DOCSLIB.ORG

(Delivered on January 24, 2015) to Stand for What

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
(Delivered on January 24, 2015) to Stand for What February 10, 2015 (Delivered on January 24, 2015) To Stand for What is Right Owen Fiss On May 17, 1954 a new chapter began in the history of the nation. On that day, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Brown v. Board of Education condemning the racial caste system that had long characterized American society, thereby initiating a process that would uproot deeply entrenched institutions and practices. In time, this process of change proved so profound and so sweeping that many have called it a civil rights revolution, though it must always be remembered that this was a most unusual revolution: it was a revolution by and through the law. It was the Supreme Court that had called for the end of Jim Crow and then placed the task of implementing its edict on the lower federal courts. As part of this plan, federal judges throughout the South were charged with the duty of eradicating the traditional dual school system, insuring the right to vote, and dismantling the vast network of practices that kept blacks second-class citizens. New statutes, most notably the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, reinforced these court victories and gave the principles that emerged from them new force. In some instances new procedures for implementing these principles were devised. As in any period of fundamental change, the citizenry was mobilized. Their action was non-violent and took many different forms – freedom rides, sit-ins, voter registration drives, and marches. These demonstrations and the sometimes brutal reaction to them ensured the passage of new legislation and may even 1 account for the eventual course of judicial decisions. Yet the demands that drove these activities in the first place were often legal in nature. Protestors invoked the authority of the Supreme Court and demanded that the rights conferred by the Constitution be respected. The law was also forged into a shield that protected those who sought change and had dared raise their voice against Jim Crow. State convictions of those who sat in were, for example, overturned by the Supreme Court. The lower federal courts were also called on to protect those who marched or helped others register to vote. On a number of occasions, military forces were deployed, as in the Little Rock crisis of 1957 or the effort in 1962 to register James Meredith at Ole’ Miss. Even then, the military was used to ensure implementation of court orders and, by endowing law with force of arms, helped bring the old order to an end. In the face of these tumultuous developments, the lawyers of the nation were summoned to the temple of justice. They were asked for all the goodness they possessed to help deliver on the Constitution’s promise of equality. Thanks to a Princeton connection, John Doar received his call in the spring of 1960, and he then left the family firm in New Richmond, Wisconsin and headed east. John arrived in Washington, D.C. on July 4, 1960, to begin a career in the Department of Justice that would last seven years and span the presidencies of Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, and Lyndon Johnson. During this period, John carried a number of different titles: “First Assistant,” and later “Assistant Attorney General.” He never made much of his titles; John was happy to be known simply as an attorney in the Department of Justice. John fully appreciated the importance of the private bar and its representation of individuals who claimed that their rights were denied. He believed these efforts accounted for much of the dynamic quality of American law. Yet John sharply differentiated the responsibilities of a lawyer in the Department 2 of Justice from those of a lawyer representing an aggrieved individual and was always mindful of the special responsibilities he shouldered because he represented the United States. The United States is the most unusual of all clients, in part because it has resources and power possessed by no other. Sometimes, the power seems greater to an outsider than it is. I worked for John in 1966 and 1967, and I marveled at the paucity of lawyers then in the Civil Rights Division – only about forty. In 1960, when John began his career with the Division, the number of lawyers was even fewer – only about twenty. Still, John was acutely aware of the unique power of the United States, not only because of its financial and material resources, but, perhaps more importantly, because of the special prerogatives that the United States possesses, such as its capacity to initiate criminal prosecutions or to seek injunctions against ongoing state proceedings. John understood that when he spoke, he was speaking for the nation and as a result, he went about his work with an added sense of responsibility and circumspection. Aside from any issues of power, John also understood that, because he represented the United States, his obligation to justice was absolute and unqualified. Although the motto inscribed on the Department of Justice building – “The United States wins when justice is done” – is familiar to many, John was one of those who truly believed it. Of course, the requirements of justice do not always reveal themselves. John knew that and was fully aware of the uncertainties of justice. John’s way of discovering the meaning of justice was not that of Plato. John had no taste for abstract reflection. Instead, he focused on a specific, concrete situation, and sought to find the principles of justice immanent in it. John 3 emphasized the facts and the importance of getting them right, absolutely right. “Facts, facts, facts” was his mantra. In truth, John worried about the law as much as the facts. He endlessly deliberated about the law with his staff, usually in his large, corner office, sometimes with Burke Marshall on the phone, after