Analysis of Manifesto 1956
Why did Southern lawmakers believe this Manifesto was necessary?
According to the southern lawmakers, the Supreme court had abused its power and was meddling into issues of lawmaking. They felt that through its ruling, the court had negated previously established principles and was acting out of order. Therefore, states needed to come together to shield themselves from the advance of legislations that were ‘based on political standpoint.’ Manifesto (1956) explains that the Judiciary through the Brown ruling of 1954 had infringed on the fundamental rights of citizens and acted in disregard of the congress. They also felt that previous legislation that provided for separate but equal schools showed no inclination towards racial segregation thus did not affect anyone’s right to equality. The Manifesto was necessary to set the record clear and demonstrate the public point of view. Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page
Discuss the Southern Manifesto’s principle objective(s).
The cardinal intention of the southern Manifesto was to achieve a reversal of the legislation that directed mandatory integration in public schools in all the states of America (Manifesto, 1956). They wanted to demonstrate that it was the encroachment of civil rights and the constitution to enact such a law. They tried to call to action people from the population to support this view since they held a minority representation in the congress. According to them, the judicial ruling was an apparent attack on the dual-tier federal government that provided states with a considerable amount of independence. The Manifesto also urged fidelity to the constitution, the supreme law of the land.
Discuss how the 14th AmendmentAmendment was applied to the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v Board of Education?
In the Brown vs Board of education case, the court stated expressly that the 14th Amendment upheld school segregation and protected it against attack on the grounds of violating a state’s pledge to maintain the right of equality. It thus mandated a state to run their education system with protection of the rule of local self-governments. According to Manifesto (1956), the court went ahead to disregard this declaration that came from them and is affirmed by rulings in the previous case to go ahead and enact stipulations and directives to force integration in state public schools.
According to the document, the Supreme Court is “destroying the amicable relations between the white and Negro races that have been created through 90 years of patient effort by the good people of both races.” Do you agree or disagree? Explain.
I disagree with the opinion that forced integration could lead to racial suspicions between negroes and the white population. Historically, racial doubts existed even without the judicial enactments of rules that abolished segregation. Despite appearing to mock the amendments to the constitution, the court made a decision that could melt racial suspicions between these two groups. When an arm of the government forces integration, it opens up racial cocoons that were previously inaccessible to members of the outside group. This way, suspicions are quelled and relations improved.
Discuss why Southern lawmakers argued that the principle of “separate but equal” was
“founded on elemental humanity and commonsense”?
According to the southern legislators, the principle of separate but equal gave each racial group a fair chance to establish their schools. This way, there was racial understanding and trust as each group operated their institutions exclusively. They also felt that common sense was giving parents a chance to decide where their children should get their education (Manifesto,1956). According to them, this freedom was viable even in the case of parents sending children to segregated schools. Elemental humanity also protected the decision of a particular group to operate within its confines.
References.
Manifesto, S. (1956). Congressional Record. In 84th Congress Second Session (Vol. 102, No. part 4, pp. 4459-4460).