A RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF NINE DESEGREGATION SPEECHES OF GOVERNOR ORVAL E. FAUBUS Thesis for tho Doom of M. A. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Calvin Wharton Downs 1959 LIBRARY Michigan State University _. .annlfl A.RHETORICAL WALYSIS OF NINE DESLGREGATICN SPEjCHES OF GOVERNOR CRVAL E. FAUBUS By Calvin Wharton Downs AN ABSTRACT Submitted to the College of Communication Arts Michigan State University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Speech K Approved go-KWM 1:) T C. Jharton gowns r. *3 C‘ 7“ ,. _.-'v‘r\ I‘LL? J T." 34-4»; 1. ) Crval Eugene Faubus, first.Arkons s governor to be elected for a third term, has become one of the most controversial figures in re-cnt United States' history because of his leadership for the retention of segregated public schools. This study analyzes nine selected speeches of the<3overnor which concerned the Central High School crisis in Little Rock, 1957-1958. These speeches vwre delivered from manuscripts between September, 1957, and December, 1958, and dealt primarily with the segr rfi ’oation— states' rights controversies. The objectives of this study rmre (l) to discover the factors which contributed to the Governor's effectiveness and (2) to provide a more thorough tuflerstanding of the influences operating upon the populace of Arkans a s . Such rhetorical concepts as logic, psychological pmoof, ethical proof, arrangement and style were studied in the nine speeches as a composite group. Contemporary speech textbooks were used to suggest criteria for judgment muianalysis rather than the principles of.Aristotle or (Hcero because the writer believes that rhetorical concepts are more applicable to modern study when they are phrased hicontemporary language. The data used in this analysis came from books, magazine and newspaper articles about Ckwernor Faubus, and interviews with the Governor and his aides, as well as the study of the speeches themselves and the personal observations of the writer, who lived in Arkansas at the time of the crisis. The analysis was preceded by a biographical con- sideration of Governor Faubus, a historical account of the segregation crisis in Little Rock, and a description of the circumstances surrounding each speech. I The primary conclusions of this study were as follows. (1) Governor Faubus does not conform to the typical stereotype of a Southern politico, but is rather calm and deliberate, making few'attempts at sensationalism. (2) By approaching the desegregation issue on the grounds Iof constitutional states' rights, 3 attached his arguments to ideas of considerable virtue and also averted a direct Wiclash on the morality and legality of segregated schools. “(3) The Governor's speeches are significant historically but probably are not significant rhetorically. The chief effect of Faubus' speeches seems not to have been to per- suade people of the virtues of segregation, but rather to establish himself through ethical appeals as a good man to lead those who already favored the segregated schools. \\ In consideration of these conclusions and the fact that the people of Arkansas, in general, favored segregation already, it would be unjustifiable to say that these speeches here the determining factor in Arkansas! opposition to forci- ble desegregation. There can be little question, however, that they were capable of reenforcing the resistance to ‘ federal Court decrees which did eventuate. -....._ . ._.a| A.RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF NINE DESEGREGATION SPEECHES OF GOVERNOR ORVAL E. FAUBUS BY Calvin Wharton Downs .A THESIS Submitted to the College of Communication.Arts Michigan State University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF.ARTS Department of Speech 1959 9-] “a | ACKNOWLEDGLENTS The writer wishes to extend his very sincere thankfulness to Dr. bonald H. Ecroyd for his moral support, patience, and guidance and to or. David C. Ralph for his assistance and encouragement. The writer also wishes to express his gratitude to Governor Seubus and his aides, Phil Stratton and wan Stephens, for their courteous co— operation. TABLE; or“ CCI‘JTiiLITS Chapter I O TI'HS OV£J{I \I‘S'LIJ. O O O O O O O O 0 Statement of the Problem . . . Limitations. . . . . . Significance of the Study. . . [Vlaterialso o o o o o o o o o o C‘bstaCI es 0 O O O O O O O O O O The [Vietllod o o o o o o o o o 0 Organization . . . . . . . . . ll. ORVAL FAUBUS AND THE LITTLE The Supreme Court Decision . . Reaction to the Decision . . . A Biographical Sketch of Orval The Setting for the Conflict . The Conflict in 1957 . . . . . The Crisis in 1955 . . . . . . I. I I o FaDJJBUS .AS A 8131:,ch 15:: I? o o o o o 0 Preparation. . . . . . . . . . Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . The Settings of the Nine 1V. TOOLS CF PERSUASICN . . . . . . Logical Proof. . . . . . . . . The Issues . . . . . . Conclusions Concerning Logical Psychological Forms. . . . . . RCCK STORY. Faubus. Speeches. . . Conclusions Concerning Psychological Appeals. . . . . . . Ethical Proof. . . . . . . . Conclusions Concerning Style. . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion on Style. . . . iii Ethical Proof Appeals Page " )\] C\-f_T‘(/Q m t—b r... a“ w \O [U I‘JHH’“ \DF-“(JFOH‘xO (A \n V . ORGA: : I ZELTI (1.7}, o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o The Introductions . . . . . . . . . . . . Introductions to the Televised Speeches. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introductions of Speeches to Specific Audiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary: Introductions . . . . . . . The Patterns of Crganization in the Bodies of the Speeches. . . . . . . . . . The Patterns of Crganization. . . . . Summary: Bodie. of the Speeches. . . The Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary: Conclusions . . . . . . . . The Broad Organizational Pattern of the Speeches. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V'I 0 CCTICLIJSI CRIS o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Suggestions for Further Study . . . . . . f‘ "."ffi ‘.7 lippgii'Ule (Ox. 0 o O O o o o o o o o o o o a o o o o B 3Llcyslcxpmo o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 (.A) (:1 HHI—a H H manna-1N \‘i LIST OF TABLES Page The Number of Quotations in Each Speech . . . 121 Types of Introductions. . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Length of Introductions and Conclusions in the Nine Speeches. . . . . . . . . . . . 128 Types of Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1&8 CHAPTER I THE OVERVIEW Statement of the Problem The Little Rock crises of 1957 and 1958 inseparably related two controversies which have raged since the birth of the United States: The controversy over racial prejudice, and the controversy over states' rights. Because of his opposition to the federal government's position on these issues and because of the sharpened division within the nation over them at this time, Governor Orval E. Faubus became one of the most controversial figures in the recent history of the United States. Consequently, the objective of this study is to apply rhetorical concepts to selected speeches of his about the Little Rock crises. Such an analysis may not only re- veal the factors which contributed to the Governor's ef- fectiveness but may also provide a deeper comprehension mulunderstanding of the influences operating upon the populace of Arkansas. (In «(I .A “I in. up. Limitations Nine speeches were selected for this study on the basis of three criteria. (1) Since the major crises con- cerning the Little Rock schools occurred from September, 1957, until December, 1958, the study was limited to speeches delivered in that period. (2) The Governor often spoke impromptu, but only those speeches for which manu- scripts exist were included in this study. (3) Only those speeches concerned primarily with integration and/or states' rights were considered. in regards to the actual analysis, delivery was not elaborately considered. While many primary and secondary sources commented about the content of these speeches, the Governor's delivery was rarely mentioned. Furthermore, all of the writer's attempts to obtain access to kinescopes and tapes of the speeches were in vain. Finally, response to the speeches was not described in detail because it is impossible at this time to differ- entiate between the response to Faubus' speeches and the total reaction to the main issue aboutwhich he spoke. This study, in other words, considers some of the public utterances of a controversial Southern public official at a moment of great sectional crisis. It asks such questions as: What does he say to his people, who look to him for leadership? How does he present their cause to the North, and to the world? What are his lines of argument, his ap- Peals, his efforts at personal proof? Significance of the Study The Faubus administrations between lQShzuull958 were clean and efficient. During them, however, Arkansas became the focal point of a national crisis stemming from the reactions of native.Arkansans to the Supreme Court's school desegregation edict of 19Sh--a decision which Blaustein and Ferguson describe in Desegregation and the Law as the most important legal decision rendered so far in the twentieth century.1 Because of his leadership in the opposition to the enforcement of this ruling, the mflflicity about Governor Faubus has reached international proportions. Amid this publicity, he has been denounced as a ckmagogue, a cheap political opportunist, and an auto- cratic tyrant. On the other hand, men have praised him as a shrewd genius, too anart to be "man-handled" by the federal government. Certain parishes in Louisiana even dismissed school for a day in tribute to him. It is er- roneous, however, to surmise that support for, or opposi- tion to him can be classified according to any geographical distribution. The Governor has won support both internal and external to the South; and powerful influence in the SouUIas well as in other parts of the nation have opposed 1A, P. Blaustein and C. C. Ferguson, Desegregation and the Law (New Brunswick: Rutgers University‘Press, 9 p. X. u him. Describing the divisions within Arkansas, the Bates- ville Guard said: It's rather interesting to note that feelings on the racial issue don't follow a particular pattern. In other words, political parties, station in life, income brackets or reéigious affiliations do not figure in the matter. Moreover, while the controversy has often been popularly considered in terms of morality, Governor Faubus has repeatedly described himself as the governor of the colored as well as the white, and has almost without ex- ception approached the problem of school desegregation from the standpoint of legality and constitutionality. Since Faubus is a leader in what seems to be one of the outstanding civil conflicts in twentieth century American history, and since the Knower and Auer indexes in Speech Monographs indicate that no investigation of his speeches has yet been made, it appeared to be desir- able that some analysis of Governor Faubus' desegregation speeches be undertaken. Materials One of the chief advantages of analyzing the Speeches of a contemporary speaker has been the abundance of available materials. The writer himself is a primary source because he lived in Arkansas for twenty-one years, four of'which were during Faubus' administrations. Other {nfimary sources were interviews with Governor Faubus and _..__._. 2"Reluctant Governor," Batesville Guard, October 3, 1957. .hd FIB two of his administrative assistants: Dan Stephens and Phil Stratton and the book, It Has Happened Here, by Virgil Blossom. Articles in national and local periodicals also furnished an abundance of.materia1. With respect to news- papers, the Governor made available to the writer five voluminous scrapbooks containing clippings about him and the desegregation issue from all of the newspapers in Ar- kansas and from certain national newspapers. Heavy reliance has also made on the New York Times because of its exten- sive coverage of the desegregation controversy and because of this.newspaper's reputation for its objectivity. Of the many magazines used, the Race Relations Law Review was especially valuable because it provided a detailed factual account of the litigation proceedings that was free from editorializing. The rhetorical concepts used in analyzing the speeches were obtained from three textbooks: Thonssen and Baird's Speech Criticism; Gilman, Aly, and Reid's The Fundamentals of Speaking; and Brembeck and Howell's Eersuasion. .Ali three were used extensively throughout the analysis. No problem was encountered in obtaining copies 0f the speech texts, for Governor Faubus presented the 6 writer with printed copies of each one.“ For this reason, the texts are regarded as accurate with two exceptions. The New'York Times records that in his speech on September 26, 1957, the Governor deleted the following two excerpts from his prepared manuscript: that he ”would continue to support the great office of the President, and our Federal Union" and that he was "willing to go anywhere at anytime to con- fer in good faith, with anyone seeking a proper and peace- ful solution to this problem.LL The second variance with the printed texts was the following insertion in the speech of January 18, 1958: "But who can arrest the President?"5 While it is not assumed that these manuscripts are in all vmrds verbatim, it is apparent that they are in most cases word-foreword representations of what the Governor actually said. Obstacles The chief obstacle encountered in this study stemmed from the nature of some of the material used. In the first ’7 JCopies of each speech are included in the folder at the back of the thesis. ’ -, g 0 4Ben Fine, "Faubus Sees Occupation," New York Times, September 27, 1957, p. 10. 5"Local Option Integration," Texarkana Gazette, January 19, 1958, p. 1. 7 place, Faubus dealt with constitutionality which is highly abstract. And secondly, certain authorities contradicted some of Faubus' evidence; and since Faubus did not always identify his authority or the specific person whom he used as an example, the writer cannot determine at this time whO‘was correct. Furthermore, Faubus and Virgil Blossom nmde contradictory statements under sworn testimony, again making the perception of the truth impossible. It is hoped that the first of these difficulties has been surmounted, and it is felt that the second has been, actually, almost irrelevant to the study. The Method The method of this study had three phases. First, raw material was collected and examined. Since every speech includes an interaction between speaker, audience, and occasion, basic information was collected about each of these three elements and is included in the chapters on background and on Faubus as a speaker. Second, cri- teria for the analysis were formulated. Contemporary Speech textbooks were used to set up these criteria because the writer believes that rhetorical concepts are more ef- fective forxnodern study when they are phrased in con- temporary language. Third, the nine speeches were de- scribed, analyzed, and evaluated in terms of these criteria, Mmerever they could be sensibly applied. Organization This study has been divided into six chapters of which this overview is the first. Chapter 11 presents the background of the desegregation controversy in Little Rock and gives a brief biography of Orval Faubus. Chap- ter 111 describes Faubus' manner of preparation and de- livery and also gives the particular setting of each speech. Chapter IV contains an analysis of the tools of persuasion in the speeches: logic, psychological appeals, eihical appeals, and style. The analysis of the struc- ture of the speeches is presented in Chapter V. The conclusions based on the material supplied in preceding chapters are contained in Chapter Vi. CHAPTER II ORVAL FAUBUS AND THE LITTLE ROCK STORY The Supreme Court Decision 1n lQSh the United States Supreme Court was con- fronted with five cases contesting the legality of racial segregation in public schools. The first of these cases, knmnias Brown vs. Board of Education, originated in Kan- sas; the others were begun in South Carolina, Virginia, Delaware, and the District of Columbia. On May 17, 195h, the Court rendered its unanimous decision that segregated public schools are unconstitutional, thus reversing the 1896 Plessy vs. Ferguson decision which held that segre- gated schools did not infringe upon an individual's 1‘1th to equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth lendment if the separate facilities were substantially equal.1 Citing the eight psychologists which the Court fwd consulted, Chief Justice Earl Warren stated: Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. To separate . . . [children] from others 0f similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. 1"Education," Race Relations Law Review, October, 1957’ Po 1078. _ 2 Corrine Silver-an, "The Little Rock Sto ," Inter- University Gase Program, New York, February, 195 4 P- 3- 9 “\wl Hi oh“: «. n. ,a Q MI. .« h M 39- , no AH. yl I 1 .A qu IV ..| AV I‘d v IA. . a .0 10 The Court concluded that: Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy vs. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority. Any language in Pics vs. Ferguson contrary to this find- ing is rejected.3 Having made this decision, however, the Court de- liberated for a full year concerning whether immediate de- segregation was imperative or whether gradual integration should be permitted. The Attorneys General of several states as well as the United States Attorney General were consulted. Finally, in May, 1955, the Supreme Court an- nounced its decision, holding that since implementation of the l9Su decision would involve many local problems, school districts should proceed with "all deliberate speed.""L - - Maintaining that proposed solutions could best be evaluated close to the local scene, the Supreme Court as- signed to the federal district courts the responsibility 0f appraising these individual plans as they developed in various communities. Chief Justice Warren warned that the "vitality of these constitutional principles cannot be al- lowed to yield simply because of disagreement with them," and the following guide was set for the district courts'_ Standards of evaluation: E . . . the defendants [must] make a prompt and reasonable start toward full compliance . . . . Once Such a start has been made, the courts may find that Ibid. u"The Untold Story of Little Rock," U. 5. News and ‘L'El‘ld Report, June 20, 1958, p. 81. __ 75 ..‘<""" 11 additional time is necessary to carry out the ruling in an effective manner. The burden rests upon the defendants to establish that such time is necessary in the public interest and is consistent with good; faith compliance at the earliest practicable date. divided. Whereas many citizens regarded the decision as “I“ Reaction to the Decision (7/, Public sentiment about the desegregation ruling was ‘. go In" long overdue, a large portion of the populace opposed it. ' The strongest opposition, of course, came from those (, 1 \\ atestimony the decision was based: Southern states which had the largest proportion of Negro residents and those which had firm social traditions con- cerning integration. The primary objection to the decision was that the Court had relied on psychology rather than legal precedents. ikfinting out that the same Congress which adopted the Four- teenth Amendment not only ratified provisions for separate schools in the Constitution of Georgia but also provided for segregated schools in the District of Columbia, Senator Richard Russell of Georgia maintained that in interpreting a law or a section of the Constitution the Court generally vmighed the intentions of the framers of that law. He also cnmstioned the competence of the psychologists on whose If the Supreme Court is to abandon law and pre- cedents in favor of psychology in arriving at its opinion, the rights of the States which might remain or the liberties of the American people should not 6 be subjected to the findings of amateur psychologists. 5Silverman, Corinne, "The Little Rock Stony,” Un- mflflished case study for the inter-University Case Program, New York, February 20, 1958: Po 1+0 6Ibid., p. S. 12 Among the others who raised objections to the de- cision were Senators Price Daniels of Texas and John Stennis of Mississippi. They protested on the basis of precedent, pointing out that at the time of the adoption of the Four- teenth.Amendment nearly all states, in the North as well as in the South, had separate school facilities and contin- ued the practice after the Amendment was adopted.7 Another central objection was that in making this decision the judiciary had departed from its constitutional lTfle in the United States‘ pattern of government. In Nhrch, 1956, seventy-seven Representatives and nineteen Senators from the South signed a Declaration of Constitu- tional Principles which stated: We regard the decision of the Supreme Court in the school cases as clear abuse of judicial power. It climaxes a trend in the Federal judiciary under- taking to legislate, in derogation of the authority of Congress, and to encrOgch upon the reserved rights of the states and people. A.Biographica1 Sketch of Orval Faubus Of those who opposed the desegregation ruling, cuval Eugene Faubus was one of the most vocal. As Gover- nor of.Arkansas, he acted to prevent forced integration in Little Rock and then engaged the federal government in alnmmer of legal battles. His actions made him a hero to segregationists and, in general, promoted greater resistance to integration. As a result of his leadership —___ 7lbid., p. 6. 8Ibid. 13 in this controversy, he became both nationally and inter- nationally famous. Thus, the Governor has risen from a very lowly origin to become a “symbol in the South"--but a very controversial one.9 .. ,. Governor Faubus descends from a farm family. His parents, .1. Sam, "Uncle Sam, " and Addie Joslin Faubus, settled in 1908 on "a farm near Coombs, Arkansas, in Madison County. The Governor, the first of seven children, was 0.1.0 He grew born in the Faubus' cabin on January 7, 191 up in a county so poor and backward that it did not have a paved road until 1919, and so he began at a very early age to help support his family by working as a farmhand and lumberjack. Although he attended an el ementary/school in Coombs, his'early formal education was a 5‘slow process. The schools were poor, and many of the students had to work at various periods of the year. Consequently, the terms of the rural schools were highly irregular. Nevertheless, heread widely and at the age of eighteen. began teaching in elemen- tary school to help finance his way through high-school in Huntsville, Arkansas. Because of the depression. and be- cause he attended and taught school in alternate semesters, he did not receive his high school diploma until he was twenty-seven, six years after his marriage to Alta Haskins, 9"Symbol of the South, " Newsweek, LII, September 15, 1958, p. 29. ~ 1Olbld. 111 daughter of a local Baptist minister.11 Following his graduation from high school, he taught in schools at Yellowhammer, Bald Creek,.Accident, and Greenwood,.Arkansas. Receiving a scholarship, he at- tended Commonwealth College in Mena, Arkansas—~an insti- tution later closed by the federal government because of its Communist sympathies. ,At Commonwealth he was elected inesident of the Student Body-~presumably without his see ing the office-~and gave the May'Day address. Neverthe- less, he dropped out of the college after only a few weeks. In retrospect, he says that it is a common Communist tactic to "pull a man in and build him up and then use him. But this didn't work on me."12 In 1938, Faubus-won his first political election mulbecame the circuit clerk and recorder for Madison Cmunyu He served in this position until l9h2 when he onp mwpwufiec H* x mmmfi .mH cmnEoomQ x x x wmmfi «cm nonsmpamm* x x x x omen .mfi eebEmbamme x mmafi .0 LoQEopdmw x x wmmfi .om pmsmn< x wmofl .m~ Academw x wmmfl .om consopamw* x Nmmfl .om cmpEouamm$ x mmofi .H eoQEmpaowe ApCeEmocsococm mcwxwupmv oocoeoemm Compmposo cowuwofifiuxm compmppmz cofiwpwmmd. dmcomeom mZOHHUDQOmHZH LO mmm>9 N mum¢9 128 bmmfi>m~ohe .-i ommcm>< m.m~ nee : ; Hm“ meme ti: o x .. Ewow . e.m mam 0.: 0mm mam: wmou ms ewe a . n sou :m adage w.m :em m.~ men apes mmcs \( tended e a.du mom e.m New meme amen ,eu taggeoamme 3.0H wee e.m ems meme amen .e eeeEeeeem e.ed mm: H.: can meme amen .sm omece< e.es was e.~ me amen emeb .wu seeeeee- 0.0m ewe “.3 Non emmm emofi .em ceasepamme m.om ms: H. am meow ”men .om eeeEeoaeme m.oH was H.m mm ewes emofi .H eeeEmeamme commam HmpoH mono: commam kuoe mucoz cooomw a“ , Mo mmdpdppcom mo coeedz .mO oompcmoeom, Mo coQEdm mono: mo . commam mo mama COHmSHUCOU ho fipmcmq composvoech mo Spamma LmQEsz Hmuoe mmmommmm MZHZ Hmh ZH WZOHMDAUZOU QZ¢ mZOHHUDQOmHZH m0 mHOZMq W nude 129 Striking Assertion. In two of his speeches Faubus began with a striking assertion. In the speech on Septem- ber 20, 1957, one assertion, combined with the usual greet- ing, constituted the entire introduction. He remarked that "the litigation in Federal Court before Judge Davies has proceeded as expected," and then immediately began the body of the speech, giving a lengthy report of the judicial proceedings mentioned. On September 18, 1958, he started his introduction with the proclamation that "those who would integrate our schools at may price are still among us." Explication, a long quotation, and personal references supplemented the assertion to make this the longest of the nine introductions, comprising 7.2 per cent of the total speech. Reproving those who opposed the "will of the majority," he exhorted the segregationists to remain staunch in their efforts; and in order to relate the topic to the audience further, he employed three dinect addresses to particular segments of the audience. Quotation. In the speech on September 18, 1958-- referred to immediately above-~Faubus employed a quotation from Jefferson to substantiate his claim that majority rule and widespread division of powers promote good government; "But it is not by the caisolidation, or concentration of powers, but by their distribution, that good government is effected." .Although Faubus quoted lengthy passages fre- quently in his Speeches, this is the only instance in which he used a quotation in the introduction. 130 Explication. In the introductions to two speeches, Faubus used material which may be designated as explica- tion--"an idea commanding the attention of the audience and leading directly into the development of the proposi- f7 tion."J On September 18, 1958, he introduced his implied thesis that the voters should sanction his closing of the schools as a fight for Constitutional states' rights with the following observation: In this dual system of government, with its checks and balances, lies the strength of the United States of America. Once this form of government is destroyed, we would live under the constant threat of dictatorship. The September 26, 1958, broadcast was devoted to the refutation of arguments against the practicability and legality of private schools. In it, Faubus repeatedly maintained that the integrationists' attempts to "deceive" the common people were becmhing more widespread. :Associ-fl ating his topic with a specific election date, he read the ballot on which the people would vote the next day to re—open the schools on an integrated basis or keep them closed to preserve segregation. The idea of "deception" set forth in the following introduction was the thread which tied the entire speech together. I stated to you in my television appearance on Thursday night of last week, and I quote: ”Those who would integrate at any price are still among us." 1 also warned you that you mould be subjected to a terrific propaganda campaign during these days pre- ceding the election of tomorrow. If nothing else is clear in your minds, then, certainly, these two facts 3Ibid. 131 are crystal-clear. One needs but to glance at the pages of the South's most ardent integrationist news- paper, the Arkansas Gazette, for verification. I have seen only two or three copies in the past week, and the pages of those issues which I saw were re- plete with propaganda, some open, some subtle. I watched last night the television panel dis- cussion by a group of pro-integrationists, headed by Bill Hadley. One of the little things which made so clear the deception which they used in this discussion was the placard held up by Mr. Hadley at the beginning and at the end of the program. It read "Vote For," but the placard itself did not say for what you were voting. Now, why did Mr. Hadley leave off the word "integration" which was necessary to make complete the thought he wishes to convey by the use of the placard? