The Library
of Congress >> Exhibitions

Find

in

Brown v. Board
Exhibition Pages Exhibition Web Pages All Library of Congress Pages

Home  |  Overview
|  Racial
Segregation  |  Brown v.
Board  |  Aftermath
|  Exhibition
Checklist  |  Programs
|  Read
More  |  Credits

Three
lawyers confer at the Supreme Court, 1953.
Gelatin
silver print.
New York World-Telegram & Sun
Collection,
Prints
and Photographs Division (98)

The National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and its legal offspring, the
Legal Defense and Educational Fund, developed a systematic attack
against the doctrine of "separate but equal." The campaign started
at the graduate and professional educational levels. The attack
culminated in five separate cases gathered together under the name
of one of them--Oliver Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka,
Kansas.

Aware of the gravity of the issue and concerned with the possible
political and social repercussions, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the
case argued on three separate occasions in as many years. The Court
weighed carefully considerations involving adherence to legal
precedent, social-science findings on the negative effects of
segregation, and the marked inferiority of the schools that African
Americans were forced to attend.

The Supreme Court announced its unanimous decision on May 17,
1954. It held that school segregation violated the Equal Protection
and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The following
year the Court ordered desegregation "with all deliberate
speed."

The Library of Congress does not have
permission to show this image online.

Notebook recording data concerning the Doll
Test, 1940-1941. Kenneth B. Clark Papers,
Manuscript Division
(61)

Kenneth B. Clark's "Doll Test" Notebook

During the 1940s, psychologists Kenneth Bancroft Clark and
his wife, Mamie Phipps Clark designed a test to study the
psychological effects of segregation on black children. In
1950 Kenneth Clark wrote a paper for the White House
Mid-Century Conference on Children and Youth summarizing this
research and related work that attracted the attention of
Robert Carter of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. Carter believed
that Clark's findings could be effectively used in court to
show that segregation damaged the personality development of
black children. On Carter's recommendation, the NAACP Legal
Defense Fund engaged Clark to provide expert social science
testimony in the Briggs, Davis, and Delaware
cases. Clark also co-authored a summation of the social
science testimony delivered during the trials that was
endorsed by thirty-five leading social scientists. The Supreme
Court specifically cited Clark's 1950 paper in the
Brown decision.

Dr. Kenneth Clark Conducting the "Doll Test"

In the "doll test," psychologists Kenneth and Mamie Clark
used four plastic, diaper-clad dolls, identical except for
color. They showed the dolls to black children between the
ages of three and seven and asked them questions to determine
racial perception and preference. Almost all of the children
readily identified the race of the dolls. However, when asked
which they preferred, the majority selected the white doll and
attributed positive characteristics to it. The Clarks also
gave the children outline drawings of a boy and girl and asked
them to color the figures the same color as themselves. Many
of the children with dark complexions colored the figures with
a white or yellow crayon. The Clarks concluded that
"prejudice, discrimination, and segregation" caused black
children to develop a sense of inferiority and self-hatred.
This photograph was taken by Gordon Parks for a 1947 issue of
Ebony magazine.

The Library of Congress does not have
permission to show this image online.

Gordon Parks, photographer. Dr. Kenneth Clark
conducting the "Doll Test" with a young male child, 1947.

Gelatin silver print.
Prints and Photographs
Division (62)

Marjory Collins.
Reading
lesson in African American elementary school in Washington,
D.C., 1942.
Gelatin silver print.
FSA-OWI
Photograph Collection,
Prints and Photographs
Division (57C)

Reading Lesson in Washington, D.C.

As the nation's capital became more and more populated by
blacks in the first half of the twentieth century, the schools
in District of Columbia became more segregated. During World
War II, there was no new construction of schools and the few
that existed were extremely overcrowded. After the war, new
construction started but did not meet the needs of the
District's populace. Many black students were attending
schools in shifts while many of the white schools sat nearly
empty. This condition eventually led to the Bolling v.
Sharpe case, one of the five included in the Brown v.
Board of Education decision.

Kenneth B. Clark's "Doll Test" Data Sheet

The Clarks used printed data sheets to record the
children's responses during the "doll test," as well as
general observations. This data sheet lists the nine questions
that were routinely asked. The letters "B" and "W" denote
"black" and "white." The abbreviations "LB" and "DB" denote
"light brown" and "dark brown" complexions. The data reveals
that Mark A., a black boy age four with a dark brown
complexion, prefers the white doll and selects the white doll
as the one that looks like him.