Burke had long left the Department. Now and then, I would get a call from John in the middle of the night to go over some point of law upon which he felt uneasy. Not only was John’s search for justice relentless, it was also sometimes brutal, when, for example, he firmly rejected, because it was not quite right, a brief or a complaint that the staff had worked on for days and days. No mistake about it – these rejections stung. But we soon got over our bruised feelings, and when we did, we marveled at John’s exactitude and respected him for it. I even enjoyed the teasing, which, I must admit, sometimes lasted for years. John had a passion for what might properly be called legwork. The Division was based in Washington, but John was insistent that the staff spend a great deal of time in the communities where rights were being violated and the Constitution neglected. He wanted the lawyers of the Division to see on a first-hand basis the caste system at work. He also wanted them to develop good working relationships with local officials, including the clerks of the federal courts who might someday be needed to keep their offices open after hours for a late filing. For these reasons, John reorganized the Division and distributed the lawyers largely along geographic lines. Most of the forty-some lawyers in the Division in the mid-sixties were assigned to the Southeast and Southwest Sections. The first covered Georgia and Alabama, the other Mississippi and Louisiana. A small handful of lawyers covered the rest of the country. John applied the same work ethic to himself. He was always in the field, even when he was Assistant Attorney General. Sometimes, he spent as much as 4 180 days a year on the road, gathering facts, getting to know the local communities under stress, and developing working relationships with local officials and leaders of the civil rights movement. John was always on the move. At one moment he was in Montgomery, then in Mobile, on to Jackson, then to New Orleans, back to Biloxi, and perhaps a stop in Houston before heading back to Washington. Even when he was in town, John worked well into the night and was the last to leave the office. The burden of all this on his family was enormous, sometimes even painful. It weighed heavily on him too. He loved his family, deeply, but always remained disciplined and focused on his work. He was driven not by a rigid understanding of the duties of office, but rather by the need he felt to see that justice was done. I began to work for John on the Thursday before Labor Day in the summer of 1966. On Friday he walked into my office and invited me to travel with him over the weekend to Montgomery, Alabama. While the prospect of explaining to my family how I might be spending the Labor Day weekend was terrifying, I immediately said yes, and off we went. We eventually made our way to the chambers of Judge Frank Johnson. What then transpired was remarkable – as far as I could tell, it had no precedent in anything that I was taught about the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. John and Judge Johnson had a wide-ranging discussion about the pace of school desegregation throughout Alabama and what might be done to accelerate it. I sat by quietly, struck by the rapport between the two men and the authority that John conveyed, not just because he spoke for the nation, but also and perhaps more importantly, because of his devotion to justice. During the mid-sixties, Judge Johnson began the practice – also not contemplated by the Federal Rules – of issuing on his own accord orders that invited the United States, represented by the Department of Justice, to intervene in 5 civil rights cases pending before him – for the United States to participate as an amicus, but with almost all the rights of a party.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Report on Eric Dreiband: Nominee for Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division
    REPORT ON ERIC DREIBAND: NOMINEE FOR ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION July 2017 ABOUT THE LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW The principal mission of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law is to secure equal justice for all through the rule of law, targeting in particular the inequities confronting African Americans and other racial and ethnic minorities. The Lawyers’ Committee is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, formed in 1963 at the request of President John F. Kennedy to enlist the private bar’s leadership and resources in combating racial discrimination and the resulting inequality of opportunity – work that continues to be vital today. Among its major areas of work are Educational Opportunities, Fair Housing & Community Development, Voting Rights, Criminal Justice and Economic Justice. Since its inception, the Lawyers’ Committee has been committed to vigorous civil rights enforcement, the pursuit of equal justice under law, and fidelity to the rule of law. ABOUT THE “WHERE IS JUSTICE” REPORT SERIES For 60 years, the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice has stood at the forefront of efforts to protect and safeguard the civil rights of African American, Latino and other minority communities. As the Division prepares to mark its 60th anniversary, it is important to closely examine the current downward trajectory of civil rights enforcement under United States Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Oversight from the public and civil rights groups will also be key in exposing actions taken by the Justice Department that jeopardize federal civil rights enforcement. Thus, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law is launching a new series of reports entitled “Where Is Justice” to review actions taken by the Justice Department, and to shine a spotlight on key civil rights matters that are being abused or ignored by this administration and Attorney General Sessions.
