DOCSLIB.ORG

Virginia and Massive Resistance

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Virginia and Massive Resistance Virginia and Massive Resistance Amelia Richardson and Emily Ganley Timeline of the Massive Resistance 1. Brown II is taken on by the Warren Court (1955-56) 2. The Gray Commission is formed. Official response to Brown II: 11/11/1955 3. Feb. 12, 1956: Senator Harry F. Bird calls for “Massive Resistance” 4. March 1956: “Southern Manifesto” 5. September 1956: The Stanley Plan 6. January 1958 Lindsay Almond becomes governor of Virginia 7. 1958-1964 Schools close because of not wanting to desegregate 8. 1968- Green vs. New Kent County The Gray Commission ● While the Supreme Court deliberates Brown II, this Commission was made to form Virginia’s response to the plan ● 32 Virginian State Lawmakers appointed by governor Thomas B. Stanley ○ Appointed 8/30/1954 ○ Called “The Commission on Public Education,” or “The General Assembly” headed by Garland Gray ○ All white men, most representing Southside Virginia counties ● Found Brown II to be wrong (shocking!!!) and segregation to be right ○ Brown II didn’t follow the precedents of other courts ○ Segregation good for blacks, too ○ The Supreme Court no "gave no consideration to the adverse effect of integration upon white children." The Gray Plan ● Proposed a local option: technically allowed desegregation, but its goal was to inhibit any actual desegregation. ○ Final report: 11/11/1955 ○ 1) Localities have the power to assign students to schools ○ 2) Since they had decided that no child should be forced to go to a desegregated school… parents should be given tuition grants for alternative education (Involved amending state constitution) ○ Gave local governments the power because they were closest to the people, in order to avoid “enforced integration” ● Criticism: being too compliant with Brown ○ It would cause desegregation in localities that allowed it Senator Harry F. Byrd ● Virginia State Senator (1915-1925), Virginia Governor (1926-1930), and United States Senator (1933-1965) ● Known for his vain opposition to New Deal programs and Civil Rights Legislation ○ His career is marked by the infamous “Massive Resistance” in Virginia and his mandated segregation of schools, even after Brown vs. Board of Education II ○ His opposition to the Civil Rights Legislation came from: ■ The need to keep the “Southside” of Virginia (known to be very racist) for voting, as they were his biggest support ■ His anger at the federal government for getting into Virginia’s state affairs The Stanley Plan- background ● Named after Governor Stanley ● Against the local option (Gray Plan), only a unified resistance could prevent the “mixing of races” ● “Interposition”- drawing from Antebellum South ideology- The state can interpose its power to stop the implementation of federal court rulings. ○ Arlington County School Board ● Either- or proposition ● Critical policy for the Massive Resistance The Stanley Plan ● Pupil Placement Board- so African Americans could not be assigned to white schools (racial criteria) ● Three strategic components of the Resistance: ○ Governor would close any school facing a federal desegregation mandate ○ Government would attack NAACP’s ability to bring suits, harass black parents serving as plaintiffs ○ Commission of Constitutional Government- James J. Kilpatrick- defended segregation (state’s rights) in the court of public opinion ● Passed- 13 Statutes- September 1956 ○ Passed, though a significant population favored the local plan (Gray plan) Massive Resistance ● Famous editor of the Richmond News Leader, James K Kilpatrick, popularizes the idea of interposition: “states could place themselves between the federal government and the citizens of the state when state officials felt the federal government had exceeded its constitutional powers” (Rights and Protests IB Textbook) ● February 12, 1956 Byrd gives a speech calling for massive resistance to federally mandated school desegregation ○ Massive Resistance: legislation and accompanying government actions that fought the federal government to maintain Virginia’s segregated school system ● March 12, 1956- Senator Byrd creates the “Southern Manifesto”, which demonstrated resistance to the Board vs. Board of Education II decision through the opposition of integrated schools ○ Signed by 19 Senators and 77 House of Representatives ■ The senators were from Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas (only had one), and Virginia Massive Resistance Continued ● July 1956, federal judges order the desegregation of public schools in Charlottesville and Arlington County ○ This leads to the Stanley Plan ● Through the Stanley Plan, the Pupil Placement Board was put into place which gave the state the power to assign specific students to particular schools ○ The main purpose: to make sure the state had the power to not allow African American students into white schools ● January 1958, Lindsay Almond becomes the governor of Virginia; she is a democratic supporter of Massive Resistance ● September 1958, Norfolk, Charlottesville, and Warren County are ordered by federal courts to integrate African American students. Almond responds by closing the schools, locking out 13,000 students ○ This leads to two opposing sides: white Americans who favored re-opening the schools and following the court orders, and segregationist