1. “Robeson Joins Pickets in Front of White House,” Washington Evening Star, 5 August 1949; Walter White, “The Strange Case of Paul Robeson,” Ebony, February 1951, 79; “Picket Line Protests ‘Bias’ at Engraving,” Washington Post, 24 June 1949, copy in RG 318, Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP), Central Correspondence Files (CCF), 1913–49 (Entry 12), Box 321, 1949 Accounting System Thru Employees: Arrest Reports, File: Emps: Apprentice Appeals Exam 1949; “Racial Bias Laid to Bureau of Engraving,” Washington Post, 20 June 1949, and “Marcantonio Asks 52–20 Extension for Veterans,” Washington Evening Star, 17 June 1949, both copies in RG 318, BEP, CCF, 1913–49 (Entry 12), Box 322, 1948–49 Employees: Assignment Policy thru Employees: Discrimination 1949, File: Employees: Discrimination 1949. RG 318 is located in the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), College Park, Maryland.

2. Harry S. Truman, Executive Order 9980, 26 July 1948. Copy available at Harry S. Truman Library, http://trumanlibrary.org/executiveorders/index.php?pid=29st=&st1= (accessed 17 February 2015).

3. For an overview of the racial liberalism of whites as well as civil rights policies and ideas at the national level, see Kellogg, Paul J., “Civil Rights Consciousness in the 1940s,” The Historian 42, no. 1 (November 1979): 18–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar On state power, see Novak, William J., “The Myth of the ‘Weak’ American State,” American Historical Review 113, no. 3 (June 2008): 763–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. Thurber, Timothy M., “Racial Liberalism, Affirmative Action, and the Troubled History of the President’s Committee on Government Contracts,” Journal of Policy History 18, no. 4 (2006): 448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5. On the left-liberal coalition in the postwar era, see Barbara Ransby, Eslanda: The Large and Unconventional Life of Mrs. Paul Robeson (New Haven, 2013), 194. Doug Rossinow offers a perceptive discussion of the vexed relationship of African Americans to liberalism, especially in the 1920s and 1930s. See Visions of Progress: The Left-Liberal Tradition in America (Philadelphia, 2008), 152–58. Thomas Sugrue notes that some NAACP members encouraged the organization to focus on class inequality, not just individual rights. Sweet Land of Liberty: The Forgotten Struggle for Civil Rights in the North (New York, 2008), 39–40. For an earlier case study that illustrates the significant influence of black mobilization on a fair employment issue, see Meier, August and Rudwick, Elliott, “Communist Unions and the Black Community: The Case of the Transit Workers Union, 1934–1944,” Labor History 23, no. 2 (Spring 1982): 176–82, 195, 197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. On the decline of the left-liberal alliance, see Lichtenstein, Nelson, Labor’s War at Home: The CIO in World War Two (New York, 1982), 233–38;Google Scholar Lichtenstein, “From Corporatism to Collective Bargaining: Organized Labor and the Eclipse of Social Democracy in the Postwar Era,” and Ira Katznelson, “Was the Great Society a Lost Opportunity?” both in The Rise and Fall of the New Deal Order, 1930–1980, ed. Steven Fraser and Gary Gerstle (Princeton, 1989), 133–40, 185–95.

7. On Eslanda Robeson’s appearance at a protest, see “Marcantonio Asks 52–20 Extension for Veterans,” Washington Evening Star, 27 June 1949 copy in RG 318, BEP, CCF, 1913–49 (Entry 12), Box 322, Employees: Discrimination 1949, NARA. As a number of authors point out, the CIO had a checkered record on civil rights. Donald Critchlow, for instance, argues that a CIO union’s commitment to racial equality was dependent upon its historical origins, relationship to rival organizations, geographic distribution, and membership composition. “Communist Unions and Racism: A Comparative Study of the Responses of United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers and the National Maritime Union to the Black Question During World War II,” Labor History 17, no. 2 (Spring 1976): 230–44. For a nuanced and detailed discussion of the ways that even racially progressive CIO unions failed to commit fully to civil rights, see Meier and Rudwick, “Communist Unions and the Black Community,” 165–97. Similarly, historian Charles Williams argues that the white leadership of the UAW-CIO promoted a version of liberal Americanism that supported racial inequality. Charles Williams, “The Racial Politics of Progressive Americanism: New Deal Liberalism and the Subordination of Black Workers in the UAW,” Studies in American Political Development 19 (Spring 2005): 75–97.

8. When discussing “affirmative action,” advocates did not mean simply quotas or even preferences, but rather several proactive efforts to end long-standing practices and patterns of race discrimination.

9. The FEB issued its ruling on February 23. Houghteling Memorandum, 23 February 1950 copy in RG 146, Civil Service Agencies, FEB Case Files, 1948–54, Box 12, Roulhac to Sims, File: Edgar R. Sims, NARA (hereafter Sims File). The CIO also expelled the UPWA in February 1950. “CIO’s Ouster of Liberal UPW Draws Official Blast,” Washington Afro-American, 18 February 1950; “CIO to Recruit in Public Agencies,” New York Times, 26 February 1950. Abram Flaxer, the head of the newly independent UPWA, traced the “witch-hunt” for alleged communists to Truman’s executive order establishing the federal loyalty program. “U.S. ‘Witch Hunt’ Charged,” New York Times, 28 May 1950.

