Meaning Of Little Rock
Many feared it.
Nobody could believe it really would come.
Now it is here? integration bv military force.
There is no possibility of interpreting it as any
thing else. For 'neither in his executive order send
ing federal troops into Arkansas nor in his ex
planatory address to the American people did Pres
ident Eisenhower once suggest the troops were
there to preserve the peace. He was careful to say,
instead, they were there for one purpose, and one
purpose only ? to prevent interference with court
orders (to integrate).
SAME EISENHOWER
This was the same Eisenhower who had said :
"I can't imagine anv set of circumstances that
would ever induce me to send federal troops ...
into anv area to enforce the orders of a federal
court."
Why couldn't he imagine what happened in Lit
tle Rock? Court-ordered integration had brought
disorders in other places, repeatedly. It would have
taken little imagination to envison more of the
same.
When he made the statement, Mr. Eisenhower
was seeking enactment of the civil rights bill
(which, as originally, drawn, would have given him
authority to use federal troops for just ^hat pur
pose). At that time, his words were taken as a
promise.
That was in July. In September, Little Rock was
experiencing something closely resembling military
occupation ? "to enforce the orders of a federal
court".
MAN OF PATIENCE?
We are not suggesting the President deliberately
lied. We are suggesting we were wrong when an
editorial in last week's Press praised Mr. Eisen
hower as a man of patience and forbearance. When
that was written (the Friday before publication),
the evidence seemed to justify it.
But when Mr. Eisenhower federalized the Ar
kansas National Guard and ordered federal troops
to Little Rock, it was hardly the act of a man of
patience. *
* The speed with which he acted ? the ink was
scarcely dry on his "cease and desist*" proclamation
before he signed the troop order ; the size and
character of the military force ? 1,000 paratroopers,
in addition to the 9,9O0 national guardsmen; and
the emphasis Mr. Eisenhower placed on his asser
tion the troops were there for the one purpose of
enforcing the court order? all these suggest a man
who was angry, through and through. It is at^
understandable anger, of course; because he is a
man who all his life has had to brook neither ques
tioning of, nor delay in obedience to, his every
order.
END OF MODERATION
It may be 10 or 20 or even >50 years before the
full significance of Mr. Eisenhower's action can be
accurately appraised ; and when it is, its major im
portance may be found to have nothing to do with
integration.
This much, though, seems clear, even now :
This is the end of the moderate approach to the
racial issue. There is no longer any room for the
moderate, no place for him to go. From now on
out, citizens of the South, and of the nation, must
be in either one camp or the other ? committed to
integration, by whatever means and at whatever
cost; or committed unconditionally to segregation,
come what may.
Welcome Discussion
The letter from Mrs. Biddle, appearing on this
page, suggests to us we should re-emphasize a
point we tried to make clear in the editorial to
which she refers: No reflection either on Macon
County teachers ? whom we repeatedly have prais
ed ? or on Western Carolina College was intended.
The last sentence of the editorial, in fact, said just
that : "Macon County produces some excellent
teachers, and W. C. C. is a good school, turning
out fine teachers".
Mrs. Biddle's thoughtful letter, like all such let
ters, is welcome. And further discussion by other
readers of The Press is invited.
Is 14th Amendment Valid?
"Is the so-called Fourteenth Amendment, under
which 'integration' is being forced today upon an
unwilling population in the South, really a valid
part of the Constitution?"
That question, raised recently by David Law
rence in U. S. New.s & World Report, is made
timely by today's situation. For the current crisis
is the outgrowth of the Supreme Court's 1954
school segregation decision ; and, insofar as it cited
legal sanction for that decision, the Court leaned
heavily on the Fourteenth Amendment. Further
more, the amendment was quoted by President Eis
enhower when he ordered federal troops into Ar
kansas last week.
Mr. Lawrence tells the story of how the South
was forced to give the amendment lip-service ap
proval ;
, "The Southern States, after the war tu over, ratified
the Tlhrteeflth Amendment abolishing slavery and that
*u accepted as legal by the federal Government. But
when the same legislatures in the South subsequently as
sembled lawfully and rejected In due form a proposed
Fourteenth Amendment . . Federal troops were ordered
to take charge. Puppet legislatures finally did 'ratify'
under duress."
That recalls some more history, perhaps not so
familiar. Because the Southern states' ratification
"under duress" is only one of a number of extra
ordinary circumstances surrounding the legalizing
of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Here, briefly, are a few of the highlights :
The amendment was submitted by Congress to
the states in 1866. Nearly two years later, July 21,
1868, Congress declared it a part of the Constitu
tion.
A change in the Constitution, of course, requires
ratification by three fourths of the states. But how
many states were in the Union in 1868?
There was a total of 37 states. North and South.
But what about the 11 that had seceded? Were
they in the Union or out of it?