    [Show full text]
  • Burke Marshall Oral History Interview – JFK#1, 5/29/1964 Administrative Information
    Burke Marshall Oral History Interview – JFK#1, 5/29/1964 Administrative Information Creator: Burke Marshall Interviewer: Louis F. Oberdorfer Date of Interview: May 29, 1964 Place of Interview: Washington D.C. Length: 32 pages Biographical Note Marshall served as Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice (1961-1964); general counsel of International Business Machines Corp. (1965-1969); and as an adviser to Robert F. Kennedy. In this interview, he discusses violence in Alabama in May 1961 during the Freedom Rides, including the situation in Birmingham Alabama, negotiations with Governor John Malcolm Patterson, the decision to send federal marshals to Montgomery, Alabama, and federal protection for Martin Luther King, Jr., among other issues. Access Restrictions Open. Usage Restrictions According to the deed of gift signed March 27, 1972, copyright of these materials has passed to the United States Government upon the death of the interviewee. Users of these materials are advised to determine the copyright status of any document from which they wish to publish. Copyright The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be “used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research.” If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excesses of “fair use,” that user may be liable for copyright infringement.
    [Show full text]
  • Dorothy Landsberg
    Part of the Richard Nixon Oral History Project An Oral History Interview with DOROTHY LANDSBERG Interview by Timothy Naftali November 7, 2011 Sacramento, CA The Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum 18001 Yorba Linda Boulevard Yorba Linda, California 92886 (714) 983-9120 FAX: (714) 983-9111 [email protected] http://www.nixonlibrary.gov Descriptive Summary Scope and Content Biographical Note Dorothy Landsberg served on the staff of the United States House of Representatives Judiciary Committee Impeachment Inquiry in 1974. She began her career in the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice, on the staff of Assistant Attorney General John Doar. A graduate of Earlham College, Landsberg later went on to get her law degree from the University of Pacific, McGeorge School of Law. From 1987 until 2007, she was an associate and then a partner with Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann, and Girard, a Sacramento-based law firm. She then became the Director of Clinical Studies at the University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law. Administrative Notes About the Richard Nixon Oral History Project The Richard Nixon Oral History Project was created in November 2006 at the initiative of Timothy Naftali to preserve the memories and reflections of former Nixon officials and others who had been prominent in the Nixon era by conducting videotaped interviews. Naftali insisted from the project’s inception that it be a serious, impartial and nonpartisan source of information about President Nixon, his administration, and his times. A second goal of the project was to provide public domain video that would be available as free historical content for museums and for posting on the Internet.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Department of Justice Report to the Attorny General of the State of Mississippi
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REPORT TO THE ATTORNY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI INVESTIGATION OF THE 1964 MURDERS OF MICHEAL SCHWERNER, JAMES CHANEY, AND ANDREW GOODMAN U.S. Department ofJustice, Civil Rights Division United States Attorney's Office, Southern District of Mississippi Federal Bureau of Investigation Table of Contents I. Introduction ............,......................................... ,~ ................. ,.... ,.. ·... ,,, ... ,....... ,..... ,........ ij, •••• , ........... , ••,, ............................., .......... 3 II. Factual Summary: 1964 l\llutders ................................... ~ .............................................................. :... 5 III .. Initial Federal Investigation: 19()4 11-11111•••• .. •••U••U••• .. ••....... a.............................u .............................. ~ ................................... 8 A. Initiation of Federal Investigation ....................................................................................................... 8 B. Dbcovery of Bodies.: ......................................................... : ............................................................. : 10 i C. Further Confidential"Source Infonnation ................................................................................ ~ ......... 11 [1 D. Jordan and Barnette .................................................. ,......................................................................... 11 l ij- E. Charging lhe 1967 Federal Prosecution ............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Selma and the Voting Rights Act in Oral History, the Civil Rights Division by James H
