Three NC Congressmen refuse to sign on to "Southern Manifesto," 1956: This Date in History

  • Thread starter Thread starter donbosco
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 1K
  • Views: 451K
  • Off-Topic 
IMG_3957.jpeg


From the Omaha, Nebraska Evening World-Herald, March 12, 1956

NC Reps. Thurmond Chatham, Charles B. Deane, and Harold D. Cooley refuseed to sign on to the Declaration of Constitutional Principles (the so-called "Southern Manifesto") of 11 Mar. 1956—a document pledging its signers to the use of "every lawful means" to resist what they considered the usurpation of power by the federal judiciary in public school desegregation. (Chatham and Deane lost their bids for renomination in the state Democratic primary May 26. Their failure to sign the manifesto was a major issue used against them.)

In a later comment to his pastor, Deane said: "I do not have to remain in Washington but I do have to live with myself. I shall not sign my name to any document which will make any man anywhere a second-class citizen."



Text of the "Southern Manifesto" is here:
 
Last edited:
IMG_3957.jpeg


From the Omaha, Nebraska Evening World-Herald, March 12, 1956

NC Reps. Thurmond Chatham, Charles B. Deane, and Harold D. Cooley refuseed to sign on to the Declaration of Constitutional Principles (the so-called "Southern Manifesto") of 11 Mar. 1956—a document pledging its signers to the use of "every lawful means" to resist what they considered the usurpation of power by the federal judiciary in public school desegregation. (Chatham and Deane lost their bids for renomination in the state Democratic primary May 26. Their failure to sign the manifesto was a major issue used against them.)

In a later comment to his pastor, Deane said: "I do not have to remain in Washington but I do have to live with myself. I shall not sign my name to any document which will make any man anywhere a second-class citizen."



Text of the "Southern Manifesto" is here:
The last paragraph of the clipped article states, "Some Southern Senators have stated that if the Democratic National Convention should take a strong stand in favor of integration, a third party movement might arise in the South." WOW! They were completely wrong. Why go to the bother of starting a third party, when one of the existing parties was willing to completely reject its entire history and forfeit any shred of integrity in order to crack the "Solid South?" And just like that the modern Republican Party was born, was freed from the shackles of decency that Abaham Lincoln had imposed on it, and was able to embrace the ethics, morals, tactics, and political strategy of the Klu Klux Klan.

ETA: Sort of a shame for the Republican Party to allow itself to be consumed by the racist wing of the Democratic Party. Entirely unnecessary. If a third party had formed in the South as a result of a split of the Democratic Party, the Republican Party might not have needed to sell its soul to the racist Devil. A split of Southern Democrats between racists and non-racist probably would have resulted in the non-racist Southern Democrats being a third-place party that would have gradually bled into the National Republican Party. I know from first-hand experience, that I prefer the company of non-racist Democrats to racist Democrats. And I am old enough to remember when racist Democrats had not yet fully migrated to the Republican Party. But as the expression goes, "You dance with the one who brought you to the party." So, the Republican Party and white racists are linked together in a "til death do us part" relationship.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top