At the time, there were two answers to that
question. Presidents Lincoln and* Johnson held that
secession was illegal, and that the Southern states,
therefore, never had left the Union. Congress had
a very different answer. It helcf that the Southern
States, by seceding, had "committed suicide" as
political entities, and that the South now was "con
quered territory". And since, shortly after Lin
coln's death, Congress gained complete control, it
was the Congressional doctrine that prevailed. Ac
cordingly, Congress set up the conditions under
which the Southern states could re-enter the Union.
(Approval of the pending Fourteenth Amendment
was one of them.)
Acting on its theory that the conquered states
were out of, not in, the Union, Congress consis
tently barred their duly elected representatives and
senators from the halls of Congress ; the Southern
states, being out of the Union, were entitled to no
representation in the government.
But when it came to tallying the votes of the
states on adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment,
not only were the Southern states required to vote
"aye", but the votes of these "dead" states were
counted. Their votes, that is, helped to change the
rules of an organization of which they were not
members.
Why this inconsistency r the most logical ex
planation seems to be the lack of enthusiasm for
the amendment even among the Union states. The
evidence indicates, in fact, that, had the Confeder
acy won its independence, thus leaving a United
States of only the Northern states, the amendment
never could have mustered the required three
fourths vote among those 26 states. Those states
not only were slow to act ; seven of them ? that is,
more than a fourth ? either by. lack of action or on
first or second thought, rejected the amendment.
By the end of 1866, only five states in the North
had ratified. It was 15 months later, March, 1868,
that the count among the 26 Union states stood
like this: California had failed to act (and it never
has) ; Deleware, Kentucky, and Maryland had re
jected the amendment outright ; and the other 22
finally had ratified.
Meanwhile, Ohio and New Jersey had with
drawn their ratifications ? the New Jersey legisla
ture over the vote of that state's governor. That
left just 20 states in the ratifying column, a bare
three fourths of the Union states. (Oregon's with
drawal of its ratification came after the amend
ment was proclaimed law.). Even with the emotion
alism of the Reconstruction period, the amendment
barely carried in the North; it nev^r would have
without that emotionalism.
Did Congressional leaders sense this Northern
opposition, and thus decide to reverse themselves
and count the votes of all 37 states, knowing it
would be possible to pressure as- many of the
"dead" states in the South as might be needed to
get the necessary number? Whether they deliber
ately planned it that way, nobody knows ; but that
is exactly vvnat tney aid.
With HI the 37 states counted, an affirmative
vote or 28 was required; and on July 9, 1868. a
"puppet" legislature made a Southern state the
28th to ratify the amendment. Among those 28,
however, were Ohio and New Jersey, which had
withdrawn their ratifications, the previous Janu
ary. arid February, respectively.
How, then, did Congress arrive at the necessary
total of 28? By the simple procedure of counting
Ohio and New Jersey as having voted "aye". Con
gress held that the legislatures of those states had
the authority to act affirmatively on this amend
ment, but did not have the authority to repeal
their actions.
A little later, enough "puppet" legislatures in
the South did ratify to bring the total up to and
beyond the necessary 28. But at the time Congress
declared the amendment a part of the Constitu
tion, it actually lacked two votes of the number
required.
In summary: To get this amendment into the
Constitution, Congress got the votes it needed bv
applying pressure in the South ; it counted the votes
of Southern states it had consistently ruled were
not in the Union; and it counted as voting "yes"
two Northern states that, most recently, had voted
no .
That is a part, a rather small part, of the back
ground o f the Fourteenth Amendment. But never
once in these 89 years has the Supreme Court cast
a questioning eye on the legitimacy of this .particu
lar part of "the law of the land".
Casualty Of Little Rock
Strictly Personal By WEIMAR JONES
An interesting phase of the out- i
breaks against racial integration
is the attitude of the crowds to- ?
ward newspaper, television, and
radio people.
At Little Rock, 11 newsmen
were reported assaulted in a single
day, and in most other cases of 1
violence the crowd has been con- 1
siderably less than friendly toward 1
reporters.
Why?
Chances are those most angry
could not put into words their
reasons. Any thoughtful news
paperman, though, because of his
knowledge of how news stories are
put together, could come up with
a pretty good guess.
It has been traditional in Amer
ican journalism that a news ac
count should contain facts and
nothing else; opinion, all right
on the editorial page, has no
place in a news story. The public
has become accustomed to that,
and, subsconsciously. has come to
expect it.
But in recent years there has
come into vogue in journalism
the theory that "it no longer is
enough to tell the facts about the
truth, it is now necessary to tell
the truth about the facts". And
so we have "interpretive report
tng"; it is based on the assump
tion that, in today's complex
world, the reader is incapable of
understanding and appraising the
facts. There is truth in that, and
[ have no objection to interpretive
reporting, when it remains just
that. But what has happened is
that some reporters have assum
ed that the advent of interpretive
reporting gave them license for
free and often reckless expression
of pure opinion ? their own or
that of their newspaper or station.
