws
provided ongoing inspiration for the Colored Citizens' Committee's
campaigns, but not always in ways one might expect. One article in
the Northwest Enterprise reported that bans in other states "in
spirit and effect, if not in letter, tend to make the naturally
honorable relation of marriage a worse crime than the naturally
dishonest practice of illicit intercourse." This represented an
effort to reclaim the language of morality and values from anti-
miscegenation supporters by adopting their main argument: that
relationships between people of different races are immoral. The
article went on to argue that the anti-miscegenation bill
promoted "the very thing it is supposed to defeat—race intermixture,
by giving perfect immunity to the men of the stronger group" who
could sleep with women of color but then not feel compelled to marry
them or even take care of their children. This countered white fears
about promiscuous men of color by arguing that promiscuous white men
were the real problem to public morality, and that most people of
color didn't even want relationships with whites:

Every year, time, energy, and thousands of dollars must be spent by
the Negro in the United States in opposition to this and other
discriminatory laws that tend to nullify his Constitutional heritage.
Not because of his desire for a mixed family, but for the protection
of his own colored family…Negroes who oppose the prohibitive laws are
generally already married and would not consent for their children to
suffer the inconvenience which it costs to marry a white person in
America , legally or illegally.

He believes that a law to compel fathers to marry the
mothers would break up more miscegenation in a week than a law
prohibiting marriage will break up in fifty years.[34]



This strategy of highlighting the protection of family and natural
prevention of miscegenation as a point of agreement with their
adversary is a quintessential example of political strategy focused
on building a diverse coalition of support.

Aside from the Northwest Enterprise , the churches and
other black organizations once again took part in the fight. For
example, the NAACP, which had emerged with greater influence in the
years between the bills, was an integral player in leading a
multiracial coalition of 75 whites, blacks, and Filipinos to Olympia
in opposition to the measure.[35]

The Filipino community was also once again centrally
involved in the movement. In March 1937, the Philippine Advocate
printed an extensive article titled, "No Race Deterioration in Mixed
Marriages Says Filipino Writer." In this article, the writer,
Catalino Viado argued that interracial marriages would enhance, not
detract from the quality of life in America .

There is absolutely nothing to be afraid of about interracial
marriages. There will never be any race deterioration. Let us profit
together by the use of our intelligence, on the right thing and in
the right way. Let us exercise tolerance, using our judgment wisely
without petty jealousy and race sentimentalism…Why do you worry about
the security of the offsprings (sic) of white-brown marriages? When
we Filipinos love, we love to the core, not artificially and
superficially."[36]



Second, the article contends that American society,
despite all of its positive and admirable characteristics, could
stand to improve. His final point is perhaps the most persuasive, and
really a glimpse of the motivations of the coalition—to prevent the
development of discriminatory ideas understood as truth that would
naturally follow the existence of discriminatory law. He writes, "Mr.
Maxwell and others say that marriage of white and black is socially
ineffective. It may be so when you enact laws to make it so and
educate the public about it." [37]

Foundation for the Coalition

To understand the nature of this working coalition, it is
important to understand the larger framework shaping minority
politics and liberal politics in Washington at that time,
particularly in Seattle which provided the headquarters for this
movement. The coalition was built largely upon pre-existing ties. The
diverse groups that emerged as leaders in this movement had a history
of cooperation with one another, and, in addition to the wide
spectrum of activism, had an important impact on the efficient and
organized manner in which the coalition was able to react quickly.
Likewise, looking closer at the minority and labor groups in Seattle
exposes areas of disagreement that could have undermined the success
of the coalition had it not been for the overwhelmingly strong ties
that did maintain a solid structure.

Four distinct racial minorities—blacks, Filipinos,
Japanese, and Chinese—dominated the Seattle 's civil rights politics
over the 1930s, and each group brought something different to the
political table in their coalition work to oppose the bills that
would have banned interracial marriage. It is significant that the
original 1935 bill to outlaw miscegenation grew in response to a
proposed marriage between a Filipino man and a white woman.
Filipinos had a unique experience as newcomers to the United
States . Thousands of Filipinos grew up under American colonial
occupation, and traveled to the United States for work or education
not as Asian immigrants, but as American nationals.[38] Upon arrival,
they were quick to assume the right to vote, form unions, participate
in democracy and fight those who sought to restrict their freedoms.
Many racist Asiaphobes conflated this political assertiveness with
sexual assertiveness, and began to complain—sometimes through
violence— about "interracial liaisons" between Filipino men and white
women.[39] The strong community organizations within the Filipino
community were well poised to counteract this racist rhetoric. In
1935, the Filipino-led Cannery and Farm Labor Union dispatched a
committee of four to Olympia . Speaking on behalf of the Filipino
community as well as labor unions, this committee shared with
numerous legislators their opinions regarding the bill. Upon return,
they dispatched information to the community through the Philippine
American Chronicle and public meetings.[40]

But African American resistance also proved invaluable.
Despite the fact that African American migration to Seattle did not
grow dramatically until World War II, Seattle's African American
community was able to gain greater electoral power in the 1930s as
the Democratic and Republican parties vied for their vote, as well as
use these campaigns against the anti-miscegenation bills to help
build up their own community and political organizations. African
Americans historically voted Republican out of opposition to
segregationist southern Democrats. But during the Depression, in
Seattle and around the country outside the South, African Americans
slowly shifted their alliances from the Republican to Democratic
Party. Noting the shift to Democrats, Republican leaders in Seattle
increased their support for civil rights, fair employment, and other
black community concerns.[41] As a small, but seemingly swayable
voting block, African Americans were not to be ignored or brushed off
by politicians, and this aided their lobbying efforts in Olympia .

