THE MYTHICAL HISTORY OF AFRICAN-AMERICANS IN FUNERAL SERVICE IN THE STATE OF ALABAMA (From 1900 - Present)

By: Charlotte A. Clark-Frieson, and Wilkie S. Frieson

Archival Note and Interim Status: 

The historical narrative presented herein represents an active, ongoing multi-year archival compilation. While scores of pages of additional contemporaneous news clippings, oral histories, and regulatory records remain under active synthesis for future independent publication, the primary source evidence compiled up to this point is exhaustive, complete, and fully sufficient to establish the structural trajectory of economic attrition relevant to this action.

Executive Summary

This comprehensive primary-source monograph chronicles the History of Black Funeral Directors in Alabama from 1900 to the Present, focusing heavily on their economic survival, civil rights activism, and regulatory struggles. Unlike standard trade timelines, this research exposes the systemic hurdles Black morticians faced within a hostile Jim Crow landscape. It provides an exhaustive legal and economic analysis of the landmark 1970 federal antitrust lawsuit Edgar H. Battle (Progressive Funeral Directors of Alabama) v. Liberty National Life Insurance Company and the 1999 Moore v. Liberty National race-based premium class action. Documenting pioneer leaders like Lucius Livingston Fleming, W.E. Shortridge, and Wilkie Clark, this page serves as a vital historical repository for researchers, historians, and legal scholars examining African American entrepreneurial resilience and institutional power in East Central Alabama.

The Alabama Funeral Directors and Morticians Association, Inc. (AFDMA) was organized in the mid-1920s.

The Alabama Funeral Directors and Morticians Association (AFDMA) was organized in the mid-1920s. It was initially established to address the specific needs of Black funeral directors and the Black community. The organization was initially named the Alabama Colored Funeral Directors and Embalmers.    

​

We must bear in mind that times were very difficult during these years, because black professionals did not have the benefit of reserving the "Five-Star Hotels" and larger venues to host meetings.   Often their meetings were hosted in private homes and local churches in the city where the meetings were being held.     As early as 1929, there is newspaper evidence (seen only through the eyes of the black press) of meetings among "Negro" undertakers.  Various sessions of the two-day meeting are to be staged in the local Zion Church in Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

A 1930 Chicago Defender article reported on the Birmingham Area Funeral Directors, who were comprised of a much larger group of professionals — yet meeting in the home of  one of their members: 

ACTIVIST NEGRO UNDERTAKERS

My first encounter with activist Negro undertakers appeared in the Saturday, June 25, 1955 edition of The Mobile Beacon, Alabama Citizen, Mobile, Alabama.

An article entitled Alabama “Negro Undertakers Map Fight To Rid Selves of Burial Insurance Contracts”.

The article speaks of a meeting in Birmingham, Alabama during which the members of the Alabama Colored Funeral Directors Association plan to tackle the controversial issue of funeral-finance companies at an emergency meeting scheduled for Thursday, June 30, 1955 at the Elks' Home in Montgomery.

According to this article, W.E. Shortridge, past president of the National Negro Funeral Directors Association had spearheaded the fight to free the funeral home operators from what is claimed to be injurious inroad by the burial-finance companies.

Therefore, he had offered a resolution at the 22nd Annual meeting of the 67-member Association to set up machinery for waging a campaign to meet the problems facing Negro funeral directors. 

They planned to "make demands on insurance companies offering burial policies and to find ways and means of better compensating funeral directors for servicing their policies". 

In this article W.E. Shortridge was quoted as saying: "Conditions among the funeral directors over this state were found to be deplorable.  A number have been forced to close their doors because burial companies have monopolized the state to such an extent that a large majority of its citizens have joined these associations.  Burial Associations issue policies on a premium less than the retail value of a funeral and the funeral homes are paid to service these policies an amount so small they cannot operate due to the heavy overhead and the exorbitant prices of rolling equipment. 

Their next meeting was reported on in a July 15, 1955 news report entitled:  Alabama Funeral Directors Meet in B'ham July 14.  The issue of burial Insurance Contracts continued to dominate the discussions. 

Alabama Funeral Directors Meet In B'ham July 14 . 

