• Segregation Is the Law of the Land

    Segregation Is the Law of the Land
    by James K. Warner


    The Supreme Court decision of May 17, 1954, outlawing segregation in the public schools may have come as a shock to some but those who were informed of the Justice records, could expect no other ruling from them. It was cut and dried, the Justices had decided the case before it even had been formally presented to them by the NAACP and other advocates of "equality".

    These nine men who sat upon the Supreme Court were judges in no sense of the word and had no right to decide the most important case that has ever come before the court. Each one was a political appointee, appointed not for his judicial experience or knowledge of the law, but rather as a political plum for the services he had rendered and would in the future render to greedy and corrupt politicians.

    The United States has always prided itself on having a legal system in which every man is guaranteed a fair trial and to do this one must have a judge who is neither for nor against the one being tried but sticks strictly to the law in the decisions made. In reality all legal cases in time revert back to the supreme document of the U.S. upon which all law is based, the Constitution. The Supreme Court of the U.S. was formed as the highest body in the U.S., not to pass laws but rather to interpret them, as Congress is the only body which has the right to pass laws which govern the people. Being the highest court in the land, in each case it decides it set a a precedent upon which all laws are based from that time on. Once a precedent in anything is set concerning the Constitution it should never be changed EXCEPT by an amendment to the Constitution or by Congress passing a law to the contrary. The meaning of the Constitution does not change from year to year nor does it change to suit the social trend of the times.

    Before the Supreme Court decision of May 1954, two other great decisions had been made concerning segregation by the Supreme Court of the U.S. The first of these decisions was in the Dred Scott case (an escaped negro slave) in which the Supreme Court under Justice Roger B. Taney declared that under the Constitution negroes were not to be considered citizens of the U.S. whether free or slave, and that they had none of the rights of citizens.

    The other case was Plessy vs. Ferguson decided in 1896, which said that separate but equal eating and travel facilities on public transportation were Constitutional.

    Then in the year 1954 the Supreme Court decided that the Constitution had changed its meaning and that separate but equal facilities were no longer Constitutional. The basis of this decision was not law or legal precedent but rather the book of a Swedish Socialist by the name of Dr. Karl Gunnar Myrdal called The American Dilemma. In this book Dr. Myrdal says: "... the 150-year-old Constitution is in many respects impractical and ill-suited for modern conditions ...." He then goes on to denounce the American form of government in no uncertain terms.

    In order to see which Supreme Court justices were qualified to interpret the Constitution let us look at their records. First of all is Justice Roger B. Taney who was the Chief Justice who handed down the Dred Scott Decision in 1856. Justice Taney was born in Maryland in 1777, admitted to the Bar in 1799, and to the State Senate in 1816. In 1831 he was Attorney General of the U.S. In the year 1833 Secretary of the Treasury, then in 1836 he was appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. It must be noted that although Taney was a strong abolitionist in personal life, he did not allow his personal views to interfere with his duty to properly interpret the Constitution. His Dred Scott decision was clearly in favor of segregation and in it he let it be known that it was his duty to interpret the Constitution and not let his personal views interfere. Little is known about the other Justices in the case, but from his legal and governmental background we can see that he was well qualified to interpret the Constitution.

    Those justices who net on the Bench in 1954 and passed judgment against segregation had no right to pass any judgment in any case pertaining to segregation as their views on the subject were already made before the case was even presented to them. In most law cases if a Judge is openly prejudiced against a party in a case, the party, in order to obtain a fair and unbiased trial, can demand the Judge be replaced with an unbiased Judge. But what about those who brought the case before the Supreme Court in 1954, knowing the race mixing connections of the Justices and the decision they would make? What remedy was there to such tyranny? To whom could they appeal for a fair decision in this case?

