Massive Resistance in Arkansas, Louisiana, and South Carolina

2021 ◽  
pp. 18-39
Keyword(s):  
South Carolina ◽  
Massive Resistance

Federalism Vindicated: University Desegregation in South Carolina and Alabama, 1962–1963

1989 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 292-318 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcia G. Synnott
Keyword(s):  
South Carolina ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
The Other ◽  
Minimum Amount ◽  
Board Of Education ◽  
The South ◽  
Massive Resistance ◽  
White Racism ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
The University

By the 1950s, two contrasting strategies of white leadership were emerging in the South: “massive resistance” and “moderation.” Both were equally committed in principle to a defense of segregation, but they employed different tactics: The former trumpeted “defiance,” the later counseled “delay.” The strategists of-“massive resistance,” who for a decade largely dominated politics in Alabama and Mississippi, were convinced that any concession, even a tactical one, would be a dangerous break in the dike of segregation. They believed that defiance could deter the federal government from enforcing the university desegregation decisions and Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954; 1955). On the other hand, the strategists of “moderation,” who gained political ascendancy in South Carolina, maneuvered within the law, first to postpone implementation of Brown, and then to determine the minimum amount of desegregation that blacks would accept, which would not at the same time inflame white racists. In effect, they used skillful tactics of delay to “moderate” both white racism and black aspirations. Ultimately, they were more successful in achieving their objectives than the resisters, because they avoided sweeping federal interventions.

“No Solution Offers Except Coercion”

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Mickey
Keyword(s):  
South Carolina ◽  
The State ◽  
The South ◽  
White People ◽  
Massive Resistance ◽  
White Community ◽  
Rate Capacity

There is no one way, but many. … The South proposes to use all of them that make for resistance. [Brown] tortured the Constitution—the South will torture the decision. —John Temple Graves, strategist of massive resistance (1955) Must South Carolina indulge bluster and vituperation in place of summoning candor and courage? Have ignorance, poverty, and prejudice fed on each other until the white community has sunk to second-rate capacity? … Some will say that the conscience of the state is dead. … If that is true, no solution offers except coercion, while we entertain the hope that prudent acquiescence will substitute for more valorous self-correction. If the white people of South Carolina furnish no worthy response in the crisis, then humiliation and rehabilitation by other hands is their portion....

Massive Resistance and the Death of a Black Newspaper

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sid Bedingfield
Keyword(s):  
South Carolina ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Black Activism ◽  
Massive Resistance ◽  
Her Family ◽  
Resistance Movement

This chapter details the demise of a black newspaper, the Lighthouse and Informer, and the role of white newspapers in the rise of massive resistance to civil rights in South Carolina. John McCray’s newspaper had always depended financially on help from fellow activist Modjeska Simkins and her family, but a growing feud between the two civil rights activists eventually doomed the black newspaper. The rising pressure exerted by the white massive resistance movement contributed to the collapse of the newspaper and the decline in black activism in the late 1950s. Charleston News and Courier editor Thomas R. Waring Jr. and his chief political reporter, William D. Workman Jr., played central roles in establishing the white citizens’ council movement and using anti-communist rhetoric to undermine the civil rights effort.

“Integration with Dignity”

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Mickey
Keyword(s):  
South Carolina ◽  
White Supremacy ◽  
Black Education ◽  
The State ◽  
Board Of Education ◽  
Massive Resistance ◽  
The Public ◽  
Black Protest ◽  
Party Cohesion ◽  
The Public Sphere

This chapter examines how the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Brown v. Board of Education sparked a crisis over the desegregation of Clemson College in South Carolina. Prior to Brown, South Carolina's rulers sought to preempt the invalidation of state-mandated segregation by improving black education. After the ruling, they launched a strategy of massive resistance: decrying, deterring, and deferring threats to white supremacy in the public sphere. The chapter first reviews the state of black education before Brown and South Carolina's attempts to preempt the decision. It then considers the state's responses to Brown in the 1950s and early 1960s, showing that its leaders attacked both white civil society and black protest organizations. It also describes how the state bolstered its institutional resources to manage democratization pressures and concludes with an assessment of how politicians capitalized on ruling party cohesion and an improved coercive apparatus to navigate the Clemson crisis.

