Minneapolis spokesman., 1963-06-06
You Can't Compromise
On Civil Rights

The new line, in the civil rights battle, is that
the northern liberals ought to adopt positions of
sweet reasonableness, and come out on the side of
"law and order" If we read this phrase correctly,
those who push it have kind of atavstic (or nos
talgic) idea going back to the days when 'law and
order" a concept Of society maintained and en-
forced by the dominant industrial firm each area
with the aid Of tear gas professional thugs and the
local cops.
Today's concept leaves out the big corporations,
supplements the poison gas with wild police dogs
and fire hoses and is just as bitter and wild and
vicious and just futile - its predecessor
idea
There is one difference This Is the first time
widespread, organized effort to involve liberals In a
reputation of campaign for civil rights has been
attempted Who in the world ever thought this one
up?
Liberals are being lectured about keeping
'calmer tempers" and "the use Of questionable
means to accomplish good ends"
We are bewildered Is the resort, then, to the
right of petition spelled out in the United States
Constitution questionable means? We dissent The
only questionable would be to fail to use this
great power which put in hands by very
wise forebears
and wild cops of Dixie in exercising the right of
petition? We dissent
Negroes are being chided for the ugly rise Of
tempers" This is most unltnd and unfair. 1t is Ne
groes who are being placed in Dixie concentration
camps, who are being clubbed who being torn
by savage dogs. 1t is Negroes who being taxed
to support colleges and universities which they are
not allowed to attend.
In the midst Of all this, James Reston (who is
old enough to know better) writes in the New York
Times (Which is sophisticated enough to know bet
ter) "In unanimous decision last week the su-
preme Court complained about the slowness Of pub
Lie school desegregation. No more delay be toll
Grated remarked the Washington Post.
But what does this mean? When you stop
tolerating' delay, what do you do-integrate by
force?"
OF course, Mr.. Reston is not uninformed or
politically illiterate his question may suggest
What you do he full well knows, is start enforc-
ing the law Enforcement Of the law Is not a resort
to force in the way Mr.. Reston suggests.
Thousands of Negroes are in Jail in Alabama
for exercising the right Of petition. Governor Wal
lace who has openly defied the mandates of the
Supreme Court of the United States, is not in jail
Not single southern official - governor mayor
policeman, of all those who have been shouting de-
fance Of the constitution of the United States is to
our knowledge, in jail.
Governor Wallace has chosen to make his def
ance Of the law, the court, and the constitution a
personal and partisan political matter If those who
are worried about keeping orderly procedures will
join those Of us who worried about the rights
Of man. then the issue can be readily resolved. De-
fiance OF court orders such Governor Wallace Is
carrying out Is fagrant contempt, and punishable
as such Let few Of the Dixie throwbacks be dealt
with appropriately and the disorders Of Dixie will
quickly die down.
AS to those who want to persuade the liberals
to back down on this issue, the answer Is obvious
The Bill of Rights Is not subject to compromise or
watering down. 1t is an absolute statement Of the
rights Of Americans. and every time we let people
like Governor Wallace defy it. fail in our duties
citizens.
Evidently there Is going to be a high-powered
campaign against the liberal, Jeffersonian doctrine
Of the rights Of Americans. But we can promise
those who organizing it that liberals won't buy
It.