Frankly I think our treatment of the Negro is a national sin, and one that we of the North should be contrite for as well. And so I hope you will not think there is any disposition on my part to make the South a particular whipping boy. The problems are nationwide.

It so happens that you have a much larger percentage of Negroes in the South than we have in the North, and that was where slavery did exist. As a result, that has colored the whole set of institutions and the attitudes which are there.

Mr. Chairman, the logic of a Commisison of Civil Rights to give us greater knowledge and understanding of these complex problems, of a special division in the Department of Justice to give greater attention to the enforcement of existing laws, of a Federal antilynching law to help eliminate this crime from American life, of broader powers to move for injunctive relief against various violations of civil rights, and of including the armed services in protections against violence now given to the Coast Guard, seems to me too clear to require elaboration. If elaboration is desired, the hearings back for 20 or more years on some of these subjects, will provide it.

I shall not take more of the committee's time, for I am sure you are anxious to move speedily. I am gratified that you have started and hope to conclude these hearings early.

This may enable you to gather the necessary quorums and to get the bill out of committee and before the Senate in time to give us a reasonable chance, after full debate, to reach a vote.

Should difficulties develop within the committee that seem to impose undue delays, the other Senators who have gone on record in support of these civil-rights principles could help you move this measure to the floor. And some of us would be glad when necessary to give them that opportunity and embrace it ourselves.

And once this bill is before the Senate at a reasonably early date, with all the support that has been promised we shall hope to be able to surmount the obstacle that hitherto has blocked the passage of such legislation, the eternal filibuster.

If all of those who have said-contrary to my belief that the present Senate rules permit the passage of a meaningful civil-rights bill will vote for it and for cloture, after a proper debate, perhaps it may yet succeed. No one will be happier than I to have it proved that the Senate under its present rules is not the graveyard of civil rights.

But with the memory still fresh in my mind of what can happen. to civil-rights bills late in a session of Congress, I would earnestly urge the committee to move with all due-if not deliberate-speed.

It is up to this committee first and to all of us in the Senate, then, to determine whether we shall merely reflect the conflicts and failures of our society on these important issues of human freedom-or represent in our affirmative action the best hopes and ideals of our Nation for equality of opportunity.

Mr. Chairman, while careful legal arguments may be most persuasive with the eminent members of the bar who make up this committee, I would like to file for the committee's consideration and for inclusion in the record of these hearings two articles of noted religious leaders which I have found quite basic and moving.

The first is a message for Race Relations, Sunday, February 10, issued by the National Council of Churches and drafted for it by the Reverend Martin Luther King, of Montgomery, Ala.

The second is an article entitled "Challenge to America" by Father L. J. Towney, S. J., director of the Institute of Industrial Relations at Loyola University in New Orleans.

This article was printed in Commonweal for September 21, 1956. Senator HENNINGS. Is it the Senator's desire that the articles be made a part of the record?

Senator DOUGLAS. I would appreciate that.

Senator HENNINGS. Without objection the articles will be included and made a part of the record.

(The articles are as follows:)

FOR ALL-A NONSEGREGATED SOCIETY'

MESSAGE FOR RACE RELATIONS SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 10

All men, created alike in the image of God, are inseparably bound together. This is at the very heart of the Christian Gospel. This is clearly expressed in Paul's declaration on Mars Hill: "* * * God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth. *** made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, * * Again it is expressed in the affirmation, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." The climax of this universality is expressed in the fact that Christ died for all mankind.

This broad universality standing at the center of the Gospel makes brotherhood morally inescapable. Racial segregation is a blatant denial of the unity which we all have in Christ. Segregation is a tragic evil that is utterly unChristian. It substitutes the person-thing relationship for the person to person relationship. The philosophy of Christianity is strongly opposed to the underlying philosophy of segregation.

Therefore, every Christian is confronted with the basic responsibility of working courageously for a nonsegregated society. The task of conquering segregation is an inescapable must confronting the Christian churches. Much progress has been made toward the goal of a nonsegregated society, but we are still far from the promised land. Segregation persists as a reality.

