Charlotte Three facts for kids
The Charlotte Three were three men named T.J. Reddy, James Grant, and Charles Parker. They were arrested and found guilty in Charlotte, North Carolina, for burning a horse stable called Lazy B Stables. This happened on September 24, 1968, about a year after the stable started allowing people of all races.
The men were arrested in December 1971, three years after the fire. Many people believed their arrest was meant to stop their work as civil rights activists. Some thought this case showed how much racism still existed in the Southern United States in the 1970s. They felt the Charlotte Three were treated unfairly because of the social changes they were working for. In 1979, after many people campaigned for them, North Carolina Governor Jim Hunt changed their sentences, and they were set free.
Contents
Charlotte's Civil Rights Journey
Charlotte, North Carolina, was often seen as a modern city that was different from other Southern cities with strong racial discrimination. It was called a "New South city." However, many people in Charlotte still held onto Jim Crow segregation, just like in other places.
Even so, African Americans in Charlotte actively fought against racism. For example, the famous court case Brown v. Board of Education, which helped end school segregation, came from a school district near Charlotte. Also, a civil rights leader named Reginald Hawkins led protests against segregation in Charlotte's public and private places. When a court case called Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education was filed in January 1965, the car of civil rights leader Julius Chambers was damaged by an explosion. A year later, bombs exploded at the homes of four more civil rights leaders.
Meet the Activists
One person in Charlotte who had faced a lot of racial discrimination was T.J. Reddy. He was a student at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. T.J. was a poet and writer who used his skills to become an activist for urban communities.
In September 1967, T.J. Reddy, his girlfriend Vicky Minar, and some friends went to Lazy B Stables to ride horses. But when they arrived, they were told they couldn't ride because they were Black. T.J. didn't want to cause trouble, so they left. The next day, the group returned with both Black and white friends, and this time they were allowed to ride. T.J. believed the stable management had changed their minds and would now allow Black people to ride.
Charles Parker was another Black man who went to the stable with Reddy. He was an excellent student at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. He was involved in anti-war activities and supported the "black consciousness" movement, which focused on Black pride and identity.
Dr. James Earl Grant was another civil rights activist charged in the Lazy B Stables case. He was from Hartford, Connecticut, and had a high-level degree from Penn State. He was very active in fighting racial discrimination in the South, especially in North Carolina.
On May 11, 1970, a Black man named Henry Marrow was killed in Oxford, North Carolina. When this news spread, Black people from all over the country, including James Grant, organized protests. Most wanted to get justice through the legal system. However, a group of Black Vietnam veterans decided to take action by damaging white-owned businesses in Oxford. Neither Grant nor Reddy were involved in these violent acts.
The Witnesses: Alfred Hood and David Washington
On May 15, 1970, police in Oxford, North Carolina, arrested Alfred Hood and David Washington. They had "seven sticks of dynamite, two rifles, and a pistol." These two men were friends with James Grant. They later told authorities that Grant had told them to drive to Charlotte with their supplies.
Hood and Washington were jailed for having these weapons. But after a short time, they escaped and went to Canada. They were later caught and brought back. When they were arrested a second time, they made a deal with the prosecutor. This deal was seen by the Black community as unfair. The government paid for their living expenses, and after they testified, they would be moved to a new location, all paid for by the government.
In exchange for this deal, Hood and Washington agreed to testify against James Grant, who was an important leader in the movement to reduce racism. In April 1972, they testified that Grant had encouraged them to escape and helped them cross the border into Canada. The prosecutor believed that Grant had "trained these young people" to do the "big stuff" while he stayed "behind the scenes." Grant was found guilty of helping fugitives and was sentenced to ten years in prison.
The prosecutor wanted more from Hood and Washington. He reportedly offered them cash to help convict the Charlotte Three for the Lazy B Stables fire. Assistant Attorney General Robert C. Mardian approved a deal to give Hood and Washington $4,000 each. This was meant to persuade them to say what the prosecutor wanted to hear. The prosecutor wanted to convict the Charlotte Three because they were all civil rights leaders working to end racism in Charlotte. The three men were officially accused in January 1972, which caused a lot of anger and protest.
However, the prosecutor denied offering cash. He suggested that Hood and Washington were willing to testify against the Charlotte Three on their own. He reportedly asked the pair, "Whose driving around in a Cadillac while you're stuck in here?" implying that the leaders were free while Hood and Washington were paying the price. The FBI also believed Hood and Washington. An FBI agent in Charlotte, Koon, even wanted to turn Grant into an informant against his other activist friends, but that didn't happen.
The Court Case
With three Black men as defendants, the lawyers for the Charlotte Three asked for the case to be dropped. They argued that the grand jury, which decides if there's enough evidence for a trial, unfairly excluded Black people because of voter registration laws. However, Judge Snepp disagreed, saying that Black people could register to vote as they wished. The defense lawyers saw this as a way to stop Black people from registering to vote. At that time, Black voters often had to take special tests, unlike white voters, which was unfair.
Also, the prosecutor's office chose no Black or Jewish jurors, except for one elderly Black woman who was nearly deaf. This meant the defense had to use up all their allowed challenges to remove clearly unsuitable jury members. This left them at a big disadvantage in the courtroom.
Reporters and journalists questioned the evidence in the case. Even though the white prosecutor's office followed all the laws, the court selected a jury of white Southern Baptists who seemed to have strong biases. During the trial, the only real evidence, besides the questionable witness testimony from Hood and Washington, was a picture of a bottle believed to be an unused firebomb. However, this bottle was never actually put into the case's evidence files because it mysteriously "got lost" by the fire marshals. It was also claimed that the "original photograph was staged."