The Library of Congress does not have
permission to show this image online.

Sample Doll Test data sheet, n.d. Kenneth B.
Clark Papers,
Manuscript Division
(64)

The Library of Congress does not have
permission to show this image online.

Testimony of Expert Witnesses at Trial of
Clarendon County School Case Direct Examination by Robert L.
Carter, May 29, 1951. Transcript.
NAACP Records,

Manuscript
Division (57)

Briggs v. Elliott (South Carolina)

In 1949, the state NAACP in South Carolina sought twenty
local residents in Clarendon County to sign a petition for
equal education. The petition turned into a lawsuit and first
name on the list was Harry Briggs. In preparation for the
Briggs case, attorney Robert Carter returned to
Columbia University to confer with Psychologist Otto
Klineberg, who was known for his research on black students'
IQ scores. He sought Klineberg's advice on the use of social
science testimony in the pending trial to show the
psychological damage segregation caused in black children.
Klineberg recommended Kenneth Clark. Clark became the Legal
Defense Fund's principal expert witness. He also agreed to
assist the Legal Defense Fund 's lawyers in the preparation of
briefs and recruit other prominent social scientists to
testify. This document records the depositions of two expert
witnesses who participated in Briggs v.
Elliott: David Krech, a social psychology professor
at the University of California; and Helen Trager, a lecturer
at Vassar College.

Bolling v. Sharpe, (Washington D.C.)

Spottswood Thomas Bolling v. C. Melvin Sharpe, was
one of the five school desegregation cases that comprised
Brown. Because the District of Columbia was not a
state but federal territory, the Fourteenth Amendment
arguments used in the other cases did not apply. Therefore,
the lawyers argued for "Due Process Clause" of the Fifth
Amendment, which guaranteed equal protection of the law. The
Consolidated Parents Group initiated a boycott of the black
High School in Washington. D.C., which was overcrowded and
dilapidated. In 1948, Charles H. Houston was hired to
represent them in a law suit to make black schools more equal
to white schools when Houston's health began to fail. He
recommended James Nabrit as his replacement. Nabrit was joined
by fellow attorney, George E. C. Hayes in presenting arguments
for the District of Columbia case.

U.
S. Supreme Court Records and Briefs, 1954 Term.

Supreme Court Records and Briefs,
Law Library
(57B)

Brief
of the Attorneys for the Plaintiffs (Charles
E. Bledsoe, Charles Scott, Robert L. Carter, Jack Greenberg,
and Thurgood Marshall) in the case of Oliver Brown, . .
.delivered in the United States Court for the District of
Kansas,
June 1951.
Page
2
NAACP Records,
Manuscript Division (54)

Courtesy of the NAACP

Brief of the Attorneys for the Plaintiffs in
Brown

In June 1950, shortly after the Sweatt,
McLaurin, and Henderson victories, Thurgood
Marshall convened a conference of the NAACP's board of
directors and affiliated attorneys to determine the next step
in the legal campaign. After several days of debate, Marshall
decided to shift the focus from the inequality of separate
black schools to a full assault on segregation. The NAACP
immediately instituted lawsuits concerning segregated public
schools in Southern and border states. Brown v. Board of
Education was filed in the U.S. District Court in Topeka,
Kansas, in February 1951 and litigated concurrently with
Briggs v. Elliot in South Carolina. Oliver Brown, one
of thirteen plaintiffs, had agreed to participate on behalf of
his seven-year-old daughter Linda, who had to walk six blocks
to board a school bus that drove her to the all-black Monroe
School a mile away.

Finding of Fact for the Case of Oliver Brown

On June 25, 1951, Robert Carter and Jack Greenberg argued
the Brown case before a three judge panel in district
court in Kansas. They were assisted by local NAACP attorneys
Charles Bledsoe and brothers John and Charles Scott. As in
Briggs, the testimony of social scientists was
central to the case. The Court found "no willful, intentional
or substantial discrimination" in Topeka's schools. However,
presiding Judge Walter A. Huxman appended nine "Findings of
Fact" to the opinion. Fact VIII endorsed the psychological
premise that segregation had a detrimental effect on black
children. This was the windfall the NAACP needed to appeal the
case to the Supreme Court. Briggs and Brown
were the first cases to reach the Court; three others
followed. The Court decided to bundle all five cases and
scheduled a hearing for December 9, 1952.