The problem of segregated housing remains a critical one in every section of the Nation. Segregated transportation facilities continue. Many communities are complying all too slowly with the Supreme Court's decision on desegregation in the public schools. Some States have risen up in open defiance, with their legislative halls ringing loud with such words as "interposition" and "nullification" and with schemes of evasion. The churches themselves have largely failed to purge their own bodies of discriminatory practices. This evil persists in most of the local churches, church schools, church hospitals, and other church institutions.

The churches are called upon to recognize the urgent necessity of taking a forthright stand on this crucial issue. If we are to remain true to the Gospel of Jesus Christ we must not rest until segregation is banished from every area of American life.

Any discussion of segregation in America against the background of moral principles emphasizes the urgent need for prophetic voices. To be sure, there are communities which are successfully integrating schools and there are courageous persons in many communities who are standing steadfastly for the principles of Christian love and justice. Nevertheless, there remains need for more people in every community to join them in crying out as Amos did, “*** let justice roll down as waters, and righteousness like an overflowing stream." Christians must decide whether they will obey the eternal demands of the Almighty God, or whether they will capitulate to the transitory demands of the defenders of segregation.

There are those who are telling us to slow up in the move for a nonsegregated society. But the true Christian knows that it is morally wrong to accept a compromise which is designed to frustrate the fulfillment of Christian principle. The time is always ripe to do right. It is true that wise restraint and calm reasonableness must prevail in the process of social change. Emotion must not

1 The National Council of Churches is indebted to Dr. Martin Luther King for drafting this message. Dr. King is minister of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, Montgomery, Ala., leader of the successful boycott of segregated buses in that city.

run wild, and the virtues of love, patience, and understanding goodwill must dominate all of our actions. But these considerations should serve to further the objective and not become a substitute for pressing on toward the goal. We face the hard challenge and the wondrous opportunity of letting the spirit of Christ work among us toward fashioning a truly Christian nation.

If we accept the challenge with more devotion and valor, we can speed the day when men everywhere will recognize that we "are all one in Christ Jesus."

CHALLENGE TO AMERICA

"IF WE CANNOT OR WILL NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF RACE RELATIONS, OUR FUTURE IS IN SERIOUS JEOPARDY"

L. J. Twomey1

The problem of race relations in the United States is of key importance. If we cannot or will not solve it in the tradition of genuine Americanism, then our future is in serious jeopardy. For in no other particular has the disparity between what we preach and what we practice been as glaring.

Basic to the problem of race relations is the white man's assumption of superiority. Just when the white race made up its mind that it was the master race is lost in the dim historic past. But the assertion, either implicit or explicit, of white supremacy is written all over the record of the western world at least since the age of the great discoveries in the late 15th century and thereafter.

In the Western Hemisphere, notably in the northern half, the white supremacy fallacy got its most vicious expression with the beginning of the slave trade in the early 17th century. By colonial days, slavery had become an established institution, especially on southern plantations. And when we emerged from the Revolutionary War as a new Nation, slavely had been built into the very structure of our political, economic and cultural life. Almost 90 years and the fighting of one of the bloodiest civil wars in history were to elapse before it would be eliminated as an accepted American practice. Yet it is historically false to maintain that segregation, rather than the concept of white supremacy, is rooted in long-standing traditions. Actually, it was not until the 1890's that disenfranchisement laws were enacted. And it was not until the early part of this century that the segregation pattern became fixed in southern laws and customs.

Ironically, in view of the present clamor about the Supreme Court, of all the influences at work during this period none was more effective in making segregation part of the accepted pattern in American life than the court. Take, for example, the Plessy v. Ferguson decision of 1896. This decision was concerned with the question of whether a State could segregate Negro train passengers from white without violating the constitutional rights of its citizens. The court said "Yes," provided the service was equal. By this decision, one of the most famous ever handed down by the Supreme Court, the "separate but equal” doctrine was written into American law. A precedent was thus set which was intimately to affect practically every aspect of Negro-white relations in the United States from that time on.