10. Bureau of Engraving and Printing Branch, Local 30, UPWA, “UPW Goes Independent,” c. February 1950, copy in RG 318, BEP, CCF, 1913–49 (Entry 12), Box 321, Employees: Apprentice Appeals Exam, 1949, NARA.

11. “CIO’s Ouster of Liberal UPW Draws Official Blast,” Washington Afro-American, 18 February 1950.

12. For an overview of the FEB’s establishment and problems with its organization and budget, see Donald R. McCoy and Richard T. Ruetten, Quest and Response: Minority Rights and the Truman Administration (Lawrence, Kans., 1973), 251–55. In 1944, Senator Richard Russell (D-Ga.) sponsored an amendment that gave only Congress authority to appropriate funds to an agency established through executive order. Thus, it would have been nearly impossible for Truman to establish the FEB outside an existing agency, although designating an entity an “interdepartmental committee” served as a loophole to the statute. See Paul H. Norgren and Samuel E. Hill, Toward Fair Employment (New York, 1964), 152–53, 155–56. Southern Democratic influence over policies that might disrupt the racial hierarchy in the south are well documented in Ira Katznelson, Fear Itself: The New Deal and the Origins of Our Time (New York, 2013). In 1943, Senator Kenneth McKellar (D-Tenn.) introduced a bill that would have abolished all positions in the classified civil service that paid more than $4,500 per annum. Positions above that level would be subject to political review by senators from “states concerned” before candidates were appointed. Merit reformers and the NAACP vigorously opposed the measure. Press Release, “Voters Urged to Block Southern Move to Kill Merit System,” n.d., Papers of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Part II, A-194, File: Civil Service, General, 1940–55, Library of Congress Manuscript Division (LC Mss.), Washington, D.C. Thurber also notes that the PCGC had “limited capacity” to implement its charge and that the PCGC’s existence reflected Eisenhower’s desire to obviate the need for a congressionally sanctioned Fair Employment Practice Committee. Thurber, “Racial Liberalism, Affirmative Action, and the Troubled History of the President’s Committee on Government Contracts,” 448–49.

13. Among the many studies of the histories of fair employment and affirmative action at midcentury are: Louis Coleridge Kesselman, The Social Politics of FEPC: A Study in Reform Pressure Movements (Chapel Hill, 1948); Ruchames, Louis, Race, Jobs, and Politics: A History of the FEPC (New York, 1953)Google Scholar; Garfinkle, Herbert, When Negroes March: The March on Washington Movement in the Organizational Politics for FEPC (Glencoe, Ill., 1959)Google Scholar; Reed, Merl, Seedtime for the Modern Civil Rights Movement: The President’s Committee on Fair Employment Practice, 1941–1946 (Baton Rouge, 1991)Google Scholar; Moreno, Paul, From Direct Action to Affirmative Action: Fair Employment Law and Public Policy in America, 1933–1972 (Baton Rouge, 1999)Google Scholar; Kersten, Andrew, Race, Jobs, and the War: The FEPC in the Midwest, 1941–1946 (Urbana, 2000)Google Scholar; Rubio, Philip F., A History of Affirmative Action, 1619–2000 (Jackson, Miss., 2001), 90–113, 128–32Google Scholar; Skrentny, John D., The Minority Rights Revolution (Cambridge, Mass., 2002)Google Scholar; Anderson, Terry H., The Pursuit of Fairness: A History of Affirmative Action (New York, 2004), 1–109Google Scholar; Thurber, “Racial Liberalism, Affirmative Action, and the Troubled History of the President’s Committee on Government Contracts”; James Wolfinger, “‘An Equal Opportunity to Make a Living and a Life’: The FEPC and Postwar Black Politics,” Labor: Studies in Working-Class History of the Americas 4, no. 2 (2007): 65–94; Sugrue, Sweet Land of Liberty, 45–57, 71–76, 94–99, 113–28; Chen, Anthony, The Fifth Freedom: Jobs, Politics, and Civil Rights in the United States, 1941–1972 (Princeton, 2009)Google Scholar; Delton, Jennifer, Racial Integration in Corporate America, 1940–1990 (Cambridge, 2009)Google Scholar. On race discrimination in the federal civil service, see Yellin, Eric S., Racism in the Nation’s Service: Government Workers and the Color Line in Woodrow Wilson’s America (Chapel Hill, 2013Google Scholar); Rubio, Philip F., There’s Always Work at the Post Office: African Americans Postal Workers and the Fight for Jobs, Justice, and Equality (Chapel Hill, 2010)Google Scholar; MacLaury, Judson, To Advance Their Opportunities: Federal Policies Toward African American Workers from World War I to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Knoxville, 2008)Google Scholar; Rung, Margaret C., Servants of the State: Managing Diversity and Democracy in the Federal Workforce, 1933–1953 (Athens, 2002), 15–16, 41–44, 157–83Google Scholar; King, Desmond, Separate and Unequal: Black Americans and the U.S. Federal Government, revised ed. (Oxford, 2007)Google Scholar.

14. Discussions of the southern equation of labor with race and the profound influence of southern Democrats on the emerging welfare and regulatory states can be found in Farhang, Sean and Katznelson, Ira, “The Southern Imposition: Congress and Labor in the New Deal and Fair Deal,” Studies in American Political Development 19 (Spring 2005): 1–30Google Scholar, and Katznelson’s subsequent book on the southern shape of the New Deal, Fear Itself.