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Because, no matter how this issue is discussed, or whatever the efforts to veil the true implications of the vote, or whatever efforts are made to deceive, the issue is for or against integration. Faubus then read the ballot and refuted specific arguments set forth by integrationists against the setting up of a private school. Narration. In the introduction of his speech broadcast on September 26, 1957, the Governor oriented his audiences to his subject by describing background events. He introduced his thesis that the use of federal troops in Little Rock was illegal by giving a straight factual account of the canhig of the federal troops during his absence from the state. Personal Reference. Governor Faubus included some kind of personal reference to himself in three of the five televised speeches. These served to identify himself with the audience and to explain his reason for speaking. He began his broadcast on September I, 1957, with the usual greeting and then announced why he was making the speech: 132 In view of the decisions I have made, I think it is well to review for the people of the State and the nation, some of the background in the tense situ- ation which has now developed relative to the forcible integration of the public schools of Little Rock. Using only this one statement as his introduction, he pro- ceded immediately into the body of his speech. The significance of his broadcast on September 18, 1958, was stated by Faubus as follows: I stated during the September crisis that I was not elected a Governor of Arkansas to surrender all our rights as citizens to an all powerful federal auto- cracy. I repeated this statement many times during the campaign of the past summer, and I re—emphasize it now. It is my responsibility, and it is my pur- pose and determination, to defend the constitutional rights of the people of Arkansas to the full extent of my ability. Having stated his purpose for speaking, he attanpted to identify himself with the audience by addressing sympathy to particular audience segments. The third instance of personal reference was in the introduction to the broadcast on September 26, 1958, which has been described in detail under "Explication." In this introduction, Faubus identified himself as the leader of the segregationists, warned his constituents about propaganda, and related two of his own experiences with propaganda--i.e., reading the Arkansas Gazette and watching Bill Hadley‘s panel discussion on television. INTRODUCTIONS OF SPEECHES TO SPECIFIC AUDIENCES The primary difference between the introductions to the televised speeches and those to specific audiences was the greeting. In general, it was much longer and more 133 specific in the latter. Faubus used the same methods as a means of beginning addresses for specific audiences as he used in the introductions of televised broadcasts, how- ever. Explication. Governor Faubus used the method of explication to construct his introduction for his address before the Arkansas General Assembly on August 26, 1958. He employed the theme of "responsibility" to command the attention of the legislators and to lead directly into the development of his propositions. This introduction follows: Governor Gordon, Mr. Speaker, Gentlemen of the olst General Assembly, in Extraordinary Session assembled, My fellow citizens-— As I have said many times in awarding Arkansas Traveler Certificates to people who had distinguished themselves in public service, with every honor goes responsibility, with every privilege goes burdens. This is one of the times when we, who have been honored by our fellow citizens by our election to public office, feel more heavily the responsibilities and the burdens that go with the public trust, than we do its honors and privileges. But he who cannot carry the load through the storm, deserves little the bouquet in the sunshine. We are here today, not through our own choice and desires, but because it is our responsibility to face up to some problems that have been forced upon us by the unwise actions of others. He made no reference to his particular proposition; such a statement, however, was unnecessary since the legislators knew in advance why the Governor had called the extra- ordinary session. Within the development of the theme of "responsi- bility," Faubus identified himself with the legislators and preSented the reason for his speech. As usual, his 13b, introduction was brief, comprising only h.l per cent of the total speech. Narration. On December 13, 1958, Governor Faubus related his topic to the audience by tracing the early development of the national Constitution. He pointed out that the original states would not ratify the document until Congress promised to adopt the first ten amendments. Consequently, this narration was appropriate for intro- ducing an application of each amendment individually to the desegregation issue in Little Rock. Personal Reference. The introductions of two speeches delivered to specific audiences focused primarily on personal reference. On January 18, 1958, he addressed a group of Independent Magazine Wholesalers and Publishers at a con- vention in Little Rock. He began this speech with a customarily brief introduction that comprised only 1.9 per cent of the entire speech. Complimenting his audience, L he referred to his personal privilege in addressing this group: I am mindful of the great privilege which is mine in addressing the Independent Magazine Wholesalers and Publisher guests. You are representatives of a group which has always been important to society, but it seems to me in this age when there is greater dis- semination of the written word than ever before, that you play an increasingly more vital role. Your integrity, your attitude, and your methods are of prime importance. In the absence of a transition, an abrupt break occurred between this greeting and the first statement in the body of the speech: "The times in which we live have made us rJ 13‘) witnesses or participants in a great struggle within the nation." Although the speech focused on the desegregation issue, the introduction to his speech before the.Arkansas Democratic State Convention on September 6, 1958, differed from all his other introductions. This was his acceptance speech, and the chief purposes of the introduction was to thank the Democratic audieice for the honor bestowed upon him. Nevertheless, by his personal references he also attempted to put himself on common ground (to identify) with the audience, to relate his topic to the audience, to associate his topic with the occasion, and to adjust the speech to the immediate situation. After the greet- ing, he said: I would certainly be remiss if I did not express to you my sincere appreciation and eternal gratitude for the great honor which has come to me at the hands of the people of Arkansas in being renominated as a Democratic Candidate for Governor for the third suc- cessive time. In expressingrmy gratitude and appreci- ation, I pledge to you my untiring efforts to conduct the affairs of the state so as to justify fully the faith and confidence which has been entrusted to me at your hands. Not only is it a great honor, but also it is a great privilege, and at most times, a great pleasure to serve the wonderful people.Arkansas, and to con- tinue our program of progress and hnprovement for the state and all its people. He then announced the general nature of his topic: With your indulgence, may I enumerate some of the very worthwhile accomplishments which we, working together, have attained for the benefit and service of our fellow citizens. Approximately half the speech was dedicated to a discussion of his major "accomplishment" of staving off forced school 136 integration through a legal battle over states' rights. SUMMARY: INTRODUCTIONS The content of these introductions seems to have been chosen primarily to cmnmand the attention of the audience and to place Faubus and the audience on a common ground of interest. He employed the methods of narration, personal reference, and explication in both the televised speeches and those delivered to specific audiences. Quo— tation and striking assertions, however, were employed only in the former. The chief difference between the introductions of the two groups of speeches was the greet- ing. The same greeting was used in all of the broadcasts, but in the speeches to specific audiences he often used extemporaneous greetings, making adaptations to the audi- ence and the occasion. In only two instances did he announce his specific topic to the audience, but in some introductions he began with a discussion of background events which would have immediately indicated his topic. Furthermore, the audi- ences were aware of his general theme for the speeches. In no speech, however, did he explain the plan of deve10p_ ment of the proposition. With regards to length, the introductions of these speeches were relatively minor sections of the speech, Varying from .1 to 7.2 per cent of the total speech. In. some instances, the introduction was so closely meshed with the body that no transition was needed and the as- certainment of two separate entities was difficult. 137 The Patterns of Organization in the Bodies of the Speeches The content of Faubus' nine speeches is analyzed below to determine in what patterns he arranged the bodies of his speeches. For the purpose of this analysis, the patterns of structural adaptation listed by Gilman, Aly, and Reid will be employed. They are: (1) plans of in- ference which dependgmimarily on eausal relationship, (2) plans of resemblance which point out differences and likenesses, and (3) plans of motivation which emphasize the means by which a speaker can make his listeners favor— ably disposed to his proposals. Faubus used only the plans of inference and motivation. These classifications can be further divided. The divisions of the motivational method are: problem-solution, argument-appeal, and the motivated sequence. The inference method includes par- ticulars to statement, statement to particulars, and a combination of these two. As indicated in the previous chapter, one central theme emerged in all nine speeches. It was that forced school integration is dangerous and must be prevented. This theme, however, had both legal, social, and educa- tional ramifications, and Faubus did not deal with all aSpects of the controversy in any one speech. Further- more, it will be remembered that these speeches covered a sixteen month period of controversy; consequently, the Specific issues througiivhich the major theme emerged Changed in accordance with the changing nature of the controversy. 138 As stated previously, in only two of the speeches did Faubus delineate his specific thesis in the intro- duction; in the other seven speeches the proposition was either implied or stated later in the speech. THE PATTERNS OF CRGANIZATICN Faubus used a wide variety of organizational patterns; but, as Table 5 indicates, most of the arrange- ments were a combination of motivational and inferential methods. Inference: Statement to Particulars. 'Four of the nine speeches followed the plan of statement to particulars. In order to provide a clear demonstration of the logical strucUne, outlines of the main points of each are included in the following analysis. The thesis of his broadcast on September 20, 1957, was never directly stated, but the speech seems to have been unified around the idea that Little Rock was pro- gressing peacefully until the federal government inter- vened. The body of the speech was organized into three easily recognizable divisions. I. We are now an occupied territory. A. No violence occurred until the federal troops used naked force. B. No violence occurred until the imported federal judge issued his injunction. C. The President shunned advice fron the state's elected officials to listen to discredited and prejudiced individuals. D.- These combined actions are "Police State" H18 th 0d 3 0 11. Prior to this time, race relations in.APkanSas have been good. .A. (After listing particulars, he said:) .All 139 of this adds up to greater progress in .Arkansas than in any other state of the deep South. III. I am not in this fight as a segregationist or an integrationist. Each of these specific points was also developed by the statement to particulars pattern. The body of the speech to the Democratic State Con- vention on September 6, 1958, had only two main division. In the first, Faubus complied hdth traditional acceptance speech patterns to enumerate some of the accomplishments of his administration; these were arranged according to the distributive method. The second division was a defense of Arkansas and an attack on the federal government. An outline of the second division follows: 11. The federal government must be prevented from usurping the powers reserved for the states (Implied). .A. The Supreme Court and federal govern- menUs illegal usurpation have caused struggle and turmoil. B. The Supreme Court based its desegregation ruling not on the Constitution but on psychological theories that originated with pro-communists. C. The present national administration is bereft of moderate thinking and common sense. After an appeal to honor, Faubus reiterated the point that the usurpation of power was responsible for the stress and strain which existed at that time. The body of Faubus' speech on September 26, 1958, was organized in a statement—particulars—statement-appeal pattern. He alternated statement with proof until he had lhO covered the legal, practical, and personal factors in- volved. The general thesis was contained in the follow- ing three ideas: (1) a private school system is practical, (2) a private school system is legal, and (3) those who oppose the private school plan not only have no vital interest in the school but also are trying to deceive the people. The thesis was first stated negatively, was fol- lowed by refutation of the opposition's contentions, was stated in a positive manner, and was followed again by refutation and an appeal. Negative Statement: 1. The propagandists have tried to deceive you by saying private schools will not work. Proof: A. Federal Aid to education in Little Rock will continue. . Private schools can be accredited. . Inter-scholastic athletic competition will continue. D. Graduates from private schools are eligible for college scholarships. B. Tuition will not be more than five dollars per year. P. Teacher retirenent is not jeopardized. Restatement: II. .All of this makes clear that the aim of the integrationists is to deceive you. .Appeal: .A. I have proved myself to be capable and honest in all situations. Positive Statement: . . III. We can have schools, proceeding within the law, if you do not vote for integra- tion. .Appeal: A. If you vote for integration, this chaotic situation will get worse. lul Proof: B. Court rulings only apply to public schools. C. The Supreme Court will never order private schools to integrate. D. The desegregation ruling is not the law of the land; and if it were, it only applies to public schools. .Appeal: E. I am glad to defend the rights of all people, but U118 situation is of greater importance to you, the working people. IV. Those who advocate integration are not directly involved with the schools. Statement: V. The training in a private school can be as good in every respect, if not better, than that provided by the public school system. In the development of each argument, Faubus used very clear organization, first stating the oppositions point and then refuting it. The simplest and clearest arrangement by statement to particulars is found in the speech of December 13, 1958. This speech, too, had two major divisions. In the first, he read each of the first ten amendments to the Constitu- tion, making application of each to his theory that forced integration transgressed basic personal liberties. In the second he demonstrated why the power of the federal govern- ment should be curtailed: (1) an all powerful central government could result in harm to American citizens as it did to citizens of Italy, Germany, and Russia and (2) the founding fathers realized the danger of centralized govern- ment and provided for a balanced form of government. It Mull be observed that the statement to particulars arrange- ment was used not only for the over-all arrangement of the body but also for the development of each individual argument. Inference: Particulars to Statement. The speech on January 18, 1958, was the only one in which the state- ment was reserved until the end of the speech after the particulars had been set forth. First, he described the legal problem of desegregation as having been created by the battle between forces contending for strong centralized government and forces advocating constitutional government "wiU1 its checks and balances." In order to explain the implications of the struggle with the federal powers, he used numerous quotations from Thomas Jefferson; and from these garticulars, he drew three conclusiois: . . . the founding fathers . . . never meant for the federal powers of either branch of the government to enter into the affairs reserved to the state and local governments. . . . Jefferson meant for school affairs to be delegated to the local communities. . . . . . the founding fathers meant to forbid the use of federal force within a state unless there was invasion, or conflict between the states. The third conclusion was developed by particulars-statement- particulars, for after stating the conclusion, Faubus again cited further evidence to show that the sending of federal troops to Little Rock had been illegal. This speech, therefore, might be termed as weak OI‘Qanizationally, because he presented the evidence for three different points before stating any of the points. Motivation: Implication. Two of the nine SP€€Ch€S were organized on a problem-solution pattern. The problem Ill?) I in each case was how to stop forcible integration and prevent the violence he maintained would ensue; the proposed solutiols, however, came a year apart and were different. In each case, the arrangement was unusual in that the problem, being preceded by a discussion of the background and the causes of the problem, was stated late in the speech just before the solution was offered. The arrangement of the speech on September I, 1957, followed this pattern: a review of the background, a state- ment of the cause of the problem, a statement of the prob- lem, and the giving of the solution. Background: I. .Arkansas has been a progressive state. A. Her accelerated industrial program has been successful. B. Race relations have been good, and Negroes have been treated fairly. Cau . Forced integration is against the over- whehning sentiment of the people. se II Problem: . III. Forced integration will bring Violence. Solution: _ IV. The National Guard has beenxnobilized to prevent violence. The second speech of this type was the one de- livered on.August 6, 1958, before the.Arkansas General Assembly. Faubus stated again that the problem was to Preserve the peace and prevent disorder, and the order 0f Presentation was identical to that in the speech con- Sidered above. Background: . I. The Supreme Court has been usurping States! Rights. . . . II. Negroes have been treated w1th good faith. Cause: III. The haw of evolution in relation to social and political change can never be violated without breaking the peace. Problem: IV. The problem is how to preserve the peace and prevent disorder which will result if integration is forced. Solution: V. To preserve the peace . . . I recoamend to the members of the House and Senate, for your consideration the following measures. (Then he described six bills to be passed.) Each particular contention of these two speeches was devel- oped by a statement to particulars order. The purposes of these two speeches were different. Concerning the first, Faubus had already enacted the solu- tion and simply attempted to justify his action by explain- ing to the audience the reasoning process by which he had drawn his conclusions. In the second speech, however, the purpose of the speech was to persuade the legislators to pass the six bills which he recommended. Motivation: hotivated Sequence. The arrangement of the speech on September 18, 1958, fits the pattern of Monroe's motivated sequence, as the following outline illustrates: Attention: Introduction I. Those who would integrate our schools at any price are still among us. II. Our boys and girls have been urged to demonstrate and to issue statements which the adult instigators did not have the courage to do. III. Forced integration is a step toward the destruction of our form of govern- ment and the constant threat of die- tatorship. I. After the last hope of relief from an intolerable situation had been exhausted, I found it necessary to close the high schools. A. This price you are unwilling to P83] . Need—Satisfaction: I. I offer to you a legal plan whereby such a catastrophe can be avoided (a private school). Visualization: I. The reasonsfor the struggle are that the federal government is usurping power. II. Integration has always lowened the quality of education, lowered the morals of the group, and harmed race relations. .Action: I. The choice you make at the special election on September 27 is whether to continue to fight for our consti- tutional rights or for complete and total integration. (He went on to imply that one should vote against integration.) Again, the development of the particular arguments was by statement to particulars. The organization of this speech appears to be the strongest of the nine because of its logical progression. SUMMARY: BODIES OF THE SPEECHBS The bodies of these speeches were generally unified by one central theme; furthermore, the Sp€CifiC thesis of 8 Speech was often restated or repeatedly implied. The implied thesis rather than the stating of it was perhaps Faubus! lhé greatest organizational deficiency. The organizations of these speeches demonstrated a diversity of structural designs, most of which were combinations of the motivation and infenence methods. He used prdslan-solution, motivated sequence, particulars to statement, inference, and statement to particulars. The latter design was employed most frequently. The use of transitions promoted coherence of structure so that the relationship of supporting arguments to the main theme was clear. These subsidiary arguments were generally developed in one of two ways. The first and most common was a statement of the point to be proved followed by the particulars. The second was the "this or nothing" method, described by Gladys Murphy Graham as follows: The method is not, in the orthodox and generally accepted sense, argumentative; rather it is that of exposition with a gooily dash of narration and de- scription . . . its aim is to convince and persuade, yet it is argument of which exposition, narration and description are handmaidens.£ Faubus used this frequently to begin with the preliminary knowledge of the audience and to lead to an inescapable coiclusion, depending on whether or not the bearer would accept the preliminary facts. Itinust be recognized, however, that Faubus added his own interpretations to the facts and his value labels to the description in these narratives. He used it particularly in his invective attacks. “W. N. Brigance, S eech Con osition (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, nc., , p. 3. 11+? The Conclusions The conclusion of a speech may have many purposes; and Gilman,.Aly, and Reid list them as follows: . . . it may review the principal ideas; it may show how the advantages of the preposal outweigh any possible disadvantages; it may leave the audience in the proper frame of mind; it may make the hearers . . . more clearly aware of their responsibilities; it may appeal to the audience to accept higher ide ls or new beliefs; it may suggest a course of action.) These authors also suggest the following forms which a con- clusion may assume: (1) a summary conclusion to refresh the memory of the listeners by reviewing the primary ideas, (2) an appeal to adopt the speaker's ideas, (3) an illus- tration to reinforce his purpose, and (h) a quotation. These methods are used as criteria in analyzing the con- clusions of the nine speeches. Faubus' conclusions were characteristically longer than his introductions. Their length as determined by word count varied from 5.6 to 26.9 per cent of the total speech; and the average length of the conclusion was 12.8 per cent. These figures are visibly demonstrated in Table 3. The content of these conclusions can be classi— fied under three of the methods listed above: quotation, summary, and appeal. Table h.indicates which methods were used in which speeches. Appeal. In general, the conclusions were moti- vational in nature; and with the exception of the speech p )Gilman, et a1, Ibid., p. 66. lhB TABLE u TYPES or CONCLUSIONS Summary Quotation .Appeal September I, 1957 x September 20, 1957 x September 26, 19;? A A x January 18, 1958 x x Augist 26, 1958 x x September 6, 1958 x September 18, 1958 x September 26, 1953 x x December 13, 1958 X 1M9 on December 13, 1958, Faubus used the appeal method in all of his conclusions In four of them, it was the only method employed. All of these appeals were quite similar, and the following extractions are typical. In the conclusion to the speech on September 1, 1957, he referred to his decision to mobilize the National Guard as having been reached prayerfully and ended the speech with an appeal to honor and good citizenship: I appeal now for reason, clear thinking and good order. Let us all be good citizens, and continue as a people and as a state, upon the road of progress on which we have so enthusiastically embarked. The pub- lic peace will be preserved. This exact appeal was also made in the conclusion of the broadcast on September 20, 1957. He invoked the diety by a reference to his prayers, used the same appeal as in the previous speech, but added the following appeal: With the curtailment by the order of Judge Davies of my authority to preserve the peace, I now can only say that I will use all other means at my command to preserve the peace, sincerely hope that all citizens will co-operate in this endeavor. In this conclusion he also preceded the appeal with a sug— gested course of action for Negroes to follow: If by their own volition the Negroes should re- frain from seizing upon that right until such time as there is assurance that it can be accomplished in a peaceful manner . . . it would be an act of prudence and good judgment . . . One of his most forceful appeals occurred in his conclusion to the speech before the.Arkansas Democratic Convention. .After ending the body of his speech with an appeal to patriotism based on a quotation from Jefferson, he expressed his gratitude for the support of the Democrats and appealed to his listeners to become more aware of their responsibilities: I do not know when or where or how this struggle may end, but I do know this--that free people do not deserve to continue to be free unless they are willing to defend their freedoms with all their resources at their command. It is upon this basis and upon this premise-that I accept the Democratic nomination . For the fulfillment of my duty to the people of Arkansas I am their dedicated servant. Three appeals were combined with a loose summary to enforce the speaker's purpose in his broadcast on September 26, 1957, following which he appealed to his constituents to "continue our peaceful pursuits of life, being good citizens as the overwhelming majority of our people have always been." He continued with a statement of his personal responsibility and appealed a second time for "calmness and a law abiding approach to all problems." Finally, he asserted that the people of the natimi supported his stand on the issue and ended the speech with a reitera— tion of his first appeal: Let us go about our normal pursuits in a friendly peaceful manner, obeying all laws, and orders, including those of General Walker and his troops. This cross we now must bear--but as the poet said, "Even this shall pass away." Quotation. Only one entire conclusion can be classified as conclusion by quotation; but in two other conclusions short quotations were employed to reenforce his appeals. He quoted briefly from the Bible to end his speech on September 26, 1957, and from the National Anthem on.August 26, 1958- In the speech on December 13, 1958, however, a quotation from George dashhigton constituted his entire conclusion: Then, finally, I quote from the writings of the Father of our Country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "If in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for, though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." Summary. Faubus combined a summary with an appeal in three of his conclusions. These were very informal sum- maries, however; and while they indirectly refreshed the memory of the audience, the conclusion did not comprise a direct review or statement of each individual point in the speech. The following summary from the speech on September 26, 1958, is also typical of the speech delivered on September 26, 1957. It demonstrates Faubus' method of echoing the general content of the speech without actually summarizing it. In conclusion, let me say that there are likely to be smne difficulties of operating the private school system. However, there are no insurmountable obstacles, and the training and activities can, in every respect, be as good, if not better, than that provided by the public school system. And even though there be difficulties and problems, will they be any greater than those which you will face in the operation of integrated public schools? There is no example anywhere—-North, South, East, or West, here extensive integration of the schools has not caused a deterioration of the quality of education and of the moral standards of the students. I do not ask you to vote one way or the other in the election touorrow. I have discussed with you as best I could in the time allotted, some aspects of the tremendous difficulties with which we are faced. These problems and difficulties are not of our making; they have been imposed upon us by the illegal usurpa- tion of powers by the Supreme Court and the federal 152 government--powers which were reserved to the states by the Constitution, and which never before have been challenged in the history of the Republic. The question tomorrow is whether we are to com- pletely integrate the Little Rock school system with all of the troubles this is likely to bring, or whether we operate our senior high schools on a private segre- gated basis. The power mid the right to determine this issue is in the hands of you, the voters of the Little Rock school district. The decision is yours. As your public servant, I will abide by your decision. The first paragraph of this conclusion is a restatement of some of the main points in the speech, and Faubus also re- peated the plan of action which he had advocated during the entire Course of the speech. The conclusion to his speech of January 18, 1958, had a unique summary in that Faubus reviewed the major principles of the speech through personal references: I do not want an all-powerful central government . . . I want to continue to look upon soldiers and federal agents as the defenders of our rights and not their destroyers . . . I want the power to govern to remain in the hands of the people, and that power to be expressed through the democratic processes. I want again to see respect and regard for majority rule, as being indicative of the will and desires of the people, themselves. In these principles of government I have believed . . . For them I have fought. . . regardless of the consequences to my political fortunes. SUI‘i’WlY : CONCLUS I C'N S The conclusions of these speeches were predominately motivational appeals occasionally supplemented with an in- formal summary or quotation. Their effect was to produce a kind of emotional climax strengthened by his own moral impressiveness rather than the climax of an idea in which the strongest point was withheld until the end of the speech. l53 ' The appeals used most frequently were to good citizenship, patriotism, and perseverance. In consideration of the emotional involvement of_the audience, these appeals appear to be quite appropriate for his purpose and probably added a strong impetus to his main propositions. With regard to length, the conclusions were char- acteristically longer than the introductions. The nine conclusions analyzed vary in length from 5.6 to 26.9 per cent of a total speech, and the average length is 12.8 per cent of the average speech. The Broad Organizational Pattern of the Speeches Examining the organizational framework of the speeches as a whole, we find that Faubus used diversity in his structural development. In general, however, the over-all designs had certain common characteristics. First, he surveyed and interpreted the immediate background of events that preceded that particular speech; then he pre- sented his main points, developed didactically or by the "this or nothing" method; and generally concluded with an anotional appzal. In other words, the argument was contained in the body, and the conclusion was devoted pre- dominantly to appeals. Such an arrangement coincides with the organizational classification of argument and appeal construction described by Gilman, Aly, and Reid. Further- more, other appeals were interspersed throughout the Speeches in no apparent order. In consideration of the fact that his audiences were vitally concerned and *““ .'L H \ n 'T' emotionally involved with his subject, this general pattern seems especially appropriate. In none of his speeches did Faubus orient his audience to his subject by an explanation of his plan for developing his propositions; however, this does not appear to be an important organizational weakness. Three organizational factors beneficially affected Faubus! continuity of thought. The first of these was a central unifying theme. AS has been indicated previously, the basic thought behind each speech appears to have been that forced integration would be harmful and, therefore, must be prevented. In addition to this, each speech was further unified around a more specific proposal or explana- ('7) tion; however, the revelation of th se specific contentions demonstrated a deficiency in organization for they were frequentlr revealed through implication alone. In other 3 words, he presented evidence for a point without ever stating the point. Direct statement would have promoted greater organizational clarity. The second factor was the use of transitional elements within the body of the speech to facilitate greater coherence. In general, a continuity of thought or relationship between points was maintained through the use of transitions, of which the following are typical: here is another aspect which I must recognize . (September 1, 1937) To understand the problem, to know the implica- tions of the struggle with the federal powers, it is necessary to understand our form of government. . . r-P’r’ 1;; For this let us turn to the historial John Dewey . . . (January 18, 1958) With this background, and the tense uneasiness, deep concern, and genuine fear that exist in this community and state at this time, we cmne to the immediate problem. This problem is how to preserve the peace . . . (August 25, 1958) Now, what will you be voting on at the Special o 1 r‘ - . 