    Here interpreting the Constitution we have men who are appointed to the Court as political gifts for services rendered to other politicians. First of all is Chief Justice Warren, a Socialist, and Justice William Brennen, who was attacked by Senator McCarthy for being pro-Communist. Next we have Justice Felix Frankfurter who was a legal advisor to the NAACP (and also distributed Communist literature when a college professor), and Harold Burton who as Mayor of Cleveland greeted the Communist front organization "Congress against War and Fascism." Then we have Justice Hugo Black who attended the inter-racial Southern Conference for Human Welfare banquets and has received the following praise: "Justice Hugo Black has grown to be a great stabilizing force in the colored race's struggles for equal rights." Justice Douglas was well known for his "stay of execution" given to the Communist spys, the Rosenbergs, and for his taking money from the C.I.O. which is promoting race mixing.

    Here we have the political views of those Supreme Court Justices who were supposed to interpret the Constitution and given fair and unbiased ruling. Now that we know of their pro-Communist leanings let us compare their judicial experience with that of the Supreme Court of 1896.

    The nine judges who outlined segregation in 1954 had only some 9 years judicial experience among the nine of them before being appointed to the Court. This experience came in the form of Justice Black serving one and a half years as a police judge and Justice Sherman Minton serving eight years on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

    Of the nine justices who ruled for segregation in 1896 seven served as judges before. Five had been justices of State Supreme Courts, and two had served as Chief Justices, while two more were former circuit judges and four federal judges. Between these justices they had a total of 80 years judicial experience, compared to the 9 years experience of the Courts in 1954.

    It may he noted that Justice Henry Brown who wrote the majority opinion in 1896 had twice as many years previous judicial experience as all of the justices in the 1954 case had combined! It is also significant that "Chief Justice" Warren had been on the bench only three months before writing the opinion for integration in 1954. Before this he had had no previous judicial experience!

    One of the outstanding facts of the Court of 1896 is that this court had no less than five members who were from the "North" two from the "Border States" and only one from the "Deep South."

    While previous members of the Supreme Court with a total number of nine years previous experience overthrew the ruling of all former courts they also started a leftward trend in their rulings in dealing with the Communist Menace. In 1956 this same Justice Warren who outlawed segregation wrote a decision taking away the rights of the States to punish sedition within their borders. Then in a series of rulings they gave the Communists the following rights: 1) To practice law in any State. 2) Forbid City governments to question teachers about their Communist affiliations, and 3) protected Communists from being arrested for refusing to answer questions asked of them by Congress. As a result of these rulings some 59 Communists who had been convicted of plotting to overthrow the U.S. Government were set free.

    And this is the record of the Supreme Court which has outlawed segregation in America, while at the same time giving Communists more freedom to undermine and overthrow the American Government.

    Segregation and American History

    In its integration decision of 1954 the Supreme Court did not say that the separate but equal doctrine as set down in the Plessy vs. Ferguson case of 1896 was bad law, but based its decision on "psychological knowledge." It held that the "research" done by the Socialist Myrdal and others was of more validity than the facts set down by the Court in 1896.

    Instead of basing the decision on tangible factors the court said: "We must look instead to the effect of segregation on public education .... Does segregation (alone) ... deprive the children of the minority group equal educational opportunities? ... We believe it does .... To separate ... them ... solely because of race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may effect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone."

    The Court then goes on to justify its ruling by saying the following: "Whatever may have been the psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy vs. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority. Any language in Plessy vs. Ferguson contrary to this finding is rejected."

    In plain words they based their decision not on the Constitution or law but rather upon "modern authority" based on theory and not facts. Earlier cases based on theory not pertaining to segregation were denounced as illegal, illogical, and unfair. This point came up in the case of Pinkus vs Reilly (338 U.S. 269) and again in Ohio Bell Telephone Co. vs. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (301 U.S. 292). In the first case it was Justice Cardoza's ruling and in the second Justice Hugo Black. Cardoza said that the use of such NON-LEGAL MATERIAL was a denial of "the rudiments of fair play;" ... "is not the fair hearing essential to due process ... but is ... condemnation without trial."

    Here we have an example of the kind of level the Supreme Court has lowered itself to in less than a hundred years. In cases not related to segregation they rule NON-LEGAL (theoretical) materiel is "illegal" and "unfair" and in the segregation cases they rule solely on the basis of non-legal material.