The growing presence of African Americans in radical left-
wing political groups, such as the Communist Party and the Washington
Commonwealth Federation, also facilitated this growing political
power.[42] When the Communist Party argued that the anti-
intermarriage bill was an effort by the ruling-class sought to turn
the United States into a nation controlled by fascists, they sought
to both move blacks away from their traditionally Republican Party
ties as well as help them lead a revitalized labor movement.

Finally, black community organizations helped ensure the
defeat of the anti-miscegenation bill. In addition to the Northwest
Enterprise , many sectors of African American society turned to
activism during the Depression—including churches, social, and
political organizations. Founded twenty years earlier, the NAACP and
the Urban League both were revitalized at this time as leaders and
members worked to improve conditions of black life and foster the
full integration of African Americans into the general society.[43]
The NAACP proved its capability as a legal advocacy organization
through these efforts; they led the broad-based political coalition
in opposition to the discriminatory policy. They also strongly
committed to protecting critical community interests and maintaining
the state's support of civil rights.[44]

Japanese groups played a different role in the
coalition. In general, Japanese intermarried with white people much
less frequently than Filipinos, partially because many Japanese had
arranged marriages. This shaped the way that Japanese groups
participated in their opposition to the proposed ban on
miscegenation.

The Japanese American Courier, the nation's largest
English-language Japanese newspaper at the time, gave coverage to
incidents of prejudice and exclusion, but in much milder language and
with significantly less commentary than newspapers that served
African Americans or Filipinos in Seattle . [45] As previously
mentioned, the Courier was not involved in the Citizen's Committee
campaign against anti-miscegenation laws. Its few reports on the
topic were less likely to directly attack the racism behind the
bill. While Seattle 's Japanese population did indeed engage in the
overall fight against discrimination, their leaders, including
Courier editor James Sakamoto, had little tolerance for the protest
strategy associated with organizations like the Seattle NAACP or
Urban League. Sakamoto opposed the strong stances taken by the NAACP
and advocated for accommodation to the racial status quo, educational
advancement, and economic self-sufficiency. Of the Japanese, Sakamoto
said they should "stay within their own community, support small
businesses within their area, and emulate the patriotism of white
America ."[46] Furthermore, there were few organizational links
between Japanese and other minority groups .[47] This is not to say
that Japanese did not oppose the measure, but that they were not a
formal part of the larger coalition that represented a wider range of
activists working to suppress the bill and did not appear in force in
protest of the measure.

Although Seattle 's organized labor community had a long
history of hostility to Japanese and Chinese workers, radical labor
organizers included advocacy on behalf of Japanese and Chinese
workers to their opposition to the bill. In an attempt to garner
support, Communists argued that because Asians did not threaten
public order or commit crimes, but instead set up homes, raised
families, and could be characterized as thrifty and energetic, they
were at risk of losing their rights. The Communists reasoned that
because Asians found success and gradually assimilated to American
society, they threatened the racial segregation that white employers
desired.[48] If assimilated Asians gained status and strength in
wealth and held an expectation of rights and a hope for equality with
their employers, naturally they would threaten white supremacy that
helped support radically unequal distributions of wealth. According
to this argument, the whites in power implemented laws such as the
anti-miscegenation bill in order to prevent assimilation to American
society; this tactic sought to frame the issue in the minds of
others: if law stated that Asians could not be assimilated, society's
assumption would follow.

Conclusion

In the end, the development and success of this coalition
built a solid foundation for political organizing in Washington State
well beyond the boundaries of this specific measure. The cooperative
action rooted in issues of social justice proved influential in
public policy development and emboldened activists through a major
victory. In the years to come the movement grew stronger because of
networks established and nurtured in the fight against anti-
miscegenation laws. The 1935 and 1937 campaigns laid the groundwork
for future multi-ethnic collaboration on subsequent civil rights and
progressive issues.

However, it must be said that while these groups
developed a strong foundation for future action, they were neither
strangers to organizing their communities, nor to one another
beforehand. This coalition pulled together so well largely because of
the preexisting ties that these interest groups and leaders had with
their communities and with one another. Blacks, Filipinos, and the
leftist labor movement were not strangers to one another. Filipinos
drew together its community through the labor union. Blacks relied
upon the social roles of churches. Both Blacks and Filipino
organizations rallied their members. White labor utilized its broad
networks to mobilize progressive workers state- and nationwide.
Because their interconnectedness predated the actions detailed in
this paper, it follows that they would be better prepared and
experienced in working together for any subsequent issue that might
arise following the 1935 and 1937 efforts. The fact that these groups
could more easily collaborate following the efforts against anti-
miscegenation is really a continuance of the same trends that brought
this coalition together.