Oddly enough, the lone dissent in this case by Justice John Marshall Harlan, is more widely quoted than the majority opinion, and it has important lessons for us today. It reads in part: "But in view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is colorblind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful. The law regards man as man, and takes no account of his surroundings or of his color when his civil rights as guaranteed by the supreme law of the land are involved. It is, therefore, to be regretted that this high tribunal, the final exposition of the fundamental law of the land, has reached the conclusion that it is competent for a State to regulate the enjoyment by citizens of their civil rights solely upon the basis of race."

And Justice Harlan continued: "The destinies of the two races in this country are indissolubly linked together, and the interests of both require that the com

1 Father L. J. Twomey, S. J., is the director of the Institute of Industrial Relations at Loyola University, New Orleans.

mon government by all shall not permit the seeds of race hate to be planted under the sanction of law. What can more certainly arouse hate, what more certainly create and perpetuate a feeling of distrust between these races than the enactments which in fact proceed on the ground that colored citizens are so inferior and degraded that they cannot be allowed to sit in public coaches occupied by white citizens? * * * In my opinion," he concluded, "the judgment this day rendered will in time prove to be quite as pernicious as the decision made by this tribunal in the Dred Scott case. *** The thin disguise of equal accommodations for passengers in railroad coaches will not mislead anyone, nor atone for the wrong this day done. *

*

This analysis by Justice Harlan is, I think, the only valid interpretation that can be placed on the American Constitution. If his dissent had been adopted as the majority opinion, the subsequent history of race relations in this country would not have been such as now to imperil the future of democracy. Unfortu

nately, it was not.

Through the years after 1896, it is true that the harshness of Plessy v. Ferguson was softened in certain important aspects. As early as 1917 the Supreme Court outlawed zoning laws which enforced segregated housing. In subsequent years, all forms of segregation in interstate travel were also ruled out. And within the last 10 years, the Court has required many State universities to accept qualified Negro applicants. In none of these cases, however, was the issue joined as to the constitutionality of the "separate but equal" provision of the 1896 decision.

In the years between 1948 and 1954, however, the Supreme Court, in a series of important civil rights cases, gave clear warning that it would not tolerate for much longer "separate but equal" as a constitutionally acceptable practice. And on May 17, 1954, occurred one of the great events in American history. On that day a unanimous Supreme Court decision repudiated the "separate but equal" doctrine for the travesty on truth and justice which it had always been, declaring that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal" and in violation of the equal protection of the laws provision of the 14th amendment and the due process of law provision of the 5th amendment. The Court did not tell the several States in question how to run their respective school systems. But it did tell them that they could not run their schools so as to do violence to the fundamental law of the land. And exactly 54 weeks later, the Court ordered that its May 17, 1954, decree be put into effect in a manner “consistent with good faith compliance at the earliest practicable date."

Around these two Court actions there has raged a battle of vast and fateful dimensions. The battleground is confined almost exclusively to the South. Resistance to these decisions has precipitated our most serious internal crisis since the Civil War. It will continue to be fierce and articulate for an unpredictable period.

The tragic fact is that governors of States, Members of Congress, and State legislatures, prominent civic, professional, business, and even labor leaders do not hesitate to attack openly not only the decisions of the Court, but the character and loyalty of the Justices themselves. This is not to speak of the even more represensible tactics of the white citizens' councils and other like-purpose organizations, which have large and influential membership throughout the Southern States. Through these rebellious groups, political, economic, and even physical reprisals have been threatened and in many instances visited upon those who agree with the Court and loyally urge that its mandates be carried out with "good faith compliance."

The typical southern attitude holds that only in a rigidly segregated society can "the southern way of life be preserved." It is the claim of most southerners, then, that in resisting the Supreme Court, they are defending "the sacred traditions of the South." In reply to that claim I repeat here what I have said on many southern platforms: "I am a southerner. I was born and raised in what is popularly known as the Deep South. I believe I know this region, its problems, its strength, its weaknesses. In the light of the knowledge, I yield to no other in my loyalty and devotion to the things that are genuinely southern. But as a southerner I assert with all the emphasis at my command that no traditions of the South are worthy of respect, much less of un-Christion, undemocratic defense, which violate the elementary demands of human decency. I am a southerner, intensely proud of my southern heritage. But I am before all else a Christian and an American, and I will never recognize that any demand of my southern loyalty can come between me and my loyalty to God and to America."

