The Bamberg herald. [volume] (Bamberg, S.C.) 1891-1972, 1913-06-26
The Hapgood Editorial.

Columbia, 5. T., June l9, l9lo
Dear Mr.. knight: Every true
Southerner who notes your stand
against the invitation of Norman
Hapgood to address the South Caro-
lima Press Association on the 9th
instant should do so with great ad-
miration, especially if he be acquaint-
ed with the facts connected with the
case. However, from what l have
read it would seem that few recall
accurately the incident which at the
time brought forth such vigorous
protest from the press of the South.
Having been especially interested in
the matter at the time, | believe that
the details of the article published as
we'll as the other facts in the case
were impressed upon my mind more
deeply than they would have been
ordinarily, therefore, feel called up
on to take issue with several of the
papers, which, through their express
sions, show a lack of knowledge of
the incident.
The Spartanburg Herald express
es it's doubt that Hapgood was re-
sponsible for the article in the words:
eff Mr.. Hapgood was ever RESPONSE
BILE for such an article, To this
paper wish to say that Mr.. Hapgood
was responsible for the article accord
ing to his own admission.
To the esteemed Columbia Record
l wish to say that it's memory is at
fault when it recalls either explana-
ton or reputation of the article by
Hapgood, as he had not the grace to
offer either. At the time the article
was published I was constant read
er of Golfers and expressed my re-
sentiment to Mr.. Hapgood in per-
sonal letter, to which he replied, stat
ing that he would discuss the matter
further through the columns of his pa
per later, though a month passed
without the article appearing as
promised, and replying to my second
letter on the subject he denied hav-
ing promised to further discuss the
matter through his paper. That he
was interested in the outcome of his
insult to Southern womanhood was
evidenced by his having represen-
tative of his paper call on me to try
to smooth the matter over, as he did
in other quarters where vigorous pro-
tests had been raised against his ex-
pressions.
The Charlotte Observer must never
have "observed" the editorial under
discussion, Judging from its state
ment that your opposition to Mr.. Hap
good was due to an article in connec-
ton with the driving out Of Whining
ton of the negro editor Manley. The
editorial which aroused the ire of so
many Southern men was written
apropos of a lynching which took
place at Springfield, ILL.,, in course OF
which he took occasion to say that
where lynchings occurred for assault
or attempted assault upon women by
negro brutes the lynchings followed,
in a majority of cases, Identification
by the victim while in state of hys-
terra and often the Identification was
made to cover up darker crime. Mr..
Hapgood, with his great store of in
formation at his fingers ends, knew
that this dirty insinuation was untrue
and yet. he deigned no reply when his
authority for sitting in judgment of
the virtue of Southern women was
asked for and specific instances de-
manded to justify his unclean insin-
uations.
If he had never meant to insult the
women of the South as the Gaffney
Ledger says, why did he not retract
his statements and make a frank and
manly admission of his errors, Or
offer positive proof that he was right?
He would never have been lowered in
the esteem of a single man had he a.
dopted either of these courses, but to
hide behind his right to refuse to DO
either units him to address any body,
every member of which is champion
and guardian of the purity of South
ern womanhood.