1 0 v" Q Election, September 27th? (September lo, IGpo) What did some of our greatest men say . . . about this form of government which they established and have maintained for us down to recent times? (December 13, 1956) No generalizations, lowever, can be drawn about the use of transitions bebween the three principal parts of the individual speech. Faubus employed them in sane speeches, but in some of the television broadcasts the introduction and body seem to have beenineshed together so that dis— creet divisions were not ascertainable. On the other hand, recognition of the conclusion apart from the body was fairly easy. . Faubus customarily achieved emphasis by frequent reiteration and restatement of the main ideas and themes. The speech of September 26, 1958, contained what is prob- ably his best use of restatement among these nine speeches. The actual thesis was fliat a private school was bOUT legal and practical, but he presented the thesis negatively with a warning to beware of the propaganda and deception of the integrationists. TWO references were made to it in the introduction: 1 alSo warned you that you would be subjected to a terrific propaganda campaign during these days. . . One of the little things which made so clear the deception which they used . . This same idea of "deception" was repeated throughout the body of the speech. I now quote from one of the pieces of propaganda that has been widely distributed. It is a very clever effort at deception . . . All of this nakes quite clear the aim and intent of the integrationists in Little Rock . . . It is to confuse you . . . These facts and circumstances are, of course, the reasons for the campaign of deception and propaganda that is being waged by he integrationists of Little :ROCIC o o o ‘ This, again, is a part of the campaign of and deception. propaganda The conclusion to this speech indirectly reiterated the thesis by referring to Faubus! refutation of the contentions of the integrationists. In general, then, Faubus used an over-all construc- tion of argument and appeal that was characterized by unity of thought and feeling, structural coherence, and emphasis. This arrangement probably facilitated easy communication for he used system without rigidity. CHAPTSR VI CchCLUSIChS Governor Orval Faubus has become one of the best known figures in American politics of the twentieth century. His popularity in the South and his significance to American politics stems from the fact that more than any other man he has led the opposition to the federal government's desegregation demands. While history will, of course, make the final evaluation of him as a speaker and as a politician, certain conclusions can be made at this ti me . In the first place, the typical stereotype of a Southern politico is not characteristic of Governor Faubus. His general manner of speaking is entirely different than that of such noted Southerners as Huey Long, Senator Bilbo, or even "Big Jim" Folsom. Instead of attempting to achieve sensationalism through emotionalism, or bantering, Gover- nor Faubus is calm and deliberate, letting any emotional- ism that occurs stem from his content itself rather than from his delivery. And while he used a great number of "loaded" words, even his invective attacks, his mudsling- ing if you will, were presented in a "gentlemanly manner." Second, it is significant that Governor Faubus evaded a direct clash on the morality and legality of 157 8 V1 1 integration versus segregation by approaching the desegre— gation issue through the issue of states' rights; and by doing so, he raised the level of abstraction encompassing his arguments. Furthermore, advocacy of states? rights permitted him to attach his arguments to ideas of more virtue and elevation: the Constitution becwne the basis of his arguments, and he could identify himself with tradi- tional Southern politics, which have been traditionally aligned in support of states' rights and in Opposition to strong central government. It should be noted that if one can accept Faubus' basic constitutional assumption that the federal government has no authority over any sphere of education, even when a majority discriminates against azninority group, then the Governor's arguments seem tightly constructed and logi- cally valid. Since he was not a lawyer nor even really college educated, the fact that his arguments on consti- tutionality and legality were so tightly knit is signifi- cant and is perhaps an indication of his determination and intelligence. It is also interesting to note that this was the basic argument he chose to present to the people of Arkansas at a moment of high emotional fervor. The writer's final conclusion, and perhaps the most important, is that the speeches of Governor Faubus are significant historically but not rhetorically. In other words, what he said will be remembered because of his leadership in one of the most significant political issues in American history, but how he said it is not significa I) ri- o The speeches are not exceptionally good rhetoric. Struc— tural and compositional imperfections were observed that, were it not for the excitement to Southerners inherent in his content, would make them laborious. The most significant rhetorical contribution to come from the study of these speeches probably concerns the modern concept of ethos. The writer feels that the chief effect of Governor Faubus' speeches was not to per- suade his hearers of the virtues of segregation and states' rights but rather to establish himself through ethical appeals as "a good man" to lead them. The members of the audiences were already sympathetic to the basic points which Governor Faubus advocated; but by exhibiting con- fidence in himself and in this-—their cause-—and by giving his hearers a logical rationale for their feelings, Governor Faubus was accepted as their leader. In con- sideration of this conclus 01, it would be unwise and unjustifiable to naintain that Governor Faubus' speeches were the detennining factor in Arkansas' opposition to forcib e desegregation; but there can be no question that these speeches were capable of increasing and reenforcing the resistance to the federal court decrees. Suggestions for Further Study Three suggestions for future study concerning the Speeches of Governor Faubus occur to the writer. First, if the legal battle over desegregation ‘r'L! l 60 continues, and recent events indicate that it will, it would be interesting to note the progression of the Governor's rationale for his stand as time goes along. Second, in consideration of Governor Faubus' transfer of the grounds of the argument from desegregation to the more abstract matter of states' rights, the semanti- cist might study the impact and meaning of words such as "desegregation," "usurpation," and "constitutional" to the Southern people involved in the desegregation controversy. Finally, although certain national periodicals such as Time Magazine have pictured Governor Faubus as a demagogue, no typical characteristics of demagogery were found in these speeches except personal invective. Con- sequently, a study investigiting the influence of the mass media in the formulation of his general national reputa- tion would be interesting. APPENDIX.A A.READABILITY AEALYSIS CF NINE SPEECHES OF GOVERNOR CRVAL FAUBUS ABOUT QlSaGREGATION IN LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Purpose The purpose of this content analysis was to obtain objective information about Governor Faubus' style. Therefore, the Flesch readability formula was applied, within limits, to nine speeches by the Governor about desegregation in Little Rock, Arkansas. hatrrials O The materials used in this analysis include ran- dom samples of nine speeches about desegregation which Governor Faubus delivered on the following dates: Sep- 1 tember l, 1957; September 20, 19573 September 26, 19b 3 January 18, 1958; August 26, 19383 September 5, 19583 September 18, 1958; September 26, 1958; and December 13, 1958. IlThe readability formula used in this analysis was adapted from the formula contained in: Rudolf Flesch, How to Test Readability (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1951). 161 162 Procedure A total of sixty-seven samples were selected from the nine speeches in strictly numerical order. Every fourth paragraph was selected from the speech on January 18, 1958; every sixth paragraph was used from the speeches on September 1, 1957, and August 25, 1958; from the speeches on September 20 and Eb, 1957, and on September 6, 1958, every seventh paragraph was selected; from the addresses on September 18 and 23, 1938 and December 13, 1958, every eighth paragraph was selected. These samples varied in length. Step 1: The average sentence length was determined by counting both the number of words and the number of sentences in each sample, then adding the respective re- sults from all samples and dividing the total number of words by the total number of sentences in all samples. The average word length in syllables per one hundred words was determined by counting the total number of syllables in all samples, dividing this sum by the total number of words in all samples, and multiplying the quotient by one hundred. Step 2: In order to determine a reading ease score from the results of the calculations in Step 1, (a) the average sentence length was multiplied by 1.015, (b) the number of syllables per one hundred words was multiplied by .Bue, and (c) the two products were added and their sum was subtracted from 206.855. ,. ’?OSI_11+S The results of these calculations are best demon- strated on the following Table. Faubus' reading ease scores can be interpreted from the Interpretation Table, which is also included. v" l‘ ~‘L..'.. .1 A£.~ % H H pome* q.m3 jmfl N.mm momwuoad m>w Mgfi tynfl uMH wxdi mfidpoh am as m.aa emu w.ow as man @msa .mH subsoomm 0: NH so ago n.0u am :am mmofl .om tussooaam so as a: ama a.cn as jam ates .ma ambasoaam no as w.:; and 0.3m ma gum mmmfi .0 eaaeooaom mu m 0; ans :.on as men mmao .mm omama< mm NH as emu m.om mu :m: muss .oa steamed on a a: was m.mm ma mom ammo .om passaoaam no no x.am deb m.bm ma mom ”mos .om toasuoaom mm Nu m: mmu m.mc as otm mmoa .H toaamoamm ®>wwmdm 9.399% whoow mULOB 11 omen 90H pod oesopCom vofiafiom oofiaswm enamopmmEou bco> mcwvmom mmfiomfifihw pea anQB moocmpCom mono: common mbmfldm Kazmfl>flo m0 mmivwnmm HRH: flxh OB Hm<fi OZHQWMK m0; XHQZH m.xvmflda LO ZQHB: Bills to Block School Integration," Arkansas Gazette h‘:i (August 27, 1958). . ._a. 170 Sokolsky, G. E. "C ongressiona R-esolution . . . ," Ark ansa s De‘ (September 27, 1957). "State Will Resist Sudden, Comnple e Integration,”.Arkansas Democrat (February 26, lébo). "Stay by Court may Avert Need for Spe cialflSe ssion,’ Arkansas Denocrat (August 21, 955 . "Supreme Court denies CNS Integration Delay," Arkansas Democrat (September 12, lijd). "Texans Cheer r‘au.bus After Bomb Scare, Arkansas Gazette (December la, 19th ). "The Story of Little Roclc—-As Governor laubus Tells 1t, U. S. News and to rld Report (June 20,1958). "The TV Show," Arkansas Gazette (harch 19, 1958), "The Untold Story of Little Mo 1, " U. S. News and World Report (June 20, 35). "U. S. Supreme Court," Southern School News (October, 1958). "U. S. to Del 2y Action in School Sta Wlelate," Arkansas Gazette (September 17, lQLB). "Wallace-Faubus Interview," Arkansas Gazette (September 16, 1957). Wilson, Charles Morrow. "Orval Faubus--How Did He Get That Way?" Reader's Digest (February, 1959). ”What Fa ubus Said-~And What Happened,” Life, XLIII (October 7, 1952). "White America Threatens Governor Faubus in 1956," Spring- dale News (August 3, $35). . Woolbert, C. H. "The l”lace of Logic in a Systan of Persuasion," Quarterly Jourr al of Speech Education, 1V (January, 1913). Unpublished Material Hewgill, Murray. "“ Rhetorical Analysis of SelectedC ampaign Speeches of Governor G. Mennen 1filliams with Emphasis on the 1956 Campaign." Unpublished Ph.D. disserta- tion, Department of Speech, University of Michigan, 1959. Silverman, Corinne. "The Little Rock Stong," Unpublished Case _‘1 Study, Inter—University Case Program, New York City, February, 1958. 171 Cther Sources . Personal Interview with Governor Faubus, Ufihe 13, 1959. . Personal view with Qau Stephens, ad— nte sis i ministrative as June 17, 1959. r tant to Governor Faubus, . Personal interview with Phil Stratton, ad- ministrative assistant to Governor Faubus, J June 17, 193?. Jfij / 74;; Good evening, ladies and gentlemen of the television and radio audience. In view of the decisions I have made, I think it is well to review for the people: of the State and the nation, some of the background in the tense situation which has now: develOped relative to the forcible integration of the public schools of Little Rock. It is safe to say, that to the informed and intelligent, Arkansas has been known as a liberal and progressive state; perhaps the most liberal and progressive state in the South today. We have set Up an industrial program to promote the betterment of the entire state and to bring about a better way of life for all of its citizens of whatever color, race or creed. The program has been highly successful, and I say without hesitation, is now the envy of many other states of the union. We have begun a program of increasing state park facilities and have set up and expanded publicity programs which have told the story of Arkansas in every section of the nation, resulting in much good and much advancement in the state; not only in the tourist industry, but other fields as well. There was recently enacted by the Legislature a program for the up-grading and improvement of all state services for all the people. I believe that the citizens of the state, or the great majority, are gratified, as I am, with the bright prospects for the future. I would now like to review this program, and other activities in the state, as it relates to the racial problem, and as the program and other activities affect the people in all walks of life. it is well known that Negroes are now in attendance and have been attending the University of Arkansas, 3 state institution, for a number of years. Last year, members of the Negro race were in attendance at the many state-suPported colleges of Arkansas. Also, Negroes have been integrated into the public school systems of the state where ii.was acceptable to the majority and could be peaceably accomplished. 3 F*]J n u .- \ ”id x r . .. I n . . L e . . . f y: 3? $0 "an . 0 t ‘ . ht. rih .- Mu u an..- A16 to. A M. H’nds . w._ . . .4 . w .2. .-. . . Illllll IV \.4 l, . rl. a l I I I. . . . 4 . l y I . I . . ., . . . l; I\ v. 0 l- . u l b n l y, . e 0| . I l C I l I a... c .I. I A. (‘1' r . 1 u . . .. I .i .u r . It I . . A n !v . I .\ . . q f.-. x r nl II. t .) . ., 1. VII ... ll; 1‘ .\. . . v -.. t \. . .‘A . . 1 . . . . .,I. r . Tl. . . . T. .4 4 b . n v. .. . I. I . . I. n , la. . . L . . 1 1 .1. VI. . n u . . u. ‘ v _ .. .. I! . l I. v . . . (I. u h A ~ ‘ u 1 l I I l n . . . . 6.. . . I . . In t «to o .. l . . . y» . . u . I... 11 . . .. . \ v ... . .. \. u. ”1. . A . . :IV .0 o I Q t c! a. . . .. s l ‘U. [I c . 4 . . v. n .I‘ . .v.. . v 1 . . . . . ,3 I. I u n . . 4 . V I \v; I ,ui . , 2. z. . ,. . . .,, pr; . . . . v . . .. L a, ,. .v. n ’I J. . V . . . .A x v . . u 1. .s a . . u I II n I. I Vol - . .K‘l .. i .1. . .. .. rlt . ll ..0 u I n . O\ . . .1. .: .. o 'I '1‘ o y L . . .H .2; 5. a < I I- e I n ’. . . .f. . .J I. .. ... .. . n to l y I ll. . . .. w.. ‘t. J . .J J 'A. > u I I‘O .5 .\ I . ... m... . «I V- o. l U. . i. , . . . . .cc. .. ‘ . HA . .. .1 \.. .o.. ... u .u I. . 3. cl I ..|... . . y .. . .. . a hi . . l.- . t . I . I. ‘ u. '0 1 all .\ _~ . 1. I - . L.) 1 . _ v. VI . ‘PP- ad“ |4I. . . I. .u I 5 Vi. a u .l .L . I... .s . u a HY. .u. . . l. . V1. .‘.0\ .v. \‘ I'L n“ . I. \ I. I ..1 li- ... L. ct. . p', o u .- The public transportation systems of the state have been peaceably integrated with no iisorder and no untoward incidents except of a minor nature. Negroes serve on both the Republican and Democratic state central committees, and this is the only state in the South where this is true. A Negro elected by vote of the peeple serves on the Board of Aldermen of the City vaernment of Hot Springs. We also have in the state what is sometimes termed inter-racial sports events. For some years professional football teams have competed in War Memorial Stadium in Little Rock to capacity crowds with both teams having Negro members. Last.yearrinwthe Aluminum Bowl Game the two outstanding small college teams of the' rmtion-competed.in War Memorial Stadium; there were Negro members on both teams. It is well. known that such competition is not permitted in some other statesa. In the matten.of the public school program, a part of the over-all progressive progran adepted by the Legislature,-teachers‘ salaries were increased an average of $810 annually in Arkansas. It is well known that the average increase for Negro teachers was and is in excess of the average increase for white teachers. 1n the welfare program, in which Arkansas stood 42nd in the nation in the manner in_ which it provided for its indigent old people, the benefits have gone to the members of each race alike through out the State. On July 1 of this year, the grants were increased $8.00. a recipient across the board. Also a medical aid program was set Up for medicallynindigent' people of the State. V Negroes have been given recognition, as is their due, in the field of state employment. They-fill positions in the Education Department, in the Revenue Department, Highway Depart: “mot and other agencies of the State. Negroes have been appointed by me and other Arkansas Governors to boards and.commissions .4fi the state.and many of these appointments required and received confirmation by the-State. Senate. J x.) whi .Au PU .‘J "Y "but . .x,‘ u‘v‘ . "up \ n‘. A .. 1.. .. . .w. TI. I . . u . 9.45 (lo ' i The public transportation systems of the state have been peaceably integrated with no iisorder and no untoward incidents except of a minor nature. Negroes serve on both the Republican and Democratic state central committees, and this is the only state in the South where this is true. A Negro elected by vote of the peeple serves on the Board of Aldermen of the City vaernment of Hot Springs. We also have in the state what is sometimes termed inter-racial sports events. For some years professional football teams have competed in War Memorial Stadium in Little Rock to capacity crowds with both teams having Negro members. Last.yean.inwihe,Aluminum Bowl Game the two outstanding small college teams of the‘ .rwtion-competed.in War Memorial Stadium; there were Negro.members on both teams. It is well known that such competition is not permitted in some-other statesa, ‘ In the matter.of the public school program, a part of the over-all progressive program adepted by the Legislature, teachers‘ salaries were increased an average of $810 annUally in Arkansas. It is well known that the average increase for Negro teachers was and is in excess of the average increase for white teachers. in the welfare program, in which Arkansas stood 42nd in the nation in the manner in. which it provided for its indigent old people, the benefits have gone to the members of each race alike through out the State. On July 1 of this year, the grants were increased $8.00, a recipient across the board. Also a medical aid program was set Up forumedicallyuindigent~ peeple of the State. . I - Negroes.have been given recognition, as is their due, in the field of state employment. They fill positions in the Education Department, in the Revenue Department, Highway Departe ment and other agencies of the State. Negroes have been appointed by me and other Arkansas Governors to boards and.commissions ~of the state.and many of these appointments required and received confirmation.by the-State Senate. 7;: l l u I ‘v 1 . - y ' ‘. v , . . u I Q a” . o‘ ,"1 _.ni' \ no. _ . I r' 4‘ ‘ n .. . q o .. a . v _4 b . D D I . I V l ’ - I . l O I ‘ . v « 1 1 . . . f 1 . . 7 u. ‘ . . I . I O‘ ; 1,. . k . _ , . l . . “ | ' -. .1 .- . n. .1 " . ‘ _. p. h L ' 4| x ' ‘ ' L ' '. — . . ' .' l ' ~ g‘ .0 . t C a . ‘ _ a .‘ : - , Q ' . ~ . _ . '1’“, c . ' u s '- 7, . w, H . 1 i .I . . . . .yi ' ‘ 0-. ‘ "' ' ' ‘ v‘ I I ‘ . ‘ V ' w_ ' .w s . ‘ . . . I; - , _ , . --.. . '~ 5 s , . . . ‘ ~ ' I ‘ . t ‘ . A I o o . .. . . . v4 . l l . . . I: '. ‘ i u . \ I ‘1‘ ' .4 .1. . u . . n . "" v I ' 1 1 .v ,1, J .. .. \ . 1 n I . I u.- “'4 in” F o , . Ln In the Medical Center of Little Rock, not only an educational institution, but a great .harity and service institution as well, a far greater preportion of the indigent peeple who receive treatment at state expense are members of the Negro race. In the State Hospital, Negroes have received employment as well as others. Under an apprOpriation of the 1957 Legislature, the state is now building an entirely new institution for the Fargo Girl's Training School near Brinkley; a school devoted wholly to the training for the benefit of female members of the Negro race. By apprOpriation of the 1957 Legislature, a considerable sum of money was provided for improvements of the McRae Senatorium - an institution devoted entirely to the care and treatment of tubercular Negro patients and staffed entirely by Negro personnel. The largest increase in any apprOpriation for any state college went to the Negro MA8.N College at Pine Bluff ~ an institution headed by one of the most able and respected scholars of the South; a member of the Negro race. As further proof of the fairness of treatment which the Negro in Arkansas has received in the exercise of his rights, there has not once come to me during my time in office as vaernor, any report of any nature whatsoever of any effort to deprive the Negro citizen.of his right to vote in any and all elections throughout the seventy-five counties of the state. This, the nation-wide audience and the peOple of the state will recall, was a subject of great controversy during the recent session of Congress in Washington wherein much was said about civil rights measures to protect the Negro citizen in the right to exercise his franchise.f 1 am proud now to say to you of whatever part of the nation that I can report for the peOple Of this state, that no such action is necessary in the interest of the Negro or any other minority in Arkansas. These facts are given as irrefutable proof, that the citizens of Arkansas have not keen unmindful of their problems, as they relate to the good relations of the races, and that the citizenship as a whole have met their responsibilities in this and other fields, and ‘ improvements and progress have been made in an orderly and peaceful manner. . .. L. .. .q . I . . I .I c. l . u 0 ._ .I l v I ,o . VIA . . l : .YI L Hl . .. r . . . u. I We are now faced with a far different problem, and that is the forcible integration ofthe public schools of Little Rock against the overwhelming sentiment of the people of the mea. This problem gives every evidence and indication that the attempt to forcibly inte-; matevfill bring about wide—spread disorder and violence. There is another aSpect which I must recognize, and that is the fact that this pmnficular problem and its solution is cast Upon a stage that is not only state-wide, but rmthnrwide in sc0pe. This, I feel, is most unfortunate but it is a situation 22; of my making. The plan of integration now being forced Upon us by the Federal Courts was set Up by thelittle Rock School Board and its Superintendent and approved by a Federal Court prior U>ennessions of the peOple, which have been made manifest since that time. These expres- simusof the peeple have been made manifest by the greatest and time—honored principles of Damxxacy -- that is the exercise of the franchise at the ballot box and the expressions of thelkmmers of the Legislature who are elected by, and are the representatives of the peOple. Even the most extreme of these measures seeking to prevent the forcible integration, of Um schools against the peOple's will -- the one known as the Johnson Amendment -- was apnmnmd by the peOple by a vote of 185,374 to 146,064. The PUpil Assignment measure seeking by constitutional and legal means to retain in~ Hm sdkmd boards of the state some discretion and authority as to the assignment of the pwnls was approved 214,713 to 121,129. The vote in Pulaski County -- the area now most Efifmxmd by the problem at hand -- was 27,325 for and 16,666 against. The Resolution of Interposition which sought to interpose the sovereignty of the state wtmeithe peOple, whom it is the duty of the state to protect, and any unjust and lmwnranted interference of the Federal Government was approved by a vote Of 199,511 to L2A360. The vote on this measure in Pulaski County was 23,038 in favor, and 17,808 against. And, I must here inject the known fact that many cfltizens who are not fully informed ’nlfim measures carried on the ballot always cast a votfi aiainSt any amendment rather than: 701- When these numbers, could they be determined, are SH tracted from the OPPOSitiOH vote, \ ' \ a . he result is an indication that the peOPIe are more ”Mimmgly 1“ approval of the \ washes than the actual vote indicateso \ .0 " .‘,..' .n.S "" f.” -'i P w-nEN‘v . filial s,“ ‘ In an» ‘r ‘5 “1H :3 d5 ‘er Furthermore, during the last session of the Legislature, four measures dealing with this and allied problems, and indicating the will of the peOple, were passed overwhelmingly by both Houses. In fact, only one vote was cast against any measure in the House, and in the Senate all of the measures except one received two-thirds or more of the votes of the members of that body. These measures, both those approved by vote of the peOple and those passed by the Legislature, are now upon the Statute books of the state and to all intents and purposes and under any and all considerations, are the law of the land at the present time. They will remain the law of the land until, by the pr0per authorities, they are declared to be otherwise. Litigation seeking to determine the validity of these measures has now been filed in the Courts of the State and in the Federal Courts. There has not been sufficient time since the filing to litigate these measures to a final conclusion to determine their validity or non-validity. To my mind, this is one of the greatest reasons for the unrest and for the imminence of disorder and violence which exists at this time in relation to the forcible integration, of the schools tomorrow. As the Governor of a sovereign state pledged to Uphold its laws and Constitution, and to defend and protect the welfare of the peOple and to preserve order and protect the rights of its citizens and their pr0perty, I feel strongly that time should be given to litigate these measures to final conclusion in order that we may see clearly and unmistakably what is the law of the land -- either state or Federal. Now that a Federal Court has ruled that no further litigation is possible before the forcible integration of Negroes and whites in Central High School tomorrow, the evidence of discord, anger and resentment has come to me from so many sources as to become a deluge. There is evidence of disorder and threats of disorder which could have but one inevitable result -— that is violence, which can lead to injury and the doing of harm to persons and property. A police check has revealed a sale of unusually large numbers of weapons in the Little Rock area. The check reveals that some stores have sold out completely their stocks of knives. These sales have been mostly to Negro youths, but many have been sold to whites as well. One store reported that a gang of Negro youths came as a group and each and all of its members purchased knives while another grOUp waited outside. When the first group went out, the second grOUp came in for the same purpose, whereupon the owner took his remaining stock of knives and locked it up and declined to make further sales. Last Thursday I testified before the Chancery Court of Pulaski County in part as follows: Quote -~ I have information that a number of revolvers were taken from students in highschool, both white and colored -- End of quote. It is significant that Mr. House, Attorney for the School Board,did not cross examine me on this statement. I can tell you why he declined to question me about this information —- he knew the source of my information because the peOple he represented had the same informa- tion, and they knew it was reliable and that I had stated the truth. In the same trial, Mr. Blossom, SUperintendent of the Little Rock schools, testified he had been to see the Little Rock Chief of Police fifteen or twenty times to discuss the _ keeping of the peace at the Opening of the school term. But Mr. Blossom declined to state that he anticipated violence. However, today, Mr. Blossom appealed to me for help. I have undeniable reports of a telephone campaign of massive pr0portions going on in the City of Little Rock at this time calling upon the mothers of white children to assemble peaceably Upon the school grounds at 6:QO A.M., tomorrow, the Opening day of school. I have reports of caravans that will converge Upon Little Rock from many points of the state and the members of the caravans are to assemble peaceably Upon the school grounds in‘ the morning. Some of these grOUpS have already reached the city -- are here now, and some of the information of these caravans has come to me from the school authorities themselves. . . . ‘ t ‘ . s . A , , .' . I . l ‘ l I . . ‘ I " ‘ I 7 ‘ ‘p .0 . . ., ‘ ' . . V. .g .1 r . I. . ' ‘ ’ n i It . _, \ i .' ’ . ‘ ‘ . . . ' ' I ‘ , .. r, — ‘ I . i ‘ < . I . I ‘ up. ‘ ‘ . l I.” A 1 . I o k . .. ‘ , . . , ‘ ‘ l I I a ‘ i I ‘ . n _ p ‘ ’l . . , . ' _ . ‘l . r, . . ’ ‘ . l . U. ‘- ¥ - ' . A . . " .' ' . - | . I! I .A . . , ' I K V r ‘ ~ ~ ‘ t . . > . . h ( ~ . . ~ . ‘. . v V ‘ ‘ ' r ‘ p I . ~ I . . ~ . b I I . u ,,-.I u , I , t- . ._ - . ‘ ., l .‘ ' - I ‘ A 5 . .- ~ ‘ I \ . A I A ' . » , V V v . «I ~ I . 'n ‘ I ~ . r . ; .O. x. - . . - . . ‘ l . _~ . ‘ . ‘ A " A ‘I' no a I: I Y ' . l ‘ . ll . U ‘ I . 1 A. _ ‘ - ‘ ' . . . \ v . ' ‘ ‘ v I I A.‘ . A .." . . _ . . ‘ . . ‘t . t I ,. . ‘ - - I n u ‘ ' f . t ' .(I . ~-‘ ' ' 5‘ A v 75- : fl ‘ ' ‘ ‘ I r V . ‘ . . ' ' . w . . A n " f u . . . ’ I. «a. a . , , ‘ .. . . . . y . ‘ " h ’ I - I ‘ ‘ ' ' .J . 4‘ Telephone calls have come to me at the Mansion in a constant stream and the expressions of all are the fear of disorder and violence and of the harm that may occur on the morrow in this attempt at forcible integration of Central High School. Other evidence of the alarm and concern, comes from this Negro newspaper. Coming as a boy from the hills, from a family of modest circumstances, I learned and have treasured many of the time—honored adages. "A stitch in time save nine." "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"..... Remembering the wisdom of these maxims, and being aware of the overwhelming evidence of impending disorder which could lead to violence and even bloodshed, I have therefore in accordance with the solemn responsibilities and the oath of my office, made the decision to act and to act now. It is only good judgment to act before the situation gets out of hand -- and before the resulting violence creates lasting enmity, animosity and hate between citizens of this community, and which would do irreparable harm to the good relations that have existed between the races. I have therefore taken the following action: Units of the National Guard have been, or are now being mobilized with the mission to maintain or restore the peace and good order of this community. Advance units are already on duty on the grounds of Central High School. I have briefed the commanders as to the situation and they already have or are now briefing the members of their commands. I have informed Chief Lindsey, Director of the Arkansas State Police, of the develop- ments and he is now mobilizing a force to act as an arm of the State Militia in maintaining "' . ‘ or restoring the peace and order of the community and to act in every way possible to protect the lives and pr0perty of the citizens of Pulaski County. This is a decision I have reached prayerfully. It has been made after conferences with dozens of people and after the checking and the verification of as many of the reports as possible. Q The mission of the State Militia is to maintain or restore order and to protect the lives and property of citizens. They will act not as segregationists or integrationists, but as soldiers called to active duty to carry out their assigned tasks. But, I must state here in all sincerity, that it is my opinion -- yes, even a conviction, that it will not be possible to restore or to maintain order and protect the lives and property of the citizens if forcible integration is carried out tomorrow in the schools of this community. The inevitable conclusion therefore, must be that the schools in Pulaski County, for the time being, must be Operated on the same basis as they have been Operated in the past. I appeal now for reason, clear thinking and good order. Let us all be good citizens, and continue as a peOple and as a state, Upon the road of progress on which we have so enthusiastically embarked. THE PUBLIC PEACE WILL BE PRESERVED ----- - 8 _ ’/ .I Ii Hill-Ii...- . . .Ji. .. ..|u..