Conflict and Deadlock: The Eisenhower Years - Document Overview

Please read this document and answer the following questions.

Dwight D. Eisenhower was elected in 1952 in large part because voters believed he could end the stalemated war in Korea and lead the United States through the turbulent challenges of the Cold War. Americans yearned for peace and stability, and "Ike" promised to provide both. As the hero of World War II and a political moderate who promised the nation a program of "dynamic conservatism," he perfectly suited the mood and needs of the time.

To satisfy the right wing of the Republican party, Eisenhower tapped John Foster Dulles as his secretary of state. A dogmatic, humorless Calvinist descended from missionaries and diplomats, Dulles resolved to wage holy war against "atheistic communism." Impatient with the containment program of Truman and the Democrats, he advocated a more aggressive policy designed to "liberate" the "captive peoples" of Eastern Europe and China from Communist tyranny. He threatened America's allies that if they did not support such a militant anti-communism he would undertake "an agonizing reappraisal" of American commitments. Moreover, Dulles believed that the Soviets only responded to force, and this sometimes required engaging in "brinkmanship," a willingness to take crises to the edge of war in order to stem Communist aggression.

Dulles's crusading rhetoric pleased Republican conservatives, but Eisenhower preferred a less confrontational approach. To be sure, he, too, was a fervent anticommunist. But as a former general he also knew when and where to fight. For example, when the Hungarians and Poles revolted against Soviet rule in 1956, the United States did not intervene to help "liberate" them. Eisenhower realized that there was no feasible way to do so. He, more than Dulles, understood the limits of American power.

Eisenhower also understood the financial limits of a worldwide crusade against Communism. The former general was determined to reduce military spending so as to maintain a balanced budget and a thriving economy. He and Dulles thus fastened on what came to be called a policy of "massive retaliation." Instead of relying on expensive ground forces to provide national security and preserve international order, they decided to use the threat of massive nuclear retaliation to keep the Soviets in line and at the same time reduce defense spending. This would give the United States what Dulles called "a bigger bang for the buck."

The threatened use of nuclear weapons, however, made little sense in dealing with trouble spots in Southeast Asia. In Indochina, for example, the United States had provided France with $1.2 billion in military aid between 1950 and 1954 in its war against Ho Chi Minh and his Vietminh followers. Eisenhower adopted a rationale that later American presidents would repeat: if the Communists gained control of Indochina, then the neighboring countries would soon fall like dominoes. In 1954 the French sought to draw the elusive Vietminh into the open for a single climactic battle at Dien Bien Phu. But the idea backfired, and the French found themselves surrounded and cut off. The French government issued a desperate plea for American air strikes, but Eisenhower refused. He did not want to involve the United States in another Asian war on the heels of the armistice in Korea.

The beleaguered French surrendered in May 1954. At the Geneva Peace Conference the parties agreed to divide Indochina at the 17th parallel, creating the temporary states of North and South Vietnam. An election scheduled for 1956 would decide under what form of government the infant nation would be unified (though the United States subsequently refused to support the election because it feared that Ho Chi Minh would win by a large margin). Just as the United States had filled the breach created by the departure of the British from Greece, the American government now agreed to replace the French in Vietnam, offering its support to the new South Vietnamese leader, Ngo Dinh Diem.

Perhaps the greatest challenge associated with the Cold War was that its ideological emphasis made every trouble spot in the world fertile ground for Soviet-American competition. The Middle East was roiling with tensions during the 1950s as Arab-Israeli hostility sparked violent confrontations and enhanced the appeal of Communist rhetoric. To deal with the volatile situation, Eisenhower requested from Congress in 1957 a resolution empowering him to use military force in the Middle East against any manifestation of "international communism." This came to be known as the Eisenhower Doctrine, and it carried a significance beyond its immediate purposes: it effectively transferred the authority to wage war from Congress to the executive branch (a shift that had begun during the Korean War but had never received explicit recognition or approval). In the summer of 1957 Eisenhower invoked his new authority, dispatching 15,000 marines to Lebanon.

In the domestic arena the most important development during the 1950s involved civil rights and race relations. The social changes wrought by World War II gave added impetus to the efforts to end racial segregation. The massive migration of blacks from the South to other regions of the country created new political dynamics that bolstered the efforts of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and other organizations to tear down racial barriers. Led by attorney Thurgood Marshall, the NAACP in 1950 decided to mount a legal challenge against the "separate but equal" doctrine that the Supreme Court had sanctioned in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896).

Their opportunity arose when Oliver Brown, a resident of Topeka, Kansas, filed suit against the local school board. He objected to the requirement that his daughter be bused across town in order to attend an all-black school. Initially, a federal appeals court rejected Brown's suit because the segregated schools in Topeka satisfied the "equality test." But after two years of testimony and arguments, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court in its famous decision, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas (1954). The resolution of the case did not itself end racial segregation, but it did set in motion a series of events that would give rise to a national civil rights movement dedicated to desegregation and true racial equality.

Please answer the following questions.

Click here for sample answers | Read the document again

Submit to Gradebook:

U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Brown v. Board Education, Topeka, Kansas (1954)

Please read this document and answer the following questions.