15. Fair employment laws often evoked the same negative reaction from conservative Republicans (and business groups) as laws protecting unions or working-class rights. Southern Democrats similarly sought to cripple any laws that might assist African Americans as wage-earners. Kesselman, The Social Politics of FEPC, 170–73; McCoy and Ruetten, Quest and Response, 116; Moreno, From Direct Action to Affirmative Action, 165; Chen, The Fifth Freedom, 19, 71–79, 83. Novak notes that the legal system, as an example of state power, has been a critical avenue for the pursuit of civil rights. However, appellants using the FEB had no recourse to the courts for employment discrimination. Novak, “The Myth of the ‘Weak’ American State,” 768.

16. Norgren and Hill, Toward Fair Employment, 149–79, 193–203.

17. Clarence Mitchell, Opening Statement, NAACP Conference, 28 June 1946, NAACP Papers, Part II, Series A-254, File: FEPC, General 1946, LC Mss.

18. As Wolfinger argued, employment discrimination remained a central issue to civil rights in this era with local and state governments addressing the issue, even while FEPC bills languished in Congress. The article fails to acknowledge the attention the NAACP and other groups gave to the federal workforce, where nondiscrimination policies were also in place throughout the 1940s. “‘An Equal Opportunity to Make a Living—and a Life.’”

19. Report of the President’s Committee on Fair Employment Practice, May 1943 copy in NAACP Papers, Part II, 1940–55, Series A, General Office File, Box 251, File: FEPC Bulletins, Reports, 1941–43, LC Mss.

20. On the bureau’s early use of white women workers, see Aron, Cindy Sondik, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Civil Service: Middle Class Workers in Victorian America (New York, 1997), 70–73Google Scholar. Eric Yellin details race discrimination in the bureau during the 1910s and mentions one protest against segregation in 1913. Racism in the Nation’s Service, 65, 117–22, 136–37. As early as the 1890s, black female printers’ assistants challenged racial prejudice in the bureau. “Color in the Civil Service,” New York Times, 17 February 1895.

21. A Brief History of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing: With a Description of Its Work (Washington, D.C., 1929), 23.

22. Segregation appears to have begun during Theodore Roosevelt’s administration and become more formalized under Woodrow Wilson. Treasury’s pattern of segregation also seems to have been imitated by other departments, though segregation operated unevenly across the civil service and even within departments. Meier, August and Rudwick, Elliott, “The Rise of Segregation in the Federal Bureaucracy, 1900–1930,” Phylon 28, no. 2 (second quarter, 1967): 180Google Scholar; King, Separate and Unequal, 3, 11–14, 29; Yellin, Racism in the Nation’s Service, 115, 117–22.

23. While Hall lauded upward mobility in the service, he did not extend this vision to the bureau’s African American or female employees and he disliked unions. MacMahon, Arthur W. and Millett, John D., Federal Administrators: A Biographical Approach to the Problem of Departmental Management (New York, 1939), 342–43Google Scholar; Washington Post, 14 February 1969. On work operations, see Durst, Sanford J., History of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, 1862–1962 (New York, 1978), 56–59Google Scholar; Aron, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Civil Service, 79; on tension between Hall and union members, see, for instance, two memos from Hall to Foley on 19 February 1948 RG 56, Treasury Department Office Files of Secretaries, Under Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries (Entry 198), Records of Undersecretary Edward J. Foley Jr., Box 83, Customs to F, File: Engraving and Printing, A-Z, NARA.

24. The new local 30 number reflected UPWA’s status as an independent union after the CIO purged it from the federation for alleged support of communism.

25. Many agency officials elected to offer war-service employees noncompetitive exams. As long as they passed the test, they could keep their jobs. Skilled plate printers filled out Form 57, which assessed them based on training and experience. Hard to Mitchell, 13 August 1947, RG 56 Central Files of Office of Secretary of Treasury, 1917–56 (Entry 193), Box 91, Personnel: Acceptance of Gifts, Donations, etc. to Personnel: Williamsburg Award, File: Personnel: Age Limits and Physical Requirements, NARA; “Civil Service Jobs Open for Printers’ Aides, Others,” Washington Evening Star, 17 August 1948; CSC, “Announcing an Examination for Printer’s Assistant,” Announcement No. 110, 17 August 1948, RG 318, BEP, CCF, 1913–49 (Entry 12), Box 322, Employees: Examinations 1949, NARA; Woody Taylor, “Inside Your Government,” Washington Afro-American, 25 December 1948; Mitchell to Kelenson, 17 January 1949, RG 318 BEP, CCF, 1913–49 (Entry 12), Box 321, Employees: Apprentice Appeals Exam 1949, NARA.

26. Woody Taylor, “Inside Your Government,” Washington Afro-American, 6 November 1948; Gilmore testimony, 30 January 1950, Hearing of Appeal of Nine Employees of the Bureau of Engraving before the Fair Employment Board, 30 and 31 January and 1 February 1950, 16, Sims File (hereafter: Hearing of Appeal of Nine BEP Employees).