Opinion
and Finding of Fact for the case of Oliver Brown, et al. v.
Board of Education Topeka, Shawnee County, Kansas, et al.
Delivered in the United States Court for the District of
Kansas, 1951.
NAACP Records,
Manuscript Division
(55)
Courtesy of the NAACP

The Library of Congress does not have
permission to show this image online

Trial Memorandum from Jack Greenberg
concerning the Wilmington school case, October 11,
1951.
NAACP Records,
Manuscript Division
(58)

Gebhart v. Belton; Gebhart v. Bulah
(Delaware)

In 1950 Louis Redding filed a lawsuit on behalf of Sarah
Bulah to admit her daughter Shirley to a nearby white
elementary school, after the Delaware Board of Education
refused to allow her to board an all-white school bus that
drove pass their home. In 1951, Redding filed a second suit on
behalf of Ethel Belton and nine other plaintiffs, whose
children were barred from attending the all-white high school
in their community. That fall, Thurgood Marshall sent Jack
Greenberg to Wilmington to work with Redding on the
litigation. Greenberg drafted this meticulous trial memorandum
the week before the hearing. In it he provides a schedule of
witnesses, instructions on deposing the witnesses, and the
questions to be posed. Among the witnesses listed are
psychologists Kenneth Clark and Otto Klineberg.

A Court Rules: Equalization, Not Integration

Spurred by a student strike, blacks in Prince Edward
County, Virginia, called a lower federal court's attention to
the demonstrably unequal facilities in the county's segregated
high schools. As this "Final Decree" in Davis v. County
School Board shows, they convinced the U.S. District
Court that facilities for blacks were "not substantially
equal" to those for whites. The Court ordered the two systems
to be made equal. However, it did not abolish segregation.
Therefore, the plaintiffs appealed, and the Supreme Court
heard their case along with Brown v. Board.

United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
Final Decree, [1952].
Typed memorandum.
Kenneth
Clark Papers,
Manuscript Division
(59)

Brief
for Appellants in the cases of Brown v. Board of Education:
Oliver Brown, et al. v. Board of Education, Kansas et al.; . .
. in the United States Supreme Court-October Term,
1953.
Washington: GPO, 1953.

Pamphlet.
NAACP Records,
Manuscript Division (73)

Courtesy of the NAACP

Brief for Appellants, Brown v. Board, 1953

The Supreme Court did not render a judgement after the
initial oral arguments in Brown v. Board.
Instead, the Court submitted a list of five questions for
counsel to discuss at a rehearing that convened on December 7,
1953. The questions pertained to the history of the Fourteenth
Amendment and the relation between the views of the Amendment
framers' intent to "abolish segregation in public schools."
The questions also addressed what remedies to be used in the
event the Court ruled segregation in public schools
unconstitutional. After assessing the questions, the NAACP
Legal Defense Fund assembled a team of experts, including John
A. Davis, a professor of political science at Lincoln
University, Mabel Smythe, an economist, and psychologist
Kenneth Clark, and scholars John Hope Franklin, C. Vann
Woodward, and Horace Mann Bond, to conduct research during the
summer.

Eisenhower and Davis

As President (1953-1961), Dwight David Eisenhower took
decisive action to enforce court rulings eliminating racial
segregation. He would not, however, endorse the Brown
decision or condemn segregation as morally wrong. John W.
Davis, who had been the Democratic Party's unsuccessful
candidate for president in 1924, was the lead counsel in the
South's effort to uphold the Plessy v. Ferguson
doctrine of "separate but equal" in arguments before the
Supreme Court in 1953. The two men are shown meeting in New
York in October 1952, shortly before Davis would endorse
Eisenhower for president. Thurgood Marshall in later years
would say of Davis, "He was a good man . . . who believed
segregation was a good thing."

Ike
with John W. Davis at the Herald Trib Forum 10/21,
1952.
Photograph.
New York World-Telegram & Sun
Collection,
Prints
and Photographs Division (73A)

Waiting
for courtroom seats, 1953.
Gelatin silver print.

New York World-Telegram & Sun Collection,
Prints and Photographs
Division (74)
Digital ID# cph 3c13498

Waiting for Courtroom Seats

This photograph shows interested members of the public
waiting in line outside the Supreme Court for a chance to
obtain one of the 50 seats allotted to hear the second round
of arguments in the landmark Brown v. Board of
Education case. The case involved four states (Kansas,
Virginia, Delaware and South Carolina) and the District of
Columbia. Among an impressive array of legal representation
for the plaintiffs was Thurgood Marshall serving as chief
council for the NAACP. The opposing side was led by John W.
Davis, one time Democratic presidential candidate and expert
on constitutional law.