    Selma and the Voting Rights Act in Oral History, The Civil Rights Division By James H. Johnston You hear the name John Doar fleetingly in the recent film, Selma, which portrays the dramatic civil rights march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama to build support for passage of the Voting Rights Act. The story is told from the perspectives of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and President Lyndon Johnson. Most who see the film won’t know who Doar was, but his key role and that of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice in converting the drama into enactment and enforcement of the Voting Rights Act are detailed in the John Doar escorting oral history of Steve Pollak, Doar’s assistant and James Meredith successor as head of the Civil Rights Division. “John was a revered leader in the [Civil Rights] Division. He was in total control…. He had attorneys out in the South -- all over the South…. John went south himself all the time… and it fell to me to manage the Division from Washington,” Steve Pollak remembered.1 John Doar was often personally present and involved in the dramatic events as a representative of federal authority and law. In the photograph above, when James Meredith broke the color barrier at the University of Mississippi in 1962, Doar walked with him onto campus. Doar was in Alabama in March 1965 enforcing Judge Frank Johnson’s order that Dr. Martin Luther King had a constitutional right to lead the march from Selma to Montgomery. The Voting Rights Act was passed in August of that year.
    [Show full text]
  • The Selma March and the Judge Who Made It Happen
    6 BASS 537-560 (DO NOT DELETE) 1/7/2016 2:08 PM THE SELMA MARCH AND THE JUDGE WHO MADE IT HAPPEN Jack Bass During the violent storm that marked the Civil Rights Era that overturned the “Southern Way of Life” marked by racial segregation and the virtual removal of any participation by African-Americans in civil affairs such as voting and serving on juries that followed U.S. Supreme Court rulings at the end of the nineteenth century, no individual judge did more to restore such rights than Frank M. Johnson, Jr. on the Middle District of Alabama. Those Supreme Court cases a half-century earlier of course included Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, but also the almost unknown case of Williams v. Mississippi in 1898, and the two still little- known Giles cases from Alabama that soon followed. Essentially they gave constitutional approval for Southern states to all but eliminate African- Americans from voting. It is the historic background that provides the exceptional importance of Judge Johnson’s unprecedented order in restoring full voting rights for African-American Southerners. At thirty-seven, the youngest federal judge in the nation, Johnson called for a three-judge District Court on which he voted first in the 1956 Montgomery Bus Boycott case. Fifth Circuit Judge Richard Rives of Montgomery joined Johnson in a 2–1 ruling that for the first time expanded the Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. Board of Education beyond the issue of segregated schools. And as is well known, the outcome of that case launched the civil rights career of Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • John Doar,” He Said
    American National Biography Doar, John Michael (3 Dec. 1921–11 Nov. 2014) Philip A. Goduti Jr. https://doi.org/10.1093/anb/9780198606697.013.0700899 Published online: 27 September 2018 Doar, John Michael (3 Dec. 1921–11 Nov. 2014), lawyer and federal official, was born in Minneapolis, Minnesota, to William and Mae Doar. His father was a lawyer and his mother a teacher. He grew up in New Richmond, Wisconsin and attended St. Paul Academy, graduating in 1940. After high school he enrolled in Princeton University. His time in college was interrupted so he could serve in the US Air Force from May 1943 to November 1945 during World War II. Doar held the rank of second lieutenant and was training to be a bomber pilot when the war ended. After being discharged he resumed studying economics, politics, and history at Princeton and graduated in 1946 with a B.A. He went on to attend the University of California Berkeley Law School, graduating with his LL.B in 1949. He married Anne Leffingwell on 7 February 1948. They had four children together. In 1950 Doar worked in his family’s law firm, Doar and Knowles, out of New Richmond, Wisconsin. He focused mostly on trial law and made partner in 1953. In 1960 President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s assistant attorney general for civil rights Harold Tyler was looking for an assistant for the last six months of the administration. After several candidates refused, a mutual friend recommended Doar to Tyler. On 13 July 1960 he started working for the Department of Justice as special assistant to the attorney general.