The executive committee of the 22 year old Alabama Colored Funeral Directors Association is scheduled to meet in Birmingham Thursday. July 14 "to draft proposal to be presented to burial insurance companies in the near future."  This is a follow -up of the special call meeting held June 30 in Montgomery, Ala., by the ACFDA for the "purpose (of discussing) the effect of burial insurance on the funeral industry in the state of Alabama," a spokesman for the association said. The ACFDA statement declared: "Seventy-five or more funeral homes represented and most all took part in the discussion. At least 10 burial insurance companies were represented." "Funeral directors' grievances were presented in detail by Clarence Lee of Montgomery and W. E. Shortridge of Birmingham.  It seems that the association resents burial companies contracting with individual funeral homes. This causes quite a deal of dissatisfaction not only with the funeral directors but also with the policyholders." The statement went on to say: "It prevents the policyholder from having the freedom of choice of their preferred funeral establishment at the time of death. The funeral directors resent the burial companies vying with each other to see who could give the nicer casket under a given contract." Certain proposals," the prepared statement said, "were unanimously agreed on and the executive committee of the State Association endorsed with authority to carry through with such proposals." It added: "A majority of the funeral homes over the state are members of the (Alabama Colored Funeral Directors) Association and machinery was set up to contact every funeral director within a few days to sure all are represented." Meanwhile, the ACFDA leaders asserted that "The state's grievances will be carried on to the National Funeral Directors Association, which meets in Detroit, Michigan August 7- 11." The statement said further: "All state members agreed to finance a bill to be presented to the Alabama State Legislature to regulate the funeral industry." The ACFDA's statement concluded: "Most burial insurance companies seem to be fairly in agreement with the proposal.

There was only one large burial insurance company not represented who persists in not representing at various Funeral Directors meetings and Funeral Directors have taken a decided concerted stand regarding such a company." Strategy for the new ACFDA program was initiated at the association's 1955 convention held April 27 to 29 here. At that time the ACFDA members placed the project in the hands of its executive committee for implementation and execution. A conference of a sub-committee organized by executive committee examined the proposed "Harris Plan" which was suggested by V. L.  Harris, president of Protective Industrial Insurance Company. Features of the "Harris Plan" have never been made public.

The important thing to note in this article is the statement:  "All state members agreed to finance a bill to be presented to the Alabama State Legislature to regulate the funeral industry."

"Funeral Directors, if effectively organized, would place every Burial Insurance Company in jeopardy within sixty days if they chose to refuse to bury for these Burial Companies.  It has been decreed in a recent decision handed down by the Federal Court that Burial Insurance Companies would have to disassociate their Insurance and Funeral Homes as such."

The article goes on to say that "At the coming meeting, Negro Funeral Directors from all over the state are expected to participate and sign pledges to protect their future business.  Burial insurance companies are watching with interest the outcome.  Only one Company has voluntarily offered any type of relief.  This plan is up for consideration.  The Burial insurance companies will be affected by any decision of the Negro Funeral Directors.

"Plans also are in the making for pushing legislation to regulate and protect funeral directors in the future."

"The Funeral Directors have committees out to urge every licensed funeral director to be present at this all- important Emergency State Meeting.  R.E. Strickland of Talladega, Alabama is the President and Clarence Lee is chairman of the Executive Board."

At this time, there are approximately 136 Negro-Owned funeral homes in Alabama of which 14 are located in Jefferson County.

THE OCTOBER 8, 1970 ANNISTON STAR REPORTS ON

BLACK FUNERAL HOME ANTITRUST LAWSUIT

Nine Black funeral homes filed a $7.5 million antitrust lawsuit against Liberty National Life Insurance Co. and its subsidiaries, Brown-Service Funeral Co. and Service Insurance Co. of Alabama.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Birmingham, Alabama, by the Progressive Funeral Directors of Alabama, alleges antitrust violations in the burial business.

Key Details of the Lawsuit

• The Allegations: The suit claims that funeral directors are forced to enter contracts with the defendants to make a reasonable profit. It also asserts that independent, non-contracting funeral directors are only provided with a casket for policyholders' funerals rather than full service support.
• Liberty National's Defense: Ira L. Burleson, vice president and general counsel of Liberty National, called the suit "unjustified." He stated that the company has spent about 15 years operating diligently under a federal consent decree intended to prevent violations of the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts.
• Broader Support: The Progressive Funeral Directors met with the white Northwest Funeral Directors Association, inviting its members to join the federal suit. At least one white funeral home indicated it would join as a plaintiff.
• Historical Context: The article is from The Anniston Star, dated Thursday, October 8, 1970. A similar antitrust lawsuit based on state laws was also pending in circuit court at the time, filed by a Gadsden funeral home.