27. Wilson to McCoy, 26 November 1945; McCoy to Wilson, 6 December 1945; Evans to Jordan and Wilson, 13 December 1945; Wilson to McCoy, 5 January 1946, all in RG 56, Central Files of the Office of Secretary of Treasury, 1917–56 (Entry 193), Box 91, Personnel: Age Limits and Physical Requirements, NARA. In 1947, the Civil Service Commission approved the apprentice program, which the bureau requested in 1945, under the guidelines of the Veterans Preference Act of 1944. Apprentice applicants had to be veterans, forty years of age or younger, with appointments in a variety of low-level positions, such as elevator conductor and messenger. In this correspondence, Wilson learned that under the Veterans Preference Act, the bureau could not establish age limits for apprentices. It is not clear why Jordan was able to implement a forty-year-old age limit; apparently the commission missed this requirement. The age limit was later abolished, as stipulated by the law. Moyer to Jordan, 6 March 1947, RG 146, FEB Policy Subject File, 1948–55, Box 17, Organization Meetings to Positive Program, File: Plate Printers, NARA.

28. According to one report, an “unidentified individual” asked in late July 1948 that the bureau exam be postponed. FEB to Commission, Chronology of Events, 3 March 1950, Sims File. This request appears to have set off an investigation of whether the exam was legal under civil service rules, particularly since the commission had originally indicated that apprentices could be appointed without an exam. Due to the relatively small numbers of printers required, the commission told the bureau it would not be cost-effective to hold a national exam, so the bureau elected to hold an in-house exam. Moyer to Jordan, 6 March 1947 and BEP Bulletin No. 746, 16 July 1948, attached to Hard to Moyer, 19 August 1948, all in RG 146, FEB Policy Subject File, 1948–55, Box 17, Plate Printers, NARA. On legal interpretations of the exam’s validity and whether it could be construed as racially discriminatory toward whites, see, in the same file: McCarthy to Klein, 30 July 1948 with handwritten note, Klein to Vipond, 30 July 1948; McCarthy to Klein, 6 August 1948; Klein to Vipond, 14 August 1948, handwritten note attached to Hard to Moyer, 19 August 1948.

29. Undersecretary of the Treasury Edward Foley lauded the department’s “progressive” attitude toward race, as evidenced by the fact that blacks comprised one-half of the BEP workforce. Foley to Richardson, 26 August 1948, Papers of Harry S. Truman, Philleo Nash Files, Box 3, File: Bureau of Engraving and Printing, Harry S. Truman Library (HSTL), Independence, Missouri.

30. Gilmore to Hall, October 7, 1948, Harry S. Truman Papers, Philleo Nash Files, Box 3, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, HSTL.

31. One of the women promoted, printer’s assistant Elleene Brown, was demoted back to her printer’s assistant job on 24 March 1950. She disputed the demotion, and Hard, as the fair employment officer, determined that no race discrimination had taken place. She then appealed to the FEB, which affirmed Hard’s ruling. The department held twelve hearings on the case, and it went on for two years. See Elleene Brown v. Bureau of Engraving and Printing, 26 June 1952, and Hard memo, 30 June 1952, both in RG 146, FEB Reports on Complaints, 1950–54, File: E9, Reports on Complaints: Treasury, NARA.

32. Gilmore to Hall, 1 November 1948, Sims File.

33. Ibid. On Foley’s comments about the white printers’ union, see Houghteling, Confidential Memorandum on the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, 4 January 1950, Sims File.

34. Foley was acting secretary of the treasury in December 1948 when he told UPWA officials that high-speed presses had led to a reduction in the number of plate printers needed. Houghteling, Confidential Memorandum on the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, 4 January 1950, Sims File. In Hall’s 4 November letter to Gilmore, he replaced Gilmore’s forceful wording with more tempered language calling for the gathering of facts and further study and added that there had been “several instances” in which black women had declined clerical positions because of a “cut in pay or [the] character of work involved.” See Gilmore to Hall, 7 October 1948, Harry S. Truman Papers, Philleo Nash Files, Box 3, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, HSTL; Gilmore to Hall, 1 November 1948 and Hall to Gilmore 4 November 1948, both in Sims File.

35. From the late nineteenth to early twentieth century, plate printers had pressured legislators to mandate the use of hand presses, but by the early 1920s the bureau had congressional authority to use power presses for nearly all of its printing, and in 1923 Congress lifted all restrictions on the use of power presses. A Brief History of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing: With a Description of Its Work, 8–10; Durst, History of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, 1862–1962, 107–8. In 1938, the bureau brought in a “secret press,” which one black employee claimed the plate printers’ union “resented because they felt they might lose their jobs.” Earl E. Ashton testimony, 31 January 1950, Hearing of Appeal of Nine BEP Employees, 64.

36. The quote about the “club” is from Milton Kelenson testimony, 30 January 1950, Hearing of Appeal of Nine BEP Employees, 36. On the modernization program, the plate printers union and race, see Foley to Snyder, 15 August 1949, RG 56, Treasury Department Office Files of Secretaries, Undersecretaries and Assistant Secretaries (Entry 198), Foley Records, Box 83, Engraving and Printing, A-Z.

37. The department authorized the modernization program in 1946 and yet the bureau continued to force workers into overtime between 1948 and 1950, brought printers out of retirement, and hired journeymen from the American Banknote Company to keep up with production demands. Hearing of Appeal of Nine BEP Employees, 30 January 1950, 35 (Kelenson), 31 January 1950, 62 (Sims), 64 (Ashton), 66 (Wiggins), 67 (Keys), 1 February 1950, 108 (Hall), 113 (Hall); Annual Report of the Secretary of the Treasury for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1949 (Washington, D.C., 1950), 42–43. These presses were originally headed for the Soviet Union, but with tension growing between the two countries the federal government refused to release them to the Soviets. Annual Report of the Secretary of the Treasury for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1950 (Washington, D.C., 1951), 79; Annual Report of the Secretary of Treasury for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1951 (Washington, D.C., 1952), 84.

