“Reclaiming the Fallen”

Representing Harlem

One of the most visible ways the UNIA Central Division served the community was by representing their interests formally to the city government through a department called the Central Unemployed Unit. The Unemployed Unit offered a free service to the community (UNIA membership was not required) wherein they would represent the interests of individuals by writing letters of inquiry to government District Offices on behalf of African Americans. These offices were the local outposts of relief in New York City, and the Central Division dealt primarily with numbers 4, 26, 28, 32, and 33. The great majority of these letters were inquiries about the status of federal aid that was denied, promised, or desperately needed by the individual in question. Unsurprisingly, this service made the Central Division a very busy place for the latter part of the Depression and the Unemployed Division records are overflowing with hundreds of records of cases the UNIA was called on for assistance. The registrations indicate that from 1938 until 1941, the Unemployed Unit was receiving a good deal of traffic each week (Central Unemployed Unit, Registrations, 1938-1941). Because of this traffic, the Central Division developed very specific procedures for how new cases would be handled. New applicants would have to meet with Central Division representatives. Presumably before the meeting began, applicants were asked to fill out a detailed questionnaire about who they were and their reasoning for approaching the Unemployed Unit. The form required applicants to fill out basic details about their lives such as name, address, age, and marital status. It also requested details about their professions, the last time they had worked, and whether they were currently able to work. Finally, the form asked about their citizenship status (Central Unemployed Unit, Registrations, 1938-1941). Based on these forms, it was very easy for UNIA officials to gauge who the person was and construct a rudimentary history of their lives based on one easily filed form.

However, the registration form was only the first step in the process of registering a case with the Central Division. Most applicants also had to interview a representative from the unit to move to the next level with their cases. These interviews were extremely detailed and provided the UNIA with adequate information in which to represent the person in question. Frequently, these interviews were accompanied by a written description of the case by the new applicant. These written descriptions usually ranged in length from two to three pages although for especially complex cases, there could be as many as five or six pages supplied to the Central Division (Central Unemployed Unit, Registrations, 1938-1941). The form and the written interview were the two major parts of any applicants’ file with the UNIA. While some cases included additional information and some included significantly less, most cases were pursued based on these two vital pieces of information. After talking with the applicant and providing these two key pieces of information, the UNIA would begin actively representing the applicant at no charge.

The representation provided by the Central Division usually came in the form of official letters sent on behalf of the applicant by the UNIA Central Division and signed by King. Most letters were sent within 1 week of the initial interview, but in urgent cases, they could be sent as soon as the next day. These form letters were typed and followed a very specific format for each applicant. The letters began first and foremost with the UNIA address and followed up by introducing the person they were representing by name and address. Letters went on to list the grievances of the applicant in a numbered list. The grievances were outlined in very clear language and were taken from the applicant’s interview. Grievance lists ranged from one to as many as six or seven depending on the applicant. Any issue the applicant wanted clarified with the District Offices would be listed here in clear, concise language. Finally, letters were concluded by “respectfully” requesting information about the grievances, clarifications about why a decision was made, or by requesting that the decision in question be reversed (Central Unemployed Unit, Registrations, 1938-1941).

These letters gave voice to people who otherwise might not have been able to speak so clearly and eloquently on the government’s terms. They were typed, mostly free of typographical errors, and demanded a response from a group that was recognized the world over as a force to be reckoned with. These letters forced the District Offices to take the concerns of working class African Americans seriously and made them much more difficult to dismiss. The Central Division took people seriously. If they were unsatisfied with the answers received, not treated with respect, or were ignored, they would write additional letters until their concerns were taken seriously. In some cases, the UNIA wrote as many as seven letters to the District Office to resolve the cases. The tenacity of the Central Division is best illustrated by the case of Moses Jackson filed in March 1939. Jackson, a 56-year-old widower originally from South Carolina, was initially cut off from relief because investigators believed that he had found work and was supplementing his aid with the income from this job (Letter From UNIA Central Division to District Office 4, 1939). At this time, Jackson approached the UNIA for representation in order to reinstate his relief. The Central Division wrote a letter on behalf of Jackson claiming that he had never found outside work and that he survived with generous help from some of his friends. District Office 4 sent an investigator to meet with Jackson when they determined that he needed to provide names and addresses of these friends and at that point, refused to reinstate his relief. The Central Division gathered Jackson’s information on which friends had helped him and where they lived and submitted this information to the District Office with a letter demanding “the standing status of this case” (Letter From UNIA Central Division to District Office 4, 1939). This letter prompted a meeting with a District Office investigator when Jackson was informed that the suspension of his relief would be lifted. By May 1939, Jackson had yet not received any “much needed” relief when the UNIA once again wrote a letter to the office respectfully asking that they refused to “give a specific time” when Jackson might be able to expect a check (Letter From UNIA Central Division to District Office 4, 1939). Within 2 days of the Central Division’s May 8 letter, Jackson was back on the payroll and scheduled to receive aid. In this case, the Unemployed Unit wrote five different letters on behalf of Jackson requesting clarification when he was initially denied aid, providing official information on his behalf when they said that his word would not suffice, and finally following up on the case when the checks did not come in a timely fashion. This was the kind of representation Harlem residents could expect when they asked the UNIA to pursue their cases, and this is why word of mouth about the Central Division’s Unemployed Unit spread so rapidly throughout the Harlem community.