Even with very little evidence to support the prosecutor's claims, the jury found the men guilty within an hour of the case ending. T.J. Reddy was sentenced to 20 years in prison, James Grant received 25 years, and Charles Parker was given 10 years.
The sentences given to the Charlotte Three showed a clear conflict. The white jurors wanted to be fair, but they were worried about what would happen if they supported these Black men. There was a fear of a "Black revolution" in the South at that time. By imprisoning the leaders of Black movements, white people hoped to control and stop these movements. Many people saw the decision as a way to punish Black leaders for their ideas about a Black revolution. Judge Snepp even sentenced Grant to 25 years because of his education.
Concerns About Testimony
Judge Snepp said that because Grant was so educated, he "showed no gratitude to society." He believed Grant was "an extremely dangerous revolutionary beyond rehabilitation" because of his education. Snepp thought Reddy was dangerous because he was a poet and could use his talents to inspire Black people and change their way of thinking. Parker received the lightest sentence because he was not seen as harmful as the others. Snepp thought Parker was an "easily led young Black dupe."
Judge Snepp knew that Hood and Washington "are not exactly A-1 citizens," meaning they weren't the most trustworthy people. Yet, he decided to use their testimony as a key part of convicting the Charlotte Three. The truthfulness of Washington's statements about Grant and the Charlotte Three was not questioned during the trial, but it should have been. He was the "prime suspect in five murders in the Charlotte area." Still, his testimony was used to put men with no criminal records in jail.
At that time, crime rates were rising. Famous philosopher Angela Davis was publicly fighting the FBI, George Jackson was becoming known as a Black Party leader, and there was a bombing at the University of Wisconsin's math building. Washington's crimes were overlooked because the other mentioned crimes were seen as politically motivated, while Washington's were not. As District Attorney Tom Moore put it, "sometimes you must go to hell to get the devil."
Public Support and Reactions
Even though the Charlotte Three were found guilty and imprisoned, people in Charlotte and those close to the men continued to support them. Grant's father mentioned in the Herald Journal that "vigils" were held in front of the Old State House in Hartford to keep the case in the public eye. The men felt they represented how racially unfair Charlotte had become, and its residents didn't want the city to be seen as having corrupt legal officials. In the Black Panther newspaper, a letter-writing campaign by the North Carolina Political Prisoners Committee began. Local residents were urged to send letters to Governor Hunt of North Carolina to ask him to change the men's sentences.
T.J. Reddy also received support from other poets. Sandra Beck of Charlotte wrote that she had met "few people so creatively and constructively oriented" and that he encouraged many "young writers and authors." It was ironic that Reddy, who was seen as creative, was accused of destroying a building by arson, which is not a creative act. He also had the full support of the state's art community, who strongly backed the Black poet.
James Grant received support from people in both the North and the South. This included Connecticut Governor Ella Grasso, who called Governor Hunt in North Carolina on Grant's behalf. Grant also had the support of L.C. Dorsey, a famous Southern prison rights leader. Dorsey claimed that Grant's imprisonment was because he disagreed with "a senseless war, racial oppression at home, and the plight of those who had taxation without representation."
Sentences Changed
James Grant was eventually given parole by Governor Hunt of North Carolina, which reduced his sentence. Reddy and Parker were also set free. When Grant learned he was about to be freed, he said that "people have paid higher prices" than he had, and that he was fine with whatever decision was made. The Governor did not fully pardon the sentences, but rather commuted them. This meant that in the eyes of the legal system, the men were still considered guilty of the fire.
Broader Impact on Politics and Civil Rights
The Charlotte Three case showed bigger issues about politics, race, and the civil rights movement in the South. The reason the men's sentences were changed might not have been just for the public reasons given. There might have been hidden political reasons. In 1979, which was an election year, there was a lot of unrest. Governor Hunt and the Democratic party were worried about the negative reaction they would face if the men were still in prison during the election.
Herbert N. Lape, who was the vice-chairman of the North Carolina state Democratic party, wrote a letter to Hunt. He stated that many people in the state saw "the Charlotte Three [case] as [a] primarily white witch [hunt] that involved racial bigotry." A secretary named Joseph Grimsley also wrote a memo to Governor Hunt, saying, "the state's repressive image is beginning to spill over in this administration to yours personally."
The government felt it had to improve its image by reducing the sentences. Otherwise, it might lose power to another political party. The judge had originally given out the long sentences because he wanted to show that it was "the smashing of a dangerous Black revolution plot." He hoped to make an example of the men, as he was worried about more such plots in the future.
Criticisms of the Case
The Charlotte Three case was not unique. Historian John Schutz argued that it was a common event in the mid-1900s South. By prosecuting "Black leaders for conventional crimes," the state could use "civilized" methods. Instead of causing violence, they could put the leader in jail where he could no longer lead. Expert Raymond Michalowski believed these prosecutions of Black people were similar to the actions of the KKK or other "night riders of decades past." But instead of illegal groups, legal judges and prosecutors were doing this in the courts.
By charging leaders with crimes, the state could make it seem like the leaders were not as good as they claimed to be. This helped to quiet some of the public support the leaders might have gained. Even though the South seemed to have openly fixed its race problem after the federal civil rights laws in 1964-65, it was secretly prosecuting Black revolutionary leaders. These prosecutions were not happening on the streets through public lynchings, as in the past. Instead, they were happening through unfair deals supported by the legal system.
