Ventajas de la Norma ISO 21500

As outlined in the previous chapter, the frame cluster referred to as Struggle for the

Preservation of Freedom is structured around the notion of white liberty through the preservation

of a racially segregated social order. The ‘struggle’ itself is defined by segregationist efforts to push back against government violations of white peoples’ constitutional prerogatives to have freedom of choice in their rejection of racial integration and racial equality; to be free from federal coercion to interact with those seen as unfit to enjoy the full benefits of democracy. The federal government, as segregationists saw it, was overstepping its authority, violating

sovereignty of the states, depriving individual liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and disrespecting the personal freedoms of the South’s citizens in particular. Citizenship in the minds of segregationists, of course, was to be understood in terms of whiteness. Under the guise of supposedly protecting the civil rights of the Negro, the federal government, as segregationists believed, was in fact depriving the rights of white citizens and actually jeopardizing the well- being of the Negro by granting to him underserved privileges.

A documentary called, “Oxford U.S.A.,” that aired on the Citizens’ Council Forum is a rather clever effort, against what was perceived to be unfair media portrayals, to portray as innocent victims, southern white opponents of federal government efforts to enforce civil rights reforms through the use of U.S. marshals. From the perspective of those opposed to black student James Meredith’s entry into the University of Mississippi, federal government military power

141

was being used to crush freedom by privileging the so-called rights of one single Negro over that of the majority of decent, law-abiding, goodhearted Americans who were only exercising their God-given constitutional right to protect the racial integrity of the Republic which the Founders handed down to them. Images shown in the video include the movement of federal military machinery and troops into the sovereign spaces of the South by the thousands, according to the narrator, “in full battle dress” creating “the conditions of war.” This was an “invasion” on the part of the federal government, violating the Constitution, as U.S. marshals subjected local residents to “unreasonable searches and seizures,” checking automobiles presumably for firearms.100

A white student recounted his witnessing of one particular girl whose car was searched and whose personal belongings, including underwear in a suitcase, was being rummaged through by “a Negro soldier,” and who held up the personal items of this female individual in a joking and humorous manner together with other soldiers. There were also two deaths reported, as one other student recounted, which the narrator contextualized as a violation of the amendment which protects against loss of life, liberty and property without due process of law. Also mentioned in the narration are students who were held as prisoners by federal marshals but were not actually charged with or arrested for anything, providing another example of the violation of people’s freedoms there. Another student recounted how the troops interrogated him and tried to get him to bear false witness against other students concerning their involvement in a riot.101

Such images of young college students recounting their traumatic experiences under the abuse of U.S. military personnel at the service of Negro interests, one can imagine, did nothing but inflame the already impassioned southern white residents who identified with the

segregationist cause against civil rights enforcement. As the narrator explained following the recounting of events by students, “people throughout the nation were enraged by the action,” and, “many of them traveled to Oxford to protest personally the unwarranted action.” This included Major General Edwin A. Walker who, as the narrator explained, was now a civilian and wanted

142

to be on the segregationist side, and was arrested by federal officials, later to be released and “finally vindicated of federal charges,” arguing that his constitutional rights had been violated.102

Another individual interviewed explained that Meredith was not the real threat in this situation but that this was the end of American democracy because the federal government had, “encroached on us from every field of endeavor one can think of.” He explained that Meredith was not the primary concern in this issue and in fact, “was not qualified to enter the university,” and that, “if he had been of a Caucasian race he couldn’t have entered. Meredith, the student made clear, had other options based on his less than stellar academic record but still had the support of the federal courts for his admission into the University of Mississippi. As the narrator added about Meredith’s underserved preferential treatment by the government at the expense of whites, “his unqualified rights as a student were upheld, but what of the rights of the other students, were they allowed their freedom?” Another student interviewee recounted Meredith’s entry into a particular classroom which prompted many students to want to depart from the class, which the U.S. marshals prevented them from doing until it ended. The narrator continued to question Meredith’s academic record noting that although he benefited from troop escorts from class to class, and the Supreme Court advocated for his entry into the University, Meredith had to still meet the same academic standards as other students there. As the narrator stated,

He could not rely on federal forces or his private tutors to take tests for him. James Meredith is not a good student. In fact James Meredith did not make his grades. He failed to show up for tests. Had any other student conducted himself as did, Meredith he would surely have been dropped from the rolls of the university.103

As a final interviewee, Governor John T. Patterson of Alabama complained about the unfair treatment by the federal government in the matter of Meredith’s entry into the University of Mississippi. Patterson stated that, “I thought then and I think now that the state of Mississippi and its people were entitled to at least the same kind of treatment that we have seen the