Harlem residents would also call on the UNIA when the government made demands of them they felt were unfair. District Office employees or investigators would in certain cases make a series of recommendations to applicants that they would have to comply with in order to receive relief. Frequently, these recommendations were difficult to comply with for applicants. This was the case in 1937 when Mary Jackson, a 30-year-old domestic worker, was told that she must take a sleep-in position that was being offered by the Hopkins Agency (Letter From UNIA Central Division to District Office 26, 1938a). Jackson, an unattached single woman, was uncomfortable with sleep in arrangements and declined the offer from the Agency (Letter From UNIA Central Division to District Office 26, 1938a). Many people were in the same position as Jackson after dealing with the District Office. They were left with no choice but to take positions that were woefully inadequate and were stonewalled from receiving any aid because they were seen by the District Office as qualified for these jobs. Wages, previous experience, or the applicant’s situation was at most minor considerations for the relief offices.

In other cases, Harlem residents were told that they would be receiving relief in only a few days and the checks just never arrived. This was the case with Harvey Lovick, a 30-year-old laborer applying for aid in 1941. Lovick was employed with the Works Progress Administration (WPA) until March 1941 when he was laid off due to having three fractured ribs. At the advice of the WPA, Lovick took his pink slip to the District Office and applied for relief on April 4, 1941. His case was reviewed by investigators, and it was determined that he was a qualified applicant for relief from the government. By mid-April, Lovick had received no relief check yet. On April 17 and 22, Lovick was told by District Office 32 that he would be receiving a check in a “couple of days,” but it never came (Registration Blank, Harvey Lovick, 1941). The District Office told Lovick and his landlady, Ethel Lee, that his check would be arriving in just a few days. An unskilled laborer unable to work due to injury, Lovick was in a desperate position and needed that check to survive.

Applicants could also be denied aid based on the situations of their family members. District Office investigators would frequently take into account the status of family members often not even living with applicants when considering their case for relief. Such was the case with Hallie Brammage, a 23-year-old single factory worker whose mother had secured a WPA position (Letter From UNIA Central Division to District Office 28, 1938). In early 1938, Brammage was cut off aid strictly because her mother worked for the WPA. The Central Division took up her case and attempted to prove that even though her mother was employed through the government, she had other expenses and could not support Brammage on her wages as a WPA worker (Letter From UNIA Central Division to District Office 26, March 9, 1938). A similar case occurred in June 1938 involving Susie Anderson and her son-in-law, Union Jackson. Anderson, a 50-year-old domestic, was cut off from relief because her son-in-law had gotten a position working for the WPA (Letter From UNIA Central Division to District Office 24, 1938). Again, the UNIA was called on and forced to point out to District Office 24 that the wages paid to WPA employees (US$55.60 in the case of Union Jackson) were not sufficient to support one household and aid another (Letter From UNIA Central Division to District Office 24, 1938).