These cases come to us from the States of Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware. They are premised on different facts and different local conditions, but a common legal question justifies their consideration together in this consolidated opinion.

In each of the cases, minors of the Negro race, through their legal representatives, seek the aid of the courts in obtaining admission to the public schools of their community on a nonsegregated basis. In each instance, they have been denied admission to schools attended by white children under laws requiring or permitting segregation according to race. This segregation was alleged to deprive the plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment. In each of the cases other than the Delaware case, a three judge federal district court denied relief to the plaintiffs on the so-called "separate but equal" doctrine announced by this Court in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537. Under that doctrine, equality of treatment is accorded when the races are provided substantially equal facilities, even though these facilities be separate. In the Delaware case, the Supreme Court of Delaware adhered to that doctrine, but ordered that the plaintiffs be admitted to the white schools because of their superiority to the Negro schools.

The plaintiffs contend that segregated public schools are not "equal" and cannot be made "equal," and that hence they are deprived of the equal protection of the laws. . . .

In the instant cases, there are findings below that the Negro and white schools involved have been equalized, or are being equalized, with respect to buildings, curricula, qualifications and salaries of teachers, and other "tangible" factors. Our decision, therefore, cannot turn on merely a comparison of these tangible factors in the Negro and white schools involved in each of the cases. We must look instead to the effect of segregation itself on public education.

In approaching this problem, we cannot turn the clock back to 1868 when the Amendment was adopted, or even to 1896 when Plessy v. Ferguson was written. We must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout the Nation. Only in this way can it be determined if segregation in public schools deprives these plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws.

Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.

We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does.

. . . children in grade and high schools. To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. The effect of this separation on their educational opportunities was well stated by a finding in the Kansas case by a court which nevertheless felt compelled to rule against the Negro plaintiffs:

"Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law; for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the Negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to retard the educational and mental development of Negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racially integrated school system." Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority. Any language in Plessy v. Ferguson contrary to this finding is rejected.

We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Please answer the following questions.

Click here for sample answers | Read the document again

Submit to Gradebook:

Southern Declaration on Integration (1956)

Please read this document and answer the following questions.

The unwarranted decision of the Supreme Court in the public school cases is now bearing the fruit always produced when men substitute naked power for established law.

The Founding Fathers gave us a Constitution of checks and balances because they realized the inescapable lesson of history that no man or group of men can be safely entrusted with unlimited power. They framed this Constitution with its provisions for change by amendment in order to secure the fundamentals of government against the dangers of temporary popular passion or the personal predilections of public officeholders.

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 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. . . .

In the case of Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 the Supreme Court expressly declared that under the 14th amendment no person was denied any of his rights if the States provided separate but equal public facilities. This decision has been followed in many other cases. It is notable that the Supreme Court, speaking through Chief Justice Taft, a former President of the United States, unanimously declared in 1927 in Lum v. Rice that the "separate but equal" principle is "within the discretion of the State in regulating its public schools and does not conflict with the 14th amendment."

This interpretation, restated time and again, became a part of the life of the people of many of the States and confirmed their habits, customs, traditions, and way of life. It is founded on elemental humanity and commonsense, for parents should not be deprived by Government of the right to direct the lives and education of their own children.

Though there has been no constitutional amendment or act of Congress changing this established legal principle almost a century old, the Supreme Court of the United States, with no legal basis for such action, undertook to exercise their naked judicial power and substituted their personal political and social ideas for the established law of the land.

This unwarranted exercise of power by the Court, contrary to the Constitution, is creating chaos and confusion in the States principally affected. It 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. It has planted hatred and suspicion where there has been heretofore friendship and understanding.

Without regard to the consent of the governed, outside agitators are threatening immediate and revolutionary changes in our public-school systems. If done, this is certain to destroy the system of public education in some of the States.

With the gravest concern for the explosive and dangerous condition created by this decision and inflamed by outside meddlers:

We reaffirm our reliance on the Constitution as the fundamental law of the land.

We decry the Supreme CourtÕs encroachments on rights reserved to the States and to the people, contrary to established law, and to the Constitution.

We commend the motives of those States which have declared the intention to resist forced integration by any lawful means.

We appeal to the States and people who are not directly affected by these decisions to consider the constitutional principles involved against the time when they too, on issues vital to them, may be the victims of judicial encroachment.

Even though we constitute a minority in the present Congress, we have full faith that a majority of the American people believe in the dual system of government which has enabled us to achieve our greatness and will in time demand that the reserved rights of the States and of the people be made secure against judicial usurpation.

We pledge ourselves to use all lawful means to bring about a reversal of this decision which is contrary to the Constitution and to prevent the use of force in its implementation.

In this trying period, as we all seek to right this wrong, we appeal to our people not to be provoked by the agitators and troublemakers invading our States and to scrupulously refrain from disorder and lawless acts.

Please answer the following questions.

Click here for sample answers | Read the document again

Submit to Gradebook:

The Situation in Little Rock (1957), President Eisenhower

Please read this document and answer the following questions.