| .11 till," September 20, 1957 Good evening, Ladies and Gentlemen of the television and radio audience. The litigation in Federal Court before Judge Davies has proceeded as expected. Today, the Judge took the following action: First: The Judge refused to disqualify in the face of a proper affidavit amply supported by legal authority. Second: He granted a motion of the original plaintiffs (the Negro plaintiffs) presented by their attorney of record, who is in Arkansas, the attorney of NAACP, to file a new complaint adopting the position taken by the JUstice Department against me, despite the fact that c: the 28th day of August, 1956, United States District Judge John E. Miller entered his order denying the plaintiff‘s suit for a declaratory judgement and injunction. Third: Sunzarily overruled the motion to quash the service of subpoena as witnesses on General Sherman T. Clinger and Colonel Marion Johnson, even though by so {sing the service took them away from their military posts of duty where they had been ordered by their Commander—in-Chief to preserve the peace and order of the community. Fourth: Overruled my motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, even though the Justice Department attorneys were unable to, and did not attempt to answer most of he points of law presented by the motion. In doing so, he ignored the law and permitted ,4. \ l v' the JUstice Department to assume to itself authority expressly denied to it by action Of the most recent Congress. Fifth and finally: The Judge refused to entertain a request for a three— judge Court, even though he, himself, as late as yesterday in Little Rock sat as a member oE-a three-judge Court, which held that before a Federal Court could interpret and pass upon the validity of state laws, it is proper for state laws to be first litigated to a conclusion in the state courts. The entire time consumed up to that point was about one hour and a half. From the foregoing, the ultimate decision of this Judge was so clearly indicated, that my attorneys had no alternative other than to make the following state~ ment and asked to be excused from any further proceedings: §iaieeeaLeLAttimers "The respondents will stand on their motions. Tne position of the respondents is firm, unequivocal and unalterable——the Governor cannot, and will not, concede that the United States, in this, or any other Court, may question his discretion and judgement as Chief Executive of a Sovereign State, acting in the performance of his Constitutional juties under the Constitution and laws of his State. Since they do net,and c:nnot, concede that the Governor may be so questioned, obviously they can proceed no further in this action. This is not to say the respondents will not comply, until they be set aside, with orders that may be made here, even though they be deemed beyond the Court's jurisdiction to make." After the withdrawal of my legal counsel, then began the taking of testimony from carefully selected and screened witnesses to bolster the Justice Department's contention that no disorder or violence was imminent. You will recall the report in the ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT of Tuesday, September l7, which read: "U. S. to subpoena over 200 witnesses in preparation for Friday's Injunction Hearing." Then, as soon as the F. B. I. reports were checked, presumably by the Justice Department, witnesses who had knowledge of and would have testified as to the true facts of the situation, were notified not to appear on September 20. we have no knowledge of the identity of all these witnesses, so we are unable at the moment to determine how many were so notified. But we do have proof of the action, and here is a copy of the letters that have come into our hands: "Obviously the great number of witnesses subpoenaed in the above case cannot be heard on September 20. We have therefore decided, as a convenience both to you and to the government, that it will not be necessary for you to appear personally at 10:00 A. M. on September 20 as directed by the subpoena, which we trust has already been served upon you. It will be agreeable to this office if you will remain available on telephone call until the: hearing is concluded. You are authorized not to report to the Court at 10:00 A. M. on September 20, provided you understand clearly that you are to stand by and be available upon telephone notice to appear promptly before the Court when needed.. ..... " S It is mimeographed, which is a strong indication that a considerable number Were sent out. And in view of the fact that only ten witnesses were subpoenaed and I testified, is another indication of the number of witnesses which the Justice Department did not want the Court to hear. L Also, of the list of names given to the F. B. I. by my representative, only a few, two in number, we believe, were subpoenaed to appear. After this parade of screened and selected witnesses, the order of injunction, so plainly indicated from the very outset, was granted. 1 have instructed my attorneys to exhaust every legal remedy to appeal this order. However, so long as this order is in effect, and until its certain reversal on appeal, I will comply as outlined by my attorneys in their statement to the Court. I have tried to follow a course that would preserve and maintain peace and: order in Little Rock and in the State. The calling out of the Guard and every order given to its Commander as designed to achieve that purpose. Now that a Federal Court, however, has chosen to substitute its judgement for mine as to how the peace and order should be preserved. I must temporarily, at least, abide; and, therefore, I have issued orders that all units of the Arkansas National Guard stationed at the High Schools in Little Rock be removed therefrom as soon as this can be accomplished. They are now gone, or they are moving from the school grounds. I think it is quite clear that the cardinal point at issue in this whole controversy is the means by which integration is to be achieved. It is my firm belief that it can be successful only if it is accomplished in a peaceful manner, which means acceptance by a majority of the people of any area affected. To be achieved otherwise is to do untold harm to the members of both races, and immeasurable harm to any community where it is forcibly accomplished. For other views on this subject, I invite your inspection of the September 20 issue of " U. 8. News and World Report.” The obviously prejudicial and false reports in "Time" and "Newsweek” will not help the situation. Another who has recently so clearly expressed the need for peaceful progress in this field is Dorothy Thompson, in her column dated New York, September 11. I quote in part: ”For no law can Operate to achieve its desired ends if it runs counter to the existing state of consciousness and conscience of the community. A Law to be effective must be respected. To be respected, the over— whelming majority must believe it to be right. Respect is not created by statute. No one can respect what he firmly believes to be wrong. Where a law is in harmony with public standards, its upholders (the police) find allies in the peOple. Where the law is not thus in harmony, the police appear as public enemies. Then peaceable enforce- ment becomes impossible. If a Negro child has to fight his way into a white school, the opposite of an educational situation has been created, and White and Negro alike, each reflecting the feelings of the adult communities from which they come, are educated in hatred and feelings of aggression. What good does "the protection of the law" do a child who is scorned and ostracized by his mates?......." J. N. Heiskell of Little Rock, owner of the Arkansas Gazette, in response to a question - quote: "At the moment, does it appear to you that there will be clashes and difficulties of various sorts for some time to come?" Responding in answer: ”There will be if the integrationists and the courts try to go too far too fast." A And what of my detractors in Little Rock in this situation? I attribute to Sid McMath and Henry Woods toe colored, slanted and falsified reports of the situation carried in "Time" and ”Newsweek". I believe Edwin Dunnaway to be the author of the false statement in “Time” magazine attributed to a Rockefellor associate. Harry Ashmore and Hugh Patterson are ardent integrationists. They have the right to their viewpoint, but they and the others memtioned have bent every effort to centact all newsmen from out of the State who have come to Little Rock to report this situation, and to indoctrinate them with a biased and prejudiced viewpoint toward me, before these reporters have had an Opportunity to evaluate facually and accurately the situation. And what of Mayor Woodrow Wilson Mann’—-the discredited and repudiated politician who will soon go out of office-——who in his last case before the peeple of his own city, was repudiated by a vote of three to one? He is the man who says no disorder and violence was, or is, imminent. Yet, at the same time has had two policemen of Little Rock assigned to the protection of his home and person. It will be recalled that the reporter, William Hines, was said to have an antagonistic attitude toward me in the televised interview of Sunday night, September 8. After making a survey of the situation, this in part, is what Reporter Hines had to say in a story in Washington, D. C. newspapers - Quote: ”And what of the Mayor, who criticized the Governor's action? On only one tepic in Little Rock today can one find almost universal agreement. That is that Mayor Woodrow Wilson Mann is washed up and that no one would pay any attention to him under any circumstances. There are complex reasons for this, but his low estate is a matter of fact...... There is much more I could say of other witnesses, who, today repudiated their former statements, and of the evidence that could have been produced, but now is not the time for recrimination or animosity. Rather, now is the time for forbearance, tolerance and Christian charity. Now that my authority to preserve and maintain the peace and good order of this cemmunity has been so greatly curtailed by this unwarranted action of Judge Davies, I can only offer a fervent prayer that the same thing will not happen here as has happened in other states in recent days. It is well known that during the period in which the National Guard has been op duty, there has not been one serious act of violence between the races-—-no person‘ has been injured, and no property damage has been sustained in the areas of their control. Now is a time for the utmost precaution, forbearance, and tolerance on the part of all citizens, both Negro and White, else the disorder and violence, which has so far been prevented, will occur. en, who have already been It is inconveivable to me that the parents of the Negro childr enrolled in Central High School by Superintendent Virgil Blossom, would want their children in the school now in the situation that prevails. I hope thatthe NAACP, who instigated, sponsored, and urged the move, will not be so reckless as to push the matter of entering the school, until a cooling-off period has elapsed. The right of Negroes to enter White schools has been declared by the federal courts. Even though millions of people are in disagreement, the U. S. Supreme Court made the ruling. If, by their own volition the Negroes should refrain from seizing upon that right until such time as there is assurance that it can be accomplished in a peaceful manner, as it has been in other sections of the state, it would be an act of prudence and good judgement that would be applauded by a vast majority of the people. I repeat again a paragraph of my statement of September 2, when the announcement was made of the Guard's being placed oncbty: ”I appeal now for reason, clear thinking, and good order. Let us all be good citizens, and continue as a people and as a state upon the road of progress on which we have so enthusiastically embarked.“ I concluded then with the statement—~“the public peace will be preserved." With the Curtailment by the order of Judge Davies of my authority to preserve the peace and good order of the community and protect all citizens, I now can only say that I willuse all other means at my command to preserve the peace, and sincerely hOpe that all citizens will c00perate in this endeavor. GOVERNOR'S SPEECH - 9/26/57 On Tuesday, September 24, while I was still absent from the State, attending the Southern Governors' Conference at Sea Island, Ga., the cleverly con- ceived plans of the JUstice Department, under Herbert Brownell, for the military occupation of Arkansas, were placed in execution. One thousand two hundred trOOps e of the 101st Airborne Division were flown into the Jacksonville Airbase by air trais- port from Fort Campbell, Kentucky. Immediately thereafter, these troops occupied in force, the grounds of Central High School. At the same time, the entire Arkansas National Guard, and Air Guard were federalized, and are now a part of the United States Army and the United States Air Force. We are now an occupied territory. Evidence of the naked force of the federal government is here apparent in these unsheathed bayonets in the backs of school girls — in the backs of these students -—- in the bloody face of this rail— road worker, who was bayoneted and then felled by the butt of a rifle, in the hands of a Sergea nt of the United States lOlst Airborne Division. This man, on private property, as a guest in a home two blocks from the school, has been hOSpitalized. Others have suffered bayonet wounds from the hands of United States Army soldiers. Up until the time the injunction was issued against me by the imported Federal Judge, the peace had been kept in Little Rock by as few as 30 National Guardsmen. Not a blow was struck, no injury inflicted on any person, and no property damage sustained. Neither was it necessary to make wholesale arrests of Arkansas Citizens. No bayonets were used and the weapons of guardsmen were never loaded. This is quite a contrast to the present situation, - when some 12,000 United States Army trOOps are on duty, mobilized or standing ready for use. It is in stark contrast also as to the use of sharpened, naked bayonets on school girls and other Arkansas Citizens, the bludgeoning of others with rifle butts, and the wholesale arrests made by these United States military forces. I wish also to point out that no violence broke out in the city until after the Injunction was issued by the imported federal judge, and the Guard forces were withdrawn. It might be well to mention briefly the actions of the imported judge in the first three hearings. An injunction was issued by a State Court, presided over by Chancery Judge Murray Reed, staying the execution date of the Integration Order, in order to (And — I might add here — all we have ever asked for is a little time, and patience and understanding, as so often eXpressed by the President himself, in solving the problem.) Judge Reed's Order was issued after taking sworn testimony in Open Court, with Cross—Examination of all witnesses. The first hearing in Federal Court, before the imported Judge, lasted one hour and five minutes. No testimony whatsoever was taken. Only the argument of counsel was heard, after which the Judge made his Order, nullifying the Order of the State Court. The typewritten Order of the Court was then distributed, which had already been drawn up and ready before the hearing was held. The second hearing took a total of fgur minutes. No testimony was taken and the Order — - "Integrate Forthwith” was issued. The third hearing consumed a total of 15 minutes. Some testimony was taken, you can judge how much, but the imported judge stated that no cross-examination was necessary, and then the Order was issued. The total time consumed in all three hearings was one hour and twenty four minutes, on litigation pertaining to a matter of such great import. Not only was the matter of integration - segregation involved, but also the matter of juris— diction of state courts to maintain the peace, and the all-important matter of States Rights, - ~ - if there are any such rights remaining at this time. During World War II, my Division, the 35th Infantry pushed up on the right of the Fourth Armored Division to relieve the lOISt Airborne, and my division occupied the embattled City of Bastogne. Today, we find the Members of the famed Division, which I helped to rescue, in Iittle Rock, Arkansas, bludgeoning innocent bystanders, with bayonets in the backs of school girls, and the warm red blood of patriotic American Citizens straining the cold, naked unsheathed kniyes. In the Name of God, whom we all revere, in the name of liberty we hold so dear, in the name of decency, which we all cherish, what is happening in America? Is every right reserved to the states by the federal constitution now lost? Does the will of the peOple, that basic precept of democracy, no longer matter? Must the will of the majority now yield, under federal force, to the will of the minority regardless of the consequences? If the answers to these questions are in the affirmative, then the basic. principles of democracy are destroyed, and we no longer have a union of states under a Republican form of government. i If this be true — — then the states are mere sub—divisions Of an all powerful federal government, these sub—divisions being nothing more than districts for the Operation of federal agents and federal military forces, — — forces which Operate without any regard for the rights of a sovereign state, or its elected Officials and without due regard to personal and property rights. In addition to the federal military forces, we have in Arkansas a federal judge from a state a thousand miles away. He has no understanding whatsoever Of the difficulties of our problems in the field Of race relations. During periods of military occupation of areas by outside forces, there can always be found those who, for one reason or another, take sides with the outside forces. 0f the mere handful of such individuals here, I would like to mention three. Harry Ashmore, Editor of the Arkansas Gazette, the ardent integrationist, (and he has a right to his views) in addition to his slanted and distorted reporting Of the news in his own paper, has also sOught, successfully in many cases, to indoctr rinate visiting newsmen with his biased and prejudiced attitude. To give you an idea Of his personal influence, I relate that he was a member of the staff Of Adlai Stevenson in both his campaigns for the presidency. It is well known here that in 1952 when he was working in Stevenson's Campaign group, his own wife here in Little Rock voted for the Republican Candidate, and Pulaski County was lost by the Democrats. Woodrow Wilson Mann, the lame duck mayor of little Rock, in his campaigni to defeat the City Manager form Of government for Little Rock, in order to hold his Office, was defeated by the peOple of his own city by a vote of more than 3 to 1. His stand on this matter now at issue, is repudiated by his own partner in the insurance business as evidenced by a telegram to me. His own City Council repudiated his stand; by unanimous vote. And what of Sid McMath, the former Governor of Arkansas? In seeking re-election to the Governor's Office in 1952, he suffered the most disastrous defeat ever inflicted upon a candidate seeking re—election to any state office. Again in 1954, seeking the nomination for United States Senator, he failed even to get to the runoff primary. He and other Opponents went down before Senator John L. McClellan in the first contest. McMath was supported by Mr. Ashmore in both campaigns. These men and the few of their views are the ones who have sought to advise the President's "Palace Guard" about the little Rock situation. They bear a heavy responsibility for the unhappy events of the past few days. i WOuld it not have been better for the President's advisers to listen to Officials who have the peOple's confidence, as shown by that greatest Of all democratic processes, the free exercise of the franchise at the ballot box? Still further, literally swarms of FBI agents have been operating through— out the city. Also, agents Of the Counter Intelligence Corps, and Criminal Investigative Division have been combing the area for days. Teen-aged school girls have been taken by the FBI and held incommunicado for hours of questioning while their frantic parents knew nothing of their whereabouts. TO those who know the facts of the Little Rock situation, these combined actions on the part of the judicial, executive and military departments of the Federal Government, are "Police State" methods in a form never before seen in America. The news commentators and press reports Of the day, may proclaim the comparative calm Of the Little Rock area. You will recall that it was quiet in Paris during the German occupation, and it is quiet in Budapest today. It always becomes quiet under military rule. Prior to this time in Arkansas, the hand Of fellowship and mutual self— respect has everywhere been extended between the races. Much progress has been made in this field and in others pertaining to the progress of the state and the human welfare Of all citizens. Under my administration, all transportation systems have been integrated, and without serious incidents. Six of the seven state—supported colleges now have Negro students. In the other there were no applicants. I was the first Democrat Governor of the South to place Negroes on the Democratic State Central Committee. Negroes also serve on the Republican Committee. Some years ago I was a Member of the Resolutions Committee which recommended to the Democratic State Convention that the so-called white primary be abolished, Opening the Democratic Primaries to the members Of all races. The COnvention adopted the resolution, and this was accomplished without any ruling by any Federal Court. Negroes have been appointed on Boards and Commissions during my adminis- tration, and have been appointed to administration positions never before held by members Of their race. Eight public schools have been peacefully integrated during my adminis— tration, more than in any other Southern State outside the border areas. The first Negro to graduate from law school in a Southern College previously all white was in Arkansas.-——And the first Negro doctor to graduate from a previously all white_Southern College was in Arkansas. ‘ F All this adds up to greater progress in Arkansas, than in any other state of the deep South'. I am not in this fight, either as a segregationist or an integrationist. My only child, a son, is now attending classes in a state—supported integrated college. This is more than can be said by many of the high officials Of the national adminis— tration, who are responsible for the military occupation of Arkansas. This situation arose, when I exercised my constitutional powers and discretion as Governor to preserve the peace and good order of this community. Basically, the story I laid before the President at the Newport Conference, was this story of progress and good race relations in Arkansas. Since Little Rock had become the focal point of contest between contending forces which have very strong feelings on the matter, my plea was for time — — — only a little time if it could be given — — — in order that I, as Governor, and the peOple Of the area could have an Opportunity tO work out the problem in a peaceful manner. The tragedy of the whole situation is that the imported judge, by exer— cising a little patience and understanding, or by the taking of testimony to gain the facts, could have averted the whole situation. The federal government has made a grave and grievous error, in the federalizing of the Guard and the use of federal trOOps. The troops are even inside the school building accompanying the Negro students from class to class. This con— stitutes a serious danger. — - ~ The impetuous or thoughtless act Of a white student could result in his penetration by a bayonet, just as has occurred outside the building. By the use of federal troops, rights just as precious, if not more so, than integration, have been trampled into the dust under the boots of the paratroopers, or cut to pieces by their shining, unsheathed bayonets. Aside from this, another great harm has been done. The hand of fellowship heretofore extended everywhere in Arkansas, between the races, has been largely withdrawn. Neither Negro or White now knows whether the hand will be friendly or unfriendly. This is a grievous set-back to the cause of progress, justice and christian charity, but nevertheless it is true. While we are thus an occupied area, — — General walker says his area of jurisdiction has no perimeter — - we must endure as best we can. Remember that all law and individual rights give way to military power, when that power is strong enough to enforce its will. There can be no question of the supremacy of the United States Army, when used against a defenseless state.- ; Therefore, we must continue our peaceful pursuits of life, being good citizens as the overwhelming majority Of our peOple have always been. F"‘ I have been working and fighting for the right Of my peOple to solve their problems peacefully. This as we know requires time and patience. I shall continue relentlessly on this course. The Constitution, the traditions Of our republic, and the will of the peOple, uphold me in this course. Our cause is just and will ultimately prevail. I will go anywhere at any time to confer, in absolute good faith, with anyone seeking a prOper and peaceful solution to this or any other problem. I will continue to reSpect the great Office of the president, and our federal union, but I shall continue to respect also the rights of the sovereign states which make up the federal union and which elect the president. I am subject to the will Of my peOple, within the frame work Of the Con— stitution and federal laws. We are not now enjoying those rights, but the inherent decency and good judgment of the people of America will eventually restore those rights to us. For if we are permanently deprived of those rights, - — then the peOple Of other states will likewise be so deprived. Today the excuse for use Of federal troops, is said to be integration. Tomorrow, in any state, the excuse could be a labor dispute, or any number of other things. The Supreme Court ruled that the president could not take over the steel industry, but they have taken over our schools in Little Rock. To the peOple of my state, I now ask again for calmness and a law abiding approach to all our problems. The federal authorities - including federal trOOps are in control. They are handling the situation and there is nothing we can do about it. I appreciate the upwards of 100,000 letters and telegrams from every state in the Union I have received, which have ranged from 95 to 98 per cent in support Of my efforts to maintain the peace and good order Of my own state. We have had no Opportunity at all to answer any of them, but they are.none—the-less appreciated. ’ I know that when the American peOple have had time to think, and to learn more of the facts Of this situation, they — — in their good judgment - - will rebuke the National Administration for the ill—advised and unwarranted use Of federal trOOps. School attendance at bayonet point is not compatible with the American way Of life. Let us go about our normal pursuits in a friendly peaceful manner, obeying all laws, and orders, including those of General Walker and his trOOps. ' This cross we now must bear - but, as the poet said, "Even this shall pass away . " ,— I ( Secech Of Governor Orval E. Faubus, September 6, 1958, Arkansas Democratic State Convention Chairman Mills, Senators McClellan and Fulbright, other members of the Congressional Delegation, party Officials, fellow public servants, and fellow Democrats: I would certainly be remiss if I did not express to you my sincere appreciation and eternal gratitude for the great honor which has come to me at the hands Of the peOple of Arkansas in being renominated as a Democratic Candidate for Governor for the third successive time. In expressing my gratitude and appreciation, I pledge to you my untiring efforts V to condnc+ +he affairs of Ln; state (f) c as to justify fully the faith and confidence which has been extrusted to me at your hands. Not only is it a great honor, but also it is a great privilege, and at most times, a great pleasure to serve the wonderful people of Arkansas, and to continue our program of progress and improvement for the state and all its people° With your indulgence, may I enumerate some Of the very worthwhile accomplishments xhich we, working together, have attained for the benefit and service Of Our fellow citizens. One of the fields in which I have been most desirous of seeing great improvement has been that Of education, I grew up at a time and in an area in which educational opportunities were quite limited. lhe small one~and~two-roem schools which were the order of the day at that time were open from 3 to 6 months out of the year. The quality of the teaching was quite good, but there was insufficient time in which to give maximum instruction to the studenv .Ll s; and .ne variety Of subject which could be taught was strictly limited. Perhaps one of the greatest unfulfilled ambitions Of my life was that Of attending the University of Arkansas, Because this ambition was unfulfilled, I believe that I am even more desirous Of making available to all the youth of this state full and ample - opportunity to attend this great educational institution, or some other institution of higher learning. Working together with the members Of the Legislature and the people Of this state, there was adopted at the last session of the General Assembly a program which has been and is Of great assistance to both the public schools and the institution of higher learning. Classroom teachers in all the public schools of Arkansas have received a greater salary increase tian at any other one time in the history of the state. Also, very material assistance has been given to the institutions of higher learning, in increased appropriations for all of the state-supported colleges, as well as the University of Arkansas, which includes the great Medical Center here in Little Rock. I sincerely hOpe that this program remains in effect, and that the good which accrues to the children of this state will be permitted to continue, for it is to the ultimate good of our state, our Lw}4' nation, and our society as a whole to provide the very best educational Opportunities . possible for all our boys and girls in this complex and difficult age in which we live. Another program in which I have had a great interest is the one which provides assistance to the Old who are in need of help and other unfortunate peOple. While it cannot be said that this program is adequate at the present time to care for the needs of those covered by the program, yet, I believe sincerely that it is true that never before in the history of this state has its government provided so well for the aged, the blind, the disabled, and the dependent children who are eligable to receive assistance under the Welfare program. A third aflency in which I have had a great interest, and which has received almost unanimous support frUm +he people of the state, is the Arkansas Tndustrial Development Commission. Created by action Of the General Assembly of 1954, and still further improved by the action Of the General Assembly of 1956, this program has done much to encourage the industrial development of Arkansas. Since the activation Of this department a little more than three years ago, it has assisted or has been directly responsible for the expansion, the creation, or the re-location within this state Of more than 400 industries. These new or expanded iNdUStllos have provided more than 32,000 new jobs for Arkansas ' people, whose annual payrolls amount to approximately 85 million dollars. Closely allied with the AIDC has been the Public1ty and Parks Commission. There have been created within the state more new parks for the use and recreation of our own peOple, as well as our visitors, than existed at the time of my first inauguration as Chief Executive. Also, through an extensive program of advertising the splendid Iburontinnal facilities of Arkansas, more visitors have been induced to visit this state than ever before in its history. There have been other improvements of which I am equally proud, and in which the people of the state can take justifiable pride. The State Hospital for Nervous Diseases is now Operating in a harmonious and cooperative manner with the public Officials and peOple of the state. Never before has better or move ample care been provided for f those who seek assistance from this institution. The same thing is true of the tuberculosis sanatoriums at Booneville and McRae. This is also true of the four industrial schools, one Of which new has almost completely W new facilities for the housing and training Of those who have the Opportunity to benefit from its program. I refer to the Negro Girl's Industrial School at Fargo in Monroe County. The forestry department is doing a fine job in preserving and promoting the growth Of the forest products of Arkansas. The great economic benefit of the timber industry to the people Of the state is clearly indicated by the construction and Operation of two huge new paper mills during the past few months. The cost of construction alone- amounted to many millions of dollars. By action of the last General Assembly, the State Police force was expanded to ‘such an extent that each county in Arkansas now has at least one state trOOper stationed within its boundaries, with additional troopers in the congested areas. This has resulted in the saving up to this date Of 68 lives lost in traffic accidents over the figures of last year. New fields of endeavor for better service to the people include the establishment of the Graduate Institute Of Technology here in Little Rock, as an additional service under the jurisdiction Of the University of Arkansas, the erection of a Children's Colony at Conway for the care of mentally retarded children, and the construction Of a trade school at Pine Bluff in which both the youth and adults Of our state may acquire the skills necessary to fit them into the ever growing industrial program. Our state prison is an efficient self-supporting institution. It has not been necessary to appropriate any Of the taxpayer's money from the general funds for its Operation. Yet, in our neighboring states, the same institutions cost the taxpayers of those areas from 3 to 5 million dollars annually of taxpayer's money. It would take—too long to enumerate all of the improvements which have been made in all Of the departments and agencies Of government. I must, in all candor and honesty, say to you, my fellow citizens and fellow Democrats, that I cannot claim full credit for all Of these gains and improvements. The progress and improvements that have been made are due for the most part, to the vision and efforts of the peOple of Arkansas, the members of the