James Meredith's Legacy: Integrate Mississippi Schools

Independent Analysis Document The historical context of this document (a verbatim transcript of governor Ross Barnett) perfectly reflects the resistance that southern states put up in order to avoid integrating schools -- in this case, the University of Mississippi -- because Jim Crow laws were still in effect in southern states like Mississippi and Alabama. The earlier context to this document is the iconic Supreme Court case, Brown vs.

Board of Education, which officially meant that all schools should be integrated and that segregation in education ("separate but equal") was unconstitutional. However, southern states ignored this Supreme Court decision and kept schools segregated because racism against African-Americans was part of the culture and the beginning of the Civil Rights Movement did not change the minds of bigoted politicians. Black folks were considered to be less worthy than white folks in many places and in many instances.

Content -- Document There are several major points being made in this document, among them: a) the federal government has overstepped its authority in demanding that Mississippi open its doors to people of all ethnicities; b) the U.S. Constitution says that the power that is not given to the U.S.

should be assumed by the states, and therefore the state of Mississippi has the power do decide who shall attend universities and who should not; c) states rights trump any federal laws and states have the right to resist the federal government because they have the right of self-determination; and d) those who are pushing for integration through protests are nothing but "professional agitators" and "paid propagandists." This source, Governor Ross Barnett is arguing that his state doesn't have to abide by federal law and that the federal government is repugnant to the needs and values of the State of Mississippi.

He is following an old strategy -- not just racism -- of "divide and conquer." A political leader intend on convincing his constituency of something important will use the tools of rhetoric to draw clear lines between his position and the position he is struggling against. If you make the federal government the evil force that is intruding on Mississippi's rights, then you have divided your people against the authority of the federal government.

You conquer if you can get people to go along with you, and by using language that shocks the senses and gets people's attention, language that attacks rather than being purely descriptive, that kind of rhetoric helps a governor divide and conquer. For example, using phrased like "naked and arbitrary power," and "the power of force" the government is painting a picture that sounds more like a foreign invader into an innocent country.

"Naked" creates images of stark, even antisocial behavior; the phrase "naked aggression" has been used to describe invading forces coming into a sovereign nation, similar to what Nazi Germany did in showing naked aggression against Poland, France, and Holland. So Barnett has painted picture of marauding federal forces infiltrating the innocent state of Mississippi. This speech was no doubt written by a professional speech writer (not unusual for political leaders) because Ross Barnett was probably not skilled in the craft of creative narrative.

Saying that Mississippi has "majesty" as a "commonwealth" is a wildly ridiculous use of the English language; how could a state that refused to allow African-American children to have good schools and to attend schools with Caucasian students have "majesty"? The governor is of course ignoring the fact that what he calls the "ruthless demands" of the federal government are based on law. The governor thought he was cleverly building support from his people through his use of virulent adjectives and mean spirited metaphors.

But the 14th Amendment to the Constitution -- the part of the Constitution that was used in Brown vs. Board of Education -- has the equal protection clause, which states that in effect that states cannot make or enforce laws which deny individuals equal protection under the law. And even though there is nothing about education in the Constitution, the Supreme Court in Brown vs. Board of Education ruled that education is what citizens need in order to become fully informed people in a democratic society.

The tone of Barnett's speech is aggressively vicious; he believes that his anger and attack mentality will also anger Mississippi citizens, and hence they will back him up. In between his wildly obtuse attack images he uses phrases that sound intellectual, like some great orator might have used. For example, he says "Expediency is for the hour; principles are for the ages." Well he conveniently forgets that the principles in the 14th Amendment apply to all 50 states.

Using "blood" in his attack against the government, he seems to suggest that if bloodshed is necessary to keep James Meredith out of the University of Mississippi, then so be it. In the next line he notes that the founding fathers "risked even death," which adds to the image of blood and suggests not very subtly that if Mississippi has to go to war to prevent blacks from attending segregated schools, then that would have to be the path to follow.

The way Barnett jumps from one poetic image -- like "as long as rains descend and the winds blow" -- to the fact that the majority of citizens will "never submit to the moral degradation…shame and ruin" shows he is desperately.