1970 — BATTLE V LIBERTY NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL

To review a summary of the

Battle v Liberty National Life Insurance Company ET AL Case, Please Visit This Link

Historical records demonstrate that, even at this early stage, Black funeral directors striving for professional excellence and economic independence were met with persistent and systemic obstacles. These included restricted access to capital, exclusion from mainstream insurance and financial systems, and coercive business arrangements imposed through burial insurance contracts.

By at least the mid-twentieth century, a powerful and largely opaque nexus had formed between burial insurance companies and the funeral service industry in Alabama. This relationship, while detrimental to many funeral homes regardless of race, had a disproportionately damaging effect on Black funeral home owners due to preexisting racial disparities in access to capital, political influence, and legal recourse.

In the final analysis, it is not known, what became of the Alabama Negro Funeral Directors efforts to “Rid Themselves Of Burial Insurance Contracts” (June 30, 1955)  however, out of the blue, we can definitely learn about the infamous Battle Case.  This was a Case that involved 9 black funeral homes, who called themselves The Progressive Funeral Directors Of Alabama.  Battle et al v Liberty National.

Contemporaneous reporting further reflects a consensus among Black funeral directors that state-level oversight was needed—not to control them, but to regulate burial insurance practices and protect funeral professionals from predatory arrangements. These discussions predate the formation of what is now the Alabama Board of Funeral Service.

In 1970, these long-standing tensions culminated in formal legal action. Nine Black-owned funeral homes filed an antitrust lawsuit against Liberty National Life Insurance Company, alleging monopolistic practices that restrained trade, restricted funeral home choice, and caused substantial economic harm. The plaintiffs included funeral homes located in Phenix City, Alexander City, Bessemer, Mobile, Montgomery, Anniston, Sylacauga, and Birmingham—demonstrating the statewide scope of the issue.

This litigation was not an anomaly; it was the foreseeable consequence of decades of structural imbalance between insurance conglomerates and funeral service providers—an imbalance that Black funeral homes were uniquely ill-equipped to withstand due to historical discrimination embedded across Alabama’s economic and regulatory systems.

Against this backdrop, it is deeply troubling—and revealing—that Black funeral professionals of that era were led to believe that the State of Alabama would establish a regulatory body for the primary purpose of protecting their interests. History demonstrates otherwise. The regulatory framework that emerged did not dismantle the structural inequities faced by Black funeral homes; instead, it often reinforced them through selective enforcement, disproportionate penalties, and regulatory overreach.

The historical record makes it crystal clear that the current conditions under which black Funeral Professionals must exist  make it necessary to revisit this history.  They are the modern manifestation of a long-standing pattern in which Black funeral service professionals in Alabama have been subjected to economic constraint, regulatory hostility, and institutional neglect under the guise of oversight and public protection.

Civ.A No. 70-H-752-S Consolidated

United States District for the North District Of Alabama Southern Division

Edgar H. Battle dba Edgar H. Battle Funeral Home et. al

Edgar H. Battle v. Liberty National Life Insurance Company is a landmark 1970 federal class-action lawsuit filed by 9 black Alabama funeral home owners against Liberty National Life Insurance Company. It alleged federal antitrust violations regarding the sale of "burial insurance" policies, which promised policyholders specific funeral services through designated funeral homes

1. The Burial Insurance System Was an Economic Power Structure

The litigation materials describe a system where Liberty National and Brown-Service essentially controlled:

Who could service burial policies,

How much funeral homes were paid,

Which merchandise could be used,

Which funeral homes families could choose

And even how funeral pricing worked during “oversales.”

That is enormous power.  And because Black communities disproportionately relied on burial insurance, Black funeral directors were disproportionately trapped inside that system.  The key issue was not simply insurance. It was market control through insurance.

2. “Authorized” Funeral Homes Created a Controlled Network

One of the most revealing parts of the Battle summary is the description of “authorized” funeral homes. Liberty National/Brown-Service maintained agreements with selected funeral homes, and policyholders effectively had to use those providers to receive full benefits.

That arrangement did several things simultaneously:

restricted competition,

(1)  weakened independent funeral homes,

(2)  forced compliance with insurer-controlled pricing, and

(3) created economic dependency.

For Black funeral homes, this was especially devastating because many already lacked:

(1) capital access,

(2)  political protection,

(3) financing, and 

(4) regulatory influence.

So the insurer relationship became almost unavoidable.

