Introduction
The dissertation focuses on discussing and analyzing the various political forces that came into prominence in Virginia after the Brown v. Board of Education ruling. In particular, it discusses the political moderates and their gradual change from allowing desegregation to actively campaigning against it. Noted in this process is the Byrd Organization, which managed to take advantage of the public sentiment to stay in power. The author supposes that the moderates have become the main enemy of change in the state.
Arguments and Sources
First, the author establishes a basic framework for Virginia’s socio-political background. It identifies a presence of a split in public opinion among white Virginians. Black activists in the state continued to campaign for school integration and widespread policy change, being supported by only a fraction of Virginia’s people[i]. At the same time, the presence of both a radically conservative and a moderate faction is noted. This delineation is supported by a large amount of written evidence, ranging from contemporary correspondence and news coverage to various types of research into southern social trends. A change in the actions of the moderates presents the most interesting and important field of inquiry for Hershman. As stated in the dissertation, this group, along with the liberal population of Virginia was responsible for countering resistance to desegregation, and largely focused on slow change[ii]. With the involvement of the Byrd organization during the desegregation movement, however, the moderate position began to slowly shift toward supporting the resistance.
The Making of Massive Resistance
Main Thesis
For this analysis, the author discusses the influence of power dynamics, decision-making, and various political worldviews within the Byrd Organization. Gates’ main supposition is that the involvement of interest groups and a lack of black political voice led to the creation of the Massive Resistance movement.
Arguments and Sources
The author argues that the Byrd Organization contained several varying interest groups, who were capable of performing neutrality. While radical progressives and conservatives existed within the organization, actively advocating for polarizing positions is politically risky, discouraging any extreme action[iii]. At the same time, the lack of an active way for transparent advocacy from marginalized groups and white activists, the influence of white supremacists became much more prominent[iv]. The author goes into great detail describing how the Massive Resistance movement connects with the works of the interest groups in power, largely using documents from Massive Resistance’s time.
Virginia’s “Massive Resistance” Laws Declared Unconstitutional
Main Thesis
The article details a US District Court decision condemning Massive Resistance as unconstitutional. The ruling asserts that discrimination against black students solely based on their race or the color of their skin is against the law. This decision, while isolated, is understood as an important step in counteracting the Massive Resistance and enacting desegregation.
Arguments and Sources
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ended 4-year-old litigation in 1959, in which the proposed massive resistance laws were publicly declared unconstitutional. The Brown v. decision, among others, was primarily used by the court to support this position. With this decision, the defendants of the case were thereby prohibited from closing down schools to prevent desegregation[v]. Notably, the opening of the aforementioned schools was not forced, as it did not directly connect with the unconstitutional nature of their forced closing.
Virginia’s Massive Resistance
Main Thesis
The author supposes that various social groups have had a variety of unique reactions to the introduction of desegregation laws. While much attention has been devoted to the educational and political sectors, businesses, the media, and the clergy have also had their unique relationships with integration. These subjects are discussed as a framework around a depiction of Senator Byrd as a main driving force of the Massive Resistance.
Arguments and Sources
One of the central arguments proposed by the author is that different parts of society have had varying reactions to integration laws. News media ran largely opposed to desegregation, taking a reactionary approach to change. In contrast, the clergy embraced integration as a given and largely chose to respect the new legislative push. Businesses largely worked in opposition to progressive change, as long as it did not run contrary to their profit interest. This picture of a politically-diverse Virginia highlights the power held by the Byrd Organization, and its capability to take advantage of social uncertainty. The author also delineates responsibility for the Massive Resistance against Senator Byrd, framing him as the main perpetrator[vi]. Similar to other older sources, this work operates using contemporary interviews, pieces of written legislation, and court cases.
Standing Before the Shouting Mob: Lenoir Chambers and Virginia’s Massive Resistance to Public-School Integration
Main Thesis
The book asserts that Lenoir Chambers, as an editor of The Virginian-Pilot, played a central role in supporting desegregation. The work argues that continued work excellence, and accurate and persuasive reporting, together with other qualities of the publication, were capable of influencing the controversy’s resolution.
Arguments and Sources
First, the book asserts that Lenoir Chambers was an exceptional and important editor for the Virginian-Pilot. Combining good education with a desire for progressive social reform and high-quality reporting, Chambers is seen as a great voice of change in a varied political spectrum of Virginia[vii]. The man drew from a wide range of lived experiences, books, journals, and anecdotes, attracting audiences.
Another important argument the book proposes is that Chambers, along with his newspaper, served as a liberal voice in a conservative state – a much-needed pushback against white supremacy and an important tool for empowering the masses. Both of these points culminate in asserting the role of the editor and his work in promoting school integration and influencing public opinion and perception. The existence of a desegregation-positive paper at a time when many of the public voices were uniformly against change was vital in assisting the court and the people in fighting Mass Resistance[viii]. The work cites a variety of documents, books, and accounts, ranging from studies of southern history to the Chamber’s life accomplishments.
Keep on Keeping On: The NAACP and the Implication of Brown V. Board of Education in Virginia
Main Thesis
The NAACP has played a central role in promoting well-being, education, and equal opportunity for the black population of Virginia. The work of the association was performed in strong opposition to local legislation, and many people of color have made their contributions to the effort.
