Roman Glowinkowski

Multicultural Georgia

11/09/05

The Leo Frank Case;

A perfect Storm of Hatred

Young Mary Phagan; a picture of innocence and southern womanhood just entering her young adult life was brutally murdered and left to die in the dark, dungeon like basement of the National Pencil factory in Atlanta Georgia on April 26, 1913. There was no shortage of suspects to the crime and two stood out in particular, a poor African American and a wealthy northern Jew. At the time of a major industrial movement in the south when many of the Georgia rural citizens were flocking to major cities and towns to make ends meat, there was great tension and anxiety abound in regards to industrialization and the newly reoriented roles of the southern family as influenced by overseers and bosses. Older prejudices towards African Americans and Jews still permeated the south, as well as hatred towards the northerners and skepticism towards the wealthy by the poorer rural classes. This political background was the scene for one of the most publicized murder trials in early Georgian history. This trial became a forerunner to the media induced, sensational trial coverage that can be seen today. In this case the wealthy Jew, Leo Frank, was eventually found guilty of Phagans murder and in turn was lynched. At first hand one may suspect that anti-Semitism and hatred towards outsiders (especially northerners) resulted in Frank’s conviction and eventual lynching, but further study of the case shows otherwise. These prejudices have played a role in the case, but how big of a role is left to interpretation. Indeed there are many factors that influenced the case, but this paper will prove that the leading factor was the pressure put upon local officials by news publications to find and convict a perpetrator, guilty or not.

To begin with, the major players in the drama should be introduced. Leo Max Frank was a relatively well of Texas born Jew who was reared in Brooklyn and educated at the Pratt Institute and at Cornell University. He commanded a high standing in the Jewish community, even though he remained out of the spotlight, and his family had a relatively influential Georgian history, his father Moses Frank was a confederate veteran and owned stock in many Georgian businesses including the pencil factory. Mary Phagan was a thirteen year old child “of tenant farmers who had moved to Atlanta for financial gain…” and was employed at the pencil factory putting erasers onto nearly finished pencils. Hugh Dorsey was at the time the solicitor general who prosecuted Frank and Thomas E. Watson was the publisher of the Watson’s Jeffersonian Magazine which was identified as one of the “muckraking and reform journals of its day”, and covered the trial on the behalf of the prosecution. Further, there was Jim Conley, “a black factory sweeper with a criminal record who would seem to have been the logical suspect.” Finally, there are also John Black and Boots Rogers, the detectives who worked the case, and Governor John Slaton who later granted Frank Clemency. There are many others who played roles in this tragedy which will be mentioned later, but none as prominent as these.[1]

Now that the major players have been introduced, the crime itself has to be described. Steve Oney spent the better part of two decades researching the happenings of the crime and is thorough in describing it to the detail in And The Dead Shall Rise. In a nut shell, Mary Phagan departed her home after breakfast to pick up $1.20 from Leo Frank at the factory. She was accounted for by eye witnesses throughout her morning journey until she left Franks office with her pay. At this time the story becomes speculation. What is known to be fact is that her body was discovered strangled in the basement “…ravished and brutally garroted with a piece of cord…blood matted her hair and her face was swollen and grimy”. Her undergarments were cut open and evidence of sexual misconduct (sodomy, but not vaginal intercourse) was present. The body was found by an African American by the name of Newt Lee who was working as a night watchman at the factory. Initially he was considered, among many others, as a suspect, but later dismissed by Black and Rogers. At the beginning of the investigation Jim Conley was unknown by the detectives and therefore not a suspect. The factory was large with many ways to enter and exit without anyone knowing. When initially confronted, Frank was not a suspect, but due to his nervous mannerisms and suspicious behavior, after the confrontation he quickly became the object of Rogers and Blacks investigation.[2]

The first two weeks of the investigation focused on a number of suspects that included Frank. Among the theories was that Phagan was attacked by strangers who wanted to rob her for her money. Another theory was that she was accosted by familiars who had a crush on Phagan. She was described as a “precociously beautiful young woman”. Yet other theories endorsed that she was attacked by Newt Lee and later the bombshell that turned out to be Jim Conley. Both sides presented witnesses that would collaborate these theories, but the two that Black and Rogers decided to focus their investigation on is that either Conley or Frank perpetrated the crime. The latter was the theory that Dorsey rested the case of the prosecution upon and eventually won.[3]