At other times, there were difficulties with relief from District Offices if investigators shifted cases. Sarah Wilson, a 27-year-old mother of six, received aid from 1936 to 1940 “without any trouble” until her investigator changed in July of 1940 (Registration Blank, Sarah and Benjamin Wilson, 1940). This change of investigator sparked a reinvestigation of her case that resulted in the loss of her support. Personality conflicts between applicants and investigators could also result in applicants being denied. Theresa Pias, 23, found this to be the case in March 1938 when her investigator came to visit. Pias’s investigator accused her of lying about the number of children she had and did additional research into her personal life by speaking with other residents of her building (Letter From UNIA Central Division to District Office 26, 1938d). Furthermore, the investigator informed Pias’s landlord that Pias should be “thrown out of the building” (Letter From UNIA Central Division to District Office 26, 1938d). Any transgression on the part of applicants against investigators usually ended up in the applicant losing their aid and being denied by the investigator. Because investigators were assigned to specific cases, it could be daunting for applicants who wanted to speak to someone else at their District Office to find an outlet to voice their complaints against a given investigator. This was one of the main reasons the Central Division was so important; they could help applicants who were denied by a specific investigator gain audience with someone else to hear their case.

Other times, applicants were searching for answers not out of frustration but out of desperation. The Central Division labeled these cases “Emergency” and made special effort to mail the letters to district offices as soon as possible. One such case was that of David Bennett, a 33-year-old married laborer and father of two (Letter From UNIA Central Division to District Office 26, 1938b). Bennett found himself in desperate circumstances in March 1938 after applying for aid five different times. On the first four applications, Bennett was denied but, at least in his estimation, the District Office did not give sufficient reason for denying him aid. Ultimately, on March 1, 1938, Bennett was granted an investigation into his case, but after the investigation, he was never informed of his relief status. At this point, Bennett pursued representation from the Central Division to help him deal with the District Office. While Bennett’s application had been caught in the inner workings of government bureaucracy, the situation in the Bennett household had grown very desperate. By the time the Central Division wrote the emergency letter on March 22, there was “no food in the house for the children” (Letter From UNIA Central Division to District Office 26, 1938b). In the emergency letter to District Office 26, the Central Division requested a “specific statement” on the status of Bennett’s application and reasons he should not be given aid (Letter From UNIA Central Division to District Office 26, 1938b).

The UNIA Central Division was not just an organization that advocated on behalf of the Harlem community. They were integral to the community, a group whose fate was closely tied to the residents of Harlem. As they went so went the Central Division. This symbiotic relationship can be seen by looking at the way the Central Division was advertised and how it accrued more cases. Most new cases were word of mouth referrals from members of the UNIA or from other people who had received help from the group. While a few of the applicants listed leaflets as the referring party, the vast majority of applications listed a friend or acquaintance as the person who referred them (Registration Blanks, 1938-1941). While the Central Division’s Unemployed Unit clearly did not solve the problem of African American unemployment in the city, it represented people who were in often desperate situations with nowhere else to turn.

Reaching Out to Harlem

The second initiative of the UNIA Central Division was focused on establishing a firm presence in the Harlem Community through community outreach programs. These programs were simultaneously recruiting tools as well as service programs. In fact, most of them mixed together elements of both. Taken individually, these groups were very small, sometimes numbering under 10 people. However, when viewed within the larger scope of the Central Division, these groups offered a fairly comprehensive network of self-help directed at the African American community. The groups addressed here are the Black Cross Nurses, the Chorus Singers, and the youth program.

One of the most recognizable groups operating within the Central Division during this period was a throwback to the 1920s UNIA: the Black Cross Nurses. The nurses were a part of the UNIA almost from its inception and were one of the largest and most active sub-groups throughout the 1920s. The Central Division’s nurses were no different. Made up entirely of women, the Black Cross Nurses sought to promote general health in the African American community and did so through a variety of creative and innovative ways throughout the late 1930s and early 1940s.

The nurses had weekly meetings in which they would discuss budgetary concerns, overall goals, and report on their works. The group was also formally organized with a series of officers including head nurse and president, vice president, treasurer, secretary, assistant secretary, organizer, and librarian (Minutes of Black Cross Nurses, 1939). Meetings were held on a weekly basis and most meetings included the majority of the officers with only a few rank and file members (Minutes of Black Cross Nurses, 1939-1940). While there is no way to be sure who might have been in and out of the group, it is safe to say that the Black Cross Nurses numbered less than 25, including part-time members who only attended sporadic meetings.