Legislature, and the dedicated service that has been given by the various heads Of departments and agencies Of government within my administration, and by their employees. For all Of this, I am most grateful, and I wish to commend the Democratic Party, the peOple of Arkansas, and these public Officials, appointive or elective, for this progress that has been made. Certainly, I fully realize that no man can make a good Chief Executive or a. good leader without the kind of cooperation and assistance which I have enjoyed during my _ time in Office. W”— I wish it were possible to mention each and every one by name who has had a part in the leadership in this program of progress, but that, of course, would be impossible. However, it is good to think that we now manufacture in Arkansas dresses, shoes, and shirts that are worn by thousands of citizens of other states; that for the first time, Arkansas newspapers can be produced on news print manufactured in the state; that uniforms for the nurses and attendants at the State Hospital can be and are purchased from a little firm at Cotter, Arkansas; that our boys and girls ride on bicycles manufactured in Little Rock; we can groom our hair with combs from a plant at Booneville; and soon, even more cement for the ever growing construction needs and more toys for our children will be coming from the plants now going into operation at Foreman in the southwest and Rogers in the northwest. People from every walk of life have had and will continue to have a part in this program, from individual citizens and small business firms, to the greatest firms and the giant utilities. The Rural Electric Administration continues to carry service to even more citizens in the remote and inaccessible reaches of the mountains and the plains. The private electric firms continue to improve and expand their services, including the construction of giant new generating facilities to supply the ever increasing demand for power to serve the people and the new and expanding industries. The natural gas firms have not only improved their service to the same groups, but also literally dozens of towns have been supplied with natural gas within the past several months. These and many other things too numerous to mention are steps along the road of progress in which we all may take justifiable pride. A new spirit, a new manifestation of pride and hOpe, is apparent throughout the state. These are the things which have been done for the good of all people within the state of whatever section, of whatever race or creed or station in life. Yet these are the things which go largely unnoticed and unmentioned by the nation and the world in the reams of publicity about Arkansas that have gone out in great volumes in recent months. I want to compliment Senator McClellan for his excellent keynote address of yesterday, wherein he so ably discussed the illegal usurpation of powers by the U. S. Supreme Court and the federal government---powers clearly reserved to the states by the Consitiution of our nation. gé.IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII-IIIIIIIIIIIIII-I-IL' For behind all the unrest, now bursting into turmoil and disorder in so many parts of the nation, are a number of decisions of the Supreme Court, based, not upon the Constitution or any law enacted by Congress, but only psychological and sociological theories. This is not just a thought of mine. It is the thought of millions of Americans expressed in every news periodical throughout the nation, and in thousands of telegrams, letters, and phone calls to me and other public officials. I'm sure that you have read of a recent unprecedented condemnation of the actions of the Supreme Court by the Chief Justices of the State Supreme Courts, in a resolution adopted at a meeting in San Francisco, California, by a vote of 36 to 8. Let us see who drew up this resolution. Its authors are Frederick W° Brune, Chief Judge of Maryland, chairman; Albert Conway, Chief Judge of New York; John R. Dethmers, Chief Justice of Michigan; William H. Duckworth, Chief Justice of Georgia; John E. Hickman, Chief Justice of Texas; John E. Martin, Chief Justice of Wisconsin; Martin A. Nelson, Associate Justice of Minnesota; William C. Perry, Chief JUstice of Oregon; Taylor H. Stukes, Chief Justice of South Carolina; and Raymond S. Wilkins, Chief Justice of Massachusetts. Bear these names in mind and compare tnem with the following, who were cited -as authority for the Supreme Court decision of May 17, 1954; K. B. Clark, Theodore Brameld, E. Franklin Frazier, Gunnar Myrdal and 18 others who worked with him in the preparation of his book AN AMERICAN DILEMMA. First, they cited K. B. Clark, a negro, so-called Social Science expert, employed by the principal plaintiff in the segregation cases, the NAACP, whose lawyer argued these cases before the court. To say the least, it is most unusual procedure for any court to accept a litigant's paid employee as an authority on anything, let alone as an authority on psychology, to put him about the Constitution itself. Mr. Brameld was cited as another alleged modern authority on psychology to override our Constitution. The files of the Committee on Unamerican Activities of the U. S. House of Representatives are replete with citations and information on this man. He is cited as having been a member of no less than 10 organizations declared to be Communistic, Communist-front, or Communist-dominated. His name has frequently appeared in the news column of the Daily Worker. The House Committee confirmed much of this information by , Attorneys General Francis Biddle, Tom Clark, and Herbert Brownell. The next man, Mr. Frazier, cited by the court as one of its modern authorities on psychology to overthrow the accepted meaning of a provision of the U. S. Constitution, is also in the files of the Committee on Unamerican Activities. He has at least 18 citations of connections with Communist causes in the United States. And then, we come to Gunnar Myrdal, the author of a book, An American Dilemma. The court cited and adopted generally and without reservation this book as its leading authority on modern psychology, and I quote from Chief Justice Warren's opinion: ...... and see generally Myrdal, AN AMERICAN DILEMMA, 1944." Helping Myrdal to write this book were 18 so-called social experts and all 18 of these so-called social experts are cited by the Committee on Unamerican Activities of the Congress as having numerous connections with pro—Communist or Communist organizations. Disregarding the writings of the social experts in the book, let us see for a moment some of the statements made by Myrdal himself. Myrdal stated that the Constitution of the United States was "impractical and unsuited to modern conditions,” and its adOption was "nearly a plot against the common people." These brief facts indicate the source and foundation upon which the Chief Justice of the United States based a very far—reaching decision of the U. S. Supreme Court, the decision of May 17, 1954. It may be that this information will strike you as it did me upon first coming to my attention, as being incredible and almost unbelievable. When we come to the full realization of these sobering facts, it leads us to wonder if the Communist were successful in the infiltration of positions in our federal government even higher and more important than that held by Alger Hiss. We are in a time of stress and strain in these United States, and there exists in many secions the threat of disorder and violence which may result in bloodshed. These problems which cause these possibilities could easily be solved by the application of some moderate thinking and common sense. However, that appears to be a quality of which the present national administration, as well as the U. S. Supreme Court, is strangely bereft. I have thought many times recently that the elephant is a fit symbol of the Republican Party under its present leadership. A person unfamiliar with this animal and viewing it from a distance might have difficulty in telling which way the creature was moving, because it has an appendage hanging down behind, as well as one in front. That seems to [it the Republican Party and the administration at this time. We don't know: any of us, nor do the American people at this time know whether we are going into Quemoy or pulling out. We don't know whether we are going into Lebanon or pulling out. We don't know whether .there is going to be inflation or depression. We don't know whether the President is going to veto worthwhile apprOpriations with economy as his reason, or ask for even more appropriation for higher spending, as he did during the last session of Congress. And some of the most important personages in this administration are coming and going so much of the time that it would be impossible for the majority of the American people to know at any particular given moment whether Dulles or Nixon were coming or going, or whether Ike himself is coming from or going to the golf course. I don't think there has ever been a national administration which was so aimless and erratic in its politics. Actually, none of us know at the moment what their final decision will be about Little Rock, because as all of us know, there have been comings and goings in this vicinity, as well as others. For some of the common sense which I have mentioned, I can cite to you again the resolution of the Chief Justices of the State Supreme Courts. And I cite to you again the concise common sense statement of a great writer, Dorothy Thompson, in a column dated New York, September 11, 1957: ”For no law can Operate to achieve its desired ends if it runs counter to the existing state of consciousness and conscience of the community. A law to be effective must be respected. To be respected, the overwhelming majority must believe it to be right. Respect is not created by statute. No one can respect what he firmly believes to be wrong. Where a law is in harmony with public standards, its upholders (the police) find allies in the people. Where the law is not thus in harmony, the police appear as public enemies. Then peaceable enforcement becomes impossible.” I cite also from an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, Friday, August 29, 1958, in discussing the possiblity of slowing down the integration process and the wide- spread lack of faith in the Supreme Court decision of 1954, and mentioning also the President's slow-down statement, I quote: "It's wisdom lies first in the realization that laws are not made by lawmakers. whether they be legislators or judges. They may inscribe laws on the books but they become law only when they are recognized as just and prOper by the vast majority of the people who must live under them. "For that reason, the Supreme Court decision, whatever its legal standing or even whatever its probity, cannot instantly make law in the deeper and truer meaning of that word.” "Of that we now have hard, and somewhat frightening, evidence. The vote in Arkansas is known to all. Other states too have voted to close their schools rather than accept this new decree as a law that governs them. And the very fact that these are patently extreme remedies measures the depth of the people's feelings about that which has now been declared a law. "It will do no good to dismiss all these people in the South as fools, knaves, or bigots. No one really believes that. But even if that simp- lified explanation were true, it would not simplify the problem. It would in fact put a heavier burden upon wisdom and patience. "What would the rest of the nation have the Federal Government do? The courts could indeed issue enough orders to enough school boards to demand immediate integration. The President could order enough trOOps into every one of those schools to enforce those court orders. But would the result be good for the nation? Would it be good, even, for the Negro peOple in whose name all this would be done? "So it seems to us that.....here is a situation where legal logic must give way to wisdom about human affairs. What must be avoided at all costs is a head-on collision between unyielding forces. The tragedy of Little Rock must not be repeated." Editorials and commends such as the above are now coming from every section of the nation. It means that with the passage of time, not only the people, but also the newspaper editors and writers are coming to have a clearer understanding of the problems with which we are faced, and the correctness of our position here in Arkansas is being recognized. In the beginning of this struggle for State's Rights—--and may I remind you here that the preservation of State's Rights is the best guarantee of human rights—-— many people were sure that we were fighting a losing battle. Some peOple think so yet. However, no one has promised victory in this struggle. I promised only during the campaign and at other times to stand up and fight as best I could for the Preservation of our Constitutional rights and the basic precepts of democracy. Sir Winston Churchill once said: "If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight With the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse cast. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live like slaves." It may be that this struggle was inevitable. Certainly, we did not choose to wage it. We had no choice as to the time nor the place. Rather would we have chosen here in Arkansas to go about the peaceful, harmonious pursuits of building a better state and building a better way of life for all our peOple, regardless of section, race or creed. Back of all the struggle and turmoil, as I pointed out earlier in this address, lies the usurpation of the powers of the states by the federal government and by the . Supreme Court. This should remind us again of the writings of Thomas Jefferson, wherein he said: ”The germ Of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution Of the federal judiciary; and irresponsible body, working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and.a little tomorrow, and ad— vancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government Of all be consolidated into one. To this I am Opposed; because when all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center Of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided Of one government on anOther, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated. "I cannot lay down my pen without recurring to one Of the subjects of my former letter, for in truth there is no danger I apprehend so much as the consolidation of our government by the noiseless, and therefore unalarming, instrumentality' of the supreme court." In conclusion, let me again express my gratitude for your faith and confidence, and pledge to you my complete determination to defend the rights of my peOple and to promote the growth and progress of our state to the very best of my ability. No public leader or political figure should ever compromise his sincere con- victions or the basic principles of right, freedom, or the precepts of democracy, for political gain. This I have not done, nor shall I ever do so. If I were not fulfilling my responsibilities, according to my oath of office, and defending your constitutional rights as you would have me do in this time Of turmoil, uncertainty and struggle, then you would have another standing in my place-——and standing in my place would not be a Lee Ward, an Ashmore, or a McMath, or anyone who could be dominated by them. For they would surrender all or any Of our rights to the chCiol goverFMAnt without a struggle, no matter how wrong it might be. I do not know when or where or how this struggle may end, but I do know this—--that free peOple do not deserve to continue to be free unless they are willing to defend their freedoms with all the resources at their command. It is upon this basis and upon this premise that I accept the Democratic nomination for the Office Of Governor of Arkansas. For the fulfillment Of my duty to the peOple of Arkansas I am their dedicated servant. An Address by Orval E. Faubus Governor of the State of Arkansas to the Independent Magazine Wholesalers and Publishers January 18, 1958 Little Rock, Arkanms rl" .‘, .____l.A.1 I am mindful of the great privilege which is mine in addressing the Independent Magazine Wholesalers and pub- lisher guests. You are representatives of a group which has always been important to society, but it seems to me in this age when there is greater dissemination of the written word than ever before, that you play an increas-_ ingly more vital role. . . Your integrity, your attitude, and your methods are of prime immrtance. The times in which we live have made us witnesses or participants in a great struggle within the nation—the struggle between the advocates of constitutional govern- ment with its divisions of powers and its checks and balances, and those who seek to establish an all powerful central government. The former seeks to protect the rights of the people by preserving the three branches of government and providing for the will of the majority on questions of concern to local and state governments. The latter seeks to rule from Washington over every phase of human life in every field, either with or without the con- sent or approval of the people affected. This struggle has now, perhaps unfortunately, become highlighted by the racial problem. This is a problem as old as man himself, older than any nation. It is a problem not peculiar to Little Rock, the State of Arkansas, the South, the North, or any part of the earth, or to any particular group of people. The integration-segregation battle has been dispropor- tionately publicized, in this struggle between those who seek to set up an all powerful central government and those who seek to maintain constitutional government. There are other issues equally important, which must be properly decided if we are to maintain the freedoms and the demo- cratic processes under a republican form of government. Taking, then, into consideration the magnitude and com- plexity of the problem of which segregation-integration is only a part, it would appear that only the prejudiced, the unenlightened, or the partly enlightened, could expect or call for, an easy, quick solution of the Little Rock affair under the present conditions. It appears to me that those who most quickly offer criticism or condemnation, make the least, or no contribu- tion toward a solution. What good can possibly come from the political or lit- erary crucifixion of a Southern Governor or legislator, or of those proponents of states rights wherever they may be found—or of those who sincerely believe that segregation is in the best interests of both races and society at large? Neither will the unjust condemnation of those sincere people of opposing views, contribute anything to a solution. Many people seek to ignore the great domestic struggle of the times, and hope, without faith, that it will go away, or be solved by others for them. This is especially true of the integration-segregation phase of the problem. And there are those of the North, and a few in the South,—who with an eye cocked warily on a block of votes, issue some critical remark about a figure in a distant sec— tion,—add some pious platitude, and hope to safely go their way unmolested among the pink clouds now so often seen in the political skies. It may well be that the thunder of con- flict from clouds darker than those at Little Rock will 531' them to a realistic earth where, drenched in the rain of public disapproval, they will find how little they have done to help solve the problem. To understand the problem, to know the implications of the struggle with the federal powers, it is necessary ‘50 understand our form of government and the principles upon which it was founded. For this let us turn to the historian John Dewey, in his book—“The Living Thoughts of Thomas J efferson.” This great man, Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, and known as the F8- ther of our Democratic Principles, in the eloquence of his writings makes clear to us—and leaves no room for doubt as to these principles, and no doubt as to the meaning 0f the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Historian Dewey says of J efferson— “Ile knew too much about history and had had 3 share In making too much history not to know that governments have to be accommodated to the mannfifs and habits of the people who compose a given state- “There is no doubt that Jefferson was strongly in favor of specifying in the Constitution the powers ti'a could be exercised by officials, executive, legislative: 331d Judicial, and then holding them, by strict construc' 131011. to the powers specified. But he also believed that 4 ‘every peOple have their own particular habits, ways of thinking, manners, etc., which have grown up with them from their infancy, or become a part of their nature, and to which the regulations which are to make them happy must be accommodated.’ As he states the principle elsewhere: ‘The excellence of every govern- ment is its adaptation to the state of those to be gov- erned by it.’ ” Jefferson advocated a breakdown of the States and Counties into smaller units. 0f J efferson’s views Dewey wrote—— “While the first aim of the division into small units was the establishment and care of papular ele- mentary schools, their purpose extended, in the mind of Jefferson, far beyond that function. The aim was to make the wards ‘little republics, with a warden at the head of each, for all those concerns, which being under their eye, they would better manage than the larger republics of the county or sta .’ ” “The elementary republics of the wards, the coun- ty republics, the state republics, and the Republic of the Union would form a graduation of authorities. Every man would then share in the government of af- fairs not merely on election day, but every day.” In discussing the establishment of our government, Jefferson wrote—— “I am opposed to the monarchising its features by the forms of its administration, with a view to conciliate a first transition to a President and Senate for life, and from that to an hereditary tenure of these offices, and thus to worm out the elective principle. I am for preserving to the States the powers not yielded by them to the Union, and to the legislature of the Union its constitutional share in the division of pow- ers; and I am not for transferring all the powers of the States to the General Government, and all those of that government to the executive branch.” In discussing the Constitutional Convention, Jefferson wrote—— “Ours, on the contrary, was to maintain the will of the majority of the convention, and of the people themselves.” “The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they 5 think themselves competent, or they may act by rep- resentatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; thatthey are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, free- dom of property, and freedom of the press.” In writing of the divisions of government,—township, county, state, and national, Jefferson said—- “The wit of man cannot devise a more solidobasis for a free, durable and well-administered republic. “To the State governments are reserved all legis- lation and administration, in affairs which concern their own citizens only, and to the federal government is given whatever concerns foreigners, or the citizens of other States, these functions alone being made fed- eraL Jefferson advocated— “The support of the state governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies.” In corresponding with a friend he wrote— “No, my friend, *the way to have 300d and?“ government is not to trust it all to one, but to div1de it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to. Let the national gov- ernment be entrusted with the defense of the nation. and its foreign and federal relations; the State 900????” ments with the civil rights, laws, police, and admmw‘ tration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties. a each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these republics from. the great national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man 9? farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may Superintend, that all will be done for the b69313. What has destroyed liberty and the rights of mall in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body.” Jefferson was the first to mention checks and balances—- “The. elementary republics of the wards, the 0.01111; 133’ republics, the State republics, and the republic 0 "' Joseph C. Cabell .—~ ___._—.7 —-—a-, 4 the Union, would form a graduation of authorities, standing each on the basis of law, holding every one its delegated share of powers, and constituting truly a system of fundamental balances and checks for the government.” Jefferson was a strong advocate of States’ Rights. He wrote—— “But it is not by the consolidation, or concentra- tion of powers, but by their distribution, that good government is effected. Were not this great country already divided into States, that division must be made, that each might do for itself what concerns itself di- rectly, and what it can so much better do than a distant authority. Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread. It is by this partition of cares, descending in gradua- tion from general to particular, that the mass of human affairs may be best managed, for the good and pros- perity of all.” “They (the people) are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty. After all, it is my principle that the will of the majority should prevail.” “.I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it. Then it is important to strengthen the State governments; and as this cannot be done by any change in the federal constitution, (for the preser- vation of that is all we need to contend for), it must be done by the states themselves, erecting such barriers at the constitutional line as cannot be surmounted either by themselves or by the general government. “Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government (and it is larger now than when Jefferson wrote these words.) The true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best, that the States are independent as to everything within themselves, and united as to everything respecting foreign nations.” “But the true barriers of our liberty in this coun- try are our State governments.” “If we find our government in all its branches rushing headlong, like our predecessors, into the arms of monarchy, if we find them violating our dearest rights, the trial by jury, the freedom of the press, the freedom of opinion, civil or religious, or opening on our peace of mind or personal safety the sluices of terrorism, then indeed let us withdraw and call the nation to its tents.” 7 ‘.&..‘WL_.. .- T “A spirit of forbearance and compromise, there- fore, and not of encroachment and usurpation, is the healing balm of such a constitution.” Time and again Jefferson expresses support of ma- jority rule— “The first principle of republicanism is that the rule of the majority is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote, as sacred as if unanimous, is the first of all les- sons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learned. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism.” In those days there were misrepresentations by the press. Jefferson wrote— “The British ministry have so long hired their gazeteers to repeat, and model into every form. lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has behaved them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves.” There were those in early days who wanted a strong. central government. To these Jefferson wrote—— “It has been said, too, that our governments, both federal and particular, want energy; that it is difficult to restrain both individuals and States from 6013mm" ting wrong. This is true, and it is an inconvenience- On the other hand, that energy which absolute govern- ments derive from an armed force, which is the effect of the bayonet constantly held at the breast Of .9097” citizen, and which resembles very much the stillness 0f the grave, must be admitted also to have its incon- veniences.” To those who wanted an all-powerful Supreme Court, and who advocated that the Court should be superior to the other branches of government, Jefferson wrote—— . “The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing 0f.Wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they Plea” . should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth}n 1301113108, that. whatever power in any government is 111‘ dependent, is absolute also. Independence can trusted nowhere but with the people in mass.” 8 “You"' seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very danger- ous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their power is the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elec- tive control. The constitution has erected no such sin- gle tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the delpartments co-equal and co-sovereign within them- se ves.” “The germ of dissolution of our federal govern- ment is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body, working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little to-day and a little to-morrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. To this I am opposed; because when all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.” “I cannot lay down my pen without recurring to one of the subjects of my former letter, for in truth there is no danger I apprehend so much as the consol- idation of our government by the noiseless, and there- fore;t unalarming, instrumentality of the supreme cou .” Therefore it is plain to see, then, from the living thoughts of Jefferson, that the founding fathers, and many other statesmen who came after them, never meant for the federal powers of either branch of the government to enter into the affairs reserved to the state and local governments. There was to be a clear division of powers, and clearly, certain fields of government were delegated or reserved to each branch and division. It is equally clear that Jefferson meant for school af- fairs to be delegated to the local communities, now known " Mr. Jarvis as school districts. And that is the way it has been for these many years. Whatever was decided by a majority of the people of a local community in reference to most of their school problems, that was the way it was meant to be. It is equally clear that the founding fathers meant to forbid the use of federal force within a state unless there was invasion, or conflict between the states. And even then troops were never to be quartered in a state as they are now in Little Rock, without the consent of the legislar ture or, as provided in the Arkansas Constitution, the Gov- ernor, when the legislature was not in session. We find the illegal usurpation of power by the Federal Government in the use of troops in Little Rock, is contrary to the most recent expression of Congress. According to the Dallas Morning News :— “If you turn to Title 18, Sec. 1385, United States Cade Angotated, you will find that, as amended in 1956, It rea s: “Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army 01' A" Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoncti not more than two years, or both. This section does not apply in Alaska.” This. I understand, was approved by the last Session of Congress as a part of the Civil Rights laws that were passed, but the big question remains, who is to arrest Gen. Walker (commander of occupation troops in Little Rock) 01' the President. Now let us look at some recent pronouncements by .3 well known public figure now living and now serving 111 public office. The excerpts are taken from a book -—- just Off the Press — “The Right of the People,” by William 0' Douglas, a member of the United States Supreme Court. In stating the case against military rule Justice Doug- las wrote: “The heart of the objection to rule by the miiiiel'y had been eloquently stated by Samuel Adams, in 1768, who Protested against the British Army stationed in Boston: 10 “ ‘Let us then assert and maintain the honor—the dignity of free citizens and place the military, where all other men are, and where they always ought and always will be placed in every free country, at the foot of the common law of the land. —— To submit to the civil magistrate in the legal exercise of power is forever the part of a good subject; and to answer the watchmen of the town in the night, may be the part of a good citizen, as well as to afford them all necessary counte- nance and support: But, to be called to account by a common soldier, or any soldier, is a badge of slavery which none but a slave will wear.’ ” Then Douglas says in his own words:— “I think that the military should be entrusted only with strictly military tasks, that all processes of gov- ernment should be left in civilian hands, even in the darkest hour." “It is a great and dangerous weakness to take the attitude that the military can solve our important problems. Yet that is a growing trend in the Nation.” “The civil administration is the product of political processes rooted in the traditions of civil liberties and the rights of man. The military regime has a differ- ent expertise —- that of war and combat. The civil ad- ministration brings to its task all of the great tradi- tions embodied in the Bill of Rights. The military knows only short-cuts and substitutes.” It would appear that Justice Douglas does not approve of the use of military force in Little Rock, even though it came about as a result of a Supreme Court decision in which he participated. If there were a solution to the struggle by the states and local governments against the illegal use of power by the federal government, there would be no segregation vs. integration problem as we know it. The federal govern- ment will not give up easily its usurped powers. The rights of the states and communities will have to be regained by an aroused people through political action, and by vote of their elected representatives in the Congress and the several legislatures. On the segregation-integration problem, I have read dozens of legal documents, and thousands of opinions, sug- gestions, and letters. I have studied it from every conceiv- able angle. 11 We have seen the unhappy results of attempted federal control, which has involved the illegal use of armed soldiers with fixed bayonets, and troops stationed for months in school buildings, and they are still there. The method has not and will not work, and is clearly unconstitutional. It is a violation of every principle of democracy in which we be- lieve, and which is taught in the very schools under military rule. Clearly, the field of education was reserved to the states under the Constitution. Evidently there are those who do not wish to trust the states with this power — else there would not have occurred this unwarranted invasion of this fundamental state right. There was purpose in the Tenth Amendment, which reads :— “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people- All power is derived from the people. Clearly, then, in a democracy, under the Constitution the control of the schools can be safely delegated to the people. There is a time-honored process of democracy through which the people decide for themselves such controversml issues. That is the exercise of the franchise at the ballot bOX- BY such a method the people of each area can make their own decision. Such a method will be a new and un- tried approach to the problem. Such a Plan would remove all fear of federal coercion and military occupation, and restore to the people the basic right to govern themselves, as intended by Jefferson and the founding fathers. May I say that there are those who have sought to leave the impression that I have created opposition to inte- gration. This is not true. Should I have never lived, 01‘ should I pass from the scene today, the opposition would be no less and the situation unchanged. . I have fought, not as a segregationist or an integl'e‘ tionist, but as a defender of democracy and our republiceh form 0f government, — as set out by the greatest docu- ment of our time — the Constitution. 12 I do not want an all-powerful central government, making all our decisions for us from afar. I agree with Jefferson that this is the surest road to the loss of all our freedom. I want to continue to look upon soldiers and federal agents as the defenders of our rights and not their de— stroyers — as the protectors of the people, not their op- pressors. I want the power to govern to remain in the hands of the people, and that power to be expressed through the democratic processes. I want again to see respect and re- gard for majority rule, as being indicative of the will and desires of the people, themselves. In these principles of government I have believed and do still believe. For them I have fought and for them will continue to fight, regardless of the outcome, and regardless of the consequences to my political fortunes. 13 w 9 - 'F'wv ."»'rr7~:w1=--' w are , -‘l\ ‘V' An Address By Governor Orval E. Faubus To The Second Extraordinary Session Of The Sixty-First Arkansas General Assembly August 26, 1958 ?& ADDRESS BY GOVERNOR ORVAL E. FAUBUS TO THE SECOND EXTRAORDINARY SESSION OF THE SIXTY-FIRST ARKANSAS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, DATED AUGUST 26, 1958: Governor Gordon, Mr. Speaker, Gentlemen of the 61st General Assembly, in Extraordinary Session assembled, My fellow citizens— As I have said many times in awarding Arkansas Traveler Certificates to people who had distinguished them- selves in public service, with every honor goes responsi- bility, with every privilege goes burdens. This is one of the times when we, who have been hon- ored by our fellow citizens by our election to public office, feel more heavily the responsibilities and the burdens that go with the public trust, than we do its honors and privileges. But he who cannot carry the load through the storm, deserves little the bouquet in the sunshine. We are here today, not through our own choice and desires, but because it is our responsibility to face up to some problems that have been forced upon us, by the un- wise actions of others. I quote from a news story of last Saturday and Sun- day, because it has a definite relation to the cause which brings us here today. “The Supreme Court has been usurping the rights re- served to the States by the Constitution.” “The Supreme Court has been making hasty, impatient decisions without proper judicial restraint.” “Recent decisions raise considerable doubt as to the validity of the American boast that we have a govern- ment of laws and not of men.” “The development of immense power of the Supreme Court in both state and national affairs, is second only to the increasing dominance of the national govern- ment.” '- ‘ *-"v-_‘- w- ‘- ' "" ".‘~"- “'7‘" r~ 'r—s“!'..'_— " w. _._. i i ‘ ' ii “ “ ‘ M—i “It is not merely the final arbiter of the law; it is the maker of policy in many major social and economic , fields. It is here that we feel the greatest concern, . and it is here that we think the greatest restraint is called for.” These are not my words, nor the words of State Senator Jerry Screeton or U. S. Senator John L. McClellan, nor of any particular States’ Rights advocate. These words are i in the report, adopted only last Saturday by a conference of Chief Justices of the State Supreme Courts. These eminent jurists represent all the states and two territories. This unprecedented report, strongly condemning the United States Supreme Court in the language I have quoted above. . was adopted by thirty-six favorable voteS,—four and one- 2, half times as many as the eight opposing votes. The resolution said also: “This conference (of State Supreme Court Chief , Justices) hereby respectfully urges that the Supreme Court of the U. S., in exercising the great powers fi confided to it for the determination of questions as ', to the allocation and extent of national and state Powers * * * exercise one of the greatest of all judicial powers—the power of judicial self-restraint.” Let us see how this admonition fits the recent majority decision of the Eighth Circuit U. S. Court of Appeals. From t that decision, I quote the following language: “From the practically undisputed testimony of the Boards’ witnesses, we find that * " * the continued attendance of the Negro students at Central High ‘ School was achieved throughout the 1957-58 school .- year. by the physical presence of federal troops " * i P “It is important to realize, as is shown by the evidence, that the racial incidents and vandalism which occurred In Central High School during the past year did not stem from mere lawlessness on the part Of the white students in the 3011001, or on the part of the people 4 of Little Rock outside the school; nor did they stem from any malevolent desire on the part Of the students or others concerned to bomb the school, or to burn it down, or to injure or persecute as individuals, the nine Negro students in the school. Rather, the source of the trouble was the deep seated popular opposition in Little Rock to the principle of integration, which, as is known, runs counter to the pattern of Southern life which has existed for over three hundred years. The evidence also shows that to this opposition was added the conviction of many Of the peOple of Little Rock that the Brown decisions do not truly represent the law, and that by virtue of the 1956-57 enactments, heretofore outlined, integration in the public schools can be lawfully avoided.” ‘ ‘. . . . In reaching this conclusion we are not unmindful of the admonition of the Supreme. Court that the vi- tality of those principles ‘cannot be allowed to yield simply because of disagreement with them’; here, how- ever, as pointed out by the Board in its final brief, the opposition to integration in Little Rock is more than a mere mental attitude; it has manifested itself in overt acts which have actually damaged educational standards and which will continue to do SO if relief is not granted.” “Appalling as the evidence iS—the fires, destruction of private and public property, physical abuse, bomb threats, intimidation of school officials, open defiance of the police department of the City Of Little Rock by mobs—and the naturally resulting additional ex- pense to the District, disrupting of normal educational procedures, and tension, even nervous collapse of the school personnel, we cannot accept the legal conclusions drawn by the District Court from these circumstances.” “Mindful as we are that the incidents which occurred within Central High School produced a situation which adversely affected normal educational processes, we nevertheless are compelled to hold that such incidents 5 are insufficient to constitute a legal basis for suspension of the plan to integrate the public schools in Little Rock.” “Accordingly, the order of the District Court is re- versed, with directions to dismiss the appellee’s petition.” What, then, is the substance of this ruling? It means that to the court, integration is paramount to all other considerations. 1. That it is paramount to the purpose for which schools are established—that of educating our children. Even though education in the schools be seriously impaired. or utterly destroyed, still integration must prevail. 2. The sociological factors, upon which the original Supreme Court decision was based, have been ignored in this case by the Court of Appeals. Who knows what the effect may have been, or will be, on youngsters who at- tended school last year under the conditions described? Did the illegal use of federal troops to break a custom of three hundred years standing, create such disrespect for authority in the minds of some students, that they Wlii have less regard for all law and authority in the future? The implications of harm to the students in this respect ' are almost numberless and, of course, impossible to calculate. 3. There is the matter of a rule of law that is appli' cable to every government that has ever existed—that the maintenance Of Peace and good order in time Of crisis be- comes and is paramount to all other rights and considera- tions. To my knowledge, this basic duty and law of governments everywhere, has never, until recent times, been challenged by any court. This basic rule of law was discarded by the decisions of Federal Judge Davies last fall, and by the recent ruling of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in upsetting the wise and judicious decision of Federal Judge Lemley. Ac- 6 l :.,r~f'u cording to Judge Davies and the Eighth Circuit Court, it matters not how bad the conditions that may exist; it matters not if a hundred people are slain in the streets or the corridors of a school; it matters not how great the destruction of property; it matters not whether the parents know that their children may return home grievously wounded because of disorders, or whether they may return at all. Integration is paramount to these considerations. To these extreme views, I cannot subscribe. I now quote from a statement made by me last September: “Maybe Negro leaders and white integrationist leaders, and even Federal Judge Davies, are willing to sacrifice the lives of a certain number of people in this com- munity in order to take one more step toward final and complete integration of the schools. Let that be their philosophy—it is not mine. The price is too high, and the danger too great.” I do not challenge the right Of the NAACP to attempt to bring about total and complete integration of the races. Regardless of whether it is good or bad for them, or for others, they still have that right. As evidence of my good faith in my attitude expressed toward peaceful integration according to the will of the people, I cite again the following from a previous state- ment by me: “The integration of all forms of transportation in Arkansas.” “The integration of institutions of higher learning, including the University of Arkansas, the School of Medicine (Medical Center in Little Rock), and five state-supported colleges.” “The peaceful integration of more public schools in Arkansas, than have been integrated in nine other Southern States combined, including the so—called mod- erate States of North Carolina, Tennessee, and Florida.” “The placing Of Negroes in party posts, and also public positions, both elective and appointive.” 7 These steps, along with other peaceful progress in the field of integration, should prove to anyone and everyone, that whatever the term, “deliberate speed” may mean, Ar- kansas has attained it more quickly, or approached it more closely, than any other state with a comparable problem. My disagreement is with the methods now being em- ployed, and the unseemly haste that is being demanded. There is a law of life that can never be violated, or hurried, without great harm to all concerned, and that is the law of evolution in relation to social and political change. An excellent example is the long struggle to gain the right of franchise for all people of this republic. It lasted from the founding of the English Colonies until the grant- ing of woman sufferage in 1920. It is significant that it came by the adoption of a Constitutional Amendment by the states, and not by a federal Court decree. Chief Federal Judge Gardner aptly phrased this rule in his memorandum of dissent to the Court of Appeals ruling when he wrote: “Such changes, if successful, are usually accomplished by evolution rather than by revolution, and time, pa- tience, and forebearance are important elements in effecting all radical changes.” Judge Gardner further stated: “The action of Judge Lemley was based on realities and on conditions, rather than on theories.” The case for peaceful, evolutionary progress in the field of social change, as opposed to change by law, court edict, or force, was most clearly and concisely stated by the great writer, Dorothy Thompson, in a column dated New York, September 11, 1957: “For no law can operate to achieve its desired ends if it runs counter to the existing state of conscious- ness and conscience of the community. A law to be 8 ........ A ........ I “'- vvvvvv L--‘v 5' .,.'; n. h r ‘nru‘ its" effective must be respected. To be respected, the overwhelming majority must believe it to be right. Respect is not created by statute. N 0 one can respect what he firmly believes to be wrong. Where a law is in harmony with public standards, its upholders (the police) find allies in the people. Where the law is not thus in harmony, the police appear as public enemies. Then peaceable enforcement becomes impossible. “If a Negro child has to fight his way into a White school, the opposite of an educational situation has been created, and White and Negro alike, each reflect- ing the feelings of the adult communities from which they come, are educated in hatred and feelings of ag- gression. What good does ‘the protection of the law’ do a child who is scorned and ostracized by his mates?” . . And I may add to this quotation, that there is no clear cut federal statute regarding the integration of schools. If there were, it would be unconstitutional, for the authority to control public education has never been delegated by the states to the federal government. It must be remem- bered that the federal government is a creature of the states and possesses only those powers delegated to it by the states. Surely Judge Gardner drew upon all the wisdom of his many years of experience when he penned this summary of our problem, coupled with his admonition for caution: “For centuries there had been no intimate social re- lations between the white and colored races in the sec- tion referred to as the South. There had been no integration in the schools and that practice had the sanction of a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States as constitutionally legal. It had become a way of life in that section of the country and it is not strange that this long-established, cherished prac- tice could not suddenly be changed without resistance.” Last September when I acted to preserve the peace and domestic tranquility in the Little Rock area, I charted 9 my course on the law as declared by one of the most eminent and respected men to ever serve on the United States Su- preme Court—Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. Almost fifty years ago, in the case of Moyer V. Peabody, (53 L. ed. 411) he reviewed the duty of a governor to maintain the peace in his state, and this is what that great judge had to say on the subject: “When it comes to a decision by the head of the state upon a matter involving its life, the ordinary rights of individuals must yield to what he deems the necessities of the moment. Public danger warrants the substitu- tion of executive process for judicial process.” With this background, and the tense uneasiness, deep concern, and genuine fear that exists in this community and state at this time, we come to the immediate problem. The problem is how to preserve the peace and prevent the disorder and violence, which appears certain to occur with the forcible integration of the Little Rock schools. The NAACP objective of the moment is the successful integration of Central High School by any means, includ- ing force. However, the plan already approved by the Board and the Federal Court, calls for the complete inte- gration of all Little Rock schools. In the recent conference with the school board and the superintendent, it was stated that there was no target date for the integration of Hall High, but the plan calls for its integration. All Little Rock schools will be integrated, and in the near future, East Side Junior High, now all white, will be integrated with approximately fifty percent Negro students and fifty per- cent white students. This information was obtained from the superintendent, the three school board members present, and their attor- neys, and received by me, two of my attorneys, and Lt. Governor Nathan Gordon, President Pro Tem of the Senate, Lee Bearden, and Speaker of the House, Glenn Walther. To preserve the peace, prevent disorder and violence, and retain for the citizens of our state, the basic right to 10 ‘‘‘‘‘ control our own affairs through the democratic processes, I recommend to the members of the House and Senate, for your consideration the following measures: A measure providing for the closing of a school or schools, for any of the following reasons: FIRST: In order to maintain the peace against actual or impending violence which endangers the citizens, stu- dents, teachers, and others, and to provide for the safety of buildings and property. SECOND: Where a school or schools has been ordered to integrate by any court, and federal force is employed on or about the grounds to enforce the order. THIRD: Whenever it is determined that a general suitable and efficient educational system cannot be main- tained in any school district because of the integration of the races. This measure also provides for the calling of an election within thirty (30) days after the closing of any school for any of the above reasons. At the election, the people of the district may vote on the question of keeping the school segregated or integrated. The election would be held in the usual manner by the same officials as would hold other school elections. If the people of the district vote to integrate the school, it will be opened on an integrated basis, otherwise it will be kept closed, and other provisions must be found for the education of the children who would otherwise attend such school. A measure to provide for the withholding of certain state funds from any school closed under the provisions of the Act. This act also provides for each child’s propor- tionate share of school funds to follow the student to any other school in this state in which he may choose to enroll. This can be another school within the district, a school in another district, or a private non-profit school. This meas- ure will not change in any way, the method now used in 11 . . 61";1- -. " 71““."C4 m-r allocating state funds or the funds of any school district under the Minimum Foundation Program Law. A measure which provides for the enrollment and at- tendance of a student in any other school in the same dis- trict, or the school of another district, under certain conditions. A measure which provides that no student shall ever be denied the right to enroll in and receive instruction in any course in any public school in the state by reason of his or her refusal to attend classes with a student of another or different race. A measure which provides for an appropriation for the Chief Executive in the carrying out of his duties under this program, and to defray the expenses of school district elections called by the Governor. A measure which provides for the postponement of the opening date of certain high schools from September 2 to September 15. Gentlemen, may I say to you in the deepest humility and sincerity that it is with exceeding regret that I have determined this extraordinary session of the Legislature to be necessary. We must do whatever is possible to protect the rights of our people, and preserve for them and their posterity, the democratic processes of government which we all cherish so much. This battle for States’ Rights and Constitutional Gov- ernment is not of our choosing. As has been the case many times in the history of the past, the issue has been forced upon us and we must either choose to defend our rights against those who would usurp them, or else surrender. We, as public servants, elected by the vote of our peo- ple, would be unworthy of the confidence reposed in us, and of the honor bestowed upon us, should we be unwilling to face the issues as free men should, and do everything in our power that is possible to be done. 12 Eif" I hope that no one of you will be influenced by the words of the weak and the fearful, and that no one of you will be misled by the mistaken views of those who would surrender all the rights and privileges we have enjoyed, to an all powerful federal government in the unwise course of action which it pursues at the present moment. The issues which must be faced and decided by free men have never been easy, and the tasks which must be performed by a people who would remain free, have always been difficult. This is not a half serious problem, and it cannot be met with half measures. The bills I have recommended to you are the product of many fine and able minds, and represent a great deal of hard work. I ask that you con- sider these measures as a package program. And now, in conclusion, to you, as men of responsibility and good judgment, I leave these words of caution: Any remark on the floor of either the House or Senate during your deliberations, will be charged to some extent, to the people of our state. I would, therefore, caution you to be both deliberate and circumspect in your remarks and actions. It is not a time for gestures and posturing, but rather a time for calm and deliberate speech and action. The eyes of the nation are upon us; the hopes, and the prayers of millions of our fellow citizens of our sister states are with us in our efforts. With deep and abiding faith in our Creator, and in the people of this republic, I recall these words from our Na- tional Anthem: “Then conquer we must, for our cause, it is just; And this be our motto, ‘In God is our trust.’ ” 13 AL \ ’1‘. ll‘lllvg> \‘QIT. fie --| . -I O .. For release to the press: 7:30 P. M. Speech of Governor Orval E. Faubus, September 18, 1958 Those who would integrate our schools at any price are still among us. They have seized upon the present situation to promote and foment concern and discontent, because of the temporary closing of the schools. They have spread wild rumors and attempted to'onganize demonstrations. These are the same peOple and the same forces who have all along been Opposed to the majority will of the people of Little Rock and Arkansas. The only difference at the moment is that they have substituted the cry "Open the schools" for the well-worn “Law and Order" phrase. It can also be again noted, as it has been in the past, that they always say: "It isn't worth the fight. The result is inevitable. we might as well surrender now." The aim, of course, is to destroy the will to resist those efforts to destroy OUr way of life-~a way of life which has brought more progress and more good to the members of all races than has been attained anywhere else in the world. Last year, I stated during the September crisis that I was not elected Governor of Arkansas to surrender all our rights as citizens to an all-powerful federal autocracy. I repeated this statement many times during the campaign of the past summer, and I re-emphasize it now. It is my responsibility, and it is my purpose and determination, tp defend the constitutional rights of the peOple of Arkansas to the full extent of my ability. We find now that our boys and girls are being used in this struggle. They are being urged to demonstrate and to issue statements which the adult instigators them- selves do not have the courage to do. I am fully aware of the deep concern of the parents for the continued proper education of their children, and I am fully aware of the inconvenience to the students is the interruption of the prOper educational processes. To them, both parents and students, I express my sympathy and understanding. To the students who are concerned, I say that in the years to follow, when you have come to realize the importance of maintaining our form of government, and the importance of preserving the great freedoms and privileges which we have known, you will be happy and'proud to remember that you suffered inconvenience and personal sacrifice, and thereby made a worthwhile contribution to the maintenance of our dual system of gQVernment. Thomas Jefferson once wrote: "But it is not by the consolidation, or concentration of powers, but by their distribution, that good government is effected. Were not this great country already divided into States, that division must be made, that each might do for itself what concerns itself directly, and what it can so much better do than a distant authority. were we directed from Washington when to sow,and when to reap, we should soon want bread. It is by this partition of cares, descending in graduation from general to particular, that the mass of human affairs may be best managed, for the good and prosperity of all. "They (the people) are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty. After all,it is my principle that the will of the majority should prevail.” In this dual system of government, with its checks and balances, lies the strength of the United States of America. Once this form of government is destroyed, we would live under the constant threat of dictatorship. One-man rule, or the rule of a small group of men, as the Presidium in Moscow, in a centrallized government, would mean the same rule in the entire country and in all facets of government and human affairs. To you peOple in this struggle who seek to preserve our form of government, I'am proud of my role as a leader in the fight. I did not seek this role. It was thrust upon me in the course of events. I did not,nor do I now, shrink from my responsibilities in what is perhaps the greatest struggle for constitutional government during this century. To you who oppose the great majority of Arkansas people in this fight, I urge you to think -------- lest in your consuming desire to gain your ends, among them the destruction of Orval Faubus, you destroy also the very principles of government that enable you and all others to live as a free people, and to rear your children under the high standards of living and freedom which prevail in this state and nation. ‘ It was with a heavy heart that I found it necessary to sign the bills of the Extraordinary Session of the General Assembly and to close the High Schools in the City of Little Rock. I took this action only after the last hope of relief from an intolerable situation had been exhausted. The Supreme Court shut its eyes to all the facts, and in essence said ------ iptegration at any price, even if it means the destruction of our school system, our ' educational processes, and the risk of disorder and violence that could result in the 3 less of life----perhaps yours. This price, you as a peOple are unwilling to pay. This price I could not see you pay without first offering to you a legal plan whereby such a catastrOphe can be avoided, and still provide the opportunity of an education for our children. This plan I now explain to you indetail. This plan is within the law. Even the Supreme Court, in the so-called school integration cases, has not ruled to the contrary. This plan is based upon our own State Constitution, written and adopted in 1874, and Arkansas Statutes enacted in 1875. First. The federal government has no authority to require any state to Operate public schools. Second. The federal government has no authority to tell a state government for what purposes it may levy taxes, or how the tax money may be expended. I Third. In all the cases involving the public schools and integration, the federal courts have said cnly that an agency of the state cannot maintain segregated schools. This ruling does not apply in any way to private schools. Private schools are not affected by these decisions, even though the schools receive aid from state and federal sources. In 1875, the General Assembly enacted two laws which give us a legal way to maintain a private system of education, at a time when a part of our public educational system cannot be maintained in a suitable and efficient manner. Our own educational peOple have testified that a suitable educational system at Little Rock cannot be maintained on an integrated basis. Why, then, should we even attempt to.keep these schools Open as public schools when, based upon this sworn testimony, they clearly do not meet our constitutional provisions for a suitable and efficient system of education? We have a perfect right to close these schools as public institutions, and once closed and found to be not needed for public school purposes, the school board has the right and the authority under a law that has been on our statute books for 83 years, to lease these buildings and facilities to a bona fide private agency. A bona fide private school system appears to be the only answer to the federal government's order to integrate at any price. Let me read this law, enacted by the General Assembly, and signed by the Governor in_l875. "80-518. DIRECTORS MAY PERMIT PRIVATE SCHOOL TO USE SCHOOL HOUSE. ————— The Directors may permit a private school to be taught in the district school house during such time as the said house is not occupied by a public school unless they be otherwise directed by a majority of the legal voters of the district. (Act December 7, I875 (A.d.j. Sess.), No. 46,577, page 54; C. & M. Dlg.,s 8934; POpe's Digest, 5117250)" Now, it is crystal-clear that if the voters of the Little Rock School District vote against integration on September 27th, these facilities will become surplus and not needed for public school purposes. This will leave the school board free to lease the buildings to a suitable ' private agency. In this connection, I am sure that you are already aware that such an agency has been organized under another law that was enacted in 1875. l V? I have been informed by its organizers that they formed this private, bona fide, non-profit corporation for the purpose of being prepared to accept any offer that may be made by the Little Rock School Board to lease its unused high school facilities for private school purposes-—-if the vote is against integration on September 27th. S In this connection, here is a letter I received from the School Board: ”Little Rock, Arkansas September 12, 1958 Hon. Orval E. Faubus Governor of Arkansas Little Rock, Arkansas Dear Governor Faubus: It has come to our attention that you have stated as follows: 7 'Central High School can be operated on a private basis as a segregated school if the School Board wants to take such action.