In the late summer of 1957 the school board of Little Rock, Arkansas tried to implement the initial phase of its desegregation plan mandated by the federal government. Governor Orville Faubus, however, thwarted their efforts. Concerned that he would not be reelected if he did not oppose integration, he called out the National Guard to prevent the first African-American students from attending Central High School. After a three-week stalemate, a federal judge ordered the guardsmen off the school grounds. As the soldiers departed, they were replaced by an enraged white mob. The mayor appealed to President Eisenhower, who dispatched units of the 101st Airborne Division to disperse the mob, restore order, and protect the black students. Eisenhower was a reluctant participant in the Little Rock crisis, and he took pains to explain his actions.

My Fellow Citizens. . . . I must speak to you about the serious situation that has arisen in Little Rock. . . . In that city, under the leadership of demagogic extremists, disorderly mobs have deliberately prevented the carrying out of proper orders from a federal court. Local authorities have not eliminated that violent opposition and, under the law, I yesterday issued a proclamation calling upon the mob to disperse.

This morning the mob again gathered in front of the Central High School of Little Rock, obviously for the purpose of again preventing the carrying out of the court's order relating to the admission of Negro children to that school.

Whenever normal agencies prove inadequate to the task and it becomes necessary for the executive branch of the federal government to use its powers and authority to uphold federal courts, the President's responsibility is inescapable.

In accordance with that responsibility, I have today issued an Executive Order directing the use of troops under federal authority to aid in the execution of federal law at Little Rock, Arkansas. This became necessary when my Proclamation of yesterday was not observed, and the obstruction of justice still continues. It is important that the reasons for my action be understood by all our citizens.

As you know, the Supreme Court of the United States has decided that separate public educational facilities for the races are inherently unequal and therefore compulsory school segregation laws are unconstitutional. . . .

During the past several years, many communities in our southern states have instituted public school plans for gradual progress in the enrollment and attendance of school children of all races in order to bring themselves into compliance with the law of the land.

They thus demonstrated to the world that we are a nation in which laws, not men, are supreme. I regret to say that this truth—the cornerstone of our liberties—was not observed in this instance. . . .

Here is the sequence of events in the development of the Little Rock school case. In May of 1955, the Little Rock School Board approved a moderate plan for the gradual desegregation of the public schools in that city. It provided that a start toward integration would be made at the present term in the high school, and that the plan would be in full operation by 1963. . . . Now this Little Rock plan was challenged in the courts by some who believed that the period of time as proposed in the plan was too long.

The United States Court at Little Rock, which has supervisory responsibility under the law for the plan of desegregation in the public schools, dismissed the challenge, thus approving a gradual rather than an abrupt change from the existing system. The court found that the school board had acted in good faith in planning for a public school system free from racial discrimination.

Since that time, the court has on three separate occasions issued orders directing that the plan be carried out. All persons were instructed to refrain from interfering with the efforts of the school board to comply with the law.

Proper and sensible observance of the law then demanded the respectful obedience which the nation has a right to expect from all its people. This, unfortunately, has not been the case at Little Rock. Certain misguided persons, many of them imported into Little Rock by agitators, have insisted upon defying the law and have sought to bring it into disrepute. The orders of the court have thus been frustrated.

The very basis of our individual rights and freedoms rests upon the certainty that the President and the Executive Branch of Government will support and insure the carrying out of the decisions of the federal courts, even, when necessary, with all the means at the President's command. . . .

Mob rule cannot be allowed to override the decisions of our courts.

Now, let me make it very clear that federal troops are not being used to relieve local and state authorities of their primary duty to preserve the peace and order of the community. . . .

The proper use of the powers of the Executive Branch to enforce the orders of a federal court is limited to extraordinary and compelling circumstances. Manifestly, such an extreme situation has been created in Little Rock. This challenge must be met and with such measures as will preserve to the people as a whole their lawfully protected rights in a climate permitting their free and fair exercise.

The overwhelming majority of our people in every section of the country are united in their respect for observance of the law—even in those cases where they may disagree with that law. . . . A foundation of our American way of life is our national respect for law.

In the South, as elsewhere, citizens are keenly aware of the tremendous disservice that has been done to the people of Arkansas in the eyes of the nation, and that has been done to the nation in the eyes of the world.

At a time when we face grave situations abroad because of the hatred that communism bears toward a system of government based on human rights, it would be difficult to exaggerate the harm that is being done to the prestige and influence, and indeed to the safety, of our nation and the world.

Our enemies are gloating over this incident and using it everywhere to misrepresent our whole nation. We are portrayed as a violator of those standards of conduct which the peoples of the world united to proclaim in the Charter of the United Nations. There they affirmed "faith in fundamental human rights" and "in the dignity and worth of the human person" and they did so "without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion."

And so, with deep confidence, I call upon the citizens of the State of Arkansas to assist in bringing to an immediate end all interference with the law and its processes. If resistance to the federal court orders ceases at once, the further presence of federal troops will be unnecessary and the City of Little Rock will return to its normal habits of peace and order and a blot upon the fair name and high honor of our nation in the world will be removed.

Thus will be restored the image of America and of all its parts as one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Please answer the following questions.

Click here for sample answers | Read the document again

Submit to Gradebook: