|
351
would "make Maryland a better place to live in than either the Democrats or
1?
Republicans," endorsed Mitchell.
What then happened to the possibility, raised by the Clarence Mitchell
Socialist Party campaign of 1934, of the emergence of a radical interracial
leadership core in Baltimore in the mid-1930s? Very simply, this possibility was not
realized. Despite appearances, the campaign of 1934 marked the high point, the
culmination of the process of convergence between the Forum and the PUL-
oriented Socialists, not the start of something bigger. Why? A closer look at the
campaign itself indicates part of the answer.
All available evidence indicates that the Clarence Mitchell campaign,
whatever its ideological unity with the larger Socialist Party campaign, was almost
entirely autonomous organizationally from the overall effort. While both the
Forum and the PUl^oriented Socialist militants both worked in the same
campaign, it appears that there was little collaboration. Even the Socialists closest
to the Forum, such as Frank Trager, played no significant role in the
Mitchell/Forum campaign. Conversely, there is no evidence that Forum members
played any role in any aspect of the SP campaign other than the Clarence Mitchell
race. Also, Clarence Mitchell was nominated by the Socialists for a very minor
post, and the fact of his candidacy was lost in major Socialist campaign literature
and in the reports of the mainstream white press — this despite the fact that, as far
as can be discerned, he was the party's only Black candidate. The SP certainly did
not act like Clarence Mitchell's candidacy and the Forum's participation was any
big deal.
Additionally, it is questionable how much the Forum campaign really
pressed the Socialist Party program or a socialist vision; Forum veterans who have
been interviewed tend to talk of the campaign as another Forum civil rights
campaign. And while Broadus Mitchell set the overall tenor for the Socialists by
|