advocates ○ The white Americans who favored re-opening the schools create the Virginia Committee for Public Schools, the largest citizen-led organization involved with the integration crisis. They illustrated that the white community was not only one mindset The Perrow Plan ● January 19, 1959- The Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals states that the state’s action in closing the schools violated the United States Constitution ● Almond begins repealing elements of the Stanley Plan- by February, African American students are allowed to enter previously white-only schools in Norfolk and Arlington ○ But, even with reforms that allowed African American students to attend schools, many still didn’t attend school ● The Almond Administration implements the Perrow Plan (created by Virginia Senator Mosby Perrow) ○ The plan established “freedom of choice”, where parents could choose to enrol their children in any school if they appealed to the Pupil Placement Board. This tried to keep desegregation to a minimum. ○ Even though many still supported Massive Resistance, this plan was passed by both houses of Virginia legislature and became law Green vs. New Kent County ● Many schools slowly began integrating students- but by 1964, only 5% of African American students attended school with white children. A school in Prince Edward County held out desegregation until 1964 ● Nothing changed much in Virginia until the ruling in Green vs. New Kent County ○ Between Charles C. Green (and other African American students) and New Kent County ○ Supreme Court case ○ http://www.britannica.com/topic/Green-v-County-School- Board-of-New-Kent-County ○ This ruled that “freedom of choice” was “unacceptable because of the available alternatives that promised a quicker and more-effective conversion to a school system that was not racially segregated” (Encyclopaedia Britannica) ○ This lead to a large increase in desegregation in Virginia Bibliography ● Heinemann, R. L. "Harry F. Byrd (1887–1966)." Encyclopedia Virginia. Virginia Foundation for the Humanities, 22 Jun. 2014. Web. 25 Apr. 2016. ● "Massive Resistance." Massive Resistance. Virginia Historical Society. Web. 25 Apr. 2016. <http://www.vahistorical.org/collections-and- resources/virginia-history-explorer/civil-rights-movement-virginia/massive>. ● "Southern Manifesto on Integration." PBS. PBS, Dec. 2006. Web. 25 Apr. 2016. <http://www.pbs. org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/sources_document2.html>. ● Goldstein, Richard. "James J. Kilpatrick, Conservative Voice in Print and on TV, Dies at 89." The New York Times. The New York Times, 16 Aug. 2010. Web. 25 Apr. 2016. <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/us/17kilpatrick.html?_r=0>. ● Gordon, Vivian Hopp. "Green v. County School Board of New Kent County." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica. Web. 25 Apr. 2016. <http://www.britannica.com/topic/Green-v-County-School-Board-of-New-Kent-County> ● Rogers, Mark, and Peter Clinton. Rights and Protests: Course Companion. United Kingdom: Oxford UP, 2015. Print. ● Thomas, William G. "Gray Commission." Television News of the Civil Rights Era : Film & Summaries. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 May 2016. <http://www2.vcdh.virginia.edu/civilrightstv/glossary/topic-009.html>.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The "Virginian-Pilot" Newspaper's Role in Moderating Norfolk, Virginia's 1958 School Desegregation Crisis
    Old Dominion University ODU Digital Commons Theses and Dissertations in Urban Services - College of Education & Professional Studies Urban Education (Darden) Winter 1991 The "Virginian-Pilot" Newspaper's Role in Moderating Norfolk, Virginia's 1958 School Desegregation Crisis Alexander Stewart Leidholdt Old Dominion University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/urbanservices_education_etds Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Education Commons, Journalism Studies Commons, Mass Communication Commons, and the Race and Ethnicity Commons Recommended Citation Leidholdt, Alexander S.. "The "Virginian-Pilot" Newspaper's Role in Moderating Norfolk, Virginia's 1958 School Desegregation Crisis" (1991). Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), dissertation, , Old Dominion University, DOI: 10.25777/tb1v-f795 https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/urbanservices_education_etds/119 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Education & Professional Studies (Darden) at ODU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations in Urban Services - Urban Education by an authorized administrator of ODU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1 THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT NEWSPAPER'S ROLE IN MODERATING NORFOLK, VIRGINIA'S 1958 SCHOOL DESEGREGATION CRISIS by Alexander Stewart Leidholdt B.A. May 1978, Virginia Wesleyan College M.S. May 1980, Clarion University Ed.S. December 1984, Indiana University A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of Old Dominion Unversity in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY URBAN SERVICES OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY December, 1991 Approved By: Maurice R. Berube, Dissertation Chair Concentration Area^TFlrector ember Dean of the College of Education Member Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.
