Posted on 09/26/2014 2:43:59 PM PDT by Oliviaforever
Black children went to school with white children. This was in 1957, in Arkansas, in America; this was significant.
Three years after the Supreme Court overturned its doctrine of “separate but equal,” Central High School in Little Rock became one of the first practical tests of the principles enshrined in Brown v. Board of Education. Nine black students showed up for the first day of class, only to be turned away by the Arkansas National Guard, operating under Governor Orval Faubus’s orders to “preserve the peace.” Over the next weeks, a constitutional crisis unfurled: Could a governor defy the federal courts?
Eventually, under pressure from President Eisenhower, Faubus backed down, the newly federalized National Guard was withdrawn, and the students again tried to attend Central High on September 23. "The niggers won't get in," said the angry mob—and the "Little Rock Nine" were forced to leave school at noon. It was only on September 25, under the protection of federal troops, that these children were able to complete a full day of classes, thus becoming standard bearers for a civil-rights movement that would change the nation.
(Excerpt) Read more at m.theatlantic.com ...
What were those nine Black kids actin’ all White for?
Of course Faubus was a Democrat and enforced segregation, and Eisenhower was a Republican who sent in federal troops to enforce a SCOTUS decision.
Should a president use federal troops to enforce a Supreme Court decision?
Very well said
The thing is, whites could do very well thank you without blacks if we had to, so it’s strange that for all the screaming about “oppression” by blacks, they wouldn’t let whites who might choose to do so, live separately from them even if we continued the Danegeld we pay now. Why is that, I wonder?
Bill Clinton called Faubus his mentor.
Democrats have always been the party of racism. But like Satan, they’ve been able since 1964 to convince blacks they are better than the GOP.
Back around 1997, one of the colored girls who integrated Little Rock came back to Central High to give a speech. She noticed the black children were laying their heads on the desk and not listening.
She later said, in an interview that her thoughts were..”I put my life on the line for this?”
She put HER life on the line so black kids could go to white schools, put their heads on the desk and refuse to learn.
***Should a president use federal troops to enforce a Supreme Court decision?***
Good question. I think of Andrew Jackson and the Cherokees.
“Back around 1997, one of the colored girls who integrated Little Rock came back to Central High to give a speech. She noticed the black children were laying their heads on the desk and not listening.”
That is quite interesting and may be used by some to question Brown v. Board and the federal troops being used to desegregate Arkansas schools.
“I think of Andrew Jackson and the Cherokees.”
And I think of Jackson and the Seminoles. In those cases, the Supreme Court had no way of stopping the Federal troops.
Federal troops were used to enforce Brown v. Board and if there is a SCOTUS decision imposing gay marriage, I suspect that federal troops would be used to enforce that decision upon local governments that refuse.
The country hasn't come anywhere. Things are worse, everywhere.
How bad depends on where you live.
No matter what's going on right now with race and society, I think yesterday's anniversary was a milestone in American history deserving of recognition.
Not very far and in many areas it has gotten worse.
OK, for you it is. For me, it isn’t.
Cosby's outrage was directed at all of those people -- primarily black parents and community leaders who were derelict in their responsibilities -- who allowed their children to waste the opportunities that the civil rights movement had given them 50 years earlier.
Regarding Brown v. Board of Educaton, while I don't condone segregation, the Supremes got that case wrong imo.
More specifically, the Supremes had previously clarified that it was okay for the states to segregate on the basis of sex as evidenced by the Court's decision in Minor v. Happersett. In that case the Court didn't buy Virginia Minor's argument that her citizenship in conjunction with the 14th Amendment's Equal Protections Clause gave women the right to vote. Instead, the Court clarified that 14A didn't add any new constitutional protections. It only strengthened express protections amended to the Constitution by the states.
“3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
In fact, the Supreme Court was reflecting on an official statement by John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of 14A concerning that amendment applying only enumerated rights to the states as evidenced by the following excerpt.
“Mr. Speaker, this House may safely follow the example of the makers of the Constitution and the builders of the Republic, by passing laws for enforcing all the privileges and immunities of the United States as guaranteed by the amended Constitution and expressly enumerated in the Constitution [emphasis added].” — Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session. (See lower half of third column.)
And since the states had never amended the Constitution to expressly protect voting rights on the basis of sex, there was no enumerated constitutional protection for the Court to apply to the states via 14A on Mrs. Minor's behalf.
But also consider that Mrs. Minor's efforts did not go unrewarded. This is because the states later ratified the 19th Amendment which effectively gave women the right to vote.
Getting back to Brown v. Board of Education, just as with the Minor case, since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly prohibit segregation, arguably a provision that could have been included in 14A, the Supremes likewise had no enumerated prohibition on segregation to apply to the states via 14A.
And while I don't know the likelihood of the states amending the Constitution with an anti-segregation amendment after Brown v. Board of Educaton was decided, like the states did with 19A after Minor v. Happersett was decided, the problem with anti-segregation government policies is the following imo. Such policies are wrongly based on PC interpretations of the Equal Protections Clause instead of being properly based on specific, constitutionally enumerated protections.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.