3. The Lawsuit Was About More Than Money — It Was About Freedom From Control

The 1970 plaintiffs accused Liberty National and Brown-Service of:

(1) monopolization,

(2) price fixing,

(3) tying arrangements, and

(3) restraint of trade under the Sherman Act. 

That language matters.

They were essentially saying:  “You have constructed a vertically integrated system where insurance controls funeral commerce.”

That is why the consent decree later prohibited:  exclusive territories,  exclusive servicing arrangements, and restrictions on funeral home participation.

The court understood there was a monopoly concern.

4. The Timing Is Historically Significant

The suit was filed in 1970 — only a few years after:

the Civil Rights Act,

Voting Rights Act,

desegregation battles,

and the expansion of Black economic assertion in the South.

Black funeral homes historically served as:

economic anchors, political organizing spaces, civil rights infrastructure, and sources of independent Black wealth.    So when you view Battle through that lens, the stakes become much larger.

The case was not occurring in a vacuum.

It was unfolding during a period when Black-owned institutions were trying to gain genuine economic independence — and burial insurance structures were standing directly in the way.

Particularly important is this point:

“The regulatory framework that emerged did not dismantle the structural inequities faced by Black funeral homes; instead, it often reinforced them…”

That is a major thesis.

And frankly, the Battle materials already support parts of it.

Because what becomes obvious is: 

(1) the system operated for decades,

(2) state regulation did not meaningfully stop it, and

(3) funeral industry professionals had to resort to massive federal antitrust litigation to challenge it.

That says a lot.

6. One of the Most Important Issues May Be “Regulatory Capture”

A deeper question underneath all this is whether:

Alabama regulators, insurance interests, and funeral industry power structures  became intertwined in ways that effectively normalized economic practices harmful to independent Black funeral homes.   Not necessarily through explicit racial statutes —  but through systems that predictably produced racialized outcomes.  That distinction matters historically and legally.

7. The Case Never Truly “Ended”

Legally, yes — the major consent judgment came in 1977–1978.

But the litigation kept resurfacing for years because policyholders later challenged:

notice issues, settlement fairness, oversale provisions, and the actual meaning of burial policy rights. 

Judge Thompson even wrote in 1991 that the lawsuit had:  “clung to life with a tenacity…” 

That line is almost symbolic. Because the underlying tensions never fully disappeared.

Battle v. Liberty National can be interpreted as:

A civil rights-era economic struggle, disguised procedurally as antitrust litigation, arising from decades of unequal bargaining power, within a state-sanctioned burial insurance structure, that disproportionately constrained Black funeral enterprises.

That does not mean every action by Liberty National was illegal simply because racial disparities existed.

But it does mean the historical system deserves to be examined not only through antitrust law —

but through:   (1) racial economics;  (2) regulatory history;  and (3) institutional power.

My family’s experience gives human dimension to what otherwise looks like abstract federal litigation.

Within this historical context we are attempting to connect:

(1)   The courtroom;

(2)   the industry;

(3)   the regulators; and

(4)    the lived consequences.

That is where the real story is.  A structured historical timeline, a power-map of the players, and possibly a much larger interpretation of how Alabama’s burial insurance regime affected Black funeral professionals across generations.

HOW WAS BATTLE FINALLY SETTLED?

The Battle v. Liberty National Life Insurance Company lawsuit was primarily settled through a 1977-1978 consent decree that abolished the company's exclusive-provider, anti-competitive burial contract system, with a final judgment entered on January 6, 1978. The case originated from a 1970 antitrust lawsuit filed by Alabama funeral homes, which had "clung to life" for years, with further litigation extending into the 1980s.

Key Aspects of the Settlement:

 (1)   End of Monopoly: Liberty National was enjoined from entering new contracts that gave funeral directors exclusive territory to bury policyholders.

  (2) Contract Cancellation: The company was ordered to cancel exclusive provisions in existing funeral service contracts.

  (3)   Fair Standards: The company was required to establish reasonable, uniform, and non-discriminatory standards for funeral directors to do business.

  (4)   Court Supervision: The District Court for the Northern District of Alabama retained jurisdiction to ensure compliance, with related litigation and challenges continuing for years after the 1978 judgment.

The case is notable for its long-lasting impact, with the 1977-1978 final judgment acting as the foundational settlement.

How interesting is it that even though the Battle decision has been classified and referred to as a “Landmark” case, up to this point in time, after much research, and digging into the history of this litigation, there have been only two publications to carry stories that chronicle this lawsuit.

