Newspaper Page Text
PAGE 2—SEPTEMBER 1956—SOUTHERN SCHOOL NEWS
Conventions
(Continued from Page 1)
reading of the platform and into the de
bate on the civil rights plank. The
backstage caucus, however, proved ef
fective. In rapid succession, Rep. Mc
Cormack, Platform Committee chair
man who had been given 20 minutes for
debate of the civil rights plank, yielded
two minutes to each of five spokesmen
advocating the civil rights amendments
—Sen. Herbert Lehman of New York,
Gov. G. Mennen Williams of Michigan,
Richard Richards of California, Sen.
Paul Douglas of Illinois, and Rep. John
E. Moss of California.
1956 PLANK STRONGER?
Sen. Joseph O’Mahoney of Wyoming
and former Gov. Paul Devers of Mas
sachusetts spoke in behalf of the plat
form as presented; Rep. McCormack
took three minutes to explain wherein
the 1956 civil rights plank was stronger
than any previous plank.
And then former President Harry
Truman spoke from his box in support
of the majority position on civil rights.
While the hall still echoed with the
ovation given the former President,
Chairman Rayburn put the issue to the
vote. In a voice vote the minority report
was defeated and the majority report
was approved. There was no demand
for a roll call vote.
Ignoring the wildly waving Georgia
standard, as the delegates sought rec
ognition to record their vote against the
platform, Chairman Rayburn introduced
the next speaker. While Rep. William
Dawson of Illinois spoke of party unity,
the vast amphitheater murmured and
rustled as weary delegates and specta
tors turned toward hotels and thoughts
of the nominating session the following
afternoon.
The civil rights fight had fizzled out.
GOP FIGHT THREATENS
At San Francisco, a floor fight also
threatened as two Virginia delegates
prepared to bring the issue to the floor
in an effort to modify the school segre
gation section. The threat evaporated,
however, as the platform was adopted
with the reading only of a “statement
of principle” and not the detailed cam
paign document.
Delegates from 11 southern states
went into the Democratic convention
professedly determined to remain in the
party and to work quietly for a plat
form “acceptable” to their region. This
had been agreed upon early in August
at the Atlanta “unity” meeting. Con
vention strategy worked out at that
meeting evolved around a nebulous plan
for a show of restraint in public while
working vigorously in committee for a
compromise plank—to be voted against
when the issue reached he floor. The
southerners banked heavily on the con
viction that the national party, feeling
it has a good chance of electing a Demo
cratic President this year, would like
wise seek an accommodation to avoid
a regional defection.
Thus, southern spokesmen reasoned,
any unity-wracking floor fight to amend
the plank would be brought by non
southerners who then would be out of
sympathy with the party majority.
WHITE HOUSE INTERVENES
At San Francisco, the GOP plank
likewise was hammered out in commit
tee. Reportedly, the White House forced
a softening of the original draft by Sen.
Everett Dirksen of Illinois. The reason
for this intervention was a subject of
debate. Alabama’s GOP chairman,
Claude O. Vardeman, and others said
it was to give the two Republican sena
torial candidates in Kentucky a better
chance and to protect the GOP con
gressmen in Virginia, North Carolina,
Florida and Texas.
However, John Sherman Cooper,
GOP senatorial candidate against for
mer Gov. Lawrence Wetherby in Ken
tucky, summoned a press conference to
deny any complicity in this softening.
He said he liked the civil rights plank
and wouldn’t have been displeased with
a stronger one.
‘MATTER OF PRINCIPLE’
And ADA Chairman Rauh, in an in
terview with the Montgomery Adver
tiser, rejected the idea of the White
House softening as ransom paid for the
congressional hostages held in the
South, Editor Hall reported. He quoted
Rauh as saying, “I’m a Democrat, but
I rate Eisenhower higher on principle
than this. This was a matter of prin
ciple. He didn't want a plank (like
Dirksen’s) that he simply was not go
ing to comply with.”
Whatever the reason behind it, the
“toning down” of the plank in commit
tee prevented argument of the issue on
the floor.
