Slaton, who was in his final days of office, had a conflict of interest that has often been ignored in retellings of the story: He was a partner in the law firm that had represented Frank. Georgians, for whom the memory of the Civil War was no more than 50 years old, now felt themselves embattled once again.īy June of that year, the fate of Leo Frank lay finally in the hands of Georgia governor John M. By 1915, even as the last of Leo Frank’s appeals was failing, the pro-Frank media campaign had succeeded in turning public opinion throughout the nation against not only the verdict but against the state of Georgia itself. ![]() Connolly as its megaphone…the purpose is to divide public opinion, create mawkish sentiment and manufacture a sympathy, which will influence the authorities.”Įlsewhere, in a piece entitled “The Leo Frank case still raging in Northern papers,” Watson insisted that the outsiders “cannot or will not weigh the facts which prove Frank’s terrible crime,” adding that “if Frank’s rich connections keep on lying about this case, something bad will happen.”īut Watson was becoming an increasingly isolated voice. In response to a pro-Frank article in Colliers, Watson declared: He frequently made reference to “Jew money” and made numerous threats, only slightly veiled, against those whom he saw as interfering. Watson’s inflammatory, racist rhetoric was blatant and unabashed. Watson published The Jeffersonian, which he used as his mouthpiece for Populist ideology, white supremacy and the myths of the agrarian South. Throwing fuel on the fire at every turn was Tom Watson, the outspoken Populist, former Congressman and one-time presidential running-mate of William Jennings Bryan. Although the Frank camp denounced these actions and did what they could to distance themselves from Burns, the damage was done: Georgians were increasingly convinced that Frank’s Northern Jewish supporters were trying to subvert justice by whatever means and without scruple. The incident led not only to Burns being dropped by Frank’s supporters but also to formal charges against Burns for suborning perjury. Ragsdale, who reportedly accepted the $200 bribe because he was in poor health and had piled up medical bills, resigned from the pulpit in humiliation. Burns, who had been retained by Frank’s supporters to uncover evidence of Frank’s innocence. ![]() Days later he retracted his statement, saying that he had been bribed by detectives working for William J. Ragsdale, pastor of Atlanta’s Plum Street Baptist Church, submitted an affidavit swearing that he had overheard Jim Conley confess to the murder of Mary Phagan. This belief was deepened by an incident that occurred in April of 1914. By the time Adolph Ochs and the New York Times agreed to get involved, there was already a growing backlash in Georgia against a perceived “outside interference” that was both Yankee-based and Jewish-led. ![]() Certain smaller publications, also Jewish-owned, had proceeded with less caution, publishing editorials condemning Frank’s conviction as an act of anti-Semitism. But these cautions were in some ways too late and too limited.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |