Early leadership of the SCLC and the role of ministers
Baker focuses more specifically on the individuals responsible for the formation of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) in 1957. Baker identifies herself, Stanley Levinson, and Bayard Rustin as the three individuals who did the major legwork in conceptualizing the SCLC and explains why Martin Luther King Jr. was seen as an appropriate spokesperson. Additionally, Baker explains the centrality of religion to the SCLC and offers her thoughts on why ministers took such a prominent role of leadership.
Citing this Excerpt
Oral History Interview with Ella Baker, September 4, 1974. Interview G-0007. 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
- EUGENE WALKER:
-
At this point you may be able to help me clear up another question too.
There's a question as to where the initial call for this
conference came from. Reading a book like Louis, Miller, they suggest
that the call came from C. K. Steele. Well, I went down and interviewed
Rev. Steele and he assured me that the call didn't come from
him. He responded to the call. He said some Jewish-talking, or some
funny talking man called him—he's always thought
it was Bayard Rustin —and asked him if he would go along with
the conference in late '56, late December, '56.
And he said, yeah, it was just his kind of a thing. He had just finished
his Tallahassee thing and they were at the city council. So,
I'm trying to pin down, if there's any way
possible.
- ELLA BAKER:
-
I don't know whether you can pin it down because I think
Bayard may verify the fact that there were three of us who talked into
the wee hours of the morning in terms of, how do you develop a course
that can enlarge upon the gains or the impact of the Montgomery bus
boycott.
- EUGENE WALKER:
-
Did the three represent you, Bayard and Levinson?
- ELLA BAKER:
-
Yes, Bayard and Levinson; largely at Stanley's house. He was
the man with some money, and Bayard and I would go over there.
He's not living where he use to. Why me? Because I knew the
South—comparatively, in terms of their knowledge of it. They
had not had as wide knowledge as I had. Plus the fact that I had been
associated with the N.A.A.C.P… So, we talked into the wee
hours and the concep of trying to develop out of the Montgomery bus
boycott leadership a force. And when they approached no doubt Martin and
whoever else, their response was largely in terms of ministers.
That's why you get the ministerial thing. You
couldn't think in terms of a leadership around the bus
boycott without also thinking of C. K. Steele's efforts and
Jameson's efforts.
- EUGENE WALKER:
-
McCullough of South Carolina.
- ELLA BAKER:
-
Well, McCullough came a little bit after that. Then you go into the whole
question, which was the pattern in the South, who were the leaders? The
ministers—which may or may not be justifiable, but
that's how it started. Then, let's say that the
call came from Martin.
- EUGENE WALKER:
-
Yes, well that's the way it was basically reported.
- ELLA BAKER:
-
Yes. Historically he gets credit for it, but the
truth let it be known, no one individual really conceive of an idea like
that without somewhere, somehow some other input.
- EUGENE WALKER:
-
Right. Now I can see a great deal of precipitating happenings leading to
the founding of S.C.L.C… The next question in my mind is,
after this was realized there was a need for an instrument to try and
spread this movement that was in Montgomery with the hope of bringing
about greater social change, what was the notion of the kind of
organization you would have? I know you said you had a great deal of
ministers, but would it be one with just a president and a lot of
lieutenants, a president and an executive secretary with a great deal of
power, or was it a democratic organization in conception, or a strong
dictatorial organization? What was the thinking about the nature of the
organization at this time?
- ELLA BAKER:
-
Well, the thinking about the nature of the organization would vary with
the people who were doing the thinking. Those of us who preferred an
organization that was democratic and where the decision making was left
with the people would think in one vein and the organizing of active,
let's call it, chapters or units of people. But when you
reckon with the fact that a majority of the people who were called
together were ministers and the decision as to who
was called together emanated no doubt both from the background out of
which (let's call it) Martin came and maybe lack of
understanding (I'm willing to say) of the virtue of utilizing
the mass surge that had developed there in Montgomery. Just look at
Montgomery. What has happened since Montgomery?
- EUGENE WALKER:
-
But there's another problem here….
- ELLA BAKER:
-
So I think the nature of the organization became to a large extent a
ministerial thing. Out of the one hundred plus (I forgot how many) that
were present at the initial meeting where the formal organizing of the
organization took place, I think Whitney Young and a guy from
Mississippi… who I worked with for a number of years, I
can't think of his name…
- EUGENE WALKER:
-
Dr. Henry?
- ELLA BAKER:
-
No, no, no… Anthon Moore in Cleaveland, Mississippi, were
among the maybe two or three non-ministers present. I was the only
woman. I think maybe there was another person who came and sat in
- EUGENE WALKER:
-
Do you think the reason for that was because most of the ministers at
that time had the power to…
- ELLA BAKER:
-
Well, not only…
- EUGENE WALKER:
-
… the power to bring people together?
- ELLA BAKER:
-
No, not only the power. When you haven't
been accustomed to mass action, and they weren't…
You see basically your ministers are not people who go in for decisions
on the part of people. I don't know whether you realize it or
not. And they had been looked upon as saviors. So what happened is, here
they are faced with a suggestion that goes against the grain and with
which they are not prepared to deal. So they come together.