    [Show full text]
  • Massive Resistance.Ppt [Read-Only]
    MassiveMassive ResistanceResistance VViirrggiinniiaa 11995544--11996644 MMaassssivivee RReessisisttaannccee In 1896, in Plessy v. Ferguson, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that separate but equal facilities were legal. This ruling upheld the idea of separation of the races and enforced the Jim Crow laws. MMaassssivivee RReessisisttaannccee Under the Jim Crow laws, life in the south was strictly segregated. Theaters, schools, waiting rooms, restaurants, even water fountains were segregated. MMaassssivivee RReessisisttaannccee After World War II, however, there was a desire for change. African Americans were no longer willing to accept the Jim Crow laws. MMaassssivivee RReessisisttaannccee President Truman issued an Executive Order integrating the Armed Forces in 1947.With his signature, the President, as Commander in Chief, ended segregation – in the Armed Forces, but not in the rest of society! Life was still segregated throughout the south. MMaassssivivee RReessisisttaannccee Schools and other facilities were supposed to be “separate but equal”. They were separate, but rarely were they equal! African American schools often went without indoor plumbing and heating systems. MMaassssivivee RReessisisttaannccee In 1954, The United States Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education, that “Separate but equal was inherently unequal” and the Plessy decision of 1896 was overturned. Separate facilities were no longer legal. MMaassssivivee RReessisisttaannccee Senator Harry Byrd, Sr. of Virginia said the Brown decision “will bring implications and dangers of the greatest consequence.” He went on to announce that he would use all legal means to continue segregated schools in Virginia! MMaassssivivee RReessisisttaannccee Governor Stanley of Virginia appointed a commission to look at options for defying the Brown decision.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft—April 9, 2008 Explaining Massive Resistance: the Debate
    Draft—April 9, 2008 Explaining Massive Resistance: The Debate over the Capacity of the Law to Promote Racial Equality, 1954-1964 Christopher W. Schmidt American Bar Foundation *** This is very much a work-in-progress. Please do not cite or quote without the author’s permission *** ABSTRACT In this article, I examine how those who supported the Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) understood and explained the subsequent rise of massive resistance to school desegregation and the conspicuous failures of the Court’s mandate throughout the South. My analysis draws on several interrelated historical claims. First, that Brown was initially greeted with a striking degree of optimism toward the prospects for successful implementation. This optimism was, in large part, the product of arguments activists and scholars had been making in the years preceding Brown about the capacity of legal reform to promote the cause of racial equality. Racial liberals argued that white supremacist attitudes were not as entrenched as was commonly assumed, and that the law could play a powerful pedagogical role as a definer of moral value. But by 1956, as the white South mobilized in defiance of the Court’s desegregation mandate, these legalist assumptions about the reformist potential of the rule of law and the nature of southern race relations came under assault. Massive resistance, unexpected in its strength, scope, and the bluntness of its refutation of federal authority, forced those who had previously touted law’s capacity to reconsider their positions. Some sought to downplay the extent of Brown’s failures, or to explain resistance as the product of ineffective, tentative application of the law, rather than any flaw in the assumption that laws could uproot entrenched customs.