143

Communist Party of America receive at the hands of the United States Supreme Court.” The U.S. Supreme Court, according to the governor, “permitted the Communist Party to appeal their case three times over the span of twelve years,” while they operated against the interests of the United States. Following Governor Patterson’s description of the federal government’s use of federal troops against Mississippi in the Meredith incident as, “a flagrant abuse of arbitrary power,” the narrator concluded the documentary on a solemn note, seeing the entire affair as a movement away from freedom for the people, away from local control and toward Communist tyranny.104

In another Forum program, Representative George Andrews, a Democrat from Alabama, introduced Governor Patterson who expressed his statement of opposition to various proposals for civil rights bills at the time. The governor noted his particular concern and annoyance with the civil rights bill of 1957, creating the Civil Rights Commission, about which he stated,

They have further divided the races in the South. They have created hostility and animosity between the local officials and the federal government and all of the activities of the Civil Rights Commission has not resulted in a single additional person being placed on any voters’ list. It’s been a complete failure and caused a great deal of hostility and trouble to the people, not only the South, but of this whole nation. 105

Patterson proceeded to describe the way in which local voter registration officials in his state had been “harassed” by the “unconstitutional encroachment” of the executive branch of the United States government through the Civil Rights Commission. He characterized the

investigative activities of the Commission as a lawless government agency existing only for the purpose of making mischief, doing nothing to improve race relations but instead creating more racial strife, and breaking down the proper constitutional process by which such matters should be handled. The governor argued that the federal government’s aim was to destroy public education in the South by forcing integration on the free people of states like Alabama who, he exclaimed, would “sacrifice their public school system completely before they would submit to

144

integration of the races in the public schools.” Representative Andrews added that most Alabamians would refuse to integrate, and Patterson insisted that if the federal government did not leave his state alone then there would be no public education in Alabama and that, “both races are going to suffer and the Negro race will suffer worst of all.” Host Morphew, framing a larger question about federal government usurpation of local authority beyond the South, asked

Patterson if such federal government powers could be applied in other nefarious ways. Governor Patterson urged all Americans to be concerned because federal troops may be used in other instances to, “force things on people in other sections of this country in fields other than segregation and other than race matters.” Representative George Andrews concluded the discussion by emphasizing the resolve on the part of opponents to the passage of further civil rights legislation.106

Attorney General Joe T. Patterson of Mississippi appeared as guest on the Forum to make the public aware of how the federal government was meddling in the state affairs of Mississippi, particularly in voter registration and litigation over local educational issues. Federal agents, as Morphew phrased in his question, engage in various methods and tactics including questioning “members of the Negro race” and examining records of local registrars. Attorney General

Patterson advised these registrars not to cooperate with federal officials and refuse to answer their questions, plead the Fifth Amendment and decline to submit requested documents by federal agents until specified in a legal order by federal courts. Both Morphew and Patterson described the activities of federal officials investigating the records of registrars as a “fishing expedition,” and that the activities of the federal government’s investigation into the matters of local registrars was nothing more than a government agency seeking to justify its own existence by encouraging local residents to register complaints. The Civil Rights Commission, according to Patterson, was ultimately created for the purpose of functioning as “an instrumentality of harassment” in the southern states. Evidence of the uselessness of the Commission was its dearth of complaints.

145

Patterson explained that, “the Negro population of Mississippi was not being mistreated as they had been presented to have been being mistreated, and it also indicates that they are not as dissatisfied frankly, as they would have them be.” Morphew described these federal officials as, “swarms of Justice Department agents invading Mississippi in the South.”107

With Representative Albert Watson from South Carolina as the guest, the Council’s

Forum continued in its discussion of the tyranny of civil rights enforcement. At the start of the

program, host Morphew noted that Representative Watson had resigned from Congress and sought reelection as a member of the Republican Party after being stripped from his seniority for supporting the presidential candidacy of Barry Goldwater. The representative felt that he was being punished for his political differences with liberal members of the Democratic Party and so he decided to resign and change his party affiliation. The discussion then turned to the civil rights bill, which Watson felt there was no need for such legislation, but was another example of the federal government taking responsibilities away from state and local governments. Morphew wanted the congressman to emphasize that in fact it was the right of the states to determine voting qualifications and that therefore the federal government had no constitutional authority to

interfere in local matters. In particular, Watson took issue with individuals having the right to vote without any literacy tests. This was a part of what the representative saw as political elites giving into the demands of activist pressure groups. The appointment of federal registrars by the Civil Service Commission to assist in the registering of voters was another “dangerous” example cited by the congressman. Federal registrars, Morphew speculated, could play the nefarious role of influencing individuals registering to vote on the basis of whether or not they agreed with the registrars’ political views or choice of whom to vote for.Watson also noted that people often held the mistaken view that conservatives were opposed to providing assistance to the poor. Instead, the congressman explained, “We believe in helping them, but helping them in the traditional manner of through the great free enterprise system, to give them jobs, to retrain them.” According

