The landmark 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education mandated an end to public school segregation in the United States. Popular reaction throughout the South, especially, was predictable. One very public response to the decision was the Southern Manifesto, read before Congress, preserved in the Congressional Record, and published in newspapers throughout the country. One hundred southern senators and representatives signed the Manifesto, which detailed their objection to the Brown decision.
Declaration of Constitutional Principles
The unwarranted decision of the Supreme Court in the public school cases is now bearing the fruit always produced when men substitute naked power for established law.
The Founding Fathers gave us a Constitution of checks and balances because they realized the inescapable lesson of history that no man or group of men can be safely entrusted with unlimited power. They framed this Constitution with its provisions for change by amendment in order to secure the fundamentals of government against the dangers of temporary popular passion or the personal predilections of public officeholders.
We regard the decision of the Supreme Court in the school cases as a clear abuse of judicial power. It climaxes a trend in the Federal judiciary undertaking to legislate, in derogation of the authority of Congress, and to encroach upon the reserved rights of the States and the people.
The original Constitution does not mention education. Neither does the 14th amendment nor any other amendment. The debates preceding the submission of the 14th amendment clearly show that there was no intent that it should affect the systems of education maintained by the States.
The very Congress which proposed the amendment subsequently provided for segregated schools in the District of Columbia.
When the amendment was adopted, in 1868, there were 37 States of the Union. Every one of the 26 States that had any substantial racial differences among its people either approved the operation of segregated schools already in existence or subsequently established such schools by action of the same lawmaking body which considered the 14th amendment.
As admitted by the Supreme Court in the public school case (Brown v. Board of Education), the doctrine of separate but equal schools "apparently originated in Roberts v. City of Boston . . . (1849), upholding school segregation against attack as being violative of a State constitutional guarantee of equality." This constitutional doctrine began in the North--not in the South, and it was followed not only in Massachusetts, but in Connecticut, New York, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and other northern States until they, exercising their rights as States through the constitutional processes of local self-government, changed their school systems.
In the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, in 1896, the Supreme Court expressly declared that under the 14th amendment no person was denied any of his rights if the States provided separate but equal public facilities. This decision has been followed in many other cases. It is notable that the Supreme Court, speaking through Chief Justice Taft, a former President of the United States, unanimously declared, in 1927, in Lum v. Rice, that the "separate but equal" principle is "within the discretion of the State in regulating its public schools and does not conflict with the 14th amendment."
This interpretation, restated time and again, became a part of the life of the people of many of the States and confirmed their habits, customs, traditions, and way of life. It is founded on elemental humanity and commonsense, for parents should not be deprived by Government of the right to direct the lives and education of their own children.
Though there has been no constitutional amendment or act of Congress changing this established legal principle almost a century old, the Supreme Court of the United States, with no legal basis for such action, undertook to exercise their naked judicial power and substituted their personal political and social ideas for the established law of the land.
This unwarranted exercise of power by the Court, contrary to the Constitution, is creating chaos and confusion in the States principally affected. It is destroying the amicable relations between the white and Negro races that have been created through 90 years of patient effort by the good people of both races. It has planted hatred and suspicion where there has been heretofore friendship and understanding.
Without regard to the consent of the governed, outside agitators are threatening immediate and revolutionary changes in our public-school systems. If done, this is certain to destroy the system of public education in some of the States.
With the gravest concern for the explosive and dangerous condition created by this decision and inflamed by outside meddlers:
We reaffirm our reliance on the Constitution as the fundamental law of the land.
We decry the Supreme Court's encroachments on rights reserved to the States and to the people, contrary to established law and to the Constitution.
We commend the motives of those States which have declared the intention to resist forced integration by any lawful means.
We appeal to the States and people who are not directly affected by these decisions to consider the constitutional principles involved against the time when they, too, on issues vital to them, may be the victims of judicial encroachment.
Even though we constitute a minority in the present Congress, we have full faith that a majority of the American people believe in the dual system of Government which has enabled us to achieve our greatness and will in time demand that the reserved rights of the State and of the people be made secure against judicial usurpation.
We pledge ourselves to use all lawful means to bring about a reversal of this decision which is contrary to the Constitution and to prevent the use of force in its implementation.
In this trying period, as we all seek to right this wrong, we appeal to our people not to be provoked by the agitators and troublemakers invading our States and to scrupulously refrain from disorders and lawless acts.
Signed by:
[Nineteen] Members of the United States Senate
[Eighty-one] Members of the United States House of Representatives
Document Analysis
What is the basis of the opposition to the Brown decision as expressed in this document?
According to the manifesto, whose power would the federal government usurp by implementing Brown?
What role did habits, customs, and traditions play in the arguments presented in the document?
What is the basis of the opposition to the Brown decision as expressed in this document?
The basis for the opposition is basically racism.They do not want to mix the blacks futher with their white children and do not want their childrens education to be sullied by the introduction of black children in un-segregated schools.
According to the manifesto, whose power would the federal government usurp by implementing Brown?
It would usurp the states rights by not allowing them to decide for themselves what kind of education system they would have.It was developed by the northern states and not by the southern states and thus they are imposing their ideas on the south and not giving them a choice like they should be.
What role did habits, customs, and traditions play in the arguments presented in the document?