Three Lawyers Confer at the Supreme Court

In preparation for the Brown court case the three
lead lawyers gathered to discuss their final strategy.
Pictured (left to right)are Harold P.
Boulware, (Briggs case), Thurgood Marshall,
(Briggs case), and Spottswood W. Robinson III
(Davis case). The lawyers said that the
Brown case hoped to end the "separate but equal"
doctrine of the earlier Plessy decision and make it
illegal to continue segregation in public schools.

Three
lawyers confer at the Supreme Court, 1953.
Gelatin
silver print.
New York World-Telegram & Sun
Collection,
Prints
and Photographs Division (98)

U.
S. Supreme Court Justices, 1953.
Photograph.
New
York World-Telegram & Sun Collection,
Prints and Photographs
Division (102)

The Warren Court

Pictured in this photograph are nine members of the Supreme
Court that decided Brown v. Board of Education.
Seated in the front row (from left) Felix
Frankfurter, Hugo Black, Earl Warren, Stanley Reed, and
William O. Douglas. In the back row are Tom Clark, Robert H.
Jackson, Harold Burton, Sherman Minton. The photograph was
taken late in 1953, after President Dwight D. Eisenhower had
nominated Warren to the Court, but before the U.S. Senate had
confirmed him as Chief Justice.

Brown Attorneys After the Decision

Three lawyers, Thurgood Marshall (center), chief
counsel for the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund and lead attorney
on the Briggs case, with George E. C. Hayes
(left) and James M. Nabrit (right),
attorneys for Bolling case, standing on the steps of
the Supreme Court congratulating each other after the court
ruling that segregation was unconstitutional.

George
E. C. Hayes, Thurgood Marshall, and James M. Nabrit
congratulating each other, 1954.
Gelatin silver print.

New York World-Telegram & Sun Collection,
Prints and Photographs
Division (99)
[Dig ID # cph 3c11236]

The
Russell Daily News (Russell, Kansas),
Monday, May
17, 1954.
Enlarged
version
Historic Events Newspaper Collection,
Serial and Government
Publications Division (84)

"Segregation in Schools is Outlawed"

The case that gave the Brown v. Board of Education
decision its name originated in a Federal District Court
in Topeka, Kansas. The Russell Daily News, serving
the city and county of Russell, Kansas, announced the decision
with a banner headline and two front page stories. On the day
of the decision, this evening newspaper carried United Press
reports from Washington, D.C., and from Topeka, along with the
ruling and the Kansas Attorney General's statement of
intention to comply.

Humiliation and Inferiority

William T. Coleman assisted Thurgood Marshall with the
planning and execution of the Brown litigation.
Member of the NAACP Legal Committee, Coleman's stellar
academic record at the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard
Law School paved his way to the Supreme Court, where he became
the first African American clerk in 1948. Coleman wrote this
memorandum for Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter in 1949.
Agreeing with Coleman's contention that segregation was
unconstitutional because it was an humiliating sign of
inferiority, Frankfurter commented: "That it is such has been
candidly acknowledged by numerous accounts & adjudications
in those States where segregation is enforced. Only self
conscious superiority or inability to slip into the other
fellow's skin can fail to appreciate that."

The Library of Congress does not have
permission to show this image online.

William Coleman to Felix Frankfurter, August
5, 1949.
Typed memorandum with handwritten notes.

Felix Frankfurter Papers,
Manuscript Division
(48)

Earl
Warren to members of the Court, May 7, 1954.
Typed
memorandum.
Earl Warren Papers,
Manuscript Division
(80)

Warren Works For Unanimity

Realizing that overturning school segregation in the South
might entail a degree of social upheaval, Chief Justice Warren
carefully engineered a unanimous vote, one without dissents or
separate concurring opinions. Assigning the two opinions--one
for state schools, one for federal--to himself, he circulated
two draft memoranda with opinions to his colleagues. He
proposed to put off the tricky question of implementation
until later. He also set forth his idea that "opinions should
be short, readable by the lay public, non-rhetorical,
unemotional and, above all, non-accusatory."