Because of their rich tradition within the UNIA, the nurses played an important ceremonial role in the Central Division. As one of the few clubs to be directly descended from Garvey’s UNIA, the Black Cross Nurses were deeply embedded in the lore of the UNIA. They still maintained the official uniform of the UNIA developed by Garvey in the 1920s. Rank and file nurses wore a basic white uniform and a red cross on the left arm; officers shared the same uniform with a green band above the cross; leaders of the nurses added a cape of red, green, or black for parades or daily wear as they preferred (Minutes of Black Cross Nurses, 1939-1940). These uniforms and the presence of the nurses held special significance to older Garveyites and helped to preserve and enhance the connection of King’s Central Division with the rich history of the UNIA. The nurses decked out in uniform also held a certain appeal for general members of the community indicating that these women were at least somewhat trained to give medical attention and bolstering the image of the Central Division throughout Harlem.

Despite their small numbers, the nurses made a significant impact on the community in many different ways. Perhaps the most obvious way the nurses contributed was through the purchase of medical supplies. The nurses were able to purchase modest numbers of bandages, thermometers, and linens to aid in their promotion of general community health (Minutes of Black Cross Nurses, 1939-1940). While the nurses should not be confused with a huge medical supplier to the Harlem area, they were able to sustain themselves and offer a few medical supplies to people who were in need during dire times.

In addition to their purchase of medical supplies, the nurses offered less tangible benefits to community members. They served as a source of knowledge and as promoters of general health wherever they went. They held meetings to train their membership about basic health concerns and in this way, were able to spread knowledge about the benefits of cleanliness, disease awareness, and sickness prevention to people who might otherwise have no source for this kind of information. In addition to knowledge, the nurses also offered companionship and care for sick members of the community. Frequently, they scheduled meetings with people who were sick and had few visitors. In July 1937, the nurses scheduled a series of visits with Sarah Beazer who was recently diagnosed with diabetes. They visited her several times throughout her lengthy stay in the hospital and updated Central Division on her status and when she might be released from the hospital. They continued their visits for a time after she returned home as well. Furthermore, while they were at the hospital, they also spoke with many other patients in the hospital offering their counsel and lifting their spirits (Minutes of Black Cross Nurses, 1939-1940).

The Central Division Chorus Singers were similar to the Black Cross Nurses in that they were very long-standing UNIA sub-groups. While the nurses aimed to heal the sick, the singers had a much more ceremonial role. The Central Chorus Singers served an important role in the Central Division and frequently in the community in general as well. The singers frequently reinvented themselves throughout the 1930s and early 1940s. Groups were frequently founded and disintegrated as quickly as they had formed in a firestorm of controversy and disagreement. The 1940 group was no different; almost from its inception, the group had problems delegating power and deciding who would play what role in the popular group.

The singers were organized in roughly the way most Central Division groups were. They had a president, Miss E. Thompson, a secretary, Mr. U. Stephens, and a treasurer, Mr. O Bowen. However, they had many fewer meetings. The group was less based around a meeting structure and more about performing and renewing ties in that way. Because of this less formal structure at times, the group could fall victim to infighting and disagreements. Despite the tensions caused by the group, they were one of the most visible forces on the Harlem landscape promoting the Central Division and its interests. The group performed at a series of local events whenever they were called on. The group also occasionally put on their own concerts (Central Division Central Choral Singers, 1941-1942). This was of definite practical help to the Central Division because of funds that were directly brought in. The Central Choral Singers donated half of their profits to the Central Division and kept the other half to promote the group and keep it running smoothly.

The money that was generated by the choral singers was most likely quite modest. At the same time, this singing group was a vital and influential promotional tool. The choral singers represented the Central Division in places where they would normally not have had a presence. They were at social events, rallies, and putting on their own concerts. They gave the Central Division a face in the community. By performing at various events, the singers were not simply generating money but keeping the UNIA fresh in people’s minds. They were able to recruit and promote the services of the Central Division throughout Harlem beyond the typical methods of leaflets and fliers. Furthermore, the choral singers brought an important tie to the rich history of the UNIA. They were a reminder of the former strength of the group and the strength the group might once gain again through hard work and persistence. Seeing the Central Division Choral Singers not only brought back memories of the 1920s, it inspired potential hope for the future and showed that in this bleak time, possibilities were there for self-help and advancement.