Thus sometimes news accounts
mix opinion so inextricably with
fact that the reader is left con
fused as to which is which.
Keenest resentment has appear
ed to be directed toward Time
and Life, and for a very good
reason; ordinarily, those publica
tions make no pretense of being
objective. Henry Luce, their pub
lisher, years ago said, in sub
stance: "Complete objectivity is
impossible. Why. then, try to be
objective?" So he and his editors
determine which are the "right"
and "wrong" sides of questions,
and slant their reporting accord
ingly. And they do it with such
consummate skill, it sometimes is
almost impossible to say exactly
how and where they convert the
reader, via purported accounts of
Letters
Comments On Editorial
Dear Mr. Jones:
I feel called uponto make a few comments on your editor
ial "Intellectual Inbreeding" (September 19 issue). It is the
second of such content I have noticed in less than a year.
In my opinion it is in conflict with previous editorials you
have written which concern an improvement in our county
in order to bring Macon County young people back home to
reside and work. This I wholeheartedly applaud!
However, Mr. Jones, there is an inconsistency in your ar
ticles. Perhaps you should say in your' next editorial: "We
Continued on Pate Three ?
DO YOU REMEMBER?
Looking Backward Through the Files of llie Pre?
65 YEARS AGO THIS WEEK
(1892)
The melon-colic days are about ended.
Good green coffee at 5 lbs. to the dollar at Cunningham's.
Key To Wealth
(From Atlanta Constitution)
Broke, broke, broke,
By the sad gray sands of the sea,
Is the man who failed to advertise,
As he surely ought to be!
| 25 TEARS AGO
(1932)
The next highway letting Is October 18, when contracts are
expected to be awarded for the surfacing of No. 28 west of
Franklin to Murphy.
The Misses Charlotte B. and Esther H. Elliott and Miss M.
E. Hugher have returned to their home in Highlands, after a
six-months tour of Europe.
10 TEARS AGO
Three Franklin veterans of World War 2 ? Dean Carpenter,
Frank Dean, and Frank Plyler ? received their private oper
ators' licenses last Sunday when the first class of pilots was
graduated from the Cooper Flying Service school here.
Nearly 9,000 books are available to the people of Macon
County at the Franklin Public Library.
Most Western North Carolina towns get their municipal
water supplies from watersheds, with gravity carrying the
water from impounding basins or reservoirs to the towns, a
survey shows.
the facts, to the viewpoint of
Time and Life.
The practice of writing pure
opinion into news stories, though,
no longer is confined to those
two publications. It occurs often.
Consider, for example, the As
sociated Press account of what
happened in Little Rock Septem
ber 23. In one dispatch I counted
more than a dozen statements,
or conclusions inferred, that the
reporter would find it hard to
prove to be true. To cite three:
". . . officials feared the fight
ing-mad crowd would become an
uncontrollable mob." Some of
those in the crowd probably were
angry, possibly every individual
in the crowd; It is possible that
every person in the crowd was
angry enough to fight. But did the
reporter KNOW that? could he, or
anybody else, prove it? Wasn't
the phrase, "fighting-mad", an ex
pression of opinion ? not of un
doubted fact? Besides, the adject
ives in that sentence were wholly
unnecessary. Wouldn't the reader
have known all the essential
PACTS if the sentence had read
simply, ". . . officials feared th?
crowd would become a mob"?
"... a wild day or hate and
violence . . ." How did the re
porter know it was hate? It could
have been an effort to protect
what the whites honestly felt were
the rights of their children. It
could have been resistance to
what these citizens considered un
lawful invasion of their own and
their state's rights. It could have
been excitement. I am not saying
it was any of these. I am not
saying it probably was any of
these. I am not saying even that
it wasn't hate. What I am saying
is the reporter stated as a fact
what he could not possibly know.
. . the snarling crowd turned
its venom on newsmen . . Ex
actly what does a crowd do when
it "snarls"? and does it "snarl"
as one man, or do certain individ
uals in the crowd, perhaps,
"snarl"? And how did the reporter
know, when he used the word
"venom", the crowd was motivated
by such a poison? He didn't! Fur
thermore, he expressed, indirectly,
two other opinions; by use of the
words "snarl" and "venom" he
subtly suggested the kinship of
those making up the crowd with
dogs and snakes.
Every day in the week there
are other stories equally opinion
ated; and of course they are not
confined to the subject of inte
gration.
Well, the people of this nation
are not fools. The average reader,
of course, lacks both the time and
the training to make such a de
tailed analysis every time he reads
a newspaper. But, subsconscious
ly, he knows he isn't getting what
he is paying for; that the label
of "fact" taken for granted on
news stories is spurious.
And so ? and what better time
to face It than during National
Newspaper Week! ? more and
more people are losing confidence
in both the reliability and the in
tegrity of the news media.
And someday, unless newsmen
wake up to the responsibility their
freedom imposes, the people will
rise in their wrath and take that
freedom away.