An End to Pusillanimity

The struggle for integration in the past has often seemed a test of how much rebelliousness national leaders would permit the South. Generally, tensions there being what they are, it was felt that the best possible course would be to keep quiet and let the years somehow transform the South's attitude. The platforms of both parties this year, accordingly, were carefully designed to say nothing about the whole issue.

The hope that integration would proceed smoothly if everyone (and especially the NAACP) kept quiet was blighted, however, when the opening of school resurrected the issue with renewed intensity at Mansfield, Clay, and Sturgis. Since that time each of the candidates has come out with his own appeal to the integrity of the South.

President Eisenhower's bid turned out to be a gem of political strategy. The President diplomatically stated:

"I think it makes no difference whether or not I endorse it (the Supreme Court decision) ... the Constitution is as the Supreme Court interprets it; and I must conform to that...."

This statement is perhaps one of the President's shrewdest moves since his election--leading people to wonder just how much of a politician the innocent General has become--but it holds out hope to the South that it is morally right and leads it to believe that the whole matter is, after all, one of political caginess.

Since the President is one of the few national politicians respected in the South, this dodging of moral issues is perticularly disastrous. For only a man of his stature can hope directly to persuade the South to begin recognizing the Court's decision. If Ike would not stand up for what he felt was obviously right, the South could certainly feel that it had license to fight for its own twisted principles.

In the light of Ike's timidity, the statements made recently by Stevenson (hitherto considered the clever and cautious politician) seem especially startling. Last spring the CRIMSON sharply criticized Stevenson for shilly-shallying--his moderation seemed to have only political motives. But his attitudes this fall indicate that moderation, with him, is a matter of principle, for his stand is firm. The first indication of this was in his judgment on the most recent incidents which he termed "a disgrace to Democrats, a disgrace to Republicans, and a disgrace to the nation." But his latest statement at Little Rock carried his firmness, reserved by most politicians for the North, deep into the camp of the Citizen's Councils: "The Supreme Court ... has determined unanimously that the Constitution does not permit segregation in the schools... I believe that decision to be right. Some of you feel strongly to the contrary...." This statement was no doubt aimed as much at Northern newspaper readers as at the Arkansans who happened to be present. But, meanwhile, its successful reception suggested that the Southerners, or at least a large segment of them, might well respond nationally to honesty and a little grit.

Apparently, serious confrontation by respected leaders, attempted before only by Stevenson in 1952 (before the Supreme Court decision), may have some effect in turning the tide of attitude in the South. By daring a most unfavorable reaction, Stevenson has managed to break new ground on the integration problem, even in the midst of a touch-and-go campaign. As yet there has been no similar Republican effort in this direction. Nixon's statement that he is an honorary member of the NAACP seems calculated only to rile a South which still holds itself proud. Certainly Nixon's approach can have no constructive effect. But the President is capable of a dignity which might possibly carry off an Eisenhower version of Stevenson's "direct confrontation." It remains to be seen whether President Eisenhower will take advantage of this new victory of attitude over the South's carefully cultivated irrationality.