Well the south basically always has a habit of arguing against something if they feel it violates states rights and again in this document they oppose the use of federal power to control their lives.The south has also basically been racist/prejudice since each state was conceived and thus they are acting against black integration into their white school systems.They also believed back in the day that all the states had to agree on the changes made in the constitution because all the states agreed on it together and thus they believe that this decision is putting forth something not allowed or stated in the constitution.
1. What is the basis of the opposition to the Brown decision as expressed in this document?
The senators of the southern states felt that the Supreme Court decided to exercise their naked power and substituted their personal political and social ideas for the established law of the land. These southern senators felt the Supreme Court wasnt abiding by the some of the laws of the Constitution.
2. According to the manifesto, whose power would the federal government usurp by implementing Brown?
The federal government would be usurping the powers of the Judiciary branch of government. The manifesto states that by implementing Brown, the judiciary branch would not be allowed to do the job it is supposed to do and have the last say in the issue.
3. What role did habits, customs, and traditions play in the arguments presented in the document?
The writers behind this document felt that by implementing Brown, it has destroyed the amicable relations between the white and negro races that have been created through 90 years of patient effort by the good people of both races. These habits of segregation have become an American way of life in the minds of many of these southern senators and should not me changed around and messed up. Parents, not the Government should be able to determine where and how they want their children to receive an education and in the presence of whom they should receive it.
What is the basis for the opposition to the Brown decision as expressed in this document?
The basis for the opposition to the Brown decision is the belief that the Supreme Court decision in this case is a clear abuse of the judicial power.It is believed that the Supreme court overruled the authority and the previous decision of Congress in regards to segregated schools and they took away the rights of the States and the people to maintain schools segregation.
According to the manifesto, whose power would the federal government usurp by implementing Brown?
According to the manifesto the federal government would be usurping the power of the States and the people to decide for themselves how their school system should be designed.The manifesto states that this right was given to the State and the people to under the Constitution.
What role did habits, customs and traditions play in the arguments presented in the document?
In this document it was argued that separate but equal has been the status quo for years in this country and that it does not conflict with the 14th amendment.It was stated that this interpretation in Lum v Rice was restated over and over so that it became a part of life for the people of many states and that this confirmed their habits, customs, traditions and way of life.
Document AnalysisWhat is the basis of the opposition to the Brown decision as expressed in this document? The basis of the opposition to the Brown decision is basically based on fear. The thought of changing. Fear is the root of racism, and discrimination. These law making men feared little black children. Why you ask? These people like be in charge of everything and they did not want to things to change. Who know where the world would be if blacks were educated was the mindset of those people.According to the manifesto, whose power would the federal government usurp by implementing Brown? The power of the judiciary system would be usurped if Brown was implemented. For example stated in the text Even though we constitute a minority in the present Congress, we have full faith that a majority of the American people believe in the dual system of Government which has enabled us to achieve our greatness and will in time demand that the reserved rights of the State and of the people be made secure against judicial usurpation.
What role did habits, customs, and traditions play in the arguments presented in the document?
Habits, customs, and traditions played a huge role in this document. The people who had all the power such as representatives did not want change. They wanted to things to stay as they were and are. Blacks and other minority groups oppressed while the white race thrived. They wanted to have power and they had a superior way of looking at things.
1. What is the basis of the opposition to the Brown decision as expressed in this document? - The main opposition to the Brown decision was the pure fact that people, especially those whom this would directly impact, did not want to desegregate their schools. Many of these people often felt that the Plessy decision was fair enough and that blacks and whites should remain in separate facilities. They also felt that this was an abuse of judicial power.
2. According to the manifesto, whose power would the federal government usurp by implementing Brown? - The manifesto states that the federal government would be usurping the rights of the people and Congress through their implementation of the Brown decision.
3. What role did habits, customs, and traditions play in the arguments presented in the document? - The arguments of the manifesto were of all kinds but they were all prejudiced. People had been so used to the Plessy decision that it was all that they had known for their era. These people were not accustomed to sharing public facilities with minorities and werent going to take the decision to do so lightly.
What is the basis of the opposition to the Brown decision as expressed in this document?
The writers of the document base their opposition on the Supreme Courts unchecked and naked power in making the unwarranted decision of Brown vs. Board of Education. They claim that the Supreme Court is usurping power by integrating schools and undermining a tradition of segregated schools that is being threatened by northern legislatures.
According to the manifesto, whose power would the federal government usurp by implementing Brown?
According to the document the will and power of the people would be usurped and overlooked if the Brown case were to be implemented.
What role did habits, customs, and traditions play in the arguments presented in the document?
The writers of the southern manifesto touched on the issue of culture and tradition in the south by saying that the constitution said nothing about public education and therefore the laws protecting segregation became a part of the life of the people of many of the States and confirmed their habits, customs, traditions, and way of life. They also argue that parents should not be deprived by Government of the right to direct the lives and education of their own children. by being forced into intergraded schools.
1. This documents main stance is that the Brown decision interferes with a states right of self determination. Its advocates hold that the Supreme Court encroached upon their rights, and in this instance, are being unconstitutional. 2. The Manifesto holds that implementation of the Brown decision would usurp the power of the local government.
3. Well, the Manifesto and its supporters paint the picture of a very harmonious south. White and Negro relations are said to be amicable, and there is a healthy, separate but equal policy governing their society. To them, this balance would only be disturbed by implementing Brown. Their culture, so dear and integral to their being, would be turned upside down. And the negro would move closer to equality. This was their greatest fear.