Arguments and Sources
The influence and effect of people of color and their organizations on supporting desegregation is often understated. With the majority of government positions being occupied by white political leaders, their relationship with black activist groups can be overlooked. The work reinforces the NAACP as a driving force behind changes taking place after the Brown v. ruling. Direct efforts and activities, including protests, were a large part of the move toward desegregation. Thanks to the involvement of the NAACP, the black population had a voice outside of common positions of power and non-transparent decision-making channels[ix]. The sources include past rulings on segregation-related court cases, overviews of Jim Crow laws, black history, and NAACP documents.
Elusive Equality: Desegregation and Resegregation in Norfolk’s Public Schools
Main Thesis
The book focuses on Norfolk’s schools, and their work in fighting resistance to desegregation. The main thesis of this work asserts that the local activist groups and black people of Norfolk are chiefly responsible for integration in the area, and also made a large contribution to fighting the Massive Resistance.
Arguments and Sources
First, the book asserts the local governments and legislation continuously failed to effectively ensure desegregation, leaving a large number of black students unable to attend schools. The public opinion of the white population after the Brown v. case moved slowly, compared to the black residents who saw it as an opportunity for change. Political activism from the black population was a necessary and important step in voicing the need for integration. However, Norfolk faced significant difficulty with the process, notably falling back into segregation in 1983[x]. Without a consistent presence of people of color’s voice in the public sphere, or an ability to influence discourse, those supporting segregation could run unopposed.
A Lost Cause Revisited: Virginia’s Massive Resistance
Main Thesis
The article uses the topic of the Massive Resistance to discuss both the social conditions of the state of Virginia and the unique circumstances that led to the event itself. The author considers the event to be worth studying as a consolidation of socio-political conditions of the time, and an exemplifier of the issues people at the time faced.
Arguments and Sources
The dissertation poses that the existence of the Massive Resistance as a movement was an important landmark in Southern history and a vital consideration in discussing states’ rights. In addition, it is also seen as a reflection of the conservative population’s anxieties, changing perceptions of racial superiority, culture, power dynamics, and law[xi]. The movement is a concentrated look into how segregation was used as a tool of power and control over the black population. Compared to other authors, Burnette seeks to properly contextualize and examine the event as it pertains to both the past and the future of the state, instead of adding to the existing body of discussion regarding responsibility. The arguments and positions of the Massive Resistance movement and picked apart and challenged. In particular, the author works to identify two distinct arguments the movement used – one about race and one about state political power. The former argument stemmed from continuously dehumanizing black people and perceiving them as inherently dangerous or lesser[xii]. The latter one, however, took into consideration the autonomy of a state as a part of the US, and its ability to self-govern or reject laws it sees as dangerous. The dissertation helps frame the desegregation movement as a perceived existential threat to conservative political leadership, and the established hierarchies.
References
Burnette, Ann E. A Lost Cause Revisited: Virginia’s Massive Resistance, 1954-1962. 1996.
Daugherity, Brian J. Keep On Keeping On: The NAACP and the Implementation of Brown v. Board of Education in Virginia. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2016.
Gates, Robbins L. The Making of Massive Resistance: Virginia’s Politics of Public School Desegregation, 1954-1956. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2014.
Harrison, Joseph. “Virginia’s “Massive Resistance” Laws Declared Unconstitutional.” The Journal of Negro Education 28, no. 2 (1959), 163. doi:10.2307/2293723.
Hershman, James H. A Rumbling in the Museum: The Opponents of Virginia’s Massive Resistance. 1978.
Leidholdt, Alexander, and Lenoir Chambers. Standing Before the Shouting Mob: Lenoir Chambers and Virginia’s Massive Resistance to Public-school Integration. University Alabama Press, 1997.
Littlejohn, Jeffrey L., and Charles H. Ford. Elusive Equality: Desegregation and Resegregation in Norfolk’s Public Schools. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2012.
Muse, Benjamin. Virginia’s Massive Resistance. 1961.
Footnotes
- James H. Hershman, A Rumbling in the Museum: The Opponents of Virginia’s Massive Resistance (1978).
- Hershman, A Rumbling in the Museum.
- Robbins L. Gates, The Making of Massive Resistance: Virginia’s Politics of Public School Desegregation, 1954-1956 (Chapel Hill: the University of North Carolina Press, 2014)
- Gates, The Making of Massive Resistance.
- Joseph Harrison, “Virginia’s “Massive Resistance” Laws Declared Unconstitutional,” The Journal of Negro Education 28, no. 2 (1959): xx, doi:10.2307/2293723.
- Benjamin Muse, Virginia’s Massive Resistance (1961).
- Alexander Leidholdt and Lenoir Chambers, Standing Before the Shouting Mob: Lenoir Chambers and Virginia’s Massive Resistance to Public-school Integration (University Alabama Press, 1997).
- Leidholdt and Chambers, Standing Before.
- Brian J. Daugherity, Keep On Keeping On: The NAACP and the Implementation of Brown v. Board of Education in Virginia (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2016).
- Jeffrey L. Littlejohn and Charles H. Ford, Elusive Equality: Desegregation and Resegregation in Norfolk’s Public Schools (Charlottesville: the University of Virginia Press, 2012).
- Ann E. Burnette, A Lost Cause Revisited: Virginia’s Massive Resistance, 1954-1962 (1996).
- Burnette, A Lost Cause.