"A Beautiful Job"

Early in May 1954, Chief Justice Earl Warren circulated
draft opinions for the school desegregation cases to his
colleagues on the Court. Associate Justice William O. Douglas
responded enthusiastically in this handwritten note: "I do not
think I would change a single word in the memoranda you gave
me this morning. The two draft opinions meet my idea exactly.
You have done a beautiful job."

William
Douglas to Earl Warren, May 11, 1954.
Holograph
letter.
Earl Warren Papers,
Manuscript Division
(81A)

Harold
H. Burton to Earl Warren, May 17, 1954.
Holograph
letter.
Earl Warren Papers,
Manuscript Division
(82)

"A Great Day for America"

Associate Justice Harold H. Burton sent this note to Chief
Justice Earl Warren on the day that the Supreme Court's
decision in Brown v. Board was announced. He said,
"Today I believe has been a great day for America and the
Court. . . . I cherish the privilege of sharing in this." In a
tribute to Warren's judicial statesmanship, Burton added, "To
you goes the credit for the character of the opinions which
produced the all important unanimity.
Congratulations."

Frankfurter's Congratulations to Warren

Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter, who had worked to
achieve a definitive repudiation of segregation by the Supreme
Court, sent this note to Chief Justice Warren on the day that
the decision in Brown v. Board was publicly
announced--a day that Frankfurter said would "live in glory."
Frankfurter added that the Court's role was also distinguished
by "the course of deliberation which brought about the
result."

Felix
Frankfurter to Earl Warren, May 17, 1954.
Holograph
letter.
Earl Warren Papers,
Manuscript Division
(82B)

Waiting
for courtroom seats, 1953.
Gelatin silver print.

New York World-Telegram & Sun Collection,
Prints and Photographs
Division (74)
Digital ID# cph 3c13498

Waiting for Courtroom Seats

This photograph shows interested members of the public
waiting in line outside the Supreme Court for a chance to
obtain one of the 50 seats allotted to hear the second round
of arguments in the landmark Brown v. Board of
Education case. The case involved four states (Kansas,
Virginia, Delaware and South Carolina) and the District of
Columbia. Among an impressive array of legal representation
for the plaintiffs was Thurgood Marshall serving as chief
council for the NAACP. The opposing side was led by John W.
Davis, one time Democratic presidential candidate and expert
on constitutional law.

Warren's Reading Copy of the Brown Opinion,
1954

Chief Justice Earl Warren's reading copy of Brown
is annotated in his hand. Warren announced the opinion in the
names of each justice, an unprecedented occurrence. The drama
was heightened by the widespread prediction that the Court
would be divided on the issue. Warren reminded himself to
emphasize the decision's unanimity with a marginal notation,
"unanimously," which departed from the printed reading copy to
declare, "Therefore, we unanimously hold. . . ." In his
memoirs, Warren recalled the moment with genuine warmth. "When
the word 'unanimously' was spoken, a wave of emotion swept the
room; no words or intentional movement, yet a distinct
emotional manifestation that defies description."
"Unanimously" was not incorporated into the published version
of the opinion, and thus exists only in this
manuscript.

Earl
Warren's reading copy of Brown opinion,
May
17, 1954.
Earl Warren Papers,
Manuscript Division
(83)

Mrs.
Nettie Hunt and daughter Nikie on the steps of the Supreme
Court, 1954.
Gelatin silver print.
New York
World-Telegram & Sun Collection,
Prints and Photographs
Division (97)
Digital ID # cph 3c27042

Celebration of the Supreme Court's Decision

The Supreme Court's decision on the Brown v. Board of
Education case in 1954 marked a culmination in a plan the
NAACP had put into action more than forty years earlier--the
end to racial inequality. African American parents throughout
the country like Mrs. Hunt, shown here, explained to their
children why this was an important moment in history.

Segregation Ruling Explained to the Press

Chief counsel for the NAACP Thurgood Marshall spoke to the
press in New York City on May 31 after the Supreme Court
decreed an end to public school segregation as soon as
feasible. At the news conference in New York City, Marshall
told reporters ". . .the law had been made crystal clear" and
added, "Southerners are just as law abiding as anyone else,
once the law is made clear." He was speaking after Brown
II, the court's second opinion in the Brown
case, which ordered the implementation of the original ruling
in a "prompt and reasonable" start towards
desegregation.