The facts that Frank was put on trial for the murder and that he was successfully prosecuted are evident. What is not so evident is just why the prosecution was successful. Many authors such as Harry Golden, author of A Little Girl is Dead, and Leonard Dinnerstien, a historian who published a scholarly account of the Frank case attributed the success of the case to anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism would be easy to blame for this atrocity, but further review by Oney cites many more causes that together far outweigh that theory. Among these causes is the complex social order of the new south, where due to industrialization, many displaced families find themselves in new and foreign roles within the industrialized centers of their states. Due to the major changes taking place in the south, relations between African Americans and whites were strained and constantly being redefined. Also, rampant poverty strained relations between the poor and rich as well as southerner and northerner. All these variable conditions contributed to a warping of the judicial system in Leo Frank’s case which together outweighed anti-Semitism as the primary contributor to the injustice that was the Leo Frank trial.[4]

The previously mentioned circumstances were indeed responsible for Frank’s conviction, but the conviction would not have succeeded without one other primary catalyst. In this case the catalyst takes form of sensational journalism. The fact of the matter is that the case was widely publicized by both local and national media. The major newspapers that were involved were the Atlanta Journal, the Constitution, and the Jeffersonian which were local, and the major national coverage was attributed to the New York Times. Other news papers were also covering the story, but they did not do so in so much detail and for such a large amount of time.

One must discuss this type of coverage hand in hand with the political aspirations of the major players of the involved. First off, the news baron William Randolph Hearst had purchased the Atlanta Georgian with the mind to use it as a life line to the American south in his bid for future presidential nominations. Hearst was indeed the father of sensational journalism. His papers in the north employed cunning veterans of the trade which used all their experience to make Hearst’s publications such a success. Georgia papers were not entirely entrenched in the practice and when Hurst bought the Georgian and employed his northern journalists to head it. It should have been no surprise that when a case such as this surfaced, these journalists would approach it with the ferocity of sharks at a fresh kill. Hearst’s paper would be the first in Georgia to splash the sensational story with flashy headlines and edgy pictures. The results were impressive, circulation of such papers jumped two, three and even four fold. As for the Georgian, “On the day of Frank’s conviction, the paper printed 131,208 copies-more than triple its pre-Hearst circulation.”[5]

Not to be outdone, the Constitution and Journal began to incorporate the same type of reporting surrounding the case. Their circulation boomed as well. Georgia was now plastered with headline after headline reporting on the case with as much sensationalism as possible. This was no light matter. The competing papers would do anything to best each other, reporting on leads that were not at all believable, but never the less shifting public sentiment in any direction they wished, which eventually accumulated in the direction against frank. A good example is that of the Georgian, when it plastered the headline “Police Have the Strangler” right after Franks arrest, well premature of the indictment much less the trial.[6]

Such headlines placed a huge amount of pressure atop Black and Rogers to arrest a perpetrator and also on Dorsey to prosecute. Through Oney’s vast research, it is understood that anti-Semitism did not play a part in the initial suspicion of Frank by Black and Rogers. They merely believed him to be a suspect which the circumstantial evidence and his reactions at the time made even more suspicious. Dorsey also based his prosecution on circumstances and Franks character rather then his religious affiliation. In fact, Frank and Conley were equally suspected, but the enormous pressure from the public required a scapegoat and Frank, at the time, was easier to prosecute then Conley. To the contrary, it was not Frank’s religion that made him the primary suspect, but instead it was the well rooted prejudicial misconception of African Americans that ruled out Conley. Conley was caught in many lies trying to protect himself, and even further, proved to have been the one charged with disposing the Phagan body. But preconceived notions of how black men act and their capacity for complexity, in the eyes of the prosecution, ruled out Conley. The investigators and Dorsey had no doubt of Conley’s involvement but they attributed his lying to be the result of Frank’s coercion and surmised that Conley was not capable of constructing such a complex scenario that would stump the minds of his white pursuers. Instead, according to them, it was more likely that a well educated northerner would attempt something so complicated and not a poor, ignorant black man. Interestingly enough, Luther Rosser and Arnold Reuben, Frank’s attorneys, used racial discrimination to paint a derogatory picture of Conley and Newt Lee in order to spin the case in their own favor. [7]