146

to Watson, the current slew of legislation aimed at providing assistance to impoverished people “from the cradle to the grave” was a philosophy which would “destroy the basic free enterprise system in America…bankrupting this great country of ours.” 108

On another Forum show, Senator Thurmond appeared yet again, describing the most recent proposed civil rights legislation in Congress as a “power grab” as evidenced by the loss of authority by local voting registrars under the say-so of the federal government to take over registration operations. Another illustration of Thurmond’s argument was on the matter of voter education qualifications as determined by the federal government. According to the senator, a sixth-grade education, as the government decided, was not enough to vote and was

unconstitutional. Another point with regard to education was that the civil rights bill allowed the U.S. attorney general to bring a lawsuit in order to facilitate the desegregation of educational facilities. Thurmond believed the government should not take a side on the matter of whether to maintain segregation or to desegregate education.109

Host Morphew asked Thurmond to comment on the idea that other regions of the United States outside the South needed to be concerned with various civil rights legislation being proposed. After pointing out that the U.S. government was bribing schools by giving financial and technical aid only to schools that desegregated, Thurmond also noted that northerners were becoming aggravated with the busing system instituted to desegregate schools there. Federal civil rights legislation and enforcement, as Morphew and Thurmond agreed, applied to all aspects of life in the United States wherever an accusation of discrimination could be successfully made. Businesspeople and banking interests, farmers and “practically every citizen would be affected by this so-called civil rights bill,” as Thurmond stated. As Morphew added, it would be the

bureaucrats who would make the determination as to the validity of discrimination claims and subject those accused of discrimination to undo financial burdens. Thurmond continued to explain the significance of the government forcing individual owners of private businesses to

147

abide by federal anti-discrimination laws as an “invasion of his private rights.” He stated that, “I think it’s going to set a terrible precedent when people who own private property are going to have their property so regulated and so controlled that a man can’t use that property anyway that he desires to.”110

Thurmond reiterated an often stated argument on another Forum program about authority resting with the states and not federal election officials in determining voting qualifications. He noted South Carolina’s voting qualifications which required the ability to read and write the Constitution, or ownership of at least three-hundred dollars’ worth of property which, Thurmond emphasized, was South Carolina’s sovereign right to maintain and not the federal governments’ to supersede it. Morphew also noted how individuals seeking to redress grievances regarding infringements on their voting rights can avoid enlisting the services of a lawyer and instead rely on the Federal Attorney General as legal counsel in such a matter, which Thurmond described as, “a very dangerous precedent…fostering and giving impetus to integration in every way

possible...”

In giving his response to a proposed public accommodations civil rights bill regarding the selling of private property in a nondiscriminatory way, Thurmond made the assertion that, “to make a man sell to someone he doesn’t want to or serve someone he doesn’t care to, is depriving him of the use of his property.” A man’s property rights took precedence, Thurmond explained, “so long as he does not disturb or hurt others.” Thurmond noted that there were those who were actually in favor of integration who expressed their opposition to the public accommodations bill on the principle that the federal government was in gross violation of private property rights. Civil rights legislation aimed at breaking down racial discrimination in the selling and use of private property, to Thurmond, was infringing on fundamental constitutional rights of private ownership which was a sign of America’s move towards tyrannical rule. Thurmond stated that,

148

“When the government steps in and directs a use of property, controls property; that is the beginning of a dictatorship.”111

As Morphew phrased in his question to Thurmond, the proposed public accommodations bill threatened the particular rights of white people. He asked, “Many persons have been led to believe that what the Negro is seeking in all of this is equality. Do you believe that it is real equality that they’re looking for, or is it more in the line of preferential treatment?” Thurmond confirmed that it was indeed preferential treatment that Negroes wanted in compensation for their suffering going back multiple generations which the government was willing to concede to by selecting for promotion in civil service jobs, not the most qualified persons, but giving preference to the employment of undeserving Negroes. Morphew confirmed that, “So that actually instead of removing discrimination, which many of us have been told is the purpose of all of the civil rights controversy, what is actually being done now is to discriminate against white people in favor of the Negro.” Thurmond again confirmed that discrimination was being promoted by the federal government against the white man, and he reiterated that Congress had no constitutional authority to bring into law such violations of property rights.112

One must keep in mind that the logic of the pro-segregationist grievance against federal authority was not limited to the matter of civil rights but extended to other perceived violations of American freedoms. For example, Congressman Glenn Andrews who was a Republican from Alabama and a member of the House Education and Labor Committee, appeared on the Council’s

Forum to discuss so-called right-to-work laws, which Morphew described as being aimed at

preventing “compulsory unionism,” in the interest of preserving a workers’ right to decide for themselves if they will belong to a union or not. Congressman Andrews noted the hypocrisy on the part of the people who advocated for a new voting rights bill that would extend the franchise