[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.”84 Some local citizens called it a plan of continued segregation, notintegration.This approach was seen as the middle way by many citizens of LittleRock and apparently by President Eisenhower, too.The plan was not ardentlysegregationist; it was not racially progressive.Ike’s chronicle of events indi-cates for perhaps the Wrst time in public what he meant by a gradual approachto public school desegregation.Eisenhower’s words in this section of his speech indicate that the Little Rockplan is not too slow, given the district court’s ruling, and that the plan is nottoo fast, since other schools in Arkansas have begun desegregation.Eisenhoweralso suggests that the local NAACP’s legal challenge to the Little Rock plan wasan extremist move tempered by the gradual, moderate Phase Plan, which sub-sequently was upheld by the district court.However, the actual reason the lo-cal NAACP Wled suit in the 1956 case Aaron v.Cooper was to ensure the integrationof Central High School and eventually of all other public high schools in LittleRock.Local African Americans protested when Horace Mann High opened asa segregated school and objected that only a handful of children would be inte-grated into all schools.Local NAACP leaders also believed that Little Rock schoolboard oYcials would not move forward unless directed by court orders.More-over, the NAACP lost in federal court primarily because prosecuting attorneyU.Simpson Tate’s arguments focused on constitutional issues—contrary to thelocal NAACP’s strategy—instead of on the vague, limited nature of the PhasePlan or the hardships it created for black children.85 Judge John Miller ruled thatthe Phase Plan was “a prompt and reasonable start,” but the federal court didnot rule on the basis of the local NAACP’s actual complaints in the case.Ike mayhave believed the Little Rock plan to be moderate and gradual, but his impliedd w i g h t e i s e n h o w e r a g a i n s t t h e e x t r e m i s t s■89rationale that the school board’s plan was moderate and gradual because it wasupheld against the legal challenge in Aaron v.Cooper is misleading.Eisenhower’s chronicle continues by describing the frustration of the court-ordered desegregation at Little Rock.He claims that some people at CentralHigh School had interfered with the school board’s eVorts to “comply withthe law” and subsequently failed to demonstrate “proper and sensible obser-vance of the law” expected of all citizens.The president asserts that these “mis-guided persons” persisted in defying and sought to discredit the law.Eisenhower shows restraint here by not mentioning Faubus, despite his per-sonal indignation toward the governor.This passage oVers support for Ike’scontinued belief in a moderate, gradual approach to desegregation: it was onlythe “misguided persons” who frustrated that approach.And—in an interest-ing reversal of a topos later used by the opponents of civil rights directives—heclaims that many of the troublemakers were “imported into Little Rock byagitators.” Eisenhower suggests that the wise, unrebellious population of LittleRock was prepared to follow the moderate, gradual, court-sanctioned plan butwere disrupted by deviants.As we will see later, he also suggests that the mod-erate southerners of good will ultimately will prevail in the desegregation is-sue.We will also see that his focus on the law here and throughout the speechultimately frustrates his eVort to advance an argument for moderation andgradualism in school desegregation.After narrating the events leading up to Little Rock and the unfolding dramathere, Eisenhower resumes his rationale for federal intervention.He explainsthat Americans’ individual rights and freedom rest upon the certainty that thepresident “will support and ensure the carrying out of the decisions of FederalCourts,” using all the means under his power.Ike focuses on executive force(or the threat of force) rather than voluntary cooperation as the ultimate safe-guard of civil liberties.Without force, he claims, there would be anarchy and alack of security.This line of argument is consistent with the president’s earlierclaims that civil rights issues are in part a matter of the heart—and that the lawwill not change people’s hearts.One might also read Ike’s principled statementabout the relation between force and liberty to mean that the federal troops donot represent an intrusion upon states’ rights or local freedom from federalintervention but rather stand boldly as a symbol of rights and freedom.Eisenhower encourages this interpretation by then claiming that “Federaltroops are not being used to relieve local and state authorities.Nor are thetroops there for the purpose of taking over the responsibility of the SchoolBoard.” Using language similar to that of Governor Faubus’s television address,90■The Modern Presidency and Civil RightsIke claims that the maintenance of “peace and order” lies with local oYcials.The Little Rock incident, however, is a “special case” in which federal help wasrequested by the state.The president asserts that federal action is taken only in“extraordinary and compelling circumstances,” such as the “extreme situation”that was created in Little Rock.Still, Eisenhower does not explain why thissituation was more extreme than in others in which he did not intervene.Nordoes he explain why he responded to the mayor’s call for federal assistance whenearlier he had claimed that the president could intervene only upon a governor’srequest.The president does explain, however, that federal troops are in LittleRock “solely for the purpose of preventing interference with the orders of theCourt,” suggesting that they are not there to enforce desegregation or opposesegregation per se.Eisenhower completes his rationale with a single, crucial sentence: “Thischallenge [in Little Rock] must be met and with such measures as willpreserve to the people as a whole their lawfully-protected rights in a climatepermitting their free and fair exercise.” The word “climate” here merits closeattention.The president seems to suggest that the force of the federal govern-ment will preserve civil rights and create a climate suitable for their exercise.While the Wrst of these claims might be true in many circumstances, the sec-ond is uncertain [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl przylepto3.keep.pl