This was something Democratic lead
ership could not manage, despite their
efforts before and during the conven
tion. From the beginning of the civil
rights hearings of the Democratic Plat
form Committee through the final voice
Democratic
Specifically with regard to the
school seareaation-deseqreaation
question, the 430-word Democrat
ic platform plank on civil rights
said:
“Recent decisions of the Su
preme Court of the United States
relating to segregation in public-
ly-supnorted schools and else
where have brought consequences
of vast importance to our nation
as a whole and especially to com
munities directly affected. We re
ject all proposals for the use of
force to interfere with the orderly
determination of these matters by
the courts.
“The Democratic party emphat
ically reaffirms its support of the
historic principle that ours is a
government of laws and not of
men; it recognizes the Supreme
Court of the United States as one
of the three constitutional and
coordinated branches of the fed
eral government, superior to and
separate from any political party,
the decisions of which are part
of the law of the land..
vote on the topic, party machinery was
geared to the preservation of party
unity. In the hearings, which opened
Friday (Aug. 10), efforts of Rep. John
McCormack, chairman, to keep the
peace were abetted by southern com
mittee members who refrained from
quizzing witnesses advocating strong
civil rights positions. Similarly, non
southern committee members who re
frained from cross-examining South
Carolina Gov. George Bell Timmerman,
the only witness for the segregationist
viewpoint, contributed to these efforts.
Gov. Timmerman argued against the
contention “that in order to win the
Presidential election the Democratic
party must capture the Negro vote in
key states with strong civil rights and
pro-integration planks in its platform.”
He cited the official actions of nine
southern states and of southern mem
bers of Congress as representative of the
“attitudes of the people” and asserted:
STRONG CANDIDATE URGED
“For the Democrats to win, we must
have a strong platform and a strong
candidate, pledging to protect the rights
of the states and the freedom of the
people, pledging local control of local
institutions. We must have a strong
platform and a strong candidate con
demning the unconstitutional usurpa
tion of authority by the central govern
ment.”
Among the 20-odd advocates of strong
civil rights programs who testified
were:
George Meany, president of the AF
of L-CIO: “Efforts of the states to
thwart the Supreme Court decisions [on
school desegregation] must not go un
challenged.” He also asked for specific
platform endorsement of the decisions
and said labor would consider anything
less than this a dodge of responsibility.
Sen. Herbert Lehman of New York:
“The Democratic party can do no other
than to embrace that decision [declar
ing school segregation unconstitutional].
Those who speak of reversing that de
cision by so-called lawful means know
that they are speaking only words. They
speak in vain. They try only to gain
time ... The Democratic party, however,
cannot be a party to these efforts.”
Joseph L. Rauh Jr., chairman of
Americans for Democratic Action: “We
cannot overlook the fact that there are
elements in some parts of the country
who will seek to resist integration
through personal and economic terror
... The Democratic platform must, if it
is to meet the needs of the time, pledge
the party to meet defiance with law and
to bring about integration with deliber
ate speed.”
‘OPEN REBELLION’
Roy Wilkins, executive secretary of
the National Association for the Ad
vancement of Colored People: “A hard
core of eight states is in open rebellion
against the Supreme Court’s anti-seg
regation ruling. These states are defy
ing the court and the Constitution . . .
They have taken—as state governments
—punitive action against persons and
organizations who have urged compli
ance. They have encouraged widespread
disrespect for our Constitution, our Su
preme Court and for law and order.”
In many cases, such as in the testi
mony of labor leaders, civil rights pro
posals were presented in connection
with broader programs touching on
topics ranging from foreign affairs to
industrial health and safety. Almost in
variably the civil rights proposals were
coupled with requests for party en
dorsement of changes in Senate Rule 22,
under which filibusters are possible,
and in the seniority system of selecting
congressional committee chairmen to
assure committee heads in sympathy
with party policies.
