Atlanta Riot of 1906

Kevin Kadzis
HIST 3090
Dr. Gagnon
3-5-04

The Atlanta Riot of 1906

The Atlanta race riot of 1906 is an event that is largely overlooked by historians in the study of the post Civil War South. In late September of that year, the city erupted in racial violence as white mobs aggressively attacked blacks on the streets. What could have provoked the white citizens of Atlanta to suddenly attack large numbers of seemingly innocent blacks? Popular opinion of the day claimed that the riot a response to the assaults on white women by black men, which had become prevalent in Atlanta in the previous months. While these assaults certainly could have played a major role in provoking the riot, there are other factors that led to this outburst of lynching and property destruction that need to be examined.

There are many ways to analyze the causes of the Atlanta race riot of 1906. Among them is the role that Georgia’s gubernatorial campaign of 1906 played in indirectly encouraging racial violence against blacks. This political campaign was focused on nothing more than attacking the integrity of the black community by promoting the idea that they were actively seeking to make social advances at the expense of whites. Also, were whites uneasy with the economic and social success that certain blacks were experiencing in Atlanta? Was the riot a way to strike back at successful black entrepreneurs, while discouraging future black investment in business? Was it significant that the riotous mob in Atlanta consisted of mainly poor white men? Finally, was the Atlanta riot of 1906 inflamed by tactics of yellow journalism that were used by certain newspapers in Atlanta? All these questions regarding the cause of the Atlanta race riot are all connected in some way. When analyzed in depth, it is clear that the Atlanta race riot of 1906 was not a response to assaults on white women; but rather it was the culmination of a series of events that served to strike fear into the hearts of the white population of Atlanta.

In the early years of the twentieth century, Atlanta was growing by leaps and bounds. The decades since Union General William T. Sherman burned Atlanta to the ground had seen the city experience a very rapid development of business and industry. This created a booming economy that attracted the emigration of people from all over the American South, as well as the nation. Unfortunately, these high levels of prosperity resurrected racial tensions that existed between blacks and whites during the Reconstruction Period after the Civil War. These tensions had been dormant for so long that many simply forgot they even once existed. The increased interaction between blacks and whites, caused by Atlanta’s emergence as a growing economic center, brought the issue of racial conflict back to the for front of everyday life. Racial tensions present in Atlanta in the early 1900s manifested themselves in the form of the Atlanta race riots of 1906.

On the night of September 22, 1906 the city of Atlanta fell victim to what would become the deadliest riot in its history. At least sixteen black men were killed by the white mob as it roamed the streets. For over five hours this mob, of around 10,000 men, made it their goal to terrorize any black person as they saw fit. People were pulled from moving trolley cars and beaten on the street, while large amounts of property were destroyed.1 Local law enforcement officials had little control over the mob as it moved through the city spreading its wrath of murder and destruction. At one point during the riot, the mob made several unsuccessful attempts to wrestle away black men from police custody for lynching.2 This proves that those participating in the riot had very little respect for the authority of the police. Instead these rioters were concerned with taking justice into there own hands, even if this was at the expense of innocent blacks.

When one thinks about the horrible events associated with the Atlanta race riot of 1906, the first question that comes to mind is how could whites justify these cruel actions that were being taken on blacks? The answer to this question is complex, but put in simplest terms the white people of Atlanta saw the riots as retaliation against blacks for the repeated assaults made by black men on white women.3 Throughout the summer months leading up to the riot, Atlanta papers had been reporting a steady stream of rape attempts on "defenseless" white women by "Negro brutes". 4 Since many white men felt the law was doing nothing to stop these assaults, they believed the only way to discourage future assaults was to lash out against blacks in a collective manner through rioting and lynching. This form of defending the honor of one’s family, specifically of wife and daughter was socially acceptable throughout the south during this time period.5

It is clear that the white community viewed the black community as being responsible for the riots. Whites claimed only to attack “Negroes” when provoked by the aforementioned assaults on white women.6 According to many prominent Atlanta whites including Mayor J.G. Woodward, there was only one way to quell these violent uprisings. The Mayor provided an excellent summary of how most whites felt in regards to the riot.

The best way to prevent a race riot depends entirely upon the cause. As to the present trouble in Atlanta, I would say that the only remedy is to remove the cause. So long as black brutes attempt to assault our white women, just so long will they be unceremoniously dealt with.7

This statement is threatening in nature. The Mayor told the black community that they can expect more lynching and rioting if the assaults on white women continue. Because the Mayor focused his attention on the black community as being the sole cause of the riot, he indirectly justified the white community for the actions of the lawless mob that desecrated the city and killed many blacks.