    [Show full text]
  • A Conversation with John Doar
    CRS_FINAL.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 5/23/2013 2:44 PM Symposium Voices of the Civil Rights Division: Then and Now (October 28, 2011) Featuring Symposium Commentary by Gerald Stern, James P. Turner, John Rosenberg, and Chad Quaintance, a Guided Conversation Between Owen Fiss and John Doar, and an Introduction by Brian Landsberg TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION BY BRIAN K. LANDSBERG ...................................................... 1 II. OPENING COMMENTS BY GERALD STERN ....................................................... 4 III. COMMENTS BY JAMES P. TURNER ................................................................... 9 IV. COMMENTS BY JOHN ROSENBERG ................................................................. 14 V. COMMENTS BY CHAD QUAINTANCE .............................................................. 20 1964 ............................................................................................................... 20 1965 ............................................................................................................... 21 1966 ............................................................................................................... 22 VI. A GUIDED CONVERSATION WITH JOHN DOAR BY OWEN FISS ...................... 25 APPENDIX: WORKS REFERENCED......................................................................... 40 I. INTRODUCTION BY BRIAN K. LANDSBERG* Our law reviews are full of analyses of recent appellate court decisions, of legislation and regulation, and of trends in the law. We often, however,
    [Show full text]
  • Eyes on the Prize | 3 Episode 5: Mississippi: Is This America? (1962 - 1964)
    A Blackside Publication A Study Guide Written by Facing History and Ourselves Copyright © 2006 Blackside, Inc. All rights reserved. Cover photos:(Signature march image) James Karales; (Front cover, left inset image) © Will Counts, Used with permission of Vivian Counts; (All other inset images) © Bettmann/Corbis Design by Planet Studio For permissions information, please see page 225 TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD BY REP. JOHN LEWIS. 6 INTRODUCTION AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. 8 Judi Hampton of Blackside Margot Stern Strom of Facing History and Ourselves USING THE STUDY GUIDE . 12 EPISODE 1: AWAKENINGS (1954 - 1956). 14 Black Boys from Chicago Mamie Till-Mobley Goes Public Mose Wright Stands Up Rosa Parks Remembers A New Leader Emerges Women Working Together EPISODE 2: FIGHTING BACK (1957 - 1962). 26 Overturning Segregation in the Supreme Court The First Day of School Mob Rule Cannot be Allowed to Override the Decisions of Our Courts Confronting Desegregation Student to Student President Clinton Remembers Little Rock EPISODE 3: AIN’T SCARED OF YOUR JAILS (1960 - 1961). 40 Nashville Lunch Counter Sit-ins: An Interview with Diane Nash Nonviolence in Nashville Student Power A New Leader Emerges Freedom Rides EPISODE 4: NO EASY WALK (1961 - 1963) . 52 The Albany Movement Letter From a Birmingham Jail President Kennedy Addresses Civil Rights We Want Our Freedom and We Want It Now! We All Did It EYES ON THE PRIZE | 3 EPISODE 5: MISSISSIPPI: IS THIS AMERICA? (1962 - 1964) . 66 The White Citizens’ Councils Trying to Vote in Mississippi Freedom Summer An Integrated Movement Freedom Songs Incomplete Justice: Forty Years Later Taking It for Ourselves EPISODE 6: BRIDGE TO FREEDOM (1965) .