    To obtain a true understanding of who the Supreme Court has had no basis, for its race-mixing rulings we must take a look at the history of our country and those who founded it and made its laws.

    First let us take a look at the first document signed by the Colonies to show their freedom and unity: the Declaration of Independence. Out of 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence we find 20 who were from States which recognized slavery. From the States of New Hampshire and Massachusetts we find 7 signers of this document whose law, forbade negroes to he enrolled in the State Militia. Then we find 2 from Rhode Island which passed laws in 1822 forbidding the marriage of negroes and Whites. Also we find 10 from the States of Connecticut and Pennsylvania which had Constitutions which gave ONLY whites the right to vote. Last we find New York which in 1900 had its legislature approve of separate schools for Whites and negroes. So out of a total of 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence we find only 5 which did not have some legal Constitutions or laws then or at later dates in their "Colonies" establishing the superiority of the White man.

    A great argument of the race-mixers is that phrase in the Declaration of Independence which says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal." To get a true picture on what the men who wrote this document thought of this "equality" we quote from the man most responsible for the writing of it. Thomas Jefferson: "the two races equally free, cannot live in the same government ... the attempt would divide Virginians into parties and produce convulsions which would probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race ...." (American Statesman by John T. Morse, Jr.).

    "Nature herself has made it impossible for the two races to live happily together on equal terms." (The True Thomas Jefferson, by William L. Curtis, p. 83).

    Again in a letter to James Monroe, Jefferson stated that he was for stopping the spread of slavery as he thought it would make the task of sending the negroes back to Africa harder. (The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Letter to James Monroe, Volume IX, page 25).

    To quote from Jefferson alone could not give us an overall view of how our American forefathers felt about slavery, so let us take a look at the viewpoint of a few others.

    JOHN ADAMS: "To teach that all men are equal ... is a great fraud, as glaring an imposition on the credulity of the people as ever practiced by ... the self-styled philosophers of the French Revolution." (Adams letter to Taylor, April 16, 1814.)

    ALEXANDER HAMILTON: In the Constitutional Convention of June 26, 1787, Alexander Hamilton said: "Inequality will exist as long as liberty exists. It unavoidably results from that very liberty itself." (The Supreme Court, by R. Carter Pittman, page 7.)

    GEORGE WASHINGTON: "... in case it shall be found that any of my slaves may, or any of them shall attempt their freedom at the end of six months it is my wish and desire that you would send the whole, or such part of them as Mrs. Washington may not choose to keep, home—for although I do not think they would be benefited by the change, yet the temptation of freedom might be too great a temptation for them to resist, at any rate it might if they conceived they had a right to it, make them insolvent in a state of slavery ...." (The Private Affairs of George Washington, by Stephen Decatur, Jr., pp. 223-24.) In another case we find President Washington giving a gentleman a commission for selling a slave for him. I think these few instances should give the reader an insight as to the views of our greatest leaders on "slavery." To them the negro was not a "citizen" but rather considered property.

    As to what the "all men are created equal" part of the Declaration of Independence meant, we can find the best explanation of this given to us by Chief Justice Taney in the Deed Scott decision of 1856: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal ...." The general words above quoted would seem to embrace the whole human family, and if they were used in a similar instrument at this day would be so understood. But it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race was not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people, who framed and adopted this declaration; for if the language, as understood in that day, would embrace them, the conduct of the distinguished men who framed the Declaration of Independence would be utterly and flagrantly inconsistent with the principles they asserted; and instead of the sympathy of mankind, to which they so confidently appealed, they would have deserved and received universal rebuke and reprobation.

    "Yet the men who framed this declaration were great men—high in literary acquirements—high in their sense of honor and incapable of asserting principles inconsistent with those on which they were acting. They perfectly understood the meaning of the language they used, and how it would be understood by others, and they knew that it would not in any part of the civilized world be supposed to embrace the negro race, which by common consent, had been excluded from civilized Governments and the family of nations, and doomed to slavery. They spoke and acted according to the then established doctrines and principles, and in the ordinary language of the day, and no one misunderstood them. The unhappy black race were separated from the white by indelible marks, and laws long before established and were never thought of or spoken of except as property, and when the claims of the owner or the profit of the trader were supposed to need protection. "This state of public opinion had undergone no change when the Constitution was adopted, as is equally evident from its provisions and language."

