John L. Anderson

John L. "Slim" Anderson was president of the Piedmont Textile Council in Burlington, North Carolina. Born in Virginia, he began working in textile mills at fourteen. He was dismissed from the Mayfair Mill after campaigning for better ventilation in 1931. Anderson helped lead textile workers during the September 1934 general strike. He and six other workers were prosecuted over dynamite attacks on Burlington mills. On December 4, 1934, he received an eight-to-ten-year sentence. The North Carolina Supreme Court upheld his conviction on November 20, 1935. He was out on an appeal bond in December 1935.

The Daily Worker of February 2, 1935, page 4, reports the International Labor Defense's entry into the Burlington mill-dynamiting case and its plans for a North Carolina Supreme Court appeal by March. Anna Damon announced the defense after an investigation by ILD attorneys. The stated grounds were conviction against the weight of the evidence, allegedly fabricated confessions and judicial prejudice. The article names all seven defendants, including John L. Anderson, and reports sentencing on December 4, 1934. These are the defense organization's contemporary allegations and plans; the report does not itself establish a successful appeal or any new custody endpoint.

The Daily Worker of February 12, 1935, page 5, reports that Anderson worked in Graham, two miles from Burlington, during the organizing and strike period. Anna Mae Johnson's account says that his 1931 complaint to the Raleigh Welfare Department over poor ventilation at the Mayfair Mill cost him his job but secured ventilation for the workers. He was subsequently elected president of the Piedmont Textile Council. This contemporary account adds the complaint's recipient and outcome; it does not establish a separate arrest.

An eyewitness letter in the Daily Worker of March 27, 1935, page 6, calls him John (Slim) Anderson and recalls his repeated appeals in United Textile Workers meetings against violence during the September 1934 strike. The writer says Anderson specifically rebuked Jerry Furlough for advocating violence and criticizes the subsequent conspiracy prosecution and alleged coerced confessions. These are the correspondent's attributed observations about the existing case, not a new arrest or a court finding of exoneration. The letter's collective count of six differs from other accounts naming seven defendants.

Katherine Moore's November 26 Chapel Hill account in the Daily Worker of November 27, 1935, page 4, describes Anderson and Hoggard hitchhiking there with Burlington Defense Committee head Walt Pickart after the adverse state appeal decision. It reports Anderson advocating continued mass defense and an appeal to the United States Supreme Court. This documents a defense visit while at liberty, not a prison admission. The page 2 League for Southern Labor statement also sought gubernatorial pardons and offered Francis Gorman cooperation; no pardon or federal appeal outcome is established.

W. T. Couch, in The Carolina Magazine, December 1935, printed pages 21-25 (PDF pages 101-105), describes his investigation of the Burlington dynamite prosecution. He reports a trial from November 28 to December 4, 1934, attacks the inconclusive track evidence and the selection of 15-18 additional talesmen by deputy John Leath at the prosecution's request, and identifies four Uniontown, Pennsylvania investigators: S. E. Howard, D. P. Stewart, K. R. Delph and J. R. (Randy) Jones. He says they kept prosecution witnesses Charlie McCullom, H. F. Pruitt and Jerry Furlough together in one Alamance Hotel room from the Monday before trial through its conclusion. Couch alleges compromised testimony and possible prejudice; he expressly says he did not establish who committed the dynamiting. His March 1935 request to Frances Perkins was referred to Textile Labor Relations Board chairman Walter P. Stacy, from whom he had received no answer. A note dated December 19 reports four defendants on bond, Blaylock still jailed for inability to obtain bond, Overman serving a separate post-trial offense and Kimrey at liberty on a suspended sentence. The defense sought new material evidence for a new trial and contemplated a federal constitutional appeal; these were efforts, not established outcomes. Couch adds that Anderson, a Republican organizer, canvassed for Frank Rudd in the 1928 sheriff election, after which Democratic deputy Stockard lost his job. His suggestion of resulting bias is an inference, not a judicial finding. Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/Carolina_magazine_%28serial%29_%28IA_carolinamagazine65univ%29.pdf

A March 22 Burlington dispatch described the appeal of six textile-strike defendants arrested in September 1934 and convicted that December. The defense challenged the legality of the grand jury, alleged jury selection by hand, and the trial judge’s handling of defense testimony and speeches. The report is appellate context, not proof of additional measured time served. Source: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/dailyworker/1935/v12-n071-NAT-mar-23-1935-DW-Q.pdf#page=3

Page 3 reports Danville, Connecticut UTW Local 2040’s defense resolution after hearing Anderson discuss the Burlington dynamiting prosecution. It identifies him as Piedmont Textile Council president at arrest, under an eight-to-ten-year sentence. The textile-conference article explicitly says he was out on bail and touring the North. This documents liberty on bail by May 25, without supplying an exact bail-release day or treating his imposed sentence as actual time served. Source: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/dailyworker/1935/v12-n125-NAT-may-25-1935-DW-Q.pdf

Dan Shays’s April 9, 1935 New Masses account places the alleged Holt Plaid Mill explosion September 15 and gives the damage as 12 dollars 50 cents. It says seven unionists and three non-union men were arrested after imported Pennsylvania detectives investigated; the three non-union men turned state’s evidence and were acquitted. The defense allegations include a handpicked jury and the sheriff appointing the foreman’s brother superintendent of the county poorhouse on verdict day. These are the magazine’s allegations about the existing prosecution, not findings of exoneration. The report calls Anderson president of the Piedmont Council and describes a defense committee including professors, clergy and a playwright. No new exact custody endpoint or individual sentence is inferred from the collective two-to-ten-year range. Source: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/new-masses/1935/v15n02-apr-09-1935-NM.pdf#page=17.