    [Show full text]
  • Massive Resistance and the Origins of the Virginia Technical College System
    Inquiry: The Journal of the Virginia Community Colleges Volume 22 | Issue 2 Article 6 10-10-2019 Massive Resistance and the Origins of the Virginia Technical College System Richard A. Hodges Ed.D., Thomas Nelson Community College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.vccs.edu/inquiry Part of the Higher Education Commons, History Commons, and the Politics and Social Change Commons Recommended Citation Hodges, R. A. (2019). Massive Resistance and the Origins of the Virginia Technical College System. Inquiry: The Journal of the Virginia Community Colleges, 22 (2). Retrieved from https://commons.vccs.edu/inquiry/vol22/iss2/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ VCCS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Inquiry: The ourJ nal of the Virginia Community Colleges by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ VCCS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Hodges: Massive Resistance and the Origins of the VTCS MASSIVE RESISTANCE AND THE ORIGINS OF THE VIRGINIA TECHNICAL COLLEGE SYSTEM RICHARD A. HODGES INTRODUCTION In the summer of 1964, Dr. Dana B. Hamel, Director of the Roanoke Technical Institute in Roanoke, Virginia received a phone call that would change the course of Virginia higher education. The call was from Virginia Governor Albertis Harrison requesting Hamel serve as the Director of the soon to be established Department of Technical Education. The department, along with its governing board, would quickly establish a system of technical colleges located regionally throughout Virginia, with the first of those colleges opening their doors for classes in the fall of 1965.
    [Show full text]
  • Virginia's Massive Folly
    Undergraduate Research Journal at UCCS Volume 2.1, Spring 2009 Virginia’s “Massive Folly”: Harry Byrd, Prince Edward County, and the Front Line Laura Grant Dept. of History, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs Abstract This paper examines the closure of public schools in Prince Edward County, Virginia from 1959- 1964 in an effort to avoid desegregation. Specifically, the paper traces the roots of the political actions which led to the closure and then-Governor Harry Byrd's role in Virginia's political machine at the time. The paper argues that it was Byrd's influence which led to the conditions that not only made the closure possible in Virginia, but encouraged the white citizens of Prince Edward County to make their stand. In September, 1959, the public schools in Prince Edward County, Virginia closed their doors to all students. While most white students were educated in makeshift private schools, the doors of public education remained closed until the Supreme Court ordered the schools to reopen in 1964. This drastic episode in Virginia’s history was a response to the public school integration mandated by the Brown vs. Board of Education decision in 1954. Prince Edward County was not the only district in Virginia to take this action; it was merely the most extreme case of resistance after state laws banning integration were struck down as unconstitutional. Schools all over the state closed, most only temporarily, and the white community rallied to offer white students assistance to attend segregated private schools rather than face integration in a movement termed “Massive Resistance.” While this “Brown backlash” occurred all over the South, it was most prevalent in the Deep South.
    [Show full text]
  • Roanoke School Desegregation and the Politics of Delay
    W&M ScholarWorks Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects 2013 Integrating "The Star City of the South": Roanoke School Desegregation and the Politics of Delay Peter Carr Jones College of William & Mary - Arts & Sciences Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/etd Part of the Other Education Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Jones, Peter Carr, "Integrating "The Star City of the South": Roanoke School Desegregation and the Politics of Delay" (2013). Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects. Paper 1539626722. https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.21220/s2-sa7m-en67 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Integrating “the Star City of the South”: Roanoke School Desegregation and the Politics of Delay Peter Carr Jones Clearwater, Florida Bachelor of Arts, Washington and Lee University, 2006 A Thesis presented to the Graduate Faculty of the College of William and Mary in Candidacy for the Degree of Master of Arts Lyon Gardiner Tyler Department of History The College of William and Mary May 2013 Integrating “the Star City of the South”: Roanoke School Desegregation and the Politics of Delay Peter Carr Jones Clearwater, Florida Bachelor of Arts, Washington and Lee University, 2006 A Thesis presented to the Graduate Faculty of the College of William and Mary in Candidacy for the Degree of Master of Arts Lyon Gardiner Tyler Department of History The College of William and Mary May 2013 APPROVAL PAGE This Thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts ^ 1 / F^eter Carr Jones Approved by the Committee, January 2013 ___________ Committee Chair Scott Reynolds Nelson, Legum Professpr of History College of William and Ma M Davison Douglas Dean and Arthur B.