Thurgood
Marshall explains segregation
ruling to the press,
1955.
Gelatin silver print.
New York World-Telegram
& Sun Collection,
Prints and Photographs
Division (104)

Anson
Phelps Stokes to Channing Tobias, Chairman of the NAACP,
offering congratulations on the NAACP's victory in Brown
v. Board of Education.
Telegram.
NAACP
Records,
Manuscript
Division (96)
Courtesy of the NAACP

Congratulatory Telegram on Brown Decision

The NAACP's affiliation with the philanthropic Stokes
family began with J. G. Phelps Stokes, one of the
organization's founders. At the time of the Brown
decision, Anson Phelps Stokes was president of the
Phelps-Stokes Fund, a charitable trust that sponsored black
schools and educational projects. Stokes became familiar with
the racial politics of the South through his work with the
Tuskegee Institute. This telegram celebrates the consensus of
the Southern justices and urges the NAACP to "heartily support
the court decision postponing implementing orders so that
these wonderful new[s] gains may be safe guarded with minimum
disturbances in a difficult situation. . . ."

Congratulatory Letter on the Brown Decision

William Patterson was an attorney and former Executive
Secretary of the International Labor Defense (ILD), an
organization dedicated to protecting the rights of racial
minorities, political radicals, and the working class. In
1931, the ILD competed with the NAACP for the right to
represent the "Scottsboro Boys," nine black men convicted of
raping two white women. The NAACP lost the bid because it
lacked a full-time legal staff spurring Walter White, then
head of the NAACP, to hire Charles H. Houston and set up a
legal department. In this letter Patterson, head of the Civil
Rights Congress, a leftist organization, attributes opposition
to the Brown decision to "the demoralizing effect of
segregated schools on white youth. It has made bigots out of
millions who have not learned in their separate schools that
there are no superior people."

William
L. Patterson, Executive Secretary of the Civil Rights
Congress, to Walter White congratulating White on the NAACP's
victory in Brown v. Board of Education,
May
17, 1954.
Typed letter.
NAACP Records,
Manuscript Division (95)

Courtesy of the NAACP

The Library of Congress does not have
permission to show this image online

The Crisis magazine: A Record of
the Darker Races.
Volume 61, no. 6 (June-July, 1954).

General
Collections (92)

An African American Response

The multi-faceted African American response to the decision
was articulated throughout the black press and in editorials
published in official publications of national black
organizations. Founded in 1910, The Crisis magazine,
shown here, is the official organ of the National Association
for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). In response to
the decision, a special issue of The Crisis
was printed to include the complete text of the Supreme Court
decision, a history of the five school cases, excerpts from
the nation's press on segregation ruling, and the text of the
"Atlanta Declaration," the official NAACP response and program
of action for implementing the decision.

Conferring at the Supreme Court

In 1929 Louis L. Redding, a graduate of Brown University
and Harvard Law School, became the first African American
attorney in Delaware--the only one for more than twenty years.
He devoted his practice to civil rights law and served as the
counsel for the NAACP Delaware branch. In 1949 Redding won the
landmark Parker case, which resulted in the
desegregation of the University of Delaware. In1951, Redding
and Greenberg tried two cases in Delaware's Chancery Court:
Bulah v. Gebhart and Belton v. Gebhart,
which respectively concerned elementary school and high
school. On April 1, 1952, Judge Collins Seitz ordered the
immediate admission of black students to Delaware's white
public schools, but the local state-run-school board appealed
the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Louis
L. Redding of Wilmington, Delaware, and Thurgood Marshall,
General Counsel for the NAACP, conferring at the Supreme
Court, during recess in the Court's hearing on racial
integration in public schools, 1955.
Gelatin silver
print.
Visual Materials from the NAACP Records Photograph,

Prints and
Photographs Division (111)
Courtesy of the NAACP

Felix
Frankfurter's draft decree in Brown II,
April 8, 1955.

Page
2
Typescript with emendations.
Felix Frankfurter
Papers,
Manuscript
Division (107)

Frankfurter's Draft Decree in Brown II, 1955

After the Brown opinion was announced, the Court
heard additional arguments during the following term on the
decree for implementing the ruling. In a draft, prepared by
Felix Frankfurter, which Warren subsequently adopted,
Frankfurter inserted "with all deliberate speed" in place of
"forthwith," which Thurgood Marshall had suggested to achieve
an accelerated desegregation timetable. Frankfurter wanted to
anchor the decree in an established doctrine, and his
endorsement of it sought to advance a consensus held by the
entire court. The justices thought that the decree should
provide for flexible enforcement, appeal to established
principles, and suggest some basic ground rules for judges of
the lower courts. When it became clear that opponents of
desegregation were using the doctrine to delay and avoid
compliance with Brown, the Court began to express
reservations about the phrase.