Another way the Central Division promoted a positive image of the future was through their youth education programs. Throughout the 1930s and early 1940s, Captain King and the Central Division created a number of different programs that went through several incarnations before finally finding modest success with the Juvenile Cadet Corps in 1941 (Central Division Applications, 1941). The cadet corps were a rigid and structured organization that attempted to train future Garveyites. The group focused their attentions on “race pride, Negro history, and cadet craft.” The group met 3 times a week on Mondays and Thursdays at 4:30 p.m. and Sundays at 8:45 p.m. and charged dues of three cents weekly (or whatever the member could afford; Central Division Applications, 1941). There were also various other times the group might meet for special trips, presentations, or events. Youth could be attending as many as four or five meetings in a given week depending on special events and their commitment level to the group.

The membership of the group was extremely diverse in terms of age. Each prospective member was required to fill out a permission slip listing their name, age, and sex, and have it signed by their parents. The groups featured a wide variety of children and often siblings joined together. Ages ranged from under 5 years old all the way to 17. There were over 80 applications submitted to the group, most youth being between 9 and 14 with 11 being the most common age with 14 members (Central Division Applications, 1941). The group also had a significant following among younger children with 20 being between the ages of 4 and 8. There were a few later teen members of the group as well, six from the ages of 15 to 17. While there is no doubt that all 80 of these applications did not result in more than 80 committed members, this still represents a very sizable youth group and one that obviously appealed to parents as well as youth interested in an extracurricular activity.

The group’s lessons were specifically aimed at promoting African and African American history. The meetings were frequently courses on specific issues, geographic locations, or historical figures central to African history. One particular lesson focused on Egypt and Ethiopia, the “seat of the highest culture in the world” (Central Division Applications, 1941). At times, students were required to complete homework assignments to assure that they had learned their lessons. Cadet Corps members attended the lecture and were expected to take notes and commit this knowledge to memory. To assure that the students focused on their work, there was a homework assignment asking them to compare and contrast Ethiopia and Egypt and describe the ancient city among other tasks (Lesson Plan, 1942). These lessons were important because they supplemented the White-centered education students received at schools with Afro-centric knowledge that was exceedingly rare (if not non-existent) in schools throughout the 1930s and 1940s. Cadet Corps members were able to take pride in an African heritage that included some of the earliest and most advanced civilizations in the ancient world.

The Juvenile Cadet Corps was a formidable force for youth during this period. Not only did they share important history with African American children that would not have been widely available during this period but also groomed the children to be Central Division members. They memorized and studied the UNIA Constitution originally composed by Garvey in the 1910s and formed their own constitution based on what they read. They learned the history of the UNIA and its historic value to the community and began to understand the greater significance of their own Central Division branch. Furthermore, the formation of this club gave Central Division kids a sense of unity and purpose within the organization. The Central Division was not an “adults only” organization, it was inclusive and everyone had their role in keeping it vital and vibrant during the 1930s and 1940s.

******Taken individually, the Black Cross Nurses, the Chorus Singers, and the youth program might seem like discordant and ineffective measures that had little practical impact. Collectively, they show the tenacity, commitment, and adaptability of the Central Division. By putting on local events and raising money through dues, concerts, and plays, these groups were able to reinforce the image of the Central Division throughout Harlem. Faced with the reality that huge meetings of membership were no longer practical due to facilities and monetary concerns, the group moved from a concentration on large scale demonstration to a series of tight knit groups that could meet at an individual residence and contribute in their own ways. Some of these groups had more monetary success than others, but they all added something to the Central Division and the Harlem community that was sorely lacking during this period. The nurses visited the sick in the hospital, the singers put on concerts, and the youth program gave kids a place to go and learn about Garvey and African history after school. These measures all helped to make Harlem a better place to live and make the Central Division a significant force on the landscape.

In addition to these smaller groups, the Central Division frequently came together as a larger unit for various events. These events combined with the smaller units of the Central Division, and the Central Unemployed Division formed the majority of Central Division operations. Some of the most notable and valuable events were a trip to Philadelphia and a Christmas party. While there were many more events the Central Division had a hand in promoting, these two were important because of what they offered members as well as the local community as whole (Correspondence, 1934-1945). They illustrate the Central Division’s focus on the local aspects of the Central Division and on measures to improve the lives of Harlem residents, members and non-members alike.

