It’s been a while since I published one of my dad’s newspaper editorials. This was written more than 80 years ago:
Seldom has the United States Supreme Court been more emphatic in upholding civil liberties than it was in the opinion written by Justice Hugo L. Black reversing the conviction for murder of four Florida Negroes who had “confessed” under pressure of third degree methods which the court said were “calculated to break the strongest nerve and the stoutest resistance”.
The specific issue involved was whether the requirement of due process had been complied with. The court said it had not. Yet Black’s opinion went far beyond the narrow legal ruling . . . and it is because of that that the case is important. Black added a declaration which makes it clear that all those who come before the court on similarly “manufactured” evidence will be accorded jealous protection.
“Under our constitutional system, courts stand against any winds that all as havens of refuge from those who might otherwise suffer because they are helpless, weak, outnumbered, or because they are non-conforming victims of prejudice and public excitement.”Thus it is apparent that the court was thinking not only of this case, but of persecuted peoples of all races and persuasions. Such a vigorous assertion of American minority rights in these days of totalitarian practices, is something to warm the blood with new hope.
There were other factors that made this decision significant. Among them is the fact that Black wrote it. In 1937 Black was under fire because of his former membership in the Ku Klux Klan—which suggested he might have narrow, prejudiced conceptions inconsistent with the traditions of the court. Yet now he appears as the voice of the bench on civil liberties, backed by a unanimous court, giving him the authority to read the decision in full—a sharp departure from the customary procedure – The court has given an admirable expression of its concern for justice and equality. As long as its holds such lofty ideals, there need be little fear that dictatorship will become the order of the day in America.
for the St. Louis Star. I’m proud of the opinion he expressed there and it may give you some notion of the home in which I was reared.
Very well written and astute in pointing out the significance of who wrote it. What your dad probably wouldn’t have known (though he may have suspected), was that Black was chosen to write the decision by the Chief Justice because he was a Southerner and former Klan member.
Well written. Have to appreciate his reference to totalitarianism. Back then it was OK to beat and torture black people in a lot of the country. In those parts they would have denied that was totalitarianism. Those same parts of the country now claim that if their kids are taught what was practiced during your father’s time that would constitute totalitarianism. Also at that time it was OK to fire or not hire people because they were gay, and for that matter beat them too. I suspect some of us are old enough to remember the term “rolling the fag”. Heck, when I went through boot camp they had a blanket party and beat the crap out of a guy just because they thought he might be gay. No one was ever charged.
We amy or may not be heading towards some kind of totalitarianism but we are far away from it and anything like we had pre-WW2. I think it is mostly just a pejorative used to rile up people. Kleptocracy I can take much more seriously.
Steve
If you care to know how my dad spoke, he spoke exactly as he wrote (as do I).
It bears mentioning that he had seen fascism at first hand, both in Germany and Italy. He spent a year sightseeing in Europe during the period immediately before WWII broke out. He was in Munich on the night that Kristallnacht occurred. He heard Hitler address a crowd, both on the radio and in person.