School Desegregation

2018 ◽  
pp. 11-53
Author(s):  
Elaine Allen Lechtreck
Keyword(s):  
South Carolina ◽  
Public Schools ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Board Of Education ◽  
Little Rock ◽  
Clemson University ◽  
Massive Resistance ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Central High

On 17 May 1954, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled unanimously in Brown v The Board of Education that segregated public schools are unconstitutional. This chapter describes massive resistance organized by politicians and white supremacist groups throughout the South. Crises are described at Clinton High in Tennessee, Central High in Little Rock, Arkansas, the Universities of Mississippi and Alabama, Tuskegee High School in Alabama, and Clemson University in South Carolina as well as the courage of the Reverends Turner, Boggs, Cartwright, Ogden, Campbell, Gray, Davis, Sellers, Morris, Cousins, Lyles, Jackson, and Webster at these locations. It includes statements in support of the decision by the governing boards of major religious denominations, twenty-eight young ministers of the Mississippi Methodist Conference, and contributors to South Carolinians Speak, a booklet on moderation. Later the Supreme Court backed away from enforcing school integration. Scholars Wright, Jacoway, Wolters, Bell, Higgins, and Snider comment.

An Ultrastructural Comparison of Hepatocytes from ADH+ and ADH−Peromyscus Maniculatus

1996 ◽  
Vol 54 ◽  
pp. 30-31
Author(s):  
J. T. Ellzey ◽  
D. Borunda ◽  
B. P. Stewart
Keyword(s):  
South Carolina ◽  
Adult Male ◽  
Uranyl Acetate ◽  
Model System ◽  
Deer Mice ◽  
En Bloc ◽  
Genetic Stock ◽  
Hepes Buffer ◽  
Transmission Electron ◽  
Color Scanner

Genetically alcohol deficient deer mice (ADHN/ADHN) (obtained from the Peromyscus Genetic Stock Center, Univ. of South Carolina) lack hepatic cytosolic alcohol dehydrogenase. In order to determine if these deer mice would provide a model system for an ultrastructural study of the effects of ethanol on hepatocyte organelles, 75 micrographs of ADH+ adult male deer mice (n=5) were compared with 75 micrographs of ADH− adult male deer mice (n=5). A morphometric analysis of mitochondrial and peroxisomal parameters was undertaken.The livers were perfused with 0.1M HEPES buffer followed by 0.25% glutaraldehyde and 2% sucrose in 0.1M HEPES buffer (4C), removed, weighed and fixed by immersion in 2.5% glutaraldehyde in 0.1M HEPES buffer, pH 7.4, followed by a 3,3’ diaminobenzidine (DAB) incubation, postfixation with 2% OsO4, en bloc staining with 1% uranyl acetate in 0.025M maleate-NaOH buffer, dehydrated, embedded in Poly/Bed 812-BDMA epon resin, sectioned and poststained with uranyl acetate and lead citrate. Photographs were taken on a Zeiss EM-10 transmission electron microscope, scanned with a Howtek personal color scanner, analyzed with OPTIMAS 4.02 software on a Gateway2000 4DX2-66V personal computer and stored in Excel 4.0.

Use of the AMA Guides in State Workers' Compensation Systems: 2009 Update

2009 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 13-16
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham ◽  
Jenny Walker
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
North Carolina ◽  
South Carolina ◽  
South Dakota ◽  
Rhode Island ◽  
Workers Compensation ◽  
Fourth Edition ◽  
Sixth Edition ◽  
Specific Guideline ◽  
Compensation Systems

Abstract The AMAGuides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) is the most widely used basis for determining impairment and is used in state workers’ compensation systems, federal systems, automobile casualty, and personal injury, as well as by the majority of state workers’ compensation jurisdictions. Two tables summarize the edition of the AMA Guides used and provide information by state. The fifth edition (2000) is the most commonly used edition: California, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Kentucky, New Hampshire, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Vermont, and Washington. Eleven states use the sixth edition (2007): Alaska, Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Wyoming. Eight states still commonly make use of the fourth edition (1993): Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, South Dakota, Texas, and West Virginia. Two states use the Third Edition, Revised (1990): Colorado and Oregon. Connecticut does not stipulate which edition of the AMA Guides to use. Six states use their own state specific guidelines (Florida, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, and Wisconsin), and six states do not specify a specific guideline (Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Virginia). Statutes may or may not specify which edition of the AMA Guides to use. Some states use their own guidelines for specific problems and use the Guides for other issues.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document