Between the obligation to defend family honor, that was so important in southern culture, and the Mayor’s indirect endorsement of the rioting as a means of retaliation against blacks, it would be understandable to assume that these were the main causes of the Atlanta race riot of 1906. While these two factors played a major role in the riot, they are not the only reasons why Atlanta experienced a rash of white on black violence in September of 1906. Political, economic, and social conditions all contributed to the racial tensions behind the Atlanta race riot.

Perhaps the most prevalent of the underlying factors that led to the riot was Georgia’s gubernatorial campaign of 1906. Begun in 1904, the campaign was seen as an especially bitter conflict between Hoke Smith and Clark Howell. As editors of the Atlanta Journal and the Atlanta Constitution respectively, these two men were very prominent in the Atlanta political scene and no strangers to competition. Both Smith and Howell capitalized on the racial fears present in the state during their race for governor. Each candidate ran on an “anti-Negro” platform that included disfranchisement of blacks as the focal point of their campaigns.8

In the time since the 13th Amendment freed blacks from slavery, the white population resisted efforts to fully incorporate blacks into southern society. White supremacy still reigned supreme in the minds of many southerners who felt that blacks should be kept in their place, away from interaction with whites. The reason for this was that idle black men were prone to criminal activity and violence against whites. Thus, the early 1900s were the beginnings of Jim Crowe laws in the south. As the favorite in the 1906 gubernatorial race, Hoke Smith focused on this early in his campaign. Smith had a very vocal opinion that whites were the superior race, and had the responsibility to control the black population and keep them in line. This “white man’s burden”, as Smith called it, was directly associated with his opinion that whites were the superior race. Whites had an obligation to make sure blacks understood their place in society. Also, whites felt the need to protect themselves by taking preemptive action to insure that blacks would not resort to crime.9

Smith felt the best way to guarantee the subordination of blacks was to strip them of the right to vote. The majority of whites in Georgia believed that politically active blacks would prevent them from reaching their goals and objectives for southern society.10 In other words, whites were afraid if blacks were allowed to vote many Jim Crowe laws would not be passed. Smith, along with other whites, was worried that blacks would equate political participation with social equality.11 The last thing that any white person wanted was the black community thinking that they were the social equals of whites. According to this logic, it was a mistake to give former slaves the right to vote because it made them equal to white men in terms of full United States citizenship. Smith claimed that if the Negro thought he was fully equal to the white man, then what was to stop them from wanting to have access to white women.12 Smith directly connected the issue of black suffrage to racial amalgamation and assaults on white women, each of which made whites very uncomfortable. Smith’s comments during his campaign made blacks even more detestable in the eyes of whites. There was too much at stake to risk letting the races mingle together uncontrolled. As far as most people were concerned whites and blacks were just too different to ever be equal.13

The overwhelming racist overtones of the gubernatorial race of 1906 prepped the city of Atlanta for the riots it would endure in the near future. By listening to the Smith campaign pedal the fear of “Negro domination”, the white citizens of Atlanta were fooled into thinking that blacks were constantly plotting against them, waiting for the right moment to strike and lay claim to power.14 Therefore, it was understood that in such an event whites must band together to protect the established social system, which they held so dear. Whites could already see signs of economic and social advancement of blacks around Atlanta. This served to reinforce the fear of impending Negro domination. To witness blacks being successful in business threatened the entire mythology of black inferiority to whites.15 This departure from accustomed servitude was an affront to the honor of the white man.16 That being the case, whites were uncomfortable with the fact that Atlanta businesses, owned by blacks, were achieving success. The increasing number of educated and prosperous blacks in Atlanta was of major concern to those whites that felt their businesses were hurt by this growing segment of the population. Unfortunately, there was no legal way to force these black businesses out of the market. Encouraged by the threat of Negro domination that Hoke Smith spoke of, the white business leaders agreed there needed to be some measure of “economic and social control” exacted upon the owners of these black businesses. When the rioting broke out, it was seen as the perfect time to target black business and reestablish the proper social and economic order that previously existed in Atlanta.17

Clearly, it was politicians and business leaders who stood to gain the most from the Atlanta race riots of 1906. After all, they were the ones spreading anxiety and fear over the possibility of Negro domination and the end of racial subordination of blacks to whites. But how would these members of the white elite see there malicious plans put into action? Surely, they would not take to the streets to directly incite mob violence against blacks. No, instead they used lower class whites to do their dirty work for them. To ensure that the black race would not prosper at the expense of whites, white elite used disgruntled members of the white working class as puppets. These men had been fed a steady diet of anti-Negro propaganda through the gubernatorial race of 1906. Various newspapers, owned by the upper class, ran inflammatory headlines in order to breed panic among the unsuspecting lower class, forcing them into a frenzy of mob rule.18