Except for Emanuel Celler, New York
congressman, no member of the Plat
form Committee took issue with the re
marks made Saturday by four south
erners refuting, in part, the “imputa
tions” of the previous day. On this
occasion, Rep. Celler, despite Chairman
McCormack’s effort to ignore his de
mand for the floor, insisted on rebutting
remarks made by Mississippi Gov.
James P. Coleman, also a member of
the committee. Other committee mem
bers who spoke out included Fred J.
Cassibry of Louisiana and Judge George
Wallace of Alabama and Sen Sam
Ervin of North Carolina.
The session passed, however, without
any peace-shaking exchanges.
Sunday, Aug. 12, the issue moved
into the drafting subcommittee, which
southerners described as “eminently
satisfactory.” Among its 16 members it
numbered five southerners including
John S. Battle of Virginia, Gov. Cole
man of Mississippi, Sen. Ervin of North
Carolina, Brooks Hayes of Arkansas and
Vann H. Kennedy of Texas.
MINORITY REPORT
Congressman Celler of New York re
portedly was alone in seeking to have
the drafting subcommittee accept provi
sions for the plank which eventually
were embodied in the minority report
that set off the floor fight. Siened bv 14
members of the 108-member Committee
on Platforms and Resolutions, the mi
nority report sought to insert in the
reference to the Supreme Court cases
settled May 17, 1954 a “pledge to carry
out these decisions.” The suggested
amendment also would have added this
sentence to the plank:
“We also favor legislation to perfect
existing federal civil rights statutes and
to strengthen the administrative ma
chinery for the protection of civil
rights.”
SOUTHERNERS SUM UP
While the majority of the delegates
apparently were satisfied with the civil
rights platform, neither the southerners
nor the northern liberals were. Gov.
Luther Hodges of North Carolina said
of the platform, “We are reasonably
happy, but not over every detail.” Sen.
John J. Sparkman of Alabama asserted
simply, “It could have been worse.”
Gov. Timmerman of South Carolina
said 35 of his state’s 40-member dele
gation signed a statement opposing the
platform. He added, “From the south
ern point of view, the civil rights plank
was better than many thought we could
get, though we would have liked for the
platform to have given some recognition
to fundamental constitutional princi
ples.”
Said former Gov. Battle of Virginia,
member of the drafting subcommittee
which had hammered out the compro
mise phraseology of the civil rights
plank: “We’re not satisfied with it, but
it was the best we could do. It is ac
ceptable because it doesn’t tie down a
thing.”
On the other side, Edward Williams,
vice chairman of the District of Colum
bia delegation, said. “We don’t consider
[the civil rights plank] satisfactory at
all. We did fight for a much stronger
plank and we did sign the minority
report.”
He added that the minority report
embodied everything the proponents of
stronger civil rights programs wanted
and was not considered a compromise
proposal.
Wrenched feelings left by the civil
rights struggle carried over into the
nominating sessions.
FAVORITE SONS PUT UP
The attitude of some southern dele
gations was demonstrated when three
states—Georgia, South Carolina and
Virginia—nominated favorite sons, us
ing the time given them for nominating
speeches to make pleas for understand
ing of southern racial mores and pro
testing the Supreme Court’s usurpation
of power.
In the balloting, however, six of the
11 states which participated in the At
lanta “unity” meeting gave most or all
of their convention votes to Adlai Stev
enson on the first ballot. They were
Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana,
North Carolina and Tennessee. Georgia
stuck by its favorite son, Congressman
James C. Davis; Virginia cast its full
vote for former Gov. Battle of that
state; and South Carolina gave its 20
votes to Gov. Timmerman. Mississippi
and Texas votes went to Sen. Lyndon
Johnson.
In the vice presidential balloting, Sen.
Estes Kefauver of Tennessee failed to
draw the majority of the votes either
on first or second roll calls of Alabama,
Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Missis
sippi, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Texas or Virginia. This was generally
interpreted as southern dissatisfaction
with his position on school segregation.
—Patrick McCauley.