38. Annual Report of the Secretary of the Treasury, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1951, 84; Hearing of Appeal of Nine BEP Employees, 30 January 1950, 16 (Gilmore), 33 (Kelenson), 37 (Taska), 31 January 1950, 72 (Cooke); Perkins to Richardson, 25 March 1949, RG 146, FEB Policy Subject File, 1948–55, Box 18, Report to President to Statistics, File: Procedures, NARA. In writing to Richardson about the printer’s assistants’ exam, Civil Service Commissioner Frances Perkins admitted that the commission had “not been able to recruit all the plate printers the Bureau needs.”

39. BEP Bulletin No. 753, 5 November 1948, Harry S. Truman Papers, Files of Philleo Nash, Box 3, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, HSTL.

40. Gellman, Erik S., Death Blow to Jim Crow: The National Negro Congress and the Rise of Militant Civil Rights (Chapel Hill, 2012), 87, 96–97, 197–201.Google Scholar

41. Richardson to Moffett, 8 December 1948, Harry S. Truman Papers, Files of Philleo Nash, Box 3, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, HSTL; “Inside Your Government,” Washington Afro-American, 18 December 1948.

42. Moffett had strong ties to personnel groups, including the Civil Service Commission, and had worked at the Spelman Fund, showing strong support for women’s and labor rights. African Americans concluded that he seemed like a “decent guy,” but had not shown much interest in black civil rights. Moffett had reluctantly come out of retirement to sit on the board. See file: “Clippings for GM,” Papers of Guy Moffett, Acc. 9768, Box 1, University of Virginia Special Collections (UVASC), Charlottesville; “FEPC Probers Must Go Beneath the Surface,” Washington Afro-American, 16 October 1948; handwritten note by Mrs. Moffett attached to Mitchell to Moffett, 29 September 1948, Moffett Papers, Acc. 9768, Box 3, Fair Employment Board, 1948–49, UVASC.

43. Southern Democrats, for instance, frequently argued that the wartime FEPC and proposals for a permanent FEPC represented unchecked federal power. See, for instance, Farhang and Katznelson, “The Southern Imposition,” 25–27.

44. Nash preferred a special unit within the commission that collected reports from departments, made reports to the president, and enforced nondiscrimination. Dawson to Clifford, 8 March 1948, Papers of Harry S. Truman, Official File (OF) 596, Box 1509, 1947–March 1949, HSTL.

45. Executive Order 9980, 26 July 1948.

46. “New Fair Employment Board to Be Composed of Outsiders,” Washington Evening Star, 28 July 1948.

47. John Beecher, Regional Representative, FEPC to Anna Rosenberg, Regional Director, War Manpower Commission, 5 November 1942, NAACP Papers, Part II, A-194, Civil Service, General, 1940–55, LC Mss. For later commentary on this topic, see “Civil Service Commission One of Chief Offenders,” Washington Afro-American, 6 January 1949.

48. See, for instance, McCoy to Young, “Fair Employment Board Members,” 13 April 1953 and 10 September 1953, RG 146, FEB Policy Subject File, 1948–55, Box 15, Agency Inspection Agenda to Fair Employment Board (1948 and 1953), File: Fair Employment Board (1948 and 1953), NARA; see also “FEPC Probers Must Go Beneath the Surface,” Washington Afro-American, 16 October 1948; “Progress Made by Fair Employment Board in Year Hailed by Moffett, Retiring as Chairman,” Washington Evening Star, 16 October 1949, copy in Moffett Papers, Acc. 9768, Box 1, Clippings for GM, UVASC.

49. Executive Order 9980, 26 July 1948.

50. See, for example, Moffett to Commission, 28 January 1949, and “Instructions for Carrying Out the Fair Employment Program Under Executive Order 9980,” c. March 1949, both in RG 146, FEB Policy Subject File, 1948–55, Box 15, Agency Regulations, NARA.

51. Hearing of Appeal of Nine BEP Employees, 30 January 1950–1 February 1950. See, for example, Mildred Weber testimony, 1 February 1950, 75–93. Despite dealing with this extensive case, Hard told Moffett that he had only a few informal complaints, all of which had been adjusted before becoming “formal grievances.” “Fair Employment Board Head Hits ‘Managerial Class,’” Washington Evening Star, 11 May 1949; Hard also consulted with the FEB on formulation of its procedures. See, for instance, Meeting with the Committee on Fair Employment of the Federal Personnel Council, 17 December 1948, RG 146, FEB Policy Subject File, 1948–55, Box 15, Agency Regulations, NARA.

52. FEB Summary of Discussion, 16th Meeting, 29 April 1949, Sims File; Woody Taylor, “Engraving Bureau Covering Up Bias,” Washington Afro-American, 20 August 1949.

53. Richardson to Moffett, 25 May 1949, RG 146, FEB Policy Subject File, 1948–55, Box 18, Procedures, NARA; “FEPC Not Allowed to Work at Bureau,” Washington Afro-American, 4 June 1949; UPWA, “Protest Line at Treasury Today,” 29 June 1949, copy in RG 318, BEP, CCF, 1913–49 (Entry 12), Box 322, Employees: Discrimination 1949, NARA.