.”84 Some local citizens called it a plan of continued segregation, notintegration.This approach was seen as the middle way by many citizens of LittleRock and apparently by President Eisenhower, too.The plan was not ardentlysegregationist; it was not racially progressive.Ike’s chronicle of events indi-cates for perhaps the Wrst time in public what he meant by a gradual approachto public school desegregation.Eisenhower’s words in this section of his speech indicate that the Little Rockplan is not too slow, given the district court’s ruling, and that the plan is nottoo fast, since other schools in Arkansas have begun desegregation.Eisenhoweralso suggests that the local NAACP’s legal challenge to the Little Rock plan wasan extremist move tempered by the gradual, moderate Phase Plan, which sub-sequently was upheld by the district court.However, the actual reason the lo-cal NAACP Wled suit in the 1956 case Aaron v.Cooper was to ensure the integrationof Central High School and eventually of all other public high schools in LittleRock.Local African Americans protested when Horace Mann High opened asa segregated school and objected that only a handful of children would be inte-grated into all schools.Local NAACP leaders also believed that Little Rock schoolboard oYcials would not move forward unless directed by court orders.More-over, the NAACP lost in federal court primarily because prosecuting attorneyU.Simpson Tate’s arguments focused on constitutional issues—contrary to thelocal NAACP’s strategy—instead of on the vague, limited nature of the PhasePlan or the hardships it created for black children.85 Judge John Miller ruled thatthe Phase Plan was “a prompt and reasonable start,” but the federal court didnot rule on the basis of the local NAACP’s actual complaints in the case.Ike mayhave believed the Little Rock plan to be moderate and gradual, but his impliedd w i g h t e i s e n h o w e r a g a i n s t t h e e x t r e m i s t s■89rationale that the school board’s plan was moderate and gradual because it wasupheld against the legal challenge in Aaron v.Cooper is misleading.Eisenhower’s chronicle continues by describing the frustration of the court-ordered desegregation at Little Rock.He claims that some people at CentralHigh School had interfered with the school board’s eVorts to “comply withthe law” and subsequently failed to demonstrate “proper and sensible obser-vance of the law” expected of all citizens.The president asserts that these “mis-guided persons” persisted in defying and sought to discredit the law.Eisenhower shows restraint here by not mentioning Faubus, despite his per-sonal indignation toward the governor.This passage oVers support for Ike’scontinued belief in a moderate, gradual approach to desegregation: it was onlythe “misguided persons” who frustrated that approach.And—in an interest-ing reversal of a topos later used by the opponents of civil rights directives—heclaims that many of the troublemakers were “imported into Little Rock byagitators.” Eisenhower suggests that the wise, unrebellious population of LittleRock was prepared to follow the moderate, gradual, court-sanctioned plan butwere disrupted by deviants.As we will see later, he also suggests that the mod-erate southerners of good will ultimately will prevail in the desegregation is-sue.We will also see that his focus on the law here and throughout the speechultimately frustrates his eVort to advance an argument for moderation andgradualism in school desegregation.After narrating the events leading up to Little Rock and the unfolding dramathere, Eisenhower resumes his rationale for federal intervention.He explainsthat Americans’ individual rights and freedom rest upon the certainty that thepresident “will support and ensure the carrying out of the decisions of FederalCourts,” using all the means under his power.Ike focuses on executive force(or the threat of force) rather than voluntary cooperation as the ultimate safe-guard of civil liberties.Without force, he claims, there would be anarchy and alack of security.This line of argument is consistent with the president’s earlierclaims that civil rights issues are in part a matter of the heart—and that the lawwill not change people’s hearts.One might also read Ike’s principled statementabout the relation between force and liberty to mean that the federal troops donot represent an intrusion upon states’ rights or local freedom from federalintervention but rather stand boldly as a symbol of rights and freedom.Eisenhower encourages this interpretation by then claiming that “Federaltroops are not being used to relieve local and state authorities.Nor are thetroops there for the purpose of taking over the responsibility of the SchoolBoard.” Using language similar to that of Governor Faubus’s television address,90■The Modern Presidency and Civil RightsIke claims that the maintenance of “peace and order” lies with local oYcials.The Little Rock incident, however, is a “special case” in which federal help wasrequested by the state.The president asserts that federal action is taken only in“extraordinary and compelling circumstances,” such as the “extreme situation”that was created in Little Rock.Still, Eisenhower does not explain why thissituation was more extreme than in others in which he did not intervene.Nordoes he explain why he responded to the mayor’s call for federal assistance whenearlier he had claimed that the president could intervene only upon a governor’srequest.The president does explain, however, that federal troops are in LittleRock “solely for the purpose of preventing interference with the orders of theCourt,” suggesting that they are not there to enforce desegregation or opposesegregation per se.Eisenhower completes his rationale with a single, crucial sentence: “Thischallenge [in Little Rock] must be met and with such measures as willpreserve to the people as a whole their lawfully-protected rights in a climatepermitting their free and fair exercise.” The word “climate” here merits closeattention.The president seems to suggest that the force of the federal govern-ment will preserve civil rights and create a climate suitable for their exercise.While the Wrst of these claims might be true in many circumstances, the sec-ond is uncertain [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]