The first of these events was a Christmas party the Central Division sponsored in 1940. The party was held on Friday, December 27, in order to “make this Christmas a cheerful one for the children” (Cordoze, 1940). This event was put on for the children of the Central Division as well as any guests they wanted to bring (Cordoze, 1940). The party was conducted free of charge and children between 2 and 16 were welcome to attend. Children attending the party received gifts that were primarily donated by Central Division members (Cordoze, 1940). Offering a Christmas Party free of charge was of great service to the membership for various obvious reasons. Children whose families had been hit hard by the Depression and were unable to provide presents during Christmas were able to take their children to this Central Division event and receive various presents (McElvaine, 1983). Furthermore, the event was not strictly limited to Central Division membership. Children affiliated even loosely with the organization were welcome to attend and take part in the Christmas party and receive gifts that they may have otherwise never gotten.

A much larger event that the Central Division sponsored was a bus trip to Philadelphia planned for June of 1935. This bus trip was booked through the Allied Motor Company by King for the purposes of a day trip to Philadelphia. The trip began at 8:30 a.m. and was to return around 10 to 12 p.m. (Letter From Captain King to Allied Motor Co., 1935). The Central Division rented a large 41-passenger bus described by the Motor Company as the “very finest obtainable” for US$62 for the day trip (Letter From Captain King to Allied Motor Co., 1935). On Sunday, July 2 some of the membership of the Central Division embarked on a trip to Philadelphia presumably to see the sights of the city, visit family and friends, and meet with other UNIA members.

While the aftermath of the trip included a payment dispute with the Allied Motor Co., the trip itself was pleasant and the members enjoyed themselves. Events such as this one show that the Central Division’s smaller clubs and groups were at times able to pool their resources set aside their differences and generate enough money for a significant event that would have otherwise been impossible. It was unlikely that most members of the Central Division would be able to afford a rather expensive trip across state lines on their own. The Central Division offered them that chance during the 1930s. While these trips were not weekly occurrences, they certainly did have a positive impact when they did occur. People who did not own automobiles and had very little means of long distance travel were able to take the rare opportunity to get out of New York and sight see, meet with family, and bond as an organization. This trip was a welcome change of pace from the personal struggle to survive and the organization’s struggle to survive.

Conclusion

The UNIA Central Division of the late 1930s and early 1940s is one of the many case studies recently investigated by Garvey scholars (Harold, 2007; Rolinson, 2008; Stephens, 2007). Increasingly, Garvey scholarship is showing how the membership took Garvey’s lead but shaped the program based on their geographic realities. King and the Central Division were clearly not as influential as the 1920s UNIA that had existed in Harlem scarcely more than a decade before. They had few, if any, business interests to speak of, never filled the streets of Harlem with parades, struggled to put out a regular periodical, and certainly, never organized an international conference as Garvey had many times in the 1920s. The Central Division walked the razor’s edge between uplift and bankruptcy, and their membership was just a small fraction of what Garvey’s UNIA must have brought in earlier.

At the same time, the Central Division was part of a complex web of African American uplift measures aimed at helping a desperate population in the Great Depression. While they were certainly not alone in doing this, their contribution was unique and crucial to understanding the Harlem landscape in the late 1930s. The major thread running through the programs, publications, and fundraisers was affordable accessibility. The Central Division was physically located in Harlem and was experiencing the same problems as African American New Yorkers. They faced collections, moved locations, and struggled right alongside the residents. In addition, the Central Division offered dutiful services, social events, and representation to Harlemites at little to no cost. Hundreds of frustrated African Americans facing unemployment, underemployment, or racist government employees turned to the Central Division for help and while it is clear not all came away with what they wanted, the Central Division gave them a chance to voice their concerns.

By the time the Depression was in full swing, Garvey’s ideals of separation and self- sufficiency were unrealistic for the followers of the exiled leader. They struggled just to exist. The Central Division stands as an example of how Garveyites could still pay respect to their deported leader while making realistic compromises. While the Central Division dealt with the White power structure directly, he was also a devout Garveyite who paid homage to the leader at every opportunity. King contributed to the larger movement whenever possible by sending money overseas to Garvey in London and unlike some other branches, remained steadfastly committed to the leader. The Central Division was forced to compromise based on financial realities, but this compromise was one that was worthwhile for African American New Yorkers despite the fact that this move might not have been entirely compatible with Garvey’s most fiery speeches.