It is with little surprise in this situation where “the deep-seated, all-pervading, insistent demand that a victim be offered”, Frank was found guilty by a jury of his peers, which included three Jews. The trial was reported to take place in a carnival atmosphere with many instances of crowd interruptions throughout the proceedings. In fact, these interruptions composed one of the 115 reasons Franks lawyers submitted for his appeals. Even Governor Slaton’s 29 page letter of commutation addressed the fact under a large subheading titled “MOBS”. An accurate reflection of just how hostile the situation was towards Frank can be exemplified in the fact that Judge Roan, the presiding judge, allowed for Frank and his representatives to be absent when the verdict was read. Oney writes “Roan, conscious of the increasing hostility in Atlanta, believed that in the event of an acquittal, the superintendent and his counsel could well become the targets of violence.” Furthermore, Roan also “informed just a few people regarding the time and place of Leo Frank’s sentencing.” These actions support the reported facts stating that the trial took place in an atmosphere of intimidation and coercion.[8]

This hostile atmosphere was the result of the sensational journalism fueling the anxieties of the rural and poor in Georgia. Even though some derogatory comments were reported about Frank’s appearance and behavior as pertaining to him being Jewish, most of the anxiety surrounding Franks case was not about Frank being Jewish, but more about him being a wealthy northerner. Melnick writes

“Atlantans saw in the murder of Mary Phagan the embodiment of everything that

was wrong about New South industrialism…foreigners …were taking control over

local commerce---just as they had already come to dominate international finance.

Faced with the appalling crime and its strange details, southerners scapegoated Leo

Frank, holding him responsible for the entire burden of post-Civil War southern history.”

It was the fact that as a northern stranger and a boss, he had subjugated southern working class women and children that struck fear into the once proud southern males. Melnick writes further that “Most aroused were the working classes, who saw in Frank a symbol of the northern capitalist exploiting Southern womanhood.” Even after his trial and sentencing, many of the letters for clemency were written by none Jews. In fact many were written by churches of various denominations such as the letter written by Revs. White, Dubose, Daniel and Flinn, pastors of Baptist, Methodist and Presbyterian churches.[9]

Evidence that it was class rather then racial prejudice that played the defining role in Frank’s persecution is the fact that after Franks sentencing the thousands of letters supporting clemency originated from all religions. The majority of letters written to the prison commission were authored by pastors of various churches and middle to upper class citizens from the north as well as law offices from the south. Some of the examples on file are from A.M. Hughlett (Methodist minister), Andrew Cobb, Howell Erwin, Lamar Rucker and William Erwin (Lawyers), Russell Smith (Episcopal Minister), A. W. Cozart (Attorney), T.L. Gantt (editor and proprietor of the Jones County News). Judge Roan himself was quoted in Governor Slaton’s letter and in the New York Times that he was not sure to the guilt or innocence of Frank even though he supported the verdict (no doubt thanks to the immense political pressure from the incited crowds). Even though the majority of Georgians (working class) believed in Frank’s guilt, a quote from the New York Times addressing Slaton’s courage for commuting Frank’s sentence reflects the sentiments of the majority of the nation. It reads as follows:

“Governor Slaton feels that because of this act he must live in obscurity the rest

of his days. His view is too narrow. He quite misunderstands what awaits him.

If he but look beyond the boundaries of the Sate of Georgia, he can know and feel

to how high a place he has raised himself in the esteem and admiration of the whole

country….”[10]

All the fear and tension that resulted in Frank’s verdict also cumulated in Frank’s Lynching. After Governor Slaton commuted Frank, some publications such as Watson’s Jeffersonian continued to publish inflammatory articles about Frank. Watson among others, using rhetoric such as “…let him remember the unendurable provocation; and let him say whether Lynch law is not better then no law at all,” helped nurture the hatred toward Frank and sew the seeds of mob justice in the minds of many Georgians. This in no small part helped to influence a mob of Georgians, lead by influential leaders such as Judge Morris to lynch Frank. Slurs such as “murderer, sodomite, Jew and Yankee” were heard on the mobs lips, illustrating that religion was only a one constituent of Franks character on the minds of the mob. In either case, the mob successfully hung Frank, desecrated his body after and forever enthralled him in the annals of history as a martyr.[11]