    [Show full text]
  • Keynote Address by Attorney General Nicholas Deb. Katzenbach to the Biennial Convention of the B'nai
    KEYNOTE ADDRESS (as delivered) BY ATTORNEY GENERAL NICHOLAS deB. KATZENBACH TO THE BIENNIAL CONVENTIOli OF THE Bt NAI BI RrrH WOMEN SBEnATOR-PARK HCYI'EL 8:00 P.M., SUNDAY, MARCH" 7, 1965 Mrs. Solov1ch, Mrs. 8"1ms, distinguished ladies -­ and outnumbered gentlemen: It is a grea.t and unusual honor for me to join you tOnight. I say great because of the far-flUIlg membership and activities of the B'nai B'rith Women. And I say unusual because it is not often that a. lawyer must plead his case before so fair a jury. Furthermore, it is a pleasure to be treated so hospitably by a B'nai Bfrith organization. It has not always been that way. Not long after the rioting a.t the University of Mississippi in 1962, I began receiving consider­ able anti-semitic hate mail, condemning me for taking part in the ItJe'W'ish conspiracy" to desegregate Southern universities. One of the wildest such statements vas in a. PBIIIl?hlet which Herman Edelsberg of the Anti-Defamation League sent on to me. In his covering letter, he wrote that for me to be considered Jewish by such Southern hate­ mongers might qualify me as a contributor to the United Jewish Appeal. But, he said, don't expect it to get you into B'nai B'rith. We have higher standardS So you can see I am particularly grateful to you, the members of B1nai B'rith women for inviting"~e here and for your welcome. Your concern at this convention is "The "Challenge of Change." Indeed, it is our unanimous concern.
    [Show full text]
  • The Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division: a Historical Perspective As the Division Nears 50
    THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE'S CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION: A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE AS THE DIVISION NEARS 50 March 22, 2006 I. INTRODUCTION It is my pleasure to speak to you today about the work of the Civil Rights Division. The Supreme Court, of course, looms large for all of us here at the Department of Justice. But the Court has a particularly special meaning for the Division, as the Division was born of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education. The history of the Division is intertwined with the Court's legacy regarding the fundamental rights and civil liberties enjoyed by every person in our nation. Founded in 1957, the Division will celebrate its 50th anniversary next year. In honor of this approaching milestone, I will focus my remarks today on the history of the Division and how it has been shaped by some of the seminal events, legislation, and court decisions that have marked the progress of our nation towards embracing civil rights protection for all individuals. II. A HISTORY OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION A. Creating A Civil Rights Division, 1957-1959 As you undoubtedly know, the Civil Rights Act of 1957 was the first civil rights legislation enacted into law following Reconstruction. It provided the Department with its first set of tools to prosecute racial inequality and political disenfranchisement. This Act was essentially a voting rights bill authorizing the Department to bring suits seeking relief for African-American voters.1 It also required the establishment of a Civil Rights Division within the Department of Justice to enforce federal the civil rights laws.
    [Show full text]
  • Interview with John Doar November 15, 1985 New York, New York Production Team: B Camera Rolls: 178-184 Sound Rolls: 1142-1143
    Interview with John Doar November 15, 1985 New York, New York Production Team: B Camera Rolls: 178-184 Sound Rolls: 1142-1143 Interview gathered as part of Eyes on the Prize: America's Civil Rights Years (1954-1965). Produced by Blackside, Inc. Housed at the Washington University Film and Media Archive, Henry Hampton Collection. Preferred Citation Interview with John Doar, conducted by Blackside, Inc. on November 15, 1985, for Eyes on the Prize: America’s Civil Rights Years (1954-1965). Washington University Libraries, Film and Media Archive, Henry Hampton Collection. Note: These transcripts contain material that did not appear in the final program. Only text appearing in bold italics was used in the final version of Eyes on the Prize. 00:00:03:00 [camera roll 178] [sound roll 1142] [slate] CAMERA CREW MEMBER: FLAGS, STICKS. [sync tone] INTERVIEWER: INTERESTED IN HAVING, COULD YOU DESCRIBE YOUR, YOUR VISITS TO MISSISSIPPI IN ’61 TO, TO INVESTIGATE THE ACTS OF INTIMIDATION. Doar: [coughs] Well early in ’61 we had already had several counties under investigation for voter discrimination and—but we hadn’t done much investigating in Mississippi. And so another lawyer in the division, Bob Owen and I, got a hold of a number of county maps in Mississippi. We knew, of course, the voter statistics where there were large numbers of blacks living in a county and where there were no registered voters. And we arranged to meet Medgar Evers at his house on a Saturday morning, I think it was in the spring of 1961, and we flew down to Jackson, Bob and I, and went to his house early the next morning, it was a Saturday morning.
    [Show full text]