    [Show full text]
  • 20Th Century Virginia Study Guide (Answer Key)
    Name/Number: _____________________________ Date: _____________ 20th Century Virginia Study Guide (Answer Key) Standard VS.9a: SWBAT demonstrate knowledge of twentieth and twenty- first centuries Virginia by describing the economic and social transition from a rural, agricultural society to a more urban, industrialized society, including the reasons people came to Virginia from other states and countries. During the early twentieth century, agriculture began to change. Old systems of farming were no longer effective. Crop prices were low. Growth of Virginia’s cities People moved from rural to urban areas for economic opportunities. Technological developments in transportation, roads, railroads, and streetcars helped cities grow. Coal mining spurred the growth of Virginia towns and cities as people moved from the countryside to find jobs. During the 20th Century, Northern Virginia has experienced growth due to increases in the number of federal jobs located in the region. In the late 20th century and the early 21st century, Northern Virginia and the Tidewater region have grown due to computer technology. People have moved to Virginia from many other states and nations. Standard VS.9b: SWBAT demonstrate knowledge of twentieth and twenty- first centuries Virginia by identifying the impact of Virginians on international events. Woodrow Wilson was a 20th Century President who wrote a plan for world peace. George C. Marshall was a military leader who created an economic plan to ensure world peace. Standard VS.9c: SWBAT demonstrate knowledge of twentieth and twenty- first centuries Virginia by identifying the social and political events in Virginia linked to desegregation and Massive Resistance and their relationship to national history.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 299 Literature Review the 1954 Supreme Court Ruling in Brown V
    1 299 Literature Review The 1954 Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. Board of Education brought tremendous upheaval to the state of Virginia, which had operated under deep segregation for decades. Under the influence of an extremely conservative political machine headed by Democratic Senator Harry Flood Byrd, Virginia enacted a strategy of total opposition to the Court’s decision. The “massive resistance” movement, as Byrd called it, was loosely based on the doctrine of interposition and included several legislative attempts to impede integration in the state. Politicians sympathetic to the Byrd machine withheld state funding from integrated schools and created pupil assignment plans that awarded only a few token spots to black students at white schools. The movement, which most historians cite as taking place from 1954 to 1956, ultimately caused temporary school closings in Charlottesville, Norfolk, and Prince Edward County, Virginia. While much has been written on the aftermath of the Brown ruling in the South, relatively few monographs have been published about Virginia’s massive resistance in particular.1 The majority of books specifically dealing with Virginian resistance were published in the 1960s and 1970s, a trend that presumably occurred because of the large interest in school integration during the Civil Rights movement. Until recently, books concerning Virginia’s massive resistance sought to explain it only through the actions of conservative whites who adamantly opposed the 1 For an overview of resistance to desegregation in the South, see Reed Sarrait, The Ordeal of Desegregation: The First Decade (New York: Harper and Row, 1966); Numan V. Bartley, The Rise of Massive Resistance: Race and Politics in the South During the 1950’s (Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1969); Francis M.
    [Show full text]
  • The First Labor History of the College of William and Mary
    1 Integration at Work: The First Labor History of The College of William and Mary Williamsburg has always been a quietly conservative town. Throughout the first half of the twentieth century to the time of the Civil Rights Act, change happened slowly. Opportunities for African American residents had changed little after the Civil War. The black community was largely regulated to separate schools, segregated residential districts, and menial labor and unskilled jobs in town. Even as the town experienced economic success following the restoration of Colonial Williamsburg in the early 1930s, African Americans did not receive a proportional share of that prosperity. As the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation bought up land in the center of town, the displaced community dispersed to racially segregated neighborhoods. Black residents were relegated to the physical and figurative margins of the town. More than ever, there was a social disconnect between the city, the African American community, and Williamsburg institutions including Colonial Williamsburg and the College of William and Mary. As one of the town’s largest employers, the College of William and Mary served both to create and reinforce this divide. While many African Americans found employment at the College, supervisory roles were without exception held by white workers, a trend that continued into the 1970s. While reinforcing notions of servility in its hiring practices, the College generally embodied traditional southern racial boundaries in its admissions policy as well. As in Williamsburg, change at the College was a gradual and halting process. This resistance to change was characteristic of southern ideology of the time, but the gentle paternalism of Virginians in particular shaped the College’s actions.