In blind pursuit of their objective "to keep the South a white man's country," these misguided southerners are actually inflicting grave injury on the South. Already this injury can be measured in terms of serious economic and cultural losses. And this is not to speak of the lasting damage being done to the good name of the South.

Even these losses, however, are as nothing compared to the damage inflicted on America. If it is to survive, America must gain the allegiance of the 800 million people, one-third of the earth's population, who as-of-now are uncommitted either to communism or to democracy. These hundreds of millions, with their human and material resources, constitute the balance of power in the world today. And of this vast number, the overwhelming majority are colored people. It was with these facts in mind that Secretary of State John Foster Dulles told the American people in December 1952: "Let our people intensify their determination to respect human rights and fundamental freedom. Our discriminations at home and abroad are not only a moral blot on our so-called Christian civilization, but they are a major international hazard." And Vice President Richard Nixon, in December 1953, declared: "Every act of racial discrimination or prejudice is blown up by the Communists abroad and it hurts America as much as an espionage agent who turns over a weapon to a foreign enemy."

In the context of such warnings, any American, in the South or in the North, who holds to the theory of white supremacy and actively promotes the political, economic and social restrictions necessary to make the theory particularly effective, is in fact undermining this country's strength in the face of the enemy. It is for such a southerner or northerner to defend himself against the charge of un-American activity.

In view of all this, how can we explain what is happening in the South? I know no completely satisfying answer to that question. Southerners by and large are good people. But most southerners have for generations taken for granted the political, economic and social patterns which assigned the Negro to a second-class status. Until quite recently many of them did not give a second thought to what were objectively grave violations of human rights, and they are now victims of uncritical conformism to a system, the basic evil of which they never challenged. Having grown up accepting segregation as an integral part of Southern living, they now argue, by an involved process of rationalization, that the injustices and uncharitableness of the present racial system are only accidentally associated with segregation. They do not condone these distortions of right order, but they will not admit that racial segregation as such is immoral. They claim that greater and greater effort must be made to bring equality of educational and economic opportunity to the Negro, but they insist that this objective must be realized within the traditional framework of separation, enforced both by law and custom. Because of these deep-rooted attitudes, the Supreme Court decision struck with staggering force, and the South was stunned. Since then, fear and hysteria, whipped up by the extremists, have all but rendered powerless the relatively few southerners who received the Court's decision with good grace and even enthusiasm.

Nevertheless, there is a brighter side. It is certainly not my intention to minimize the grim seriousness of the racial crisis in the South, but there is solid ground for hope. Sooner rather than later the angry wave of emotional recklessness will spend itself. Probably within 5 years the South will have begun effectively to assert its better self. Then conformity to the dictates of morality and law will become the rule of the times.

What evidence is there for this optimism? In the first place, the southern conscience, despite all appearances, is profoundly disturbed. There the work of religious leaders of all faiths has been tremendously important. Consider, for example, the work of the great Archbishop of New Orleans, the Most Reverend Joseph Francis Rummel. For years he had proved himself the champion of justice and charity for the Negro, and, in the face of certain and spirited opposition, he placed himself and the Catholic Church within his jurisdiction solidly behind the Supreme Court. His most telling display of courageous leadership came in the form of his now famous pastoral letter of February 11, 1956, in which he invoked his authority as a successor of the apostles and solemnly declared: "Racial segregation as such is morally wrong and sinful." This declaration has caused innumerable southerners, Catholic and non-Catholic, to look into their consciences as they have never done before. From such soul searching is coming a deeper understanding of what justice and charity demand. And this new insight will be the basis upon which a true sense of brotherhood between Negro and white can be fostered.