Topeka School Map

In response to requests from two Justices during the oral
arguments of the implementation phase of Brown v.
Board, Kansas Attorney General Harold Fatzer provided the
Court with this map of the Topeka public school districts
along with 1956 enrollment estimates by race. Although almost
all of the schools shown were either overwhelmingly white or
completely black, Fatzer argued that Topeka had not
deliberately gerrymandered the districts so as to concentrate
black pupils into a few districts. Also shown is a key to the
map, representing the placement of students in the
districts.

The Library of Congress does not have
permission to show this image online

Raymond F. Tilzey.
The Elementary
School District Boundaries for the City of Topeka 1955-
1956.
Printed Map.
Earl Warren Papers,
Manuscript Division
(109)

The Library of Congress does not have
permission to show this image online

Ralph McGill to Earl Warren, June 1, 1955.

Typed letter.
Earl Warren Papers,
Manuscript Division
(113A)

Southern White Liberal Reaction

Many white Southern liberals welcomed the moderate and
incremental approach of the Brown implementation
decree. Ralph McGill, the influential editor of the
Atlanta Constitution, wrote in praise of the Court's
decision to have local school boards, in conjunction with
Southern court judges, formulate and execute desegregation
orders. Certain that "the problem of desegregation had to be
solved at the local level," he told Chief Justice Warren that
the Court's ruling was "one of the great statesman-like
decisions of all time," exceeding all previous decisions "in
wisdom and clarity."

Adverse Reactions to Brown

Challenges to legal and social institutions implicit in the
Brown decision led to adverse reactions in both
Northern and Southern states. U.S. Solicitor General Simon
Sobeloff forwarded to Chief Justice Warren this letter from an
official of the New York chapter of the Sons of the American
Revolution. The official attributed the impetus behind the
Court's action to "the worldwide Communist conspiracy" and
claimed that the NAACP had been financed by "a Communist
front."

The Library of Congress does not have
permission to show this image online

Lee Hagood to Simon Sobeloff, September 29,
1955.
Typed letter.
Earl Warren Papers,
Manuscript Division
(116A)

Time
magazine,

September 19, 1955.
Cover.
General Collections
(115)
Courtesy of Time-Life Pictures, Getty Images

Thurgood Marshall

After the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on May 17, 1954,
and May 31, 1955, desegregating schools, Thurgood Marshall
(1908-1994), was featured on the cover of Time
magazine, on September 19, 1955. Born in Baltimore, Maryland,
Marshall graduated with honors from Lincoln University in
Pennsylvania. His exclusion from the University of Maryland's
Law School due to racial discrimination, marked a turning
point in his life. As a result, he attended the Howard
University Law School, and graduated first in his class in
1933. Early in his career he traveled throughout the South and
argued thirty-two cases before the Supreme Court, winning
twenty-nine. Charles H. Houston persuaded him to leave private
law practice and join the NAACP legal staff in New York, where
he remained from 1936 until 1961. In 1939, Marshall became the
first director of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational
Fund, Inc. President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed Marshall as
Solicitor General in 1965 and nominated him to a seat on the
United States Supreme Court in 1967 from which he retired in
1991.

Barnard Elementary, Washington, D. C.

This image of an integrated classroom in the previously all
white Barnard Elementary School in Washington, D.C., shows how
the District's Board of Education attempted to act quickly to
carry out the Supreme Court decision to integrate schools in
the area. However, it did take longer for the junior and
senior high schools to integrate.

Thomas J. O'Halloran.
School
integration, Barnard School, Washington, D.C., 1955.

Gelatin silver print.
U.S. News & World Report
Magazine Collection,
Prints and Photographs
Division (202)

Home  |  Overview
|  Racial
Segregation  |  Brown v.
Board  |  Aftermath
|  Exhibition
Checklist  |  Programs
|  Read
More  |  Credits

The Library of Congress
>> Exhibitions
Exhibitions Online
Survey
October 18,
2004

Find

in

Brown v. Board
Exhibition Pages Exhibition Web Pages All Library of Congress Pages

Contact
Us