    [Show full text]
  • Our Segregated Capital: an Increasingly Diverse City With
    Our Segregated Capital An Increasingly Diverse City with Racially Polarized Schools Gary Orfield & Jongyeon Ee February 2017 2 Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles Our Segregated Capital, February 2017 Table of Contents LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 FOREWORD ............................................................................................................................................................... 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................... 11 BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT .......................................................................................................................... 15 WHY IT MATTERS: RESEARCH SHOWS POWERFUL INTEGRATION EFFECTS .................................................................... 16 THE HISTORY OF THE ISSUE IN WASHINGTON ...................................................................................................................... 19 CIVIL RIGHTS AND WASHINGTON SCHOOLS .......................................................................................................................... 21 THE JUDICIAL EFFORT: SERIOUS BUT TOO LATE .................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • School Integration Heroic Or Quixotic? by NOAH L
    J: ·wr's Note: In the spring of 2014, the Arlington Historical Society umbia Masonic Lodge #285 co-sponsored the second annual Arlington ~-- E say Contest, intended to encourage interest and research in local ~--. The contest was open to 11 th graders from H-B Woodlawn, Wakefield, ...... ~-·'""' on-Lee, and Yorktown High Schools. The theme of the contest was at extent was Arlington County heroic or quixotic in its pursuit of school _ ·o n, considering contemporary trends?" The Arlington Historical Society d to publish the winning essay, below.] School Integration Heroic or Quixotic? BY NOAH L. KENNEDY (WASHINGTON-LEE HIGH SCHOOL) Last Friday, at approximately 10:45, first period at Washington-Lee High - hool took a brief hiatus for the annual black heritage assembly. For half an ~our, the auditorium was crowded with an audience of just under a thousand - nagers. They sat attentively, with the occasional whisper, as they listened ·o kits, poetry, and anecdotes about people ranging from Malcolm X, to Rosa P ks, to Nelson Mandela, and then to Trayvon Martin. Although the assembly -\- both creative and educational, and showed its audience how far we've ome as a nation, it missed one important part of black heritage and civil rights - at strikes a bit closer to home: the history of our own county's civil rights movement, and more specifically, the brave1y that surrounded the integration of ..\r lington County Public Schools. Despite the overwhelming resistance against hool integration in Virginia, Arlington County's school board and its citizens bowed enormous bravery and fortitude by opposing the popular belief and law of its state.
    [Show full text]
  • An Analysis of the Prince Edward County, Virginia, Free School Association Lisa A
    University of Richmond UR Scholarship Repository Master's Theses Student Research 8-1993 Open the doors : an analysis of the Prince Edward County, Virginia, Free School Association Lisa A. Hohl Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/masters-theses Recommended Citation Hohl, Lisa A., "Open the doors : an analysis of the Prince Edward County, Virginia, Free School Association" (1993). Master's Theses. Paper 577. This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Research at UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Open the Doors: An Analysis of the Prince Edward County, Virginia, Free School Association by Lisa A. Hohl Thesis for Master's Degree I University of Richmond I 1993 f' ,\ Thesis director Dr. R. Barry Westin j1ii l When the Supreme Court ordered integration of public l' l : schools in 1954 following Brown vs. Board of Education, ' Virginia responded with a policy of "massive resistance." Public schools were closed in Prince Edward County between 1959 and 1964. This thesis examines the school closings themselves, but concentrates primarily on the creation, implementation, and effect of the Prince Edward County Free School Association, a privately funded school system that operated during the 1963-1964 school year. Initiated by the Kennedy Administration as a one-year, emergency program, the Free Schools were designed to reestablish formal education for the county's black children. This thesis relied primarily upon the uncataloged Free School papers, personal interviews and documents from the John F.
    [Show full text]