    Now that we have gone into the Declaration of Independence let us take a look at the Constitution. A total of 38 men signed the Constitution, 19 of them being from States which recognized slavery as being legal and a natural way of life. Two of the signers were from Massachusetts, which in both 1705 and 1786 passed laws which forbade marriages between negroes and Whites. Two of the signers were from New Hampshire, which passed laws in 1815 which let no one but White citizens enroll in the State Militia. Then we find 2 more from Connecticut, the State which in 1774 had passed a law which gave White citizens the right to seize any negro found wandering in that State without a "pass." The law of Connecticut also read that the slave may be delivered to his master, and the slave must pay a fine. Another law in 1833 made it a crime to set up a school for Africans which were not inhabitants of that State. This last law was brought to trial in the case of Crandell vs. the State (10 Conn. Rep. 340) in which one Prudence Crandell, when charged of this violation, took up the defense that the law was a violation of the Constitution. In this case Chief Justice Daggett ruled that, "... persons of that description (Africans) were not citizens of a State, within the meaning of the word citizen in the Constitution of the United States." From the States of New York and Pennsylvania we find 9 men who signed the Constitution whose State laws upheld the superiority of the White man, and this has been previously noted.

    Out of the 38 men who signed the Constitution we find that 34 came from states which recognize the rights of the White man over the negro and had laws on the books at that time or later dates to enforce that viewpoint.

    What other national and State laws were passed, before, during and after the signing of the Constitution? We will note a few:

    U.S. LAW Naturalization, passed by Congress, March 26, 1790, confines the right of becoming citizens "to aliens being free White persons.

    U.S. LAW Militia, passed by Congress in 1792, directs that every "free able-bodied White male citizen" shall be enrolled in the Militia.

    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Charter of Washington. D.C. 1820 (Chap. Civ. Sec. 8) the corporation is authorized "to restrain and prohibit the nightly and other disorderly meeting of slaves, free negroes, and mulattoes." The charter also authorizes the corporation "to prescribe the terms and conditions upon which free negroes and mulattoes may reside in the city."

    STATE LAW Maryland, in 1717 (Chap. xiii., §5) passed a law forbidding intermarriage.

    STATE LAW Massachusetts in 1705 (Chap. vi.) passed a similar law.

    STATE LAW Rhode Island in 1822, passed a law forbidding ministers the right to marry whites and negroes.

    Before the Constitution we have the Articles of Confederation which declared that White persons were the only ones to be drafted by the Government for the "land forces."

    The Constitution itself in two separate places recognized the fact that negroes were not citizens of the United States and that they were inferior to Whites. The first clause gives the States the right to import slaves until the year 1808—which clearly recognizes the fact that negroes were slaves and not citizens. And in the second clause the States were obliged to deliver up to their masters any runaway slaves.

    In 1822, the question of whether a negro was a citizen of the United States came up in court and the Court of Appeals of Kentucky decided that free negroes and mulattoes were not citizens of the U.S. within the meaning of the Constitution and this is affirmed in 1 Meigs, Tenn. Reports, 331.

    U.S. Attorney Generals William Wirt, and Caleb Cushing both confirmed the fact that negroes are not citizens of the United States within the meaning of the Constitution.

    The Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision upholds the fact that negroes were not citizens of the U.S. when it said: "... And these rights (of citizens) are of a character and would lead to consequences which make it absolutely certain that the African race was not included under the name of citizens of a State, and they were not in the contemplation of the framers of the Constitution when the privileges and immunities were provided for the protection of the citizens of other States."

    Here we have the basis of the Constitution and our American Republic clearly set before our eyes. To find the truth I use facts, historical facts—not theory, as the Supreme Court of 1954 used to destroy the meaning of the Constitution.

    From: The CDL Report, Issue 67 (September 1984).