Page 2 identifies Slim John A. Anderson as the former Piedmont Council president visiting New York to seek support for the Burlington textile defendants. This printed middle initial differs from the existing John L. record, but the distinctive nickname, union office and Burlington prosecution identify the same person. The report says all but one defendant were free on bail and describes a January 18 support meeting; it does not individually identify the one still confined or establish another personal bail-release day. The collective range of eighteen to sixty-seven years is not an individual imposed term. Source: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/dailyworker/1935/v12-n014-not-15-Nat-jan-16-1935-DW-LOC.pdf

The August 24, 1935 Daily Worker editorial on page 8 calls the Piedmont textile council leader in the Burlington dynamite case "John Andrews." This conflicts with the Anderson surname used in the other contemporary accounts cited above. Its description of the union leadership, case and eight-to-ten-year sentence matches John L. Anderson; the apparent surname error is preserved here rather than creating another prisoner. The editorial announces a prospective state Supreme Court appeal and urges freedom for the defendants. Its sentence and appeal language do not establish another arrest, a prison admission date or completed time served. Source: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/dailyworker/1935/v12-n203-NAT-aug-24-1935-DW-Q.pdf#page=8

The editorial names him among the five Burlington textile defendants whose convictions were upheld and who were ordered to surrender December 2, 1935. This issue calls the men out on bail, whereas a later account specifically says Blalock could not obtain bond. The collective wording is preserved as a discrepancy and the surrender order is not recorded as an accomplished readmission. The matching Burlington prosecution identifies the existing defendants despite shortened names and spelling variants. Labor Defender, December 1935, original PDF page 3. Source: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/labordefender/1935/v11n12-dec-1935-orig-LD.pdf#page=3

Daily Worker, May 31, 1935, page 3: The May 30 Raleigh report names the six Burlington textile-strike defendants appealing convictions over the E. M. Holt Plaid Mill dynamiting during the September 1934 strike. It reports this defendant's nominal term as eight to ten years at hard labor and an appeal hearing scheduled for August 27 before the North Carolina Supreme Court. Printed Florence Blaylock and J. F. Haraway are roster variants of the established Burlington identities. John L. Anderson, identified as Piedmont Textile Council president when arrested, was then addressing union locals in Pennsylvania, New York and New England. The announced appeal is prospective and the reported terms are not complete actual service. These date-specific figures do not silently overwrite different terms in later court-based records. Source: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/dailyworker/1935/v12-n130-NAT-may-31-1935-DW-Q.pdf

Labor Defender, February 1936, PDF page 3: The editorial identifies him as president of the Piedmont Council of the United Textile Workers and one of five Burlington defendants now imprisoned at Raleigh following the state appellate decision. The two-to-ten-year range covers the group and does not replace individual sentences or establish a new arrest. Source: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/labordefender/1936/v12-%5B10%5Dn02-feb-1936-orig-LD.pdf#page=3

Labor Defender, February 1935, PDF page 20: The Burlington report individually names the seven textile defendants and alleges beatings and drugging in jail before a jury excluding union members. It identifies Anderson as Piedmont Textile Council president with an imposed eight-to-ten-year hard-labor term. The accusations of planted dynamite and abuse are the defense magazine’s claims; the collective 27-year total is not allocated as individual time served. No new physical release date is supplied. Source: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/labordefender/1935/v11n02-feb-1935-orig-LD.pdf#page=20

Labor Defender, March 1935, PDF page 8: E. E. Ericson’s Burlington investigation says Anderson obtained a lawyer for Hoggard before he too was questioned and arrested; he had campaigned against the Alamance sheriff. The continuation on PDF 26 says he was held incommunicado while seeking bond. These are attributed procedural details in the existing prosecution, not a fresh episode. Source: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/labordefender/1935/v11n03-mar-1935-orig-LD.pdf#page=8

Walter S. Pickard’s April 30, 1935 account says the Workers Defense Committee obtained bond for the Burlington textile defendants and that the ILD was assisting their appeal to the North Carolina Supreme Court. This is the correspondent’s collective description at that date, not an individual release day; it is retained alongside the later court-based distinctions about who could obtain bond. The report identifies the alleged mill incidents as the September 14, 1934 E. M. Holt Plaid Mill explosion and dynamite found the next day at the Holt and Stevens mills. Source: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/new-masses/1935/v15n05-apr-30-1935-NM.pdf#page=15