Published reports stated the first mob to attack innocent blacks on the night of September 22, 1906 was made up of many young men who “would rather have trouble then not”. Additionally, these men were characterized as “low-life whites, with no direct relation to the women who had been assaulted by black men.” These men had just collected their weekly wage earnings and were out drinking, as it was Saturday night. All things considered, alcohol must have played a role in the willingness of these white men to gather and suddenly begin attacking blacks while causing significant property damage.19 The realization that alcohol played a role in contributing to the swift rise of the lynching and property destruction was the reason why the prohibition debate was brought out and into the open in Georgia politics.20

The immediate justification used by the mob was that since the law had not protected white women from assaults at the hands of “Negro heathens”, it was necessary to take the law into their own hands to protect women from such future assaults. There were some who felt that the actions of the mob were wrong and punishable offenses. Those who took a stand against the lynching did so, not because they believed killing innocent people to be wrong but rather because those participating in the riot were undermining the authority of the law created and maintained by white men. Which made it harder for their fellow white man to do his job.21

Recognizing that it was mostly uneducated lower class whites taking part in the riot ripping Atlanta apart, several print media outlets continued there practice of issuing papers containing glaring headlines meant to further enrage the mob. Specifically the Atlanta News and the Atlanta Georgian were accused of encouraging the riot in order create a wider circulation of their respective papers. One example of such headline from the Atlanta News and went so far as to openly suggest lawlessness and promote the formation of mobs. These newspapers did not stop here; they even went so far as to print extra riot editions that reported more assaults on white women to the public. None of the information in these “extra” editions was ever proven to be true.22

This form of yellow journalism was only concerned with creating sensational articles to pass along to the public in hopes of prolonging the riot for financial gain. For a while, the extra editions met their goal. In one late Saturday edition of the Atlanta News, there was a story commending the lynching of black men by the mob. The next day, after this edition hit the streets, a black man named Herman Moore was taken out of police custody and lynched for the supposed assault of a white woman. All this after the woman in question had pronounced Moore innocent upon seeing him in police custody.23 Clearly, during by the later stages of the riot, the mob was lynching for no other reason but to kill innocent blacks.

The Atlanta race riot of 1906 was not just a knee-jerk reaction to the assault of white women. It was a complex event fueled by many different underlying factors. On the surface, is the assumption that the riot occurred a result of numerous attacks made on white women by black men. As previously, it is widely accepted that this was the main cause of the devastating Atlanta riots. However once all the facts are taken into account it becomes obvious that other underlying factors also played a major part in the development of this racial conflict.

From its inception, the gubernatorial race of 1906 proved to be the catalyst that pushed the residents of Atlanta towards the events of September 22. The anti-black campaign Hoke Smith ran allowed for the development of the other factors that would contribute to the riot. By playing off the racial fears of the day, Smith created the atmosphere in which it was possible for black social and economic advancement to greatly disturb upper class whites. This in turn made the upper class use lower class whites in the form of mob violence to reaffirm white dominance over blacks.

Because the rioters were for the most part young men lacking in education, it is easy to see why the tactics of yellow journalism used to make a quick dollar also served to unnecessarily encourage and prolong the riots. Since the members of the mob were already brainwashed by the racist message of Hoke Smith and other members of the white elite it was not surprising that a limited number false but polarizing headlines grabbed their attention and infuriated them all the more.

In conclusion, it can be said that causes of the Atlanta race riot of 1906 were in fact related to one another. The retaliation of whites on blacks for assaults on white women, allowed the participants of the race for governor to play off of the fear of the public. This gave other members of the white upper class the opportunity restore social and economic order by running black owned businesses into the ground. Finally, the vile method of selling newspapers with embellished headlines to the enraged mob of lower class whites allowed for the riot to reach an intensity not seen in the city of Atlanta or the state of Georgia since 1906.

1. "Atlanta Swept By Raging Mob," The Atlanta Constitution, 23 September 1906

2. The Atlanta Constitution, 23 September 1906

3. The Atlanta Constitution, 23 September 1906

4. The Atlanta Constitution, 23 September 1906

5. Bertram Wyatt-Brown, Honor and Violence in the Old South (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), 212.

6. “Riot’s End All Depends on Negroes,” The Atlanta Constitution, 25 September 1906

7. “Race Riots and Murders in Atlanta,” The Independent 61, 27 September 1906: 713-714.

8. Gregory Lamont Mixon, “The Atlanta Riot of 1906” (Ph.D. diss., University of Cincinnati, 1989), 328.

9. Hoke Smith Papers, Richard B. Russell Library, University of Georgia. Series: V

10. Mixon, “The Atlanta Riot of 1906”, 329.

11. Mixon, “The Atlanta Riot of 1906”, 365.

12. Lamartine G. Hardman Collection, Richard B. Russell Library, University of Georgia. Series: IV