‘ we are unaware that such is possible, but if this be true, we would like very much to have an opportunity for our attorneys to explore this possibility with your attorneys. We are as anxious as anyone for our educational program to continue uninterruptedly and stand ready to explore every conceivable avenue with you. Very truly yours, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL BOARD By: (Signed) Wayne Upton President” I accept this letter as having jeen written in good faith, and I call upon the Board to demonstrate their good faith by immediately offering to a private group these unbccupied school buildings after the election. I say immediately after the election, because I have no doubt that the peOple of this school district will never voluntarily _integrate their schools. I am confident that the vote on September 27th will be against integration. I say a private group, because I understand that others may be formed. Once again I am compelled to point out to the people of this city, this state, this nation, and the world, if you please, that our objective has been to maintain the peace and good order of the community. As long as there is a legal way, as I have out- lined, to maintain the peace and good order and a suitable educational system, I willfi not shirk from my duty and responsibility. What are some Of the questions that will be raised, or have been raised, regarding this plan? First. Is there legal authority for the operation of private schools in a publicly—owned facility? I have cited the authority in our own state laws, and it is something that has been done many times in the past years. Second. Can state aid be legally furnished to a privately-operated educational institution? Both state funds and federal funds have been and are now being furnished to such private institutions in the form of transportation and lunch programs. Many other " gid are flowing to private schools from State and Federal sources. Also, the federal government, by acts Of Congress, subsidized a private educational institution for Negroes in Washington, D. C., over a period of 91 years. If the federal government can do this, how can it prohibit a state from so doing? (See U. S. News and World Report, July 4, 1958, pages 83—85). Third. What about accreditation of the privately-operated schools? Any informed person knows there are thousands of private schools throughout the nation which are accredited. Let me emphasize that the State Board Of Education is the accrediting agency for Arkansas. If the private schools are properly conducted, there will be no difficulty in this respect. Fourth. What about funds with which to pay the expenses of the private schools? Under Act 5 of the Second Extraordinary Session of the Olst General Assembly, a student seeking an education in another school, either private or public, because of . ci+Ha+ion such as exists here now, will have the benefit of all funds to be expended .or his education. The funds follow him to the school of his choice anywhere within the state. The plan is sound GDd workable. It is all legal. To this the advocates of the so-called "law of the land” can have no objection. Perhaps it would be well to review here the reasons for the wide-spread and adamant Opposition to the forcible integration of schools, not only here, but also in other sections of the nation. This, of course, is a difficult undertaking. Books can be written on the subject; in fact, many books have been written and the streams of . editorial comment from the presses throughout the nation are so great in volume that no M f’: (,7 One person can even attempt to keep abreast Of all that is said or written on this subject. Behind all this is the basic issue which should be and is Of concern to peOple throughout the nation, and that is the gradual, constant, and forcible usurpation of the powers Of the states, and the people, by the federal government and the United States Supreme Court. were it not for this violation of the rights guaranteed to the states by the Constitution, then the segregation-integration controversy would be a moral or political issue, and would not have become a legal battle which has spilled over to 5 ”*““+ evtent into the field of the military. We are, of course, convinced that the use of force is arbitrary, illegal, an’ unwise. The use Of the military has startled the peOple like a firebell in the night. And there is ample cause for this alarm. Inevery case in the history of the world where democracy has been supplanted by dictatorship, the dictatorial powers have clothed their actions in the pious cloak of legality and ”acting in the best interest of the people.” If the control Of the public schools is left to the states, as envisaged by the founding fathers and guaranteed by the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, then the cOntroversy will at most be only c+ete~widO; and states can have, as their peOple choose, either segregated or integrated schools, or both. Some so=called "do-gooders” cannot seem to understand the reasons for the Strong belief of many peOple in segregation. There are many reasons. First: There can be found no example throughout this nation where the change from segregated schools to integrated schools has improved the quality of education, or has made for better relations between the races. On the contrary, the reverse is true, and you need but to go into the integrated areas in this nation to find clear and indisputable evidence. All of us were made aware some time agg, by the wide-spread publicity, of thc terrible conditions that exist in the integrated schools of New York City. For concrete, factual examples of what happens to the students and teachers and to the quality of education in general following integration, I quote some exerpts from the report Of “Investigation of Public School Conditions” by the Committee on District of Columbia, House of Representatives, 84th Congress. The schools of Washington, D. C. were integrated in 1954. There was a public admonition by the President of the United States that they should serve as a model of integrated schools to be copied by the rest of the country. In the beginning the Committee report reads: "Washington, D. C., is the most favorable choice as an integration experiment most likely to succeed. Our best educated Negroes are migrating to the Capital in great numbers. The Negro per capita income in the District Of Columbia is higher than the White income in some areas of the nation. As residents of the nation's Capital, the people of the District of Columbia enjoy more cultural advantages than people of any other city in America. The District Of Columbia Negroes have had school facilities superior to most other school districts in the nation. No other place in the nation‘ offers such superior advantages for a successful integration program.“ What has been the result? "The first result was the exodus Of White peOple from Washington. The records 9h3w conclusively that the elementary school population was increasing after World War II, until the first steps into integration were taken in public housing and other fields. At the first threat of integration, the White residents began to leave. A few year: -g- there were 59,582 White students and 33,498 Negro students in Washington. The school census of October 21, 1955, disclosed that there was a school membership of 38,768 White students, and 68,877 Negro students. The school census of October, 1956, showed 34,750 White students,32 %, and 73,723 Negro students, 68%." (Since the completion of this report, the percentage of Negro students in the Washington, D. C. , schools is now 78% and White students 22 %. Another result of integration Of the schools in Washington has been to lower the educational standards city—wide. A number of nationally recognized and used educatioml aphievement and I. Q. tests, quoted extensively in the report, reveals that the school pOpulation as a whole in the public schools of Washington is now two grades lower than the national norm. Test after test revealed in this report makes known the fact of deterioration in the quality Of education on every grade level and in every field of educational activity. I quote from this report prepared by the Committee of Congress: "Prior to the integration of the schools in the District of Columbia there were very few unusual disciplinary problems in either of the school systems. Since the integration of the schools there have been very few unusual disciplinary problems in the predominately segregated schools. "Disciplinary problems in the predominately integrated schools have been described as appalling, demoralizing, intolerable, and disgraceful. "Fighting, lying, stealing, vandalism, obscene writing, vulgar talking, absenteeism, tardiness, and truancy have increased to an amazing degree. "Mental and physical suffering has affected the health and morale Of many white teachers as a reaction to these unexpected disciplinary problems that arose in the predominately integrated schools. ”Some white teachers have resigned, some have retired before the fixed date for their retirement, and some have indicated they will leave the school system as soon as possible for them to do so. ”For the first time in the history Of some Of the schools, teachers were required to police the corridors and playgrounds and cafeterias. Disorder in the classrooms greatly reduced teaching efficiency, and retarded the ability Of students to learn. Police were called on numerous occasions to the various integrated schools. "The overwhelming majority of those interviewed mentioned the following items: Stealing....Lying....Cheating....Fighting.... Vandalism....Obscene language...." The following are quotes from *comhorfi and Others who testified before the -J 111111 J-‘JLICGO "I found -. necessary to require that all teachers leave their H-, s when the bell rang and keep order in the corridors ..... "At times, I heard colored girls at the school use language that was far worse than I have ever heard, even in the Marine Corps.... "White children manifested a spirit Of COOperation to help the colored children become acclimated, but these efforts were not particularly successful ..... ”There have been more thefts at Eastern in the last 2 years than I had known in all my thirty—odd years in the school system ..... "Never, in all of my experience, have I Observed such filthy and revolting habits. ..... ”There was constant fighting in the classrooms between colored and colored, and sometimes between colored and white..... ”After integration disciplinary problems increased in number and type. It had a frustrating effect on teachers..... "During 1955, I imagine we called the police about 50 times. However, the newspapers claimed only 4 incidents in 3 years.... “I have had requests from colored parents to take their children out of my schools and put them back in all—colored schools. They thought they could get a better education there than they could by being mixed up..... "I have had to call the police a number of time ‘ s. We h ‘ to call them maybe 25 or 30 times ..... aJe had "we have had a number of fires set on purpose during school hours... "I would say last year our books took what would be the normal wear of 10 years in using those books..... "A fight took place outside my classroom. There was a knifing out there and somebody got badly cut. It touched his heart but the knife was too short to kill him ..... "We did not have any social activities after integration. we just cut it out ..... ”We have not had dances since integration. we felt it better in order to avoid any situation ..... ”We do not have dancing, dramatics, or Operettas since integration.... And the following exerpt is from the minority report of two Northern Congressmen on the Committee: ”The facts brought to light by this investigation seem to indicate that Negro leaders, and those actively interested in the advancement Of the Negro people, have much work to do among the Negro peOple, and that all of the difficulties attended with integration are not caused by the seemingly uncompromising attitude of the white people.“ There are many things in this report which I cannot, in good taste,.mention on this television program. Write to your Congressman and secure a copy Of this report and read for yourself the revolting and shocking develOpments in the Washington, D. C., schools, following integration. Now, what will you be voting on at the Special Election, September 27th? It will not be just to Open the school or to keep it closed, although that is a part of it. It will not be the question of whether or not seven Negro students may or may not attend Central High School, although that is a part Of it. (I It will not be deciding the question of segregation versus limited integration. In the ultimate, there can be no such thing as limited integration, so far as the public schools of Little Rock are concerned. The choice you make on Saturday, September 27th, is whether to continue to fight for our constitutional rights, and the Opportunity to find an acceptable solutiOn to this problem, or you vote for the beginning of complete and total integration. And if the latter be your decision, it will come sooner than you think. I have read to you only a small part of the results of such integration, carried out under what was said to be the most favorable conditions in the nation. Some people dread,shrink from, and grow weary of the struggle in which we are now engaged. I grow weary, also but is there any choice? Once integration is effected totally and completely, will the peace and harmony you desire be attained? If we are to -10- judge by the results elsewhere, anywhere, once total, or near total integration is effected, the peace, the quiet, the harmony, the pride in our schools, and even the gbod relations that existed heretofore between the races here, will be gone forever. Perhaps the conditions will not be completely intolerable, but the lowering of educational standards, the rise in immorality and juvenile delinquency, and strife, Will be the order of the day, just as it is now in every extensively integrated area of the nation. And then some weak and fearful individual cries out, “But we cannot win! The federal government is all powerful!" That may be true. It could well be that the rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution will be taken from us by the use of billy clubs, pistol barrels,and bayonet points. But we do not have to be parties tO such methods or efforts. We can carry on the struggle in the legal and political arenas. We have that right as free citizens. If we lose the struggle, then we have done all that we possibly can do, and the guilt for the harm that may come cannot be charged to us. Have I changed my position? NO! ! l l ! Every integrationist is still free to exert all his efforts to persuade others of the correctness of his views, and to try to get them accepted. But if the peOple cannot be persuaded, they should not be forced at bayonet point, when it is contrary to the law and the Constitution. L An individual is even free to persuade another to take a drink of liquor, but he does not have the right to compel him by force to take the drink. Now, for those who condemn me because I decline to forcibly integrate the public schools, may I suggest that they can best demonstrate their good faith by integrating their own social and religious activities. After they have done this for a reasonable time, they will be better qualified to debate the problem of integration in the public shhools. . In conclusion, to you the citizens Of Little Rock, I must warn that you will be subjected to a terrific prOpaganda campaign from now until September 27th. This barrage of slanted, distorted, and even false versions, will emanate-~yes, is already emanating, from the same sources as before—~both inside and outside the city and the. state. I know you, the people, will understand. I This issue is now where all public issues belong—--in your hands, the hands of the peOple. The decision is yours to make. Your decision will be my decision, as I am your public servant. Public sentiment is with you in this struggle to preserve our legal and time— honored rights. If you stand fast, we can win! r——— l Television address by Governor Orval E. Faubus, September 26, 1958, for press release at 9:00 P.M., C.S.T. I stated to you in my television appearance on Thursday night of last week, and I quote: "Those who would integrate at any price are still among us." I also warned you that you would be subjected to a terrific prOpaganda campaign during these days preceding the election of tomorrow. If nothing else is clear in your minds, then, certainly, those two facts are crystal-clear. One needs but to glance at the pages of the South's most ardent integrationist newspaper, the Arkansas Gazette, for verification. I have seen only two or three c0pies in the past week, and the pages of those issues which I saw were replete with propaganda, some Open, some subtle. I watched last night the television panel discussion by a group of pro- integrationists, headed by Bill Hadley. One of the little things which made so clear the deception which they used in this discussion was the placard held Up by Mr. Hadley at the beginning and at the end of the program. It read "VOte For," but the placard itself did not say for what you were voting. Now, why did Mr. Hadley leave off the word "integration" which was necessary to make complete the thought he wishes to convey by the use of the placard? If the placard had been complete, and if Mr. Hadley and those associated with him had wishes to be completely honest, it would have read thus: "Vote for Integration." Because, no matter how this issue is discussed, or whatever the efforts to veil the true implications of the vote, or whatever efforts are made to deceive, the issue is for or against integration. Pursuant to the law under which this election is held, there will be printed on the ballot the following: For racial integration of all schools within the Little Rock School District ____________ Against racial integration Of all schools within the Little Rock School District --------- This is the true issue on which you vote. I now quote from one of the pieces of propaganda that has been widely distributed. It is a very clever effort at deception, and I quote for you the last paragraph: ”There is no possible way for our schools to be Operated on a private basis, without immediately subjecting them— selves to further lawsuits, which would force them to close again. In addition, schools Operated on a private basis would be deprived Of all federal aid, school lunch programs, accreditation, interscholastic athletic competition, and eligibility for college scholarships." May I now take these assertions up one by one and make clear to you the truth and the facts. I know the answers to each Of these particular problems, but as corroborating evidence, I have here a statement from Arch Ford, Commissioner Of Education in Arkansas for several years. Mr. Ford has spent his life in school activity, and he was appointed Education Commissioner for the state some time before I took Office as Governor. He is entirely familiar with all manner of school problems within the state. I now read to you his statement: "Federal Aid to Education Federal aid to education, administered by the State Board of Education, is divided into the following categories: 1. Aid for Vocational Rehabilitation Services: This program is for persons sixteen years of age and over who are employable or who may be made employable through rehabilitation services. For all practical purposes this program is an out-Of-school program with only a very few students enrolled in the public schools. The program is designed for individuals and it is not set up as a school aid program. Therefore, public or private schools is of no consequence with reference to this program. 2. Aid for Vocational Education: This program is both an in—school and an out-of—school program. Federal funds received are limited to public supported institutions and for out—of—school youth and adults. The state and/Or the local school districts must match the amount received in federal funds 50—50. At the present time, less than $800,000 is received in federal funds annually which includes Practical Nursing Education. A total of more than three million dollars is being spent in the state on these programs, which means that the state and local districts are matching federal funds at approximately two-and—one—half times the federal requirements. Incidentally, matching may be either state or lgggl, or bgth, and matching is not a problem in the operation of these programs. 3. The School Lunch Program: Arkansas now has approximately 1,000 school lunch programs which are federally aided, and the aid for public schools is administered by the State Board Of Education. Private schools share in school lunch funds on the same basis as public schools. A number of private schools in Arkansas are currently sharing in the school lunch program, and there is absolutely no sig— nificance with reference to whether a school is a private or a public school in the matter Of school lunch funds. Reimburse- ment is on a per meal basis. 4. School Milk Funds: The School Milk Program is administered exactly as the school lunch program. 5. Surplus PrOperty: The Surplus Property Program, which has amounted to millions of dollars in recent years, is available to eligible health and educational institutions, including hospitals, public schools, colleges, and county health units. Both private and public institutions on both the college level and elementary and secondary school levels are eligible and have received and are receiving each month prOperty through the State Board of Education. The criteria is whether or not the institution is tax exempt. If it is tax exempt, it is eligible. -4- W: Arkansas is now one of nineteen states accredited through the North Central Association Of Secondary Schools and Colleges. This is strictly a private accrediting agency. At one time, Arkansas was a member of the Southern Association, instead of the North Central. These associations are for high schools and colleges only. Private schools may be accredited by either of these associations on the same basis as public schools. Please note the following: 1. Mount St. Mary's Academy, Little Rock, is a member of the North Central Association. 2. St. Anne’s Academy and St. Scholastica's Academy, both of Fort Smith, are members of the North Central Association. 3. Harding Academy, Searcy, is a member of the North Central Association. The whole ”scare" about accreditation is out of place. The question is the quality of schools, not whether they can receive proper accreditation. They can secure accreditation, whether public or private. The State Board of Education is the agency through which all elementary schools are accredited. Also, all high schools are accredited by the State Board, both public and private, and any school which applies for membership in the NCA must first have attained an "A" rating by the State Board. Inter-Scholastic Athletic Competition: The Arkansas Athletic Association controls the athletic program at the high school level. This poses no problem unless it would be some school that plays an out-of—state team that should make an issue of playing while school is not in session. This has not happened with reference to Little Rock, and I assume it will not happen. Private schools are admitted to the AAA, as is evidenced by Catholic High School of Little Rock. Eligibility for College Scholarships: It would seem to me that this statement would need little elaboration. Many scholarships are available on an equal basis to private and public schools. Incidentally, roughly twelve per cent Of the pupils in America in elementary and secondary levels are enrolled in private schools, while 88% are in public schools. Trifles: The question of tuition has arisen and been used by the integrationists. It is not anticipated that any tuition will be charged the students, other than the possible levying of an amount Of one dollar to not more than five dollars for THE ENTIRE YEAR. If this is necessary, it will be a small amount to pay in order to assure a peaceful and tranquil school year for students, both Negro and White. Teacher Retirement: Teacher retirement is not jeopardized in any manner whatsoever." * * * * * * All of this makes quite clear the aim and intent of the integra~ tionists in Little Rock and this general area. It is to confuse you and to lead you to believe that you cannot have schools for your children this year unless you vote for the integration of the public schools at this election tomorrow. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Difficulties we may have, yes, and litigation is likely; but you do not have to vote for integration in order to have the schools Opened, and in order to provide educational Opportunities for your boys and girls during the remainder of this school year. The NAACP and the Justice Department went into federal court yesterday, Thursday, September 25th, in an effort to block the plans which were announced by me during my television appearance last week. The petitions were dismissed by the Judge, and here is a part of the ruling. -- 6 _ ”They (the school board) are charged under the state law with responsibility Of Operating the schools. The power to act as directors and the limitations of their power stem from the statutes of Arkansas. . . Now they come here asking whether they will be held in contempt if they lease the school prOperty, or if they fail to Operate the schools. . . it would be a strange thing for a court of justice to hold anyone in contempt for not complying with an order of the court when he was prevented from doing so by another court of equal or concurrent jurisdiction or legislation." Both the NAACP and the Justice Department and these integrationists know full well that the way is now absolutely clear for the school board to lease these facilities to a private corporation which may Open them as private schools immediately following the election of tomorrow, if you as citizens of this school district vote against integration. Therefore, it isn't necessary to vote for integration in order to have schools for the students during the remainder of this year. These facts and circumstances are, of course, the reason for the campaign of deception and prOpaganda that is being waged by the integrationists of Little Rock. It is the reason for the issuance of a statement by Attorney General Rogers, and for the issuance Of an additional statement by President Eisenhower. And it is the reason for the front page editorial in today's issue of the Arkansas Gazette. These integrationists know full well that their only hOpe of winning this election is to deceive enough of you, to see that you are sufficiently confused to believe that you must vote for integration in order to have the schools Opened. Ladies and Gentlemen of the television audience, you, the patrons of the Little Rock School District --—— have seen me in a number of tight spots during my time as Governor. I have perhaps had more difficult situations with which to deal than any man who has ever served in this Office. Most of you, if not all of you, also know, judging from your Observations of my past experiences, that I do not get into a situation without knowing what I am doing, or without knowing what can be done. If what these integrationists say is true, I would tell you so. If it was a choice between having integrated schools or no schools at all, then I would frankly and honestly say to you that such a situation exists, and then let you take your choice, based upon those facts. However, I reiterate: SUCH IS NOT THE CASE. We can have schools, and we will have schools for our children this year, proceeding within the law, if you do not vote for integration tomorrow. Of course, if you wish to open the schools on an integrated basis as public schools, you have that right, and you may say so by your vote tomorrow, if that is your choice. If you vote to open the schools on an integrated basis, if you vote for integration,let's take a look at what the situation will be. You remember the circumstances and the conditions which existed in Central High School last year when the federal government, by illegal use of armed forces, imposed such integration Upon the peOple of the district. The following are not my words. The following quotation is taken from the majority decision of the 8th Circuit U. S. Court Of Appeals. From that decision, I quote the following language: "From the practically undiSputed testimony of the Boards' witnesses, we find that ***** the continued attendance of the Negro students at Central High School was achieved throughout the 1957-58 school year by the physical presence of federal trOOps ***** "It is important to realize, as is shown by the evidence, that the racial incidents and vandalism which occurred in Central High School during the past year did not stem from mere lawlessness on the part of the white students in the school, or on the part of the peOple of Little Rock outside the school; nor did they stem from any malevolent desire on the part of the students or others concerned to bomb the school, or to burn it down, or to injure or persecute as individuals, the nine Negro students in the school. Rather, the source Of the trouble was the deep-seated popular Opposition in Little Rock to the principle of integration, which, as is known, runs counter to the pattern of Southern life which has existed for over three hundred years. The evidence also shows that to this opposition was added the conviction of many of the peOple of Little Rock that the Brown decisions do not truly represent the law, and that by virtue of the 1956-57 enactments, heretofore outlined, integration in the public schools can be lawfully avoided. "**********the opposition to integration in Little Rock is more than a mere mental attitude; it has manifested itself in overt acts which have actually damaged educational standards and which will continue to do so if relief is not granted.” "Appalling as the evidence is——the fires, destruction of private and public prOperty, physical abuse, bomb threats, intimidation of school Officials, open defiance of the police department of the City of Little Rock by mobs--and the naturally resulting additional expense to the District, disrUpting of normal educational procedures, and tension, even nervous collapse of the school personnel, we cannot accept the legal conclusions drawn by the District Court from these circumstances. "Mindful as we are that the incidents which occurred within Central High School produced a situation which adversely affected normal educational processes, we nevertheless are compelled to hold that such incidents are insufficient to constitute a legal basis for suspension of the plan to integrate the public schools in Little Rock." Now, isn't it likely if the schools are re-Opened on an integrated basis that these conditions, if not worse, will prevail in the integrated schools? I think it would be fair to ask you that if you vote for integration, isn't it likely these are the conditions for which you will be voting? I wonder, also, if it isn't fair to ask you---—are these the conditions under which you wish your child to be educated? The integrationists will say "yes", because it has long since become known that the integrationists, the NAACP, and the Justice Department say that we must integrate at any price. Is this the price which you wish to pay in order to Open the schools on an integrated basis? I wonder, also, if it isn’t likely that the conditions will become worse. For some indication of what may occur, I invite you to read the report made by the Congressional Subcommittee on the conditions in the integrated schools of the District of Columbia in Washington, D. C. The facts meticulously set out in this report show that in 4 years Of integration in those schools, the learning and intelligence of the students are now two grades below the national norm, or national average. For what may occur here, as has occurred there in the way of moral and disciplinary problems,rliinvite'your attention specifically to page524 t0.37, -9- inclusive. If, after reading this factual report on the conditions of the integrated schools in the District of Columbia, you wish to vote for integration of the schools in Little Rock, then that is your freedom, privilege, and choice. May I say to you, in all sincerity, that you owe it to yourself and to your community to read this report before casting your vote tomorrow. As to the legal aspects, may I say the following: a very brilliant lawyer of Little Rock called me today, and said that in his Opinion the Aaron case was now moot. The Aaron case is the lawsuit involving the integration of the Little Rock schools. The rulings of the courts apply only to the public schools of Little Rock that have been ordered integrated. If the senior high schools are opened as public schools, then the rulings of the courts apply. If they are Opened on any other basis, the rulings of the courts do not apply. I note that Attorney Wiley Branton, representing the NAACP, has said that if the schools open as private schools, the Negro students would be there asking for admission. This, again, is a part Of the campaign of prOpaganda and