THE PROGRESSIVE FUNERAL DIRECTORS OF ALABAMA

(Who Were They?  Visit This Link For A Deeper Dive)

While I cannot make this assertion with any degree of certainty, it is my STRONG belief that each of the  Plaintiffs in the Battle v Liberty National case, was part of a “splinter group” formed for that purpose alone, of litigating on behalf of the Alabama Funeral Directors and Mortician’s Association, so as not to have the litigation “taint” the parent group, but to facilitate the litigation through a separate entity.

We believe it was done as a precautionary measure.  It was a generally accepted premise among black people that even if they were involved in any way, shape, form or fashion in challenging the White power structure, it was best not to let it be known that they were involved.  So, the people who were named as plaintiffs were those who probably not afraid to have their names appear as litigants.

To The best of my knowledge and belief, the members of the “Progressive Funeral Directors” whose names were associated with the Battle litigation included:  Edgar H. Battle dba Edgar H. Battle Funeral Home, Phenix City,  AL, James L. Taylor,  Aubrey J. Carr, E.S. Ray, Otis Armour Armour Funeral Home, Alexander City, AL, Eugene Ervin, Ervin Funeral Home, Anniston, AL, Johnson's Memorial Funeral Directors, Inc. Bessemer, Hodge Funeral Home, Mobile, Cillie Funeral Home, Montgomery, Simon T. Madden Funeral Home, Sylacauga, Alabama, Perryman Funeral Home and Lumzy Funeral Home, both in Birmingham.

Progressive Funeral Directors of Alabama

The Progressive Funeral Directors of Alabama was a prominent funeral service organization in the state, historically linked to the Alabama Funeral Directors and Morticians Association, Inc. (AFD&MA), which traces its roots to the mid‑1920s when African American funeral directors organized to address community‑specific needs.

While the AFD&MA’s founding group included leaders such as Robert A. Ross, A.L. Welch, C.W. Lee, Fred D. Williams, and others, we believe the “Progressive” designation often reflected a branch or leadership role within the association rather than a separate, formally named entity.

One notable figure connected to the Progressive Funeral Directors was Edgar H. Battle, who served as President of Progressive Funeral Directors of Alabama, Inc.  Battle, born in 1909 in Barbour County, Alabama, was the founder of Edgar H. Battle Funeral Home in Phenix City in 1950, alongside his brother Willis C. Battle, Sr. He was active in the Alabama Funeral Directors and Morticians Association and the National Funeral Directors and Morticians Association, and his leadership in Progressive Funeral Directors underscored his influence in the state’s funeral industry.

The Progressive Funeral Directors, like other branches of the AFD&MA, were part of a broader network of funeral homes and directors who worked to uphold professional standards, advocate for members, and serve their communities. The association’s early meetings were held in private homes, Masonic lodges, and later in black schools, reflecting the challenges of segregation-era access to formal venues Alabama Funeral Directors and Morticians Association, Inc..

Key points:

• Progressive Funeral Directors of Alabama was a leadership or branch name within the AFD&MA.
• Edgar H. Battle was a prominent president of this group and a major figure in Alabama funeral services.
• The organization was part of a long‑standing tradition of African American funeral directors organizing to protect their profession and serve their communities. 

Moore v. Liberty National Life Insurance Co. (filed in December 1999)

Another loosely related controversy that provides a very clear reflection of how African-Americans have been systemically disregarded in Alabama involves the above-referenced Moore v. Liberty National Life Insurance Company controversy.

The landmark civil rights class-action lawsuit most prominently associated with challenging race-based life insurance rates in Alabama during this period is Moore v. Liberty National Life Insurance Co. (filed in December 1999).   

The suit was filed by the Birmingham-based law firm, Whatley Drake, LLC, (now known as Whatley Kallas, LLP) alongside the San Francisco-based firm Millberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach.

The primary action and historical context include the following details:

 The Case:

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, the lawsuit (and related nationwide litigation) charged major insurers with racial discrimination for targeting Black Americans—particularly low-income individuals—with "industrial life" or burial insurance policies that carried higher premiums and yielded lower benefits than those sold to white customers.

 The Commission:

Plaintiffs argued that the Alabama Insurance Commission and state regulatory framework enabled or tolerated these discriminatory, race-based premium structures for decades under the guise of "actuarial tables".

