Reflection on V. O. Key's views of progressive politics in North Carolina
Even in racially centered campaigns, Sanford contends that North Carolina politics have not changed much since V. O. Key's original assessment of North Carolina's progressivism. Sanford traces the political legacy of North Carolina governors who enticed their citizens to embrace moderation rather than extremism.
Citing this Excerpt
Oral History Interview with Terry Sanford, [date unknown]. Interview A-0140. Southern Oral History Program Collection (#4007) in the Southern Oral History Program Collection, Southern Historical Collection, Wilson Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Full Text of the Excerpt
- JACK BASS:
-
And my real question is, was there a misreading of Key in
North Carolina, or have things changed? And if so, why?
- TERRY SANFORD:
-
I don't think that he misread it at the time, and I don't think that that
would be too far off right now. What you've got to remember, I'm sure
Key was aware that North Carolina wasn't all one way, any more than
Virginia was all one way for Byrd. Though at many times it looked like
Virginia was. Many times we were just a few percentage points of going
in that direction, if you'll look back at the turn of the century
particularly. And it was just by luck that Aycock, who ran as a white
supremist, and did certain things to make the party white supremist,
nevertheless turned around and became a very liberal education governor,
advocating the education of the blacks. Now, he could have taken a
shorter range view. Had he taken a shorter range view he probably would
have ended up in the United States Senate. He was trying, anyhow, when
he died, but he wouldn't have been elected, most historians think. We've
always had some Alabama and South Carolina and Virginia here, just as
they've always had some North Carolina there, if you can use those terms
in that way. We've just been luckier, because our slight majority fell
on one side, whereas their majority fell on the other. And I take it
that the other majority somehow feeds on itself, and the more you get,
the more you get. The more popular it becomes. And then I think that's
probably what happened here. The first straight-out racist campaign that
I remember was the 1950 election. The first election I remember in
detail where I watched it, took part in it, observed it, from a
statewide point of view, although I was in high school, was the 1936
campaign, which had all seeds for this kind of campaign, and yet none of
them sprouted. You had Hoey, the conservative old hypocrite, that was
the representative of the manufacturing forces. If there was an
establishment, it wasn't much of an establishment in
North Carolina. You had Sandy Graham, the clever legislative likable
politician. And you had the rebel from out of state, the professor from
Salem College, that had been in one term in the legislature, Ralph
McDonald, who almost beat him. If ever there was a Henry Howell type
situation, that was it. But the race issue, in my memory, never came
forth from any side. They never accused McDonald of being racist.
McDonald never raised that issue. And that, I think, would justify what
Key wrote, even under that stress and strain, when the establishment was
assaulted by a carpetbagger in the worst kind of way. We survived those
kind of tensions. Then our elections fell back into being pretty much
within the accepted framework. That is, the . . . the North Carolinians
of some distinction running against each other, something like this last
time. You had Broughton and five other . . . the race issue never got
into that. Occasionally the labor business would get into it, but that's
a little bit different. Broughton-Umstead campaign made a big thing out
of Broughton's support of organized labor. And Broughton handled it by
saying he was for all citizens. Even so, I think we kept down some of
the more violent differences, just by the nature of the people.