deception. This NAACP spokesman seeks to leave the impression that the Negroes may be in the schools, whether they are Open on a public basis or a private basis. Of course, he knows full well that the rulings of the courts do not apply to private schools. I am sure there is no question in his mind, that the schools may be Opened and operated on a segregated basis, if they are Opened as private schools. There is no ruling anywhere in any court which says that the owners and Operators of private schools do not have full control over them, and can Operate those schools in any manner which they choose. This, of course, is the main reason why such a great and determined effort is being made to confuse and deceive the voters of the Little Rock school district. The integrationists know that -10.. they are about to lose a battle. They are about to receive a severe set-back in their efforts to compel by force the integration of the schools. That is why they are so alarmed; that is why such deter— mined efforts are being made; and that is why a number of integrationists have finally come out into the Open where before they had piously and hypocritically said: ”Oh, I am a segregationist, but we have no choice; it is the law of the land." It certainly is not the law of the land; but even if it were, it applies only to public schools, administered by a public agency, such as the Little Rock School Board, and does not apply to private schools here or anywhere else in these United States. Then, someone may raise this question: Well, even if we can open the schools on a segregated basis as private schools, will not the courts eventually order the integration of these schools also? It is my conviction that this is most unlikely, because if the courts did go that far, then the private schools would be faced with integration-—-the private schools where Vice-President Nixon has his children, the private schools where Eisenhower's grand- children are being trained, the private schools where one of the members of the Supreme Court is having his children educated, the private schools where your Own school board president has enrolled his daughter, and the private schools where Sid McMath has now enrolled two of his children. I do not think the courts will ever go this far, because they would be telling the Catholics, the Lutherans, the Presbyterians, and all others who are now operating private schools-~—the courts would be telling them how they must operate their own private institutions. These next remarks I address to you, the ordinary working people of Little Rock-~-those of you who are bound to a situation by your ownership of a modest home, a business, or by your job. You see, it is not so necessary forrmato defend the rich and the -11... powerful, because if the integrated schools prove unsuitable to them, they can send their children to private schools in distant places. I am glad to defend the basic rights of all peOple, both high and low. But this question is of greater importance to you, the working peOple, than it is or will ever be to the rich and powerful, because you who live on modest incomes have not the financial means to escape from whatever conditions may be imposed upon you by reason of the forcible integration of the schools of any area. May I refer now to the circular distributed under the signature of Mrs. Charles Henry, which, in urging you to vote for integration, made this statement, and I quote: "You are simply re—affirming the original slow and gradual plan of our school board. This plan had your whole-hearted support in 1956." Very few, if any of us ordinary peOple, knew what the plan of integration was in 1956. Many facts regarding the plan have been pried from the members of the school board and Superintendent Blossom over a period Of months. In fact, only about a month ago, was it first made known that East Side Junior High School would be approximately 50% Negro and 50% White when the plan of integration was completed. Other schools within Little Rock, from the first grade to the 12th, will be similarly integrated when the plan has been completed. I grant that it may be possible to preserve for a relatively brief time limited integration, but the plan approved by the court, the Blossom Plan, --—-and this is known to all the members of the school board and the Superintendent—-—calls for complete and total integration of the Little Rock schools. And there again-—-that is what you vote on tomorrow in the election. If you, the people of the Little Rock school district, are ready to accept complete and total integration, with the conditions which it will bring, either this year or within the next two or three years, then your choice will be to vote for racial integration of the schools. If you are not ready to accept that, then you may vote _ 12 - against racial integration, and we will have, at the least, additional time in which to work for some fair and equitable solution of this problem. I am firmly convinced, at the moment, that the peOple of this nation as a whole are with us in this struggle. There has been a remarkable jelling of sentiment within the past year, and “theitelegrams, letters, phone calls, and newspaper clippings pour into my office by the thousands from every section of this nation. Then, if the peOple are awakening to the evils of forced integration, if the people are becoming aware of the illegal usurpation of powers from the states by the federal government, and are becoming increasingly sympathetic tO'OUr cause, it is certainly not too much to hOpe that we may eventually win this struggle. A powerful clerical voice Opposing school integration was raised this summer by the Rev. Dr. George S. Reamey, editor of the Virginia "Methodist Advocate." In an editorial Dr. Reamey wrote: "Until the moral standards of the whites and Negroes, as groups, are brought much nearer the same level than now exists, we unhesitatingly affirm that any attempt to bring impressionable teen-agers together, not only in the class- room and churches, but at socials and parties and in camps and at picture shows, will be fraught with the greatest danger. The trouble with all this integration is not nearly so much at the adult level as among teen- agers, and especially in their social activities. And this us just where the Supreme Court decision does its most deadly damage.” I wish we had time to take a brief look at all of those who are urging integration, however it might be well to look briefly at a few. Mrs. Woodridge E. Morris, a charter member of the Womens' Emergency Committee urging integration, has two sons. One graduated from a private high school in the East last year, and another, who is in his second year of high school at a private boy's school in the East. Mrs. Brewer is another. Her husband is personnel manager at Fort Roots Veterans' Hospital, a federal agency. They live at Scott in Lonoke County. They do not even live in the Little Rock school district, and they have no children. -13- Another is E. L. Wilbur, assistant director at Fort Roots, a federal agency. He lives with his family on the federal reservation in North Little Rock. They do not even live in the Little Rock school district, and they have no children. Another is Bill Hadley, who led the panel discussion on television last night. He is a relatively new-comer to Little Rock from Pennsylvania, or New England, and he has no children in the schools. Another is Mrs. Charles W. Stephens, who participated in the television panel last night, urging your vote for integration. It is interesting to know that last year she Obtained a doctor's certificate that the tension and situation at Little Rock Central High School /might injure the health of one of her sons, and upon that basis secured his transfer from Central High to Hall High. And then, there, of course, is Mr. Harry Ashmore, who stated in a letter to a newspaper, the UNION LEADER Of New Hampshire, that he would not integrate the working forces of his newspaper. This story appeared'in U. S. News & WOrld Report a few weeks ago. And then, there are the attorneys who signed the recent statement with which you are all familiar. Now if they felt sure that the private school plan would not work, why was their alarm so great ahead of time? Why not simply take it into court and have it litigated to a conclusion? Incidentally, it is my information that the Little Rock school board paid out some $30,000 in fees to certain Little Rock law firms in order to get the Blossom plan of integration approved. A large number of the attorneys signing this paper were from these firms, and the firm of school board President, Wayne Upton. It is some- times possible tO buy a lot of SUpport and influence with $30,000. And then there are some ministers who call for integration in our schools, but, as yet, have made no move whatsoever to integrate their churches, their Sunday School classes, and the other civic and social activities connected with their churches. -14- In conclusion, let me say that there are likely to be some difficulties of Operating the private school system. However, there are no insurmountable obstacles, and the training and activities can, in every respect, be as good, if not better, than that provided by the public school system. And even though there be difficulties and problems, will they be any greater than those which you will face in the Operation of integrated public schools? There is no example anywhere - North, South, East, or West, where extensive integration of the schools has not caused a deterioration of the quality of education and of the moral standards of the students. I do not ask you to vote one way or the other in the election tomorrow. I have discussed with you as best I could in the time alloted, some aspects of the tremendous difficulties with which we are faced. These problems and difficulties are not of our making; they have been imposed Upon us by the illegal usurpation of powers by the SUpreme Court and the federal government---powers which were reserved to the states by the Constitution, and which never before have been challenged in the history of the Republic. The question tomorrow is whether we are to completely integrate the Little Rock school system with all of the troubles this is likely to bring, or whether we Operate our senior high schools on a private, segregated basis. The power and the right to determine this issue is in the hands of you, the voters of the Little Rock school district. The decision is yours. As your public servant, I will abide by your decision. k Speech of Governor Orval E. Faubus, December 13, 1958, Houston, Texas Introduction. . . . . . . After drawing up the Constitution and after its final approval by the delegates on the 17th day of September, 1787, and after their return home, the document was submitted to the various colonies and their residents. It soon became apparent that the document, the Constitution, did not sufficiently guarantee the rights of the people, and so began the agitation for the amending of the Constitution. As our histories tell us, it was up to the people of the various colonies to ratify the Constitution as drawn up and submitted to them by the Constitutional Convention. The Convention had provided that the Constitution would become effective upon its ratification by 9 of the 13 colonies. It became apparent that the Constitution would not be ratified by a sufficient number of states to put it into force, unless it was clearly understood that it would immediately be amended by the very first Congress. A number of states ratified it with this understanding. In fact, the Acts of Ratification in some states provided that it was effective only upon the successful adoption of certain amendments. That is the reason why the very first session of Congress adopted the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and these 10 Amendments have since that time become known as the Bill of Rights. What are these 10 Amendments, and what do they provide? The first reads as follows: ”RELIGIOUS AND POLITICAL wFREEDOM. uno- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. " This Amendment seeks to guarantee to us and to all citizens of this nation some of the most precious rights enjoyed by man anywhere on the earth-- the right to speak his mind freely, to write and to publish what one pleases, .. 2 - the right to assembly peaceably, and to petition the government or those in authority for a redress of any wrong, real or imaginary. And this calls to mind a case which came to my attention shortly after the September crisis in Little Rock in 1957. Two students in a large school in Illinois petitioned the school authorities for segregated classes. The two students circulated the petition, which a number of other students signed. Whether this was for a prank, or whether it was a sincere expression of those students, matters not. As a result of their actions, they were immediately suspended from school, they were arrested by the authorities, charges placed against them, and they were threatened by the Judge on the bench, when they appeared before him, of even further reprisals, should they give countenance to any such activity in the future. Of course, we know that the courts, time and again, and very often quite recently, have upheld the right of a citizen of this nation to be a Communist and to advocate not just the overthrow of the government, but the overthrow by violent means, which could mean only armed rebellion and revolution. Several states sought to prohibit such activity. The states did not seek to go as far as to prohibit a person from being a Communist, because you cannot do so without infringing the right of belief. The states did not seek to stop these people from advocating the overthrow of the government, so long as it was by peaceable means. What the states sought to do was to prohibit the advocacy of the violent overthrow of the government. All these laws have been stricken down by the United States Supreme Court, and it has taken all jurisdiction from the States to prohibit or control subversion within its borders. What a strange contrast this is in comparison to what happened to the two students in a Northern city who circulated a petition advocating something in which they may have sincerely believed! Were they permitted to exercise the same right of belief and the same right of advocacy as has been time and - 3 .. again guaranteed, even to the Communists within our borders ? I submit that this is a fact which should cause Americans everywhere to pause and consider the situation as it exists today. It seems that sometimes, in the name of freedom, we are about to destroy certain of our freedoms. Amendment 2 to the Constitution reads as follows: ”RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. ------ A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. ” The rights guaranteed in this Amendment have been pretty well observed throughout history in this nation. As this Amendment is interpreted in modern times, the right of a state to have its own armed forces, for its own safety and security and the security of its peOple, is not to be abridged by any action of the federal government. Let's see how this checks out with the affair in Little Rock in September, 1957. As you know, the Commander-in-Chief of the militia of any state is its duly elected and qualified Chief Executive. As Governor of Arkansas, I was the Commander-in-Chief of the National Guard, sometimes known as the State Militia. It is true that the National Guard forces are supported, to a great extent, by federal funds, but these federal funds came first from the people of the states themselves, and this support of the state forces with federal funds makes the various state military units ready for service to the nation in time of war. Up until September, 1957, never before in the history of the nation had the National Guard forces been federalized in order to deprive the state of their services. We were not at war at that time, and, so far as we know, there was no greater threat of war then than had existed for some years previous to that time, or has existed since that time. Never before in the history of the nation had a National Guard been federalized without the consent of its Commander ~in—Chi‘efl the Governor. _ 4 _ It is provided by the laws of the nation, the federal statutes, that National Guard units shall be federalized through orders of the Governor. In the affair of September, 1957, the telegram from the Secretary of Defense to the Governor, myself, with copies to the Lieutenant Governor and the Adjutant General, stated as follows: ”These orders to be transmitted through you, as Governor, " ------- meaning that the Governor was to transmit the order to federalize the Guard. Since the act was clearly in violation of the Constitution and illegal in every respect, I declined to transmit the order of federalization. General Walker, who had been in Little Rock for some time, and who had been apprehended by members of the State Police while he was surveying the situation at Central High School some days before the troops were ordered out, contacted the Adjutant General, my appointee as Commander of the Guard. The Adjutant General was told by General Walker to issue the order of federalization to the Guard. He declined until he could have a conference with me, the Governor, who, after all, is his Commander-in-Chief. Here is what General Sherman T. Clinger, the Adjutant General, was told: ”If you do not transmit the order, then we will go to the next in command. If he does not transmit the order, then we will go to the next in command. And we will continue this way down the chain of command, until we have found someone who will transmit the order of federalization. ” Therefore, it is conceivable that a Private First Class, or even a Private in the ranks, could have issued an order to federalize the entire National Guard forces of Arkansas, composed of some 10, 600 men and officers. One must reach the inevitable conclusion that the illegal use of federal troops in Little Rock, and the federalization of the Guard by the methods used, was clearly an infringement of the rights guaranteed to the states by Amendment 2 to the Bill of Rights. Amendment 3 reads as follows: "QUARTERING SOLDIERS. ---No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." .. 5 .. The sending of 1200 federal troops of the lOlst Airbourne Division to Little Rock to occupy any place they saw fit, seems to me to be clearly an infringement of the rights guaranteed to the states by this Amendment to the Constitution. It is certainly true that the federal troops not only quartered themselves in state property, but also they encamped upon and occupied the school grounds in Little Rock which were supported by state and local monies. They chased people at bayonet point from sidewalks, from their own laws, and from their own houses . One man, standing on his front lawn, was herded down the street and forced to leave the area, although he was protesting all the time that that was his house and his own property-~and he did not succeed in getting back to his own home until several hours later. Amendment 4 reads as follows: ”UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES. ~--— The right of the peOple to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. " There were some outright violations of this Amendment in the affair at Little Rock, and there were some instances which, if they were not violations, bordered very closely on such. I think the case of the two school girls who were apprehended by federal agents and were taken to their head- quarters and questioned for a number of hours without their parents' knowing anything of their whereabouts, borders very closely upon what this Amendment terms as “unreasonable seizure." Certainly, the seizure at bayonet point of considerable numbers of citizens may be considered a violation of this Amendment. I should also like to cite the occasion of the federal agent who, in questioning a citizen of Little Rock, made the remark to him: ”Yes, I think you people are right, and I think the Governor is right; but we have been ordered to make a case against Faubus, and that is what we are going to do. " .. 6 .. The rights guaranteed to us in this Amendment are precious, indeed. So long as this Amendment is upheld, the people of America will never fear the knock at the door in the dark hours of night, and the seizure and abduction of members of a household, taken away for questioning, for persecution and confinement, such as has occurred in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Soviet Russia, with its satellite nations, held captive behind the Iron Curtain. No greater evidence need be sought of how precious is this right to all human beings everywhere than the fact that literally thousands of people fled from the governments of Hitler and Mussolini, and thousands upon thousands flee each month from the same sort of tyranny behind the Iron and Bamboo Curtains. Amendment 5 reads as follows: ”CRIMINAL ACTIONS--PROVISIONS CONCERNING-~DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND JUST COMPENSATION CLAUSES. ~----- No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or prOperty, without due process of law; nor shall private prOperty be taken for public use, without just compensation. ” This is the Amendment so often used by the Communists and racketeers to shield themselves in their evil doings. Most constitutional authorities and people who love freedom believe that this Amendment was adopted to prevent the arrest and persecution of citizens because of their beliefs. If that be true, then does not this right apply equally to the segregationists, as well as the integrationists ? Can it not apply with equal protection to a Democrat or a Republican, as well as to the Communists who abuse this precious right so greatly ? -7- Amendment 6 reads as follows: ”RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED. ---- In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. " This Amendment sought to guarantee to each citizen accused of any wrong, the right to a public trial by an impartial jury. We have seen the partially successful efforts of the so-called Civil Rights advocates attempting to destroy or jeopardize this precious right. They were partially successful, because the right of a trial by jury has now been restricted by legislation adopted by the last session of Congress. To me, this is clearly unconstitutional, and does not conform to Amendment 6 of the Bill of Rights. Amendment 7 reads as follows: ”TRIAL BY JURY IN CIVIL CASES. --—— In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury, shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. " This pertains to the right of trial by jury in civil cases. It has always been possible by agreement of the opposing parties to dispense with the use of a jury in the trial of such matters, but, certainly, this right should be preserved. Amendment 8 reads as follows: "BAIL--PUNISHMENT. ~- Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. ” This, of course, is a right just as precious as many others- If it were possible to set an excessive bail, then honest citizens could be arrested on .. 8 .. minor charges, or even trumped-up charges, and could be confined because of the impossibility of securing proper bail. Amendment 9 reads as follows: ”RIGHTS RETAINED BY PEOPLE. —--- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This Amendment sought to make clear that the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights guaranteed to the people, that because other rights were not mentioned, it was not to be construed in any way to deny or disparage these other rights of the people. In other words, any limitation of rights or powers of the people not specifically delegated in the Constitution, are retained by the people themselves. The only legal way for the people under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to give up any right or privilege, is for them voluntarily to surrender it themselves, through their own action, or the action of their elected representatives. Therefore, the federal government does not have any authority over the people, except that specifically granted to it by the people themselves. Amendment 10 reads as follows: ”RIGHTS RESERVED TO STATES OR PEOPLE. ~-- The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states,--are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. ” After reading this Amendment, let me pose this question: Where in the Constitutiqn or any of its Amendments has any power been granted to the federal gorernmentto control or interfere in any way with the right of the states andthe people to control and manage their own schools ? Certainly, the states have not been prohibited from having integrated schools, but, by the same token, neither have the states been prohibited from operating szgregated schools. And in the case of local authority, unless a state statut‘, should govern, I would say that this right is retained by the local comm~nity, because the local community is made up of the peOple fl 7*» r. A a my“_ _ L ._._:._....,_ _ 9 _ Of course, it is claimed that the 14th Amendment forbids the maintenance and operation of segregated schools, and they seek to draw that interpretation from these words in that Amendment: ". . . . . Nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ” What laws ? Well—-state laws, of course, where federal laws do not govern, and there is no federal law governing this matter. The concluding article of this Amendment says, and I quote: ”The Congress shall have power to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article. ” You know, and I know, that Congress has 23131; passed any law relative to the maintenance and operation of the free public schools of this nation. To me, it is clear that the rights of the states and the people to maintain and operate their own schools in a manner which the people of any state may see fit, is guaranteed by the 9th and 10th Amendments in the Bill of Rights to the Constitution of the United States. J< ' J1 We should have a balanced form of government, and here we come to realize the wisdom of the founding fathers when they set up our republic and provided for the checks and balances of government—--the three divisions, equally sovereign and independent of each other, the States with equal powers, with only certain authority delegated to the federal government. We must realize that an all—powerful central government in this nation of ours can mean the same thing that an all—powerful government meant in Nazi Germany, in Fascist Italy, and at the present time in Communist Russia, China, and the satellites. We, as citizens of this great land, must fully and clearly realize that our rights and privileges to manage our own affairs are guaranteed more by local and state governments than by an all-powerful central government. If a central government becomes powerful enough to tell you what you must do, then it can become powerful enough and would be powerful enough to tell you what you must not do. And the history of centralized government reveals that it has never brought greater freedom to people over whom it ruled, -- _ ___ __ 7 7_ - A I I _ ‘ - _ ,___,,_, —* A __ - —, A A- _‘ 7‘ —— -— ‘i .. 10 _ either minorities or majorities, but has resulted in the loss of freedom, and that could mean the freedom to belong to a labor union, to bargain collectively, as well as the loss of religious and educational freedom. This has been so aptly and vividly illustrated in the centralized forms of government which we have observed within our lifetime. What I am saying to you is that we, as citizens of America, as those who enjoy religious freedom, and freedom of the press, as those who make our own laws and regulations on the local and state level, as well as the federal level~-—we must retain the right to do these things for ourselves, and not trust that they will be done by an all—powerful form of government, to whom we surrender all these rights and privileges in the hope that it will do for us what we have the right to do and should do for ourselves. What did some of our greatest men say, and what were their views about this form of government which they established and have maintained for us down to recent times ? I quote from a book, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE, by William O. Douglas, a member of the U. S. Supreme Court, and he quoted Samuel Adams as follows: ”The heart of the objection to rule by the military had been eloquently stated by Samuel Adams, in 1768, who protested against the British Army stationed in Boston: "’Let us then assert and maintain the honor—~the dignity of free citizens and place the military, where all other men are, and where they always ought and always will be placed in every free country, at the foot of the common law of the land. --—- To submit to the civil magistrate in the legal exercise of power is forever the part of a good subject; and to answer the watchmen of the town in the night, may be the part of a good citizen, as well as to afford them all necessary .. 11 _ countenance and support: But to be called to account by a common soldier, or any soldier, is a badge of slavery which none but a slave will wear. "' I now quote Justice Douglas' own words in his book: "I think that the military should be entrusted only with strictly military tasks, that all processes of government should be left in civilian hands, even in the darkest hour. ”It is a great and dangerous weakness to take the attitude that the military can solve our important problems. Yet, that is a growing trend in the Nation. ”The civil administration is the product of political processes rooted in the traditions of civil liberties and the rights of man. The military regime has a different expertise-- that of war and combat. The civil administration brings to its task all of the great traditions embodied in the Bill of Rights. The military knows only short—cuts and substitutes. ” **** We have had the military in Arkansas, and have seen its use on our citizens, even our boys and girls in the corridors of our schools. It is a thing we observed in Germany, Italy, Russia, Hungary, but did not expect in America. And I will assert that there is little difference, if any, in the use of troops, and the use of large forces of U. S. Marshals to cow and subjugate the masses of honest people. Then, what did one of the greatest of all our statesmen have to say on this subject of the rights of the people to control by the democratic processes their own affairs ? I quote for you now from the words of Thomas Jefferson. “But it is not by the consolidation, or concentration of powers, but by their distribution, that good government is said: -12... effected. Were not this great country already divided into States, that division must be made, that each might do for itself what concerns itself directly, and what it can so much better do than a distant authority. Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread. It is by this partition of cares, descending in graduation from general to particular, that the mass of human affairs may be best managed, for the good and prosperity of all. ”They (the people) are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty. After all, it is my principle that the will of the majority should prevail. " Time and again Jefferson expresses support of majority rule---- "The first principle of republicanism is that the rule of the majority is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote, as sacred as if unanimous, is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learned. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism. " 9,: :1: 9,: :{c In writing of the dangers of an all-powerful Supreme Court, Jefferson “The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body, working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step -13... like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consol- idated into one. To this I am opposed; because when all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated. ”I cannot lay down my pen without recurring to one of the subjects of my former letter, for in truth there is no danger I apprehend so much as the consolidation of our government by the noiseless, and therefore unalarming, instrumentality of the supreme court. ” N' \‘4 :1: >z< 1 r.\ ’|\ Then, finally, I quote from the writings of the Father of our Country, --- the man who had great power, the man who could have been a dictator or a king, the man who could have set up even in those distant times a centralized form of government, but gave up his power freely and willingly——-left in the hands of the people the right of self-determination through the democratic processes. And I quote from the writings of George Washington: ”If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong. let it be corrected by an. amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for, though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. " I. a a v . o- . v o 4 c I a v 1 \ n a u . '—"“ .-. ma— _ . .- in. -- —--w J . Q Ii .-..l«.‘.Ml].l-la:Il III! Infllllilllil It I 'Ilt" l l‘l'ql Jfi. 7.} x. .4" “W ICHIGQN STQTE UNIV. LIBRRRIES ||||| ||||| l 8 31293100125 91