"We regard the decision of the Supreme Court in the school cases as a clear abuse of judicial power."
The Southern Manifesto and the segregationist legal argument for noncompliance with Brown
On March 12, 1956, Senator Walter F. George of Georgia read the Declaration of Constitutional Principals into the Congressional Record from the Senate floor.
The Declaration, know by its moniker the Southern Manifesto, was a protest document. The 19 Senators and 82 Representatives from the South who signed the Manifesto argued that the Supreme Court had overstepped its authority in the Brown decision. By overturning Plessy v. Ferguson and ruling “separate but equal” unconstitutional, the court, they argued, had acted illegally.
Here’s how they put it:
We regard the decision of the Supreme Court in the school cases as a clear abuse of judicial power. It climaxes a trend in the Federal Judiciary undertaking to legislate, in derogation of the authority of Congress, and to encroach upon the reserved rights of the States and the people.
The Southern Manifesto used originalist logic—arguing that because the constitution didn’t explicitly reference education, the federal government couldn’t meddle in a state’s educational affairs. It was off limits. According to the Manifesto:
The original Constitution does not mention education. Neither does the 14th amendment nor any other amendment. The debates preceding the submission of the 14th amendment clearly show that there was no intent that it should affect the system of education maintained by the States.
On the surface, the Southern Manifesto reads like a legal document. It purports to make constitutional arguments about the limits of federal power—and, in doing so, it dances around the segregation issue. As historian Brent J. Aucoin pointed out in his essay “The Southern Manifesto and Southern Opposition to Desegregation” published in The Arkansas Historical Quarterly:
The document does not defend the institution of segregation; rather, it concentrates on criticizing the Court’s manner of reaching its decision in the Brown case. In sum, the manifesto resembles a legal brief, focusing solely upon issues such as constitutional interpretation, historical facts, and legal precedents.
Following this train of thought, given that the Southern Manifesto didn’t contain the word segregation, Aucoin concluded:
It reiterated [Senator William] Fulbright’s and [Senator James] Ervin’s argument that the people, through their local, state, and national representatives, are sovereign over the public schools in their community and state.
So, Aucoin’s final argument came to this:
It must be realized that the manifesto is a document that espouses gradualism—not segregation or non-compliance.
Let’s be honest, though. The Southern Manifesto was a racial document disguised as a legal document. Its purpose was to maintain white supremacy by masking its racial intent with legalese. In a play to point out what the Southern delegation was really up to, Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon, according to the Atlanta Constitution, “dared the Southerners to submit a constitutional amendment allowing race segregation practices.” And Senator Morse took things a little further by predicting there would be very little support for such a measure because, when it came down to it, even most of the Southerners knew they were trying to defend the indefensible.
The Southern Manifesto didn’t make an explicit argument for segregated society. But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t about segregation. Because clearly it was.
Here’s how historian John Kyle Day summarized the Manifesto’s racial politics:
In the wake of Brown v. Board of Education (1954), intransigent segregation or moderation dominated southern politics at every level of government. The Declaration of Constitutional Principles, popularly known as the Southern Manifesto, fused these distinct yet similar ideologies together. More than any other single statement of its era, the Southern Manifesto articulated the political doctrine of the white South towards the Civil Rights Movement. The authors achieved their objectives because they composed a statement supported by both intransigents and moderates within the Southern Congressional Delegation. In turn, the statement momentarily persuaded most Americans that the white South’s opposition to Brown was, if not justified, at the very least not just irrational hysterics, and thus worthy of consideration. The Southern Manifesto made the white South’s definition of race relations a legitimate point of debate in the national discussion over the emerging Civil Rights Movement. Meaningful desegregation and related civil rights legislation was thereafter stalled for years.
The Manifesto transformed the white supremacist politics of segregation into a constitutional politics of liberty and freedom. It created a dog whistle. One that still frames our politics today.
More to come soon…
Primary Sources
Associated Press. “George’s Manifesto Tender Spurs Oratory.” The Atlanta Constitution. March 13, 1956.
“The Declaration of Constitutional Principles”. Found in the appendix of the Aucoin (1996) piece listed below.
White, William S. “Manifesto Splits Democrats Again.” The New York Times. March 13, 1956.
Secondary Sources
Aucoin, Brent J. “The Southern Manifesto and Southern opposition to desegregation.” The Arkansas Historical Quarterly 55, no. 2 (Summer, 1996): 173-193.
Day, John Kyle. The Southern Manifesto: Massive Resistance and the Fight to Preserve Segregation. Jackson, MS: The University of Mississippi Press, 2014.