 The Resolution:

Liberty National and other major insurers (such as American General Life and Accident and Life of Georgia) ultimately faced extensive litigation. Many of these class-action lawsuits resulted in multi-million-dollar settlements that provided premium refunds, death benefit increases, and fines.

FURTHER EXPLANATION:

The Nationwide Insurance Settlements

The wave of multi-million dollar settlements during the early 2000s resulted from coordinated actions by state regulators and federal class-action lawsuits. Regulators discovered that major life insurance companies had stopped issuing new race-based policies after the Civil Rights Era, but they continued collecting racially inflated premiums from elderly Black policyholders for decades.

 American General Life & Accident:

In June 2000, American General agreed to a $206 million settlement. The company had acquired smaller entities that utilized dual-pricing systems based on race. The settlement affected roughly 9.1 million "industrial" or burial life insurance policies. It provided cash refunds, reduced active premiums, increased death benefits, levied $7.5 million in state regulatory penalties, and contributed $2 million to the NAACP.

 Liberty National Life Insurance:

Stemming from the Moore v. Liberty National litigation in Alabama, a federal judge approved a settlement addressing the company's historical practices of selling industrial policies with higher premiums and lower payout caps to Black customers.

 Other Major Insurers: The litigation swept the entire industry. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (MetLife) settled similar claims for $157 million, John Hancock settled for $24.4 million, and companies like Mutual Savings Life also paid out millions to resolve claims of systemic overcharging.

How Race-Based Mortality Tables Justified Premiums

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, insurance companies openly relied on race-based mortality and actuarial tables to justify charging Black Americans higher premiums (often 30% or more) for identical or inferior coverage.

         │

        ▼ (Higher Black mortality rates due to Jim Crow socioeconomic conditions)

[Actuarial Evaluation]

       │

       ▼ (Insurers treat race as an immutable, biological risk factor)

[Dual-Rate Books]

       │

       ▼ (Agents use "White" vs. "Black" pricing structures for door-to-door sales)

 1. Conflating Socioeconomic Disparity with Biological Risk

In 1881, an internal Prudential survey noted that Black mortality rates were significantly higher than white mortality rates. In 1896, statistician Frederick L. Hoffman published an influential actuarial study for the industry arguing that Black Americans were inherently prone to shorter life expectancies and higher disease rates. Insurers used these data points to argue that they were practicing "fair discrimination" based on purely objective, statistical mathematical risks.

2. Ignoring Systemic Realities

The mortality tables strictly recorded deaths without adjusting for the severe, systemic impacts of Jim Crow segregation, poverty, poor workplace safety, malnutrition, and a near-total lack of access to healthcare. Actuaries treated race as a static biological indicator of risk rather than a reflection of socioeconomic deprivation.

3. Institutionalizing the Dual-Rate Book System

Using these tables as legal cover, insurance companies issued separate pricing structures for agents on the ground. Door-to-door agents carried physical dual-rate books — one containing cheaper rates for white customers and another with heavily inflated rates for Black families purchasing standard burial or industrial life policies.

CONCLUSION

We conclude this discussion of our collective experiences as life-long Funeral Service practitioners in the State Of Alabama in this way: 

In the final analysis, and under the totality of our present circumstances, there is NO theory under which either of us believes, knows or understands the State Of Alabama to have EVER demonstrated any degree of fairness or sense of economic equity, parity, decency, or consideration for the extreme financial burdens, hardships, oppressions, or inequities that have been heaped/forced/levied upon it’s black citizens.  It is that way now, and it has always been that way.  Despite the earlier beginnings of the Alabama Board Of Funeral Service, it is unfortunate yet true that with the passage of time, our state has taken on a HARSHER, MORE PUNITIVE regulatory posture toward its professional population of Funeral Service Practitioners, with NO effort to understand the economic oppression(s) under which we have been traditionally forced to exist.  At day’s end,  the historical record establishes that the State of Alabama's regulatory bodies have consistently maintained a punitive posture toward Black practitioners. Given this documented multi-generational trajectory, the current fee models and enforcement traps cannot be viewed as neutral administrative updates; they operate as a foreseeable continuation of economic attrition.  Don’t they see that they have a vested interest in our COLLECTIVE SUCCESS??

This is the legacy that Charlotte A. Clark-Frieson has inherited from her own parentage; and unfortunately without some kind of earth-shattering intervention, this is the legacy that she will undoubtedly yet unintentionally pass on to  her biological children, Wilkie Sherard Frieson, and Je’Lynn Mikele Frieson.