54. Snyder had made a public showing of his support for fair employment by dismissing an Internal Revenue collector in Alabama who refused to enforce fair employment regulations, but he also told a “darkey” joke to a gathering in San Francisco and called a reporter who asked about it “boy.” ER to Snyder, 26 July 1949, and Snyder to ER, 1 August 1949, both in RG 318, BEP, CCF, 1913–49 (Entry 12), Box 321, Employees: Apprentice Appeals Exam, NARA; “Biased Official Dismissed by U.S.,” Washington Afro-American, 13 November 1948; Woody Taylor, “Inside Your Government,” Washington Afro-American, 4 June 1949.

55. On attitudes toward Richardson, see, for instance, Mitchell to Richardson, 17 October 1949, and Lawhorn to Mitchell, 27 September 1949, both in RG 146, FEB Policy Subject File, 1948–55, Box 18, Procedures, NARA.

56. “Marcantonio Asks 52–20 Extension for Vets,” Washington Evening Star, 27 June 1949; “Citizens Picket Federal Bureau Protesting Race Discrimination,” Washington Afro-American, 25 June 1949; Bureau Branch, UPW-CIO, “Protest Line at Treasury Today,” 29 June 1949, all in RG 318, BEP, CCF, 1913–49 (Entry 12), Box 322, Employees: Discrimination 1949, NARA; “Pickets Protest Conditions at Bureau of Engraving,” Washington Afro-American, 2 July 1949; Woody Taylor, “Raw Deal for Patriots,” Washington Afro-American, 23 July 1949; “Decorum ala Stalin,” Washington Daily News, 6 August 1949.

57. “Racial Bias Laid to Bureau of Engraving,” Washington Post, 20 June 1949; “Picket Line Protests ‘Bias’ at Engraving,” Washington Post, 24 June 1949; “Pickets Protest Conditions at Bureau,” Washington Afro-American, 2 July 1949; “Robeson Joins Pickets in Front of the White House,” Washington Evening Star, 5 August 1949; House Special Subcommittee of the Committee on Education and Labor, Federal Fair Employment Practice Act Hearing, 81st Cong., 1st sess., 10–26 May 1949; H.Con. Res. 114, 81st Cong., 2d sess., 28 July 1949; S.J. Res. 122, 81st Cong., 2d sess., 29 July, 20 August, 24 September 1949. Powell’s subcommittee spoke of touring the bureau, but the visit never happened. Bureau officials later used this fact to claim that they were not discriminating. A portion of Langer’s comments in the Congressional Record drew verbatim from a letter Richardson wrote to Moffett. Congressional Record, 29 July 1949, 10623–26; Richardson to Moffett, 15 April 1949, RG 146, Civil Service Agencies, FEB Policy Subject File, 1948–55, Box 18, Procedures, NARA.

58. Woody Taylor, “Engraving Bureau Covering Up Bias,” Washington Afro-American, 20 August 1949.

59. See, for example, Richardson to Moffett, 8 December 1948, Harry S. Truman Papers, Philleo Nash Files, Box 3, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, HSTL; Lawhorn to Richardson, 31 December 1948; Richardson to Moffett, 7 January 1949; Moffett to Richardson, 25 January 1949, all in RG 146, FEB Policy Subject File, 1948–55, Box 18, Procedures, NARA.

60. Richardson to Moffett, 15 April 1949. On Richardson’s efforts to get clarification on procedures, see also his letters to Moffett, 25 May 1949, and Mitchell, 5 October 1949. All correspondence in RG 146, FEB Policy Subject File, 1948–55, Box 18, Procedures, NARA.

61. Richardson to Moffett, 15 April 1949, RG 146, FEB Policy Subject File, 1948–55, Box 18, Procedures, NARA.

62. At one point, personnel officials blamed Gilmore for failing to inform women of clerical openings. Lawhorn telephone conversation with Mrs. Weber, 25 August 1949, RG 146, FEB Policy Subject File, 1948–55, Box 18, Procedures, NARA.

63. Richardson to Moffett, 15 April 1949, RG 146, FEB Policy Subject File, 1948–55, Box 18, Procedures, NARA.

64. Anthony Taska testimony, 30 January 1950, Hearing of Appeal of Nine BEP Employees, 38–39.

65. Thomas Irving testimony, 31 January 1950, Hearing of Appeal of Nine BEP Employees, 46.

66. Richardson to Moffett, 15 April 1949, RG 146, FEB Policy Subject File, 1948–55, Box 18, Procedures, NARA.

67. Richardson to Moffett, 15 April 1949, RG 146, FEB Policy Subject File, 1948–55, Box 18, Procedures, NARA and Summary of Correspondence with Thomas Richardson, n.d., Sims File.

68. Mitchell to Richardson, 27 September 1949, RG 146, FEB Policy Subject File, 1948–55, Box 18, Procedures, NARA.

69. Summary of Meeting with Mr. Richardson, 15 November 1949, and Summary of Correspondence with Mr. Richardson, n.d., both in Sims File.

70. Summary of Correspondence with Mr. Richardson, n.d., and Houghteling to Hard, 16 November 1949, both in Sims File.

71. The chair of the FEB observed that “if the Board gets into the larger question of segregation, unless it affects equality of opportunity, it is going to be a very busy board.” See FEB Summary of Discussion, 32nd Meeting, 21 November 1949, Sims File.