© Stefanie Johnson 2005

HIST 498C, Fall 2004


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

[1] Takaki, Ronald, Strangers from a Different Shore: A History of
Asian Americans, New York : Penguin Books, 1990, p. 342

[2] Colbert, Robert E., "The Attitude of Older Negro Residents Toward
Recent Negro Migrants in the Pacific Northwest ," Journal of Negro
Education, Vol. 15, No. 4 (Fall 1946), p. 697

[3] Bulosan, Carlos, America is in the Heart: a Personal History, New
York : Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1946, p. 189

[4] "Here's the Anti-Marriage Bill, House Bill No. 301," Northwest
Enterprise , February 14, 1935

[5] "Committee Plans Fight on Intermarriage Bill," Northwest
Enterprise , February 7, 1935

[6] "Anti-Intermarriage Bill Held in Committee", Northwest
Enterprise , March 31, 1935

[7] Taylor, Quintard, The Forging of a Black Community: Seattle 's
Central District, from 1870 Through the Civil Rights Era, Seattle :
University of Washington Press, 1994, p. 94

[8] "Church Notices," Northwest Enterprise , February 14, 1935, p. 3

[9] "Church Notices," Northwest Enterprise , February 7,1935, p. 4

[10] "White Romeo Injected Negro Blood To Beat Marriage Law,"
Northwest Enterprise , March 14, 1935, p. 1

[11] Northwest Enterprise , March 7,1935, p. 1

[12] "Colored Man with White Wife Not Desirable," Northwest
Enterprise , March 14, 1935, p. 1

[13] Northwest Enterprise , March 14, 1935, p. 1

[14] "Intermarriage Dilemma," Philippine American Chronicle,
February, 15, 1935, p. 2

[15] "Americanism," The Philippine American Chronicle, March 1, 1935,
p. 2

[16] "Filipino Labor Union Local Sends Delegates to Olympia ; Report
Findings on Bill 301," Philippine American Chronicle, March 1, 1935

[17] "Filipino Labor Union Local Sends Delegates to Olympia ; Report
Findings on Bill 301,"Philippine American Chronicle, March 1, 1935,
p. 1

[18] Taylor , p. 119

[19] "The Marriage Questions," Japanese American Chronicle, February
9, 1935, p. 2

[20] "Rep. Todd's State Marriage Bill Defines Various Racial Groups,"
Japanese American Courier,

February 16,1935 p. 1

[21] "Continued Pressure urged on Todd Bill," Voice of Action,
February 22, 1935, p.1

[22] "Continued Pressure urged on Todd Bill," Voice of Action,
February 22, 1935, p.1

[23] "Todd Exposed as Enemy of Labor," Voice of Action, March 1,
1935, p.1

[24] "Defeat of Todd Bill Victory of Unity Between White Workers,
Negro People," Northwest Enterprise , March 29, 1935, pp. 1, 4

[25] "Defeat of Todd Bill Victory of Unity Between White Workers,
Negro People," Northwest Enterprise , March 29, 1935, pp. 1, 4

[26] "Todd Exposed as Enemy of Labor," Voice of Action, March 1,
1935, p.1

[27] "Anti-intermarriage Bill is Attempt to Smash Unity," Voice of
Action, February 15, 1935, p. 3

[28] "The Miscegenation Marriage Bill," Northwest Enterprise ,
February 26, 1937, p. 1

[29] Acena, Robert A., "The Washington Commonwealth Federation:
Reform Politics and the Popular Front," p. 154

[30] "Anti-Intermarriage Bill Held in Committee," Northwest
Enterprise , March 31, 1935, p. 4

[31] "Intermarriage Bill: a menace and demoralizing," Northwest
Enterprise , February 26, 1937, p. 1

[32] "The Miscegenation Marriage Bill," Northwest Enterprise ,
February 26, 1937, p. 1

[33] "The Miscegenation Marriage Bill," Northwest Enterprise ,
February 26, 1937, p. 1

[34] "Intermarriage Bill: a menace and demoralizing," Northwest
Enterprise , February 26,1937, p. 1

[35] Taylor , p. 264 (notes)

[36] "No Race Deterioration in Mixed Marriages Says Filipino Writer,"
Philippine Advocate, March 1937, p. 1

[37] "No Race Deterioration in Mixed Marriages Says Filipino Writer,"
Philippine Advocate, March 1937, p. 1

[38] Philippine American Chronicle, March 15, 1935, p. 2

[39] Taylor , p. 124

[40] "Filipino Labor Union Local Sends Delegates to Olympia ; Report
Findings on Bill 301," Philippine American Chronicle, March 1, 1935,
p. 1

[41] Taylor , p. 104-105

[42] Taylor , p. 105

[43] Taylor , p. 95

[44] Taylor , p. 93

[45] Taylor , p. 119

[46] Taylor , p. 131-132

[47] Taylor , p. 127, 131-132

[48] Cox, Oliver C., "The Nature of the Anti-Asiatic Movement," The
Journal of Negro Education, Volume15 No. 4 (Autumn, 1946), p. 614.