I miss Bill

[Imran Siddiqui]

If he wanted to save his political ass, he wouldn't have sent any troops at all. It was much more risky to forcibly integrate.

And he was hesitant because he didn't believe the courts should make law. That doesn't make him a racist.

[Saint Marcus]

AmericanPresident.org claims Ike was a racist...

Eisenhower's middle way left him without vision or courageous convictions when he faced the greatest challenge of his presidency. Ike thought it a bad decision when in 1954 the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka that segregated schools violated the constitutional rights of African Americans. In Ike's mind, the unanimous decision of the Court represented a foolish intervention into the nation's social matters. He thought that the Court's ruling would be unenforceable, like prohibition had been.

Most importantly, Ike disagreed with the Court's intent. He held racist views towards African Americans and objected to forced integration. He refused to endorse the Supreme Court opinion, and his silence spoke volumes. When Governor Orval Faubus called up the Arkansas National Guard to stop nine young black children from entering a public school in Little Rock, Eisenhower refused to condemn the action. The president felt compelled to act when Faubus disbanded the guard and refused to enforce the federal court order, leaving the children at the mercy of a white mob. Ike federalized the Arkansas Guard and sent 1,000 paratroopers to Little Rock to guarantee the safety of the children as they desegregated Little Rock's public schools. He later agreed to back the Civil Rights Bills of 1957 and 1960, that helped protect the civil rights of African Americans.

Ike's dispatch of the military was the first federal government intervention in racial affairs since the era of Reconstruction (1870s). And his Civil Rights Bills were milestones. Yet Ike worked behind the scenes with staunch southern foes of integration who were attempting to weaken the Civil Rights Bills to make them harder to enforce. He left the decision on violations in the hands of white juries in the Deep South. He dispatched the paratroopers not because he supported integration as public policy, but because a state had openly challenged the authority of the federal government. Eisenhower took no action when Faubus closed all public schools rather than have them integrated—an action that also violated the Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. Neither did the president act when hundreds of white Citizens Councils (reminiscent of the Ku Klux Klan) were formed in the South to block integration by any means necessary, including violence. He did not speak in support of the Montgomery bus boycott or the African American lunch counter sit-ins all over the South. Nor did Eisenhower speak against the arrest and jailing of the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. for leading a demonstration in Atlanta. Privately, Ike identified even moderate civil rights leaders as extremists. In the 1960s, Ike stated that his appointment of Earl Warren, the former Republican governor of California, as the chief justice of the United States was "the most damnfool mistake I ever made."

[Ned]

Saint Marcus, You be the judge. Here is Eisenhower's address to the nation. IMHO, this is one great speech.


Good Evening, My Fellow Citizens: - For a few minutes this evening I want to speak to you about the serious situation that has arisen in Little Rock. To make this talk I have come to the President's office in the White House. I could have spoken from Rhode Island, where I have been staying recently, but I felt that, in speaking from the house of Lincoln, of Jackson and of Wilson, my words would better convey both the sadness I feel in the action I was compelled today to take and the firmness with which I intend to pursue this course until the orders of the Federal Court at Little Rock can be executed without unlawful interference.

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.

Our personal opinions about the decision have no bearing on the matter of enforcement; the responsibility and authority of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution are very clear. Local Federal Courts were instructed by the Supreme Court to issue such orders and decrees as might be necessary to achieve admission to public schools without regard to race-and with all deliberate speed.

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.

It was my hope that this localized situation would be brought under control by city and State authorities. If the use of local police powers had been sufficient, our traditional method of leaving the problems in those hands would have been pursued. But when large gatherings of obstructionists made it impossible for the decrees of the Court to be carried out, both the law and the national interest demanded that the President take action.

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. Here I might say that in a number of communities in Arkansas integration in the schools has already started and without violence of any kind. 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.

Unless the President did so, anarchy would result.

There would be no security for any except that which each one of us could provide for himself.

The interest of the nation in the proper fulfillment of the law's requirements cannot yield to opposition and demonstrations by some few persons.

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. Nor are the troops there for the purpose of taking over the responsibility of the School Board and the other responsible local officials in running Central High School. The running of our school system and the maintenance of peace and order in each of our States are strictly local affairs and the Federal Government does not interfere except in a very few special cases and when requested by one of the several States. In the present case the troops are there, pursuant to law, solely for the purpose of preventing interference with the orders of the Court.

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.

They deplore the call of extremists to violence.

The decision of the Supreme Court concerning school integration, of course, affects the South more seriously than it does other sections of the country. In that region I have many warm friends, some of them in the city of Little Rock. I have deemed it a great personal privilege to spend in our Southland tours of duty while in the military service and enjoyable recreational periods since that time.