Republican
In their 500-word civil rights
plank, the Republicans said with
specific reference to the school
segregation-desegregation ques
tion:
“The Republican party accepts
the decision of the United States
Supreme Court that racial dis
crimination in publicly-sup
ported schools must be progres
sively eliminated. We concur in
the conclusion of the Supreme
Court that its decision directing
school desegregation should be
accomplished with ‘all deliberate
speed’ locally through federal
district courts. The implementa
tion order of the Supreme Court
recognizes the complex and
acutely emotional problems cre
ated by its decision in certain
sections of our country where
racial patterns have been devel
oped in accordance with prior
and long-standing decisions of
the same tribunal.
“We believe that true progress
can be attained through intelli
gent study, understanding, edu
cation and good will. Use of force
or violence by any group or
agency will tend only to worsen
the many problems inherent in
the situation. This progress must
be encouraged and the work of
the courts supported in every le
gal manner by all branches of the
federal government to the end
that the constitutional ideal of
equality before the law, regard
less of race, creed or color, will
be steadily achieved.”
Private Schools
(Continued from Page 1)
Lyndon: Enrollment same, with usual
waiting fist. Two high school students
from one desegregating Kentucky
county from which K.M.I. has drawn
no students for several years say flatly
they are enrolling in order to avoid
desegregated public schools; from
Louisville, however, K.M.I. is enroll
ing two fewer students than last year.
Millersburg Military Institute, Millers-
burg: Enrollment up 35 over last year;
principal causes are “crowded condi
tions of the public schools and rising
prosperity.” Sayre School for Girls,
Lexington: Enrollment up 60 since last
year; sees no indication that desegrega
tion responsible and believes it due to
crowded conditions of public schools,
greater prosperity.
NORTH CAROLINA—Pineland Col
lege and Edwards Military Institute,
Salemburg: Enrollment up “markedly”
in past two years with increase noted
especially in grades beyond grammar
school level; “segregation has had an
effect.” Oak Ridge Military Institute,
Oak Ridge: “Last year we had to turn
away boys” whereas prior to that time
the school rarely reached its 200-stu
dent capacity; segregation “may have
had some effect” but believes decisive
factor is that post-war baby crop is
coming of prep- and high school-age.
LOUISIANA—Southfield School,
Shreveport: Enrollment and applica
tions “just normal” for coming term; no
abnormal rush of applicants, not even
at the time of the first Supreme Court
ruling. Ridgewood Prep, Metairie: En
rollment at all-time high, attributed to
“integration threat”—in Catholic paro
chial schools more than in public
schools. New Orleans Academy. Cur
rent waiting list about normal, but reg-
istrations-in-advance are growing; be
lieves some of this is because of con
cern over integration and some because
the school has more graduates reaching
parenthood age and registering sons at
birth.
MISSOURI—Mary Institute, St.
Louis: Enrollment up 45 since 1954;
believes increase is not in any way due
to public school integration in area;
main factors in increase are higher in
come plus growing awareness of short
comings of public schools, plus rise in
school population generally. Country
Day School, St. Louis: Rate of growth
(up 10 this year) about the same for
past five or six years; no discernible in
crease in applications as a result of in
tegration in area but some at the school
think a greater number of applications
due to integration will be visible in
the future. Barstow School (girls),
Kansas City: Enrollment up 84 since
1954; believes public school integration
has had very little effect and knows of
no single case of a student enrolled
there to escape contact with Negroes.
Pembroke Country Day School, Kansas
City: Enrollment up 70 in last two years
under plan which eliminated boarding
students; believes public school inte
gration of no effect, and up to now has
had none; increase attributed to baby
boom; 32 applications this year for 19
kindergarten vacancies.
OKLAHOMA—Casady School, Okla
homa City: Enrollment up, but attrib
uted merely to natural growth of the
10-year-old institution.