72. Richardson to Mitchell, 5 October 1949, RG 146, FEB Policy Subject File, 1948–55, Box 18, Procedures, NARA.

73. Congressional Record, 16 May 1949, p. A3089.

74. When legislators discovered the date of the exam, they rewrote the bills making it illegal to hire off the registers of an internal exam from the date of the exam forward. HR 7185, 7 February 1950, 81st Cong., 2d sess.; S. 3050, 16 February 1950, 81st Cong., 2d sess. While I have found no direct evidence that the plate printers’ union drafted the legislation, several individuals make reference to this fact, including FEB chair Houghteling in a letter to President Truman. Houghteling to Truman, 5 April 1950, Papers of Harry S. Truman, OF 21-K, Box 177, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, HSTL.

75. See, for instance, Riley to Johnston, 9 July 1947, Papers of Olin D. Johnston, Box 10, ODJ Legisl, 1947, File: Civ Serv Gen (5 of 5), Modern Political Collection (MPC), University of South Carolina, Columbia.

76. Ramsay to Westbrooks, 23 March 1950, and Ramsay Remarks on H.R. 7185, 1 May 1950, both in Robert Ramsay Collection, Bills and Resolutions, 81st and 82d Congresses, 1949–52, West Virginia and Regional History Collection, University of West Virginia Libraries, Morgantown.

77. Kefauver to Johnston, 24 April 1950, and S. 3050 Amendment, 24 April 1950, 81st Cong., 2d sess., both in Olin D. Johnston Papers, Box 23, ODJ Legisl, 1950, File: Post Office and Civil Service, Gen (3 of 3), MPC, University of South Carolina.

78. On 14 March, a group of white World War II veterans, no doubt at the instigation of Plate Printers Local 2, filed a request for a preliminary injunction to block the in-house apprentice exam, naming Treasury Secretary Snyder and Bureau Director Hall as defendants. Hall found himself in the awkward position of defending the internal exam, thus inhabiting the position taken by the African American employees who were charging him with race discrimination. The court dismissed the case. Civil Action No. 1127–50, 14 March 1950, copy in RG 56, Treasury Department, Office Files of Secretaries, Undersecretaries, and Assistant Secretaries, 1932–65 (Entry 198), Foley Records, Box 83, Engraving and Printing, A-Z, NARA.

79. “Frank Coleman, 71, Labor Union Official,” Washington Post, 27 October 1954.

80. Coleman to Steelman, 12 April 1950, Papers of Harry Truman, OF 21-K, Box 177, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, HSTL.

81. Afro-American columnist Woody Taylor, by contrast, urged the Civil Service Commission not to be a puppet of the AFL union. Washington Afro-American, 18 March 1950.

82. Green to Truman, 27 February 1950, Papers of Harry S. Truman, OF 21-K Box 177, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, HSTL.

83. Hearing of Appeal of Nine BEP Employees, 30 January–1 February 1950. Members of the white plate printers unions did not testify at the hearing. It is not clear whether they were not invited or whether they refused an invitation.

84. Richardson testimony, 30 January 1950, Hearing of Appeal of Nine BEP Employees, 5.

85. John White testimony, 31 January 1950, Hearing of Appeal of Nine BEP Employees, 52.

86. Albert Bernstein testimony, 1 February 1950, Hearing of Appeal of Nine BEP Employees, 89.

87. Richardson testimony, 30 January 1950, Hearing of Appeal of Nine BEP Employees, 5.

88. Richardson testimony, 31 January 1950, Hearing of Appeal of Nine BEP Employees, 44.

89. Richardson testimony, 1 February 1950, Hearing of Appeal of Nine BEP Employees, 119.

90. Houghteling, Fair Employment Board, Memoranda, 17 February 1950, and 23 February 1950, Sims File; Houghteling to Truman, 5 April 1950, Papers of Harry S. Truman, OF 21-K, Box 177, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, HSTL.

91. Houghteling to Foley, 23 February 1950, Sims File.

92. Houghteling, Annual Report, 1 October 1949–30 September 1950, Papers of Harry S. Truman OF 2-F, Box 18, Fair Employment Board, HSTL. The FEB’s dealings with the all-white plate printers union were often indirect. After testimony from Taska, a white worker, the FEB decided not to call the plate printers named by him. They offered no written explanation for this decision. FEB Summary Minutes of 39th, 40th, and 41st Meetings on 30 January, 31 January, and 1 February 1950, respectively, Sims File. Parts of the FEB report alluded to the role of the plate printers union’s exclusionary policies and Houghteling spoke more directly of them in correspondence. Several years later, board members told President Eisenhower’s Civil Service Commissioner that it did not reference the union because it felt the responsibility for personnel decisions lay with bureau officials. Houghteling, Confidential Memorandum on the Bureau of Engraving, 4 January 1950, Sims File; Houghteling to Truman, 5 April 1950, Papers of Harry S. Truman, OF 21-K, Box 177, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, HSTL; FEB to Young, c. 14 September 1953, RG 146, FEB Policy Subject File, 1948–55, Box 15, Fair Employment Board (1948 and 1953), NARA.

93. Soon thereafter, Hard appointed deputy fair employment officers in each bureau and replaced Hall in this post. Woody Taylor, “Inside Your Government,” Washington Afro-American, 24 March and 7 April 1951.

94. Publicly, Houghteling continued to say that discrimination was “the act of one or more persons,” and that “the whole government is not discriminating. … I do not think there is a government agency where everyone is discriminating.” Hearing on Appeal of Winston Luck, 19–20 December 1951, RG 146, FEB Case Files, Box 10, Winston Luck, NARA.

