Evidence fails to convince as to Fulbright's failings
The claim J. William Fulbright was a segregationist rests on three pieces of evidence.
1) He signed the Southern Manifesto of 1956.
2) He filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
3) He voted against the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Do any of these really show Fulbright was a segregationist? Or are these merely attempts at guilt by association?
1) The Southern Manifesto does not endorse segregation; it merely gives a constitutional argument why the question should be left to the states, and why the Supreme Court's Brown vs. Board of Education decision was "a clear abuse of judicial power ... with no legal basis." Fulbright signing does not logically imply he favored segregation, only that he thought the Supreme Court acted unconstitutionally.
2) The Civil Rights Act was deeply flawed, in that it violated freedom of association by private individuals and firms. Would Fulbright have supported the Civil Rights Act without the offending Title II "public accommodations" rights violations? Who knows? But again, we cannot logically deduce Fulbright favored segregation from his opposition to this act.
Charles Johnson, in "Opposing the Civil Rights Act Means Opposing Civil Rights?", wrote: "Woolworth's lunch counters weren't desegregated by Title II. The sit-in movement did that. From the Montgomery Bus Boycott onward, the Freedom Movement had won victories, town by town, building movements, holding racist institutions socially and economically accountable. The sit-ins proved the real-world power of the strategy ... Creative protests and grassroots pressure campaigns across the South changed local cultures and dismantled private segregation without legal backing.
Should lunch counters have been allowed to stay segregated? No -- but the question is how to disallow it. Bigoted businesses shouldn't face threats of legal force for their racism. They should face a force much fiercer and more meaningful--the full force of voluntary social organization and a culture of equality."
3) Like the Civil Rights Act, opposition to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 cannot be automatically ascribed to racism or pro-segregation. There were again legitimate constitutional issues involved, e.g., can the central government usurp age, residency or educational requirements for voting from the states? Probably not, if you are a strict constructionist, or take some other limited government position. In fact, for the next 40 years multiple questions have been put to the Supreme Court concerning the constitutionality of various sections of the Voting Rights Act. Chapter 5 was not upheld as constitutional until Lopez v. Monterey County in 1999.
My conclusion is there is zero evidence that J. William Fulbright was for segregation. All supposed "evidence" is mere guilt by association, perhaps aided by a class war victimhood culture mentality. Although it does not constitute proof, I find it revealing that Dr. Randall Woods, the foremost expert on Fulbright, has not uncovered a single, solitary racist or pro-segregation quote to support his claim "that J. William Fulbright was a racist is indisputable." This sounds more like kowtowing to political correctness than an academic conclusion.
Bill Orton
Fayetteville
Not a fashion statement, but masks can protect
If you have no respect for your own health, respect the health of others. Wear the mask. Yes, it is, among other things, a real outfit wrecker. I love clothes. I'd rather be trouncing around in a cute outfit than being buried in it. Dead is dead.
Wear the mask. Just do it.
Vicki Spranza
Farmington