WEST VIRGINIA—Linsley Military
Institute, Wheeling: School running at
capacity with enrollment up since de
segregation rulings but increase attrib
uted to “better income in the Northern
Panhandle area served by the school
and a parental desire for more individ
ual attention for children.” Greenbrier
Military Institute, Lewisburg: Enroll
ment up 139 since 1954; believes better
income of area is reason and that slump
in coal mining (which ran from about
mid-1953 until early in 1955) had a
depressing effect on enrollment—fam
ilies in the coal fields who normally
would have sent children to Greenbrier
sent them to public schools instead.
Greenbrier Women’s College, Lewis
burg: Enrollment up; doesn’t believe
desegregation has had a marked effect
because college caters to northern stu
dents.
GEORGIA—Riverside, Gainesville:
Full so many years that increase is not
especially noticeable; a few parents in
past mentioned “threat” of integration;
prosperity plus many children in
school’s age bracket accounts for con
tinued high enrollment. Westminster
Boys School, Atlanta: Now crowded at
lower grade level but not in upper
grades; heard no parent mention inte
gration as reason for enrolling children.
Georgia Military, Milledgeville: Com
fortably full last year, all students it
can hold this year; believes attributable
to fact more children are going to school
and public schools are filled.
VIRGINIA—Virginia Episcopal School
for Boys, Lynchburg: Operating at ca
pacity; enrollment completed little ear
lier this year than last year; no evi
dence that segregation a factor. Epis
copal High School for Boys, Alexan
dria: 250 capacity, could triple if had
room; doesn’t believe segregation a real
factor. Woodberry Forrest School,
Orange County: Always up to 250 ca
pacity; believes few more inquiries re
ceived but attributes to normal increase.
Fork Union Military Academy, Fluvan
na County: Inquiries this year much
heavier but believes due to overcrowd
ed public schools; doesn’t believe race
problem has had any effect yet, that
most parents seem to be watching and
waiting for developments. St. Anne’s
(girls), Charlottesville: Will have 175
students this year, 10 more than last
year; just “more children” than before
explains increase in inquiries. Collegi
ate School, Richmond: Increased ap
plications normal, no relation to segre
gation.
MARYLAND—Gilman School, Balti
more: Full, with usual waiting list; be
lieves desegregation has had no appre
ciable effect. McDonough School (mil
itary), Baltimore: Full, waiting list for
past six or seven years and nothing sig
nificant that can be tied to desegrega
tion; believes some parents may be try
ing to keep children out of mixed sit
uations, but not enough to be consid
ered a trend. Samuel Ready School
(girls), Baltimore: Enrollment up but
knows of only one parent in last two
years who said that integration in pub
lic schools was reason for application;
reason most parents give for enrollment
is wanting to shift children from over
crowded public schools.
TENNESSEE—Miss Hutchison’s
School, Memphis: Long waiting list,
longer this year than in past; receives
mostly children of former students and
integration question does not apply-
Castle Heights Military Academy, Leb
anon: Operating at capacity for num
ber of years and full for the coming
year for several weeks; doesn’t believe
segregation issue has entered into it
very much. The Baylor School, Chatta
nooga: Had to turn away more anpli-
cants this year than in previous years
because just beginning to feel increase
in birth rate at high school level; be
lieves integration has only a slight
bearing. Tennessee Military Institute,
Sweetwater: Increase of a little over 10
per cent; believes due to increase id
population, with integration not plaving
a strong factor—though probably will to
years to come. Webb School, Bell
Buckle: Very little increase in apoli"
cants, full since middle of May; be
lieves attributable to increasing num
ber of children of school age and
crowded conditions in public schools:
does not think segregation issue has
anything to do with it. The McCallk
School, Chattanooga: Enrollment (fuH
again this year) growing steadily f° f
past 10 years; believes integration en
ters into it probably a little; only on e
or two people this year gave any ide a
this was the problem. Columbia Mil
itary Academy. Columbia: Operating a
capacity since 1940, with boys on wait'
ing list since Aug. 1; filled up this y eaf
about a week earlier; believes two rea
sons for this, overcrowded publi
schools and the segregation issue. Mon
gomery Bell Academy, Nashville: E®
rollment about the same, waiting
up for years to come.