It is clearly evident that anti-Semitism was thriving in the south at this time and it did play a role in the trial and lynching of Leo Frank, but what is more evident is the fact that this alone was not nearly enough to result in such a tragedy. What played a more influential part in this is the anxiety and fear of the working classes in regards to their ever changing roles in the new industrial south and their subjugation to the northerners in their post Civil War era. This however was also not significant enough to rouse the public of Georgia into committing such a miscarriage of justice. The catalyst that sparked the flame was none other then the sensational journalism introduced to Georgia through northern influenced papers which quickly spread to local news papers. Only together did all these influences combine to result in a perfect storm that necessitated a scapegoat which accumulated in the person of Leo Frank.

---

[1] Steve Oney, And the Dead Shall Rise: The Murder of Mary Phagan and the Lynching of Leo Frank (New York: Phantheon, 2003) p. 10.

“Leo Frank Case” (History and Archaeology, Progressive Era to World War II, 1900-1945) in The New Georgia Encyclopedia, Galileo; accessed Sep. 24, 2005.

“Jeffersonian Publishing Company” (Media, Print Journalism, Organizations) in The New Georgia Encyclopedia, Galileo; accessed Sep. 21, 2005.

Dan Carter, “And the Dead Shall Rise: The Murder of Mary Phagan and the Lynching of Leo Frank,” (Review), The Journal of Southern History Vol. 71, Iss 2 (May 2005), in Proquest, Galileo; accessed Sep 22, 2005.

[2] James N. Tidwell “Folklore in the News” Time Magazine Vol. 65, No. 4 (Jan. 24, 1955) in Jstor, Galileo; accessed Sep. 23, 2005.

[3] Dan Carter p. 1

Steve Oney, pp. 191-305. In the chapters “prosecution” and “defense”, Oney outlines both cases citing the many theories proving and disproving both sides.

[4] Dan Carter p. 2

[5] “Murder Trials and Media Sensationalism,” Nieman Reports. Cambridge, Spring 2004, Vol. 58, iss. 1 pg. 63

[6] Steve Oney p. 99

[7] Steve Oney p. 120

Steve Oney p. 203

Jeffrey Melnick, Black-Jewish Relations On Trial, Leo Frank and Jim Conley in the New South (Mississippi, University Press of Mississippi, 2000) p. 38

[8] “Mrs. Frank Pleads For Simple Justice,” New York Times, 1 March 1914 p. 1

John M. Slaton, “Letter of Commutation,” (June 21, 1915), in Georgia State Archives, Galileo; accessed Sep. 21, 2005.

Steve Oney pp. 340, 342

[9] Jeffrey Melnick pp. 49, 51

Rev. John E. White, Dubose, Daniel and Flinn, “Letter to Prison Commission” (1915), in Georgia State Archives, Galileo; accessed Sep. 23, 2005.

[10] A.M. Hughtlett, “Letter to W. Woods White,” (May 27, 1915), in Georgia State Archives, accessed Sep. 21, 2005.

Andrew J Cobb, “Letter to Judge G.H. Yancey,” (May 20, 1915) in Georgia State Archives, Galileo; accessed Sep. 21, 2005.

Russell K. Smith, “Letter to Prison Commission,” (May 29, 1915) in Georgia State Archives, Galileo; accessed Sep. 23, 2005.

A.W. Cozart, “Letter to Prison Commission,” (May 21, 1915) in Georgia State Archives, Galileo; accessed Sep. 21, 2005.

T.L. Gantt, “Letter to Chairman of Pardon Board,” The Jones County News (April 30, 1915) in Georgia State Archives, Galileo; accessed Sep 23, 2005.

John M. Slaton pp. 1-29

“Frank Seeks New Trial,” New York Times, 17 December 1913 p. 6

Steve Oney p. 506

[11] Steve Oney pp. 598, 508, 567