So from intimate personal knowledge, I know that the overwhelming majority of the people in the South including those of Arkansas and of Little Rock - are of good will, united in their efforts to preserve and respect the law even when they disagree with it.

They do not sympathize with mob rule. They, like the rest of our nation, have proved in two great wars their readiness to sacrifice for America.

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 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.

Good night, and thank you very much.

September 24, 1957
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

[Saint Marcus]

the speech is all good and well, but how often do speeches made by politicians really make clear what's going on behind the curtains?

personally I don't care about Ike one way or the other. It was too long ago. the only thing I am interested in, is if he was a racist and (if so) how many people knew about it? Was it a public secret (commonly known, but never talked about)?

[Imran Siddiqui]

AmericanPresident.org claims Ike was a racist...

Objection to force integration is not racist. Ike was one of the few Presidents after FDR that wished for government restraint over the states.

And the site didn't really seem to be very thorough in History.

Ike was one of the first people to actively embrace black troops being integrated in the army.

[Japher]

All politicians are crooks... Wait. I should say most politicians are crooks. Sometimes it seems that the crooks that lies the best gets the best office post. As for the Bill vs. Dubya debate, I feel that both were the best liars of their times. We (the voting public of the US) feel for Bill because he had a nice smile and we went with Georgy boy because he seemed like he would do the least damage. Unfortunatly, Bill's grin ensnared more than just the public, and George's arrogance is causing more harm than most expected.

I stand behind my country and whatever idiot is running it. I have faith in the political system of our governemt, enough so that one or two people in it cannot destroy the fate of the country.

To continue a pseudo-patriotic stance... I could honestly care less if other nations "liked" OUR prez. If you feel, however, that having a president that is liked by other countries is more important than having a president that is liked by his/her own country than so be it. This is just an opinion.

As for the crimes of Clinton, or if you believe Clinton's sexual acts were worthy of impeachment, I totally feel he should of been booted to the street. As Commander and Cheif of the US Armed Forces he is obligated more so than any other to up hold and represent the laws of those military branches. Since one of those laws is concerning adultry he should of faced the same punishment as those he was leading.

On your confussions with Right Wing vs. Left Wing, Liberal vs. Conservative, and Republican and Democrate: The Right Wing and Left Wing designations were adopted (more so as a slang) to indicate where those of a certain persuasian sat in congress. Those who attempted to take money from those who had it and give to those who didn't sat on the Left, and those who defended the right for those to keep the money they earned sat on the Right. (Pretty good system for an early democracy) Since these designation were made the parties that tended to sit on one side or the other have changed. This indicates that Republicans and Democrats alike are proned to both liberal and conservative view points independent of their parties and souly dependent on issues at hand.

As for if Georgie should get in trouble for his Enron dealings: I will let the the Supreme Court and the Cogressional chorus to handle that. As I am more concerned about the level of corruption through all of the political systems. Where it seems that personal aggendas have taken a front seat to the safety and honor of the American people. If he is found of wrong doing I do not believe a simple slap on the wrist would suffice. They tried that with Clinton.

A President may not be a moral leader, but Clinton broke laws. A president is to be the leader of LAW and the American way of life. If the leader creator of laws can get away with breaking laws, and the leader of the American way of life can get away with adultry, than more power to him. Yet, it isn't right.

I don't miss Bill, and I won't miss George, as I don't miss his dad, Ronald or Jimmy (as well as the Jay Leno jokes, which suked). I do miss a president I can look on with respect and admiration, a president who sets personal agenda aside for the good of a nation, and a president who doesn't stick things in his mouth or let things come out of it that should of just been swallowed.

I am have spent my whole life being led by an idiot, and if it makes me an idiot to follow one, the ignorance must really be bliss.

[JohnT]

Let it be noted that Clinton was not in trouble because he got a BJ in the Oval, but that he lied about it twice: once in court, the other time in a freakin' press conference. "I did not have sex with that woman, ..." (he gestures his head slightly towards Hilary) "Miss Lewinski."

[Saint Marcus]

like I said, it's his own damn business. he has the right to lie about his personal life.

[Saint Marcus]

at least about things like this

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
he has the right to lie about his personal life.

Lieing before a court of law is commonly refered to as perjury. I wasn't aware that Europe considered perjury to be a human right.

[Saint Marcus]

I do, in cases where it's nobody's business

[Saint Marcus]

¡t's rediculous enough as it is that he had to appear in court for a thing like that.

only in America

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
only in America.

People don't get sued for sexual harassment in Europe?

[Saint Marcus]

we don't sue as readily here

and was that the case? was monica sexually harrased? if that's what she said, she's the one who lied...

[monolith94]

Sikander
#1 - Uhhhhh… excuse me? I display a full range of emotions… not just giggling fits…
#2 - "Errr.. Explain again how curtainling [sic] freedom makes them rich."
The relationship is coincidental, not causal.