95. In a letter to Snyder on 13 March, Representative Murray asked that the “so-called” promotional exam be postponed. Murray to Snyder, 13 March 1950, and Foley to Murray, 15 March 1950, both in Sims File.

96. Richardson continued to complain about the delay throughout 1950. On the events of 1950, see, for example, FEB Summary of Discussion, 50th Meeting, 3 April 1950, Sims File; Houghteling to Truman, 5 April 1950, Papers of Harry S. Truman, OF 21-K, Box 177, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, HSTL. One presidential assistant later recalled that the White House maintained “steady pressure” on the department, but it was not evident how, or if, Truman leaned on the department. Jerry R. Hess Oral History Interview with Philleo Nash, 9 November 1966, 17–18, HSTL, http://www.trumanlibrary.org/oralhist/nash.htm (accessed 5 March 2015).

97. FEB Summary of Discussion, 92nd Meeting, 9 January 1951, and Summary of Discussion, 94th Meeting, 24 January 1951, both in Sims File; Folsom to Martin, 29 June 1953, RG 56, Treasury Department Office Files of Secretaries, Undersecretaries and Assistant Secretaries, 1932–65 (Entry 198), Records of Undersecretary Marion B. Folsom, Box 131, Engraving and Printing Bureau, NARA.

98. Woody Taylor, “Inside Your Government,” Washington Afro-American, 20 January 1951, 27 January 1951, and 17 February 1951; “Bureau Racial Bars Down: New Jobs Opened,” n.d., c. January 1951, copy in Sims File; “Six Men, Four Women Put on Honor Role,” Washington Afro-American, 3 February 1951; Sims to Houghteling, 31 January 1951, Sims File.

99. Houghteling, Memorandum for File, 20 February 1951; Houghteling to Mitchell, 21 February 1951, and “ESMA Protests Civil Service Ruling,” all in Sims File. On the use of cost-cutting measures, even prior to 1951, see “Money Makers Laid Off,” New York Times, 11 July 1950.

100. Folsom to Neely, 5 June 1953, RG 56, Central Files of the Office of the Secretary of the Treasury, 1917–56 (Entry 193), Box 178, File: Treas. Dept.—Engraving and Printing, Bureau of, 1933–56, NARA. On Folsom’s reference to promotions, see Folsom to Bresnahan, 22 June 1953, and Folsom to Dawson, 30 June 1953, both in RG 56, Office of Secretaries, Undersecretaries, and Assistant Secretaries, 1932–65 (Entry 198), Folsom Records, Box 131, Engraving and Printing Bureau, NARA.

101. FEB Summary Minutes of 194th Meeting, 17 June 1953; 195th and 196th Meetings on 23 and 24 June 1953; Summary Minutes and Summary Discussion, 197th and 198th Meetings on 30 June and 1 July 1953, all in RG 146, FEB Minutes, Box 19, Minutes #1, NARA.

102. This ruling appeared consistent with the Treasury Department’s 1951 Fair Employment Practice procedures. FEB Summary of Discussion, 205th Meeting, 12 August 1953, RG 146, FEB Minutes, Box 19, Minutes, 21 October 1948–18 January 1955, NARA; Hard to Bureau Heads, Personnel Circular No. 136, 24 April 1951; Bulletin No. 893, Bureau of Engraving and Printing Procedures Governing Fair Employment Practice, 30 April 1951; Parsons to Houghteling, 22 November 1950; Houghteling to Snyder, 1 March 1951; Parsons to Houghteling, 13 March 1951, all in RG 146, FEB Correspondence with Agencies, 1948–54, Box 5, Treasury Department, NARA.

103. FEB Summary of Discussion, 213th and 214th Meetings on 7 October and 8 October 1953, RG 146, FEB Minutes, Box 19, Minutes, 21 October 1948–18 January 1955, NARA.

104. Black apprentices understood that at the end of their program, there may not be jobs available, but said they were “willing to take their chances.” FEB to Young, c. 14 September 1953, RG 146, FEB Policy Subject Files, 1948–55, Box 15, Fair Employment Board (1948 and 1953), NARA.

105. Matthews et al. to Commission, 18 January 1955, RG 146, FEB Policy Subject File, 1948–55, Box 15, Inventory of Pending Complaints in Depts., NARA; FEB Summary Minutes of 240th Meeting, 18 January 1955, RG 146, FEB Minutes, Box 19, Minutes, 21 October 1948–18 January 1955, NARA.

106. “Agency Settles Bias Suit” New York Times, 22 November 1990; Bill McAllister, “Treasury Settles Bias Suit at Bureau of Engraving,” Washington Post, 21 November 1990.

107. “Crash Injuries Fatal to Woman,” Washington Post, 18 February 1973; “Thomas Richardson, 51, Leader in Civil Rights and Labor Dies,” New York Times, 28 August 1963; Bernstein, Carl, Loyalties: A Son’s Memoirs (New York, 1989)Google Scholar.

108. Richardson to Mitchell, 5 October 1949, RG 146, FEB Policy Subject File, 1948–55, Box 18, Procedures, NARA.

109. Indeed, once the apprentice program seemed firmly established in 1951, Richardson vowed to begin a campaign on behalf of black women at the bureau. “3-Year Fight Ends Labor Bias,” New York New Amsterdam News, 27 January 1951. Richardson resigned his UPWA post several months later. “Union Man Honored with Testimonial,” Atlanta Daily World, 3 June 1951.