The policy of the NAACP has been essentially one of moderation in areas where progress is being made toward its goals. The more extreme demands have been necessitated by absolute refusal of white leaders to allow any “advancement” in such areas as school integration. In opposing various proposals for “gradualism,” which appear to be little more than an indefinite maintenance of the status quo, Roy Wilkins has driven to the heart of the matter. He pointed out that the Negro was the only American who was being advised “to take his citizenship on the installment plan.” Two weeks later, however, he stated that “a plea for understanding [by white Southerners] based on consideration of timing is understandable. A plea for understanding based on defiance of constitutional government is a plea for anarchy and secession.” A. J. Clement, Jr., a prominent Charleston NAACP leader, was in substantial agreement. “No one concerned with this problem,” said Clement, “likes to be identified as being a ‘gradualist’ but, we who are ‘realists,’ have got to understand that long established customs and habits, no matter how erroneous or abhorrent, will not suddenly be cast aside. Some individuals are able to adjust themselves to change much quicker than others. My chief concern is that there be no ‘backward steps,’ no ‘marking time.’”[295]
That the NAACP’s policy is essentially moderate has been demonstrated by its willingness to compromise its position in the face of threats to close public schools. The Record reported that Marshall and other attorneys for the appellants in the Clarendon case agreed orally to forego a showdown in the face of a “blunt” warning by school authorities that segregation was more important to them than education and that schools would be closed if one Negro applied for admission to a white school. Marshall, of course, denied this report but it is significant that, although given virtually a free hand in the case, he chose not to force the issue.[296] State authorities, however, have no guarantee as to how long Negro leaders will be willing to compromise their legal position in face of the irreconcilable attitude taken by whites.
Throughout the entire controversy on the school issue neither Governor Timmerman nor any other responsible political official in South Carolina has ever offered to sit down at a conference table with Negro leaders and to discuss the question. They have blandly taken the position that there is nothing to discuss. The lines of communication between the white and Negro populations of the state have completely broken down. But in point of truth, as North Carolina pundit Harry Golden has sagely observed, what these same politicians fear is that the Negro leadership might be so reasonable in its requests that such could hardly be refused without making the official policy of South Carolina seem even more ridiculous than it already is. Governor Timmerman and his advisers know only too well that the Negro leadership would accede to the most gradual of gradualist programs provided it was proposed in good faith. But to yield an inch on “principle,” a word historically dear to South Carolinians, has literally become an impossibility even for the best intentioned of the state’s political leaders. They are the prisoners of the morally bankrupt policy of “massive resistance.”
CHAPTER VII
THE NEW NULLIFICATION
In cases of deliberate, dangerous and palpable infractions of the Constitution, affecting the sovereignty of a state and the liberties of the people, it is not only the right but the duty of such state to interpose its authority for their protection.—Hartford Convention (1814)
In the final analysis, the sound and fury of professional hate groups, white supremacy organizations, “legal” resistance movements, and “voluntary” segregation advocates would signify nothing without active leadership and cooperation from the state government. Consequently, organizations and individuals supporting segregation have made doubly sure that there is no wavering on the part of public officials. Toward this end, for example, the Lamar Citizens Council resolved that “the powers of legislative decision and administrative responsibility must remain in the exclusive control” of men who supported “constitutional government, states rights ... individual liberty,” and “the separation of races in the schools and colleges and social institutions of this state.”[297] Segregationists have had no difficulty whatsoever in achieving this objective if for no other than the simple reason that political leaders are of one and the same opinion. Amongst the politicians there has not been a single instance of deviation from accepted attitudes of complete racial segregation. With such unanimity of opinion, extremists inevitably would be able to set the pace in the state legislature. That is precisely what has happened.
Immediately following the Court decision, much advice, largely unsolicited, was given to state policy makers. The News and Courier called “for moderation, for calm and wise decisions” in meeting the crisis. It offered no specific policies for immediate consideration by state officials but it did suggest for the time being a delaying action, “a masterly retreat, in the Robert Edward Lee tradition of rear-guard actions, including flank attacks.” Lest there be any doubt, the Charleston paper reaffirmed its opposition to “de-segregation, or integration, or amalgamation or any other tricky method of mixing the races in public schools.”[298] The Florence Morning News, too, called for “calm, reasonable and foresighted” leadership by “statesmen” not “politicians.” Statesmen, it declared, “are not people who can shout ‘nigger’ and they are not people who can prove—with words—that the Negro is an inferior animal.” Solution of the problem would result not from speeches that “inflame groups and excite the passions of extremists,” but rather from “good sense, calm action and kind reason.”[299]
W. D. Workman, Jr., the News and Courier correspondent in Columbia, thought South Carolina could take any one of five actions: acceptance of the Court decision; “nullification” of the decision; abolition of public schools; “evasive action,” such as the establishment of a private school system to circumvent the Court decision; or “passive resistance” which he deftly defined as “non-compliance rather than open defiance.”[300]
The legislature was not in session at the time of the original ruling. Therefore immediate policy decisions had to be made by Governor James F. Byrnes. The latter decided that since the Supreme Court had failed to implement its decree, it was unnecessary to call a special session of the legislature. On May 20, 1954, however, he ordered a halt to all school construction under the state’s equalization program. In July the Gressette Committee recommended resumption of construction and the ban was lifted on August 31.[301]